Have I Lived Too Long

I confess these are two developments I never expected to see:

• a vegan burger from a fast-food chain (as it turns out, more than one such chain). BurgerKing
• a country which buys more electric vehicles than conventional.(Norway, which will in a few years, and they have cold weather, too.)

But I hope to live long enough to see even more surprising things. 

Laws Aren't Self-Executing

My title is, I think, obviously true.  But just to recap:

• some laws are enforced by a bureaucracy, the police or an executive agency which can invoke legal sanctions, fines or imprisonment after due process.
• some laws are enforced by opposing parties which can file civil suits accusing their opposition of violating a legal provision.
• some "laws" are applied by one part of a bureaucracy against the bureaucrats within it

Most laws rely on voluntary compliance; people incorporate their understanding of law and justice into their consciences and abide by it, until it becomes too inconvenient or their understanding of the situation or of law changes.  That means that the bureaucracies and the civil lawsuits mostly serve as backups, at least in most "advanced" countries.

But that leaves a hole--it's difficult to enforce laws on heads of bureaucracies, the top level who set policy and who therefore supervise those who are charged with enforcing the laws.  

We deal with that hole in two ways in the US: 

1. each agency (i.e. cabinet department) has an inspector general who's independent of the heads of the subordinate units  
2. each agency has Congressional committees and the GAO (which works for Congress) with oversight responsibility.  

That still leaves the big hole at the top of the government: enforcing the President's compliance with laws.  This Just Security article discusses a big one--the Presidentiall Records Act.  The Act is part of the overall structure of rules on government records, none of which get much respect.  NARA can try to enforce the rules on the agencies, but as the article discusses there's no way, outside of politics, to ensure the President follows the rules. 

Women, Cows, and Hens

Just skimmed this summary of research on economic history.  A couple paragraphs:

Given the obviously crucial role of endogeneity issues in this debate, we carefully consider the causal nature of the relationship. More specifically, we exploit relatively exogenous variation of (migration adjusted) lactose tolerance and pasture suitability as instrumental variables for female autonomy.
The idea is that a high lactose tolerance increased the demand for dairy farming, whereas similarly, a high share of land suitable for pasture farming allowed more supply. In dairy farming, women traditionally had a strong role; this allowed them to participate substantially in income generation during the late medieval and early modern period (Voigtländer and Voth, 2013).

My translation: women do better with dairy cows than plowing ground for grain, and if women do better, the overall economy does better.

A similar logic could apply to chickens.  You don't need a lot of strength to manage a flock of hens.  The one advantage dairy has over chickens is it's easier to store dairy products--cheese specifically, than it is eggs.

I suspect this may be over-simplified. I vaguely remember that the development of plows which could handle the soils of northwest Europe, soils which were heavier than the soils of southern Europe, was a big deal, at least in history as it was taught 60 years ago.

Reparations: the Booker Plan

Politico has a piece on Cory Booker's townhall..  On reparations he said:

He said he supports reparations for African-Americans who are descendants of slaves, pointing to his baby bond legislation, which would give newborns savings accounts worth tens of thousands of dollars by the time they’re 18 to address the racial wealth gap. 

How does this fit with my previous discussion?

Tne New Yorker had a discussion of the proposal late last year. Apparently the professor Darity who's been pushing reparations has come up with this plan as more politically feasible than reparations.  Notably the plan apparently applies to all infants, regardless of race, but with the money put into the bonds dependent on the family's income.

From the article:

His plan is not as precisely targeted toward people of color as it might be: because the federal government cannot determine the value of the assets held by any given American family, the amount children receive is determined by their parents’ wages, a scale on which black families tend to appear better off than they actually are. Even so, Booker’s staff has calculated that the average white child would accrue about fifteen thousand dollars through the program, and the average black child would gain twenty-nine thousand dollars—making it the largest asset for most black families.

My point in the previous post was there was a tension between apologizing to blacks and redressing their situation.   Booker's plan might be cost-effective in boosting the prospects of infants in low-income families, but it seems to me to lose the emotional impact of reparations.   

I Warned the Trump Administration

DOD faced tough questions on the Hill over funding and the reallocation of money to Trump's border wall.

It's not good to have your committee giving your top officials a hard time.  It's worse to have your appropriators mad at you.

Yes, I'm saying "I told you so".

On Reparations

I find I've never published a post on reparations.  I'm sure I can find some draft posts, particularly commenting on Ta-Nehisi Coates' Atlantic article on the subject.  But that would be work, and I'm lazy.

So here's a brief summary of my views on a complex subject:

• seems to me reparations can be (1) compensation for damages suffered in the past and (2) a symbolic apology for fault in inflicting damages. The apology may carry over to the idea of reconciliation between parties, where there may or may not be any balance of damages inflicted and suffered between or among the parties. I write "and" because I think both apply, in different proportions in different cases. 
• examples of reparations include the payments made to Japanese-Americans who were confined to concentration camps during WWII, payments made by Germany to Jews who survived the Holocaust, perhaps the Pigford payments to African-American, Hispanic, and female farmers,  Reconciliation proceedings have occurred in Rwanda between Hutsi and Tutsi and in South Africa between black natives and white colonists. And, of course, we can't forget the Pigford payments to African-American farmers and the similar payments to Hispanic, female, and Native American farmers.
• as a former bureaucrat I recoil at the prospect of some poor bureaucrats having to work out the rules and administer any program 

When we're talking about possible reparations to African-Americans based on the damages from slavery and past racial bias, it seems to me we're talking symbolic apologies.  Administratively there's some similarity between a program of reparations and  some policy programs, such as a disaster payments program.  In both cases you're looking at what has already happened to determine eligibility  to implement a policy.  The difference in reparations programs is the amount of time that's passed and therefore the evidence which is available to support a claim for payments.

