Blinded by Ideology? Bureaucrats Come Through

From Powerline, in a discussion of the review of the legal work of John Yoo and Jay Bybee:

. But it is still an outrage that a lawyer who writes a memorandum arguing a legal position with which a subsequent administration disagrees can be threatened with disbarment.

As a bureaucrat, I sympathize with the position--no one likes to have the rules changed on them after the fact.  But what is missed is the fact that disbarment was raised by lawyers in the Bush Justice Department (admittedly the career types, not Bush appointees) and the Obama Justice Department softened the review significantly (again, admittedly the softening was done by a career man).  See this Post article:

A draft report prepared at the end of the Bush years recommended that Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge in Nevada, be referred to state disciplinary authorities for sanctions that could have included the revocation of their licenses to practice.[Article goes on to explain the subsequent softening.  The Post article is an expansion of the AP piece, which didn't explicitly say when the draft report was prepared.]

So, the bottom line is Powerline's outrage is misplaced. 

Most Depressing Sentence Today

" Meanwhile, a master’s degree in education seems to have no impact on classroom effectiveness."  From University Diaries, an excerpt from an Atlantic article on what makes teachers effective.

My comment: if true, what a waste of time and money.

It's Bureaucrats Who Save Lives

From Andy Rasmussen:

. The authors estimate that between 2003 and 2008, a full 80% of all deaths were due to illness among those displaced by the conflict. In other words, this crisis has been 20% violence, the the vast majority of which was done by mid-2004. For the past six years (or really five years in the data reviewed), the problem has been diarrhea.
As stark as these numbers are, this ultimately means that Darfur followed the common pattern of violent internal conflicts: Initial massacres were followed by massive displacement and the loss of protective health systems, and the problems of displacement ultimately affected the well-being of the population more than the direct experiences of violence.

My comment--it's basically the bureaucrats who provide clean water and sanitation. (Yes, I know I'm making an assumption about bureaucrats in Darfur, but someone who worries about the status of the village well counts in my eyes as a bureaucrat--he or she is contributing to the common welfare even if not paid by the government.)
Hat tip: Chris Blattman

Congratulations to VA and DOD

It seems I always find the problems in sharing information between bureaucracies.  So in interest of fairness I should congratulate DOD and VA on this report in Federal Computer Week:

The Defense and Veterans Affairs departments finally have achieved full interoperability for their electronic health records and are beginning to move forward on development of a joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) for each service member, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

French Food--Dominoes and Subway

Dirk Beauregarde blogs about many things, Friday afternoon in France, lunches, the 35-hour workweek, the jambon beurre..  But these two posts include descriptions of the invasion of pizza delivery and Subway

Cost Per Policy

According to this;

“Peterson suggested changes in the commission payments to agents. Under the current formula of paying crop insurance agents, commission is based on the premium to insure a crop. Thus, increases in commodity prices have raised the commission paid to an agent on average, from $500 per policy in 2004 to $1,450 in 2008. ‘You can’t defend’ that payment level, Peterson said, adding that he believes that paying agents a specific fee for each policy written may be a better system of compensation.”

From a comment on Chris Clayton's blog:

Guys: In 2006 the Crop Insurance Companies Insured 242 million acres of crops and received $1.79 billion for their work and investment! For the 2008 crop they insured 272 million acres and received $4.65 billion for their work and investment. 2.6 times more money to insure 30 million more acres or a 12% workload increase for 30 million more acres! A nice little increase, right boys or windfall is maybe a better term? Please credit your source. Alan Roebke (REB-key)

And NASCOE Stirs

From the NASCOE web site, the

Bob Redding provided an extensive review of upcoming legislative issues and what could be expected from the issues that are on the NASCOE agenda. He informed us that 2012 Farm Bill talks will begin in February. A lot of field hearings are anticipated due to their political advantages. NASCOE will be calling on numerous people to attend these hearings. We will be seeking out producers, committee members, farm bureau supporters and other partners to represent NASCOE at these hearings. In addition, we will be hoping for a significant NASCOE presence.

The modernization of USDA is still an important issue. Chairman Peterson has stated that he “still wants to do it.” However, the health care issue and other major issues have kept the calendars full. The best opportunity for anything to happen will be in the spring on 2010.

Another issue that appeared completely dead was Animal ID. However, the Secretary has been having closed door meetings on this issue. A recommendation for a national animal ID program is expected to be introduced based on these negotiations. Bob felt during the development of the new crop insurance agreement was an excellent time for NASCOE to trumpet how FSA could more effectively handle portions of this program. NASCOE continues to see this as a major area where we could expand and will be looking for more compliance and administrative duties. Insurance companies have been receiving Billions to administer this program. FSA could provide significant budget savings if a portion of those dollars were diverted to our budget.

DC School Lunches

A Wash Times article here on Chartwell, which mostly dings them for lack of transparency on menus.  Ed Bruske comments and his post here completes the series.  Here's an excerpt:

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture continued to supply schools that qualified with free commodity products—truckloads of beef, poultry, cheese, potatoes. But schools found they could make better use of these commodities if they were shipped directly to large food processors. Now the schools trade those raw commodities for finished products that come with benefits: not only do the schools not have to pay for skilled labor to process raw foods, they face much less risk of diseases that sometimes accompany raw products. Liability issues transfer to the big processors, and what the schools receive is a finished, precooked, frozen meal item that only needs to be heated in an oven before it can be served to students. Furthermore, large processors can design on a grand scale foods that fulfill the nutritional requirements set forth by the federal government

He suggests that the rules should allow more fat and less sugar/carbs in school food. 

Personally, I don't have fond memories of the good old days when cafeteria food was cooked on site and USDA didn't support the process.  But then I mostly carried my lunch from home.  How, in today's world, you have nutritious, and appealing food that's also cheap, cheap, cheap, I'm not sure.

We Have a Weak Government

Matthew Yglesias comments on the number of elected officials we have.  I argue: the more officials, the weaker and more decentralized the government.

"Freeze. What Freeze" Say Ag Leaders

Farm Policy reports Rep. Peterson is not concerned about a freeze affecting farm programs.