Saturday, April 23, 2011
Fed Salaries: Government Employee With Summer Cottage
A different perspective on federal salaries: in the 1930's my uncle was a researcher at Beltsville on animal nutrition. Had a nice house in the DC suburbs and a summer cottage near Annapolis while supporting wife and two young kids. Today I doubt an ARS scientist could manage a cottage on a single salary. Most likely he'd be saving money for college tuition. Of course, even back then a private feed company hired him away from USDA.
Human Ingenuity in Evading Rules
One of the constants in a bureaucrat's life is the fact the people with whom she deals will often spend a good deal of effort in evading the rules. Whether it's taxpayers stretching the truth in preparing tax returns or seeking legal or semi-legal tax shelters, farmers reorganizing their farming enterprises to evade limitations on farm program payments, or disaster victims claiming losses which exist only in their mind, evading rules is ever-present.
Chris Blattman is a professor who runs experiments in Africa. The gold standard of social science experiments is "randomization", dividing subjects into two matched groups and trying something on one group you don't use on the other. He ran into the rule evasion phenomena in a recent experiment. He ends the discussion:
Chris Blattman is a professor who runs experiments in Africa. The gold standard of social science experiments is "randomization", dividing subjects into two matched groups and trying something on one group you don't use on the other. He ran into the rule evasion phenomena in a recent experiment. He ends the discussion:
"The researchee defeats the researcher. I wonder if they realized that they could completely insure one another and get the outcome they want. Would I be that surprised if one managed to track down my blog and saw the idea as it is? I’m now not so sure…
Friday, April 22, 2011
One True Sentence
From Kevin Drum:
The Great Collapse was a big enough, and unexpected enough, event that it should have changed your mind at least a little bit about something.So what has it done to my mind?
- Less credibility for big shot managers. When you read about Lehman Brothers going under, or Citigroup's troubles, their books were so screwed up they didn't know where they were. Outsiders checking their books would find a few billion more losses every day or so.
- Alan Greenspan loses most of his reputation.
- Less credibility for economists, particularly Bush's.
- Diminished reputation for Barney Frank and other Dems who ignored warning signals. I'm not convinced by the right wing thesis that pushing home ownership was the original sin which caused the collapse, but the push to get low income people into home ownership created an atmosphere in which the con men who made liar's loans could flourish.
That's a few lessons; there may be more.
Supply Side Solutions to the Cost of Medical Care
I commented on this on Yglesias's blog in the past. Rather than focusing only on cutting demand, either by regulating what procedures and devices are approved (Obamacare) or by cutting the money available to spend on medical care (Ryancare), we need to seriously expand the supply of care, thereby cutting prices and hopefully costs..
We could do this by opening our gates to all medical professionals from other countries. Here's an interesting post on Chris Blattman's blog about the effects of such migration, including these sentences: "For decades, more nurses have left the Philippines to work abroad than leave any other country on earth. Yet in the Philippines today there are more Registered Nurses per capita than in the United Kingdom. This happened because so many Filipinos trained up as nurses to take advantage of opportunities abroad that this more than offset the departures."
We could do this by contracting with some universities to develop new schools of nursing and medicine.
We could do this by changing the laws so someone licensed as a nurse or doctor in one state could practice in any state.
We could reduce certification requirements, offsetting the laxity with increased transparency. I'd rather be treated by a doctor with lesser qualifications but a long history of success than vice versa.
We could forgive a portion of student loan indebtedness for those medical students who go into primary care for x years.
We could allow nurses to do in medical clinics what we allow them to do in schools.
We could encourage medical tourism: people going to Mexico or India for operations (as the Amish do now).
We could do this by opening our gates to all medical professionals from other countries. Here's an interesting post on Chris Blattman's blog about the effects of such migration, including these sentences: "For decades, more nurses have left the Philippines to work abroad than leave any other country on earth. Yet in the Philippines today there are more Registered Nurses per capita than in the United Kingdom. This happened because so many Filipinos trained up as nurses to take advantage of opportunities abroad that this more than offset the departures."
We could do this by contracting with some universities to develop new schools of nursing and medicine.
We could do this by changing the laws so someone licensed as a nurse or doctor in one state could practice in any state.
We could reduce certification requirements, offsetting the laxity with increased transparency. I'd rather be treated by a doctor with lesser qualifications but a long history of success than vice versa.
We could forgive a portion of student loan indebtedness for those medical students who go into primary care for x years.
We could allow nurses to do in medical clinics what we allow them to do in schools.
We could encourage medical tourism: people going to Mexico or India for operations (as the Amish do now).
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Coates and a Hispanic Museum
Ta-Nahesi Coates has a post on the push for a Hispanic-American museum in DC, playing off a NYTimes report. The comments are particularly good. I revert to my suggestion that the USDA Administration building be converted into a museum.
Nagging: Redundancy or Consistency?
