| OCR Text |
Show UTAH FARM BUREAU Page 2 July 1969 NEWS Some ihoikfcs A from Ibe editor's J WESTERNERS NEED TO DIG DOWN IN THEIR JEANS AGAIN! by Ken Rice Theres a problem facing both farmers and ranchers in the West - - a problem thats critical enough to challenge the economic existence DOCTORS and FARM PROGRAM Doctors are beginning to feel the effects of government intervention in the field an experience agriculture has had for some 35 years of medicine and health care Charles B. Shuman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said as he addressed the 102nd anniversary session of the Texas Medical Association. of many of us. Directly faced with this threat are livestock producers who use the public lands for grazing, but every landowner in the West is facing the same threat indirectly. The nature of the threat is the probable loss of all grazing rights to the public lands in the next few years. The pressure is on Congress to convert all public lands to a single use concept - - recreation only. The grazing fee increase is only a sympton of the larger problem - -which is caused by the attitudes of the people in other areas who dont recognize the need for grazing. The indirect challenge to landowners who dont use the public lands is that hunters, campers and others, wanting to reach isolated public lands will cross private lands in ever-increasi- ng Shuman noted that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare will impose fee schedules on doctors in the federal-stat- e Medicaid program. The fee schedule would base federal payments to physicians on local Blue Shield schedules, many of which are below the fees doctors actually charge. "Most farmers," Shuman said, "long ago discovered that federal aid and controls are inseparable. A 1942 Supreme Court ruling on government regulation and subsidy stated, "It is hardly lack of due process (of law) for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes." "This ruling involved a suit filed by a farmer against the then Secretary of Agriculture, Claude Wickard, to invalidate a farmers' referendum imposing wheat quotas and price supports, and to invalidate penalties assessed against him for growing more wheat than a county ASC committee assigned him under the terms of the quota. The Supreme Court dismissed the suit and its ruling constituted a legal directive to establish the principle and to obligate the federal government to regulate that which it subsidizes. "Just as there are a few farmers who fail to realize the relationship between federal subsidies and controls, there are some doctors who are unaware of the implications of government intervention in medicine. The proposal of the Department of Health Education and Welfare to limit doctors' fees may prove to be an early warning signal to those not yet conscious of the threat to private medicine," Shuman said. The national farm leader said that agricultural producers also have had the inexperience of being made the scapegoat for rising costs due to government-fe- d flation. He recalled that during the Johnson administration, farmers were blamed for rising food costs, and housewives were urged by former President Johnson to quit d foods. buying high-price- "It's a popular political tactic to attack rising costs which are symptoms of inflation, rather than the cause," he said. "Such strategy diverts public attention from the real cause of inflation which is excessive spending by government "Inflation is the major factor contributing to rising costs in nearly every phase of our lives, including health care. The labor department has just reported that prices rose faster in March than during any previous month since the Korean war. Today it costs a dollar to buy what 38.5 cents would have bought in 1939. health care and government There is a parallel between government-manage- d farm controls in their tremendous costs to taxpayers and in their ineffectiveness, Shuman said. "In spite of an expenditure of more than $3.5 billion annually in federal subsidies in agriculture, the parity ratio, a measuring stick of how farmers are doing, almost as low as 1934. stands at 74 percent "In the field of health care, in spite of billions of dollars spent by the government, many who need attention are not getting it "In agriculture, large subsidies are being paid to large operators who could make their own way without federal checks while the huge federal expenditures fail to solve the problem of low net income for many farmers. "In the case of federal health care, many who are able to pay their own way are being subsidized by the government "The nature of the struggle in agriculture and in the field of medicine or health care is the same. "It's the struggle between those who believe in the maximum freedom for individuals to choose how they will order their lives and their businesses on one hand, and those who believe in considerable control by government of individuals and their affairs. "It's the struggle between those who believe that human needs will be better fulmore adequately and more rapidly filled through the private enterprise system as contrasted with those who believe that political