GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 1101 



nations with loans or free dollars with which to buy our goods or other nations' 

 goods, or to ward off communistic aggression anj- place in the world, America 

 included. 



Records of the past 20 years also prove that for each dollar of gross farm income, 

 labor (which includes all kinds, blue denim, white collar and professional) receives 

 an income of over $4, so the laboring people have a mighty big stake in keeping the 

 farmer's income on a high level, the source of all wealth. Regarding the business- 

 man's interest in this proposition, I am sure I need not explain to them the need 

 of keeping a high farm income for they know that is the onh^ thing which will 

 insure good profitable trade for them. 



A $42,000,000,000 annual Federal tax take from the American people means that 

 each American family pays on an average of over $1,000 per year in direct and 

 indirect Federal taxes. Add to this around $300 which each' famih^ is paying 

 per year in local, county, and State taxes, it makes a total outlay in taxes' per 

 year for each family of over $1,300. This being a fact, we must surely do 

 two things, keep our national income at the highest possible figure and stdp 

 wasting the taxpayers' dollars. 



I hope this will explam my reason for opposing any law which will reduce farm 

 income. 



Sincerely yours, 



Ben F. Jensen. 



Mr. Andresen^. I would like to know what the gentleman's 

 response was from the people who received that letter. 



Mr. Jensex. I may say I never had anything but complimentary 

 responses. Those who were for the 90-60-percent slide-down-scale 

 provision either did not write me or said, "Thank you for your ex- 

 planation; it makes sense." 



Now, gentlemen, I have taken too much of the committee's time. 



Mr. Albert. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. I was 

 very much interested in your discussion of your proposed bill, H. R. 

 2368, I believe. There are problems that worry me quite a little in 

 regard to it and I would like to have your comment on the matter of 

 sod conservation crops. First, would we run into the danger of many 

 farmers having to go out of cash crops so that they would not have 

 enough such crops to make a living for their families? 



Mr. Jensen. No, because the acreage reduction would be small for 

 each farmer. But as you know it is that 5 to 10 percent surplus 

 which depresses farm prices. 



Mr. Albert. And would the 50 percent from the Government be 

 inducement enough for them to do the job? 



Mr. Jensen. In answer to your first question, my bill is not man- 

 datory, if anyone does not want to get in the program that is their own 

 business. However, yoL say you wonder if they would have sufficient 

 cash crops. Well, of com-se, now when yoa only transfer 10 percent 

 of an average farm, and that is aboat what it would be, to balance 

 yoar agricultural production— 10 percent converted from soil depleting 

 to soil conserving wo jld certainly be a benefit not only to the farm itself, 

 but to the farmer who would be building up his soil. He would be 

 cooperating fully with the soil-conservation program, which I think 

 all of us want. He would also be contributing to flood prevention, 

 which is one of our big problems, for you know what flood control 

 costs this country. Flood prevention is carried on in sod conser- 

 vation. That is flood prevention because you hold rain where it falls 

 and keep the mud and muck and trash out of our streams. 



Mr. Albert. I think your proposal deserves a lot of consideration 

 by this committee. 



Mr. Jensen. Thank you. My bill provides that we pay 50 percent 

 the first year, and then in order to induce them to keep that land in 



