Evening star., 1935-10-28
A.A.A. OPPOSITION
VOTES SURPRISING.
Administration Gave Only
One Side of Argument
to Farmers.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


cause the corn-hog farmer in the
United States was not in any way the
victim of coercion. there is country
wide wonder that any votes were cast
In opposition in the referendum which
brought a nearly 6-to-1 victory to
the A. A. A.
For the Roosevelt administration
did not present both sides of the ar
gument to the corn-hog farmers. but
merely asked whether they would
continue to favor crop control and
q subsidy.
The consumers who have to pay,
In the cost of living, higher prices
for foodstuffs were not asked to vote.
None of the arguments that might
be made on the faulty economics OF
the A. A. AS policies was presented
to the corn-hog farmer. II was a
one-sided election among group who
were really being asked whether they
would like to have better price for
their product by limiting the output
of their farms and making their
products relatively scarce.
A. A. A. Substitute for Trust.
When steel manufacturers used to
get together and try to agree among
themselves on limitation of produc-
tion and prices the Government used
to call it trust and apply the anti
trust laws. But farm organizations
of all kinds are exempt from the op-
Grafton of antitrust laws and the
A. A. A. is really a substitute for the
old-fashioned trust or monopoly. but
with governmental control.
1t is likely that If referendum were
held among the producers of silver in
Nevada and Utah. and if in such an
election they we're asked whether
they would agree to make silver scarce
80 as to boost the price, they would
answer in an overwhelming affirma-
tive. AS matter of fact, the Gov
ernment is doing that very thing, as
congressional pressure compels the
i Treasury to take silver OFF the hands
of the producers in such large guam
titles annually as to elevate the price
Perhaps a parallel would be to have
referendum among all the industries
protected by tariff and asking them
whether, in exchange for the tariff
protection. they would agree to limit
their product SO the price could go
much higher than the tariff wall and
so their profits could be materially
increased 1t is hardly likely there
would be votes cast in opposition
except by the few who took the trouble
to analyze the proposal and discover
that in the long run the policy would
be disastrous to the industries them
selves.
Minorities Are Benefited.
The spectacle of a Government
managed election among the members
of a minority group. whose decision
now is to affect the prices paid by
the majority. is still too novel for
widespread appreciation of its impli-
cations. Minority by minority, the
New Deal offers money benefits in
the form of processing taxes or sub
sides and the result is to build up a
cumulative weapon Of blocs for the
presidential elections. Minorities swing
national elections because they move
from one party to the other, while
the straight ticket voters remain in
different
If each powerful minority group is
to be appealed to on grounds of direct
benefit to it with funds either taken
out Of general taxation or by levying
assessments on the cost of living, the
chaotic consequences will hardly be
called planned economy" and it will
be difficult for any opposition polit-
1cal party to win in the near future
on the simple truths that century old
experience has proved. 1t only means
that New Deal economy may have to
run its full course, bringing in its
wake the friction that has always
arisen between classes and the con-
fusion that has always come from
Government control of production and
price fixing, no matter where it has
been tried in human history.
President Wilson used to say that
the tariff was a local issue, that
members of Congress represented only
their districts in considering it and
that they did not look at the ma
tional interest. He felt that the
Chief Executive alone was left with
the task of making national policies
in the national interest Under the
Roosevelt administration, the process
has been reversed. Policies that will
enhance its prestige with group
interests are assiduously pressed,
whereas the more painful, though
more effective, course of national
benefit in the long run, is ignored
as politically hazardous.
BrOokings Shows FalIacies.
Even granting that farm income
should be increased, that farm pur-
chasing power when raised helps the
industrial areas, there is ample proof
that higher prices mean less CON-
sumption of goods and more con-
sumner resistance. Although not of
1erlng panacea by any means, the
Brookings Institution in its latest re-
port by Harold C. Moulton and his
staff. made after an exhaustive eco.
nomic research, points out the fal-
lacles OF limiting production and
raising prices and the study argues
that industrial prices should come
down and will come down to meet
the farm level when once ccmpeti-
tion is stimulated and efficiency
really applied.
Since it is difficult to keep on en-
larging money wage incomes, the
Brookings' report argues for an in
creased purchasing power for the
farmer and the city worker through
reduction in the cost of the articles
bought by them. This is another
way of achieveing parity.
To those who ask how this can
be obtained without Government con-
troll of prices, the answer is that
prices find their most efficient level
when Government restrictions and
interferences are removed and arbi-
trary barriers to exchange of goods
in the home market are surmounted
by natural factors of competition and
Y,rod,,rtiop