by Earl Hiatt
Sep 29, 2007 | 232 views | 0 0 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print

This column concerns the recent article on the new federal farm bill (“Farm bill draws mixed response,” Page 4, Sept. 9).

In a comparable article recently in the Modesto Bee, the headline on the second page was, “Everyone got what they needed, Cardoza says.”

Does that everyone include us taxpayers who will end up paying the five-year price tag of $286 billion?

That adds up to $1,000 apiece for every person in the United States — not counting the illegals, of course.

Most don’t know that the third largest cash crop after corn and soybeans, alfalfa, is doing quite well and has never had any government support program.

We are told that about 2 million people with excessive mortgage payments may lose their homes in the near future. Maybe we also need a new house owner “mortgage bill,” so when owners can’t make payments on their houses, we taxpayers would foot that bill. And how about a car buyer bill, so a car would never be repossessed?

Welfare state programs involve government’s forcible taking of money through taxation from one group of people to whom it belongs, to give “free” money to another group of people to whom it doesn’t belong. It’s amazing how those “capitalistic” Farm Bureau members will wind up at the socialistic trough when free money is available.

The farm bill is just another example of welfare state immorality and will undoubtedly buy Cardoza many votes. Does anyone think the Farm Bureau would be in favor of Cardoza if he wasn’t giving money away? Does anyone think there would be a farm bill if farmers couldn’t vote? Does anyone think there would have been a Medicare drug bill for senior citizens if they couldn’t vote?

Cardoza lists all the good things the farm bill will do — and, of course, there is an unlimited amount still to do, if we just had the money. Does anyone realize how much more good that same money would do if the people who earned it were allowed to spend it the way they saw fit — like being able to make their mortgage payments — instead of being forced to give it to the government?

A Sept. 5 Irrigator article talks about Perez Farms being unable to grow cotton in Fresno County without a subsidy because the water cost is too high. If anybody tried to grow crops on vacant lots in Patterson, they would also find out that the price of water is too high. Where is it written that if Perez Farms can’t make a profit growing cotton, the taxpayers have to make up the difference?

I have been friends with Earl and Tommy Perez for more than 30 years (and hope I still am). I remember a speech at the old Toastmasters Club where Earl talked about his father coming to this free country to get away from fascist Spain. Now, they line up at the socialist trough.

Will the next generation insist it is its right to have everything subsidized (like health care)? And will the following generation immigrate to Spain to get away from socialist America?

Patterson resident Earl Hiatt is a semi-retired agri-businessman whose major interests are nutrition, economics and religion. His columns appear occasionally on the Irrigator Voice page. His e-mail is ehent@hughes.net

Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet

We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at news@pattersonirrigator.com.