The Iron Triangle: Modern Version

From a USDA press release:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced the availability of $8.4 million in competitive grants to support the work of partner organizations that provide training, outreach and technical assistance for socially disadvantaged, Tribal and Veteran farmers and ranchers. USDA's Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program, also known as the 2501 Program, is administered by the Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO).

In the old days the discussion of the Iron Triangle started with interest groups who had their representatives in Congress and worked with bureaucrats in the appropriate agency.  One classic example was the US Army Engineers: the interest groups were ad hoc organizations at the local level who wanted/needed a port to be dredged, a levee refurbished, a dam built.

The press release shows an updated version: the USDA agency is sponsoring these interest groups/nongovernmental organizations.  I suspect there little or no money going into their support from the individuals who they aim to serve (no dues-paying members).  Rather the funding is coming from charitable foundations and from the government.  While the activity is similar to the old Iron Triangle with each party (Congress, the bureaucracy, the private groups) getting something out of it, in this case one can argue that governmental functions are being out-sourced. It's no longer an educational agency of the government (Extension Service, NRCS, etc) educating; it's an intermediary semi-private "partner organization".

At least in this case there's likely a partisan cast--I doubt President Trump's Secretary of Agriculture would approve such aid.

FBI and Sentinel

I recall writing about the FBI's case management project back in the day.  Apparently they've learned some lessons on how to develop software, that is if one can trust this writeup.

Clinton and Emails

I may have written this before, but Clinton's behavior at State, at least as described in a recent summary of the aide's deposition, makes sense to me.  Bottomline: bigshots don't give a damn about systems and legalities.  It's the job of the bureaucracy around the bigshots to adjust the systems and legalities to what the bigshot wants.  Clinton wasn't going to devote any brain cells to worrying about the security status of what she writes or reads; she was focused on the content.  The exception to this is the initial discussion of the private server and Blackberry.  Then you're expecting a civil service bureaucrat to tell the big boss the rules and how to get around them.  Won't happen with many bureaucrats.

The big mistakes Clinton made was on insisting on a lot of close personal aides (Obama let her have more control over State personnel than is usual) so no one to say nay and on insisting on total control of release of emails. 

The big mistake we the public make is expecting that laws are self-enforcing; they require bureaucrats to say nay.

Translating the DofI Into Biology

Returning to Harari's  Sapiens, he compares the legal code of Hammurabi and the US Declaration of Independence.  One bit of the discussion is translating the opening of the declaration into biological reality.  So "all men are created equal" becomes "all men are evolved with differences".  That allows him to undermine equality, to declare it simply as one of his "imaginary realities", with no objective existence.

It's a cute trick, and thought-provoking, but it's not the only way to look at it.  One could say "all men are members of the same evolutionary species".  Seems to me that would allow one to reestablish an objective basis for an equality, even if it's not exactly the equality we're used to and like.

The Future of Agriculture: Floating Dairies

This makes a nice followup to yesterday's post on wired tomatoes: a floating dairy (in the Netherlands, of course).

The idea here is "circular farming", where manure from the dairy cows is captured and used to grow vegetables.  But the key thing seems to be the availability of open (water) space in an urban area.

Count me skeptical:  one reason is my memory of the flooding the Netherlands suffered back in the 1950's.  The water won't always be calm, and cows like humans can panic.  

The Future of Agriculture: Wired Tomatoes

This post at Technology Review describes the potential for really precision agriculture--essentially applying the "internet of things" to tomato growing in New England.  Did you know New England tomatoes are different than tomatoes grown elsewhere (as in warmer climates)?  There's potential for using technology to monitor growing tomatoes .

I suspect this represents one set of developments in future agriculture, where farmers lose their rednecks (I've got one--from bending over in the garden) by much more intensive use of technology. There will be a further bifurcation of farmers:

So on one hand we'll have the tech-farmers, investing more capital into much more precise control of growth.  I'd count the vertical farmers of leafy greens as other examples.  This agriculture will be seen as much less "natural" than today's.

