GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 533 



suinnier-fallow or pasture were taxed at a mucli less rate than cropland. 

 Propei'ty taxes, of course, are a State or local function, and it is rec- 

 ognized that it may be difficult to get the local authorities to act, 

 although the Xation as a whole will benefit increasir.gly through the 

 years by practical soil and fertility conserving pract'; ■ 's. Your com- 

 mittee may want to consider the practicability of the Federal Govern- 

 ment encouraging action by p]"oviding grants-in-aid to States, and 

 through them to local governments, where substantial incentives are 

 provided in the form of tax reductions on land properly devoted to 

 such conse'-vation. The administration of such a program should be 

 under tlie Board. 



We are convinced, however, that the greatest aid in developing pas- 

 tures will lie in the promotion of a livestock economy from wdiich 

 multi])le benefits flow, such as building up and storing fertility, pro- 

 viding markets for surplus grains, and raising our health standards 

 aiid our living standards generally. We have no suggestion for spe- 

 cial legislative action designed to encourage such a wholesome devel- 

 o])ment except to point out that a Board, such as we are recommending, 

 whose chief ])urpose would be to promote stability and balance, would 

 undoubtedly use such means as were available to attain the objec- 

 tives sought. 



Inasmuch as a proposal has been made that, in the case of nonstor- 

 able crops, supports be abandoned, and prices be allowed to seek their 

 own level, with a system of subsidies or production payments to make 

 up the difference between sales price and parity, and inasmuch as we 

 have proposed marketing methods which we believe are preferable, 

 but have not pointed out wliy we feel them preferable, we feel that we 

 should explain our reasons. Basically it is because we prefer a free 

 economy to a controlled economy. We realize that in our complex 

 economy, full freedom is neither possible nor desirable, that respect 

 for the rights of others necessitates certain controls, and that there 

 must be controls to prevent monopoly, unfair practices, and other un- 

 desirable elements. However, we want to maintain as much freedom 

 as possible for each to use his own talents and resources to work out 

 his own destiny in his own way. We view our present marketing sys- 

 tem, or lack of system, as one incapable of meeting the problem of pro- 

 ducing an abundance without involving many injustices, and believe 

 steps must be taken to prevent the occurrence of injustice as far as 

 possible, although these steps may constitute greater or less controls. 

 We feel that cash subsidies ordinarily involve far greater controls than 

 are wise. To some extent, therefore, it is a matter of degree of control. 



We recognize that under cash subsidies more precise adjustment of 

 acreage is possible, and that direct incentives for family-sized farms 

 with penalties for excess commercialization are possible, though sub- 

 ject to evasion. However, we believe these advantages are very 

 strongly- offset by disadvantages to some of which we invite your 

 consideration. 



Subsidies once accepted are very hard to abandon. They break 

 down that conmiendable independence of spirit which is largely re- 

 sponsible for progress that substitute a dependence on Government 

 which is abhorrent to our strongest traditions. They tend to make 

 beggars of us. 



