GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 223 



on m}^ part, in talking about abandoning the old parity concept as 

 such. 



On the other hand you have seen in the newspapers, and I have 

 seen in the newspapers, some of the criticism of the parity program, in 

 this past year, owing to the fact that farmers, while we are talking 

 about parity in terms of equality, that the farmers income, as a 

 matter of fact on the average this past year was 160 percent of parity; 

 that is, 160 percent of income parity using the old parity formula. 

 Using an outmoded base period macle it sound as if farmers in this 

 country were in the position of getting 160 percent of equality, 

 when it is not at all true. 



And that seems to me to be an embarrassing position. 



Second, on the other hand, it seems to me that if we are talking about 

 equality in terms of a parity to which all of us can subscribe, we 

 cannot talk about 90 percent of parity. In effect we would be saying 

 that we are wUling to have only 90 percent of equality for the American 

 farmer. It seems to me therefore, that maybe the parity concept 

 is not entirely sound and defensible, and it was getting the American 

 farmer some criticism. 



You and I know that on certain things the farmer's price on the 

 average was 160 percent of parity, but as a matter of fact the farmer's 

 income is no way near 160 percent of parity with nonfarm income. 

 As a matter of fact, it is actually only 60 percent of the nonfarm income 

 And, it seems to me therefore, that we might start with the farm 

 income as the reckoning point, and maybe try to find some out by an 

 equitable process of supporting farm income at a level below which 

 it is not in the public mterest to allow that income to fall. To set 

 that up as the objective and to interpret it in terms of specific prices 

 of commodities and see if we could. not give him the opportunity, by 

 efficient production, by diligence, in normal circumstances, to achieve 

 that minimum which would give him a good position in the rnarket 

 place, make him a good purchaser, and at the same time give him the 

 money to continue solid conservation practices, and so on. 



I say to you very respectfully, that I do not say this is the only 

 formula or that it is the exact method of approach to start from, 

 which could not be amended or changed in some respects or another. 

 It was our best thinking and we laid it out before the committee on 

 that premise. 



Mr. Hope. Of course if you translate your income formula, into a 

 price formula as you must before you have any basis upon which you 

 can determine a fair support price, generally speaking the result you 

 get from the application of your formula is approximately the same, 

 is it not, as the price we get by applying the formula which is contained 

 in the Agricultural Act of 1948, with a few exceptions. Am I wrong 

 about that? 



Secretary Brannan. If we take the case of wheat, at $1.88 under 

 the income support standard — that, of course, relates to the $1.95 

 which is the present support standard in force and effect right now, 

 under title II of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which will go into 

 effect next year, it would be somewhere between the low of $1.24 and 

 the high of $1.85, with the 72 percent, not quite, would be about 

 $1.48. And, you recall we get the 72 percent, because wherever 

 the commodity is under the high level limitation of the marketing 

 quota, 20 percent additional support would be added to the minimum, 



