GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 783 



tant, is their stand that any changes in this law should be directed 

 toward fewer Government controls and guaranties. 



Your committee is now considering a new plan or program for agri- 

 culture which was suggested by Secretary of Agricultm^e Charles F. 

 Brannan. While we have not seen a specific bill covering this plan, 

 we have studied the outline as presented by the Secretary and it is 

 quite obvious that this plan would expand the use of subsidies, guar- 

 anties and Government control further than any other previous sug- 

 gestion that has been presented on this subject. 



This new plan would include more agricultural products and would 

 move the base period to include the war years so that the program 

 would actually result in raising the base at which prices would be 

 guaranteed at a point substantially above those which are in effect 

 under the, present law. His plan would also expand the authority of 

 the Government to regiment agriculture and further dictate produc- 

 tion policies. 



On the basis of the resolution adopted by our membership at their 

 1949 annual meeting, we must register our opposition to this new plan 

 and recommend that it not be approved by the Congress. 



We fully realize that the campaign slogan of cheap food for con- 

 sumers and high prices for farmers and agricultural producers is bound 

 to be popular with a number of people, but to achieve this goal some- 

 one must pay the bill. 



That is the joker m this scheme, and Congress must not forget that 

 if they approve this program they will be requested to appropriate 

 funds to cover the cost. This will require such increases in our Fed- 

 eral tax rate as are needed to furnish the money — includmg a very sub- 

 stantial amount to pay the cost of administration. 



Our members would like to know what this new plan will cost. Since 

 an estimate has not been furnished by the Secretary of Agriculture or 

 the Department we have had to depend upon our own estimates and 

 such information as we could gather from outside sources. 



The department of agricultural economics. University of Illinois, 

 has this to say: "It could easily be as much as the total Federal budget 

 before the war." They have given an illustration and an estiinate of 

 possible cost on one product — hogs, as follows: 



The estimated price-support level for hogs for 1950 is $19 a 100 pounds. Sup- 

 pose the actual market price averaged only $15. (That would be about 2% times 

 as high as the price just before World War II began in Europe.) In this case every 

 hog producer would be given an additional payment of $4 a 100 pounds for the 

 hogs he sold. On a 250-pound hog, that would be $10 a head. On a typical 

 year's marketing of 70,000,000 head the cost would be $700,000,000. 



Hogs represent only about one-seventh to one-eighth of the total output of 

 United States farms. If payments and losses on other products averaged about 

 the same in proportion as those on hogs, the total cost of the program would ex- 

 ceed $5,000,000,000. That would be about 10 times as much as the average an- 

 nual cost of farm programs in the prewar years 1934 to 1939. In the event of 

 serious unemployment and decline in consumer demand, the cost would be much 

 greater. 



From other soiu-ces which have been honestly trying to figure the 

 cost of this program, I have been informed that there arj so many 

 variable factors that it is difficult to reach more than a rough estimate. 

 The estimates which I have been able to obtain varv from $1,000,- 

 000,000 to a possible $12,000,000,000 a year. Either of these esti- 

 mates represents a lot of tax money. 



91215— 49— ser. u, pt. 5 3 



