Blogging on bureaucracy, organizations, USDA, agriculture programs, American history, the food movement, and other interests. Often contrarian, usually optimistic, sometimes didactic, occasionally funny, rarely wrong, always a nitpicker.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
ID Numbers in India
The Economist has an interesting piece on India's attempt to give each person a biometric ID. I've always liked the idea, because I'm a bureaucrat and it's a bureaucrat's dream. India, with its British civil service heritage, has a much better chance of carrying the project through than we have in this country, even though it's also a federal republic and its central government seems to be weaker than the UK's.
Kinsley Calls Me a Fine Person
That's Michael Kinsley in his Politico column suggesting we shouldn't want housing prices to rise. He suggests the lower housing prices, the easier for people to buy. Current homeowners who are looking to upgrade should also like lower prices. Only those current homeowners who aren't looking to upgrade really benefit from high prices.
I think he's right, at least about my being a fine person, and probably about housing prices. Certainly reading the narrative in All the Devils Are Here, which is a fine book BTW, suggests the housing bubble was a disaster for everyone.
I think he's right, at least about my being a fine person, and probably about housing prices. Certainly reading the narrative in All the Devils Are Here, which is a fine book BTW, suggests the housing bubble was a disaster for everyone.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Hypocrisy--Tea Flavored
From Farm Policy:
As a sidebar with respect to farm spending and the tea party, Jonathan Ellis indicated on Saturday at the Argus Leader Online (SD) that, “A new poll of 401 South Dakota tea party supporters is available today. The poll is the most comprehensive public analysis of the movement in this state…[and]…Eighteen percent have an immediate family member who receives federal farm subsidies. Yet 47 percent think federal farm payments to farmers and ranchers should be left at current levels or increased.”
As a sidebar with respect to farm spending and the tea party, Jonathan Ellis indicated on Saturday at the Argus Leader Online (SD) that, “A new poll of 401 South Dakota tea party supporters is available today. The poll is the most comprehensive public analysis of the movement in this state…[and]…Eighteen percent have an immediate family member who receives federal farm subsidies. Yet 47 percent think federal farm payments to farmers and ranchers should be left at current levels or increased.”
Rummy: Bush Was a Bad Bureaucrat
That's what I get from this Politico piece, based on a Wall Street Journal interview, arguing Donald Rumsfeld critiques Bush and his administration for being bad bureaucrats.
Defense Appropriations
The draft House appropriations language includes the 2011 DOD appropriations act. Skimming through, I get the sense of lots of history being buried there, lots of lobbying done. For example Section 8068 requires military facilities (PXs and clubs) to buy their wine and malt from local distributors. They are permitted to buy liquor from the lowest cost vendor. Or Section 8074 freezes the Pacific fleet command setup to that in place on October 1, 2004. What's the story there?
I also note they're banning the use of ARRA funds for signage (not in the DOD part, but the other part of the bill).
I also note they're banning the use of ARRA funds for signage (not in the DOD part, but the other part of the bill).
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Will the Republicans Read 359 Pages
The House bill which concludes: This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011’’ has 359 pages. Inasmuch as some Republicans mocked the Democrats for voting for bills they had not read, I would think turnaround is fair play. Any guesses as to how many Republicans can claim they read the whole thing, without having their nose grow? Even more interesting, any guess as to how many Republicans can read and understand even 10 percent of the bill, without reference to other material?
Program Cuts for USDA
The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has a post describing the cuts to be made in the discretionary and mandatory programs of USDA. The media seems to have focused on the appropriations cuts, but as the post notes there are also proposals to require the Agriculture Committee to cut programs under its jurisdiction.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Revised Republican Cuts of USDA
It looks as if the Republicans, in their effort to cut $100 billion, have added to the previously announced cuts of FSA and NRCS other items, and deepened their cuts of WIC. (Figures are in millions, with the first one the cut from FY2010 as enacted, the second one from FY2011 as Obama requested.) (Here's my previous post.)
