Why So Many Different Government Programs--Tom Davis

From a Government Executive piece on a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis, who for a short while represented me in the House testified:

But the committee's former chairman added Congress itself deserves much of the blame for redundant programs. He noted that the need for a particular service often arises out of jurisdictional greed.
For example, if a member of the Education and Workforce Committee wants to enact a job training program, he or she will write the legislation to ensure it falls under an agency in that committee's purview, Davis said. The same philosophy could then hold true for members of Veterans Affairs and Financial Services committees, who establish similar programs under the jurisdiction of their own panels.
"Under this arrangement, they are all funded differently, measured differently and administered differently," Davis said. "Common sense suggests they should be combined to take advantage of economies of scale, or even just to make it easier for citizens to know these programs exist. We can blame the bureaucracy, but in many ways Congress created the many-headed monster we bemoan in an attempt to protect its jurisdictional prerogatives."

See my earlier post.

E. Klein Funny Sentence

In the first paragraph of a post explaining why he won't see The Adjustment Bureau:
"But I can't believe in guys in suits with the ability to plan things."

The whole piece is worth reading, although it's mostly focused on Congress and the President, not the bureaucracy.

Why So Many Different Government Programs?

GAO has a report out this week outlining duplication in programs among different government agencies.  They find lots of duplication.  I seem to remember similar concerns back in the Nixon and Reagan administrations; one of the reasons for replacing programs with block grants, which Reagan tried to do, was to eliminate such duplication. 

Why do we have such duplication?  There's no doubt good and necessary reasons for the programs, but I'd suggest one reason is human ego.  Consider a politician, a Congressperson politician. Consider an activist.  Now imagine a " need" for government action, and ask the activist to work for such action and the politician to pass a law implementing such action.  I put "need" in quotes to recognize the word is just a placeholder for different categorizations according to the political philosophy of the onlooker.

The activist and politician face an immediate strategic choice:

• do they identify the existing government program and agency which is most closely related to the "need" and try to modify and enhance the program and agency accordingly?
• do they create a new program to be assigned to an existing agency?
• do they create a new agency to handle the new program?

Now consider the incentives they face. If they go with the new program, they can design from scratch, without having to research what lessons may have been learned by the existing bureaucrats running the existing program. Research takes time and energy; any self-respecting "need" requires immediate action.  Furthermore, there are likely other politicians, activists, and bureaucrats already associated with the existing programs who may not like the idea of "Johnny-come-latelies" trying to modify something they're proud of.  And remember money.  More money will be required for the additional government action.

All things considered, it will be easier for the activist and the politician to go with a separate program, preferably labeled in honor of the pol.  Politicians don't campaign on improving existing programs; they campaign on creating new ones or shutting old ones down. That's the way our government works.

US as Scapegoat

We seem to be fulfilling our destiny: every nation has a destiny and ours is to become a scapegoat whenever dueling parties within a country (i.e., Muslim pols and secular pols) amp up the heat.  That's my takeaway from this study.  Remembering the  politics of what we used to call the "Third World", I can well believe it.  Nehru and Sukarno, the leaders of the third world, used to beat up on the U.S. regularly.

Afghanistan

I recommend this article in the Post focused on the now deceased son of Lt. Gen. Kelly.

Reducing Payment Acreage

This bit from Farm Policy raises a possibility I missed earlier: reducing payment acreage.

“Congress may also wish to consider reducing the portion of a farm’s acres eligible for direct payments. In 2009, GAO reported that reducing the portion of eligible acres to 80 percent from 83.3 percent might save millions of dollars annually. Further reducing the portion of eligible acres to 75 percent could save millions more each year. Such an across-the­ board reduction would affect all recipients. Moreover, Congress may wish to consider terminating the payments. Some agriculture organizations, including the National Farmers Union and the Iowa Farm Bureau, have recommended phasing out or terminating the payments altogether and using the savings to bolster other farm programs.”

This would perpetuate a device Congress first use way back in history: achieving budget savings by reducing the payment acreage and/or payment yield formulas.  Instead of being obvious what they're doing, they do it the sneaky way.  Never underestimate the capacity of a politician to be sneaky.
 

401k for Governments

The Times has an article on states looking to 401K type defined contribution plans [employee kicks in a percentage of pay, employer may match part or all of it, retiree gets back the results of investing the contributions, good or bad]. I assumed, as usual wrongly, that most states had gone to defined contribution plans decades ago.

Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers union is widely remembered.  What's less remembered is the redo of the federal retirement system.  Old timers, like me, are under the Civil Service retirement system, a defined benefit system [annuities are based on length of service and salary] with no social security.  During Reagan's time (1986) new employees were put on a three level system: social security, a smallish federal defined benefit annuity, and a 401K type investment plan, with matching from the government. Unlike social security, the government doesn't have a pension fund to cover my civil service annuity or the FERS annuity; those payments come out of the yearly budget. As it turns out, what I first wrote was wrong. I decided to do a little more research before posting and found this link, which explains the unfunded government liability for CSR annuities will rise to about 850 billion dollars in 2030. But the actuaries say that's okay.

The change was better for the government and employees got more flexibility through the 401k/TSP plan, though they assumed some risk.

From the Times article it seems many states are still where the Feds were before 1986.  I'm not clear whether the state pensions are indexed for inflation, which the CSR annuities. 

Pigford Is an Urban Legend?

Snopes.com has a post on Pigford, linking to the Congressional Research Service's report.

Army Chow Has Changed Since 1966

Matt Yglesias passes on a Slate piece on the military's food program.  Turns out today's recruits have choices
in what they eat. The modern generation is spoiled, spoiled, spoiled.

How Great We Are

Apparently, in addition to being the, or one of the, wealthiest county in the country, we also are healthy, according to this piece in the Reston Patch. The discussion is actually based on Congressional districts, not counties, but it's much the same.  Joe Moran's district includes the Dems closer to the Potomac as well as Reston. According to the map, I should have a few more good years before I kick the bucket, which is nice to know.

Extension.org Goes Piggy

The RSS feed at extension.org has been going wild over the past few days; I'd guess 2-300 posts on hogs, mostly in a QandA format.  Here's their answer to the question:

Why have pork production units become larger and the industry become more vertically integrated?

from eXtension by Contributors

Economies of size resulting in higher profits ? through purchasing inputs cheaper and reducing marketing risk (through contractts), more efficient use of resources, greater access to capital, specialization of labor.

The same reasons can be used for the increase in average size of farms for many crops.

Farm Programs Leave a Twisting Trail

Over the years farm programs have left their mark in many unexpected places.  For example, the price support programs in the 1950's accumulated a big pile of surplus commodities, much of which were sent overseas under the PL480 program.  Under part of the program, instead of being donated commodities were sold for the local currency, such as rupees. The accumulated rupees built up in US government accounts, and were used for various purposes, including one described in this Chapati Mystery post. accumulating research materials.

RD Takes a Hit

Rural Development loses $29 million in broadband funds in the 2-week Republican/Democrat budget deal. What's worse is the implicit criticism from both sides of the agency's capabilities.

Funny Paragraph of Feb 28

Megan McArdle scores, in an aside in her generally skeptical post about the Rolling Stone article on the military psy-ops in Afghanistan directed towards Congress:

[On a side note: really?  Someone in the military thought they needed secret psychological techniques to wrest more money for the military from John McCain?  This is like embarking on a course of anabolic steroids in order to prepare for taking candy from a baby.  But I digress.]

UK Versus US Government

Don't remember to whom I owe a hat tip, but this provides an overview of how social policy is administered in the UK.  A couple excerpts:

Local authorities are forbidden by law to do anything which is not expressly permitted by Parliament; local authorities which want to undertake any special initative need to promote a private Act of Parliament

Despite the existence of a "council tax", local government has very limited discretion in its ability to raise money, and it is not permitted to exceed central government limits. Loans cannot be taken without express sanction. Central governments can make the availability of grants conditional on compliance with their policy.

Compare this to our federal system and we see once again how weak our government really is.

How Do You Know a Blogger Is Far Gone

When he writes something like this:

"I CAN’T STOP MYSELF:  I subscribe to all the NASS California Crop Reports.  I love these, mostly because they read like poetry.

His real reason is the eminently logical one: statistics gives him a basis in reality, unlike the ephemera of the media.  And who is he: a very good blogger on water issues in California, water which grows much of our fruits and vegetables.

