GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 421 



Mr. Andresex. When we give a tremendous amount of discretionary 

 power into the hands of someone Avho is not responsible to the people 

 and he enforces that power and makes his own rules and regulations 

 even during peacetime, he can make such rules and regulations as v>-ould 

 function temporarily to put restrictions on farmers that would abso- 

 lutely control them and he could virtually put them out of bcisiness. 



I know men in Oliio who before the war raised Avlieat on their farms 

 to feed to their own livestock. They raised in excess of the acreage 

 allotment and marketing quota purely for feed on their own farms. 

 They were taken into court and fined. They were given penalties of 

 50 or GO cents a bushel for the wheat they raised to feed their own. 

 livestock. 



That is going pretty far. to my notion.. I think we. who come fronf 

 the dairy areas, should be permitted to raise enough feed to take care 

 of our own livestock, which we were not permitted to do under the con- 

 trolled-a'-reage allotment system. We could do it, but we would lose 

 the benefits. Now when we had marketing quotas you did not have 

 anything to say about it and if you produced 2 acres more than you 

 were supposed to produce, you were assessed a penalty and taken into 

 court. 



:dr. Pace. i\Ir. Albert. 



Mr. Alt^ert. JNIi-. Chairman. I have one other (juestion and that is on 

 the Secertary's parity-income fornmla. 



I would like to ask these gentlemen whether they think that for- 

 mula without further mininunn safeguards sufficiently | lOie -t-s fr.rm- 

 eis and their income as compared to other segments of oiu- society. 



Mr. Talbott. Mr. Albert, we have not had any opportunity to have 

 any conference of officials so as to have an official position of the Na- 

 tional Farmers Unioii organization that either I or Mr. Patton could 

 state to you. 



I stated this morning that just a cursory glance on such studies as 

 we have been able to give it caused it to ajjpear to have some of the 

 elements that we had hoped might be incorporated in a complete re- 

 view of the parity formula. That is to say. bringing it up to date, get- 

 ting away from a 4-year-old base, and getting up to the realities of 

 the 1949 period and the years ahead and a moving base and that sort 

 of tiling. 



1 had assumed that that could be done with a paiity formula wliicli 

 seems to me possibly has some closei- relationship to cost in terms of 

 the production of each commodity, at least it ought to have, than tlie 

 Secietar3''s suggestion. 



1 stated to you this morning that those elements inclined me to thijik 

 that we might be able to support the new type of formrda fully, but I 

 could not say that we do and certainly I do not want to leave the im- 

 pression that we are just "'thumbs down" on it because 1 do not know, 

 and I do not think it would be fair to our organization or the Secre- 

 tary to say "Yes'' or "No." until we have at least had an opportunity 

 to discuss it and project it and project it in relation to each conunod- 

 ity and what it would look like down the path of the years ahead. 



Of course, I know that the Secretary has not suggested this lightly, 

 but only after great and lengthy consideration, the abandonment of a 

 formula that we have used for 16 years in favor of something new. 

 I am certain that his deliberations indicate to him that it is highly 

 preferable to the one that Ave had. 



