Evening star., 1955-11-18
Twits Kent


Frank r. Kent called my re-
cent farm proposal Social
istic," bemoaned the fact that
such a scheme" could be
presented by one Of our more
literate" statesmen. said there
was mo obvious limit" to Its
expense and that 1t was ito
some degree based on the dis
credited Brannan plan Of the
Truman regime"
/ wonder II Mr.. Kent has
even read what / proposed?
If the proposal is "socialistic"
(Which it is not) it is GER!
tainly less socialistic than the
existing or previous programs,
for I subjected my proposal to
two specific limitations:
I'd That the total payment
to any one farmer should not
exceed $4,000 per year. and
ca No payments would be
made whose effect would be
to protect q farmers income
above that amount which was
the average value Of crops per
farm tpresently about $4,000.
/ made the proposal not
only because the family farm
owner Is going through the
wringer. with hogs at i3 cents,
the parity ratio at its lowest
point since November, 1910,
average income per farm is
down cd least $555 or 81 per
cent since the Republicans
came to power. and the cost
price squeeze Is getting tighter
month by month. but also be-
cause payments now go in too
large part to those who need
them least.
At the present time about 3
per cent Of the farmers get
Is per cent Of the payments
and II per cent Of the farmers
receive half the payments.
This leaves the other hall to
the remaining 80 per cent Of
the farmers.
Last year In Indiana, Iowa,
and Illinois, for example, the
amount Of leans ON corn TO
the i've highest borrowers in
each Of these States amounted
to S4Ii, ,I92. $377. .325 and $780,
43T. respectively. or an average
Of $73,Ig6 to each Of the Is
highest borrowers. One State
OF Washington wheat growing
firTn had q loan Of 4208. .30S.
The situation II even more
extreme for cotton. rice, and
sugar. IN 1854. one Florida
Arm received 4702. .664 In Sug-
or Act payments. and one
Texas cotton farmer had Q
loan OF s8i4.001. Ny $4,000
limitation would certainly cut
down these costs and grant
the subsidy to those who need
It most rather than those who
need 1t least, which is the
only real justification for .
subsidy.
AS to the complaint that I
would support income at about
30 per cent Of parity and that
the idea is based to some
extent on the "discredited"
Brannan plan, Mr.. Kent for
gets that the Eisenhower ad-
ministration, in order to sat
isfy the big grazing interests.
adopted just such a plan for
wool. only they guaranteed
not only 80 per cent Of parity
but l06 per cent.
Mr: Kent and other Repub-
ican apologists might well re-
call those famous words Of
Gen. Eisenhower att Kasson,
Mimi, and the less famous but
even more explicit promise at
Brookings, s. OAK, In the 1852
campaign. when he said on
October 4. that:
1.-THE Republican Patty is
pledged to the sustaining OF
the % per cent parity price
support. and 1t Is pledged
even more than that to help
ing the farmer obtain his full
parity, 100 per cent parity.
with the guarantee In the
price supports of 80 per cent
instead OF that they are
trying to sweep their broken
promises under the rug.
It is amazing how Repub-
iican writer's can become so
incensed over Democratic pro-
posals which 60 less far, II
read lii their entirety, than
Republican promises.
Incidentally, does M. Kent
oppose. as I do. subsidies to
the publishers of slick maga-
zines, direct-mail advertisers.
silver mines; big shipyards.
big airlines, etc. or does he
only object to subsidies for
the little fellowa
Paul III. Douglas,
mavsatns. Wpexn T1finnia