Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Generally speaking, this was the intent and extent of the function of parity in the farm program guaranteed by the United States Congress. It was never intended and should never have been permitted, in fact, it ceased to be parity, when its application was effective on volume production, exceeding the purchasing power necessary to obtain and maintain a standard of living equivalent to the average citizen engaged in the other phases of the overall economy.

The formula for the administration of parity in its true meaning, has and is at the present, being abused. The purchasing power derived from the excess volume production, over and above the amount necessary to obtain and maintain the intent of parity, is being used, not to buy the products of others, but to acquire additional holdings. This practice has advanced farther than most people think. I call your attention to the reports recently issued by the USDA and the Federal Reserve Board.

We have two alternatives-either abolish it altogether or change the formula of the Administration, so that parity will do, as nearly as is humanly possible, what it is supposed to do-no more, no less.

Furthermore, we should encourage more family-size farms, instead of the present procedure of lesser and larger holdings.

We should encourage ownership by those who wish to live and raise their families on the farm.

The welfare of the Nation is more stable when the land is occupied and operated by the owners.

The Government should stockpile some wheat as well as other essentials, in case of emergency. Parity should be guaranteed only on a bushel basis, to individuals, with their base established according to their number of income-tax exemptions. The formula for the program must entail either the two-price system or a direct subsidy. There would be no acre allotment, therefore, no necessity for land measuring. Farmers could seed in any year any amount he chose; but could not sell, under parity, more than his base. In fact, it would be the best security in the world, for them to have a year's supply in their granary, thus establishing an annual income, in case of drought, hail, or other unforeseen causes. This would eliminate the Government from the storage business entirely, with the exception of stockpile. Excess production would be optional, but no parity payment would be coming from the Government. A sufficient amount of wheat on a bushel basis, for current use, plus substantial carryover, can be closely estimated. There should never be any burdensome surpluses, as there are under the present plan.

I realize there are a great many details that would have to be worked out, causing some deviation to be made, but I believe it to be fair in principle. I realize this is a bit drastic, but in all sincerity, for the Nation's general welfare, we must keep these two facts in mind-administration of parity in its true meaning, and the saving for posterity, of our family-size farms.

Very truly yours,

WORDEN R. HOWAT.

STATEMENT FILED BY R. W. HOYT, ATLANTA, KANS.

I approach this opportunity with a great deal of mixed feeling. First because of the magnanimity of the subject under discussion, second is fear of voicing a biased opinion. This great democracy was built by sweat, toil and hard downto-earth thinking, by people trying to arrive at an ultimate decision, the best for the most people.

If

It is at this point that I want to start my discussion. The farmer along with any other business or professional man is shouldered with two obligations, first earning for himself and family an economic livelihood, and secondly a sacred obliation of service to his fellowmen and future generations. If a profession does not qualify on these two points it is not worthy of the name. a man lives within himself, what heritage can he leave (I don't mean monetary). There has been many words written and spoken in regard to the farm situation, as to whether this plan or that plan will raise the farmer's income, or improve his position with respect to other industries, and place his economic position on a sound foundation. Frankly I am most interested in a more stable economic future.

We have been more or less trained in the past few years to look to the Government for help when things get rough. I am not opposed to disaster relief in the strict sense, but I am opposed to Government subsidies on a wholesale basis, to the point that we become intemperate in our asking. The harm in this

is that we lose our sense of balance and it becomes easy to start crying for help when actually all we need is the exercising of our own liberties, that we have in a democracy.

I feel that the idea of the soil saving bank, coupled with strict cross-compliance does offer a solution, if we dispose of our surplus. We will never dispose of our storehouse of surplus food and fiber as long as we continue to produce for Government storage.

I think that no program will work until some teeth, such as cross-compliance is in corporated in the plan.

Primarily we are in a livestock producing area adjacent to grain production, mostly wheat. Before the appearance of power machinery the farmland was planted to more row crops, not so much small grain. About the time power machinery came the ever-normal granery, then the war which, of course, brought labor shortages, with more mechanical power, less manpower and guaranteed price on wheat and corn, etc.

We in the livestock area are affected directly by a controlled price on feed costs and noncontrolled on products we have to sell.

