Obamagic 

Pioneer Press

Fort Jones, CA

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

page 7 col 1

pioneerp@sisqtel.net

To the Editor:

If the government suddenly decided that no one should go without food and passed a law that those who buy their own food must also buy for those who do not, or for those who have come into the country illegally, there would obviously be a shortage created. The increased need would require the production of more food.

But suppose that farmers and ranchers had price controls on what they could charge for their production. And that the government mandated that their prices were already too high and passed laws forcing them to sell for still less.

Now, imagine that those farmers and ranchers had a $500,000 debt for education and equipment on the first day they planted their acreage or bought their first feeder calves. Consider, also, that they had to carry enormous insurance policies for anyone getting ill from eating their products and then suing for all they're worth.

In such a hostile atmosphere the established food producers might hang on until they could sell out and retire, but there would be little incentive for anyone new to go into that line of work. Gradually, what food was produced wouldn't be enough to meet the needs of everyone and consumers would have to search for, and wait for, produce and meat to eat. Often it wouldn't be obtained in time to prevent starvation.

The government, in all its wisdom would then make rules as to who gets priority for the food that is available. For instance, less food would go to geezers and geezerettes, especially if they're already past the biblical "three score and ten" years of life. It is not "cost effective" to provide much food for older people, since they don't work hard and are soon going to move from the topside of the grass to the underside. Food would simply have to be rationed to those who contribute the most to society. When people who are in their sunset years check out earlier than expected because of food shortages, it relieves the pressure on social Security and Medicare, and even reduces carbon dioxide "pollution" from their breathing. So, for the government, it's a win-win situation. But for seniors, and anyone who ever expects to become one, it would be a lose-lose matter.