224 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



and that would be 20 percent of 60, which was 12, which gives us 72 

 percent. 



Mr. Hope. I was referring, however, to these percentage figures 

 showing the support price to be supported under title II of the Agri- 

 cultural Adjustment Act, and what I had in mind in making the 

 comparison was the full parity under the 1948 act. I do not have a 

 column of figures hove on that, but in your statement, making the 

 compaiison. of both the full parity under the 1948 act, and the income 

 under the support standard, as I have figured it there is very little 

 difference between the two figures, except in the case of citrous, 

 where there is a little difference. 



The Chairman. There is a substantial difference in the price with 

 regard to tobacco and lambs. 



Mr. Hope. On tobacco, the income support standard, according to 

 these figures, is 49.2, and 90 percent would be 42.9, and if you add 10 

 percent to that you would make it about 47, close to 47, which would 

 be less than five percent difference. 



The Chairman. Let me interrupt, Mr. Secretary, at this point: If 

 I understand, the point you are making is that taking tobacco as an 

 illustration, if it actually is above parity but it is still selling at or 

 below what you consider to be a fair support standard, it has the 

 psychological effect, so to speak, on the public that the farmer is get- 

 ting something above parity, that is, something above a fair price, in 

 your determination, there may be other commodities, corn, cotton, 

 or wheat which would not sell above that standard ; very few of them 

 if any. 



Secretary Brannan. Yes, Mr. Cooley — I hope I understand you 

 correctly. The number of commodities that are now selling above 

 the levels which are suggested here in the price support standard, in 

 short, the whole price support standard again is interpreted in na- 

 tional income, at still 15 percent below what the farmer got last year. 



The Chairman. But your support standards are above, for example, 

 parity? 



Secretary Brannan. It is in some commodities, and it is not in 

 others. For example, take wheat again, at 90 percent of parity, $1.95 

 today, and we are below that, $1.88, under the price support standard. 

 It goes in the other direction on corn, and it would be about the same 

 on cotton. Rice too is 90 percent of parity, at $2.26, but as a matter 

 of fact — and the reason why it is, is that rice has been selling well 

 above the price support standard for a considerable length of time, 

 and will be above parity for a considerable length of time. 



Mr. Hope. I do not care to dwell too much on that. Mr. Parker 

 has handed me a set of figures here that do include 100 percent of 

 parity under the modernized parity, as well as the income support 

 standard, and that bears out this statement I made, that there is very 

 little difference between the 100 percent modernized parity and the 

 income and support standard, except as to citrous — well I am wrong — 

 there is very little in the case of citrous; $1.90 in one case, and $1.96 in 

 the other. But I do not want to spend too much time on that particu- 

 lar point. The only point I had in mind was it seemed to me that on 

 this income standard program you arrive at about the same figures as 

 we have had under the modernized parity concept, and it strikes me 

 that it would be better to keep the parity idea on which the public, I 



