776 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



worked out the proposed program with reference to beef cattle in 

 detail. He also made frequent reference to the fact that many items 

 important to the industry had not been worked out and that "we will 

 have to take a good look at that." 



As illustrating the indefiniteness and uncertainty of the Secretary's 

 position on items of essential importance, even his contradictory posi- 

 tion, we point out that he stated in referring to hogs that the subsidy 

 would be paid by buying pork. He then stated, in his supplemental 

 filed statement, that an analogous program would be carried on in beef 

 cattle, leaving the inference that the beef cattle subsidy would be 

 paid by buying beef. Then he stated that the subsidy on beef cattle 

 would be paid to the producers directly but modified this plan by say- 

 ing that this subsidy would be paid to the last handler of the live 

 animal, with the hope and expectation that the subsidy would be 

 passed on back to the original producer. Experience has taught us, 

 and should have taught everyone, that such hope and expectation is 

 not realistic. 



The Government has had experience in the payment of consumer 

 beef subsidies. In the first place the Government was never able to 

 evolve a workable plan for the direct payment of subsidies to beef 

 cattle producers. It could not even evolve a plan it would try out. 

 And when payment of such subsidies was attempted by indirection 

 through the processors of beef, the friction of travel wore out the 

 payment before it reached the producer. 



Let us look at just one problem involved. It was stated that sub- 

 sidies would be paid according to grades of the cattle. Who would 

 grade these cattle? Where would they be graded, and when? An 

 army of graders would be required to cover all the cattle markets. 

 What would be done with reference to the substantial number of 

 cattle sold for small-town slaughter? Who would grade or count 

 them? 



In selling cattle the producer tries to hold the grades up. The 

 buyers try to press the grades down. Difference in judgment makes 

 trades. But the ultimate grading is done on the carcass, after slaugh- 

 ter. Would the Government attempt to follow every animal from 

 the range to the rack? If so, the task would be gigantic and the em- 

 ployees in this industry alone would outnumber the armed forces. 



It is no wonder that the Secretary was both contradictory and un- 

 certain when he was questioned about the application of his plan to 

 the beef cattle industry. We feel that when he "takes a good look" 

 at this problem he will strain both his optic nerve and his patience 

 before he comes up with a practical, workable plan of operation. It 

 is certain that he has none now. 



In any event, it is expecting entirely too much to ask our industry 

 to accept a plan, program or proposal when even the author and pro- 

 ponent of that plan does not know how it is supposed to work. Our 

 business cannot, and in fact no business can, operate on guesses, 

 hopes, and dreamy expectations. In any plan of operations in any 

 endeavor, success depends on details carried out. Here we cannot 

 know the details. 



We people in the business of producing beef cattle are independently 

 ambitious. We trade with each other all of the time, trying to out- 

 guess each other. We like this system and we do not want it inter- 

 fered with. The proposed plan, with its accompanying controls, 



