EDITORIAL 



A Good Job 



^^V HE Madison G)unty Farm Bureau performed a 



^*~-^ praiseworthy service to ail the farmers of Madison 



^J County recently when it successfully opposed the 



creation of a county forest preserve district submitted in 



the November election. 



There is merit in the creation of park districts and the 

 preservation of natural beauty but there is no merit nor 

 justice in attempting to saddle on the farmers of the county 

 much of the burden for such facilities created chiefly for 

 city residents. 



The county forest preserve advocates announced be- 

 fore the election that if the plan was approved by the voters, 

 they would sponsor an $880,000 bond issue to be paid 

 over a period of 50 years out of property tax revenues. 

 This would have amounted to 1 % of present total assessed 

 valuations of all classes of property in the county. 



At a meeting of the Farm Bureau township tax com- 

 mittees, John C. Watson, director of taxation for the lAA 

 pointed out that "the sponsors of the proposed district are 

 ignoring the fact that both the state Constitution and the 

 forest preserve district law forbid the issue of any bonds 

 for a period of longer than 20 years . . . also that it is per- 

 fectly possible to set up such a district on a local basis assess- 

 ing the cost against the district which will be directly and 

 chiefly benefited thereby. Moreover many farmers would 

 be deprived of their land against their will by condemnation 

 proceedings." 



The policy of the Farm Bureau movement in Illinois 

 is to oppose efforts to increase the already heavy tax burden 

 resting on farm lands. In times of depression and severe 

 low prices, as we have seen in recent years, such taxes are 

 confiscatory and absorb nearly all, if not all, the income 

 from land. Until a more equitable taxing system is adopted 

 based on ability to pay, farmers have no other choice than 

 to do just as the Farm Bureau tax committees have done 

 in the case cited in Madison County. Incidentally here is 

 another current illustration of the need for alert Farm 

 Bureau tax committees in every county to work with and 

 support local officials who are trying to economize and 

 really give the taxpayers of the county full value for every 

 tax dollar spent. 



No Surplus? 

 i^ARPER LEECH, columnist for the Chicago 

 ^^i I' News scoffs at a report of the New York State 

 ^'1 1 College of Agriculture on "The Surplus Prob- 

 lem in the Northeastern Milk Sheds." 



"Of course there is no real surplus of milk in the 

 Northeast," he says. "No nation ancient or modern 

 ever suffered from a surplus of dairy products. The 

 United States which will this year produce 110,000,- 

 000,000 pounds of fluid milk, could use twice that 

 amount with improvement of diet and health." 



Quite right and a pretty compliment to the dairy cow. 

 Harper. Of course there is no surplus of anything IF you 



can afford to give it away. But if you were milking cows 

 instead of writing columns for a living, you would hesitate 

 about throwing more and more milk on the market that 

 couldn't or wouldn't pay your cost of production. 



There is a milk war on at Dayton, Ohio, just now, 

 where cash and carry milk is selling for 5c a quart. Five 

 cents a quart, as prices go, is dirt cheap, yet we don't doubt 

 that, there are parents in Dayton who skimp their children 

 on milk even at that price because they either lack the 

 necessary nickels, or want luxuries or something else more 

 than they want adequate nourishment for the family. 



IF consumers could get milk at the price received by 

 the producer — between 3c and 4c a quart — instead ot 

 1 2c as in Chicago, so much more of it would be consumed 

 that surpluses undoubtedly would disappear. BUT no one 

 has volunteered, nor will, to transport, process, and deliver 

 milk to the consumer for nothing. So looking at it that 

 way, there is a very real surplus, nice theories to the con- 

 trary notwithstanding. 



'W 



Getting the Facts Straight 



FTER five years of AAA, wheat is worth less 

 than 50 cents a bushel on the farm," com- 

 ments a New York Times reporter writing 

 from Kansas City. The election returns from Kansas, he 

 says, indicate a revolt against low farm prices but not 

 against a national farm policy. 



In all the discussions of present low com and wheat 

 prices in the city press, writers have failed to point out that 

 the original AAA of 1933 was killed by the Supreme Court 

 in January 1936, and that not until February 1938 was 

 there an effective acreage adjustment program on the 

 statutes. 



The fact is that the short crops in 1936 and the good 

 prices that followed, led to a false sense of security and 

 general carelessness about surplus control among many 

 farmers. This was reflected in the lethargy of congress to 

 do anything about a more effective bill until southern con- 

 gressmen in the late summer of 1937 were electrified when 

 cotton prices came crashing down about their ears. A little 

 later corn and wheat belt congressmen awakened, too. 



When the AAA of 1938 finally was passed, after more 

 than a year of insistence by the Farm Bureau, a record fall 

 wheat acreage was already in the ground. Spring wheal 

 growers and many com farmers had made their plans for 

 the new crop season. With better than normal weather, the 

 result was a bumper yield of wheat, only about 50 per cent 

 participation in corn acreage adjustment, which, coupled 

 with the carry-overs from 1937 spelled nothing but low 

 prices. 



The AAA of "38, considering the variability of weath- 

 er, is not a perfect program for stabilizing basic farm prices 

 at fair levels, but it's by far the best program yet suggested 

 for that purpose. Until something better is worked out in 

 the light of experience, it would be foolish to abandon or 

 trade it for something of doubtful value or worse. 



34 



I. A. A. RECORD 



^^^^^^^m 



