Evening star., 1940-09-27
Text Of Wilkes Omaha Farm Address

distributor of industrial goods keeps
them from private financial inSti-
tutions. Such institutions. however.
are not equipped to furnish credit to
enable farmers to carry their sur
pluses through periods when mar
kets are demoralized. 1t is there
fore necessary that the Federal
Government take over that func-
ton.
Third: Ever since 1888, I have
been advocating rural electrical =
ton. l think the present program
should be developed and extended
| proposed to authorities in WASH
ington that Congress make avail
able reasonable sum. say $780,
900 900. from which either munich
pal plants or private plants could
borrow money for rural lines. or
some portion of them, provided the
borrowers agreed to distribute cleo
tricity to the farmers at reasonable
rates. If by reason of its increased
use, such a line should earn a re-
turn on the investment. the borrow
ers could pay back his loan to the
revolving fund. 1t is my belief that
If such a program could be adopted
IN addition TO the present plan.
there would be twice as many rural
lines in America as there are
today.
Federal Agency Should
Supervise Operations.
Fourth; We must have an ade-
quate system of farm credit. Inter-
est rates should be as low as the
cost OF money will permit. These
lending operations should be super
vised by Government agency inde-
pendent of the Department of
Agriculture and free from political
control. The ultimate goal should
be farmer ownership.
Fifth: Crop insurance on wheat
has resulted in great benefit to in
Sured producers. We have not had
enough experience to determine
whether it will be success in the
long run. But I favor its con-
tinuance until a full test has been
made.
Such. in the briefest possible
form. are the current programs that
l lndorse. But will anyone argue
that these programs are enough?
They have helped many thousands
Of farmers to feel more secure. Yet
the simple objectives that We all
desire so much are still far off.
How can we bring those detectives
closer?
The answer I believe lies in this:
that the New Deal intrigued with
elaborate economic theories. has
failed 10 go TO the roots of our prob
lem. The simple laws OF American
economics have slipped through its
fingers. The farmer should get a
greater share of our national in
come. but this objective would be
lmmeasurably easier to reach if our
national income were growing rap-
idly instead Of remaining practically
stationary.
nave said many times that agri-
culture and industry must 90 up and
down together. 1t is not A coinci-
dence that We have had about TO-
100000 workers unemployed during
a period when agricultural prices
have been far below parity.
When farm income is up. farmers
buy more manufactured products
and thereby increase employment
But it is equally true that the cities
buy more farm products when their
incomes are increased above certain
levels.
This was shown in a recent Gov
ernment study. Families with in.
comes between $500 to $1,000 per
year spent twice as much for food
as did that with incomes under $500
As incomes increased above $1,000
per year. the increases in food ex-
penditures were less rapid, but still
significant Yet Government fig
ures show that there are 10000 900
persons in families who spend on
the average of five cents or less per
PSAoOii pCA
New Deal Is Accused
OF Failing the Farmer.
In failing 10 establish recovery the
New Deal has failed the farmer,
Just as much as it has failed the
businessman and the worker. The
best farm program in the world cam
not correct that failure. 1t is basic
and ail-embracing.
l have pledged myself to win re-
covery for America. This pledge
is just as important to the farmer
as it is to the factory worker or
the businessman And l know how
to fulfill it.
Besides failing to achieve a re-
covery without which We cannot
hope to cure the farm problem, the
New Deal has made the mistake of
concentrating almost exclusively en-
the problems of production. 1t has