Show Me a Hero

That's the name of David Simon's last TV series,covering a few years in Yonkers, NY fight over the location of public housing. It's a tragedy.  In a related development, the Trump administration has abandoned a long-running dispute with Westchester County, which includes Yonkers, over the same issue.

Politics and the Grim Reaper

The last few days of drama over "repeal and replace" has shown the importance of individual senators, and the McCain operation has perhaps reminded people that death awaits us all.

As a morbid thought, suppose a Republican senator dies this month--how does that change political calculations?  Or suppose it's a Democratic senator, they have some old ones too? Or to really go for broke, suppose there's an accident which takes out two or three senators? 

[Note: this was written before announcement of Sen. McCain's cancer.]

[Added: note that Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) goes on trial later this year and Gov. Christie could appoint a successor.]

Last Chance to Comment

 FSA is nearing the end of its comment period on a "generic clearance for collection of qualitative feedback on agency service delivery."  I'm skeptical of this whole clearance process--it's nice in theory but I suspect there's few or no comments, so it's just a paperwork exercise.  To make it more meaningful, in this case, they should include an example or two of what they're talking about.



From the Federal Register:
"Summary

As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA) has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

Dates

Comments must be submitted by July 21, 2017.

Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.
Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
The Agency received one comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the Federal Register of April 4, 2017 (82 FR 16338). The comment was not related to this information collection.

The Decline of Widowhood

Flowing Data has a set of four graphs showing the ages/prevalence over the last hundred years of "singlehood", marriage, divorce, and widowhood.  We know that marriage rates have decreased and divorce has increased, but what we fail to consider is that widowhood has also decreased.

"The Olds"

Ran across a phrase in the Post this morning: "the olds".  It's the "s" which makes it different; not sure why, maybe someday a language person will explain.

Anyhow, ran a google search, and found the Post has an explanation and a quiz.

As one of the commenters on the piece/quiz says: "I am an old. I do not object. More of these questions should have included the option "I have no idea what this means" so that I could have qualified as "super-old."

The explanation: "In popular Internet parlance, "the olds" are essentially people who don't quite get "it," whatever "it" may be: the funniest meme, the latest Internet slang, the fact that you shouldn't comment on your child's every Facebook post. It's less about age, and more about digital zeitgeist."

The LUCkies

Paul Campos suggests the "lower upper class" is a better term than "upper middle class". I agree. I don't see anyone admitting to being upper class, but it's ridiculous that all the lawyers, doctors, CEO's, and entertainers in the top 5 percent are still considered middle class. I've created the acronym, based on my view that a lot is luck.

From his post, these are the percentiles and household income for my LUCkies, household income:


95th 215,000
99th 400,000
99.9th 1,117,000

Hoarding, Old and New

I've some hoarding tendencies--it's hard to throw stuff away, physical stuff that is.

But I, like the author of this jstor.org piece, believe in hoarding browser tabs.  I use both Firefox and Chrome, and have lots of tabs open in each, enough so that I fairly often crash Firefox.   I don't have the patience now to study the piece thoroughly, but I know it's got good stuff in it, so I'll just keep it in a separate tab, along with all the other good stuff I've yet to study.

USDA Screws Up Organic Food?

That's the thrust of a Washington Post piece  on a hearing by Senate Ag:

“It seems that uncertainty and dysfunction have overtaken the National Organic Standards Board and the regulations associated with the National Organic Program,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the committee, said in his opening remarks. “These problems create an unreliable regulatory environment and prevent farmers that choose organic from utilizing advancements in technology and operating their business in an efficient and effective manner. Simply put, this hurts our producers and economies in rural America.”

I Don't Understand Insurance: Obamacare and Crop Insurance

From a Politico story on the improving profit picture for insurers in Obamacare markets:

Insurers in the Obamacare marketplaces spent 75 percent of premiums on medical claims in this year's first quarter, an indication the market is stabilizing and insurers are regaining profitability, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study released this week. By comparison, in the prior two years, insurers spent more than 85 percent of premiums on medical costs during the same period, which translated into huge losses.

Insurers lose money when they spend 85 percent on medical costs? That means to me their administrative costs are 15 percent.  I'm no expert on crop insurance, but I think USDA doesn't support 15 percent in administrative costs.

Did a quick google search and found this CBO analysis of a proposal:

"This option would reduce the federal government’s subsidy to 40 percent of the crop insurance premiums, on average. In addition, it would limit the federal reimbursement to crop insurance companies for administrative expenses to 9.25 percent of estimated premiums (or to an average of $915 million each year from 2015 through 2023) and limit the rate of return on investment for those companies to 12 percent each year.b [emphasis added]

 My personal opinion is that 9.25 percent is still too high, at least that FSA could administer an insurance program at less cost, given a reasonable time and resources to gain expertise.

Good Luck, Qatar

The conflict between Qatar and the Arab states has included cutting off Qatar's supply of dairy products.  Qatar, having bunches of money, is now importing 4,000 cows to partially fill the gap, according to this piece.

I wish them well, but that's a more complex job than might appear:

• does Qatar have air conditioned barns for 4,000 cows--temps there are rather hot.
• does they have feed on hand for that many cows, and a supply chain to back it up.  Cows eat, every day, much of the day.
• do they have manure disposal facilities.  Cows defecate and urinate, every day, much of the day.
• do they have milking facilities and people to operate them?  Cows produce milk, every day.  Every day, that is, unless their routine is disrupted and maybe milkings are skipped--that can cut production quite a bit.
• do they have milk processing plants. Milk spoils unless refrigerated, and doesn't have a long shelf life.

The point, of course, is like most things, it's more complex than an outsider would assume.

But as I say, I wish them well, and hope the Qatari PETA is not on their case.