OCR Text |
Show Page 2 UTAH FARM BUREAU UTAH August, 1966 NEWS Published each month by the Utah State Farm Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial and Business Office, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake City, Utah. POSTMASTER: Please address PO Form 3569 to PO Box 668, Salt Lake City, Utah 841 1. Subscription price of twenty-fiv- e cents 'per year to members is included in membership fee. Entered as second class matter March 24, 1948 at the Post Office at Salt Lake City, Utah under act of March 3, 1879. 1 1 1 cuism UTAH STATE FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS President A. V. Smoot, Corinne, Utah Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton, Utah Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Bennion, Utah Chairman, Farm Bureau Women Executive Secretary V. Allen Olsen Editor Kenneth J. Rice DIRECTORS Alden Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Logan Logan Logan Barton Mark Nichols . . . . , Dr. W. H. Bennett Glenn T. Baird, Jr Dr. D. Wynne Thorne K. DIRECTORS Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Farm Bureau Women; Mrs. Paul Nelson, Farm Bureau Women,-- Jan Turner, Farm Bureau Young People; William Wood, Beaver; A. Alton Hoffman, Cache; Lloyd Olsen, Coche; Ferris Allen, North Box Elder; William C. Douse, Carbon; S. Jay Child, Davis; Joseph Kemp, Duchesne; Kenneth Brasher, Emery; Carl Hatch, Garfield; Richard Nelson, Iron; Roy Bowles, Juab; Isaac Chamberlain, Kone; Leo Robins, Millard; Mark Thackeray, Morgan; Ambrose Dalton, Piute; Robert Rex, Rich; Elmo Hamilloa, Salt Lake; Arion Erekson, Salt Lake; Ashton Harris, San Juan; Lee Barton, Sanpete; Grant Morrey, Sevier; D. O. Roberts, Summit; Jack Brown, Tooele; A. DeMar Dudley, Uintah; Don T. Allen, Utah; Eldon Money, Utah; Welby Young, Wasatch; Don F. Schmutz, Washington; Vern Farmer, Wayne; William C. Holmes, Weber; Carl Fowers, Weber; John P. Holmgren, South Box Elder; Gay Petlingill, Utah Horticultural Society; John Roghaar, Intermountain Farmers Assq.; Virgil H. Peterson, Utah Sugar Beet Growers Assn.; Tom Lowe, Utah Conning Crops Assn.; Joe I. Jacobs, Producers Livestock Marketing Assn.; J. R. Garrett, Norfoest Turkey Growers Assn.; H. M. Blockhurst, Country Mutual Life. 'ditorials Total Control Envisioned Since 1961, the heavy shadow of Willard Cochrane has outlined the aims of the Administration for total control of the food industry. Cochrane is a University of Minnesota economist. He was chosen as economic adviser by Orville Freeman who was a former governor of Minnesota. As economic adviser to Orville, Cochrane was quick to propose total control over the total food needs of the nation. He would measure these needs in Total Digestible Nutrients and proposed to allocate a certain share of these TDNs to each farmer in production rights. Every farm product would be so regulated. Now, in 1966, Cochranes ideas are finding a footing. Two different handpicked commissions, paid by the Administration, have been given the task of submitting recommendations for a grand plan to control the nations food and fibre completely. two commissions? One sometimes wonders. of watching and analyzing what both will be shooting at. Why But it gives us the job of these is the 30 man National Commission on Food and Fibre. The makeup of this commission should interest farmers. Labor, industry and the colleges are well represented on it. Labor is assigned two representatives, and one of them chairs the commission. No general farm organization was honored with a seat on this commission. I wonder what reaction labor would make to a commission on labor affairs that included no representative of labor unions! This commission does not report until July of 1967, but we could predict in advance what direction it will take. The second selected group is the National Commission on Food Marketing. It got in a hurry to draft its conclusions in which the shades of Willard Cochrane stand out sharply. One What farmers certainly do not need is total concentration of authority in the hands of government officials over everything that grows. Yet, this is what the National Commission on Food Marketing suggests to do. It would place the marketing of all farm products under the control of federal marketing boards who would administer nationwide marketing orders. These boards would have the power to regulate production, marketing and pricing practices for everything. Lets make a point clear. The conclusions