Ding, Ding, Goes GAO on NRCS and RMA

Ah, the joys of schadenfreude.  Some years after GAO dinged FSA for making payments to dead people GAO revisited the subject, but this time looking at NRCS and RMA payments.  The result was praise for FSA (to the extent GAO ever deals in praise, which is to say, not much) and reproofs for NRCS and RMA.  Recommendations: 

To help NRCS prevent improper payments to deceased individuals, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of NRCS to develop and implement procedures to prevent potentially improper payments to deceased individuals, including (1) coordinating roles and responsibilities with FSA to ensure that either FSA or NRCS matches NRCS payment files against SSA's complete death master file and (2) reviewing each payment to a deceased individual to ensure that an improper payment was not made.

To help RMA prevent improper crop insurance subsidies on behalf of deceased individuals and to improve the effectiveness of its data mining, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of RMA to develop and implement procedures to prevent potentially improper subsidies on behalf of deceased individuals, including (1) matching RMA's crop insurance records against SSA's complete death master file and (2) reviewing each subsidy provided on behalf of a deceased individual to ensure that an improper subsidy was not provided.

 Seems to me there's an argument here for administrative consolidation within USDA.  Actually, in the long run if I were dictator I'd modify the E-Verify process so it could be used to check the status of people.  And finally, while SSA is a well-run bureaucracy as far as I know, I'm a little uncomfortable with their death master file--what sort of incentives to report accurately and timely do the people have who do the initial input into the state systems which feed the file?  And what sort of oversight?

Raisins in Florida? Who Knew

Turns out a Florida congressman is so committed to principle, and allowing people to free ride, that he's introduced a bill to kill the Raisin Administration Committee.  See my previous post.

What Happened to the Ecumenical Movement?

Reston Patch notes that "Reston Interfaith" is changing its name of some 40 odd years.  That prompts me to wonder the title.  

Back in the middle 60's the ecumenical movement was all the rage among the established denominations.  For a while it seemed all the big Protestant denominations would merge into one happy family.  Running a Google ngram viewer  shows two peaks for use of the term: one in 1964 and one in the middle 1870's.  One could argue that the movement presaged the decline of these denominations; if their core beliefs were not unique, then there wasn't much point in choosing one over another.  So instead we get the mega-churches, the service churches which don't push any specific theology I'm aware of, but which provide fellowship and community along with a diffuse spirituality.

(I wonder, from the above can one tell I'm an atheist with familial roots in a Calvinist theology?)

Old Farmers and New Farmers

Just stumbled across a website for "Modern Farmer".  It's a sign of the times that the staff doesn't seem to have a farming background.  Maybe the "back to the land" movements of the 1930's and 1970's are mere precursors to a bigger movement in the 2010's?  Maybe every 40 years people find romance in the agrarian life, at least until they shovel manure, deal with cows getting out, etc. etc.    See Northview Dairy for the old farmers.

The world's big; it can take all sorts.

Sentence for Today

"Profligacy turned out to be one of my core skills"

From John Phipps discussing life transitions as he ages.

Slow Ideas and Extension

That's the title of an article in the New Yorker by Atul Gawande--he considers the differeences between good ideas which spread fast (like anesthesia) and those which spread slowly (like aseptic methods).  He uses the distinction in discussing a project to change the way Indian medical personnel handle newborn babies in one state.  He cites the persistence of drug company salesmen, who visit doctors again and again, trying to set up a relationship of trust in order to persuade them to use a new drug.  In his project, their representative visits a local hospital again and again, before finally getting the nurses to change their methods.

Gawande makes a reference to the role of agricultural extension in teaching farmers new methods in the 20th century.  I did my first tweet (@facelessbureaucrat) to point out to him that Seaman Knapp, the father of extension, believed teaching was not the key; having a local farmer demonstrate the methods on his own farm was much more effective.  I doubt I'll do much on Twitter, though it might be an outlet for my nitpicking, as in the one to Gawande.

I do wonder how much demonstrating extension does these days.

Spain in the U.S.

I'm aware that St. Augustine, Florida represents the earliest European city in the US (some qualifications to that), and the Southwest, which was originally Spanish, then Mexican, also had early settlements (not sure of the chronology) and that's all a correction to the idea that history begins at Plymouth Rock or Jamestown.

What I didn't realize was how far north the Spanish had come, and where they built forts--like 300 miles into North Carolina?

Which reminds me of Prof. Bailyn's most recent book, which looks at some of the lesser known strains of settlement on the East Coast.

What Farmers Get for an Ear of Corn

Don't know why I was surprised by this because I do know that a loaf of bread contains only 2 or 3 cents worth of wheat, and similar ratios of raw material to price of finished goods apply elsewhere in agriculture.  The cost of the food you buy in the supermarket is mostly the cost of the chain of processors and transporters which gets it to the market.

The One in Four Rule

One of my first jobs after I switched from Directives to Production Adjustment was a followup to an audit of the disaster program ASCS was running.  The auditor, probably GAO but possibly OIG, faulted us for the number of farmers who got disaster payments in more than one year out of five.  Some got payments in two years, some in three.  So we had to run a computer program to identify these farmers and have the counties re-review the justifications for the payments and question the yield.

I thought of that when I saw this article about the one in four rule for crop insurance.  The difference is that this rule requires farmers to plant the land in at least one out of four rules, presumably being eligible for prevented planting indemnities the other three.  To someone from NY this rule seems ridiculous--why bother if you can only get a crop one out of four years?  That's the quick, knee-jerk reaction.  Slower consideration, remembering the prairie pot-hole area and the dryness of the area in question (i.e. Dakotas, MN, etc.) is perhaps a tad more favorable to RMA.  But the bottomline is once again a lesson in how Congress works.  No matter that GAO has done studies claiming crop insurance encourages the planting of marginal acreage--the ND congressional delegation is raising a fuss.  ("delegation" sounds more impressive than the "three members of Congress from ND".)  This is the way Congress works, and one example of why government programs fall short of a goo-goo's (good government types) dream.

Pigford II Status--Nearing the End?

A quote from a status update on Pigford II:

"Sanders said that 17,800 of the Track "A" claimants had been successful and another 800 claims were still being reviewed to see if they were duplicates or multiple claims filed on the same farmland. The remaining claims were unsuccessful. Sanders said no Track "B" claims, for higher monetary damages, had been approved."

 I believe about 70,000 claims were originally filed under Pigford II, and about 33,000 were found to be unique.