I am not suggesting that prices should be controlled on livestock. We had a taste of that and we also had a taste of high livestock prices which we found was too high for the consumer to buy.

I am not advocating low production costs, in fact, the livestock producers seldom can show a profit with cheap feed costs, the profit he can show comes from efficient production practices, reasonable feed costs coupled with suitable selling price, which we are well aware, at present prices and ours are off balance. I am happy that the livestock producer is not burdened with large surplus of their products in storage. This would have been true if we had been producing for a Government storage program as we have in other branches of our business. I hasten to say that I feel the 4 year drought probably has been a blessing in disguise even though it has been rather tough competition. We have a surplus backed up in our laps at present, of beef and pork, but it is ours, and the taxpayer is not burdened with this much more, added to the other $7 billion. I am of the opinion that the great push on credit buying of consumer goods is having a great effect on less money being spent for food and fiber. I suppose if I were in agreement with this greatly oversold credit policy I would get on the bandwagon and further recommend, 24 to 36 months to pay the grocery bill. I think we will all agree that this is not sound reasoning. If this is not sound why is it sound for other industries that are subsidized by the Federal Government to go so far on long-time repayment plans with little or no down payment. We could stand a little more cooperation from the processor and retail merchants of our products but feel that we are somewhat at fault in not producing the size and kind of meat the public demands, since the housewife in general is the final judge. I think there are some very strong points in favor of the producers setting up their own processing and marketing outlets which has been practiced in other industries, and proven successful, for example the oil business.

We in the production end of agriculture represent a smaller number of people each year but still in numbers it is a lot of people to educate to see things eye to eye. I feel in general the thinking farmer is aware of the circumstances that surround him, that he is ready and willing to make some changes in his production program if he can see that he is not further jeopardizing his economic security.

In the past, the only reason the programs have shown signs of working, was brought about by wars and threat of wars and we cannot build on that sort of economy. Now with no wars we are sweltering under the back-breaking load of deteriorating surpluses.

I want to commend the Agriculture Department for the efforts that have been made to move our products through trade, not aid, and realize full well that we have a State Department that has certain fences to keep mended, but I am also of the opinion that a vast number of people in this world go to bed hungry every night. We call ourselves a Christian nation (am I my brother's keeper?). The Bible says I am.

I want to further commend this committee for using this method of getting the voice of the grassroots farmers.

By way of summary I feel that the soil-fertility bank, linked with a central program with strict cross compliance will be necessary to make the program work. As for the control program, I see no reason why the present 1954 act is not the best yet. Any control program must have some side helps such as I have outlined in above statements and furthermore keep it from becoming more of a political football.

WICHITA, KANS., October 24, 1955.

Senator ANDREW SCHOEPPEL,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: I have farming interests and I understand the plight of the farmers. Many are going broke now, especially those that are heavily in debt and had a 7-bushel wheat crop and burned out summer crops due to the drought.

I have thought of several points that will help in your fight for them, as follows: First: The only point that has been stressed has been soil conservation for the future of this Nation. In other words, create enough idle land to get rid of a surplus and then pay the farmers a subsidy for setting aside that idle land on the theory that the idle land will conserve soil fertility for future generations to come. The nonfarming public considers that dole. To me that is good argument but it is a comparatively weak base to stand on.

I feel that a much stronger national appeal can be made by the farmers on the basis of the State Department needs covering the foreign-relation problem and who should stand the burden of paying for that State Department need. To bolster up foreign countries that are on our side of the international cold war, our State Department entered into a world wheat agreement, which greatly limited the amount of wheat that can be sold on the world market and gave that wheat market which we formerly had, to our weak allies to bolster them up so they can aid us. That is a fine thing to do. It helps our Nation as a whole. But why should the farmers have to stand that terrific loss that ruins their world market, when such arrangement redounds to the benefit of the whole nation and not just to the farmers? Suppose the State Department would announce that they had put auto production under United States controls just like under the Agricultural Adjustment Act and further that the State Department thought that it would be to the best interest of the Nation and would make our allies stronger and make us safer as a nation if we cut down auto production 50 percent and turned that much of our world market over to our allies to make them stronger. Wouldn't the unions, auto dealers, auto repairmen, auto parts suppliers, etc. set up a howl? Wouldn't they say, why pick out the auto industry and make it carry a burden that should be shared by the whole Nation? If it helps all, then let all pay.