This study, according to Barking Up the Wrong Tree, shows that nagging works. When managers gave the same message over and over, the results improved. But I'm tempted to disagree. Back when I was a new manager and having my problems, as in cursing at an employee, my division director gave me a message. He pointed to another manager in the division, a loud, boisterous man, WWII veteran whose ship had been sunk under him, who was an obvious male chauvinist. That made him seem to be an odd fit to supervise a female manager after a reorganization. The director pointed out that the vet was consistent; he was always the same. Further he was fair, and the woman in question was assertive and wouldn't take any crap off him The director said in his view consistency was the great managerial virtue. Employees could adjust to any managerial style, so long as it was consistent. Conversely, it was dangerous to be erratic, to be up and down, to jump from one great idea to another.
So it's possible the good results from repetitive messages was caused less by the repetition than by the consistency.
So it's possible the good results from repetitive messages was caused less by the repetition than by the consistency.
NRCS and Streamlining Delivery Initiative
NRCS has its Streamlining Delivery Initiative, which sounds a bit like their version of MIDAS. Give credit to them:
- they have a nice graphic outlining what I would call the "enterprise architecture", or at least the flow of apps.
- they put up a wiki page on the initiative . (I haven't quite figured out "wikiagro", whether it's an official NRCS wiki or not.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
How To Raise the Debt Limit
Seems to me it would be logical for the Republicans in the House to take Obama's proposed"fail-safe" and attach it to the increase of the debt limit.
Three Cups
I read Greg Mortenson's Three Cups of Tea fairly early and was very impressed. Now 60 Minutes and Jon Krakauer have debunked parts of the narrative. Seems to me Dan Drezner has a good take on the whole thing.
Republican Study Committee Budget
Following are excerpts from the RSC budget (not Rep. Ryan's):
SUPPORT MARKET-BASED PROGRAMS BY ELIMINATING THE DIRECT PAYMENT (DP) PROGRAM.
The DP program provides cash subsidies to commodity producers, capped at $40,000 annually. The payments are based on a historical measure of a farm’s production acreage, and they do not vary based on actual production or commodity prices. Direct payments were originally established in 1996 as a transitional program. However, the subsidies have not been reduced over time.
The Washington Post estimated that between 2000 and 2006, the federal government made $1.3 billion in direct payments to people who do not even farm. Recently, the Iowa Farm Bureau proposed eliminating the DP program. While the President has called for lowering the cap in FY 2012, this plan would eliminate the Direct Payment program entirely. The savings would amount to $4 billion in FY 2012 and $50 billion over ten years. Although this non-market based program would be terminated, growers could still receive support payments from other support programs such as the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) and Marketing Loan Assistance programs.
PROHIBIT NEW ENROLLMENTS IN THE CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) provides annual payments to producers for five years in exchange for undertaking various land improvements. However, payments under the program can be made to producers who have already undertaken conservation measures.
Beginning in FY 2012, new enrollees would be prohibited from entering into the program. This policy would result in FY 2012 savings of $35 million and approximately $10.5 billion in savings over ten years. The CBO stated that the “criteria used to determine improvements in existing conservation practices are not readily apparent, and the absence of objective measurements could result in higher payments than necessary.” The RSC’s proposed option is based on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform’s recommendation to put limits on this program.
PROHIBIT GENERAL ENROLLMENTS IN THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP). The CRP was established by the 1985 Farm Bill. Its purpose is to remove land from agricultural production, and it is the federal government’s largest private land retirement program. Under the CRP, producers are paid to plant grass or trees on retired acres. Currently, approximately 31 million acres of land are enrolled in the program. The program is economically destructive and takes away farm land that could be used for things such as corn and biomass production. Beginning in FY 2012, new general enrollments in CRP would be prohibited, resulting in approximately $9 billion in savings over ten years.
REDUCE THE PREMIUM SUBSIDY IN THE CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM.
Farmers use the Federal Crop Insurance Program to protect their crops from perils by purchasing policies that are sold and serviced by private vendors. The federal government subsidizes about 60 percent of the premiums paid for this program. Beginning in FY 2012, the federal government’s subsidy would be reduced to 50 percent of the crop insurance premium. This would result in a savings of $400 million for FY 2012 and $11.8 billion over ten years. Reductions of this magnitude in the subsidy rate likely would not substantially affect the level of program participation.
ELIMINATE THE FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (FMDP).
The FMDP is used by agricultural trade associations and commodity groups to help promote exports and provide nutritional and technical assistance to other countries. This program would be terminated beginning in FY 2012, resulting in FY 2012 savings of $35 million and savings of $350 million over ten years. This initiative is something that the private sector would otherwise be spending money on anyway. The private sector should be responsible for promoting its own products, as it receives the profits from the sales of these products.
ELIMINATE THE MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM (MAP).
The MAP is intended to promote overseas marketing of U.S. agricultural products. MAP funds consumer promotions, market research, trade shows, advertising campaigns, and other programs designed to subsidize the sale of brand-name products in foreign markets by private cooperatives, trade associations, and businesses. Taxpayers should not be forced to pick up the tab for this kind of corporate welfare. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform even targeted this program as one in need of change. This program would be terminated in FY 2012, resulting in an annual savings of $200 million and $2 billion in savings over ten years. According to the CBO, some analysts believe MAP “does not warrant additional funding because the extent to which it has developed markets or replaced private expenditures with public funds is not known.”
