OCR Text |
Show October 1975 PageS-- 3 Utah Farm Bureau News Food for Peace (Public Law 480) The Food for Peace program, established 20 years ago with Farm Bureau support, was First developed primarily as a means of disposing of surplus agricultural commodities. Since that lime, the program has been used increasingly for humanitarian aid sA. 9 f p! u-'.- , V : ' ijy; A.Sterjftry ' j ' s ' la&v.v tttf VjfV ;V - w ' A m i If- ' ' i'- ' ; objectives. Should Farm Bureau continue to support Public Law 480? If so, should it be used only for surplus disposal or should use include humanitarian food aid programs? Current Food For Peace allocations are back-domethod financed through the through the Commodity Credit Corporation. What method of financing should be used in future years? so-call- ed or Overweight Permits for Farm Trucks Many farmers feel that weight limits now existing and proposed by the Utah Department of Transportation (DOT) restrict them seriously during harvest season. Proposals by DOT and the Utah Transportation Commission would allow 20,000 pounds on single axles, 34,000 pounds on tandem axles and 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. They would also eliminate the present 10 percent overweight permit on all trucks and cut it back to 5 percent on single-axl- e tandems. That would permit 36,000 pounds on tandems, and a gross weight of 84,000 pounds. The permit would cost $12.50 per truck and would be valid for 90 days. Any overweight farm truck with single axles and that includes most of them would have to pay a fine and drop part of the load. But sugar beet producers, for instance, point out that it is impossible to guess the weight of a truck coming out of a beet field, and that to avoid fines, they would have to underload by a safe margin, thus wasting fuel and possibly even requiring more trucks. Many farmers believe that Utah should pass a law similar to Californias, allowing overweight permits for trucks carrying perishable commodities on their way from the field to storage or the first point of processing. The new proposal eliminating overweight permits on single-axl- e trucks will probably be the subject of a hearing in coming weeks. Although the proposal is intended to reduce truck damage to highways, some opponents say the regulation would only increase highway life by less than a year, while wasting fuel and otherwise increasing the cost of food production and retail costs to consumers. What should Farm Bureau policy be on this matter? Does the prospect of wasting fuel in a day of shortages and high import costs justify possible highway damage? How important is it to permit farmers a safety margin with truck weights coming out of grain, sugar beet and other fields during harvest? Government Farm Programs Rapidly growing demand for U.S. farm products at home and abroad has reduced the importance of government farm programs. It is safe to predict that and land future programs will retirement programs. Consumers have become aw'are of the relationland and the food supply. And ship between there is a growing public conscience over this nations moral obligation to export farm products to developing nations and to balance non-farimports with farm exports. Washington analysts say future farm programs will be designed to protect the consumer rather than the farmer. This means we must adopt programs that will make sure the market system w'orks. One example might be current legislative proposals to assure that packer feeding of livestock does not artificially inflate or deflate meat prices. The old question of whether vertical integration is good or bad will be debated. And government marketing orders on farm commodities will come in for increasing consumer attention. Consumer groups are seeking representation on governing boards for these marketing orders under the premise that these orders set prices they must pay. So, as Congress sees it, the name of the game is consumerism. But the farmer will find his job increasingly difficult in view of growing regulations such as environmental controls, labor regulations, land use planning and controls, and other requirements. Farm Bureau has traditionally favored less government regulation and more reliance on the market system. Many analysts say farm commodities now under market orders are those having the hardest time with the cost-prisqueeze. These include dairy, rice tobacco. and These commodities have peanuts, been in the news as growers go to government asking for higher support levels. The target price concept established by Congress a few years ago sets minimum price levels for feed grains, wheat and cotton. Under the law, these levels gradually escalate with the market prices. Many analysts say these minimum target prices will eventually set-asi- de ize set-asi- de m ce become a ceiling on farm income in view of growing consumer influence. At this policy development time. Farm Bureau members need to decide whether our traditional emphasis on the market system should be continued. Specifically, should Farm Bureau continue to oppose the target price concept? Should we continue to emphasize expanding export markets as opposed to land retirement programs to reduce production? Farm Bureau has fought for countervailing duties on subsidized imports to protect our farmers against unfair competition. Should this policy be continued? Food Stamps In recent years. Farm Bureau has supported the food stamp program as a means of helping those who are truly in need of welfare assistance. However, the program has grown so rapidly that the net cost to government reached $5 billion last year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated as many as 40 million Americans may be eligible for food stamps under the recently liberalized rules. Federal officials cite increasing abuse of the program, including an active black market for bogus stamps and other illegal schemes. Several legislative proposals have been offered to curb this abuse. One proposal is to eliminate the easily black marketed stamp certificates and switch to a cash payment to the needy. Proponents argue this would improve control. Opponents say cash payments would cause a shift away from food purchases to other goods. Proponents say that is already happening with the illegal sale of stamps. Other proposals would sharply tighten eligibility requirements for the food aid program, including a prohibition against the use of government food aid for workers on strike. What should Farm Bureaus position be in 1976 on the Food Stamp program? Vocational Education Utah is developing a system of technical (vocational) schools including the colleges at Salt Lake City, one at Provo and area vocational centers throughout the state. In addition, a goal has been set to graduate at least 50 percent of our high school students with a marketable skill by the mid- - 1980s. The need for this is dear. While more than half our students enter universities, more than 80 percent eventually must find a job in the technical skills. But some technical school officials are moving to include more and more liberal education classes at their schools. The present law limits such classes to 25 percent of the total if these classes are directly related to the vocational skill. Supporters of liberal education at the technical schools argue that all students should have equal opportunities regardless of where they study. Opponents say this duplicates classes at the universities and reduces funds and faculty available to teach vitally needed vocational skills. They say liberal education classes will lead to an excessive number of community colleges rather than the vocational schools. 1. Should the law restricting the curriculum at the vocational schools be maintained? 2. Should more emphasis be given to vocational education in Utah, even if funds must be shifted from universities? the four-year |