The Sidney herald., 1961-06-14

fRLNA - -AAAALC kAAAN AA@1 %
est hopes - free man - should promote
a government program which will lead
man back to economic slavery n die
tatorial bondage.
That such a program should be design
ed with such diabolical cunning and
promoted with such Jealous vigOr and
binding SemanticS makes it even more
unbelievable.
But here it is - Secretary of Agricul-
ture Freeman'S food and agriculture pro-
gram - now before Congress. 1t haS
in it the core provisions that will place
agriculture in an economic strait jacket.
1t carries with it the immediate potential
of making every farmer a ward of CEN
tralized government and placing con-
SumerS at the mercy of n man, the
Secretary of Agriculture, in a powerful
centralized bureaucracy. Put into law,
it would freeze" the pattern Of agricul-
ture under the guise of strengthening the
family farm"
It would substitute bureaucratic Judg-
ment for the consumers daily vote =
with dollar bills in the market place.
For he, the Secretary = will decide
what. where and now much Us to be
produced. It would build a powerful new
political machine while creating the
illusion that farmers are designing the
programs IN the public interest.
A study shows that the paradoxes
above are only part Of the conflicting
dilemmas it poses, while moving a great
industry straight down the left hand
trail TO socialism.
What are some of the other paradoxes!
First. it presents almost theu ultimate IN
sOcialiZing agriculture while procIamIng
democratic methods. Second, the pro
posed operation violates all basic natural
laws governing a competitive economic
system. For example, it proposes to offer
farmers the incentive of high prices,
but demands that they produce less. 1t
uses the excuse that since 01% OF the
farm problem revOlveS around mi COM
modify wheat - all of agriculture
all commodities should come under
the absolute dictation of MI man.
How does il propose TO give farmers
high income?
BY granting the Secretary the power
to do anything he pleaSeS to bring 1T
about. One part, which adds a new title
to the Agricultural Act of 1949, as
amended, provides that:
The Secretary is authorized to sup
port prices through commodity loans,
commodity purchases, compensatory
payments, diversion payments, lncen-
tive payments, and any other opera
ton which he deems appropriate. The
Secretary is authorized to make pay
mentS-in-kind QtalicS added
If this bill isn't the ultimate in social
ization of American agriculture. what is;
It's the scheme candidate Kennedy ana
Professor Willard Cochrane, his chic
food and farm advisor, announced
during the campaign. Former Secretar.
of Agriculture Henry Wallace said o
that scheme that it might requir'
"stricter control than they nave in Com
muniSt countries" (See Human Event
Oct. 20, 1862 The current scheme H. r
$4,000 is toned down in order 10 sell
to Congress, but the end point is crysta
clear. After all, the architect of the pla1
for agriculture Kennedy proposed in the
campaign is the same person who mas
terminded the Freeman scheme - Pro
feSSor Cochrane.
How inclusive is this proposed legisla
ton?
It embraces all major aspects of foo'
production, feed production, foreign
trade, agricultural finance, marketing
subsidies indirect and direct 10 indivi
duals), price use of soft currencieS TO
shipping food abroad real estate loan
Gin agricultural and a host of others.
Have not these aspects of agricultur
been the cause of government interior
ence before?
Indeed. But most of the previous pro
grams had some features of voluntarian
ism and were limited to certain fey
crops and intended to be consistent wit
the competitive market economy. Fur
thermore, they were intended to &c
government out of agriculture. Most {
agriculture was relatively free. But tn
previous programs did set the trap. No
it's being baited. When passed into Law
it will be sprung. Never in the histor
of America has it been proposed in peaC
time to vest such complete authorii
over an industry in a single cabinet O
ficer - Secretary of Agriculture Ere
man. Glitter organized a similar contr
of food production, food finance ar
distribution through an agency Gale
the ReichSnaehrstand.)
Can you give an example to illustra
this one-man rule?
Title /, for instance, gives the Seer
tary of Agriculture unlimited power
promulgate any type of adjustment pr
gram and use any or all means to Su
port farm prices at any level that he mi
determine, up to 900 of so-called parit
Are there no checks on his authorit
Virtually none because: First, t
Congress is placed on the defensive =
cannot prescribe the specific plans =
may get a chance to only veto them on
by-One.
Second, the producers = the appare
be~neficiarieS of a government subsidy
are asked to turn down specific Sug;
coated proposals against untenal
choices: Like offering candy to a !
promising more if he takes the fiji
piece, but expecting him to say, mo
don't Like candy" and taking him to I
woodshed if he does!
This implies no limit TO funds. Is {
true?
Yes, it provides no limits on
money 10 be spent ON commodities.
L,,ICo%a~r N~rnOndIrrQQ