This differs from prospective programs, where the recipient is going to perform some action, install a conservation practice or divert acreage from production as a quid pro quo for the money.

My own feeling is money proposed to be spent as reparations would be more effective devoted to some prospective programs.  The problem I have is, of course, we don't have good data on what programs are effective.  And proposing spending a trillion dollars on Head Start, free college, etc. etc. instead of a trillion dollars to those who can prove descent from an ancestor who lived in America in 1860, for example, doesn't carry the same symbolic energy.

Let's Be Precise

I see the statement that "Mueller didn't find any evidence of collusion" or words to that effect.  We don't know that. With a layman's knowledge of the law I think there are these possible points on the continuum of incriminating evidence:

• no evidence at all, meaning the investigation was launched without solid cause.  (Might have been bias, might have been false evidence, might have been facts which seemed to point one way but actually pointed another.)
• some evidence, but not enough for the prosecutor in the case to take to trial.  (I'm assuming that different prosecutors will be more or less cautious in what they take to trial, or try to get a plea deal.  I note Jerome Corsi was offered a plea deal, which he turned down.  Were the prosecutors bluffing? )
• enough evidence to take to trial.
• enough evidence to convict, given the prosecutors, defense attorneys, jury and judge in the case.

What the Barr memo says is Mueller couldn't get to the third level.

I also note the Barr memo includes the phrase "Russian government".  I assume that allows for possible difficulty in determining whether person X is an agent of the government, directly or indirectly, or is a "cutout" as we know from films and books is often used in spy thrillers.  I'm not clear, however, what difference it makes: there's a crime to conspire with a foreign government but not with foreign individuals?

Mueller Report--Turtle

I see I've never commented on the Mueller operation, so I can't claim any credit for prescience nor do I have to cover up any mistaken predictions.  Just call me "turtle".

The Barr interpretation of obstruction law fascinates me: apparently you need three things: a crime, acts which obstruct justice, and the intent to obstruct.  As of today it's not clear which of the three (one or more) Barr finds missing or not sufficiently supported by the facts as Mueller's presents them.  It might be the crime, it might be that no one lied to FBI agents (as Flynn did), just lied to the public, or it might be everyone in the Trump campaign and administration is so confused they had no clear intent.

I tend to lean towards the idea that all the people involved were babies, new to the political world, and thus experienced things as babies do, in the words of William James, as "blooming, buzzing, confusion."  Thus their collusion with the Russians was accidental, their attempts to cover up things were out of fear of embarrassment, not prosecution, and thus failed on the intent.

We'll see if that's that picture journalists and historians develop as the Mueller report becomes public and more analysis is done.

USDA FPAC Business Center

Time to look again at the FPAC business center:

From the Budget summary for FSA:

Savings will be achieved through a number of streamlining efforts that will reduce the cost of program delivery, while maintaining customer service. These efforts include Headquarters and Field organizational realignment and strategic reductions in staff years throughout FSA. Additionally, reductions in operating expenses and information technology investments will be made. Finally, increased funding will be provided to expand customer self-service for conservation, farm loans and farm programs through a common web portal. This portal, jointly managed by FSA, RMA, and NRCS, would serve as a launch point for farmers and ranchers to apply for programs and access customer information across the mission area.

And for FPAC:

In October 2017, the FPAC Business Center (FBC) was formed to consolidate back-office functions within the newly formed FPAC mission area. FBC will be responsible for financial management, budgeting, human resources, information technology, acquisitions/procurement, customer experience, internal controls, risk management, strategic and annual planning, and other mission-wide activities in support of the customers and employees of FSA, NRCS, and RMA. The FBC will be established in 2018 via a transfer of funding and personnel from FSA, RMA, and NRCS. The FBC will also provide administrative support for the CCC. Accordingly, the 2019 Budget reduces the direct appropriation for FSA, RMA, and NRCS and provides funding directly to the FBC. In addition, FBC would be funded through transfers from ACIF and Farm Bill conservation programs. In 2019, $272.7 million and 1,750 staff years will be available for the FBC. This includes, $131.5 million and 832 staff years from FSA, $17 million and 82 staff years from RMA, and $124.3 million and 836 staff years from NRCS. FBC will be funded by both mandatory and discretionary funds. [Emphasis added]

It looks to me as if the budget proposes to cut FSA personnel by roughly 1,000 (very quick estimate).

I understand the FPAC Business Center is operational, but I'd think the "will be" I underlined above should have read "has been", shouldn't it? 

I'm surprised NASCOE has had no comment on the Business Center.

Alabama Dairy

According to this Alabama has gone from 3,500 dairy farms 60 years ago to 50 now.