The people's voice., 1959-10-09

age SCFCn
farmers wholly loose to sink or swim,
suggested by some as the only alter
native to the present farm program, is
something we decree for no other
group of Americans.
So. what is this plan?
In essence it proposes that the
American family farmer get enough
income to stay on the land and raise
his family there, but by supports paid
only AFTER he has sold his product.
So original prices paid him at the
farm would reach their natural level
in "free market" This level would
probably be lower than now, so that
city consumers would, or at least
should, be able to buy their food more
cheaply.
In contrast, most present farm pro-
grams support prices AT THE FARM.
So prices are already artificially high,
even as the product moves out of the
farm gate.
Because of price-pyramiding as it
goes through successive layers of pro-
cessors and marketers, the city con-
sumer pays even higher prices
though he still gets off lightly in con-
trast to many countries where the
people have to pay most of their
wretchedly-low earnings just to buy
food enough to stay alive.
Under ''post-production payment
plan, our farm products could flow
out to the world at world prices, thus
eliminating the present costly subsidy
export programs.
AGAINST
DEPRESSION
Thus food sold originally at 'free
market" prices would go into stom-
achs both at home and abroad, rather
than into storage or spoilage. Ameri-
can farm abundance would be recog-
nized as a natural, healthy phenom-
enon, a creditable consequence of
farmers hard work and enterprise.
We would no longer work to try to
dam it up artificially, but rather to
channel its flow to people everywhere.
And what about the farmer? After
,he crop year, the government would
finally send him checks for the diff
ference between what he originally
got and what it said he should have
rs a floor to give him a decent Ameri-
IAN income in line with other pro-
lucers.
The 1949 program would have ap-
)lied only to some perishable crops
hose we must use up quickly, or let
poll. 1t would have guaranteed any
me farm operator only "post-produc-
ion payment" on enough production
o insure a good family living; be-
ond that, he'd be on his own.
Thus it would have meant little
ither for huge farming corporations
mo more of those 100000 checksl
or for subsistence farmers, those
t the bottom of the rural heap who
Eli little or nothing.
1t was not farm relief. 1t was
irected chiefly toward insuring mod
st prosperity for the great American
arming middle class, the historic
family-size farmer.
One argument said this is in the
ational interest because some econ
nists contend that depressions are
'arm-bred and farm-led" i.e., this
ould be an insurance policy against
ltional depression.
Whence would the money come?
'om the Treasury, as directly author
ed by Congress.
What would be the cost DIR. Christ
son thinks that, with controls, the
II might have run between SO and S4
lions yearly; at most without con-
ols perhaps SO billions.
But the people should recover much
even all of this in lower grocery
lis, and in savings on such present
ograms as those to force our farm
oducts abroad by paying the differ
ce between high, supported, home
ices, and world-prices.
In effect, he says, the plan would
ansfer support Of the farm program
pm people as consumers, to people
taxpayers.
The political aspect is that the saw
IS to people as consumers would
me by unnoticed pennies and dimes
lower nrices AFT the sI1nprrna atS.