Mitch Daniels Takes a Hit?

Mitch Daniels, former OMB head and now governor of Indiana, has been talked of as a possible Presidential candidate (appealing to the good and small government types).  Here's a post describing how government reform really works, even in his Indiana:

I spent two years working for such a dedicated team within Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ Office of Management and Budget. The group, “Government Efficiency and Financial Planning,” was originally tasked with conducting a “long-overdue inventory of the state’s operations.” We produced two reports with hundreds of recommendations for making state government more “efficient” and “effective.”
The governor never directed his “lieutenants to execute” very many – if any – of the recommendations. In fact, the lieutenants were so worried about the potential political fallout from the issue of the second report that it was intentionally released when nobody was looking. They needn’t have worried because those interests who might have had cause for concern already saw that the first report was basically inconsequential.
Eggers and O’Leary continue:

There is likely to be some internal friction between the cost reduction team and the various department leaders. That is by design. The cost reduction team is supposed to be disruptive.

GEFP was somewhat disruptive, but not very effective. The governor’s lieutenants typically either sided with the department leaders or did little to support GEFP. The reason was simple. The perceived political costs of GEFP’s efforts usually exceeded the perceived political benefits. Department heads, on the other hand, can create favorable (and unfavorable headlines) and thus possess greater pull.

Given this is a Cato blog, it's not surprising the writer is disappointed. Change is hard, particularly when it's piece by piece ("hundreds of recommendations").  It's like reforming the tax system piece by piece.  Bill Bradley and Dan Rostenkowski proved it could be done, but only as a grand bargain.

Always Nice to be Right

As I guessed in a previous post (and see  this), Sen. Lincoln and the Administration are looking at Section 32 funds for her special disaster program.  She provided this list  of past uses of the authority from Farm Policy.

I'm surprised by the number listed.  When I joined ASCS Sec. 32 funds had been used to buy up surpluses of potatoes, most notably, and use them for cattle feed and/or school lunches.  My impression was that it was method of dealing with surpluses of agricultural products which weren't storable, unlike the "basic crops", including wheat, corn and other feed grains, rice and cotton, and milk.  (Milk isn't storable, but cheese and butter are.) Apparently, though I've not bothered to follow up, there have been some changes over the years, particularly recently, which has expanded the use of the authority.

CCC has a history dating back to the Wilson administration, which I think but don't know gets the credit for using the corporation as a method of doing government business during WWI.  Subsequently Hoover came up with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to handle depression-era projects, and the New Deal continued the RFC and created other corporations, including the CCC.

The corporation has some advantages over a regular agency: it can be much more flexible because you give it a charter and then leave the power up to its board of directors (CCC's board is basically agency heads plus secretary types).  You can give it an initial fund of money, then allow it to borrow from the Treasury.  That means Congress only gets to appropriate when the corporation runs out of borrowing authority.  And, I again think but am not sure, such repayments to the Treasury don't show up in the budget.

In addition to its borrowing authority, CCC also gets  a yearly cut of some customs money, under Sec. 32, which is probably also off budget.  And that's the money proposed to be used for Lincoln's disaster program.  (Personally, I think it's a stupid idea and hope the administration slow walks it until it's apparent that Lincoln is a lost cause.  Then they can give her a post somewhere.)

As an aside, back in the day ASCS used to tap CCC money for administrative expenses tied to carrying out CCC programs.  Over time we got too inventive  in using it for IT systems, so the Appropriations Committees cracked down.

Public Works Projects

Understanding Government has a post citing an article skeptical of the high speed rail project planned for California.  I commented on it, recalling my awareness of Dulles Airport and its access road.  While it seemed to be a boondoggle in the 70's, it no longer is.  Sometimes it takes a while for infrastructure to prove its worth.  Sometimes it doesn't, as the Erie Canal proved its worth immediately.  And sometimes boondoggles are boondoggles, as in the case of the Chenango Canal.

Manual Dexterity on the Band Saw

Via John Phipps, the end result is incredible, at least to a klutz.

The Downside of Absentee Landowners

Back in the day every farmer owned and operated his quarter section (my "day" was long, long ago and in a different country).  But today most farms are a combination of rented and owned land (at $5-7K an acre, it doesn't take long for land ownership to involve some real money).  And Chris Clayton, whose thoughts never stray far from business, wonders if the dead zone in the Gulf isn't related to the renting. (Actually, the dead zone is my attempt to amp up the significance.)  He and his family float down a river and see corn and soybeans planted with no filter strip bordering the river, consequently nitrogen, phosphorus and top soil fall into the river, thence to be flushed down past New Orleans to the Gulf.  His guess is that the farmers were renting and going for max production, not worried at all about the land.

The Easy IT Projects

This glowing piece in Federal Computer Weekly praises the woman who accomplished this:

In the end, the board awarded a contract July 10, 2009, to build Recovery.gov, and work on the project started the same day. FederalReporting.gov launched Aug. 17, 2009, and Recovery.gov went live Sept. 28, 2009.

Far be it from me to knock a dedicated and successful bureaucrat, but remember that was an easy project. Easy because it was done from scratch, I believe.  The tough projects are those which try to redo existing systems, particularly those integrating separate stovepipes.  All that said, getting software done in 70 days is good work.

The Empire, er Republicans Strike Back

From Politico, on a study of the use of Web 2.0:

"the study found Republicans have “struck back,” with GOP senators averaging more than 5.5 IQ points higher than their Democratic counterparts.
Of the seven senators who scored “genius” social media rankings, four were Republicans: McCain — the top tweeter, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Cornyn of Texas.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41278.html#ixzz0xAeLxv9E"

History Repeats Itself: ACRE

Farmgate reports on an analysis of why and which farmers enrolled in ACRE.Two points strike me:

1. in terms of farmer education, only 25 percent of farmers used the spreadsheets available on the web, while 90 percent apparently talked to FSA personnel.  That tells me that even though PC's and the internet have made inroads, the in-person contact is key.  It's also a clue as to the bureaucratic success of FSA and the farm programs: the FSA clerk technician may be a bureaucrat in my eyes, but in the farmer's eyes she's a trusted source of information.
2. as usual (I'm reading between the lines) the bigger farmers and those more active in managing their risks took advantage of the program.  I say "as usual" because that's been the pattern since AAA days. The biggest and most "modern" farmers have always taken advantage of government programs; that's one reason why there's some truth in the accusations the greenies, foodies, and others make against them.

Best Advice of the Month

From Dan Drezner: "10)  Quit reading blogs.  They rot your brain and give you cooties. "  (Actually, I prefer his no. 9.)

Is 600,000 Chickens Small?

A discussion in Farm Policy about confusion in California about the enforcement of humane standards for hens includes this quote:

The Journal article pointed out that, “John Lewis Jr., president of Farmer John Eggs in Bakersfield, says he doesn’t know what to do with his small, family-run company’s 600,000 hens. He doesn’t want to put them in a cage-free environment because, he says, they would be running around in their own feces and he would have to feed them antibiotics.
“Plus, when they are on the ground, he said, ‘If something scares them, they all run into a corner and pile on top of each other and suffocate very quickly.’”

As we never had more than 1700 poultry (all ages) at one time, I disagree with the "small". But I agree: chickens are stupid, I do not like chickens, and chickens easily panic and smother (just like humans--where was that crowd that stampeded and 19 were killed?).