decisions are better for more of the people at any given time," Shuman said. numbers. To assess the nature of the pressure, read FIELD and STREAM, OUTDOOR LIFE, SPORTS AFIELD, READERS DIGEST, BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS, SUNSET and other magazines over a years Conservation and the Nixon Years In time. In particular, read the March 1969 FIELD and STREAM. Other articles appear frequently in these national magazines appealing for people to save the redwoods or the Cascades or something else. The implication is that our resources are being destroyed. Our side of the story Is unheard. Even the agencies administering the public lands reflect the recIn a recent issue of OUR PUBLIC LANDS, a reation philosophy. of Land Management, five of the seven the of Bureau publication The cover shows backpackers hiking recreation. articles promoted An article titled Keeping in Arizona. through Aravaipa Canyon of several large tracts of notes aside the Wild Wild Lands setting as BLM land by the specially protected primitive areas. THE ACTION THE BY WAS MADE AGENCY, NOT CONGRESS! The article concludes with this statement: With a westward surge in population already taking place and a year 2000 prediction of 350 million Americans, future generations will look back with pride on the foresight of the 1960s in protecting such areas of wild, natural splendor. Protection from what? From cows and sheep? We have nothing against recreation. In fact we take frequent opportunities to backpack, hunt, fish and auto camp in this beautiful country. But recreation to the exclusion of other activity is thoughtless. We believe that nearly every thinking citizen of the West would be opposed to the wholesale conversion of Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado into picnic and pleasure lands for the hordes of Americans who live in the Eastern half of the U..S. But thats likely to happen if the people in the West dont make a high powered effort to turn the tide. Writing letters to our Congressmen wont help. Most of the western representatives and senators are already on our side. The people who need to be converted are the ones who live in Cincinattl, Los Angeles, Dubuque, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Buffalo and Birmingham. These people, surrounded by private land, have a problem. Many of the Eastern states have no national parks or forests and few state parks, so the hungry eyes turn to the scenic west where the public owns millions of acres. Their story is being heard in Congress, A and loudly Congressional representative from Indianapolis clearly. wont be too sympathetic to the problems of a rancher with grazing rights on the Manti La Sal .National Forest,. when he has thousands of constituents screaming for a place to hunt, a place to fish, and a place to camp. The pressure is also on Congress from sportsmens groups, conservation groups of all kinds, wildlife preservation groups, recreation groups, and even manufacturers of outdoor equipment. There are a lot of them and not too many of us. Our strategy so far has been to rely on the truth. We've gathered research - - reams of statistics - - and testified in hearings. Weve appealed for continued use of grazing to preserve economic opportunities for ranchers as well as to Improve watersheds. Weve done this in hearings that were packed with preservationists who are solidly opposed to anything we propose. Too many of the congressmen agree with the preservationist philosophy. Unfortunately the truth will do little good if it falls to reach those who arent influenced by a strong desire to stay in office. If were to win continued use of the public lands, well have to mount an all out campaign to reach the average citizen - - the man who will sympathize with us when he has our side of the story. That campaign will cost money - - a lot of money. Probably $50 to $100 per rancher in the West. But thats chicken feed when compared to losing your business. It will be a sad day if the Congress ever adopts the proposals of radical groups such as the Sierra Club, but the Sierra Club with advertising and public relations campaigns, has sold its story to a large chunk of the public. I say, let's us go and do likewise. If were to preserve the concept of multiple use, well have to dig down in our jeans and put our money where our mouths are. The opinion expressed in this column are those of the editor. UTAH FARM BUREAU fHt NEWS Published each month by the Utah Farm Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial and Business Office, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102. 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 the act of March 3, 1879. UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton S. Jay Child, Cleafield Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Bennion V. Allen Olsen Kenneth J. Rice President Vice President Chairman, Farm Bureau Women Executive Secretary Editor , DIRECTORS District One, A. Alton Hoffman; District Two, William Holmes; District Three, Jack Brown; District Four, Don Allen; District Five, Ken Brasher, District Six, Lee Barton; District Seven, Richard Nelson. |