USDA IT a Big Loser

According to this post at Gov Loop,  the Obama administration's drive to consolidate federal data centers has one of its biggest targets in USDA, going from 46 data centers now to 5 in the future. (Only DHS has a bigger percentage drop.)  The large number of data centers is a reflection of the decentralized nature of the department, which I've referred to in the past.  The history of USDA is the development of individual agencies, each doing business its own way, and each resisting efforts by the departmental offices to consolidate. 

When I joined ASCS, we had data processing centers in New Orleans, Kansas City, and Minneapolis. In the 70's the department took over the mainframes and the Minneapolis office was closed.  But today, FSA uses centers in New Orleans, Kansas City, and St. Louis, having picked up the latter from the 1994 reorg with FmHA.  I say "uses", because the centers are run by the department, though last I knew FSA had programmers in both KC and St. Louis.  Congresspeople tend to resist closures, so whether the new Tea Partiers can overcome that chauvinism and the Obama administration can enforce its ideas will be interesting.

Announcement on Women/Hispanic Claims of Discrimination

Vilsack announcement.  Ironically, Firefox tells me the http://www.farmersclaims.gov site is untrusted. The link is now working.

Big Versus Small Farmers

Even in the UK there's tension between big farmers and small farmers.  See this post from Musings of a Stonehead on the position, as he sees it, of the National Farmers Union in the UK.  (Also see the sunset photos and the Victor Hugo poetry of the preceding post.) 

It's the old story: if government regulations apply equally to everyone, the burden is greater for the small producers and therefore the big guys get a competitive advantage.  If they don't apply at all, the little guys get the advantage.

What I Don't Understand About Crop Insurance

This quote:

For quite a few years, GRIP has had a good grip on many farmers.  It is a crop insurance policy that is easy to deal with, and it usually pays, despite how good of a crop you had.  GRIP is the Group Risk Income Policy that is based on county averages, and if calculated revenue was below the projection at the early part of the year, GRIP policy holders would get an indemnity check.

What I don't understand--how can an insurance company make a profit on a policy which "usually pays off".  

Google Goes After Farming

Just what farmers need, the world's biggest search engine going against them.  (Turns out it's something called "content farms", I've tried wikipedia but I can't figure out whether "content" is a field crop, fruit or veggie, or some kind of livestock.

It's Called Catch-22

If you insist on time to read about the issue on which you're voting, you get bad press. If you vote without having time to read all the pages, you get bad press (as when the Dems last year were criticized for voting on healthcare reform without reading the bill.)

The Sound of Bloggers

That is, chewing the cud, which fits someone who grew up on a dairy farm.

Confounding Stereotypes

At the back of our minds, I suspect many liberals believe some of the opposition to President Obama is based on race.  That's why this Nate Silver post this morning is surprising.  It seems when you compare his 2008 vote percentages by state with 2010 poll percentages by state Obama has gained in the deep South and has lost less in the Plains states.  In other words, the nation is less divided in their opinions of him.  Presumably he's surprised some (a few) in those states by outperforming their expectations, which were low, and disappointed his most fervent supporters by being more centrist and less the prophet of change.

Sectional Politics and Partisan Politics

A reminder: not all politics is national and partisan, or local.  Some is sectional, as this quote from Farm Policy shows:

“U.S. agriculture — and particularly southern agriculture — faces perhaps the most daunting challenge in decades to get its message before Congress and the administration, says Chip Morgan, executive vice president of the Delta Council at Stoneville, Miss.
“With the crafting of the 2012 farm bill in the hands of predominantly non-southern House and Senate Agriculture Committee members, many of them brand new to Congress, ‘our challenge is to make a concentrated effort to educate the new members about the importance of agriculture and to emphasize to them that one policy may not fit all segments of agriculture,’ he said at the annual meeting of the Mississippi Rice Council at Cleveland, Miss.”

 Southern ag doesn't believe as strongly in crop insurance, and dislikes much more strongly payment limitations.  My generalization, for what it's worth: southern crops like rice and cotton are higher in value per acre, and southern agriculture still feels the effects of the way the land was originally settled.  Used to be AAA/ASCS had an administrator from corn/hog country and an associate administrator from cotton/rice country, or vice versa.  Both sides had to be represented.

On the Universality of Murphy's Law

Tom Ricks quotes from another blogger, applying Murphy's Law to determine which person in a company will make first contact with the enemy.

