A NEW FARM PLAN 



THE new farm program proposal 

 announced by Secretary of Agri- 

 culture Charles F. Brannan is the 

 most sensational thing to hit agri- 

 cultural circles in a long time. As 

 someone said — "It's not a farm pro- 

 gram; it's a form of government." 



It appears from Secretary Brannan's 

 7,500-word statement and statistical ex- 

 hibits covering 35 typewritten pages 

 that the program is aimed at (1) keep- 

 ing farm income at wartime levels and 

 at the same time (2) reducing food 

 prices at the grocery counter. Govern- 

 ment subsidies would make up the dif- 

 ference between the high farm income 

 and the low retail prices. The tax- 

 payer, of course, would pay the bill. 

 Under direct questioning of Congres- 

 sional committee members. Secretary 

 Brannan failed to estimate the cost of 

 the new program. 



The new farm program has been 

 called revolutionary, and that is no 

 exaggeration. The designers of this 

 plan threw out practically every basic 

 farm program principle for which Farm 

 Bureau fought years to secure. The 

 Washington planners junked the parity 

 principle as well as the "fair price in 

 the market place." 



The proposed farm plan in effect 

 calls for the repeal of the Agricultural 

 Act of 1948. At the 1948 annual meet- 

 ing of the Illinois Agricultural Associa- 

 tion, the voting delegates went on rec- 

 ord in support of the 1948 Act with its 

 Erinciple of flexible price supports 

 eyed to supply and demand. "There- 

 fore, the Illinois Farm Bureau, while 

 it will give the new farm program a 

 thorough and careful consideration, is 

 bound by delegate action to support 

 the Agricultural Act of 1948 and its 

 fundamental principles. 



At, the April 15 meeting of the lAA 

 board, the directors went on record 

 to reaffirm their support of the Amer- 

 ican Farm Bureau Federation in back- 

 ing the Agricultural Act of 1948. 



The American Farm Bureau Federa- 

 tion's official statement on the new 

 program pointed out: 



""The recommendations of the Sec- 

 retary involve far-reaching and funda- 

 mental changes in the approach and 

 role of government in dealing with 

 farm problems. The changes recom- 

 mended in this startling reversal of 

 policy are revolutionary in their ef- 

 fect. 



"Before the Farm Bureau could con- 



12 



Secretary ol Agriculture Charles Brannart 

 (above) at he appeared before the House 

 Agricultural Committee to answer Con- 

 gressional criticism that the administration's 

 new farm program would hurl the farmer 

 more than It would help him. Some Re- 

 publicans have assailed the program as a 

 scheme to regiment farmers and share the 

 wealth. Brannan denied both assertions. 



sider seriously supporting them, it 

 would be necessary to submit these 

 proposals to our entire membership, 

 and through the democratic process by 

 which our policies are developed on 

 the county, state and national levels, 

 get their decision with regard to our 

 position. 



"Our present position is in support 

 of the Agricultural Act of 1948, which 

 we feel is sound and worthy of a fair 

 trial." 



Here are some of the general pro- 

 posals of the new farm program: 



1. The old parity system of establish- 

 ing fair prices is junked. Instead a 

 total farm income goal is established. 

 For 1950, for example, farm income 

 would be pegged to give farmers the 

 same average buying power as they had 

 in the 10-year period, 1939-48. For 

 1951, the 10-year period used would be 

 1940-49, and so on. The period would 

 always be the first 10 years of the most 

 recent previous 12-year span. 



2. From this total farm income goal, 

 price supports are figured for each com- 

 modity. 



3. Supports would be made effective 

 through loans and purchase agreements 

 as at present for basic non-perishable 



crops such as cotton, wheat, corn, and 

 other grains, tobacco, the oilseed crops, 

 dry beans and peas, wool and peanuts. 

 And, Secretary Brannan said, "It would 

 be desirable to have available, as a sup- 

 plementary method, the authority to 

 make production payments under cer- 

 tain circumstances." 



For the perishable products, fruits, 

 vegetables, meat animals, milk, butter- 

 fat, poultry and eggs. Secretary Bran- 

 nan says, "I recommend that we rely 

 mainly upon production payments." 



"Under this system," Secretary Bran- 

 nan said, "the farmer would be paid in 

 cash the difference between the support 

 standard for commodities which he 

 produced and the average selling price 

 for those commodities in the market 

 place. Because the payment would go 

 directly to the farmer, it would be an 

 efficient support operation." 



4. Certain commodities are given 

 first call on the available support funds. 

 These include corn, cotton, wheat, to- 

 bacco, whole milk, eggs, farm chickens, 

 hogs, beef cattle and lambs. 



5. To get supports, farmers would 

 have to comply with soil conservation 

 practices, and any acreage allotments, 

 marketing quotas and marketing agree- 

 ments which may be adopted. 



6. Price supports would be limited 

 to a certain volume of production on 

 each farm. A volume "high enough 

 . . . but which would not encourage 

 the development of extremely large, in- 

 dustrialized farming." 



It is suggested that not more than 

 1800 units per farm be eligible for sup- 

 port. A unit, it is suggested, would be 

 equal to 10 bushels of corn. For ex- 

 ample, a farmer could elect to get sup- 

 port on 18,000 bushels of corn at a 

 rate of $1.46 per bushel, under the 

 schedule as it is set up for 1950. Other 

 suggested production units are shown 

 in the accompanying table. 



7. Marketing quotas and acreage al- 

 lotments would continue to be avail- 

 able or be provided for commodities 

 such as tobacco, cotton, wheat, rice, 

 corn and peanuts, "with improvements 

 based on experience." Whenever al- 

 lotments or marketing quotas are in 

 effect on corn, similar restrictions 

 would be available for use on other 

 feed grains and "possibly rye." 



"The time may come," Secretary 

 Brannan said, "when marketing quotas 

 or similar feasible devices may be de- 

 sirable for meat animals, dairy prod- 



I. A. A. RECORD 



A 



' i 



• » 



■I- 



► 



I 



* i>^ 

 I 



