of 



Why We Oppose 

 The Brannan Plan 



American Farm Bureau Board 

 Lists Six Reasons and Turns 

 Thumbs Down on 'Trial Run* 



THE American Farm Bureau Federation is "vigorously 

 and unanimously opposed to any trial run of the Bran- 

 nan Farm Plan." This was the announcement made 

 after a recent meeting of the AFBF board of directors. 

 Stated simply the Brannan plan would maintain high 

 farm prices and at the same time guarantee consumers cheap 

 food. The taxpayers would foot the bill for the difference. 



In opposing the Brannan plan, the AFBF board of direc- 

 tors recommended that Congress perfect agricultural legisla- 

 tion already on the books and suggested amendments to the 

 Agricultural Act of 1948. The AFBF board feels that the 

 Agricultural Act of 1948 providing for flexible support 

 prices should be given a chance first. 



The AFBF board opposes the Brannan plan for the fol- 

 lowing reasons: 



1. The farmer's only hope for a fair income would de- 

 pend on government handouts from annual appropriations 

 by Congress. 



2. The cost of the program would be staggering. There 

 is no possibility of getting appropriations large enough to 

 pay the cost. There is no good reason why the government 

 should pay part of the grocery bill of every citizen. 



3. Price goals of the plan are so high as to assure con- 

 tinous and rigid controls over production and marketing. 



4. The plan, which promises high per-unit returns, 

 cheap food, and moderate tax cost, would actually result in 

 low farm prices and high food costs when the inevitable and 

 excessive tax costs are included. 



5. The plan discards the fair-exchange concept of parity 

 which has been the basis of farm programs since 1933, and 

 substitutes therefor a new and untried concept which might 

 conceivably result in unsatisfactory farm income as the dis- 

 locations of war recede into the past. 



6. The unusual procedure employed in creating thi.« 

 plan and presenting it to the public has had the effect of 

 throwing the farm problem into the partisan political arena, 

 a situation which we deplore and condemn. 



It is our intention to continue to work aggressively for 

 a farm program which will best serve agriculture regardless 

 of partisan politics. In the future, as in the past, sound farm 

 legislation will depend on the best efforts of both political 

 parties. 



At the same time the AFBF board recommended that the 

 Agricultural Act of 1948 be amended to provide: 



That the loan rate on cotton, wheat, corn, peanuts, and 

 rice be changed to 75 to 90 per cent of parity whenever mar- 

 keting quotas and acreage allotments are in effect, instead of 

 72 to 90 per cent as the law now stands. 



And that whenever acreage allotments or marketing 

 quotas are in effect the support schedule for corn, wheat, and 

 rice provide a 90 per cent of parity support for a supply of 

 102 per cent of normal or less and that this schedule be grad- 

 uated downward for supplies greater than 102 per cent of 

 normal to a loan rate of 75 per cent of parity when the sup- 

 ply is greater than 130 per cent of normal. 



As the Record goes to press debate has started in the 

 House on the farm program. Informed Washington sources 

 predict that the Brannan plan trial run on three commodities 

 will pass the House but will be blocked by the Senate. 



Failure of an Exf>eriment 



WITH the rise of socialism and communism, and the 

 encroaching inroads of government bureaucracy which 

 many Farm Bureau leaders have watched with concern, 

 it is interesting to read the following excerpts from 

 Governor Bradford's own history of the Plymouth Bay 

 Colony over which he presided. You may draw your own 

 conclusions. 



When the Pilgrim Fathers landed they established a 

 communist system. Everyone worked for the common good. 

 But there never seemed to be enough food for all. A vicious 

 circle started. There wasn't enough food so the men were too 

 weak to produce more food so there wasn't enough food and 

 so on. 



Gov. Bradford decided something had to be done. Fol- 

 lowing are his own words; 



"So the colonists begane to thinke how they might raise 

 as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope than 

 they had done, that they might not still thus languish in 

 miserie." At length (in 1623) after much debate of things, 

 the governor (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) 

 gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne 

 perticules. and in that regard trust to them selves . . . And 

 so assigned to every family a parcell of land. . . . 



"This had very good success; for it made all hands very 

 industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other 

 waise would have bene by any means the governor or any 

 other could use. and saved him a great deall of trouble, and 

 gave farr better contente. 



"The women now wente willingly into the feild, and 



[Continued nn pJge 2() 



AUGUST. 1949 



