OCR Text |
Show Page 2 April 1970 UTAH FARM BUREAU NEWS 5 Win)!? Congress has been moving nowhere in the direction of passing farm legislation to replace the Act of 1965 which expires at the end of 1970. If Congress should do nothing at all (which is unlikely), we will revert to the provisions of the Act of 1963, which, among other things, requires producer referendums on wheat Should Congress do nothing, the following programs will expire altoghether: 1. orders. Authorization for Class One base plans under Federal Milk Marketing 2. Authorization for marketing orders for manufacturing milk. 3. Authorization for acreage diversion and direct payment features of the present feed grain program. 4. Authorization to carry out the wheat certificate plan without first obtaining a favorable vote in a producer referendum. 5. Authorization for a cropland diversion program. 6. Authorization for the acreage diversion, direct payment, and allotment transfer features of the cotton program. 7. Authorization for direct payments on wool. 8. Authorization for an acreage diversion payment program for rice. 9. Authorization for the lease transfer of acreage allotments and poundage and Maryland tobacco. quotas for flue-cure- d f Many of these programs have done more; harm ihan good, but it should be to clear that suddenly drop them all would result in chaos. farily Some time ago, Secretary Hardin released the features of his proposed farm program. It included a "set aside" factor that caused quite a bit of controversy. But the surprising thing is that no "Administration bill" has been introduced by anyone in either house. Speaking to the N.F. U. convention March 13, Secretary Hardin said, "The most urgent matter or concern at this particular time is that of farm program legislation. We are rapidly approaching the time when some decisions must be made and a bill started through the legislative process. Some of you may wonder why we have taken Administration program. so long, or why the Department did notpresent a These are reasons and I think valid ones." full-dre- ss The Secretary then pointed out that Congress is increasingly few members understand the problems peculiar to agriculture; that is needed; and finally that it needs analysis and compromise. urban-orientebi-partis- an d and support After pointing out that several measures have been taken to permit more market flexibility with lower loan levels, Mr. Hardin said, "We have been working on a farm bill with the House Committee on Agriculture. The bill as it is now being drafted would preserve the farm payment technique which we have in the present program. A graduated system of payment limitations is provided,but with no limits up to $20,000. "As currently envisioned, the government funds going into farm programs would be at about the same level as this year. "The domestic certificate going to wheat producers would continue to include the share paid by processors on wheat going into U.S. food use -- the so-call- ed "processor certificate." "The bill would require holding out of production about as much land as under present programs, but would not limit individual crops. "The Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, known as P.L. 480, one of the great humanitarian programs of any people at any time would be continued." The Secretary then went on to say that there are a number of decisions yet to be made and that this bill falls short of what many in the Department would prefer, and what many other organizations and groups want And some distancefrom the apparentlack of leadership exhibited by Mr. Hardin, sits Congressman Bob Poage, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, the key figure in the picture, who publicly supports continued use of direct payments in farm programs and who has shown that he will tie the Food Stamp Program to the farm program package, so that urban congressmen who want Food Stamps, will have to support direct payments. Mr. Poage has also indicated thathe will also tie the Wool Act.intonhe program, whipping wool growers into supporting his plan. If there was ever a greater example of political expediency, combining neither success nor complete failure with a collossal expense to the taxpayer, we'd like to know what it is. iL ' which will lead Bureau Farm the for to build is prcjhasal, the time Now support American agriculture out of this wilderness of low prices and jjpntrols. Dear Mr. Nixon: We have to applaud Charles B. Shunans question to you, President Nixon. Mr. Shuman wanted to know what happened to your promise to change the direction of government farm programs. We're still waiting for the answer. We do recall what Candidate Nixon said during March 1968, at Wausau, Wisconsin. You said, A new look must be given to the government policy which has brought us to a station where 21 percent of the farmer's realized net Income comes directly from government. Those who control the purse, control the power and the new programs that are designed should insure a fair return while reducing this dangerous level of dependency on an arbitrary political power." We can also remember that in October, 1968, in response to a question on subsidies by Farm Journal editors, you said: "I am deeply concerned about many farmers being forced to depend on government subsidies as a source of income . . . Farmers deserve to receive a larger share of their income and larger incomes from the market." "Today," Charles Shuman points out, "approximately 24 percent of net farm income is represented by direct government and cotton farmers look to these payments for about 40 payments, of their gross receipts from cotton lint. This is hardly thepercent basis fbr a farm policy for the 1970's." Farmers are in a real mess, Mr. Nixon. They voted fbr you in hopes that you'd make good on your promise. What happened on your way to the White House? Did you inherit some of L.B.J.s "politics of consensus" along with the furniture? I'm convinced that what you seem to be doing now, will please no one. In Viet Nam, you wont get out, nor will you get tough. On one hand you deplore the Postal Workers strike, and on the other you propose, a package that will, meet many of their demands. With one breath you deplore Inflation and with another propose a new $10 billion package for pollution control. Somebody once told me that you were an honest fighter, ready to deal with problems regardless of the political outcome. I still believe that, but I'm getting a little Impatient. Have you been listening too hard to your "advisers?" Why don't you pay a little less attention to the Intellects and a little more attention to your own sound instincts? It seems you're trying to please everyone, but you're really pleasing no one. Remember the farmers, Mr. Nixon. Theyve been in a basically troublesome situation since the Depression. Weve needed some tough minded solutions to problems and we got political solutions Instead. They started with price supports and then started adding allotments, loans, adjustments in support levels and all sorts of modifications but what Congress needed was the courage to see that the programs just wouldn't work, no matter what was done to change them. The goals were to eliminate surpluses and improve income. The programs for wheat, feed grains, cotton and soybeans have done neither. Mr. Nixon, you can surely see the foolishness of the approach we've been taking all these years. And now the stage is set for more of the same. All the basic ingredients for failure are in the bill being worked out between the Secretary of Agriculture's boys and the House Ag Committee. The new wrinkle is a "set aside" or really, worn-o- ut coat. on old the another patch just They wont fool the farmers. Theyll know It's more of the same and they'll be economically coerced to go along with it, but they know it wont Improve things any. Im looking to you for some leadership, Mr. Nixon. You can make good on your promise to change direction for farm programs. I wont threaten you with my one vote. That doesn't hold much weight anyway. But Sir, you are trifling with my respect. UTAH FARM BUREAU ITU 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 cents per year to memCity, Utah, 84102. Subscription price of twenty-fiv-e class matter March as second Entered fee. included in bers is membership 24, 1948 at the Post Office at Salt Lake City, Utah under the act of March ' 3, 1879. UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS President Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton Vice President S. Jay Child, Cleafield Chairman, Farm Bureau Women Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Bennion V. Allen Olsen Kenneth J. Rice Executive Secretary Editor DIRECTORS District One: A. Alton Hoffman; District Two, William Holmes; District Three: Jack Brown; District Four Ed Boyer, District Five: Ken Brasher; District Six: Jerold Johnson; District Seven: Richard Nelson. |