The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1943-04-09


Fairly Equal Return.
Confusing Consumers.
Comparisons Help.
They Were Square.
The veto, by President Roosevelt, of
the Bankhead bill was not entirely I'M
expected. The bill contravened his
order that the money paid to farmers
for soil conservation and for keeping
acres idle under the quota system,
must be charged against the parity
price under which loans are made on
basic crops, such as wheat. Not hav-
ing yet seen the veto message, it is
impossible at this writing, to know
the reason, other than that here
guessed at, the President had for his
action which is adverse to agriculture.
1t is entirely possible that the con-
gress may override the veto, for the
Bankhead bill passed the senate sew
eral weeks ago by an overwhelming
vote of rs to 2, with the house voting
However, should the veto be sus-
tanned, it does not mean that farm
prices will be frozen at figure less
than parity by the Office of Price
Chester Davis, the
new food czar, has the power to re-
ject any price ceilings which are be-
low parity or which, in his opinion,
work unfairly for the farmer He
will, without much question, analyze
the parity prices which are merely
goals for just returns to the producer,
and compare them with the actual
farm prices and adjust some of the
greater disparities, such as in the case
If corn, which is below parity and
hogs, which are above the parity
price. That action is essential if
prices are to be kept on a par with
each other, so that producers may re-
,eive a fairly equal return for their
efforts and expenditures in producing
/ crop, whether of livestock or grains,
If cotton or peanuts.
The city dweller, who regards him
elf as the principal consumer of food
md fibre-though the farmer is con-
umer, also = may be confused over
hese farm bills and their effect upon
lis cost of living. They may be even
Harmed over the antics of the farm
doc" which is asking what Farmers
Union leaders, in a letter to Senator
'arkley, majority leader, said were
and ill-conceived efforts
0 meet our farm production needs.
y tinkering with parity" That let
81, signed by James G. Patton and
|. w. Thatcher, appeared ii. the Con-
ressional Record of March 26, and
nded with LET the senate turn it's
ttention to devising for farmers the
ind of income insurance and jncen-
yes for production which have been
xtended to industry. Farmers need
lat kind of help"
Those who anticipate Initiation"
18th the price of food kiting as it did
| World War I, can find some COM
rt in the actual conditions, SO far
) the farmer is concerned, by COM
airing the parity figure with the ac-
al price paid the farmer. Figures
ke these will help to understanding:
The farm price for wheat is S1.22;
e parity price is $1.42
The farm price for oats is So cents;
e parity price is 81 cents;
The farm price for rye is Sc cents;
e parity price is $1.15;
The farm price for corn is "a cents;
e parity price is $1.03;
The farm price for hogs is $14 to
5 hundred, and the parity price
$11.70-no big rake-off In each in
ance cited farm prices are well I'M
+ parity prices, except hogs.
The Pace bill, which the senate has
st sent back to committee for re-
odeling, has been opposed by the
rmers Union for many reasons,
ainly because it would tend to infla-
N and sting the consumer into re-
1t. Besides it would penalize the
ry farmers it's sponsors pretend it
'uld benefit. Consumers have no
assure group in congress, but they
peared to protest against the Pace
because, they warned, it would
;rease food costs 8 u billion dollars.
t they were square with the farmer.
ey backed parity asked by the
rmers Union and they approved in
ltlve payments, also asked by the
rmers Union, as means of giving
farmer fair prices, without start
the dreaded initiation.