(That world wheat-marketing agreement and limitation, I feel, is what is wrong with the Clifford Hope two-price idea. Why drag off millions of tons of fertilizer and dump it all over the world and weaken us for the future? Millions of tons of dumped wheat carries with it many tons of fertilizer. Why not keep it at home? Mr. Hope's plan has that objection.)

When the whole Nation pays a subsidy to the farmers as a reward for allowing land to stand idle, then the excess is eliminated and all, and not just the farmers, pay for the State Department operations that aid our foreign allies.

Second: Wouldn't it be rather simple to have United States experts find out the cost per acre of tillable wheat land due to rigid 90-percent parity prices paid to the farmer and then spread that cost as a bonus or subsidy to the acres that are kept out of production? Wouldn't that be a sensible way to arrive at the rate per acre that would be paid to the farmers on the idle land? Wouldn't it be sensible to give that subsidy directly to the farmers on said cost basis instead of indirectly through the ASC wheat-loan arrangement. When figuring that cost per acre, then figure in the costs of a vast office force scattered over the country, rent of ASC office space, wheat-storage costs paid by the Government, insurance, spoilage, selling commissions, freight, etc. I will bet that the total cost per acre would be very large. On the other side of the ledger, consider the saving benefit that would redound to the farmers by such a simple plan. Think of the vast costs of plowing, disking, spring toothing, harrowing, drilling, combining, truck hauling to market, etc., that would be saved by the farmers, if they did not have to work the equivalent of that idle farmland that always produces an unwanted excess of some form of farm crops. That also should be figured out and be credited to the plan in presenting it to Congress and the farmers. I believe that United States experts who handle accounts, etc., could figure out the answers to the above in a rather simple manner. I believe that the creation of the necessary idle acres that would eliminate the exportable surplus and end vast storage of crop stuff, is the answer to the farmers' needs.

I believe that Benson ought to resign. He has not come out for any simple and entirely different remedy for farm troubles. He is not an original thinker. He has no new plan that is different. He only cuts wheat allotments still lower and cuts prices also. That adds up to lower farm income and the farmers have this thrown at them by the Republicans, in the face of the worse drought we have had in years.

If the Republicans don't fire Benson and come up with a new farm plan quickly, then the Republican Party is headed down the same road with the same attitude dominating that party as during the twenties and that party will wind up terribly defeated, as it did then. Its indifference toward the farmers plight is making millions of farmers sore at that party.

I am a Republican and always have been but I have sense enough to know that it is going ahead to certain defeat. Benson represents farm abuse, due to his cut of wheat allotments plus wheat prices. He symbolizes what the farmers don't like. If he is fired now the Republicans would make a quick step in the right direction that would help tremendously. That would make the headlines in the newspapers. The effects on the farmer would be wonderful. If that could then be followed up with an entirely new farm program which would eliminate the vast storage of unwanted crop stuff, the Republican Party could get on its feet again. If not, then it is whipped.

Best wishes to you.

Very truly,

H. F. HUDSON.

STATEMENT FILED BY JOHN T. HUTCHINGS, HAVANA, Kans.

Herein I respectfully hand you my analysis of agriculture, and my conclusions for its betterment and security.

Create a foundation of protected economy, which is sound, supplanting supported economy which is to that degree uncertain and unsound.

To this end I offer the following suggestions which combine a full parity or basic price and a flexible price system to meet the law of supply and demand. Create by law a basic fair prie within, and where feasible outside the commodity markets, allowing variation in price above and below the basic price. This should be liberal, say 25 percent up or down. Best distribution is had with liquid markets.

Minimum price on all sales by foreign countries or for foreign account, whether for spot or future delivery, should be 120 percent of the basic price at port of entry, plus freight and commission from the interior natural market, thus protecting American production and merchandising.

To establish a full basic price to producers, I present the following schedule: Wheat: To producers of approved wheat of milling quality $2.15 per bushel basis terminal markets.

