Republican Dominance of the Supreme Court

In the wake of this week's Supreme Court decisions, some Republicans/conservatives are bemoaning the Court and its membership. 

I had an idea, but I was surprised to find these facts, from wikipedia:

Years since Democratic appointees were last a majority on the court: 43  (Nixon in 1972 )

Years there were at least 7 Republican appointees on the court: 1976-2012

How Government Really Works-Part LXXIV

The VA is having a bad time.  The auditors just found they had parked money with the Government Printing Office, $43 million in fact.  See Lisa Rein's piece in the Post.

My narrative from the story: Gen. Shinseki gets appointed head of VA by Obama, as a reward for being "right" on Iraq, or at least disputing the number of troops required.  Like most political, and even nonpolitical, heads of agencies, he has some pet ideas.  One such, is that every veteran needs a handbook to explain to him or her what VA benefits are available, how to get, them.  Such a handbook must run to many pages, and the number of veterans is many millions, so the cost of printing the handbooks is also in the millions.  The GPO handles government printing, and charges the agency the cost plus a service fee.

Now since the handbook is the pet idea of the boss, the VA bureaucracy naturally turn to to implement it. So they find the money to print the handbook, and since the contents may change, they plan to redo the process every couple years.  To finance the printing, they transfer money into their account with GPO, to be available when needed.  However, apparently (Rein's not quite clear or maybe the auditors weren't) the bureaucrats forgot about the money, or maybe (more likely IMHO) the people changed and the new people didn't know. 

The points I read into the narrative: the bigshot's pet idea, the eagerness of the bureaucrats to satisfy him. 

I'm a veteran.  I'm also a former bureaucrat.  I'm reasonably comfortable reading prose. I'm likely more able to parse VA text than 95 percent of my fellow veterans. There's no way I'd read a handbook from the VA, at least not since the Internet.  So I think Shinseki's idea, though well-intentioned, was a waste of money in the first place. 

I can imagine the VA bureaucrats being delighted to do it--unlike ideas Shinseki may or may not have had to change VA operations, a handbook is easy to do.  All it requires is money. You please the boss, and look good yourself without the pains of upsetting the boat.

Unfortunately, as a pet idea there's no ongoing organization behind it, so the dollars at GPO get a little lost.

What's Wrong With the Auditors?

The old question, from the Roman poet Juvenal, is:  "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Earlier I posted about the new OIG report on FSA's MIDAS project. I've lost track of all the GAO and OIG reports critical of ASCS/FSA/USDA's automation efforts.  Juvenal's question doesn't quite fit--nowadays it implies some misconduct while my point is directed towards effectiveness.

In other words, given all those audit reports you'd think there would be some improvement over the years, but USDA and its agencies still seem to be ineffective in doing large IT projects.  I wonder why?

Some possibilities:

• IT procurement and development of IT systems keeps getting more complicated, so the bureaucracy's learning curve as embodied in the GAO/OIG reports doesn't gain on the difficulty curve of the projects.
• the USDA bureaucracy is incapable of learning, maybe because the policy officials turnover too fast, there's no insitutional memory, there's lack of ability or training, or something else.
• the auditors give bad advice, either misleading the bureaucracy on how to correct the problems or misidentifying the problems
• Congress fails to do good oversight--using the reports to hold the bureaucrats feet to the fire, or maybe they focus on the wrong issues.
• Congress fails to provide the money to do well
• the President and OMB fail to follow through on the reports
• the IT projects conflict with an outdated orgnaizational structure and culture.

I suspect all of these issues may apply.

The Raisin Decision and Government Supported Cartels

Supreme Court handed down the decision on the raisin reserve case.  As expected, they ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. 

Megan McArdle  and Eugene Volokh fully approve and David Bernstein mostly approves.

Me, I go back Prof. Robin Williams in his survey of American society in 1962.  Then he observed and wrote that there was a growing trend for American government, particularly federal, to do what today we would call "out-sourcing".  At that time he was referring to the quasi-public, quasi-private setups like the Federal Reserve and a bunch of USDA arrangements dating to and before the New Deal.  They'd specifically include the marketing orders and the farmer-elected county committees which at that time had much power in the predecessor agencies of FSA (i.e., Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and Farmers Home Administration). 