Departmental Administration and Offices (137.7) (105.9)
Inspector General (8.7) (4.5)
Research Education and Extension
Agricultural Research Service (185.1) (84.3)
National Institute for Food & Agriculture (217.1) (150.7)
Other Research (13.2) (20.8)
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (75.0) (32.3)
Agricultural Marketing Service (9.4) (11.8)
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (1.6) (3.9)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (88.4) (52.7)
Farm Assistance Programs
Farm Services Agency (190.4) (205.3)
Risk Management Agency (3.1) (5.9)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (172.5) (46.2)
Rural Development
Rural Housing Service Loans & Grants (208.8) (35.1)
Rural Business Loans & Grants (33.2) (51.4)
Rural Utilities Loans & Grants (204.5) (6.3)
Rural Development Administrative Expenses (35.8) (40.4)
Domestic Food Programs
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants &
Children (WIC) (747.2) (1008.2)
Commodity Assistance Programs (26.0) (7.6)
Other Nutrition Programs & Administration (9.0) (32.3)
Foreign Agriculture Service
Food for Peace (PL 480) (687.0) (544.0)
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Grants (109.5) (20.0)
Foreign Agriculture Service (14.9) (83.4)
Food and Drug Administration (241.0) (220.2)
Departmental Administration and Offices (137.7) (105.9)
Inspector General (8.7) (4.5)
Research Education and Extension
Agricultural Research Service (185.1) (84.3)
National Institute for Food & Agriculture (217.1) (150.7)
Other Research (13.2) (20.8)
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (75.0) (32.3)
Agricultural Marketing Service (9.4) (11.8)
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (1.6) (3.9)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (88.4) (52.7)
Farm Assistance Programs
Farm Services Agency (190.4) (205.3)
Risk Management Agency (3.1) (5.9)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (172.5) (46.2)
Rural Development
Rural Housing Service Loans & Grants (208.8) (35.1)
Rural Business Loans & Grants (33.2) (51.4)
Rural Utilities Loans & Grants (204.5) (6.3)
Rural Development Administrative Expenses (35.8) (40.4)
Domestic Food Programs
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants &
Children (WIC) (747.2) (1008.2)
Commodity Assistance Programs (26.0) (7.6)
Other Nutrition Programs & Administration (9.0) (32.3)
Foreign Agriculture Service
Food for Peace (PL 480) (687.0) (544.0)
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Grants (109.5) (20.0)
Foreign Agriculture Service (14.9) (83.4)
Food and Drug Administration (241.0) (220.2)
Friday, February 11, 2011
Budget Cuts Help IT?
This Federal Computer Weekly piece argues that Republican budget cuts will, in the long run, help IT, because the only way to accomplish program goals will be by using technology. I'd beg to differ. If budget cutting were logical, we'd see more money added to IRS to do a better job of collecting taxes. We'd see upfront investments in IT. We'd see reorganizations. My experience is budgeting isn't logical, so we'll see the IRS hacked, we'll see IT money cut back to mere maintenance, and we'll see organizations fiercely defending their turf against the world.
The Bad Teacher and the Bad Boss
Some blogging on teacher evaluations. A quote from one:
Yes, we could all imagine scenarios in which the principal does her evaluation using sound information on many factors. The reality is different, particularly because evaluation is something few people enjoy doing, or receiving, so it's likely to be done poorly.
The only observation I'll make is that I suspect many reformers see teacher evaluations as a second-best approach. In an ideal, less litigious world, managers would be empowered to make hiring and firing decisions based on a number of factors, e.g., does this teacher play well with others, does he have the "soft skills" he needs to do his job well, does he use a variety of strategies to keep easy-to-teach students in his class while fobbing off harder-to-teach students on others, etc., that are hard to quantify.I think the comment shows the blind assumptions common to us bureaucrat types. Specifically, the assumption is that you have the ideal principal doing the evaluations. Stating the assumption does, I think, show its falsity. We all know no one is perfect, so we're going to have imperfect principals evaluating imperfect teachers. That reality is one strong reason to have teachers' unions, or unions of public service employees.
Yes, we could all imagine scenarios in which the principal does her evaluation using sound information on many factors. The reality is different, particularly because evaluation is something few people enjoy doing, or receiving, so it's likely to be done poorly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)