GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 231 



commodities in the amount that people would consume at reasonable 

 prices. But we camiot midertake to produce just the exact amount, 

 any more than we could undertake to produce the exact number of 

 bullets that it would take to win a battle and have no bullets left; we 

 would have to produce more, but under this plan we will be giving the 

 consumer an opportunity to consume more, a part of the excess, what- 

 ever it might be, between the production paj^ments, v;-ithout with- 

 drawing com-modities from the market and taking them away and 

 destroying them, or disposing of them in some other fashion. 



Mr. Hope. Is this a fair way to sum up what you have said, Mr. 

 Secretary: Your objective would be to support prices at a level fair 

 to both llie producer and the consumer, but since you laiow that you 

 cannot control production to the extent that this would be possible 

 you will probably wind up at times with supplies which are larger than 

 the public will consume at the income support level. In that case 

 you would have a bargam day as far as consumers were concerned and 

 let the price go down to a lower level with the thought that the con- 

 sumers woidd use all of it if they could get it at a lower price, is that 

 correct? 



Secretary Brannan. Mr. Hope, I do not think that is quite the way 

 to state it, and I would liJvC to state it this way: that the realistic 

 production of abundance can be channeled — the total production of 

 abundance can be channeled to the consumers of the country, and at 

 the same time we can maintain a reasonable level of income to the 

 American famers below which it is not in the public interest to allow 

 it to fall. I certamly do not represent to this committee that it v\-ould 

 not cost money sometimes, and I certainly say with equal certainty 

 that there are years in which many of those programs would not cost 

 a cent. For example, if we had it in effect toda}^ on beef it would 

 not cost anybody anything. 



We might begin by working corn and other grain into beef. We 

 coidd make it more attractive to farmers because cheaper grains to 

 the farmer mean more income to him just as much as a 2- or 3-cent 

 increase in the market place would be income to him. 



Mr. Hope. Of coiu-se, in those years it would not cost anything. 

 It would not cost anything on beef cattle now as you do not need 

 it now, and would not that be true generally of commodities on which 

 you woidd not be losing any money? ^^T^iere the farmers would be 

 getting then price in the market place, you would not need a program? 



Secretary Brannan. That is right. You would not need it on 

 the commodities which are in short supply. You certainly would need 

 it on the commodities which are in long supply, and the cliief reason 

 for the program at this time is that it looks as through we are getting 

 into an era in wliich many commodities are in long supply, and we 

 would like to shift from those commodities on to the conunodities 

 which are in short supply. 



Mr. Granger. Will you yield, Mr. Hope? 



Mr. Hope. Yes. 



Mr. Granger. Take in the case of beef, you said no one was 

 losing anything on beef except the fellows who were feeding it. How 

 would the program operate with respect to the beef situation as it is 

 today? It, is still above parity, is it not? 



Secretary Brannan. Yes, Sir. Granger. 