The point was that the Feds were delegating some governmental authority to bodies which were privately elected, whether by bankers in the case of the Federal Reserve, or the various USDA committees.  Because it was a sociology course, his was a mostly descriptive description.  The reliance on elections he viewed as a part of the country's general commitment to democracy, both in government and in NGO's (to use today's term again). 

I suspect in the past I've expressed reservations about the case.  It seems to me in this case the Hornes, the plaintiffs, are attempting to free ride.  I go back to the early history, pre-New Deal, in which there were repeated attempts by farmers voluntarily to cut production in order to drive up prices.  Because of "free riding", those attempts always failed, usually rather quickly.

My impression in the case of peanuts is the issue is a bit moot: the "raisin reserve" hasn't been used for 12 years or more and the supply/demand situation seems to have fundamentally changed.  ("This time it's different"). So killing the raisin reserve may be simply a case of weeding an obsolescent idea.   But does the logic of the case stop there?

Mike Morell: The Great War of Our Time

Morell had a long career in the CIA, ending as deputy director, but also serving as the briefer to GWBush during 2001-2 and at high levels in the intelligence side thereafter.

I'm in the midst of the book, which is well-written and reads quickly.

I want to note his apology in the book to Sec Powell for the CIA's failure to supply accurate information when Powell wrote his speech to the UN.  Apologies for error should always be encouraged, and Morell's is good.  He notes a number of failures of analysis on the WMD issue.

OIG on MIDAS

OIG released an audit report on MIDAS last month.

Hat tip to this post from the Capital Press which represents what the media might make of the report.

"The federal government put a man on the moon, but 46 years later it can’t come up with a computer system for the USDA Farm Service Agency.
Such is the plight of the federal government in the 21st century. When it comes to computers, Uncle Sam is — how should we say it — a few bauds short of being online.

May have more thoughts when I read the report.

Astounding Issue: Kill All Carnivores?

From a Vox interview with philosopher Peter Singer:

Dylan Matthews:How do you think about the suffering of animals in the wild? Jeff McMahan has written a few interesting papers and essays implying that the controlled extinction of carnivorous species might be morally necessary, if it's even ecologically possible. Should we care about improving preyed-upon animals' lives, just as we care about animals in captivity?

Peter Singer: I welcome the discussion of that question. I think it's a good thing that people are taking this seriously and looking at it. What I think should be done about it at the moment is that people should keep thinking and talking about it and doing research into it. I don't think at the moment we've got to the point where we know enough about the suffering of wild animals, and I also don't think there's actually much of a constituency there for doing a lot about it at the moment. So I think that the research and discussion thing is where that issue should be at the moment.

IMHO this is an example of how reasoning without confronting opposing views and stubborn facts can lead to ridiculous ideas (I write "ideas" rather than "conclusions" recognizing that Singer applauds only the process, not endorsing the end.)

Remember Ebola?

"“Ebola has crystallized the collapse of trust in state authorities,” columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in The Washington Post. Ron Fournier, writing in National Journal, hit the same theme. “Ebola is a serious threat,” he wrote, “but it’s not the disease that scares me. What scares me is the fact that we can’t trust the institutions that are supposed to deal with such threats, and we can’t trust the men or women who lead them.”

From American Prospect article on government successes.  I'm sure Krauthammer and Fournier now think more highly of the Federal government.

Amazing Fact of the Day--Trump

The Donald is a Presbyterian!

So he says in an article in today's paper.

I've a lot of Presbyterians in my ancestry.  I find this amazing.  The only connection I can make is that both Trump and Presbyterians think they're right.

Small Farmers in the Past

One of the frustrations of dealing with proposals like Mr. Bittman's to create more small farmers is a knowledge of history.  We've been there, done that. Our history shows small farms being consolidated into large farms, small farms going out of production and reverting to trees (see New England and New York), small farms being converted to suburbs.  Our history also shows repeated "back-to-the farm" movements, sometimes with government support, as here. 

My point is, not that small farms are bad, but they have vanished for economic reasons. Unless and until the food movement comes up with structures which change the reasons, small farms are doomed.

Now niche markets will work for some, but they don't represent an "answer" for America, just for a subset of Americans who can afford the tab.