OCR Text |
Show Page 4 September 1969 UTAH FARM BUREAU Hamilton fells farm economists' convention Most farm organizations oppose limitations on federal payments Farm organizations generally oppose the limitation of payments to individuals under government farm programs, W. E. Hamilton, director of research and commodity activities for the American Farm Bureau Federation, told the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association at Lexington, Kentucky, on August 18. In a survey of farm organizations policies, Hamilton found only one organization that supports any form of limitation. Here is the text of Hamilton's on payments to individuals dursays limitations are economically discussion of payment limitations: unsound in any farm programs Effective with ing the phase-ou- t. The limitation of payments . . . and would create serious the 1971 crops, loan rates for under government farm programs economic hardships in the case wheat, cotton, feed, grains, and is a matter of concern to two of wool. It also says large flocks soybeans would be limited to not types of farm organization genare necessary to provide ecomore than 85 percent of the preeral farm organizations and organizations based on commodities with payment programs. The National Association of Wheat Growers says limitations would be unfair and discriminatory and would encourage widespread noncompliance and disrupt effective supply control. DELEGATES to the 1969 meeting of the National Cotton Council of America recommended that the Council: "Oppose any governmental action which would place a maximum dollar limit upon any farmer's participation in, or benefit from, a price support program or payment program. . . ." This action was supplemented by the adoption of guidelines for future consideration and action which call on the Council to: "Recognize that in the immediately foreseeable future, some form of cost adjustment must be provided in order for producers to sell ( cotton ) at a competitive price and receive a reasonable return for labor, management, and investment; "Provide that such cost adjustment be made to the commodity rather than to the producer, and that such adjustment be made on all bales actually produced on the acreage allotted for that season. . . . THE COUNCIL, which includes processing and handling groups, apparently is more concerned with getting cotton produced than with the claim that limitations would disrupt effective supply control. This view is clearly set forth in a statement by Council Economists Home and Wellford: SUBSIDY is an ugly word, but the purpose of the subsidy is to help a great industry survive and work its way toward a better position by taking advantage of its tremendous opportunities to improve efficiency and expand markets. This kind of subsidy is needed just as much by big producers as by medium and small producers. It cannot be judged by the standards of a poverty program. The large producers, who get correspondingly large payments, are not receiving any of governoutrageous hand-oment largess any more than the rest of the producers. There have been a number of studies by recognized authorities, indicating that the larger producers have no great cost advantage over efficient growers with a few hundred acres. Since the subsidy is needed now to cover costs and a minimum return, a government policy withholding it from the larger producers would represent a government decision to put them out of business. . . . The National Wool Growers Association views limitation proposals as efforts to eventually kill present farm programs. It ut nomic units in semi-ari- d regions and that forcing large producers to liquidate would be inconsistent with the National Wool Act objective of maintaining and increasing production of a deficit commodity. The National Sugarbeet Growers Federation takes the position that the limitation issue has been recognized by the scale-dow- n provisions of the Sugar Act; however, it is opposed to any limitation. The Federation notes that sugar payments are made to producers for cooperation in carrying out specific and well defined governmental objectives. It says an excise tax has been imposed on sugar to finance these payments, and that a limitation would be untenable without removal or reduction of this tax. THE POSITION of the National Grange is as follows: "In order to have effective we must ' have compliance and participation by the producers of food and fiber, regardless of their size. The payments being made pursuant to the farm program nt are an integral part of and necessary to obtain producer compliance." The National Farmers Union favors a graduated system of limitations which calls for full payments up to $25,000, 75 percent of the next $10,000, and 50 percent of the next $10,000. This works out to a maximum total limitation of $37,500 for producers who otherwise would be entitled to payments of $45,-00- 0 or more. IN SUPPORT of this position, Reuben Johnson, NFU director of legislative services, told the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations that: . . . we faced up to one of the toughest decisions that a farm organization like ourselves has had to make in a long time. . . . We didnt want to interfere with the workability of the farm commodity programs, yet we recognize we have a very serious problem, also somewhat political in nature. Therefore, we have decided on a graduated formula, to put a limitation on payments. It was a controversial issue at convention, and there was a heated discussion of it. The organizations thus far quoted generally favor existing government programs including direct payments. The American FaTm Bureau Federation has proposed amendments to the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 which would discontinue government payments and government programs for feed grains, wheat, and cotton effective with 1975 crops. PAYMENTS WOULD be phased out by reducing the total amount used for this purpose for 1969 crops 20 percent per year for five years with no limitation supply-manageme- nt, supply-manageme- supply-manageme- nt vious three-yeaverage market effective in 1971 the price. Also, government would be prohibited from selling CCC stocks of these commodities at less than 150 percent of the current loan rate plus carrying charges, except when sales are offset by equivalent purchases in the open market. THE CROPLAND Adjustment Program would be modified to require emphasis on the retirement of whole farms and the use of competitive bids to determine the land that is to be retired. The Secretary of Agriculture would be directed to retire at least 10 million acres per year for five years under this modified program. A special transitional program would be instituted for farmers with gross annual sales of farm