210 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



My recommendations contemplate the operation of price-support 

 programs through the Commodity Credit Corporation, as they are 

 being operated today. And, as you know, Congress does not appro- 

 priate in advance for the Commodity Credit Corporation because, for 

 a host of obvious reasons, the dollar requu-ements cannot be estimated 

 accurately in advance. But Congress has a very effective control 

 over costs. It controls authorizations and appropriations. If a par- 

 ticular program results in a greater outlay than the Congress is willing 

 to continue, the Government's commitment may be changed for 

 ensuing years. No program can cost more, over a period of years, 

 than the Congress makes available. 



Another point we need to keep in mind as we deal with the cost 

 question is that we must always make comparisons. It helps no 

 one to compare the costs of one program against no program at all. 

 The American people have already taken the position that the farmer 

 should have adequate returns, and until a better method is brought 

 to light, the farm price support method is the one we should use. 

 We have such a program in operation now. We have legislation on 

 the books that is scheduled to go into effect next year. We have had 

 considerable experience in the past. 



Due to our expanded productive capacity and the possibility that 

 our foreign markets will diminish, costs under any effective program 

 may increase. The least expensive program in the public interest, for 

 the long run, will be that which encourages the greatest and most 

 efficient consumption of farm commodities which would otherwise be 

 surplus. These facts must be taken into account as we consider the 

 recommended program. An absolute figure without comparisons is 

 bound to be misleading and to give substance to the fallacious argu- 

 ments of the enemies of price-support legislation. 



The real core of the question of cost is how effective we choose to 

 make our program. Obviously, we are not going to get something 

 for nothing in this farm program business, any more than anywhere 

 else. 



In my statement of April 7, I laid before you my views on the 

 public need for a strong farm income and price-support system. I 

 said it can serve the interests of all the people by helping to prevent 

 depression, building bigger markets for industrial goods and jobs for 

 workers, maintain high-level production of farm commodities, con- 

 serve natural resources, maintain reserves for national security, 

 strengthen the rural community, and provide consumers increased 

 supplies at attractive prices. 



A program that will effectively contribute toward those ends is 

 worth a considerable public investment. 



But let us not try to kid anybody — either the farmer or the general 

 public. Any program which is so designed that the public investment 

 is always sure to be small is going to be an ineffective program at the 

 very time a strong program is needed. It is not likely to give adequate 

 service of the kinds I have listed, either to the farmer or to the general 

 public. 



Wliat is adequate? 



An eastern financial journal says that my proposal "promises to 

 farmers more than they are entitled to." That is a matter of opinion 

 which the Congress is going to settle. But let me emphasize this 

 question: In the public interest, how far down do you dare let farm 

 income slide? 



