Debate Over Farm Subsidies

* I read the article about farm subsidies and me (March 16) and was outraged.

I had the dubious distinction of being chosen by the computer as an example of a farmer living in Los Angeles and farming in Blythe, who has received government payments called subsidies.

Much was made of “absentee ownership.” However, in this day of instant communication and computers, it is possible to operate a business (farm) without physically being there all time. I lived on the ranch for many years from the time we purchased it in 1939, when it was raw land, to its present state as cultivated fields. Today, I don’t find it necessary to live there anymore, but I try to be on the farm at least once a week while maintaining all farm records and conducting farm business from my office in Los Angeles.

The points I made your reporter:

-- In a truly free global market there would be no justification for subsidies.

-- When sales of some farm products are restricted because of our government’s policies, our farmers lose their traditional market share. Shouldn’t our government have some responsibility to protect the farmers so affected?

-- Farmers in other countries are subsidized; their governments buy their products at a high price and, in times of surplus, dump these same products on the global market. Shouldn’t our government help its farmers remain viable?

-- Countries and their farmers have had trouble managing surpluses and shortages since the seven lean years and the seven fat years of biblical times, yet the welfare of farming is vital to the welfare of the economy.

Farmland is part of our national heritage. The farmer is only a caretaker of it during his lifetime. Every civilized country recognizes this fact and does its best to help its farmers. We have a very successful farm program, the envy of the world, which furnishes cheap food and fiber to our people. Let’s not sacrifice this on the altar of false economy.

ARNOLD TRAVIS

Los Angeles