Taxpayer Receipt

At the Whitehouse website you can put in the income tax and FICA taxes you pay and see where the money went.  I tried to embed it here, but the code didn't work for me.  I wrote the White House--will be interested to see what the result, if any, is. 

Anyhow, it's a useful idea--people when polled have little idea of how much money goes for each function in government.

FSA Faces the Future, Sort of

Some states have legalized industrial hemp growing, so FSA has to determine how to report it.  I guess the response is rational; it's adding a new "product" to the table.

Boxers or Briefs?

That was the question President Clinton was asked on some show which some people thought he shouldn't have been on and definitely shouldn't have answered.  We value our privacy, maybe.

I was reminded today of the good old days, before clothes dryers, when washed clothes were hung on the line, even in winter, because somehow they'd dry even though they froze.  But I digress.  What I really was reminded of was how the neighbors could and would eye your lines, knowing whether the woman of the house was adhering to the proper schedule for washing clothes, etc.  And seeing what you wore.  At least in principle, although apparently some housewives would hang the underwear of the family on the interior lines, more hidden from prying eyes, except on the days the wind blew.   (I say apparently because we lived far enough off the main road that we were safe from such eyes, except for the people who came in to buy eggs and milk.

Was Everything Better in the Old Days?

No.  For proof, compare this photograph of the cherry blossoms post-WWI with this one from this year.  A reminder: trees grow and fill out.  And inventive people come up with things like color photography and the Internet, permitting millions to share in the beauty.

Tidbits from John Phipps

John has a post on global warming, noting the expansion of Canada's growing season, meaning their acreage of corn is expanding. (He suggests looking at such evidence on the ground is more likely to be convincing than the IPCC studies, and I agree. A sidenote: apparently Canada and the US are on the same path of expanding the use of crop insurance.

Who Wins and Loses With Crop Insurance

Farmdocdaily (IL extension) has a post on the state-level distribution of direct payments versus crop insurance.  Most states (32 of them) are pretty close in their share but these states differ significantly:

Eleven states had a difference of 1.5 or more percentage points (a "+" sign means insurance share exceeded direct payment share):  Texas (+8.8%), North Dakota (+4.1%), South Dakota (+3.3%), Kansas (+1.9%), California (-1.8%), Louisiana (-1.9%), Iowa (-2.0%), Ohio (-2.1%), Minnesota (-2.9%), Nebraska (-3.0%), and Arkansas (-3.8%).

Bottomline: Great Plains states with higher risk and more variable production get more crop insurance, non Great Plains states less.  As the study observes, it raises the possibility that crop insurance will encourage the shift of production to more risky areas.  As a second thought, though, "shift" is perhaps the wrong term; "expansion" might be better.   Maybe we should view crop insurance as one measure by which agriculture is adjusting to global warming?

Transparency and Doctors

HHS has released data on Medicare payments to doctors, which are discussed here.  The Post had a good article this morning, discussing some of the reasons for variations in payments among specialties, etc.  Putting that story and the Wonkblog post together gives the usual conclusion: it's complicated.  Maybe I'm biased, but when I read articles about farm policy and the food movement that's my usual reaction: you're oversimplifying, it's more complicated than that.  I'd venture to state a general rule: the knowledge an insider has is more complicated than the knowledge an outsider can discover. 

Having said that, I have to go back 20 years when EWG was suing USDA for payments to farmers.  My reaction then, in discussions with an IT person, was reserved--it seemed to me that we treated farmers as persons under the Privacy Act, which meant their data should be private as well.  The Court of Appeals for the district disagreed with my opinion.  Over the years I've come to believe that government payments should be public.  Even though I've little faith in the ability of the media to get a good understanding of the issues, either with farm payments or doctors payments, more data is better than less.

50th Anniversaries: IBM 360

Here's a long piece on the IBM 360, which celebrates its 50th anniversary, at least of its announcement, this year.  This wikipedia article says there's no working 360 in existence. 

The trip down memory lane naturally led me to this wikipedia article on COBOL, which I see is still around and kicking.

Common Ag Policy

The EU used to have a CAP blog, but these days it only gets posted in German.  I may be half-German, but I don't read it so I haven't kept up with EU developments.  Today I got to this BBC article on the EU: 

According to my mental math, the EU is spending about $80 billion on its ag policy.  A couple paragraphs from the article shows some differences, and some commonalties with ours:

...greening targets have been watered down, environmentalists say: the requirement for arable farmers to grow at least three different crops, to promote biodiversity; for farmers to leave 7% of their land fallow, to encourage wildlife; and for farmers to maintain pasture land permanently, rather than ploughing it up.

The definition of an "active farmer" has also been contentious. The current payments system is largely based on land area and past subsidy levels, meaning that landowners like airports and sports clubs, which do not farm, have been getting subsidies based on their grasslands or other eligible land areas.

Mark Bittman and IPCC on Yield Changes

Mark Bittman writes in April 2 NYTImes about the IPCC report with the theme the effects of climate warming

"So yields of corn and wheat are down and falling while prices are going up."

From an NPR interview with an IPCC scientist, who didn't concur with the final report:

"Take crop yields, for example. The report says climate change will cause them to fall by a few percent per decade. But Tol says technological innovation will likely raise crop yields by 10 percent or more each decade.
"So it's not that crop yields are going to fall, but they're going to rise more slowly because of climate change," he says. "And then of course it doesn't sound as alarming."

From the IPCC report.

Current economic studies of climate change that include farm- and/or market-level adjustments suggest that the negative effects of climate change on agriculture probably have been overestimated by studies that do not account for adjustments that will be made. This may be caused by the ability of the agricultural production community to respond with great flexibility to a gradually changing climate. Typically, extreme weather poses a significant challenge to individual farming operations that may lack the spatial diversity and financial resources of large, integrated, corporate enterprises with production capabilities in one or more areas.

Simulation modeling using four GCM-based scenarios showed that U.S. cereal production decreases by 21-38% when farmers continue to do what they are now doing (i.e., no adaptation) (see Table 15-4). When scenarios that involve adaptation by farmers are used, decreases in cereal production are not as large and the adaptations are shown to offset the initial climate-induced reduction by 35-60% (Schimmelpfennig et al., 1996; Segerson and Dixon, 1999).

And

When autonomous agronomic adaptation is included, crop modeling assessments indicate, with medium to low confidence⁶, that climate change will lead to generally positive responses at less than a few °C warming and generally negative responses for more than a few °C in mid-latitude crop yields.