Frailty, Thy Name Is Beginning Gardener

From a NY Times article on the fad for company gardens:

Still, what seems like a good idea in the conference room doesn’t always translate to the field. People don’t always follow through. It’s the same dynamic that fills the office refrigerator with old yogurt containers and moldy lunches.
At PepsiCo, most of the plots are still weedy and empty. The weather has been cool and so, gardeners say, has enthusiasm. Last year when the company first turned over a plot the size of two tennis courts to peppers and tomatoes, 200 of the 1,450 employees here signed up, mailroom workers and midlevel administrators alike. This year, the volunteers dwindled to about 75, and many of them have yet to ready their plots.

A Blast from the Past--PIK Certificates and a Wrong Prediction

John Phipps must have been having a nostalgic moment because he threw in a mention of PIK in a recent post
with a link to an explanation  of "PIK and roll" from the 1987 Washington Monthly.

I remember the start of the PIK program, or at least the 1983 incarnation. I suspect there are many FSA employees who were hired back then and remember it with some mixed feelings.

At the end of the article, two long retired Senators, Boschwitz and Boren, discuss their proposal for "decoupling", for removing the link between the crop produced and what the program pays.  We moved towards that in the next two farm bills, with the 1996 Freedom to Farm incorporating it.  Here's what was said:

"A system of direct income support would make government dependency less easy for farmers to swallow. They could no longer kid themselves that the farm program merely provided them with a "fair price.' Many farm groups oppose the plan on the grounds that it would turn the farm program into welfare, to which Boschwitz replies: "Farmers are getting benefits now and they would get benefits under my plan. What's the difference? If they call my plan "welfare,' what do they call the current programs?'"

The prediction was wrong--farmers have had no problem at all of arguing to keep the DCP payments long after they were supposed to be phased out. The "fair price" argument may have faded into the pages of history but the argument for preserving farms remains.

The Final Word on Vertical Farms

One of my hobbyhorses is vertical farms, or rather the unfeasibility of vertical farms.  This post should put the final nail in this idea:

Although the concept has provided opportunities for architecture students and others to create innovative, sometimes beautiful building designs, it holds little practical potential for providing food. Even if vertical farming were feasible on a large scale, it would not solve the most pressing agricultural problems; rather, it would push the dependence of food production on industrial inputs to even greater heights. It would ensure that dependence by depriving crops not only of soil but also of the most plentiful and ecologically benign energy source of all: sunlight.

Deficit Commission Predictions

Obama's deficit commission has been holding hearings, as has the House Agriculture Committee on the 2012 farm bill. The deficit report is due after the fall elections.

I now take up my crystal ball.  I predict the commission will include in its recommendations an across-the-board cut on much discretionary spending.  My logic is: it is very difficult to end programs; usually there are good arguments, or at least reasonable ones, for the existence and the value of the program, particularly if you ignore the costs. So it's going to be very difficult for 14 of the 18 commissioners to agree on a hit list.  Politically it's much easier to impose a flat percentage cut.  That way everyone (at least everyone in the affected programs) shares the pain and the cuts seem more equitable.

For those with short memories, or short lives, there was much concern about deficits back in the Reagan administration; that was one reason Reagan ended up signing some tax raises. Back then Congress and the administration could reach agreement on an approach to cutting deficits; it was called the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act.  In 1986 it kicked in and we ended cutting deficiency payments (and other payments) by something like 4.6 percent. 

So my prediction is history will repeat itself--the commission will propose a percentage cut like we had in 1986.

Why the US Is Losing Its Preeminence

The Chicken Little position is well stated in this NYTimes article on a Chinese woman teaching Chinese to teens in Lawton, OK.   Interesting contrasts in culture:

“They party, they drink, they date,” [the teacher] added. “In China, we study and study and study.”

Note: I'm not much bothered by the prospect.  The only thing I can be sure of is the contrast will be different in 30 years.

Mother's Day URL's

Steve Hendrix in the Post magazine interviews people his mother taught in a gifted class many years ago, and finds it was a big influence in their lives.

Roger Rosenblatt in "Making Toast" paints a picture of a mother, his daughter, now dead and the family she left behind. Emotional because underwritten.

The Answer to Some Mysteries?

According to this post passing on a study, the more intelligent and dependable a child, the more likely she is to live longer.   

No mention of whether it applies to both sexes, or whether the result only explains why females live longer than males.  Assuming this has cross-cultural validity, it might answer why the average IQ rises each generation.

Funniest Sentence Today

Kevin Drum in a post on Prof. Kagan's qualifications to be a Justice (the argument being she can persuade Justice Kennedy):

Anyway, Diane Wood has six kids and plays the oboe. I'll bet she can convince just about anybody of just about anything.

Economists Don't Know What They're Talking About--DeLong

Brad proves it by this statement (from his intro to an upcoming course):

Doesn't that mean that we [the students] are guinea pigs--experimental animals? A: Yes, but the life of an experimental animal can be a very interesting and fulfilling one.

The Weak US Government

One of my hobbyhorses--how really weak the Federal government is. I get support, albeit unknowingly, from a surprising source--a libertarian. Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy writes:

My parents and I were green card holders from 1979 to 1986. As far as I know, they rarely if ever carried proof of legal residency with them except when entering and leaving the country. I suspect that most other legal immigrants behave the same way. Why? Because the chance of running into a federal law enforcement officer in everyday life is infinitesmally [sic] small.

This is in the context of a discussion of the Arizona immigration law.  Somin is worried because people have or could have dealings with local and state law enforcement officials almost every day.  (In fact, I've had very few interactions with such officials in the course of a rather long life.  Maybe I drive slower than Somin.)