Happy Thanksgiving

To all.  Thankful for all the progress the world has made during my lifetime, despite the setbacks along the way. 


Also thankful for a body and mind not too much diminished by age, so I anticipate the events of the next 4 years with interest.

How To Evade Trump's Two for One Regulation Cut

One of Trump's promises is "so important" in his words--the idea of eliminating two regulations for every new one.  In my words, so stupid.

First, there's a lot of definitions to be written:

• what's "new"? Is it a brand new subject area--would all the regulations issued to implement ACA be considered "new"?  Trump's not proposing many new programs, so that would cut the impact.  But he does have to implement his infrastructure bank and his replacement of ACA and..  Or when FSA issues new regulations or revises old regulations to implement the new farm bill, will those be considered "new"?  That definition would greatly expand the impact. What is the distinction between substantive newness and editorial newness?
• who's the actor, at what level will the balancing have to be done?  In the case of USDA, is it at the agency level, FSA? How are cross-agency regs handled (like sodbuster/swampbuster applying both to ASCS and SCS)? Or will it be USDA as a whole?  Or maybe the government as a whole?
• who's the enforcer?  Obviously if it's the government as a whole, then only OMB's regulatory shop can enforce, but if it's at a lower level you could also delegate the enforcement responsibility.  But with delegation comes discretion to interpret the rules.
• when does a document become a regulation?  Is it when the final rule is published, or do you have to be identifying the regs to be eliminated back in the proposed rulemaking document? Or can you publish a final rule Z with the promise that reg X and Y are being eliminated?  
• finally, what is a "regulation"?  Are we focused on the paperwork or the legal substance?  The two are not the same--one document may cover several parts (a "part" is a subdivision of the Code of Federal Regulations, representing some legal substance) or only a subpart or subsection of a part.  Or will the definition limit the applicability to "significant" regulations, the ones exceeding $100 million in impact (a threshold which has never been adjusted for inflation)?

Once you tell me how these definitions are written, then it's child's play to lay out a plan to game the system to do what needs to be done. 

Our Heroes: Cowboys Versus Superheroes

Just saw "Dr. Strange", which was only redeemed by Mr. Cumberbatch and some humor. I think it counts as maybe the only superhero movie we've seen.  Got to thinking: back in the day our heroes were in Westerns.  They stood out because of courage and usually moral status and being fast on the draw.  Children, boys at least, could aspire to that status.

I don't know what lessons or models our modern superheroes present for children.


(My, I sound like an old fogey.)

My Alternative for the Hamilton Cast

Much discussion about Pence's attendance at the Hamilton musical performance, some boos from the audience and a post-show statement from the cast.  My position:  no big deal, I wouldn't have done either, but it's within the realm of civil society.  But it is a bit too self-righteous for my taste.

I'd rather have seen the statement after the show say something like: " the cast members in the spirit of supporting diversity....blah blah.. in today's world, are donating their pay for the night to [some charity]."  That would have been a stronger statement IMHO.

The Romantic Virtues of Dirt

The NYTimes had an article on the definition of "organic": specifically can vegetables grown through hydroponics be considered "organic"?  There's different views, particularly the big hydroponic growers who can get premium prices for their hothouse produce as compared to the dirt based organics.

Back in the day there would have been no question:  the organic movement had IMHO a romantic view of the virtues of dirt: there was a magic in the dirt, perhaps embodied in the bacteria and organisms present in natural soil, soil which had not been denaturalized by the repeated applications of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.  (Though back in the 1950's it was mostly fertilizers, not so much herbicides and pesticides.)  The organic people had a faith in nature, usually "Nature", that exceeded their faith in man.  It's partly the old top-down, bottom-up dichotomy.  If you believe in human reason you think people can figure out anything and then improve on what's developed from the past.  If you have a less strong belief, either in the strength of reason or in current development of understanding of natural phenomena, or if you want to avoid the work of understanding, you trust in nature.

I see a similar dichotomy in the controversies over GMO's or the precautionary principle.  I'd generally expect the Trump USDA to go with the hydroponics people, but maybe I'm just using the stereotype of Republicans favoring business people.

Too Much Fear, Too Little Calm

My title could apply to many things, including the current agita over the Trump administration to be.

I want to note the election, specifically the lack of major problems at the polling place, as reported by this ProPublica blog post. All the fears of intimidation at the polls, etc. weren't borne out.  People have the ability to work themselves into a lather (a metaphor dating back to the horse age) over things which don't come true.

The reality is that Trump and his people will make mistakes, do some bad things, do some good things, and often kick the ball down the street.  They may well be as bad for the country as were Nixon and Reagan, but maybe not.  We'll see. 

Harry Potter and Bureaucracy

Any bureaucrat who's a fan of Harry Potter knows he's also a bit masochistic (the bureaucrat, not Harry).  Here's an old essay which makes that point, several times.

The Benefits of Immigrants

Andrew Gelman writes about attitudes to Hungarian refugees in 1958.  I commented

One of the lesser contributions of immigrants to American culture is the soccer-style field goal kick. Yes, before 1959 all field goal kickers kicked straight on. It was Pete Gogolak and his brother Charlie who brought soccer-style kicking to the college level (Cornell for Pete), and then to the pros. They were Hungarian refugees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Gogolak

An example of how we all benefit from the interchange of people and ideas.

I Was Wrong, Again

Sometime recently I believe I blogged about the difficulty in undoing regulations which had been finalized after the rule-making process.  The idea was, and is, that an agency needs to go back through the rule-making process in order to revoke a reg, a process which takes a while and can, in controversial cases, result in lots of comments to respond to.

That's still the case, but I'd forgotten Newt's baby, which is briefly referenced in this post.
It's the Congressional Review Act, part of Gingrich's Contract with America, which allows simple majorities in both Houses to nullify major regulations within 60 legislative days of promulgation. With divided government it hasn't been used, hence my forgetting about it.  Twill be interesting to see how many of the candidates the Republican Congress actually nullifies.  My bet is a minority, perhaps a small minority, unless some wiseass packages a number into one legislative act.

Spikes in Homicides and Traffic Deaths

Peter Moskos picks up on the same thing I did.  The only difference is he wrote about it: the increases in traffic deaths and homicides are roughly the same percentages, but the Times minimized one and not the other.

Not good, NYT, not good.