Reader disagrees with farm subsidies

Back in high school, I worked on a dairy farm in which the Federal government paid the farm approximately a quarter million dollars to destroy all the animals and cease milk production for 10 years. The reason: too much milk supply, which was keeping the price of milk too low.

Now days, a popular program is paying farmers not to utilize certain areas of their farms and/or to not grow certain crops. I think there is something wrong with the government paying people to "not" do something.

Can we next expect government to pay workers to build cars, trucks, TVs, appliances, etc. that are not selling, simply to keep them working and paying taxes?

Today, while looking at the farm subsidy database, I was surprised at some of the subsidy recipients here in Grant County. According to the database, Commissioner Richard Stevens appears to have received in excess of $519,000 (2001-2010) and Commissioner Cindy Carter has two corporations that seem to have collected more than $470,000 (1996-2010) of these subsidies. Wow! This is your money!

Ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect nearly three-fourths of federal farm subsidies. Is this transfer of wealth appropriate? My business' successes aren't backstopped by the Federal government. Why should any private business be backstopped in this fashion?

Politicians don't care, especially when they benefit from the theft of the public coffers. They always seem to threaten essential services like police, fire and education to meet budget shortfalls. In fact, Gov. Gregoire is now attempting reduction of school bus service throughout Washington, but won't address the pork and their own excessive salaries. Parents and increased property taxes will be expected to pick up the slack.

It is past time to get real about what government should and shouldn't be doing.