The New York Times > Opinion > Try to Imagine the Iowa of My Dreams (3 Letters): "I left Iowa after high school eight years ago in order to learn from a broader diversity of people and experiences than Iowa could offer. I cherished my Iowa roots, but I needed to see the world."I suspect the original column and the letters partially explain the big expenditures on farm programs. All of us who left the farm are nostalgic and maybe a bit guilty about the decision. And those who never lived on a farm are still subject to the sentimentality. Interest groups are another part of the explanation.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Klinkenborg, Revisited
Klinkenborg's column attracted 3 letters. One said diverse agriculture in Iowa needed to develop, one said Iowa needs to focus on getting people to return (as opposed to keeping the young) and one said the problem is bigger than industrial agriculture:
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Washington's Crossing
Amazon.com: Books: Washington's Crossing (Pivotal Moments in American History)
I recommend this book by David Hackett Fischer. Well written, thoroughly researched, and thought provoking. Essentially covers about a year, the spring of 1776 to spring of 1777, from Washington's loss of New York City, through the battles of Trenton and Princeton, then the "forage war" in New Jersey. It's thorough and balanced. One thing surprising to me was his description of the American emphasis on technology, they used proportionately more artillery for their formations than did the British. I'd been reared on the Green Mountain Boys capturing Fort Ticonderoga, then Henry Knox dragging the cannon from the Fort to Boston in order to drive out the Brits. That gave me the impression that Washington was always short of artillery. Apparently not true. Fischer ties this into the American way of war--an emphasis on avoiding casualties, particularly important for a democracy.
I've also seen arguments that in the 20th century we relied on overwhelming materiel to win, rather than the quality of our soldiers and generals. It ties into the idea that Europeans conquered the Americas by the intimidation of their technology (see Prescott's book on The Conquest of Mexico, a book I read several times growing up). But there's the counter argument that the technology wasn't that great--see Ben Franklin's argument for bows and arrows. There was also a note in the DVD of "Lonesome Dove" saying that the Indian-white wars in Texas were balanced until multiple shot revolvers arrived.
But back to Fischer--he also has an interesting essay on the historiography and iconography of the crossing that in itself is a window into American intellectual history.
I recommend this book by David Hackett Fischer. Well written, thoroughly researched, and thought provoking. Essentially covers about a year, the spring of 1776 to spring of 1777, from Washington's loss of New York City, through the battles of Trenton and Princeton, then the "forage war" in New Jersey. It's thorough and balanced. One thing surprising to me was his description of the American emphasis on technology, they used proportionately more artillery for their formations than did the British. I'd been reared on the Green Mountain Boys capturing Fort Ticonderoga, then Henry Knox dragging the cannon from the Fort to Boston in order to drive out the Brits. That gave me the impression that Washington was always short of artillery. Apparently not true. Fischer ties this into the American way of war--an emphasis on avoiding casualties, particularly important for a democracy.
I've also seen arguments that in the 20th century we relied on overwhelming materiel to win, rather than the quality of our soldiers and generals. It ties into the idea that Europeans conquered the Americas by the intimidation of their technology (see Prescott's book on The Conquest of Mexico, a book I read several times growing up). But there's the counter argument that the technology wasn't that great--see Ben Franklin's argument for bows and arrows. There was also a note in the DVD of "Lonesome Dove" saying that the Indian-white wars in Texas were balanced until multiple shot revolvers arrived.
But back to Fischer--he also has an interesting essay on the historiography and iconography of the crossing that in itself is a window into American intellectual history.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Verlyn Klinkenborg and "the pollution of factory farming"
Mr. Klinkenborg writes periodically on the NY Times editorial page, mostly on nature and rural living. I usually enjoy him, as he's a good writer and often elicits my nostalgia for the farm of my youth. But romantic visions can be misleading, and today he went too far for my taste. He goes back to Iowa, where he was born, to talk about the loss of population:
Are there problems with the current structure of agriculture? Sure. But we need to recognize agriculture for what it is, the result of the individual decisions of millions of people over the years. Now many people have the disposable income to pay premiums for organic and exotic products (and I hope they all patronize Whole Foods, I've got stock in it), but please don't demonize. The "industrial" farmers today are caught in much the same vice as those 150 years ago: get bigger, get more efficient, or go under. It's the economic logic of mass market agriculture. When the first farmer replaced the digging stick with an ox or horse drawn plow, he was starting down the road to the pollution of factory farming.