On the other hand we'll have the artisan farmers, who will be more organic and grow more diverse crops (heirloom tomatoes, etc.)

Women's Work

Interesting post here describing research into "early modern" women's work in England.  Disrupts some stereotypes:

• Cooking wasn't much--a pot of stew on the fireplace to simmer for hours.
• Childcare wasn't much--go about your work and trust the child to stay out of trouble.
• Cleaning and washing weren't much--"cleanliness is next to Godliness" hadn't been invited.

Lot of consideration of market involvement.  Read the whole thing.

SSNs and VA

FCW describes a bill to force the VA to stop using SSN's.  On this weekend I want to pat myself on my back--the SCIMs data design was intended to allow FSA to stop using them, and that was 20 years ago.  I hasten to add that I've no information or confidence that all FSA systems no longer use SSN's, or even that SCIMS doesn't.  The force of inertia and the interweaving of dependencies hard to overcome.

No Cottonseed Loans But Another Cotton Program

AEI has a post criticizing the new cotton program, taking a cynical view of the motivations, as one might expect of them. It reminds me I never posted on the program.

What's the new cotton program?  It's a "one-time" cost-share program to assist in ginning cotton.

You ask: is ginning cotton a new requirement?  I thought cotton had been ginned for a few years.  I even read about Eli Whitney inventing the saw gin in 1797 and how that impacted history. If cotton ginning isn't new, why do cotton producers suddenly need cost-share assistance?

I suggest googling "cottonseed" in this blog--you'll find 3 posts back at the beginning of the year on the issue of adding cottonseed as an oilseed.  The issue then was whether Secretary Vilsack had the authority to do as the cotton producers asked.  He was saying no back in February.  I cynically said lawyers would find a way.  Apparently they didn't find a way to add it as an oilseed; perhaps the years and decades of history was too much. 

But they did find a way to authorize a $300 million program, which was announced mid June.  How?  Damned if I know.  I did a quick check for a Federal Register document, and found a notice, not a rulemaking.  The notice says: "The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(e)) includes authority for CCC to use its general powers to increase the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the development of new and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities."  It goes on to argue the need for the program.

So, I rest my case, my cynical case: put enough pressure on the lawyers and they'll come up with something which sounds halfway reasonable.  As a retired bureaucrat, I can only applaud their chutzpah.  It's not PIK, but it's on that scale.  (Have I written about PIK--someday I must.)

Now if there were anyone really opposed to the program, they might find a favorable Texas district judge to slap an injunction on USDA for not following the Administrative Procedure Act, like the conservatives did on Obama's immigration (actually Jeh Johnson's) measure.  But there's no one opposed to doling out money, not like there is on immigration.  So no court case, only the Brazilians, whose victory over our cotton subsidies is probably ultimately responsible for the new program, might have problems with it.  And since it's one-time, they may not challenge it under WTO.

Given the decimation of Southern Democrats, I'm wondering the political motive for this action.  In the past you could account for favoring cotton because there were people like Sen. Lincoln, or Pryor still in Congress, but now not.  Was there a backroom deal, maybe to get Sen. Cotton to lay off on an appointee?  (I'm sure Sen. Cotton will be happy about this program. :-)

The Brits Do It Better

Wonky bureaucrats often admire Britain and its Civil Service, even to the extent of trying to reform our bureaucracy along its lines.  (See Jimmy Carter's civil service reforms, which created the Senior Executive Service with the dream, so far unrealized after 40+ years, of having the best people identified and moving from agency to agency and department to department as the need arose. In other words, Jimmy wanted to duplicate the Dwight Inks of the world.)

We bureaucrats and pundits forget the differences in the societies of the two nations, and the structural differences of our governments.  Nonetheless, when I see this report from FCW, I can't resist being envious.

"British citizens can access tax, pension and drivers licensing information through a single, secure login called GOV.UK Verify. The system is set to exit a public beta and go live the week of May 23."

The UK hasn't progressed as far as Estonia, but they're way ahead of the US.