ELIMINATE WOOL AND MOHAIR SUBSIDIES.
The federal government first enacted price support for wool and mohair in 1947, and the National Wool Act of 1954 established direct payments for wool and mohair producers for the purpose of encouraging production of wool as an essential and strategic commodity. This support was last re-authorized in 2008 despite a complete lack of a compelling need for government support of mohair. Beginning in FY 2012, wool and mohair subsidies would be eliminated, saving taxpayers $4 million in FY 2012 and $40 million over ten years. This budget would return control over supply, demand, and price of wool and mohair to the free market.
SUPPORT MARKET-BASED PROGRAMS BY ELIMINATING THE DIRECT PAYMENT (DP) PROGRAM.
The DP program provides cash subsidies to commodity producers, capped at $40,000 annually. The payments are based on a historical measure of a farm’s production acreage, and they do not vary based on actual production or commodity prices. Direct payments were originally established in 1996 as a transitional program. However, the subsidies have not been reduced over time.
The Washington Post estimated that between 2000 and 2006, the federal government made $1.3 billion in direct payments to people who do not even farm. Recently, the Iowa Farm Bureau proposed eliminating the DP program. While the President has called for lowering the cap in FY 2012, this plan would eliminate the Direct Payment program entirely. The savings would amount to $4 billion in FY 2012 and $50 billion over ten years. Although this non-market based program would be terminated, growers could still receive support payments from other support programs such as the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) and Marketing Loan Assistance programs.
PROHIBIT NEW ENROLLMENTS IN THE CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) provides annual payments to producers for five years in exchange for undertaking various land improvements. However, payments under the program can be made to producers who have already undertaken conservation measures.
Beginning in FY 2012, new enrollees would be prohibited from entering into the program. This policy would result in FY 2012 savings of $35 million and approximately $10.5 billion in savings over ten years. The CBO stated that the “criteria used to determine improvements in existing conservation practices are not readily apparent, and the absence of objective measurements could result in higher payments than necessary.” The RSC’s proposed option is based on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform’s recommendation to put limits on this program.
PROHIBIT GENERAL ENROLLMENTS IN THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP). The CRP was established by the 1985 Farm Bill. Its purpose is to remove land from agricultural production, and it is the federal government’s largest private land retirement program. Under the CRP, producers are paid to plant grass or trees on retired acres. Currently, approximately 31 million acres of land are enrolled in the program. The program is economically destructive and takes away farm land that could be used for things such as corn and biomass production. Beginning in FY 2012, new general enrollments in CRP would be prohibited, resulting in approximately $9 billion in savings over ten years.
REDUCE THE PREMIUM SUBSIDY IN THE CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM.
Farmers use the Federal Crop Insurance Program to protect their crops from perils by purchasing policies that are sold and serviced by private vendors. The federal government subsidizes about 60 percent of the premiums paid for this program. Beginning in FY 2012, the federal government’s subsidy would be reduced to 50 percent of the crop insurance premium. This would result in a savings of $400 million for FY 2012 and $11.8 billion over ten years. Reductions of this magnitude in the subsidy rate likely would not substantially affect the level of program participation.
ELIMINATE THE FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (FMDP).
The FMDP is used by agricultural trade associations and commodity groups to help promote exports and provide nutritional and technical assistance to other countries. This program would be terminated beginning in FY 2012, resulting in FY 2012 savings of $35 million and savings of $350 million over ten years. This initiative is something that the private sector would otherwise be spending money on anyway. The private sector should be responsible for promoting its own products, as it receives the profits from the sales of these products.
ELIMINATE THE MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM (MAP).
The MAP is intended to promote overseas marketing of U.S. agricultural products. MAP funds consumer promotions, market research, trade shows, advertising campaigns, and other programs designed to subsidize the sale of brand-name products in foreign markets by private cooperatives, trade associations, and businesses. Taxpayers should not be forced to pick up the tab for this kind of corporate welfare. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform even targeted this program as one in need of change. This program would be terminated in FY 2012, resulting in an annual savings of $200 million and $2 billion in savings over ten years. According to the CBO, some analysts believe MAP “does not warrant additional funding because the extent to which it has developed markets or replaced private expenditures with public funds is not known.”
ELIMINATE WOOL AND MOHAIR SUBSIDIES.
The federal government first enacted price support for wool and mohair in 1947, and the National Wool Act of 1954 established direct payments for wool and mohair producers for the purpose of encouraging production of wool as an essential and strategic commodity. This support was last re-authorized in 2008 despite a complete lack of a compelling need for government support of mohair. Beginning in FY 2012, wool and mohair subsidies would be eliminated, saving taxpayers $4 million in FY 2012 and $40 million over ten years. This budget would return control over supply, demand, and price of wool and mohair to the free market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)