Evening star., 1949-01-30
'CropControls
Back of Price
Support Fight
BY the Associofed Press

Back of fight developing in Con-
gress over future Government farm
price supports is the issue Of
whether there should be a return
to preWar crop controls.
There appears to be general
agreement that the Government
should do something to keep agri-
culture from taking another tailspin
into depression like that which
nearly wrecked it-and the Nation
after World War I.
This view is held by President
Truman. 1t is shared by most
members of Congress, the major
farm organizations and most farm
ers themselves. -
But the big question facing the
Governments policy makers is
whether it is possible to have Cow
ernment aid programs without
measures which would tell the
farmer just how much land he
could plant to particular crops and
just how much he could sell.
| The powerful farm bloc in and
out of Congress is divided sharply
over this question. Outwardly the
division is ctnered on price sup
ports. Actually it Is debate over
farm controls.
The idea that the Government
should support prices by putting
floors under them so as to prevent
a collapse in farm income seems
to have general acceptance.
Supports Help Many. D
The argument is made that price
supports help both farmers and
nonfarmers. But just how high
should farm price supports be7
Supports were raised to unpre-
dicted levels during the war to
encourage maximum production.
Some groups In and out of Con-
greSs want to keep the wartime sup
port level. That level was 80 per
cent Of parity for most major prod
ucts.
parity is legal standard for
measuring market prices of farm
products. 1t Is designed to be fair
equally to farmers and those who
buy their productsD
Another group wants system Of
flexible supports. Under this plan
the support level for a crop would
vary from year to year with the size
of the supply. In years of big sup
plies price supports would be re-
duced. In years of shortages they
would be raised.
Such a flexible system was in
cluded in a long-range farm law
passed by the Republican-controlled
Both Congress 1t authorizes sup
ports ranging between so and 80 per
cent of parity for major crops and
from zero to 80 for others, beginning
with 1850 crops.
Under the flexible system, sup
ports would tend to average from 10
to 20 per cent less than the 90 per
cent minimum
This does not mean that sup
porters Of the flexible system want
lower returns for farmers than the
first group. Each contend their
respective method is the only sure
way of assuring farmers q fair In
come and the Nation an eficient
agriculture.
Surpluses Feared.
Advocates of the flexible system
contend the higher, rigid 90. per
cent supports would encourage over-
production and the piling up of sur
pluses at the cost of billions Of doll
lare to the Government. They say
sucha result would eventually dis
credit the whole farm program.
Those wanting the 80 per cent
supports come back with the argyll
ment that overproduction and sur
pluSes could be prevented by use Of
controls over production and mar
ketings. They would return to acre
age allotments and marketing quotas
inaugurated by Henry A. Wallacs
when he was Secretary of Agricul-
ture in the 30S.
But foes Of the high supports
argue that farmers don't want to
go back to controls. Leaders in the
fight against controls are President
Allan Kline, American Farm Bureau
Federation, and Albert S. Goss.
master of the National Grange.
Advocates of high supports deny
farmers are opposed to controls. At
a recent meeting in st. Louis, far
mer committeeman who helped car
ry out Agriculture Department crop
programs went on record favoring
30 per cent supports with controls.