Some random comments:
I didn't see this position on the NASCOE site until I doublechecked and found this consultants report. Don't understand why the report was dated in September but, unless I have been missing it consistently, which is possible, not posted until recently. The report seems impressive enough (that's what consultants do--impress) that it should be up front in NASCOE's pitch. The DTN editorial rightly says this is FSA trying to preserve jobs, but without mention of the data in the report. If NASCOE is serious they should be highlighting the dollar savings in short talking points.
Having gone through the process of parallel sales and servicing of CAT policies in 1994-6, I've some
I've posted before about the 80/20 rules: it's those subtle differences and the odd-ball (to an FSA person) crops which would cause 80 percent of the work.
So I'd fault the consultants for not recognizing transition costs and learning curves, which would be major. If Congress really wanted to explore saving a billion or so (which I doubt they will--just look at the map of crop insurance agents in the report and remember those people have influence) I'd suggest they haul some branch chiefs and division directors from FSA and RMA up before their committees to thrash out the proposal.
I was struck by the statement in the report that most crop insurance acreage reports are rekeyings from FSA acreage reports. By now I would have hoped that offices could have been working directly from GIS-based reports, but I guess not.