212 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



existence, programs of straight relief and very likely some form of a 

 food stamp plan which could be very costly. In my opinion, an equal 

 amount of money used for production payments would be much more 

 effective in supporting farm prices a ad would keep us on the side of 

 preventing depression rather than waiting for it to develop. 



With those observations for background, let us now look at how the 

 proposed program would operate for various commodities and try to 

 get aa idea of costs as we go along. 



For the purpose of the commodity-by-commodity discussion which 

 follows, I am assuming one and the same level of support regardless of 

 whether that level is established under the income support standard 

 formula, the present formula now in force and effect, or the formula 

 described in title II of the act of 1948 — or, for that matter, any other 

 formula. In short, I am making a comparative analysis with respect 

 to method only. Obviously, a lower support price would mean a 

 relatively lower commitment by the Government, and, thereby, lower 

 losses where any losses to the Government occur. It wtpuld certainly 

 mean lower income protection to farm people. 



COTTON, TOBACCO, CORN, AND WHEAT 



As has been indicated in my previous statement and in subsequent 

 discussions, no change is proposed in methods of supporting the farm- 

 er's price of cotton, tobacco, com, and wheat which coincide with the 

 present price-support operations with respect to these commodities. 

 That is, we would use commodity loans and purchase agreements. 

 Therefore, any estimate of loss or gain on these commodities under the 

 proposed program is equally applicable to the present or authorized 

 program. 



Mr. Andresen, Mr. Chairman. 



I notice you have eliminated peanuts. When you were here the last 

 time, you put peanuts in the group where marketing quotas and acre- 

 age allotments were under operation, and that they would have the 

 benefit of those supports. Is that just an omission? 



Secretary Brannan. I do not think I understand the purport of 

 that question, Mr. Andresen. 



Mr. Andresen. As I understood you the last time you appeared you 

 stated that in aU cases where marketing quotas and acreage allotments 

 were in operation you would maintain the support loan under those 

 commodities to the fuU extent. 



Secretary Brannan. Mr. Andresen, I believe you do misunderstand 

 me. We designated a group of what we call priority commodities, by 

 reference to the commodities which contribute most to the farm 

 income, which were in a preferential class, and which we recommended 

 be supported at the maximum support standard. 



Mr. Andresen. Then you did not include peanuts in that standard, 

 when marketing quotas and acreage allotments are in operation? 



Secretary Brannan. If you would stop in the middle of the sen- 

 tence I could say "Yes." We did not include peanuts in that group 

 on the premise that every statistic available to us indicates that they 

 are not among the first 10 or 15 commodities which make up the 

 major bulk of farm income. 



Mr. Andresen. But they do have marketing quotas and acreage 

 allotments? 