The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial Observer: Keeping Iowa's Young Folks at Home After They've Seen Minnesota: "The problems Iowa faces are the very solutions it chose two and three generations ago. The state's demographic dilemma wasn't caused by bad weather or high income taxes or the lack of a body of water larger than Rathbun Lake - an Army Corps of Engineers reservoir sometimes known as 'Iowa's ocean.' It was caused by the state's wholehearted, uncritical embrace of industrial agriculture, which has depopulated the countryside, destroyed the economic and social texture of small towns, and made certain that ordinary Iowans are defenseless against the pollution of factory farming."My problem is with the last sentence. "Industrial agriculture" is pejorative, not descriptive. "Market agriculture" is more neutral, with "mass market agriculture" close to what he wants to attack. Most ordinary Iowans, like most ordinary Americans, have embraced most aspects of the market economy for generations. Indeed, cities began when some farmers had a marketable surplus to sell to city people. Urban dwellers could spend their time on governance, war, justice, art, and writing editorials to be distributed through a network produced by industry, all made possible by efficient agriculture.
Are there problems with the current structure of agriculture? Sure. But we need to recognize agriculture for what it is, the result of the individual decisions of millions of people over the years. Now many people have the disposable income to pay premiums for organic and exotic products (and I hope they all patronize Whole Foods, I've got stock in it), but please don't demonize. The "industrial" farmers today are caught in much the same vice as those 150 years ago: get bigger, get more efficient, or go under. It's the economic logic of mass market agriculture. When the first farmer replaced the digging stick with an ox or horse drawn plow, he was starting down the road to the pollution of factory farming.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
EWG || Farm Subsidy Database
EWG || Farm Subsidy Database:
This shows the top ranking recipients of farm subsidies for 2003
"Rank Recipient* Location Total USDA - Subsidies
2003
1 Riceland Foods Inc Stuttgart, AR 72160 $68,942,419
2 Producers Rice Mill Inc Stuttgart, AR 72160 $51,400,838
3 Farmers Rice Coop Sacramento, CA 95851 $17,914,254
4 Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Pittsburg, TX 75686 $11,401,045
5 Ducks Unlimited Inc Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 $7,078,200
6 Cargill Turkey Products Harrisonburg, VA 22801 $6,693,286
7 Ute Mountain Tribe Towaoc, CO 81334 $4,035,347
8 Dnrc Trust Land Management - Exem Helena, MT 59620 $3,106,805
9 Attebury Grain Co Amarillo, TX 79105 $2,971,143
10 Bureau Of Indian Affairs Horton, KS 66439 $2,655,353
11 Ute Mountain Ute Farm & Ranch Ent Towaoc, CO 81334 $2,606,189
12 Colorado River Indian Tribes Farm Parker, AZ 85344 $2,479,854
13 Dublin Farms Corcoran, CA 93212 $2,442,748
14 Richmond Farming Altheimer, AR 72004 $2,208,672
15 Dale Bone Farms Partnership Nashville, NC 27856 $2,106,825
16 Tyler Farms Helena, AR 72342 $2,102,799
17 Perthshire Farms Gunnison, MS 38746 $2,101,931
18 Phillips Farms Holly Bluff, MS 39088 $2,065,876
19 Catron Farms Helena, AR 72342 $2,025,697
20 Ak-chin Farms Maricopa, AZ 85239 $2,001,025"
Some comments by number--
1, 2, and 3 are all rice marketing cooperatives--organizations that market rice on behalf of their members and therefore collect some subsidies on their behalf as well. Thus it's misleading to have them at the top. (I assume for whatever reason USDA hasn't given, or EWG hasn't tried to get, the data necessary to break the money down to the member level.
No. 4 Pilgrim's Pride got 99 percent of its money under Avian Influenza Indemnity program.
No. 5 Ducks Unlimited got 99 percent of its money under the Wetland Reserve program.
