The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1938-03-10

est in the heart Of the corn belt.
M. w. Thatcher, Chairman Of the
Wheat Conservation Committee,
describes the measure as an "iffy''
Bill. The Bill has important "ifs"
with respect to wheat and cotton
because benefit payments beyond,
and In addition, to those provided
by the Soil Conservation appropria-
ton are conditioned on Congress
levying an equalization or excise
tax on wheat and cotton products.
The wheat farmers represented
by the Wheat Conference Commit
tee and the Northwest Farmers
Union Legislative Committee will
fight for a tax on wheat products
and we presume the cotton people
will do likewise for cotton. A spec
ific tax will raise a specific fund
with which to pay wheat and cotton
farmers a benefit or equalization
payment to bring the returns on a
bushel Of wheat or pound Of cotton
up to something near parity, or
cost Of production.
"If" we cannot persuade Congress
to levy such an excise tax for the
benefit CT wheat farmers, then the
price Of wheat when normal crops
are produced will settle to around
sixty cents per bushel on the farms
and that, as every farmer knows, is
far below cost Of production. The
Soil Conservation payments will in
crease the price returns to wheat
growers, it is estimated, by about II
cents per bushel. The Soil Conser-
walton money, however, should not
be used to piece out prices Of COM
modities. Soil Conservation funds
should be used to restcre and build
soils, which means that the major
part of the Soil Conservation mon
ey should go to farmers where the
soil is most eroded by wind, water,
and DIVER use of land by sell depict
ing crops.
In Iowa, for example, Soil Con-
servation money should go in great
est volume to the hill farmers Of
the southern part Of the state
where soil is depleted, instead CT to
northern Iowa farmers where soils
are not depleted. In the submargin-
al areas, North Dakota, for exam
pie, Soil Conservation money should
go in greatest volume to the wind
eroded areas Of the middle and
western sections, and not to the
Red River Valley with the excep-
ton of sandy areas) where the soil
is many feet in depth.
This cannot be done until Con-
gress has exhibited the intelligence
and the courage to levy excise taxes
for benefit payment purposes, same
as we levy gasoline taxes for road
making purposes. When this Is done
Soil Conservation funds could be
used exclusively for soil rebuild
ing purposes. To make the new
Farm Bill effective, therefore, the
"ifs" must be replaced with special
tax facts.
With acreage allotments and mar
keting quotas we are In hearty
agreement. We have advoted mar
keting quotas since the days OF the
National Producers Alliance.
Had the much talked about cost
Of production price fixing bill been
passed, marketing quotas would be
used at once. So those advocates OF
the cost OF production measure are
%straining at gaats and swelling
camels'' when they choose to OPP
pose marketing quotas. Marketing
quotas are necessary to handle sur
plus crops. The quota section of the
bill, is in our judgment, absolutely
sound, and those who oppose are
doing so for political reasons, and
no other.
Crop Insurance
While the wheat farmers Jared
badly in the general bill because
substantial benefit payments to es-
tablish parity price are dependent
on the Ifs of a social excise tax,
we came out with Crop Insurance.
There are two "ifs" in wheat
crop yield insurance. "If'' the In
surance Corporation set up by the