If you tried to gall us, you did with both your logic and your humor. You apparently got curried away in your fowl taxonomy {"Chicken War," editorial, Dec. 9}.

As a cattle farmer, I don't have much at steak, a poultry sum indeed, but when The Post teams up with the Farmers-General to milk all the blood from an already oversqueezed turnip, I ask myself, wattle The Post think up next? A frequent fryer program, no doubt. I know I'll roup the day when I gain that special place in your lore and pollotics. You must be laboring under some Andalusians that the feed I'm buying is earning interest during the four or five years from the birth of a brood cow to the sale of a fat steer.

With chickens, the turnover is quicker, although the principle is the same whether on the Eastern Shore or over in the Old Dominiquean. Perhaps the Farmers-General are better than plain chicken farmers at counting chickens before they hatch. You'd think they would know that a pre-vented egg is hard to candle. No, that's not quite right. Actually they're too soft to candle.

As for magical accounting, you're scratching in your own eggomania. The real issue is a responsible definition of income. When the Farmers-General and the press combine to pluck the taxpayer, they not only absolutely corrupt our laws, they absolutely corrupt the very language used to express the laws. There's a big difference between lawlessness and heresy (against my native tongue-in-cheek).

Had Alexis de Tocqueville been here last week and feasted on the Gorbachevs' delight of Rhode Island Reds he would not have noted, as he did a century and a half ago, that the electorate functioned with enlightened interest and democratic effect at the lowest level. He would have noted a caponized electorate pecking at the federal trough with too little concern for its fate.

I suspect that some of the chickens will come home to Roostenkowski (and Bradley, the Jersey Giant) next spring when the revenue-neutral settings of the joint tax-writing committee terminate their incubation. Since, as your editorial portends, the cover-up is already initiated, it probably won't arrive as a red-hot moulten issue. We family farmers can insist on our Minorcaty rights, and the Press with advice from the Farmers-General can rewrite the definition of deficit. -- Meredith E. "Tut" Hendricks