No. 6 Cargill got 99 percent of its money under the Avian Influenza Indemnity program.
No. 7 Ute Mountain tribe appears to be an Indian tribe, 99 percent of money under 2003 disaster.
No. 8, DNRC is the state of Montana, which retained a lot of public domain land from the 19th century and leases it out. States and some other public institutions have been exempt from the payment limitation in the past.
No. 9 Attebury Farm got most of its money under disaster--Karnal Bunt program.
No.10, BIA, is receiving subsidies on behalf of Indians who own allotment land (dating back to the days when the white man was breaking up reservations, alloting land to Indians with the hope they'd become "civilized". (Farm subsidies is a small part of the money that BIA didn't keep good records of, hence the lawsuit before Judge Sentelle.
No. 11--might be also Indian, see 7.
No. 12 sounds like a tribal entity to me--where checks are written to the tribe, which is then responsible for distributing the money.
No. 12 is cotton
No. 13 Dublin Farms is cotton and rice. (Note-- if you follow down and find its ownership interests it's owned by 17 corporations (all Irish names).
No. 14 is cotton and rice, again with corporations as owners
No. 15 Dale Boone is a newish corporation with individual owners
No. 16 Tyler fArms is cotton and rice with no ownership shown.
No. 17-20 look to be delta cotton and rice farms.
This shows the top ranking recipients of farm subsidies for 2003
"Rank Recipient* Location Total USDA - Subsidies
2003
1 Riceland Foods Inc Stuttgart, AR 72160 $68,942,419
2 Producers Rice Mill Inc Stuttgart, AR 72160 $51,400,838
3 Farmers Rice Coop Sacramento, CA 95851 $17,914,254
4 Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Pittsburg, TX 75686 $11,401,045
5 Ducks Unlimited Inc Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 $7,078,200
6 Cargill Turkey Products Harrisonburg, VA 22801 $6,693,286
7 Ute Mountain Tribe Towaoc, CO 81334 $4,035,347
8 Dnrc Trust Land Management - Exem Helena, MT 59620 $3,106,805
9 Attebury Grain Co Amarillo, TX 79105 $2,971,143
10 Bureau Of Indian Affairs Horton, KS 66439 $2,655,353
11 Ute Mountain Ute Farm & Ranch Ent Towaoc, CO 81334 $2,606,189
12 Colorado River Indian Tribes Farm Parker, AZ 85344 $2,479,854
13 Dublin Farms Corcoran, CA 93212 $2,442,748
14 Richmond Farming Altheimer, AR 72004 $2,208,672
15 Dale Bone Farms Partnership Nashville, NC 27856 $2,106,825
16 Tyler Farms Helena, AR 72342 $2,102,799
17 Perthshire Farms Gunnison, MS 38746 $2,101,931
18 Phillips Farms Holly Bluff, MS 39088 $2,065,876
19 Catron Farms Helena, AR 72342 $2,025,697
20 Ak-chin Farms Maricopa, AZ 85239 $2,001,025"
| 1 | Riceland Foods Inc | Stuttgart, AR 72160 | $68,942,419 |
| 2 | Producers Rice Mill Inc | Stuttgart, AR 72160 | $51,400,838 |
| 3 | Farmers Rice Coop | Sacramento, CA 95851 | $17,914,254 |
| 4 | Pilgrim's Pride Corporation | Pittsburg, TX 75686 | $11,401,045 |
| 5 | Ducks Unlimited Inc | Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 | $7,078,200 |
| 6 | Cargill Turkey Products | Harrisonburg, VA 22801 | $6,693,286 |
| 7 | Ute Mountain Tribe | Towaoc, CO 81334 | $4,035,347 |
| 8 | Dnrc Trust Land Management - Exem | Helena, MT 59620 | $3,106,805 |
| 9 | Attebury Grain Co | Amarillo, TX 79105 | $2,971,143 |
| 10 | Bureau Of Indian Affairs | Horton, KS 66439 | $2,655,353 |
| 11 | Ute Mountain Ute Farm & Ranch Ent | Towaoc, CO 81334 | $2,606,189 |
| 12 | Colorado River Indian Tribes Farm | Parker, AZ 85344 | $2,479,854 |
| 13 | Dublin Farms | Corcoran, CA 93212 | $2,442,748 |
| 14 | Richmond Farming | Altheimer, AR 72004 | $2,208,672 |
| 15 | Dale Bone Farms Partnership | Nashville, NC 27856 | $2,106,825 |
| 16 | Tyler Farms | Helena, AR 72342 | $2,102,799 |
| 17 | Perthshire Farms | Gunnison, MS 38746 | $2,101,931 |
| 18 | Phillips Farms | Holly Bluff, MS 39088 | $2,065,876 |
| 19 | Catron Farms | Helena, AR 72342 | $2,025,697 |
| 20 | Ak-chin Farms | Maricopa, AZ 85239 | $2,001,025 |
Some comments by number--
1, 2, and 3 are all rice marketing cooperatives--organizations that market rice on behalf of their members and therefore collect some subsidies on their behalf as well. Thus it's misleading to have them at the top. (I assume for whatever reason USDA hasn't given, or EWG hasn't tried to get, the data necessary to break the money down to the member level.
