Plain English

I remember when we had to certify each regulation published in the Federal Register was in "plain English".  This was back in the days of Jimmy Carter.  It was a pro forma requirement then; I don't expect much different from the new law.  It includes a requirement to change agency websites and to permit public input on compliance.  Problem is: while everyone complains about jargon, there's no one with the motivation to play policeman.  At best it will be providing another cudgel to be used by opponents of a program; they'll mock the regulations for not being clear. 

Good Bureaucracy Is Important for Development

Tim Harford posts on the ways in which past history impacts economic development, citing several research reports.  From his post:

Berger argues that the 7° 10’ line of latitude in Nigeria is important because different systems of taxation once prevailed on either side of it. To the south, officials relied on customs duties and other taxes on trade through Nigeria’s ports. North of the line, taxes were levied on people – which meant somebody had to arrange a census and keep proper accounts. The difference in bureaucratic capability has persisted for a century

$2,000 for a Meal?

The sports pages report an NFL rookie got stuck paying for dinner for 20 of his teammates (because he didn't do the usual rookie duties).  The bill was close to $50,000.  That's a bunch of food, and I suspect a bunch of pricey wine. Reminds me of an infamous dinner in London back before the crash: some financial types if I remember.

Mitch Daniels Is a Good Governor? But Not Digitally

Mitch Daniels, former director of OMB, current governor of Indiana, and possible Presidential candidate may have a good reputation in some circles, but apparently he didn't get Indiana moving in the IT area.

[Updated: David Brooks has picked him in the Times as the Republicans Presidential candidate in 2012 (see Althouse on this) but Cato only gave him a B for his governorship.]

The Amish and the Ig Nobels

The Ig Nobel prizes were awarded last, including one for this study :

In the late sixties the Canadian psychologist Laurence J. Peter advanced an apparently paradoxical principle, named since then after him, which can be summarized as follows: {\it 'Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum incompetence'}. Despite its apparent unreasonableness, such a principle would realistically act in any organization where the mechanism of promotion rewards the best members and where the mechanism at their new level in the hierarchical structure does not depend on the competence they had at the previous level, usually because the tasks of the levels are very different to each other. Here we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the latter two features actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical structure, then not only is the Peter principle unavoidable, but also it yields in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization. Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence.

Where do the Amish come in?  As I understand the above, they identified this truth back in the 17th century.  The usual pattern in churches is for bishops (authority figures) to be selected by management, or maybe elected by a church body.  That leads to the Peter principle: a top programmer becomes the manager of programmers, a top analyst becomes a manager of analysts; even though neither knows anything about management.  The Amish use a different principle: they let God decide.  Or, to the secular-minded among us, they select bishops by lot.  They're one of the fastest growing religions, so it's proof the system works.

Pigford and Rep. Steve King

Rep. Steve King issues a press release alleging massive fraud in the Pigford settlement. Chris Clayton at DTN calls it a red herring.  [Updated: another article describing both a press conference and some USDA reaction.]

Though I've voiced some qualms about Pigford (see the "Pigford" tab), I think Chris has the  better argument. I note in this post that Boyd talked of 20,000 farmers each in Alabama and Mississippi. I do think Chris errs in his apparent assumption that both husband and wife are eligible to file individual claims because I don't think they could file separate loan applications.

The bottom line to me is that Mr. Boyd has inflated the number of potential claimants and is fostering the false impression that every claimant will receive money.  Neither is true. Neither exaggerating the numbers of one's interest group and the benefits they might derive from proposed legislation is unknown inside the Beltway--if we believed the American Farm Bureau Federation we'd have many more farmers than the census reveals. I'm sure Rep. King wouldn't accuse them of fraud.

Based on the claims reviewed and rejected from the first Pigford settlement (which Mr. Clayton discusses in some detail), it seems there's a reasonable process to weed out claims which don't meet the evidentiary standards.

What Geezers Remember Isn't the Truth--Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter qualifies as a geezer  John Sides shows he misremembers.  Carter claimed his "lust in the heart" interview in Playboy cost him 15 points in the polls and nearly cost him the election.  Sides says: not true--available polls show a fairly smooth descent from his peak at the convention.

So, a reminder to one's self: be very afraid when you remember something.

Canada and the U.S. Differences

I skim the blog at ourfuture.org, but usually find its posts much too long and lacking focus, as well as being too liberal for my tastes.  But Sara Robinson recently returned to the U.S. from 7 years living in Canada and has a nice post about the differences she's found, particularly the synergy between the foodies (left) and farmers (right) in the Pacific Northwest.

Surprise Paragraph of the Day

Keith Hennessey caught my notice when  a number of bloggers praised his explanation of the economic bureaucracy in the White House, having been GWBush's CEA chief towards the end of the administration.  He's usually critical of the Dems, but today he has an interesting analysis of Obama's comments on housing, somewhat critical, but ending with this:

I’m impressed by the depth of the President’s understanding and his thought process.  I disagree with his Administration’s policies in many cases, and that includes his housing policies, but I think he gave a good answer yesterday in this Albuquerque backyard conversation.

 I'm barely resisting the opportunity to snark about GWB--use your imagination.

Our Founding Fathers and the Intrusive Federal Government

We all know the Founding Fathers didn't like government and wanted as little of it as possible.  Right?

It's completely ridiculous for the government to worry about things like energy efficient light bulbs and toilets. Right?

If you agree, you might look at this document from the National Archives. As they say:

List A includes dwellings situated on two acres or less and valued at more than $100. You will find the name of the occupant, the name of the owner, dimensions of the dwelling and any outbuildings, the type of construction, the number of windows and lights, and the value of the dwelling.

No, it's not from 2009, but 210 years earlier.