Bear News

Beartown News

JULY 1, 2002




Honorable Secretary of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir;

     My friend, Ed Peterson, over at Beartown, Vermont, 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 Duress.
As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I have
not 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 not to 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,

Jonathan Alfalfa


Dear Fellow Beartowntonians.

Here's an interesting analogy of how tax cuts work.....
If you don't understand the
Democrats' version of tax cuts, here is an example:
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due. The team was about to send out refunds when the
Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrats' interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would  go to the richest people. That would be unconscionable.
Democrats' plan says:
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend.
People in the $15 seats will get back $15, because that's only fair.
People in the $25 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund.
People in the $50 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving by the stadium that couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help.

Now do you understand?

A sixth generation Beartowntonian,

Kenatoli Kawachsami



Copyright 2000 Claude Dern, All Rights Reserved
This site hosted by