The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1943-07-23
mary objective.

The thing of most Importance t
them, it seems, is not the winning c
the war or the crushing of fascism, G
the assurance of a free world-bu
rather the winning of the 1914 elet
ton, the crushing of the ADMINISTERS
ton, and the New Deal, AND TIL
ASSURANCE OF A WORLD FREl
FOR THE UNHAMPERED PLAY Oh
CORPORATE POWER.
And If you start with the objectiv
that Roosevelt must be smashed, wha
better way is there than to confus
and disarrange the war economy?
Prices touch our daily lives NOR
than anything else in the war.
prices go looming up-if price contro
fails-if incentives are denied to tn,
farmer-if Black Markets arise-anC
if, from the resultant confusion, foot
scarcities arise, the confidence of the
ordinary man and woman in the Presi
dent and the war administration is
undermined.
This is, in the large, the smart
otldltSy lOl tHoSe WIN WISH W ueS
troy Roosevelt.
| We have no quarrel with men who
differ with the President over issues
on the merits of the issues. We do
not condemn the men who follow
their sincere convictions and hold to
them because they believe they are
right But what should cause deep
concern among all Americans, what
ever may be their political persuasion,
is that in the process of employing
this strategy the Unholy Alliance in
congress is gambling with the war.
This is the great responsibility that
congress has taken upon itself The
Unholy Alliance will have to answer
for it's actions, not only at the bar
of history; it will have to answer for
them when the American people come
to strike the balance sheet of the war
And then they will have to answer for
them, finally and terribly, in their
own consciences.
I hope I have given you picture
of why congress is acting as it does.
Now, I want to discuss logically
and clamly, the merits of some sort
of subsidy or incentive program for
agriculture.
The Farmers Union has always de-
manded that the farmer receive full
parity for his products. What this
means is that there should be parity
of income between what the farmer
gets and what the laboring man gets.
If the costs of the things farmer
buys go up, then his products should
go up. Likewise, if the price of
things go down, the price of his prod
ucts should likewise go down.
We believe that the American pub
lie = and labor especially = accepted
the fairness of this premise that there
should be equality of income. People
may quarrel with whether or not the
farmer is getting too much or too
little, but l am sure they cannot argue
against the merits of the parity for
mula.
So through all this turmoil in con-
gress the Farmers Union has done |
everything it could to maintain a
sane and rational position. 1t has be-
ieved that there should be no limits |
On production and that the smaller |
farms should be given every encour-
cement to increase production.
1t is odd-or is it?-that the same |
'orces who oppose any form of sub
;idy and clamor for sky-rocketing |
prices, have so little regard for the |
iced to produce more farm products, |
hat they ganged up and attempted |
o destroy Farm Security Administra-
ion which is the small farmers
riend, and have tried by every means
within their power to destroy the gov
program to liberalize credit
n order that the farmer would not
lave to mortgage his entire farm to
ret the seed and machinery and other
equipment necessary to put in his
rops or increase his herds.
Of course a lot of people believe
hat everybody can get rich out of
his war, and when one looks at the
American corporation profits which
n the second year of total war, in an
ra of Unprecedented wage control,
re IS per cent higher for the first
uarter of 1913 than they were in
942, and this after all taxes are de-
ucted, it means, unfortunately, that
ONE people ARE GETTING RICH.
his means corporations profits of
light billions for the year if this
purge continues.
These figures speak so eloquently
lrther comment from us, except to
ay that obviously corporations have
O objection to subsidies for them
elves. They are opposed only to sub
idies for agriculture.
Now, with all this talk of higher f
lcome for the farmers (and their ;
lcome this year is expected to be /
billion dollars after wages or hired s
Dor have ben deducted) the question {
ill remains: Is the farmer better I
If or worse off than year ago? I
If we answer this question, will we
OF also answer the question of how ! i
uch danger there is of initiation if /
,od prices are increased any more? (
Here are some figures from the De- t
artment of Agriculture: These fig I
res show:
1. That the farmers income is v
GREATER but his profits were e
smaller than a year ago. d
2. AS of last April, the American II
housewife, with four mouths to a
feed, spent $36 to set her table. v
I'LL | G