The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1943-03-26

CONTINUED from Page One)
corporation operator will eliminate
the family-type farmer. The family
type farmer needs more UNITS on
which to get price-not PRICE alone.
A program of abundance! This APP
plies on grains, poultry, dairy cattle
and every other needed farm product.
Base herds, flocks, seeds, ETC., should
be made available. These should be
financed through Non-Recourse Loans
that do not place the farmer in q
financial straight-jacket.
The Whole Story On "Farm Labor"
The Farmers Union has not entered
into the controversy relative to in
clusion of farm labor" in figuring
parity" Several angles should be
thoroly considered before we go off
the deep end" on this matter. What
has NOT been reported by our daily
press and by the proponents is more
important than what has been spewed
out
The matter came up when AAA was
first launched. The factor of farm
labor" was then left out because it
would materially LOWER the parity
price. (All other labor, except farm
labor has always been included) In
terst and taxes were added as factors
in 1886 because they are cash ex-
penditures) but farm labor" again
was left out because it would LOWER
parity.
Only recently has farm labor" ad-
vanced to a point where parity prices
would increase by its inclusion.
While it's inclusion would increase
parity a little NOW, its inclusion
would reduce the parity price, by as
much or more, after the war-bring-
ing it below present parity.
To make the thing really catch at
tention the proponents urge that we
also include as a factor a return to
the farmer and his family lin addition
to farm labor'). Since this is not a
cash expenditure it is cost-of-pro-
duction factor rather than a parity
factor. This only SOUNDS good. 1t
would have the same effect as farm
labor"
By including both factors present
parity price" would NOW go up
about II per cent. After the war
these inclusions, however, would tend
to bring parity II per cent or more
below present parity. 1t is great pub
licity material for senators but for
farmers dangerous as h Il.
And this is just as important! If
these factors were included and parity
was increased IL per cent the follow
ing products would not be affected
because they are now December 15)
at or above the suggested higher par
ity level: chickens, hogs, calves, tur-
keys, beef, lamb, wool, milk and many
others. Butterfat was within 3 points |
and climbing.
Rye, barley, oats, hay and the like
are well below present parity. A
higher parity level would not affect
these since they so far are not up
to present parity Taking the "lid
Off production of wheat and corn at
present parity is more important to
the family-type farmer than to leave
the "lid on" at higher parity.
King Cotton Planters Want Help
That leaves four primary products
that would be affected: Beans, pota-
toes, eggs and. cotton. We have
worked on beans and potatoes. The
original plan for these two products
would have placed them in the higher,
unaffected bracket (higher parity |
and it is to be hoped that any final
plan will give the Ego" sign to the
family-type farmer to really produce
thes items Qet's not squirm at a Sub |
sidy" plan if it provides stability and
avoids inflation). Eggs must be dealt
with if production is too low. We
could ourselves, do much to assure a
farm price nearer the Chicago price.
And that leaves COTTON. And |
the cotton FARM BLOCK. And the
PRICE BLOCK (for 5OO,OOO). Cotton
is now December 15) just above pres
ent parity Except for long-staple, it
is the one major crop that is greatly |
over-produced 1t is produced in an !
area where plantation operators con-
troll the land and the crop. This is a |
war period when we are stressing in
crease in NEEDED farm crops. The
democratic senators of
the south Coined by as many reac-
tionary republican senators from 9TH
er areas who enjoy the rupture and
confusion) see but one way to serve
the cotton plantation owners and the
100000 So for ONE CROP, and with
a fascist agriculture as a hoped-for
result, we are being Unanswered into
4 new parity formula.
Basically the whole controversy re-