of this commission were politicIn the first place, they were arforegone conclusions. ally -- designed, rived at by a hand-pickgroup who are paid by government checks. That the conclusions were written in advance was revealed by the fact that the technical studies of marketing operations were incomplete and still going on when the commission released its recommendations. So the facts of the study could have no relation to the conclusions of the commission nor the goals of the government. The recommendations were obviously rubber-stamp- "Remember us? We own that pasture where you picnic every year!" sooner or later. . . IT HAD TO HAPPEN ! the Although names and places shall remain anonymous folks of one Michigan community continue to chuckle about the way a farm family among them reacted after strangers misused a lovely shaded spot in their pasture for a picnic grounds. Not that they ordinarily begrudge the use of the place, for these are friendly folks, well liked in their community and not given to grouching. Still the guests were uninvited, made no effort to consult the owners, treated the place as their own and left plentiful evidence of their picnic when they moved on. Actually, thats what did it. For among the scattered wrappings, peelings and old papers, was the address of a family living in a city. Later, it was confirmed that the address matched the owners name of the car license which the farmer had thoughtfully jotted down. Not that they expected to enjoy what they were about to do, but our farm friends still were determined to do it. They prepared a picnic lunch, complete with multiple loose wrappings, things that peel easily and cans to be opened and scattered. They started off to town. It was a fine Sunday, and they timed it about right for the noon-hou- r as they set up on the offending familys lush lawn in one of the better neighborhoods. Down went the table-clotand out came the food, followed shortly the hy who had first called police. unbelieving It turns out they shouldnt have done this. Meanwhile, the picnic continued to progress to the delight of a number of onlookers who had gathered to watch hy the time the local constabulary responded to the call. A policeman who listened politely, appeared to think it was one of the funniest things that ever happened to liven an otherwise dull day. He called the local newspaper which promptly sent a to cover the story, and then stood guard until the farm was finished family leaving behind the wrappings, the peelthe . tin . . cans ings, not-too-dista- nt light-housc-keepi- h, home-owner- s, photo-report- er ed ed by the commission. Marketing orders as we have known them have been limited to local or and have not been used to control production directly. Proregional areas ducers and processors could accept or reject them. But these new marketing orders would sweep away all freedom of choice for farmers in an area. The orders would not be drafted to fit any locality or region, as they are at present. America cannot afford a system which puts tight regulations on farms and food production in a world which suffers a growing need for food and fibre. In the face of this, it is tragic to destroy the incentive that has led to the productive American industry of agriculture. We must help the American public realize this fact. Changes in Gas Tax Refunds Utah Procedure Remains Same In the past, gas tax refunds have been made on a fiscal year payers who are eligible for such refunds. It Imposes an additional basis for claiming rehinds on fed- burden on any taxpayer who would eral tax. If the law had not been not otherwise be required to file changed, taxpayers could have filed a federal income tax return. an application on July 1, 1966 The procedure for claiming refor a return of federal taxes paid funds on Utah gasoline tax rebetween July 1, 1965 and June 30 mains the same as in the past. 1966. Under the new system taxThough changes apply in the federal payers are to claim gas tax credits tax refund, the state tax refund for the 18 month period, July 1, remins the same. Applications for 1965 to December 31, 1966 on their refunds on taxes paid on galollne federal income tax returns. used in farm work This new procedure reduces pamust be received at the state cap-it- ol per work for the Internal Revenue by September 30. Any applicaService. It also simplifies tax actions received after that time will counting for most individual tax be disallowed. -- off-the-ro- ad |