The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-10-17
c. o. P. Sidesteps AAA-
Likewise MT. Hoover Avoided Any Reference To It In His Recent Oakland, Cal, Address
 (From Democratic National Committed

tivity again possible. The presi- dents monetary policy-adopted much earlier by the English whom MT. Hoover praises for their wisdom
 was the keystone of the arch, fol- lowing his swift restitution of ad- equate banking facilities and safe- guarding of the peoples bank de- posits. The Farm Credit Act to save farms from foreclosure; the Home Owners Loan Act to save ur- ban homes from foreclosure; the National Industrial Recovery Act to bring employers and workers to- gether; the Federal Housing Act to stimulate the stagnant heavy indus tries; vast extension of the powers of the REC to render general in- stead of narrowly restricted Ser- vice; the public works and work relief acts-all are integrated parts of this concentration of effort to- ward geneuine recovery which has brought the astonishing results now apparent on the financial pages of any newspaper you pick up.
 Had MT. Hoover discussed the issues as the economist his quali- fications prove him to be, he could not have evaded certain outstand- ing statistics. For example: In 1892 our per capita production of consumer goods had dropped to 72 per cent of the 1929 level. Last Au- gust it was back to 84 per cent and is now higher still. But production of capital goods in 1882 was only 27 per cent of 1929 and last Au- gust it had doubled to 53 per cent. These figures are adjusted to popu- lation growth, which people fre- quently overlook in discussing un- employment.
 So production of many things had to be restored for the benefit of manufacturers and merchants. And that vast element which tra- ditionally has been Americas best customer-the farmer and his de- pendents-had to be utilized at once. Now that might have seemed ironical to persons who were skep- tical of MT. Roosevelt's plan, be- cause agriculture was in the worst plight of all. It's condition seemed utterly hopeless. In 1882 the phys ical production of farm commod- ities was 99 per cent of 1929- against only 27 per cent of the heavy industries, which of course had laid off millions of workers. General industrial production was 54 per cent of the 1929 level and farm production practically the same as in 1929. Farmers couldn't lay off help; they had none to lay off. And they were as lacking in help from Washington. Their ex- port market had vanished but the government was not even remind ing them of that fact.
 So the farmers maintained their production unchecked until in 1882 they had suffered reduction of 58 per cent in their normal cash income. This compared with loss of 37 per cent in the income of non-agricultural industries. Any economic discussion of this vital topic could not fail to disclose that at the present time American farm CTS are producing "A per cent of their 1929 production, as result of which their net cash income has increased to 56 per cent of 1929 and they have been the main prop in bringing industrial cash income up to II per cent of 1929. Had there been no restriction of farm produc- ton, there. would have been no elimination of the price-depressing surpluses nor resumption of that magnificent farm buying power that has got industry back on Its feet.
 Undoubtedly MT. Hoover has had time to think over the fact, long stressed by the farm organizations that industrial income can rise only when the farmers can buy. But that rule of course works both ways, because the cities and the towns must also buy from the farms. And as every branch o1 industry, as well as agriculture, is advancing toward normal, any mention at all of AAA would have led into deep and swift waters. Sd the former president labeled his speech as purely political and such it proved to be.
 .. .sA ..s..... ..~s..s., ~f.~