886 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



economic service in determining national quotas which will be divided among 

 individual producers by the farmers' own organization-. Assurance from Congress 

 that the details of how the broad objectives are to be attained within such limits 

 will be worked out and administered bv the Farmers' National Council. 



Grass Roots Farm Program 



The objective of this project is to provide recommendations for price-support 

 and conservation programs of a permanent nature which will be largely self- 

 sustaining. Suggestions from farmers in many parts of the United States indicate 

 that the price-support portion of a unified farm program can be totally financed 

 without payments from the Federal Treasury. 



In 1945 a middle western newspaper, the Daily Republic of Mitchell, S. Dak., 

 launched the project of developing a farm price-support program of a permanent 

 nature which would not be dependent upon Federal grants of money for its opera- 

 tion. This undertaking was started because 20 years of experience, beginning 

 with the Hoover farm board, irdicates that supports will not be carried through 

 years of low-priced trends if the program in operation calls for huge outlays of 

 public money. Nor have they ever supported prices at full parity. 



In working out a program from the grass roots the Daily Republic sponsored 

 discussion meetings of farmers in eight States, ranging as far south as Georgia 

 and Alabama. In all more than 30 such meetings were held. In each group, 

 former coiuity and community committeemen with experience in administeiing 

 farm programs during the so-called normal period of the 1930's were liberally 

 represented. The only requirement laid down by the newspaper at the meetings 

 was that a program should be developed which could be carried out without 

 appropriations for payments by the Federal government. 



At all the meetings both in the North and the South there was a remarkable 

 agreement on principles which should be included in a permanent farm program. 



1. It should be self -financing and administration should be placed in the hands 

 of farmers to a much greater extent than in the past. 



2. Finding a price-support program that will work and a long-range adequate 

 conservation program were seen as two parts of the same problem. Continuous 

 conservation on a permanent basis cannot be carried out if the price-support 

 program does not provide a health farm economy, with permanence and stability. 

 At the same time, there can be no stable economic health in the agricultural indus- 

 try if the land is being abused. 



3. While farmers realize it was necessary during the war, they will resent a 

 continuation of the policy of continually changing programs and support levels 

 in an attempt by the Federal Government to obtain flexibility to meet changing 

 conditions by arbitrary management from the top down. 



4. There was agreement that price-support programs must be fair to producer 

 and consumer alike. No Government farm program in the past ever provided 

 full parity prices for agriculture. (Only World Wars I and II ever secured prices 

 at or above parity.) So in the past it was not so important that the parity formula 

 be fair to both farmers and consumers. In the future, parity should be revised 

 so that it will be fair to both. Then a self-financing program should be developed 

 which would give parity prices at all times on each farmers' share of the farm 

 products normally consumed in the United States. 



5. Rigid production controls through acreage restriction should be avoided. 

 This requirement can be met by the use of a two-price system under which each 

 which farmer gets full parity on his share of normal domestic consumption, and 

 receives whatever price the surplus production brings. Under such a program 

 each farmer can limit his marketing of each product to that total on which he 

 will receive full parity, or if he can produce more and take a lower price for the 

 surplus if he feels that through efficient production he can benefit from a larger 

 volume, even though he takes a lower price for the surplus. 



6. This method could be applied to perishable commodities. Even though they 

 cannot be stored, an individual producer will be much better off to obtain full 

 parity on his parity ciuota even if he takes a very low price for the surplus. With- 

 out a program of this sort the producer of perishable commodities often finds 

 himself receiving disastrouslv low prices because a comparative!}' small surplus 

 is used by the trade to beat down the price on the entire output. Any attempt 

 to apply price supports even at a fraction of parity on an unlimited output of a 

 Ijerishai)le commodity will prove impossibly expensive, as was learned in the 

 postwar potato programs. 



