4 ,4U 



* 'K 



7. 



:t 



4 



.1 



•i. 





% 



-"^n 



public works projects or other "make 

 work" spending programs. On the con- 

 trary, now is the time to reduce public 

 payrolls and expenditures and to reduce 

 the public debt. A program of real 

 governmental economy coupled with con- 

 tinued high federal taxes would do much 

 to temper the present inflationary spiral. 

 Admittedly, it is easier to follow other 

 routes. It is easier to continue large 

 scale government spending than it is to 

 eliminate unnecessary agencies and proj- 

 ects. It is easier to get money for oper- 

 ating the government by borrowing from 

 banks than by taxation. It is easier to 

 increase the federal debt than to reduce 

 it. Following the easy way today will 

 result in greater trouble tomorrow. 



Labor — Industry — Agriculture 



Farmers believe in organization. They 

 believe in the right of labor and industry, 

 as well as agriculture, to organize to 

 promote the best interests of each group. 

 However, farmers firmly believe that the 

 interests of any one group in our democ- 

 racy must be secondary to the general 

 welfare of all America. During 1946 

 this country has been torn by industrial- 

 labor strife of such bitterness and of such 

 a selfish nature that farmers and the 

 public in general have been shocked and 

 disgusted. Agriculture has demanded 

 and will continue to insist that reasonable 

 regulation be applied to both industrial 

 and labor organizations so that the very 

 economic life of our nation will not be 

 again threatened by bitter strife of the 

 type we have witnessed since V-J Day. 

 Farmers would like to challenge indus- 

 try to offer to labor a program of reason- 

 able security, a security that cannot be 

 based only upon high hourly wages, but 

 also upon stability of employment that 

 comes with high production. In return 

 for this type of security labor should 

 be willing to give assurance to industry 

 that it will produce more eflFiciently, will 

 maintain greater rather than less produc- 

 tion per worker per hour and will keep 

 its agreements. Farmers have always 

 preferred capacity production and want 

 to continued this practice; however, they 

 cannot long maintain full production in 

 the face of restricte?d output fxjlicies fol- 

 lowed by both labor and industry. Dur- 

 ing the year ahead I suggest that the 

 Illinois Agricultural Association and af- 

 filiated county Farm Bureaus might well 

 take the initiative in making contacts with 

 industrial and labor leaders at state and 

 local levels in the interest of promoting 

 better understanding between all groups 

 and full production of both agricultural 

 and industrial products. 



DECEMBER. 1946 



Correlation of Governmental Agencies 



Recommendations of the American 

 Farm Bureau Federation designed to cor- 

 relate the activities of the various agri- 

 cultural action agencies to eliminate du- 

 plication of effort and waste should be 

 given careful consideration. Farmers have 

 little sympathy for the overlapping of 

 activity that now exists and they will not 

 long tolerate the centralized control from 

 Washington that seems to be creeping 

 into a number of these agencies. The 

 A.A.A., or Production and Marketing 

 Administration as it is now called, the 

 Farm Credit Administration, Extension 

 Service, Farm Security Administration and 

 the Soil Conser%'ation Service all have 

 important functions to fulfill. However, 

 there is no good reason why they can- 

 not be correlated at all levels — national, 

 state and local. There is also every 

 good reason why farmers should have 

 a large share in the direction and guid- 

 ance of their activity at all of these same 

 levels. ; 



Conservation of Soil 



A sound, practical program for con- 

 servation and rebuilding of our soil is 

 a most pressing need. Long neglect, 

 coupled with the all-out production ef- 

 forts of the war years, has drawn upon 

 our soil resources until a truly critical 

 situation exists. This is not merely the 

 farmers' problem, but it is a major na- 

 tional problem. Its solution will re<]uire 

 the cooperation of all citizens and the 

 greatest possible correlation of all the 

 agencies of government. 



We cannot afford to waste more time. 

 A greatly accelerated national program 

 must be adopted if we are even to re- 

 place the soil fertility losses of the war 

 years. The nation, however, cannot ex- 

 pect farmers to preserve and build up 

 its soil resources for the use of future 

 generations unless it is willing to give 

 some definite assurance to producers that 

 they will receive adequate prices for their 

 products. When prices of farm products 

 drop to low levels, there is only one 

 way in which the farmer can make up 

 for the disparity in the purchasing power 

 of his production — that way is to 

 "mine" his soil. Farmers love the land 

 more than any other group in America. 

 They love the land so much that they 

 choose to live on it and to make their 

 living from the soil. Nevertheless, soil 

 conservation cannot be based upon love 

 of the land alone. An adequate return 

 for the products of that land is all- 

 important. • 



Agricultural Prices 



Probably the most important f)art of 

 the Agricultural Adjustment Act is the 

 parity principle. Certainly the future 

 of agriculture as a basic American in- 

 dustry and the assurance of the farmers' 

 rights to a standard of living comp>arable 

 to that of any other group depend upon 

 how well we support and put into prac- 

 tical application this principle for which 

 we so long fought. We must be willing, 

 of course, to consider suggestions for 

 improvement in the mathematical formula 

 for computing parities, but we must never 

 compromise or weaken our position in 

 support of the basic principle. At pres- 

 ent there is great temptation to resort 

 to some device, such as by the inclusion 

 of farm labor, to raise parity prices. 

 Again, I would like to quote from the 

 last annual address of Mr. Earl C. Smith 

 when he said, "Should agricultural wages 

 be put into the parity formula, it would 

 merely mean that less emphasis will be 

 placed upon prices of industrial com- 

 modities, which are largely influenced by 

 industrial wages, and substituting there- 

 fore the wages of agricultural workers. 

 I submit that it is much more sound, 

 defensible and in the long time interest 

 of farmers, to keep the legal yardstick 

 for determining fair prices for farm 

 commodities tied to the general price 

 level of industrial commodities " 



Parity and Surpluses 



If agriculture should resort to some 

 device to raise parity during this period 

 of rising prices, we would soon be forced 

 to fight efforts to artificially lower parity 

 during price declines. Suggestions of 

 this nature have already been made by 

 some who fear results of the 90% of 

 parity price support program as author- 

 ised by Congress for the post-war period. 

 While farmers had not anticipated that 

 the official end of the war would be so 

 long delayed, yet they make no apology 

 for insisting that the Federal govern- 

 ment take such action as is necessary to 

 make the price supports effective and at 

 the same time discourage the accumula- 

 tion of ruinous surpluses. Some experts 

 say that it will be impossible to support 

 prices of 90% of parity without piling 

 up a huge surplus and they point to 

 potatoes as a horrible example. I am 

 sure we must frankly admit that this is 

 a real danger. The Illinois Agricultural 

 Association is striving to pool the best 

 thinking of informed farmers and agri- 

 cultural economists upon this and re- 

 lated problems. By authorization of the 

 Board of Directors, an Economic Study 

 Committee has been appointed. I feel 



(Continued on page 45) 



