OCR Text |
Show December 1974 Utah Farm Bureau News Page 2 ANOTHER HARVEST IMPORTANT TO AGRICULTURE ... Food: Still a bargain in U.S. After all the outrage and investigations over retail food prices, it comes from USDA that the American consumer still paid less than $17 of every e $100 in pay for food during the third quarter of 1974. That take-hom- $16.90 compares witl $16.20 for a year earlier. Food costs for the quarter went up $86 over the third quarter of 73, but income was up $331 after taxes for July through September of this year. . . leaving an extra $245 to spend on other things. Plenty of evidence points to the fact that farmers and ranchers havent fared as' well as other segments of the food industry with food price increases. For instance, the farm-reta- il spread for a standard group of market basket foods was 21 percent wider in September 74 than in September 73. Prices received by farmers were up one-ha- lf of 1 percent for the month ending October 15, 1974, over a year earlier, while prices paid by farmers were up 17 percent. Parity dropped from 91 in October 1973 to 78 this year. Left alone by government, food prices will adjust to where producers including cattlemen will make money. It will take time, and some stress for less efficient operators. Perhaps food will even claim a little higher percentage of the consume ers pay. But who would trade our plentiful, palatable menu at 20 percent of disposable income for the plainer fare of other nations where food costs 30 to 50 percent of disposable income? And with 4 percent of our U.S. population feeding the other 96, who would trade with the developing nations where up to 85 percent of the citizens till the soil with backbreaking and outmoded equipment, varieties and practices? We all have it good in America on food quality, quantity and price. . . and we have our farmers to thank for the bounty. . take-hom- Cargo preference closing in Question:. What do Utah residents have to do with ocean shipping? Answer: For one thing, Utahns and other taxpayers foot of the bill for crewmens wages. That comes about through a quarter of a billion dollars in operating subsidies for our merchant marine fleet. For another, we taxpayers have provided a billion dollars in ship construction subsidies in the last four years. But thats only the beginning. . If H.R. 8193, the Energy Transportation Security Act, passes Congress and is signed into law by President Ford, well probably get hit with another 6 to 10 billion dollars in subsidies soon for building merchant ships especially oil tankers that will need still more operating subsidies. As was explained in a June 1974 Utah Farm Bureau News editorial, this bill will require that by 30 percent of all our oil imports will have to come into the country on U.S. vessels. Our ships now carry about 5 percent of imported oil; operating costs are so high that the U.S is not competitive with foreign nations in that area, as we are in agriculture. The bill passed the House in May by a 266-13- 6 margin. (Both McKay and Owens voted for it.) In September, the Senate approved the proposal, 42-2(Moss voted for it, Bennett against it.) Because of slight differences in the two houses, the bill has been in conference. If both the House and Senate pass the compromise bill, only President Fords veto held possible because of high cost factors will stand between powerful maritime interests and the taxpaying public. Leading supporters of this inflationary measure have been heavy beneficiaries of maritime union political contributions, which this year totaled about a million dollars. By raising the cost of importing oil, the bill will cost consumers some $60 billion over the next ten years. Gas will cost 2 cents more per gallon because of it. Retaliation by present nations may cut our farm exports and put our balance of trade in the red. Resulting drops in farm product sales may raise the cost of food here and abroad. Landlocked Utah may yet support a fleet of ships. And to think folks used to joke about the Swiss navy! three-fourt- hs mid-197- 7, 8. oil-hauli- ng POSTMASTER: Plea City, Utah 84102. tend Form 3579 to Utah Farm Bureau, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake Published each month by the Utah Farm Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial and Buelnee Office, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Subscription price of fifty cents per year to members Is Included in membership fee. subscription price: On dollar per year. Non-memb- er Second Class postage paid at Salt Lake City, Utah UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton JerokJ N. Johnson C. Booth Wallentine Elwood Shaffer President Vice President Executive Vice President Editor DIRECTORS: Frank Nishlguchl, Garland; William Holmes, Ogden; Jack Brown, Grants-vlllEdward Boyer, Sprlngville; John Lewis, Montlcello; Stuart Johnson, Aurora; Kenneth R. Ashby, Delta; Mrs. Paul Turner, Morgan; Robert Johnson, Randolph. e; knocks federal land use bill FB official veloping county zoning ordinances. Farmers and ranchers believe that land use planning can best be accomplished at the county or comparable level of government and by private landowners. Those who own or operate land have the major responsibility for its development, he declared. The Farm Bureau official told his audience that land use patterns vary widely among the states and among regions within states. In some heavily populated metropolitan areas, farmers support the development of green belts and agricultural districts, he said. In sparsely settled' counties, farmers see less need for comprehensive planning., Local land use planning permits citizens and county boards to develop the types of programs needed in each locality. Fleming reported that the legisla- tion considered in Congress this year was comprehensive in nature. He said an attempt to make it even more failed in the Senate, when an amendment was defeated which would have required withholding of federal highway, airport, and land and water conservation funds from states which did not submit land use plans which the federal government considered satisfactory. It is very clear, he concluded, that if we are to continue to avoid federal domination of our land resources, farmers and ranchers must work aggressively to marshal support for their polides with their neighbors and their members of the Congress. (NOTE: Farm Bureau favored a vote against both the sanctions amendment and the federal plan. Utahs Senator Bennett voted against the sanctions; Senator Moss voted for the amendment. Representatives McKay and Owens both voted for the federal land use plan.) far-reachi- ng |