On Globalization

Two straws in the wind:

John Kelly is a local columnist for the Washington Post.  His wife is now working in the Netherlands, so he's writing about the problems of having a bi-continental marriage, and attracting correspondence from others who have to deal with the same problems. His daughter is also college-hunting, including UK universities.

Apparently people from 47 countries have ordered pizza from Madison WI pizzerias to feed the demonstrators.

Remembering back to the post WWII era, I'm amazed.

Unions and Public Employees: Federal Versus Wisconsin

I follow Kevin Drum in my general attitude to unions: they're a necessary part of the republic, but they have their problems like other parts of the republic.  I was in management when ASCS employees in DC voted in a union. Managers got some orientation on how to deal with the union.  The bottom line seemed to be: do what you should have been doing all along.  That is, document poor performance, consult with employees on what you're doing, etc.

Of course, federal employees can't use unions to bargain over pay.  I've forgotten most of what I once knew about the laws and regulations.  It seems, though, Wisconsin employee unions could bargain over wages. So in one sense, what Gov. Walker is working for is to make those unions as powerless as federal unions, not that that's very obvious from the discussion.  The big difference I can see is the requirement about voting for the union every year.  That's really critical.  I suspect the reality of unions, as for other institutions, is many members lose enthusiasm after time.  So inertia takes over.  People go with what's easiest.

CSpan Program

Frank Sesnos hosted a program at GWU with Ari Fleischer, Dana Perino, Mike McCurry, and Dee Dee Myers which is here. I recommend it: lively, friendly, informative, idealistic.  (All four said things will be better in the future.)  Perino noted no one is delivering the NYTimes to her grandfather's ranch in Wyoming, but now he can get it online.  I guess he, unlike some other residents of rural areas, has broadband access.  But that's nitpicking--the program was a good way to decompress from a day where my sacred routine was disrupted. Perino said, and the others agreed, Washington is not as partisan a town as it comes across in the media.

The Power of Bureaucrats in a Parliamentary System

A sentence buried in a discussion of French agriculture at blog on the EU's Common Agricultural Policy:

"Many traditional farmers had turned against the Sarkozy government, when Michel Barnier (then minister of agriculture) reallocated some €1.4 billion Single Farm Payments to extensive grazing under the Health Check provisions.

Think what effort it takes for our government to reallocate a few millions from one farm program to another, much less close to $1.75 billion.

Also of interest--the note the French government has been paying farmers to reduce their nitrate leakage, and the refusal to make public the amount of payments tied to individual farmers.  (USDA has also refused to continue to give EWG this information. IMHO on rather specious grounds of expense.)

Sidewalks and Paths in Reston III

I've blogged on this before, but here's a new perspective on paths versus sidewalks in Reston: paths accommodate strollers, sidewalks create unsettled norms: if a stroller meets a couple walking, who has right-of-way.

Funny Paragraph of Feb. 20

From Alex at Marginal Revolution, ending a piece on the Feds trying to suppress an embarrassing con job perpetrated on the CIA.

Are you surprised that Playboy would break such an important story? I was, that is, until I remembered that Playboy has been uncovering fakes for a long time.

Republicans in the House and Agriculture

President Obama proposed, again, some cuts to farm programs by reducing figures in the payment limitation figures.  One would figure those stern, tight-lipped budget cutters in the House would be glad to agree to his proposal.  Politically it would seem wise to say: we'll pocket all your cuts and we'll cut some more.  (I'd put this into poker terms, but my mother thought poker was a tool of the devil.)  But not so, as Sallie James observes at Cato.  Bottom line: political principles are remarkably flexible, much like cooked spaghetti.

The Fallibility of Memory

President Obama proposed a big cut to the program which helps low income people with their heating bills. See Pro Publica's discussion here.  Now I would have sworn the program originated under Carter in response to the big rise in oil prices and the embargoes of the 70's.  But while a weatherization program seems to have begun then, the LIHEAP was begun in 1981.  I repeat, 1981!  The first year of Ronald Reagan's term, the President notorious for being personally amiable but professionally hard-hearted.  And 1981 was the year he was cutting taxes and some programs.  So, what happened then?

Food Prices and Inflation

Lots of recent discussion of the rise in food prices, including whether it had an impact in the Mid East uprisings.  But the graph in this post, hat tip Ezra Klein, shows the price trends for "foodstuffs" and finished consumer foods. The former (wheat, rice, corn, etc.) are much more volatile than the later, mostly because there's pennies worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, etc. etc.

Impeccable Logic Representative Lucas

From Chris Clayton summarizing a House Ag hearing:

""The agriculture economy is highly cyclical and it changes like the weather in western Oklahoma: fast, sharp, and without notice," said Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla. "This reality helps explain why the mood in farm country today is both upbeat and apprehensive. This fact, along with experience, offer a cautionary note to anyone who might be tempted to cite current economic conditions on the farm as the basis for setting long term farm policies." 

 

FSA--One Plus, One Minus

One of the draft posts I've had started for a couple days is a criticism of FSA's press release/blog post on counter-cyclical payments.  But before I do that, I need to praise the writer of Notice DCP-247 who got to the point: there's no such payments for 2010 because target prices are too high.  That info was buried in this language from the press release:

Farm Service Agency Administrator Jonathan Coppess announced today that USDA will not issue partial 2010-crop counter-cyclical payments to producers of certain covered commodities. Payments will not be made to producers of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, long grain rice, medium grain rice, soybeans, sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas, large chickpeas, and peanuts. For all covered commodities and peanuts, market price projections exceed levels that would trigger these payments.

If the first sentence had simply said "...will not issue any 2010-crop counter-cyclical payments."  it would have worked.  It's the "certain" which throws the reader, because the expectation is there's two categories: certain crops don't get paid, other crops do.

A 2x4 for Agency Chiefs and CIO's

I wonder whether the cuts OMB gave some agencies in IT funds were big enough to get the attention of the chiefs of the agencies, remembering the old joke about getting the attention of a mule by using a 2x4. USDA didn't get such a cut.

The Insidious Assumptions We Make

I was often laughed at when I worked for ASCS because to create example cases of how the farm program would work, I always used 100 acres of corn with 100 bushel yield.  Made it much easier to calculate.  It also was unrealistic even in 1980, and would be ridiculous today.  And I vaguely remember the symmetry of numbers leading to a screwup--something which seemed reasonable with the assumed numbers wasn't.

That's the case with Megan McArdle's recent post on savings. She writes;

 Say you're a 40 year old couple with 100,000 a year in after-tax income, and you save 5% of that, the way ordinary Americans do.  (Assume further that it all goes in retirement).

My point? A couple with $100,000 after tax income is earning maybe $120,000 or more in before tax income. Such a couple is probably close to being in the top 10 percent of the US households, i.e., not "ordinary" and not a good example to use for a discussion of savings.

R.I.P. George Buddy

I'm one of these people who tends to be a day late and a dollar slow in keeping up with social [demands, needs, everything I think of has a double Freudian meaning].  I'm sorry.  George Buddy, the blogger at Buddy's Bemusing,died on Feb 4, 2011 after lung surgery.  I'll miss him.

The Return of the Vicious Budget Cycle

I commented somewhere yesterday on the reason deficits are important--it leads to the vicious budget cycle where an ever increasing portion of the budget goes just to pay interest to fat cats bankers. Today the Post has an article on it. An excerpt:

Starting in 2014, net interest payments will surpass the amount spent on education, transportation, energy and all other discretionary programs outside defense. In 2018, they will outstrip Medicare spending.

 I remember the Clinton administration struggling with this. I'm a little afraid that people who weren't grown by then (Yglesias, Ezra Klein) may not have those memories.  It's well and good to point to the fact that inflation is low now despite the Fed's monetary easing, but it's very easy to get behind the eight-ball, to the detriment of needed programs.

The Fading Rural Economy

John Phipps describes the closings of local services.  Unfortunately, economics says big farms are more efficient than small, meaning the farming population declines, which puts all the services on which farmers depend under pressure.  Add on the competition from bigger outfits, the easier transportation from cars and good roads, and there's a big current to row against.

Coppess Out

According to Farm Policy:

A news release yesterday from Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, indicated that Jonathan Coppess had been named Chief Counsel for the Committee.
The release added that, “Jonathan Coppess served most recently as Administrator of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) where he oversaw nationwide agency operations including implementation of the safety net programs from the 2008 Farm Bill. Prior to serving as Administrator, he served as the agency’s Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs and previously worked as a Senate aide, focusing on agriculture, energy and environment issues and working extensively on the 2008 Farm Bill. Coppess grew up on his family’s corn and soybean farm in Ohio and earned a law degree from the George Washington University Law School.”

