Ignorance in Congress

" I can say that it’s actually quite common for members of Congress to have no idea what they’re talking about."

A quote from Matt Yglesias in his post apologizing to Gov. Pence for being too hard on him. 

When new to DC Matt was amazed that Pence didn't understand "moral hazard" back in 2005 debates on SS privatization.  Since then he's learned his lesson, Congress doesn't do policy well.  

His piece is a good read on the structural problems with Congress.

1968? Not Even Close

I lived through 1968, walked through the riot in DC following MLK's assassination, watched the anti-Vietnam protests, got mugged at the local Safeway, had my car broken into in the garage of my apartment building, mourned RFK's assassination, and finally voted for Hubert Humphrey.

There's really no comparison between 1968 and now.

A Great Cornellian Sees Light

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has the text of a letter by E.B.White written in 1973.

Trust me, I knew that time period, I lived through that time period, our times are much better and getting more so.

Astyk and Black Men

Been a couple years since I linked to Sharon Astyk's blog, which it seems she only updates a couple times a year now.  Anyhow, here she muses on current events (the adoption of her foster kids went through BTW).

Astyk's an example of how a person can be wrong on one issue and right on others.

Dodge City and Marshal Dillon

" The school-age population of Dodge City is 70 to 80 percent non-white, mainly Latino." That's from James Fallows writing about the impact of immigration to work in meat-packing plants in western Kansas.

Funny, I was thinking about Dodge City, which I've never visited, but I've spent many hours there. I was born early enough that we only had radio for entertainment, so the late 40's and early 50's I'd come home from school and listen to radio, also on the weekends.  I remember fondly "what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows", Sergeant Preston, Amos 'n Andy (I still think it was better than its historical reputation.  Around supper time there was "Our Miss Brooks" (an early feminist serial, IMHO, and One Man's Family.

But in 1952 Gunsmoke came on the air and quickly became a favorite.  Then late in the 50's we got TV and could see Matt Dillon, Kitty, Doc, Chester, and the others.  I recommend the wikipedia entry; the show was both very popular (the longest running show) and sometimes very liberal.  I wonder what today's historians are making of it.

Of course the Dodge City of Gunsmoke was different than the Dodge City of the 1880's, and different than today's Dodge City.  Things change.

Oh, and Marshal Dillon: he believed in strict gun control, no guns in town.

Funny on Trump

Too long for twitter:

"A New Verb in Mexico: Trumpear (From ‘to Punch’) http://nyti.ms/28MiEUv
In the state of Chihuahua in Mexico, an eatery is churning out Donald Trump tacos. They’re made with a lot of tongue, a dash of pig snout and just a little bit of cow brain."

I think too perfect to be true, but funny nonetheless.

Three Female Heads of Government?

This possibility was mentioned in a Washington Post piece on June 30. With Angela Merkel head of German government, Hillary Clinton currently favored to be elected president, and Theresa May the frontrunner for UK prime minister, we could see it happen.  Interesting to speculate on the impact on the dynamics of G-7, G-8, G-20, etc. etc. meetings which typically these days just have Merkel surrounded by business suits.

In this context I recall an article on Sen. Mikulski, who organized a weekly/monthly? luncheon for female senators which was credited with helping them to assume a greater role in the Senate. (IIRC she was an early, maybe the first elected female senator in the current era.  Just checked wikipedia--I thought maybe I was slighting Nancy Kassebaum (KS) and I was.  She and Hawkins were the female senators present when Mikulski was elected.)

Assuming it happens, I predict there will be multiple articles on the issue of how a common gender has affected the dynamics of the group.

[Corrected: Paula Hawkins served only one term, ending on the day Mikulski was sworn in.  So it was a bipartisan club of two from 1987 to 1992.]

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.