Rep.Neugebauer (Texas) on Farm, Housing, and Obamacare

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer (Texas):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I read your newsletter.

Farm Bill    You said, "Last week, The House decided to split the farm support programs from the nutrition programs.  We passed H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act of 2013, by a vote of 216-208.   This bill saves taxpayers nearly $14 billion over the next ten years and improves efficiency by consolidating more than 100 programs.  It also moves to a much more market-oriented framework for agricultural support and ends direct payments.  In their place, we strengthened crop insurance where farmers pay premiums to insure their crops and get support in the years that they suffer losses".
    It looks like you are moving in the right direction but not quickly enough. Separating farm support programs from nutrition programs is a positive, but the federal taxpayers should not be giving farmers economic support. Farmers are in business to produce a product, which they sell on the open market. All costs, including disaster costs, are a total part of their cost of doing business, and their products should be priced accordingly.
    Saving $14 billion over 10 years sounds favorable, but I would be more impressed with how much we save each year. More importantly, how much are we still spending of taxpayer money, which should be part of market structure? If we are moving to a much more market-oriented framework for agricultural support and ending direct payments, why do we have any cost to the taxpayers in all?
    Presumably the answer to the previous question may lie in part to your statement that farmers get support for the years that they suffer losses. I thought that that's what they were carrying insurance for and that farmers would be paying premiums for same.
    All in all, I think we're making progress, but I still see on your part an attitude that we have to help farmers. That's wrong. Farmers are independent businessmen and need to help themselves. Your job is to see that everything moves to open market considerations, without taxpayer expense. That may lead to higher food costs in the retail market, but that is realization and facing the facts of life, as opposed to hiding such information in the folds of grand government.
Housing    You have explained ay great length the problems of the housing market and particularly as exacerbated by government involvement.
    You are right on target!
    Your bill (PATH) proposes phasing out Fannie and Freddie over five years and require FHA to use sound business practices and scale back to its original mission of helping first-time and low-income homebuyers.  The PATH Act would increase competition, enhance transparency, and maximize consumer choice.
    While I agree with most of your PATH proposals, I disagree with scaling back to the original mission of helping first-time and low income homebuyers. Helping first-time and low income homebuyers, with taxpayer funds, is an interference in commercial markets, which can readily handle the situation. There is no need to be spending taxpayer money on such a program.
Obamacare     You said that the House is considering delaying both the employer and employee mandates of the law by a year. The two mandates require both the employer and the employee to purchase health insurance. You are considering the year delay to give more time for Congress to work on repealing this broken law and passing solutions that work for you and your family.
    You are right on target with respect to repealing Obamacare! However, I take strong exception to your second part, which involves "passing solutions that work for you and your family". Government has no business being involved in any kind of health program for the general public. The general public is educated enough to be able to handle its own health problems, through direct payments or insurance for any healthcare services they receive. For those who are destitute and require medical treatment, there are free clinics, and some allowance could be made in the welfare budget for minor support, if required.