No. 4 Pilgrim's Pride got 99 percent of its money under Avian Influenza Indemnity program.
No. 5 Ducks Unlimited got 99 percent of its money under the Wetland Reserve program.
No. 6 Cargill got 99 percent of its money under the Avian Influenza Indemnity program.
No. 7 Ute Mountain tribe appears to be an Indian tribe, 99 percent of money under 2003 disaster.
No. 8, DNRC is the state of Montana, which retained a lot of public domain land from the 19th century and leases it out. States and some other public institutions have been exempt from the payment limitation in the past.
No. 9 Attebury Farm got most of its money under disaster--Karnal Bunt program.
No.10, BIA, is receiving subsidies on behalf of Indians who own allotment land (dating back to the days when the white man was breaking up reservations, alloting land to Indians with the hope they'd become "civilized". (Farm subsidies is a small part of the money that BIA didn't keep good records of, hence the lawsuit before Judge Sentelle.
No. 11--might be also Indian, see 7.
No. 12 sounds like a tribal entity to me--where checks are written to the tribe, which is then responsible for distributing the money.
No. 12 is cotton
No. 13 Dublin Farms is cotton and rice. (Note-- if you follow down and find its ownership interests it's owned by 17 corporations (all Irish names).
No. 14 is cotton and rice, again with corporations as owners
No. 15 Dale Boone is a newish corporation with individual owners
No. 16 Tyler fArms is cotton and rice with no ownership shown.
No. 17-20 look to be delta cotton and rice farms.
Misunderstanding Farm Programs--Who is a Person II
Warning: Payment limitation rules change and are complex, so I may be wrong. See the FSA fact sheet for more. To follow on with the examples in the previous post.
Husband and wife are usually one "person", but not always. (The rule has been impacted by feminist lobbying over the years.)
For legal entities, a very general rule is that if the entity involves 2 or more people and IRS requires a tax return for the entity, it's a "person". If IRS has the entity's income pass through to the individuals, it's not. If there's an individual with majority interest, the entity and individual are one "person".
Husband and wife are usually one "person", but not always. (The rule has been impacted by feminist lobbying over the years.)
For legal entities, a very general rule is that if the entity involves 2 or more people and IRS requires a tax return for the entity, it's a "person". If IRS has the entity's income pass through to the individuals, it's not. If there's an individual with majority interest, the entity and individual are one "person".
Monday, February 07, 2005
Misunderstanding Farm Programs--Who is a Person
The administration proposes to limit payments to $250,000 per person. What is a "person"?
I well remember in the late 1980's a farmer writing in to complain (probably to his Congressman) about a letter he received from his local ASCS* office saying that he had been determined to be a person! He thought he'd been one all along.
Payment limitations have been a feature of farm programs for over 30 years. Congress, in its wisdom, began writing the limitation as "xxxxx dollars per person". It seemed clear enough to them: a person is a person is a person.
But not so fast. Nothing is simple to bureaucrats, because they have to try to match simple-minded laws to complex reality (in my objective view. In your view, they may just be fulfilling their anal-obsessive compulsions and/or creating work for themselves. )
If you're a bureaucrat, you ask questions like:
Should husband and wife who operate a farm (think Grant Woods' American Gothic) count as two people?
