The annual appropriations to the Department of Agric benefit directly or indirectly a broad segment of the U.S. popu and the people of many underdeveloped countries abroad. Farm by no means the only, and certainly not the prime, benefactors Department's programs and services. Actually, nonfarmers parti in a larger share of this Department's expenditures than fa themselves. About 55 percent of Department of Agriculture expenditu the 1970 budget, are for services which are of primary benefit general public. Around 45 percent goes for price support and programs in which farmers are the primary but not the beneficiaries. The following table provides a breakdown of the Agric budget by program and by benefiting group. BUDGET OUTLAYS FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND ESTIMATED 1969 AND 1970 (In millions) 1969 1970 estimate Programs which clearly provide benefits to consumers, businessmen, and the general public (total).. Other programs which are predominantly for stabilization of farm income, but which also benefit others (total).. $4, 529 $3,974 3, 878 marketing agencies and processors-the middlemen. Only $13.3 bil Às compared with 1947–49, consumers purchased about 61 per WAGES ON AND OFF THE FARM North America: Canada United States ? Jarnaica. Venezuela Austria United Kingdom? Bulgaria Yugoslavia Ghana South Africa. Ceylon Cambodia 31.0 30.0 In 1947, employees in food processing and in the wholesale 58.7 6 50.1 IN THE MARKET PLACE 53.9 FARM PRICES DOWN-RETAIL FOOD PRICES UP 25.5 23. 7 21.6 1 Total expenditures, defined as those of households and private nonprofit institutions, including expenditures of resi 2 Includes nonalcoholic beverages. : Percentage of individual consumption''; usually excludes personal and professional services and other economic • From Economic Trends in the Soviet Union, by A. Bergson and S. Kuznets, Harvard University Press, p. 361, includes Based on data in United Nations. Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics, 1968. EXPENDITURES FOR FOOD, AT FARM AND AT RETAIL The depressing consequences of farmiers' lack of bargaining | Consumers today pull much more for il market basket of food Farmers, producing more and better food products than ever be Retail food prices have risen almost steadily over the past 22 y Retail food prices in 1969 had increased 48 percent since the early Last year, the cost to consumers of farm-produced food totaled Only a limited number of agricultural commodities are covered by Federal support payment programs. The majority seek to achieve market stability through marketing agreements and marketing orders. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 provides general authority for the use of marketing orders, and specifies the commodities to which they may be applied. Commodities currently covered by marketing orders include the following: Almonds Lemons Plums Potatoes Driell prunes Fresh primes Raisins Tangelos Tangerines Tobacco ? Tomatoes Walnuts Pears i Marketing agreement only. : Cigar-wrapper type 62. Many of these commodities and additional fruit, nut, and vegetable production are assisted by State marketing orders and agreements. Federal marketing order authority is broud and varied. For milk, orders may set minimum producer prices; classify milk according to use; pool returns to producers; adjust returns to producers on the basis of marketing in a base perio:l; establish a system of verifying weights, sampling and testing; and provide market information. For other commodities, orders may limit the volume of marketings, establish producer or handler marketing allotments; control and cqualize the burden of surplus; pool returns to producers or handlers; require production inspection; provide for market research and development; prohibit unfair trade practices; and require sales only at filed prices. However, what Federal marketing agreements and orders cannot do is also spelled out in the enabling law. Federal orders for milk cannot control production, restrict the marketing of milk by producers, nor fix corisumer prices. For the other commodities, orders cannot control production or fix prices at any level of trade. Marketing orders and agreements provide the farmer with a means for solving a wide range of marketing problems through unified action. It is a flexible and a legal tool. It has the force of law, with Government assuring an appropriate balance between the interests of agriculture and the general public. Each partner has a unique role. "not growing crops," these payments are determined by the number bushels or number of pounds actually planted, cultivated, barves and made available for the domestic market. Price support payments are made on wheat, corn, grain sorghi burley, cotton, sugar, tobacco, peanuts, soybeans, tung nuts, na stores, and wool. The objective of the payments with respect to 11 and sugar differ somewhat from the other commodities because t are intended as incentives to increase domestic production and red our dependence on imports whereas the price support payments wheat, feed grains, and cotton serve as an incentive to stabilize 1 duction and maintain farm income. Under early price support and production adjustment program price support loans at high levels were offered to farmers who part pated in production control programs. These high supports served a floor for market prices and subsequently caused prices to be a ficially high and substantially out of line with the supply-dema situation. The reason why market prices fluctuated around the lo level is because the quantity of a particular commodity under 1 was sufficient to cause the market price to rise far enough above loan to release the quantity needed to satisfy market demands. surplus production from any one year was acquired by the Commod Credit Corporation and was thus not available to depress prices be the loan level. As it result, stocks of commodities in Commor Credit Corporation hands accumulated to enormous levels. Stor costs were tremendous. As a result of the artificially high prices caused by the high p support loans, domestic utilization of these commodities was limi and we could compete in world markets only through use of co subsidies. In the case of cotton, synthetics being produced at m lower prices were taking over the domestic market. Thus cotton being priced out of domestic markets. It was deemed necessary to assure farmers a return for their co modities comparable to that received under the high loan progra However, under the free marketing system in this Nation it is possible to operate a two price system-a higher price for commodi consumed domestically and a lower price which would be competit in world markets. As a result, the price support payment system was devised. I enabled the Government to support certain commodities at s stantially lower loan levels and assure farmers participating in prou tion adjustment programs of a fair return for their production issuing the balance of the total support guaranteed them in the fo of direct payments. The price support payments issued are in proj tion to the average production on a farm. For example, the prices port payments for wheat (called certificates) are issued to participa farmers on their proportionate share of the wheat utilized for dome food use. In 1970, certificates were issued on about 48 percent participating farm's average production. As a result of the lowered loan rate, the market again began operate more nearly in relation to the supply-demand situation more nearly reflected world market prices. Domestic use and expo increased. PRICE SUPPORT PAYMENTS Price support payments provide a means whereby the Government can assure a fair market return to farmers for the commodities while at the same time setting price support loans at levels which will enable these commodities to be priced competitively in world and domestic markets. Despite the popular fallacy that farmers are being paid for |