Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956
File 007
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 007. 1956-04. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. November 12, 2019. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1056.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-04). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 007. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1056

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 007, 1956-04, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed November 12, 2019, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1056.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date April 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 007
Transcript ) N he ire more Sisen- form, THE FARM PROBLEM continued Committee's Farm Bill irpose iction ntelli- mst I'll- lUSt ted union, Page 6) icul« jtor fv< that our farmers will not be in the dire straits they are today. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and I-'. :"-..!>, I worked closely with the other members "I the Committee in an effort to keep partisan politics out of the consideration of the new program..] think we did exceedingly well, as is shown by the political complexion of the vote on the various items, to which I referred above. It was not until the bill came out of committee and Has reported to the Senate that the partisan pot-shots fired by the followers of Secretary of Agriculture Benson began to fly. The vast majority of the petty political objections raised to our bill demonstrate that the dissenters either misunderstand the bill, misunderstand the program therein contained, or just plain want the American small farmer to be crushed out of existence beneath an avalanche of falling prices. For example, one objection frequently raised was that 9(1 per cent of parity would nullify the soil bank. This is poppycock. The Secretary of Agriculture would remain empowered to control acreages planted to supported commodities, and to impose marketing quotas. As <> matter of fact, all production of the six basic commodities in 1956 will be so controlled. Violators are subjected t° heavy penalties, with the single exception of those termers who grow corn. The corn program is on a quasi- ve que' o Pr»9^ the fitf Dif| t surp' ,ri' ilood.^. '"son Be Replaced? ^ YES . . . in the opinion of Senator Olin D. Johnston (D-S.C.) who also appeared on this program. ■*>Tor Johnston was most emphatic in stating that he ll fc ""tight Secretary Benson should lie replaced by soim 'fL"lore sympathetic to the problems I.icing the f; i \C W'ls "" '"''icing of words when he said, "Mr. Ben- l been a hot and cold Secretary of Agriculture ever las been in office, lie has been hot on idle prom- se th* . S^ " ^ he ised "' j, |'n(l cold on political problems." nid, °fj t?K ,s the opinion of Senator Johnston that the Republi- , be n" |'Hi Promised the farmers in 1952 they would continue ■ I, C("t price supports on basic commodities, and that t_ '"son's first act was to tear down 9(1 per cent sup- I' '" violation of this promise. %o r<"'''t"'" to the soil bank proposal and the plan for 'i,,,. '" "1 surplus crops, Senator Johnston stated. "Last fev Benson's Agriculture Department twice wrote \ 'r'ible reports on proposals for soil bank programs. r. election year, his hot for the soil bank profile Republican high command mods the 3 Of « obl<"1,S, 1 not t take* keep tn"'- ' / ittendl and ' e the* 1,,-tter V°e b( votes "nes and they've got to promise something. ', e.uit blame the farmers, the Democrats or anyone 'Cular for his flippy-flop farm policies, Until a short •it. p SO. he was condemning .surpluses as a root of all "■""•'V troubles." k Acrs Fori m News, April, 1956 voluntary basis as far as participation and compliance are concerned. The fact to be remembered is that whether price supports are flexible or fixed, whether they are at 75 per cent of parity or 9(1 per cent of parity, acreage allotments and marketing quotas of the same magnitude are involved. The only thing the Committee bill seeks to do is increase the income a farmer can expect from these acreages; it would not increase acreage allotments, nor would it unduly stimulate production on the acreage already allocated to farmers who have voted in local referendums to participate in the government price support program and to accept acreage controls. The same amounts of acreage will be allotted to the basic crops, and will be planted to these crops in 1956, either with or without the 90 per cent parity support feature of the Committee bill. Nor will 90 per cent parity supports bring about increased yields per acre in 1956. On the contrary, the history of our farm program has shown that during periods of depressed returns, farmers try harder to increase their production in order to compensate for the lower per-unit market value of their crops. As to the specific mathematics of the charge that high price supports will nullify the soil bank, let us take a concrete example. Farmer "A" owns a 500-acre wheat hum. His acreage allotment for wheat during the 1956 crop year is, say, 100 acres. Under the flexible price support program his production on this 100 acres would be supported at about 76 per cent of parity. Under the Senate Agriculture Committee's bill this production would be supported at 90 per lint of parity. There would be no increase in the amount of acreage that Farmer "A" could plant. The only increase would be the immediate 14 per cent increase in the amount of income Farmer "A" would realize from production grown on his acreage allotment. A part of the remaining 400 acres of Farmer "A's" land could be placed in the conservation reserve program of the soil bank; that is, Farmer "A" could agree to put this land into grass or trees, and contract not to graze it, and he would receive annual government payments lor so doing, As a matter of fact, it would seem to me that under the program of high price supports voted by the Committee, a farmer would have additional incentive to place some of his cultivable land in the soil bank than he would otherwise. In the first place, he would receive more income than under the sliding scale program; he would therefore feel less need for planting his remaining acres to feed grains or some secondary crop in order to supplement his income and would therefore be inclined to participate in the conservation reserve plan. I believe, too, that with 90 per cent of parity price supports farmers would have more incentive not to plant their lull acreage allotment, but instead to place some of their allotted acres into the acreage reserve program of the soil bank. Here is why: Payments to stimulate participation in the acreage reserve will undoubtedly be based on a lived percentage of the parity value of the existing support level. It would follow, then, that a higher support level would bring a higher incentive payment and, with it. a higher participa- (Continued on Page 7) Page 5
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n004_007.jpg