products of not more than in$5,000, and average come of not more than $2,000 (including income of both husband and wife). Such farmers would be eligible to receive one or more of the following: (1) Compensation for acreage allotments and base acreages surrendered to the Secretary for permanent cancellation. (2) Retraining grants of not to exceed $1,000. (3) Adjustment assistance of not to exceed $2,500 per year for two years. (4) Loans under existing credit programs to further facilitate the transition of eligible farmers to more gainful employment. FARM BUREAU POLICY emphasizes the use of payments to get long-teradjustments in agriculture through land retirement and adjustment assistance to farmers rather than to supplement commodity prices. This approach would largely, but not entirely, eliminate the limitation issue. The payments proposed to assist farmers are relatively small. Payments made for the retirement of land on a bid basis would clearly be payments for performance, and the pressure for large units to participate would be much less than it is under commodity programs. IT MAY SEEM inconsistent to some that Farm Bureau should oppose limitations on commodity program payments when it seeks to phase out these programs. This is not necessarily so. Farm Bureau has long cited the inevitability of limitations as a reason for opposing commodity payments. It has argued that cernt tain features of programs such as acreage restrictions, the use of CCC stocks to limit price advances, the effect of guaranteed returns on per-acyields, and the natural desire of administrators to protect themselves against responsibility for shortages restrict individual opportunity and reduce farm prices below the ar off-far- m m low-inco- low-inco- supply-manageme- re New officers of Utah County Extension Agents Association are, from left: Robert Hassell, Utah County, treasurer; Ray Finch, Box Elder, secretary; Wm. Lloyd Smith, Davis and Morgan, president; and L. S. Rogers, Weber, vice president. County Agents Elect Officers, Look Ahead Election of new county agent officers and a serious look at the challenges ahead in extension and continuing education marked activities of Utah State University Extension Services county and state staff attending a planning conference at Logan the last part of July. Elected to head the Utah county agents association were William Lloyd Smith, agent for Davis and Morgan counties, president; L.S. Rogers, Weber, vice president; Ray Finch, Box Elder, secretary; and Robert Hassell, Utah County, forms its roll In developing regional centers for higher education, moves to greater speciali- The conference pointed up the need for greater specialization of field staff and more involvement of the total university. This means that educators working with the people through the USU Extension Services will be personally acquiring more specialized knowledge as they strive to meet the kinds of problems and opportunities encountered in an era when new knowledge and technological developments are mushrooming. Dr. W. H. Bennett, USU extension director, said the conference provided an opportunity for the extension staff and representatives of the University central administration and colleges to take a good look at new concepts of extension education aimed to carry out the USU extension roll as indicated by the State Legislature and as charged by the Utah Master Plan for Higher Education. Extension programs will be improved throughout the state as USU per- - Research Support zation of extension staff, has more and Involvement participation of the total university, establishes close working relationships with other universities and Institutions of higher education In the state, develops potentials of tourism and outdoor recreation, and strengthens agriculture programs and quality of living programs. treasurer. Some 75,000 dollars In recent grants and contracts have been awarded to Utah State University for research and extension work that ranges from studying the effects of converting plnyon - juniper rangelands to conducting an extension training program In gerontology. The grants and contracts announced by the office of Glen L. Taggart, president, USU, Include the following: two contracts between the Dairy Council of California and the USU Agricultural Experiment Station, totaling 14,200 dollars to be used by the Department of Plant Science and Industries, Dr. Anthon C. Ernstrom, head, in developing commercial techniques for producing low fat dairy spreads and whipped, froz- free market level. The inclusion of limitations in such programs would be unfair because large operators do not have the alternative of producing for a truly free market. IN SUMMARY, organizations covered by this survey oppose the limitation of payments with one exception. The one organization that favors limitation supports a graduated system which would permit payments well above the $20,000 ceiling that has been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on two occasions. Farm organizations whose policies favor existing programs contend that government payments are earned by farmers. Consequently, they uniformly reject the type of limitations that would be dictated by the standards of a poverty program. IN ITS OPPOSITION to current programs Farm Bureau argues that programs affect prices and costs in ways that make it unprofitable to produce without payments, and that limitations would place a ceiling on opportunity in supply-manageme- nt . en dairy toppings; a 15,775 dollar contract between the UtahDivision of Health and USU Department of Animal Science for research conducted by Professor Joseph C. Street studying pesticides In animals and investigating Interactions of pesticides with other pesticides, drugs and agents to obtain knowledge pertinent to human health; two grants from the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service Administration oh Aging totaling approximately 13,000 dollars for extension work on aging, Including a training program In gerontology under the School of Graduate Studies, Dr. Eldon J. Gardner, dean, and Dr. Wesley T. Maughan, project leader, and a workshop project for county counslls on aging, directed by Dr. Margaret B. Merkley, supervisor of extension family life programs; a memorandum of agreement between the Utah Water Users Association and USU Extension Services whereby the Association Is providing 3,000 dollars for development of educational and service programs In use and development of Utahs limited water supply; and a contract between the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management and UtahAgricultural Experiment Station providing 32, 000 for a detailed study of water production from plnyon-junlp- er cleared areas seeded with fairway crested wheatgrass. |