Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your Newsletter and have the the following comments on your three major points:
FARM BILL You are on a committee to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate Farm Bills.
You say our farmers and ranchers are being asked to produce more food and fiber than ever before to feed and clothe our country. They put a lot on the line to do that every year, risking droughts, floods, and uncertain markets. We ask a lot of our farmers and ranchers. Let's give them a five-year farm bill to help them meet those demands.
I'm afraid you have a socialistic attitude on this topic. We should not ask our farmers and ranchers to do a lot for us and then compensate them through some sort of government program. Farming is a business. A Republic government is supposed to give individuals an opportunity to do work and make a profit. It is true that there are various risks in farming, such as droughts and floods, but all businesses have risks. It is for that purpose that insurance companies supply risk insurance, and usually the cost of such insurance is part of the expense of doing business. The businessman includes this cost in the prices of the products, which he sells. It is not up to you or anyone else in government to give farmers a five-year program with the guarantee or even the implication that government will assume the cost of risks or losses.
You say the House bill reduced food stamp cost by $40 billion, while the Senate bill had only $4 billion in cuts. Your committee is expected to resolve the difference, so that the House and Senate bills are on the same basis, as one bill to submit to the President for his signature.
That is abominable! Agriculture is the production of plant crops and sale thereof. Food stamps are welfare. Agriculture is a productive enterprise for society. Food stamps are a drain on the society. You previously eliminated food stamps (called nutrition assistance) from the farm bill and by some ridiculous mechanism it found its way back in. Get food stamps out of a Farm Bill! It is welfare, welfare, welfare, and should be handled in any federal budget as such.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to declare any living animal, bird, or fish to be considered as an endangered species. This subsequently allows the FWS to confiscate rights of private landowners in order to protect the so-called habitat of the endangered species
This is a ridiculous law, which is unconstitutional. Our Founding Fathers upheld an economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners–even the government. The right of private property ownership, including use thereof, is guaranteed by the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution
Therefore, your fiddling around with giving each state a time advantage prior to a federal confiscation of private property is of insignificant value. I respectfully suggest that you take the opinion that the FWS, has no right to confiscate any private property use rights. Other options are that the FWS may negotiate to purchase a property and use thereof, or it may negotiate to purchase the wildlife on private property and move it to an equivalent habitat on government land (a reservation).
DEBT CEILING
You said you recognize that it is not necessary to raise the debt ceiling, because the government is still receiving tax income every day which can be used to fund our obligations. You also said you are working on solutions that would reduce our spending, so we don’t keep hitting our debt ceiling and increasing the amount our children and grandchildren will owe. $17 trillion in debt is not the legacy you want to pass on to the next generation.
I agree with you completely on this, but the problem is that you have done little to foster its development. It appears that the people of the United States still mostly believe that raising the debt limit is necessary to avoid default on payment of government obligation interest. You have been allowing the President and Senate Democrats to persist in this lie without appropriate challenge.
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
I have read your Newsletter and have the the following comments on your three major points:
FARM BILL You are on a committee to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate Farm Bills.
You say our farmers and ranchers are being asked to produce more food and fiber than ever before to feed and clothe our country. They put a lot on the line to do that every year, risking droughts, floods, and uncertain markets. We ask a lot of our farmers and ranchers. Let's give them a five-year farm bill to help them meet those demands.
I'm afraid you have a socialistic attitude on this topic. We should not ask our farmers and ranchers to do a lot for us and then compensate them through some sort of government program. Farming is a business. A Republic government is supposed to give individuals an opportunity to do work and make a profit. It is true that there are various risks in farming, such as droughts and floods, but all businesses have risks. It is for that purpose that insurance companies supply risk insurance, and usually the cost of such insurance is part of the expense of doing business. The businessman includes this cost in the prices of the products, which he sells. It is not up to you or anyone else in government to give farmers a five-year program with the guarantee or even the implication that government will assume the cost of risks or losses.
You say the House bill reduced food stamp cost by $40 billion, while the Senate bill had only $4 billion in cuts. Your committee is expected to resolve the difference, so that the House and Senate bills are on the same basis, as one bill to submit to the President for his signature.
That is abominable! Agriculture is the production of plant crops and sale thereof. Food stamps are welfare. Agriculture is a productive enterprise for society. Food stamps are a drain on the society. You previously eliminated food stamps (called nutrition assistance) from the farm bill and by some ridiculous mechanism it found its way back in. Get food stamps out of a Farm Bill! It is welfare, welfare, welfare, and should be handled in any federal budget as such.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to declare any living animal, bird, or fish to be considered as an endangered species. This subsequently allows the FWS to confiscate rights of private landowners in order to protect the so-called habitat of the endangered species
This is a ridiculous law, which is unconstitutional. Our Founding Fathers upheld an economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners–even the government. The right of private property ownership, including use thereof, is guaranteed by the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution
Therefore, your fiddling around with giving each state a time advantage prior to a federal confiscation of private property is of insignificant value. I respectfully suggest that you take the opinion that the FWS, has no right to confiscate any private property use rights. Other options are that the FWS may negotiate to purchase a property and use thereof, or it may negotiate to purchase the wildlife on private property and move it to an equivalent habitat on government land (a reservation).
DEBT CEILING
You said you recognize that it is not necessary to raise the debt ceiling, because the government is still receiving tax income every day which can be used to fund our obligations. You also said you are working on solutions that would reduce our spending, so we don’t keep hitting our debt ceiling and increasing the amount our children and grandchildren will owe. $17 trillion in debt is not the legacy you want to pass on to the next generation.
I agree with you completely on this, but the problem is that you have done little to foster its development. It appears that the people of the United States still mostly believe that raising the debt limit is necessary to avoid default on payment of government obligation interest. You have been allowing the President and Senate Democrats to persist in this lie without appropriate challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment