Why Farmers Went for Trump

Modern Farmer has a post listing five reasons.

I've lost my memory of how the "waters of the US" issue might relate to swampbuster rules.  I know NRCS, EPA, and Corps of Engineers all get involved.  I also remember in 1991 getting an earful in Kansas about SCS handling of sod/swamp. I assume that's still a sore spot.

History and Jawboning

An excerpt from the Politico tipsheet:

"TRUMP’S AMERICA -- @realDonaldTrump: “I am working hard, even on Thanksgiving, trying to get Carrier A.C. Company to stay in the U.S. (Indiana). MAKING PROGRESS - Will know soon!” … @Carrier: “Carrier has had discussions with the incoming administration and we look forward to working together. Nothing to announce at this time.” … @justinamash (Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, one of the staunchest libertarians in Congress): “Not the president(-elect)’s job. We live in a constitutional republic, not an autocracy. Business-specific meddling shouldn’t be normalized.”
  
I remember JFK and LBJ, both believed in jawboning.  JFK had a famous blowup with a steelmaker, ending with something like:  My father told me businessmen were all SOB's but I didn't believe him until now.  LBJ of course gave the Johnson treatment to everyone, not just business.  

The difference is Trump is jawboning/dealmaking? presumably to help Carrier, where JFK and LBJ were usually IIRC working to keep down inflation and settle strikes.

How the Free Market Works

An article on how prices for chicken are set.  Not so much by the free interplay of supply and demand among willing buyers and willing sellers, but by negotiations between big consumers (supermarkets, fast food chains) and big suppliers (Perdue, Tyson), using a reference price supplied by the Georgia Department of Agriculture.

Sort of reminds me of the scandal over LIBOR, where a handful of bankers collaborated to set rates which didn't reflect reality.

Lesson:  just because something is denominated in money, doesn't mean the market economy is operating.

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.