What happens if two brothers have a partnership--are they two people?
How about a parent/son corporation, with husband, wife, and son equal shareholders?
How about the Methodist church, when a parishioner with no children wills his farm to the church?
* ASCS= Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service--the name of the agency that administered most farm programs between 1961 and 1994.
I well remember in the late 1980's a farmer writing in to complain (probably to his Congressman) about a letter he received from his local ASCS* office saying that he had been determined to be a person! He thought he'd been one all along.
Payment limitations have been a feature of farm programs for over 30 years. Congress, in its wisdom, began writing the limitation as "xxxxx dollars per person". It seemed clear enough to them: a person is a person is a person.
But not so fast. Nothing is simple to bureaucrats, because they have to try to match simple-minded laws to complex reality (in my objective view. In your view, they may just be fulfilling their anal-obsessive compulsions and/or creating work for themselves. )
If you're a bureaucrat, you ask questions like:
Should husband and wife who operate a farm (think Grant Woods' American Gothic) count as two people?
What happens if two brothers have a partnership--are they two people?
How about a parent/son corporation, with husband, wife, and son equal shareholders?
How about the Methodist church, when a parishioner with no children wills his farm to the church?
* ASCS= Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service--the name of the agency that administered most farm programs between 1961 and 1994.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Misunderstanding Farm Programs (1 of X)
Here we go, according to a Farm Belt paper and the Grey Lady:
"subsidy" --the last time I checked the dictionary it meant a payment, but it's often expanded to include indirect subsidies, tariff barriers, tax provisions, etc. While that's a common tactic of interest groups, the Times, at least, has not usually made the distinction when it comes to farm programs.
"farmers"/"recipients" --one of the biggest areas of confusion is between what when I was in USDA we called "warm bodies" and those who aren't. No, we weren't talking about dead people but about legal entities, such as trusts, joint ventures, partnerships, corporations, etc. The other big distinction is between those with dirt under their fingernails and those with clean hands.
More to follow
DesMoinesRegister.com: "President Bush wants to slash farm payments to the nation's largest farms as part of a plan to reduce federal agricultural spending by 3 percent next year.There are a lot of issues with the farm programs we currently have, but the press does not do a good job in explaining them. As President and Congress fight over this issue I plan to comment and explain. A couple things to be careful of:
"
NYTimes
In setting a firm overall limit of $250,000, the president's plan would tighten requirements for the recipients of such payments to be "actively engaged" in agriculture, and it would generally prevent farmers from claiming additional payments through multiple entities.
"subsidy" --the last time I checked the dictionary it meant a payment, but it's often expanded to include indirect subsidies, tariff barriers, tax provisions, etc. While that's a common tactic of interest groups, the Times, at least, has not usually made the distinction when it comes to farm programs.
"farmers"/"recipients" --one of the biggest areas of confusion is between what when I was in USDA we called "warm bodies" and those who aren't. No, we weren't talking about dead people but about legal entities, such as trusts, joint ventures, partnerships, corporations, etc. The other big distinction is between those with dirt under their fingernails and those with clean hands.
More to follow
Friday, February 04, 2005
Big Computer Projects--II, The FBI
Government Executive Magazine - 12/20/02 Inspector general blames top FBI officials for technology failures
Critics of the FBI, including historians and officials who have served on committees investigating the agency’s problems, have repeatedly cited senior officials’ lack of interest in managing technology as a top cause of its failings.
Critics of the FBI, including historians and officials who have served on committees investigating the agency’s problems, have repeatedly cited senior officials’ lack of interest in managing technology as a top cause of its failings.
Trilogy and SAIC--Big Computer Projects
In a typical piece of grandstanding back in early February, the Senate subcommittee had witnesses on the Trilogy project to grab attention, but ran out of time for the testimony from SAIC.
