Commentary By Samuel Strait – March 5, 2022 When I first reported on the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Covid "Loans", it occurred to me that something for at least some of the "Loans" was a bit "Off". It was the intention of the Federal Government to protect those employees who had been "laid off" due to local and state government mandates that prevented them from going to work at their regular jobs. Since employers would be shuttered and prevented from making those payrolls, the government elected to extend loans to those employers who were shut down which would enable them to "make" payroll and retain their work force. It also allowed employers to pay for certain items such as lease payments, rent, utilities, and a few other expenses that they would be unable to pay for DUE TO LOSS OF INCOME. The question that I would have for a local farming business who claimed rather substantial PPP loans, most of which were "forgiven", to pay employees to "sit at home" for an extended period of time, was did they actually close their doors? For example, could a local farming family actually be able to apply for several PPP loans to the tune of nearly $1.4 million dollars, all forgiven, yet send their employees (one according to their application) home for a couple of years? Does the care and feeding of "beef cattle ranching and farming" take a vacation for two years? Do laying hens stop laying eggs for two years? Do Dairy Cattle stop producing milk for two years? Can a ranch family perform all the necessary chores to supplant a previously employed work force for two years? If the dairy cattle continued to produce milk, was it sold, and at a profit? If the laying hens continued to lay eggs were they as well taken to market and sold? Did the ranch stop raising beef cattle to be sold? What exactly was the loss suffered by the farming business that allowed them to apply for PPP loans to pay employees "not to work" and yet have the ability to sell their products for the entire time encountering no loss, pocket the income and then pay employees "that were sitting at home" with PPP loan money? To add insult to injury, the taxpayer will not receive any money back from those PPP loans as they "have been paid in full or forgiven". Looks like $1.4 million in this case was put to "good use". While the above example of questionable loan activity with the SBA will no doubt not even warrant an investigation, it should be made clear to the community that those questions warrant an answer by the family involved. Also not likely to happen when you live on a different plain than most who make up the local community. It is most unfortunate that there are people in this community that chose to "game the system" because they "can". While there is the very real prospect that others in the local community chose to behave in a similar fashion, it would be nice if they paid a price for their subterfuge. Maybe eventually they will. Perhaps the list of those that applied for those loans should become public knowledge in local media circles, and, whether or not those businesses actually closed their doors during the pandemic "if they were forced to do so by mandate". The ability to stay open and still apply and receive a PPP loan does not count….. If those of you reading this article do not know who is the example being referred, should read this paper regularly. You never know what will come crawling out from under the rug…. Hopefully the outrage which is beginning to wake up those footing the bill will take into account this sample of local "corruption" and start looking around for the many other samples of government malfeasance and demand better. It is likely the only way that things will change for the better in our lives.