956 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. Wescott. That is about right. 



Mr. PoAGE. And then the support at $1.02 or $1 parity would 

 have meant we would have had a 30 cents a bushel loss on the entire 

 crop, and on 445,000,000 bushels, that is about $133,000,000 loss. 



Air. Wescott. -slay I explain the answer I gave you and gave to 

 Congressman Pace? If we had had compensatory payments last 

 year, I do not think we would have had the volume of potatoes. 

 In the next case, if you had not had to pay part of the price support, 

 you would have spent as much money on potatoes, regardless of 

 consumption. 



Mr. Case. I want to see if I understood your question right. You 

 asked me what would have happened last year? 



Mr. Pace. That is right. 



Mr. Case. I still stand on my answer. 



Mr. Poaoe. II we assume we can make some of the compensatory 

 payment — and I think you have shown it probably could have been 

 done with less than wfis involved there — would you rather that pay- 

 ment A\ as made directly out of the Treasiuy of the United States and, 

 in effect, tell each farmer he had been a failure and we were just going 

 to give him this dole for having been a failure, or would you rather say 

 to each farmer he has a premium that he must pay in the way of a 

 payment on an insurance policy and we will give him insurance that 

 will assure his receiving $1.02 or whatever figure you fix and then 

 charge the farmer some premium for that, with the full understanding 

 that the Government should make a contribution to it, just as the 

 Government makes a contribution to unemployment insurance that 

 labor receives or that the Government employees receive in their 

 retirement? Woukl you rather have the man getting it all out of the 

 United States Treasury, or would you rather feel you were carrying on 

 a transaction where you were financing at least a part of this program? 



Mr. Wescot'i. I cannot answer that. I have not studied it that 

 far. 



Mr. Poage. Let us see if Mr. Case can. 



Mr. Case. No. I do not know that I followed you too closely. 



Mr. PoAGE. Let me state it this way: Under the present program 

 we have had for a good many years in the employment of individuals, 

 both in private industry and in Government activities, they ah con- 

 tribute some portion of their wages to a fund, one fund for unem- 

 ployment insurance and another fund for retirement. In no case do 

 those contributions actually pay the cost of the retirement or unem- 

 ployment, but they do make a substantial contribution to it. The 

 public generally pays the rest of the cost. Presumably, the public 

 gets a benefit out of it, and I think they do. I think the public gets a 

 benefit out of sound agricultural prices. Would you therefore be 

 walling to apply the same principle to the farmer and say "If you are 

 to have a fair price, you contribute some portion of what you grow or 

 some portion of your sales price to a fund to give you an insurance 

 program, in which you are getting back something for which you made 

 a payment, when your price sinks to ruinous levels," to give you the 

 same support you are suggesting here and for the Government to 

 make up whatever might be necessary to put into it? 



Mr, Wescott. I cannot answer that question; but I say this sin- 

 cerely, that the proposal I made is an attempt to try to bring produc- 

 tion in line with consumption, to try to avert having to buy potatoes, 

 and let us 