 Generally speaking, this is bad for FSA. Most past administrators I remember have served a full term--4 or 8 years.  Since any political appointee needs a period of brainwashing by the career bureaucrats learning the ropes, the longer the better.  That's assuming, of course, the appointee is capable of learning.

Fantasy Documents

Thanks to Dan Drezner, who was commenting on NY's manual for law in the midst of disasters as described in the Times today, I'm introduced to the concept of "fantasy documents".  From the Amazon product description for the book:

How does the government or a business plan for an unimaginable disaster-a meltdown at a nuclear power plant, a gigantic oil spill, or a nuclear attack? Lee Clarke examines actual attempts to "prepare" for these catastrophes and finds that the policies adopted by corporations and government agencies are fundamentally rhetorical: the plans have no chance to succeed, yet they serve both the organizations and the public as symbols of control, order, and stability. These "fantasy documents" attempt to inspire confidence in organizations, but for Clarke they are disturbing persuasions, soothing our perception that we ultimately cannot control our own technological advances.

For example, Clarke studies corporations' plans for cleaning up oil spills in Prince William Sound prior to the Exxon Valdez debacle, and he finds that the accepted strategies were not just unrealistic but completely untenable. Although different organizations were required to have a cleanup plan for huge spills in the sound, a really massive spill was unprecedented, and the accepted policy was little more than a patchwork of guesses based on (mostly unsuccessful) cleanups after smaller accidents.

While we are increasingly skeptical of big organizations, we still have no choice but to depend on them for protection from large-scale disasters. We expect their specialists to tell the truth, and yet, as Clarke points out, reassuring rhetoric (under the guise of expert prediction) may have no basis in fact or truth because no such basis is attainable.

 It rings true to me, and I might add other documents to the fantasy category: strategic plans, for example. I've always thought those were paper exercises divorced from reality.  Environmental assessments and economic impact statements also might fall into the category.

ID Numbers in India

The Economist has an interesting piece on India's attempt to give each person a biometric ID.  I've always liked the idea, because I'm a bureaucrat and it's a bureaucrat's dream.  India, with its British civil service heritage, has a much better chance of carrying the project through than we have in this country, even though it's also a federal republic and its central government seems to be weaker than the UK's.

Kinsley Calls Me a Fine Person

That's Michael Kinsley in his Politico column suggesting we shouldn't want housing prices to rise.  He suggests the lower housing prices, the easier for people to buy.  Current homeowners who are looking to upgrade should also like lower prices.  Only those current homeowners who aren't looking to upgrade really benefit from high prices. 

I think he's right, at least about my being a fine person, and probably about housing prices. Certainly reading the narrative in All the Devils Are Here, which is a fine book BTW, suggests the housing bubble was a disaster for everyone.

Hypocrisy--Tea Flavored

From Farm Policy:

As a sidebar with respect to farm spending and the tea party, Jonathan Ellis indicated on Saturday at the Argus Leader Online (SD) that, “A new poll of 401 South Dakota tea party supporters is available today. The poll is the most comprehensive public analysis of the movement in this state…[and]…Eighteen percent have an immediate family member who receives federal farm subsidies. Yet 47 percent think federal farm payments to farmers and ranchers should be left at current levels or increased.”

Rummy: Bush Was a Bad Bureaucrat

That's what I get from this Politico piece, based on a Wall Street Journal interview, arguing Donald Rumsfeld critiques Bush and his administration for being bad bureaucrats. 

Defense Appropriations

The draft House appropriations language includes the 2011 DOD appropriations act. Skimming through, I get the sense of lots of history being buried there, lots of lobbying done.  For example Section 8068 requires military facilities (PXs and clubs) to buy their wine and malt from local distributors. They are permitted to buy liquor from the lowest cost vendor.  Or Section 8074 freezes the Pacific fleet command setup to that in place on October 1, 2004. What's the story there?

I also note they're banning the use of ARRA funds for signage (not in the DOD part, but the other part of the bill).

Will the Republicans Read 359 Pages

The House bill which concludes: This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011’’ has 359 pages.  Inasmuch as some Republicans mocked the Democrats for voting for bills they had not read, I would think turnaround is fair play.  Any guesses as to how many Republicans can claim they read the whole thing, without having their nose grow?  Even more interesting, any guess as to how many Republicans can read and understand even 10 percent of the bill, without reference to other material?