Posted on 11/09/2005 3:17:00 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Like you, I receive a pile of e-mails every day, beyond those my spam blocker catches. They offer to lower my mortgage rate, increase the size of a certain part of my body, or (often) offer me something that might be funny. Below is one of those, exactly as I received it. Following that are some serious points to consider.
Enjoy. Then think about it.
TO: Honorable Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir,
My friend, Ed Peterson, over at Wells Iowa, received a check for $1,000 from the government for not raising hogs. So, I want to go into the "not raising hogs" business next year.
What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs.
As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.
My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the business. He has been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not raising hogs.
If I get $1000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I can afford an airplane.
Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn and wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat and corn to not feed the 4000 hogs I am not going to raise?
Also, I am considering the "not milking cows" business, so send me any information you have on that too.
In view of these circumstances, you understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for unemployment and food stamps. Be assured you will have my vote in the coming election.
Patriotically Yours,
Mr. Smith
Okay, you’ve had a chuckle. Now the serious points.
Whenever the government gives anything away for free, demand will always exceed supply. Furthermore, some of the recipients will resent the government anyway, because someone else seems to have gotten more than they did.
This is a universal truth, and one proof is in free education for all in public schools through the 12th grade. Here, the recipients are actually expected to do something in return for what is given to them. They are expected to read the books, do the homework, and pass the classes. As a result, about 30% of the students refuse the free education, and drop out.
When there are complaints about what the government is giving away for free, the solution cannot be more give-aways on top of the present ones. As I said one time at the Baltimore City Planning Commission, building more highways to solve traffic congestion is like killing rats by feeding them to death.
More broadly, this is why Aristotle defined pure democracy as a “corrupt” form of government. Under such a system, the voters will ultimately vote themselves into the bankruptcy of their economy. This happened in New York City a generation ago. It is happening now in California. And in nations as diverse as France and Venezuela. America did not start with a pure democracy here, but with a democratic republic. And that, being a republic, has made all the difference, if, as Franklin said on the steps of Independence Hall, “if you can keep it.”
Just a suggestion: when you consider any government program, existing or proposed, ask yourself this question. Are we raising more non-existent hogs here? The answers you reach could be useful.
To return to the theme of humor speaking truth, P.J. O’Rourke offered the following observation on the costs of free government programs, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait and see what it costs when it’s free.”
About the Author:
John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
The Iowans make up the difference by not growing corn to not feed the hogs the Montanans aren't raising, as well as the ones they aren't raising. You can't not grow corn in Montana. It just isn't done.
Perhaps your wittiest yet...
Funny stuff
(In Oregon they should pay Loggers for not cutting trees anymore, in Alaska, Florida and California for not drilling for Oil, the whole Country should get paid for not building Refineries or Nuclear Reactors, Ted Kennedy should get paid for not building wind generators and Texans should be paid for no longer being its own Country)
TT
You sufficiently tickled my funny bone with that one.
It reminds me of the old definitions of different political movements using the cow. Here it is:
http://www.deanlebaron.com/snippets/s40.html
I spit on my monitor, that's $235 for a new one bud.
That's not the not funniest thing I've never not heard.
This is terribly funny. LOL, marvel at the ingenuity of the mind when it comes to creative thinking.
Just damn!
Just try to follow one for his entire work day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.