Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Farm Bill and Government Spending

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your latest newsletter and have the following comments:

FARM BILL    You asked for a vote on whether I preferred the Senate or House version of the proposed Farm Law, or whether I was undecided. I did not vote for any of the three choices. Voting for the Senate or House version would imply that I approved one of the other. Voting as undecided would imply that I have no opinion.
    In fact, I do have a strong opinion. Neither the Senate nor the house bills are appropriate for a Constitutional Republic. They are both loaded with subsidies from taxpayer funds, which makes them socialistic endeavors. Farming is a business. It should not be given subsidies for insurance against drought or other natural calamity, nor should it be controlled in any form. As a business, it should be left unimpeded to do its job, which is to make a profit in supplying goods and services to the American public. Government has no place in the economics of this operation. The only function of government here is to see that there are enough farming businesses turning out products to avoid potential famine. This does not imply that farming should be promoted. It only implies that appropriate production data should be collected so that some judgment can be made at government level on whether famine is imminent. If such is found to be the case, which is highly unlikely, it is only then that Congress should be stepping in to take some radical control. However, this does not mean government should micro manage, such as control how many peanuts or how much wheat is produced. Market forces will establish appropriate control levels.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING    You say it's time to address our spending problem. I say it's way past time to address our spending problem, but it is never too late.
    I agree with your statement that we need to deal with our out-of-control spending problem now to protect our economy and the legacy of our nation in the future. I also agree with the various actions you appear to have been involved in to bring us back on course.
    You should be particularly adamant on this, as you have seen the new light. Congress has been overspending for many years, and you have been part of it. Perhaps you have done this opportunistically, and in order to be part of a more powerful regime. Hopefully, you now see the fallacy of such reasoning, which will drive this country into bankruptcy and reduction to a third world entity.
OBAMA'S BROKEN PROMISES
    You go through a litany of Pres. Obama's broken promises, all of which are true. However, there is a distinct futility in this operation, since 44% of the public still approve of Pres. Obama's actions as President. There are various reasons for this, including the fact that he is a spellbinding speaker and has a program geared to granting favors to both large powerful financial supporters, and low information voters.
    The point is that in spite of the fact that you and I may strongly disapprove of his actions, there is no way we are going to unseat him by impeachment. The only approach remaining is to minimize his socialistic damage through strong negative action in the House. This should be both proactive and reactive. The rest will all be up to the general public in forthcoming elections. It will either decide to continue the march toward socialism with ultimate destruction, or a turnaround to a Republic operation with a renewed sense of continuity.
SOUTH PLAINS HONOR FLIGHT
    You say you were proud to welcome over 70 veterans to our nation’s capitol. The South Plains Honor Flight brought these veterans to Washington, D.C. to commemorate their service and thank them for their sacrifice for our freedoms.
    No problem here. We all appreciate the service of our veterans to our country, and I see the need for a little public relations on your part to help your reelection.
    However, the word Afghanistan again caught my eye. We are engaged there in a stupid war. To use a timeworn cliché favored by politicians, the US has no interests in Afghanistan. Our operations there cost a lot of money and kill our people. If we don't like their heroin production, there are obviously other steps we can take to eliminate it. If the war mongers say that we need to be there because we can use it as a base against Iran with its forthcoming production of nuclear weapons, that's ridiculous. We don't need such a base with our long-range ballistic missiles and drones, which can come from much farther distances than only from a neighboring country.