The Timing Shifts for Crop Insurance Payments

Chris Clayton has another post on crop insurance.  One of the things Congress often does is play with the timing of payments so the totals for fiscal years come out right.  Sometimes they'll move payments forward so if they're working on a budget for 2011FY the payments will be made right at the end of 2010FY.  Because the budget for 2010FY was passed last year, there's no harm done to the budget process.  Or, as they did for crop insurance, they'll delay some payments to fall outside the budget window (maybe the year of the budget, or maybe the 5 or 10-year window).  The better parts of our media will sometimes note these games in passing, but I've yet to see a comprehensive article that crosses years.  For example, one year it's crop insurance, another year it's deficiency payments, but when everything is done and paid, what has happened?

Bureaucratic Inertia in Budget Language

From the budget page 101, a description of what FSA does:

Farm program activities include the following functions dealing with the administration of programs carried out through the farmer committee system of the FSA: (a) developing program regulations and procedures; (b) collecting and compiling basic data for individual farms; (c) establishing individual farm allotments for farm planting history; (d) notifying producers of established allotments and farm planting histories; (e) conducting referendums and certifying results; (f) accepting farmer certifications and checking compliance for specific purposes; (g) processing commodity loan documents and issuing checks; (h) processing direct and counter-cyclical payments and issuing checks; (i) certifying payment eligibility and monitoring payment limitations; and (j) processing farm storage facility loans and issuing checks.

This language would have fit what ASCS did when I was hired in 1968, it would have been pretty good in 1933 when AAA was first created, but there's been little updating since (except for specifying "direct and counter-cyclical" payments).

Russia and McDonalds

The NYTimes has an article on how McDonalds venture in Russia has evolved over the years. It's been there for 20 years, has 235 restaurants, has been able to develop Russian suppliers for 80 percent of its needs, except for French fries.

From Leadership to Sap in a Couple Generations

The original saying is "riches to rages in three generations", but my adaptation fits RFK jr's. advocacy for vertical farming.

The Shoemaker's Children

The old proverb says something about shoemaker's children being the last to get shoes.

It must also apply to direct deposit of federal checks, given this from Nextgov (on today's budget proposals):

The Obama administration also plans to use IT at the Treasury Department to reduce costs. The department plans to pay all employees electronically, eliminating the need to send paper check stubs, generating a savings of $2 million a year, OMB reported. Currently, Treasury sends paper pay stubs to more than 100,000 workers.

John Phipps, Competition, and Cap and Trade

John Phipps operates 2100 acres with his wife and son.  He posts about the competition he sees rising from the whippersnappers who have taken over the world (the President could be my son, for crying out loud):

I suddenly noticed these younger colleagues, and when conversing with them, I reinforced my belief the biggest challenge facing me and our our farm was leaping up with the competition arising all around us.

In fact, I think it is safe to say one of our worst fears has been realized: the best and brightest have returned to the farm.  And they are quietly accruing by sheer ability and economic advantage the bulk of the market share for farmers.

A couple points:

• one is the obvious one--the conventional wisdom is that farming is dominated by the old. Not so from John's view.
• the second is more subtle--the balance of cooperation and competition.

There's the old joke about the two guys in the woods who see a bear, who starts chasing them.  One guy says: "we've got to outrun the bear", the other guy says: "all I have to do is outrace you".  I remember that joke when I see the Farm Bureau and other ag associations talking about how "[pick your proposal, starting with "cap and trade] will be bad for farmers." Over the years the farm and crop groups have persuaded their members they share common interests.  And they do--if they can unite and lobby Congress to pass programs benefiting corn farmers, or dairy farmers, then everyone gains.

But while cooperation, viewing oneself as part of a community of corn farmers, or dairy farmers, works sometimes, it doesn't always. That's what John is reminding us of.  In the case of a changing environment for farmers, some farmers will suffer and some will profit.  I'd typically expect the younger, more technologically-oriented farmers to adapt better to change, to outrun their older, more change-averse colleagues. So, if you're a farmer and you know you're above average in smarts and capability, then you should welcome changes in your economic environment, you should want some bears around because you can outrun your fellow farmers.

But then, one night you listen to Garrison Keillor and remember maybe your self-confidence isn't so well grounded.

Reducing Payment and AGI Limits

That's in the Presidents budget(page 71):

The Administration proposes to limit farm subsidies to wealthy farmers by reducing the cap on Direct Payments by 25 percent, and reducing each of the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) commodity payment eligibility limits for farm and non-farm income by $250,000 over three years. This proposal will allow the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to target payments to those who need and can benefit from them most, while at the same time preserving the safety net that protects farmers against low prices and natural disasters.

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