GENERAL FARM PROGRAjM 823 



of "subsidy." This word does not frighten me, especiaUy when I 

 remember that "free private enterprise" has never been averse to 

 subsidies, whether direct or indu*ect, when the funds stay put in its 

 own treasuries. 



"A rose by any other name is still a rose." And I submit that loan 

 and storage techniques which involve a net cost to the United States 

 Treasury constitute a subsidy just as much as dhect payments to the 

 farmer. The somewhat notorious situation with regard to potatoes 

 currently illustrates this. And I submit that efforts to support live- 

 stock prices through storage of meat would almost certainly boomerang 

 in the form of an unnecessary drain on the Treasury. Secretary 

 Brannan has gone into this problem in great detail, and so far as I am 

 concerned, he has proven his case for compensatory payments. 



Brmging cattle and sheep, as well as hogs, under price supports 

 appeals to us strongly. There is no compellmg reason, either in logic 

 or equity, which justifies including producers of one type of livestock 

 under a price-support program while excluding others. 



Here again, it is apparent that the compensatoiy paj^ment procedure 

 for underpinning supports is esesntial if cattle and sheep prices are to 

 be supported eft'ectively and with the minimum net cost to the Gov- 

 ernment. This is because storing beef and lamb, if anything, presents 

 greater practical difficulties than apply to pork, a condition arising out 

 of the fact that normally a much larger proportion of the pork output 

 is placed in cure. 



A final word on the subject of cost. It is important and proper to 

 think of cost in terms of monetary outlay. And on this level of 

 analysis, Secretary Brannan presents a persuasive case for the view 

 that the net over-all financial cost to the Government is likely to be 

 somewhat less than the methods on which we have been relying — that 

 is, trying to segregate so-called surpluses through loans, cash pur- 

 chase, and storage, and hold them oft" the market until better prices 

 somehow happen along. 



But to the extent that such methods dam up and hold back the 

 movement of needed food into consumption, this represents a real cost 

 to our Nation. In spite of the gains made in per capita food con- 

 sumption during the war and postwar periods, great segments of our 

 population still cannot afford to buy, at existing prices, adequate 

 amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy products, and meat. 

 And, as I have indicated earlier, during recent months this already 

 deplorable state of affairs has become worse. 



We now stand at a critical turning point where per capita consump- 

 tion of food and fiber will fall still further, or where we can put our 

 economic machine into reverse and make further gains such as those, 

 paradoxically, we now seem to make most headway in attaining during 

 the scarcities characterizing a war economy. The great merit of 

 Secretary Brannan's program is the principle animating all its details, 

 namely that farm prosperity is essential to achieving general prosperity 

 for all, but that, to nail this down on a sound foundation, the abund- 

 ance of farm output which the program aims for must be permitted 

 to move into the homes of consumers at prices they are willing and 

 able to pay. 



To the extent that encouraging expanded livestock production is 

 consciously given a prominent place in the whole program, we welcome 

 this feature and regard it as sound. It is sound for two principal 



