1206 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



3. Wouldn't this program place farmers in a position where they would be 

 dependent upon the Congress for a high percentage of their income, and isn't' 

 such a position a dangerous one for a minority group in our society to occupy? 



4. Wouldn't it substitute subsidized low prices for fair prices in the free markets? 

 It is my opinion that consideration of this plan brings up a question of economic 



philosophy: State-controlled agriculture or free enterprise. Basically, the pro- 

 posed program appears to represent a long step toward absolute control over a 

 large and important division of our American economy. It offers what appears 

 to be economic security to a large class in these United States in return for absolute 

 control over their productive efforts. These facts exist regardless of the worthi- 

 ness of the objectives or the sincerity of the officials charged with the responsi- 

 bility of administration: total control of individual farmers is included in the 

 plan; controls are a certainty if the plan is to work, controls in many cases will 

 be invoked whether the hidividual farmer wants them or not, and the threat of 

 nonparticipation in its economic benefits to those who are reluctant to submit 

 to the plan will undoubtedly be used to bring these objectors into line. 



I cannot see how anyone who believes in a free economy can support this 

 suggested program. If this philosophy is accepted by the Nation for the farmer, 

 it must and will be accepted for all the other economic groups in our society. 



The Central Livestock Association, Inc., with offices at South St. Paul, Minn.; 

 West Fargo, N. Dak.; and Billings, Mont., has a membership of around 150,000 

 farmers residing in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, 

 South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. The annual meeting of its stockholders 

 is held the second Wednesday in February of each year. Because of this fact, the 

 proposal submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture has not been acted upon by 

 the members of this association. However, many of its members have contacted 

 me relative to the so-called Brannan plan, and I have yet to find one who is 

 willing to admit that he is favorable to it. I think they fully realize that our 

 National Government is definitely committed to price supports and that many 

 producers have made plans with that fact in mind. I think that the majority of 

 our people would recommend that our agricultural economy continue to operate 

 under the present law, which provides for price supports at 90 percent of parity 

 until January 1, 1950, and then under the Hope- Aiken law, which provides for 

 flexible supports, and that consideration he given to amending this law so as to 

 provide for less regimentation and more freedom of action. I am certain that the 

 majority of our people favor the support of hog prices through purchases of pork 

 products through the Commodity Credit Corporation rather than by direct sub- 

 sidies to the producers. 



I reiterate, I am sorry that I cannot be with you in person next week at the 

 hearing, but commitments previously made will not permit me to accept your 

 invitation. 



Believe me, I am 

 Sincerely yours, 



Central Livestock Association, Inc., 

 NoRRis K. Carnes, General Manager. 



Mr. Pace. Gentlemen, there are other witnesses here and there 

 will be others tomorrow morning. We will start promptly at 10 in 

 the morning and try to get complete this part of the hearing tomorrow. 

 I, therefore, will ask that other witnesses who are here will please be 

 with us promptly at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 



We will stand recessed until that time. 



(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee recessed, to re- 

 convene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, June 8, 1949.) 



