Should I Apologize?

 Reading comments in the FSA Employees Group in Facebook. One noted the proliferation of programs, arguing that Congress should restrain itself.  

One of the things I tried to do during my time on the program side was to make things more efficient, particularly on the software side.  I also got involved in crash efforts when Congress or the administration came up with new programs (1983 payment-in-kind and 1986 disaster I remember particularly). I think I was reasonably successful, so why might I need to apologize?

Isn't there a parable of the  beast of burden which is always able to handle the loads which it's given, until one day the master adds the last straw? (Can't find it in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_that_broke_the_camel%27s_back, but it seems as if there should be one.)

My point: I was just part of a long tradition in AAA/ASCS/FSA of employees taking pride in implementing programs quickly, which created a reputation among policy makers, which led to more and more programs. 

To some extent this is democratic policy making--IRS, SBA, etc. had similar problems in responding to the economic impact of the pandemic. 

But the reality is if we had been screwing up programs in the 1980s and 90s, the employees today won't be overloaded. 

We Need More CoDels

 Politico has a post on the unseen advantages of "Codels"--Congressional delegations visiting foreign countries. Because there's lots of travel time, and less actual meeting time, a codel throws the members together in a non-political environment, allowing them to experience each other as humans, not stereotypes.

A codel also has the advantage of seeming to be work; it doesn't seem to be a vacation or a boondoggle (at least sometimes).  

So maybe some foundation should sponsor domestic codels.

Pigford Case Resolved

 Don't know if I've blogged on this part of the Pigford case before, but here's a case which ends in pleas of guilty by four of the six defendants.

Ukraine-Russia--Siloes Everywhere

  A quote from an assessment of the conflict: 

One challenge here is that NATO standardisation is not very standardised, with different countries’ howitzers not only having completely different maintenance requirements but also using different charges, fuses and sometimes shells.

The old story 

USDA Budget Baseline

 I found this table in the CRS report on farm bill basics interesting: 

What jumps out is the huge increase in the baseline for nutrition programs. 

Douglass on USA Mission

Frederick Douglass had a speech on the US, partially focused on Chinese immigration during a time when that was a big thing.  

Our geographical position, our relation to the outside world, our fundamental principles of government, world-embracing in their scope and character, our vast resources, requiring all manner of labor to develop them, and our already existing composite population, all conspire to one grand end, and that is, to make us the perfect national illustration of the unity and dignity of the human family that the world has ever seen.

That's a vision of America I can endorse.  It's backed by this Bloomberg interview about immigration. 

Hutchinson on Declaration

Boston 1775 has a post on Hutchinson's view of the Declaration. Denies that the thirteen colonies constitute a "people" and points to the conflict between "life, liberty, pursuit.." and slavery.  

So the founders hypocrisy was apparent early (and to themselves, given the rapid progress of gradual emancipation in the northern colonies by 1790). 

It's interesting though that he thinks there are 100,000 slaves. (The 1790 census showed about 700,000.)  

Proud To Be an American

 In response to a tweet by Will Hurd:

I understand and appreciate why 72% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track, but despite this pessimism what is one reason why you are thankful to be an American?

— Will Hurd (@WillHurd) July 4, 2022

Lots of people from all over want to come here, and most find it good enough to stay and live.

— Bill Harshaw (@BillHarshaw) July 4, 2022

Is the popularity of the country sufficient reason to be proud?  YES.  

It's an objective measure of the value of the country. It's one which both conservatives and liberals, the far right and far left ought to be able to embrace. 

Mainline Christianity--Membership Versus Affiliation

 

My curiosity was triggered by this tweet:

In fact, the only denomination among whites that has increased recently is "mainline Protestant," which is decidedly liberal on abortion. The decline of "evangelical Protestant" - especially compared to other sects - since 2006 is very noticeable. pic.twitter.com/XUxdJa4VV0

— Aaron Astor (@AstorAaron) July 3, 2022

So I did a little looking at Wikipedia.   It seems Pew did surveys in 2014 and 2020 of individuals, asking their affiliations.  And the survey does show an increase between those years, with 16.4 percent being members of mainline Protestant churches (Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ).  But in 2010 a survey of denominations for their membership showed 7.3 percent.

That's quite a gap. 

The To and Fro of Government and Private

 Much of what government,at least American government, does is to take over what private initiative has started and make it more uniform, more universal.

For example, roads--many of our roads started as Indian trails, simply because of the influence of geography. Colonies did some roads, private initiative did other roads ("turnpikes" as I was taught), eventually governments took over almost all roads, except for driveways.  That was mostly true through the 20th century; now private enterprise is building roads again, toll roads.

Another example is redlining.  The simple version is that the New Deal's agency to provide mortgages for housing and distressed homeowners divided cities into two areas: those where no mortgages would be supported and those where mortgages were available.  The redlined areas were black, the others were white. That's drastically oversimplified, as McWhorter describes in this Times piece.

The reality is that bankers were always deciding who could get a mortgage and who couldn't.  As their volume increased, they simplified their decision making by generalizing to areas.  When the Feds got involved, they further generalized the process.  

See this piece by Colin Gordon in Dissent.