Subsidy payments during the last 3 months of the area seasonal year. Equaling the basic price, on all wheat sold under basic price, and market difference on unsold wheat, with privilege of calling for the wheat. This to apply on 160 acres. Above 160 acres and to 320 acres equaling 90 percent of basic price. Providing, however, the producer did not sell below 90 percent of basic price, nor more than 10 percent of his total crop any one month below 100 percent of basic price. No subsidy payment above 320 acres.

Feed grains are of relative value each to the other, so a common basic price of $1.50 per 56 pounds basis terminal.

No subsidy on feed grains in direct payment, but rather a subsidy on principal meat animals, about like the following:

Good to choice fat steers and heifers $25.50 per hundredweight, basis processing markets, no limit of numbers.

Fat lambs up to 110 pounds $20.50 basis processing markets, no limit of numbers.

Fat hogs average weight up to 215 pounds $16.50 hundredweight basis processing makets. Limit to 50 head to producers of 100 or less. Commercial production of hogs in unlimited numbers could create an unabalanced market. All subsidies should be paid direct to producers.

Basic price for 650 million bushels of wheat is automatic, the same being our domestic consumption.

The above plan submitted for your consideration appeals to me as being simple, automatic, and self-working on the whole, and economical in operation.

The above is simply a rough framework and many details of course would have to be worked out to set it in operation.

WORLD FOOD BREAKDOWN

There are roughly 22 billion people in the world. There are in excess of 1 billion on food rationing. The past 10 years have seen wars and the worst crop failures and famines in history. Roadblocks in the avenues of distribution both sending and receiving have bled the invisible normal supply white.

Present food accumulations will barely fill the vacuum of security world needs. This is too close an adjustment for world security and peace. Return to normal world conditions and secure economic positions will go far to remove the temporary accumulations in some positions of the world.

STATEMENT FILED BY ED IMHOF, YUMA, COLO.

I operate a 1,280-acre farm of which 1,150 acres are cultivated, partly owned and partly rented.

My principal crop is wheat, but I also raise feed crops and livestock on a small scale. I have always complied with the wheat program.

I believe this to be about the right sized farm, to be classed as a family-type, diversified farm in that area. Seven years ago I started terracing and doing other long-term soil-conservation work. I believed these practices to be in the best interests of this and future generations.

The past two seasons I had to stop this work, due to lower conservation payments, lowering prices, and a pretty good promise of still lower prices. Seventysix percent of parity for wheat leads me to believe I may have to postpone any further long-term conservation practices indefinitely.

I don't believe our taxpayers should be asked to contribute to short-term conservation such as summer fallow. But I believe it to be in the best interests of our whole population, for Government to contribute to long-term conservation. We farmers do not wish any donations from anyone. All we ask is a fair price for our production.

We believe it is only fair that our whole economy help maintain our natural resources and help maintain adequate reserves of food and fiber in case of war. Also to keep our land conserved for our growing population.

The press says, "Advertising don't cost, it pays." That could very well be changed to say, "Farm programs don't cost, they pay."

I firmly believe we in this great Nation, must adopt a land policy. Instead of making the mistake that all nations of the world have made, and that it to wait until something drastic has to be done, about too few owning the land.

We must put ceilings on any farm program payments to any one person. It just isn't good business to support any one producer to the tune of way up in the thousands of dollars.

Some people claim this would be imposing on freedom. This is the exact opposite of the truth. We can stay free in this great Nation only if we stay in the middle of the road. Too far to either side of the road puts anyone in the ditch.

We can kid ourselves if we wish, but can't regulate price without some sort of control. The flexible support program has proven it does not lower prices to consumers as it has been claimed it would do. We must move away from it if we wish to maintain the highly desirable family-type farm. This type farm must be maintained if we wish to keep democracy in our great country.

I believe some sort of bushel program for wheat would be better for wheat than acreage control. It would keep an ever-normal granary on the farm.

Our Nation cannot afford our present loss of soil by flood. It has been proven that flood control pays for itself quickly. What terraces do on farmland complete river valley control does on a larger scale.

We need cheaper rates of interest if we expect to keep this a land of opportunity for the young man to start farming. FHA should be strengthened; it has

done a good job in many cases, but is too short of funds.

In closing I would like to say we will just have to spend some money on farm programs, just as a farmer has to spend money on his farm to make it a profitable one.

In the long run it will pay good dividends to a strong national economy.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »