1100 ; GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Here is what these many years of research has brought to light. For the past 

 20 years the records of the Department of Commerce, which are compiled from 

 the records of the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, and from other accurate 

 sources in Government records, show that whether it be periods of peace, depres- 

 sion, war, or postwar prosperity such as we now have, the national income has 

 been and is now approximately seven times the farm income. The postwar pros- 

 perity which we have enjoyed since World War II has held up mainly because we 

 have had a high farm income due to the fact that basic farm commodities have- 

 been supported by our 90 percent parity law. 



If you will remember, it was less than 2 years after the close of World War I 

 that farm prices took such a terrific drop which brought about a national depres- 

 sion in 1920. And during the several years thereafter many farmers lost their 

 farms and a lot of business houses closed their doors for the very simple reason 

 that the farmer's buying power was almost nil. I remember that era only too 

 well, as I was at that time running a lumber yard in Exira, Iowa, dealing with 

 fanner almost exclusively. Certainly that horrible experience should be a lesson 

 to all of us. It must not happen again. I am thoroughly convinced, after much 

 study, that the 90-60-percent slide-down support scale on basic farm prices will 

 bring about a repetition of a like condition during the era which I have just 

 described. 



Doubtless you have heard the argument it is necessary to reduce the price on 

 farm commodities to avoid great surpluses from piling up, which the Government 

 would have to buy and store in greater quantities than would be possible for the 

 Government fiances to stand. That argument falls flat with those who have made 

 a deep study of what causes surpluses to pile up, which is, when the buying power 

 of the people is not sufficient to purchase the goods they need for the high standard 

 of living we Americans want and expect. The facts are that a greatly reduced 

 American standard of living will very surely be brought about by a great reduc- 

 tion in prices of farm commodities, since all wealth springs from Mother Earth,, 

 and because as I said before, the national income each year is approximately seven 

 times the farm income; so, unless we maintain a high farm income sufficient to- 

 generate a high national income, and thereby assuring high consumption of all 

 goods, Americans will be in serious trouble, and you can bank on that. 



Here is something else to think about. Who in America would expect the good 

 Lord to continue to bless us with such abundant crops as we have enjoyed the 

 past 8 years? I am sure, you, like I, will agree that that would be too much to 

 expect of Him who runs Nature's business. We are bound to have crop failures 

 in some degree most any year now, and should it become our lot to suffer, say 

 even a 25-percent crop reduction on an average for a period of 2, 3, or 4 years all 

 over America, below the average of the past 8 years; how, I ask in all sincerity, 

 would we feed and clothe the American people the way they like to be fed and clad, 

 let alone help to feed the world, when now we are exporting only about 3 percent 

 of our farm production? 



You will also hear the argument that unless the Secretary of Agriculture is 

 given the authority to reduce support prices as is provided in the 90-60-percent 

 slide-down provision, that surpluses will pile up to such a degree th.at acreage 

 control will again be necessary. That argument also falls flat when we know that 

 it was cheap farm prices that brought about acreage control in the AAA bill of 

 the early thirties. And the result of that program was that the farmers so ferti- 

 lized and mined their allotted cash-crop-producing acres, that they produced 

 more than ever, and were obliged to do so to meet their bills. 



The 90-percent suj^port-price program on basic farm products, corn, wheat, 

 tobacco, cotton, peanuts, and rice has not cost the American taxpayer one thin 

 dime to date. It has actually made a profit to the United States Treasury, to 

 say nothing about the great benefits to tlie farmers of America and to our whole 

 economy, and for these reasons I certainly will not be a party to a program which 

 I honestly believe will be destructive to not only the prosperity of our Nation, but 

 also to the peace and progress of our Nation and the world. 



You, no doubt, also have heard the argument about the potato situation. I 

 agre3 that potatoes, which are perishable and cannot be stored for any definite 

 period, should not be supported at the full 90 percent of parity. The facts are 

 that the Potato Growers Association of America suggested to Congress that the 

 support price on potatoes be materially reduced. And the provisions in the 

 Aiken bill airects the secretary of Agriculture to do so. Hence, that argument 

 made by the sliding-down-scale advocates also falls flat. 



If our national income is drastically reduced the American market, which is the 

 only stable and good market of the world today, will lose its buying power, and 

 when that time comes we will neither be able to i^ay our own way nor help foreign 



