Evening star., 1949-10-30

the farm bloc, any faint hope the
would be reduced was killed OF IL
It is certain that the provision
per cent level Of parity next year
won't allow him to buy cheaper
produce. While the bill does not
call for as many commodities un-
der mandatory support as the
present law, the administrations
thinking has been directed toward
higher props and the expectation
is that guarantees next year, un-
der the new law, will be higher
than ever before.
If the present support levels are
continued as expected the con-
sumer can have little hope Of re-
duction in any Of his food costs
except eggs. beef and lamb.
Support Not the Issue
The battle which led to the COM
promise farm bill was never over
the support principle. That is
now so well accepted that practi-
cally no member of Congress
would oppose it. whether he be
Democrat or Republican. AS
usual the fight was over the appli-
cation of that principle.
The House in the main wanted
price supports kept at or near the
present high level on major crops.
The basic crops In the 1949 bill are
corn, cotton, wheat, rice. tobacco
and peanuts. The Senate backed
a flexible plan sponsored by Sena-
tor Anderson, Democrat, of New
Mexico, which would have pro-
vided a sliding scale for parity
prices.
In the end an agreement was
reached that kept the wartime
80 per cent parity level for 1850
on the basic crops, between 80
and 80 per cent for 1851, between
IS and 80 per cent for 1852 and
succeeding crops. However. in all
cases the level in the sliding
scales will be set within the dis
cretion of the Secretary of Agri-
culture. He has the power to keep
the highest figure in all cases.
The level of support for tobacco
is mandatory at 80 per cent of
parity If marketing quotas are IN
effect.
| In addition. price support Is
mandatory for "non-basic" COM
modities. These are wool (includ-
ing mohair). tung nuts. honey,
Irish potatoes. milk, butterfat and
the products of milk and butter
fat.
I The wide powers left to the
Secretary of Agriculture allow
him to apply supports to any
other crops, at any level not in
excess Of 80 per cent of parity.
It is certain the Democratic ma
jority in the House had its eye on
the farm vote when it held Out
for the highest level of supports
and it will be four years before
the full effect of the lowest levels
Of the flexible scales could go into
full effect.
! It is by no means certain that
this bill will last long enough to
reach those levels. BY that time
Secretary of Agriculture Brannan
may have time enough to sell the
lcountry on his plan which cer-
tainly has aroused no opposition
in top administration circles.
During the summer the Agricul-
ture Secretary made many
speeches in strategic parts Of the
Nation seeking to put his pro-
posal over.
What Brannan Wants
Briefly, Secretary Brannan's
idea calls for the curtailment of
food production, selling perishable
food to consumers at lower prices
and still pay farmers the high
wartime prices they have been
getting for their produce.
To ACCOMPLISH this he proposes
that farmers must accept Govern
ment-f1xed production quotas
planned to share the work of rails
ing food. The farmers who accept
this control would be guaranteed
incomes calculated to prolong their
wartime prosperity.
Government attempts to keep
up consumer prices for perishable
foods would end. Retail prices
would be fixed by natural" market
transactions.
The Government would pay the
difference and every one would
contribute to subsidies for the
farmers as taxpayers.
II Secretary Brannan does a
good selling job. that formula may
become another in the long line of
attempts Congress has made to
find a permanent" solution to the
farm problem.
Meanwhile, the Nation seems as
far away from a permanent pro-
gram as it was In the 1920s when
the idea Of Government price sup
ports began to develop. The de-
mand for aid to the farmer by CIV
ing him parity" for what he got
for his products with what he paid
for industrial goods began shortly
after World War /.
At the end Of the war the out
look for agriculture seemed Sc
cure. Between 1914 and 1919 over
all farm production had increased
only about 6 per cent despite ex-
traordinary demand. Prices had
increased nearly 113 per cent. It
was freely asserted that the United
States could look forward to 40
years Of agricultural prosperity
Just to feed Europe alone"
Looking Backward
But termination Of Government
loans to Europe dried up export
demand, and with strong COM
petition from other surplus-pro-
ducing countries and dlmninc n