SAIC: Arnold Punaro's Record Testimony, Prepared for the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations: "The September 11, 2001, attacks had as profound an affect on this project as it did elsewhere in the nation. Following 9/11, the Bureau faced enormous and sometimes conflicting pressures. Prior to the attack, the Bureau was dealing with revelations that a spy, Robert Hansen, had plundered FBI secrets. Security and integrity of information is a fundamental issue for the FBI. After the attack, it faced three often conflicting demands:
* The need to share information in the post-9/11 world so authorized personnel could both see and connect the dots to analyze and exploit intelligence.
* The need, in the post-Hansen world, to prevent all but a few specifically authorized people from seeing truly sensitive information.
* The need to ensure admissibility of investigative information in court in keeping with the complex body of legal, policy, and Attorney General Guidelines under which the Bureau operates.
Thus, the FBI faces a task of great difficulty and complexity in building an information technology system that simultaneously meets all three imperatives"
SAIC: Arnold Punaro's Record Testimony, Prepared for the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations: "The September 11, 2001, attacks had as profound an affect on this project as it did elsewhere in the nation. Following 9/11, the Bureau faced enormous and sometimes conflicting pressures. Prior to the attack, the Bureau was dealing with revelations that a spy, Robert Hansen, had plundered FBI secrets. Security and integrity of information is a fundamental issue for the FBI. After the attack, it faced three often conflicting demands:
* The need to share information in the post-9/11 world so authorized personnel could both see and connect the dots to analyze and exploit intelligence.
* The need, in the post-Hansen world, to prevent all but a few specifically authorized people from seeing truly sensitive information.
* The need to ensure admissibility of investigative information in court in keeping with the complex body of legal, policy, and Attorney General Guidelines under which the Bureau operates.
Thus, the FBI faces a task of great difficulty and complexity in building an information technology system that simultaneously meets all three imperatives"
Big Computer Projects--I, The FBI
This dates back to February, but I'm trying to catch up.
FBI's Trilogy automation project has run into problems, with the Virtual Case File system being scrapped at a cost of $100+ million. FRom the SAIC statement:
I'd also say this shows a set of problems in contracting out work, specifically illusions/delusions on both sides. The government believes they know what they want, and believes the contractor can read their mind and do anything. The contractor/bidder believes they understand the government and is willing for the money to promise to do anything. The incentives are to enter into the contract, hoping one can get by.
In this case it appears that "mission creep" is the villain--SAIC was on board before 9/11 when the concern was partially to protect against more Robert Hansens, and stayed on board after 9/11 when the concern was to share information across the agency. Sharing information is also not a virtue in the FBI history.
FBI's Trilogy automation project has run into problems, with the Virtual Case File system being scrapped at a cost of $100+ million. FRom the SAIC statement:
"Probably the most damaging aspect of this development environment was the ever-shifting nature of the requirements. SAIC development teams would meet with the FBI agents assigned to the project to elicit system requirements, then SAIC would translate that into software designs. Often, however, the agents would look at the development product and reject it. They would then demand more changes to the design in a trial-and-error, "we-will-know-it-when-we-see-it" approach to development. The turbulence was not limited to the immediate changes demanded. They would ripple though the related parts of the software design. This cycle was repeated over and over again and prevented SAIC from defining system acceptance criteria and suitable test standards until requirements were finally agreed under VCF IOC this past summer. SAIC expressed concern over the affect of these changes on cost and schedule; however, we clearly failed to get the cumulative effect of these changes across to the FBI customer. We accept responsibility for this failure to elevate our concerns."This sounds very familiar, from my experience in USDA. I suspect SAIC was trying to get requirements from agents who weren't used to self-examination, or to automation projects, or both. It's also likely that the agents the FBI assigned to the project were not the stars; you wouldn't become a hero in the FBI by knowing software, you'd become a hero by getting Dillinger or a capo.
I'd also say this shows a set of problems in contracting out work, specifically illusions/delusions on both sides. The government believes they know what they want, and believes the contractor can read their mind and do anything. The contractor/bidder believes they understand the government and is willing for the money to promise to do anything. The incentives are to enter into the contract, hoping one can get by.
In this case it appears that "mission creep" is the villain--SAIC was on board before 9/11 when the concern was partially to protect against more Robert Hansens, and stayed on board after 9/11 when the concern was to share information across the agency. Sharing information is also not a virtue in the FBI history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)