Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-02-12
Brunnun PIon
Is Back Again
In New Clothes
BIZ RIcHARp FRYKLUND

hover had called it moral bank
ruptcy," and its author. MFR. Tru-
mans Secretary Of Agriculture.
Charles r. Brannan, seemed to be
about the second most unpopular
man in America-right behind Sec
rotary of State Dean Acheson.
But today the Brannan plan il
making a comeback. With different
sponsors and under different names.
the old plan again Is being ad-
vanced as q solution for farmers.
Here are q few straws In the
wind, all containing elements Of
the old Brannan plan:
o President Eisenhower, in his 1855
farm message. asked Congress for
a dollar limit on the size Of price
support loans to anyone individual
or farming unit"
o A year ago Secretary Of Agri.
culture Benson launched q new
wool program providing for produc-
ton payments to sheep farmers and
a free market price for wool.
. Mr.. Benson has offered pro-
duction-payment program as Q
solution to the dairy problem.
o The eminently conservative bust.
nessman's research group, the
Committee for Economic Develop
ment, suggested production pay
ments for cotton q few days ago.
. The Twentieth Century Fund. o
respected research foundation. said
recently that production payments
looked good for wheat.
o Republican Representative Kari
M. LeCompte Of Iowa has Endorsed
production payments for hogs.
Some Old PIon
In none Of these examples-and
they are just a few Of many that
could be listed-would the persons
concerned care to concede they had
borrowed chunks Of the Brannan
plan. Nor has Brannan plan
Technology been used. But the old
plan is there just the same.
Essentially the Brannan plan,
first outlined in 1949, was this:
First, perishable commodities
would be subsidized through direct
cash payments to farmers Ths
prices Of the crops. meanwhile.
would be allowed to seek their own
level In the market. The subsidy
would make UP the difference be-
tween the average market price
and the return Uncle Sam thinks
the farmer should get. The pro-
posed subsidies were called pro
duction payments"
Second, prices Of storable crops
would be kept artificially high by
Government purchase Of SURPRISES.
The word high" was important to
Mr.. Brannan, though many Of his
supporters claimed 1t was the mech
anism, not the support level,
which really counted.
Third, ceiling would be placed
on subsidy money any one farm
could get. This was to encourage
the family-size farm and discourage
the big agricultural factories"
Fourth, subsidies would aim d.
rectly at high farmer income, tied
to the average income Of the rest Of
the economy, rather than high COM
modify prices, tied to farmer cost
Of living.
II caught the most hell for the
production payments and the income
cutoff" Mr.. Brannan said last week,
but now the Republican adminis-
tration has accepted both Of them"
The objections to the old Bran.
nan Plan took two forms. There
was the open indignation over $50
cialism"-government interference
with the farm economy and the
philosophy Of equal shares for
farmers - RECOMMENDATION" - the
controls recommended on produce
ton and marketing-and expense"
Mr.. Brannan wanted to be mighty
generous to the farmer.
Proponents say there also were
acknowledgements objections. High
income farmers would have been
hurt by the cutoff provision, and
these farmers, small in number, are
politically powerful, it was said.
Also, the open subsidies Mr.. Bran
nan wanted would have been much
harder to get through Congress.
New Responsibility .
The new responsibility Of the
Brannan Plan, under other names,
Is not hard to explain. It is simply
that If the farm economy Ia to be
subsidized-and both parties now
agree this must be done-then
there are only two basic ways Of
doing it. The Government can
either support prices of farm COM
modities, or support farmers.
Since World War II the Govern
ment has supported prices-to the
satisfaction of almost no one in
either party. SURPRISES pile UP, sub
sides are inequitably distributed.
food prices are high. Whether sup.
ports are flexible (the Benson way)
or rigid (the Democratic way the
result has been less than hoped for.
So it is only logical to explore the
alternative, support Of the farmer.
And that's the Brannan Plan.
1t really isn't Mr.. Brannan's in
vention, however. There have been
direct subsidies to sugar farmers
since 1885. Dairy industry spokes-
men joined in a recommendation
for production payments to dairy
farmers in 1915. And the first
Hoover Commission suggested pro-
duction payments to growers Of
perishable commodities In 1949.
There is an obvious advantage 70
production payments which those
diverse groups discovered-appar-
emily independently. When prices
are supported, the public pays extra
for its food and pays extra in taxes
to finance the loans" to the
farmers. But when farmers are
supported directly. the public pays
extra only once. The price Of the
food is permitted to drop. And
voaopuIoilo &c r,ricnS adjust them.