Replies

You've peddled that lie here before, but Jeff and AuntB presented credible evidence that the participants paid off every penny and more. - There is no subsidy, the operations turn a profit.

Well, yeah. Once you delete the initial subsidy (I sure as hell can't swing an interest-free loan, nor can I force land sales at gunpoint, nor can I just make a sweetheart deal with the statehouse for their lands, nor can I simply rewrite a treaty with the local Indian tribe at the drop of a hat), it makes a profit.

If they had to pay market prices for the land AND the loans, this thing would have gone broke in a few years.

Like I said, the plaintiffs' case reduces down to "it may be unconstitutional as hell, but it's OUR pet unconstitutionality, so we ought to continue deriving the benefits thereupon."

You are missing the big picture.

I don't mean to imply that the problems in Klamath are small by saying Klamath is a small picture, but the big picture problem is the continued expansion of Federal Reserved Water Rights.

Judicial Activism in the last half of the 20th century has created a 800# gorilla that can trump any pre-existing water right. It has created much uncertainty thru-out the west. Those Klamath water rights are a 100 years old. There are some threatened rights that go back to the Spaniards.

Babbitt said: "If we can control the water, we can control the West".

This is all I have to say on this subject, Poohbah, because you know the truth. That "subsidy" you refer to allowed the farmers of Klamath Falls to feed YOUR relatives during times of war and depression........and may well again, unless of course people like you manage to wipe out an entire culture. Then you can starve with the liberals.