The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1936-02-27
PURPOSE
Is o. K.

to use for benefit
payments to farmers 1t proposes to
use these funds TO save the soil, 10
prevent further carrying away of pro-
ductive elements in our soil by con-
tinued cropping. New Dealers describe
the purpose as prevention of erosion.
With that purpose, it seems TO me
there can be no quarrel Ever since
the successive portions of our country
were settled and the forest coverings
removed. soil has been subject TO
erosion by rain. by food and by wind.
The Department of Agriculture says
that the top soil of probably fifty mil
Hon acres has been destroyed in that
manner It would seem, then. that il
was high time our government was
finding ways 10 stop it
Admitting the soundness of this
phase of the program, one then must
turn TO another phase that is not writ
ten into law hut results from il. Il
the fertility of soil is improved. is 1t
not natural then that there should be
an increase in production? And il
there is an increase in production. is il
not logical further that we may find
ourselves developing a huge surplus
with no foreign market? The answer
obviously is. yes.
So. we find these two circumstances
In the administration farm bill. pro-
posed, even driven. BY that group Of
New Dealers who, until few months
ago. were declaring here. there and
everywhere that to maintain price we
must have scarcity of production. That
theory was basic In the AAA and was
carried out TO the furthest by Secre-
tory Wallace and Administrator Ches-
ter Davis
/ know of no one with superintelli-
rence sufficient to enable him TO pic
ture the result of this combination
nor have l heard any argument that
was convincing TO me. reconciling the
previous policy under AAA with that
now projected In the new farm relief
plan
There seems to be no doubt among
students Of the farm problem that a
subsidy. whether by
Must Pay that name or some
BENEFITS trick phrase. for az
riculture cannot be
avoided. Some way, somehow. money
is going TO be taken out of the fed
eral treasury TO pay benefits. subsidies,
to the farm population. / do not know
whether anyone can predict where such
q policy viii lead as long-term ma
tional program. Political figures seem
10 be content with a temporary solu-
tion. something TO get farm votes. In
all of the debate that has moved
through the ventilators OF the house
and senate chambers, discussion of the
farm problem on long-term basis has
been noticeably absent
This fact is just as true when anti
New Deal farm programs are subject.
ed TO a searching analysis as is the
administrations plan itself. 1t applies
to the proposal OF an export bounty,
offered by Senator McNary. senate Re
publican leader; TO the plan Of George
Peek. former AAA administrator. tc
the piecemeal presentations of Senator
Borah. Idaho Republican Presidential
prospect or to the ideas advanced By
Senator Dickinson. Iowa Republican OF
any of the others
Since il seems established that the
subsidy idea viii and must be kept al
a part of any farm policy, the problem
is narrowed down TO the question Of
how it viii be administered Each plar
provides political jobs-fol
administration. That fact. however
would seem TO guarantee inefhcienc,
rather tnan efficiency in administra
tion. Each of the plans obviously
must reach into nearly every county