| OCR Text |
Show Washington. We have a new farm relief law on the way. The natural and logi- New Farm Cal question is, Relief Law what does it mean? A parallel question Is, what will it do? And, among the cold and non-partisan analysts of the Washington field one also hears a third question, namely, is the sponsorship of any of the numerous farm plans, Republican Re-publican or Democratic, sincere? Congress, for the sake of its political po-litical hide, Is anxious to do right by agriculture. It Is attempting to supplant the Invalidated Agricultural Agricultur-al Adjustment act with a law about which Its individual campaigning members can talk, to which they can point with pride. But there are other and unofficial farm plans bobbing up here, there and everywhere. It seems to be the open season for proposals to aid agriculture. Few, if any, of them are grounded completely in sound practice. Each of them ought to be conceded commendation for some of the provisions they include. None of them, including that which Is backed by the New Dealers, is going go-ing to completely solve the farm problem because we are going to have the farm problem with us for next year and the nest and a good many years thereafter whether we like It or not. The tragedy of the current situation situa-tion Is that the farm relief plans, taken Individually or collectively, constitute I was going to say a mess and on second thought I believe be-lieve that is the most appropriate word that can be used. Throughout Through-out the administration's proposal for aid to agriculture and permeating permeat-ing every other proposal that has been put forward, whether by statesmen or panacea promoters, one can find a splendid collection of objectives that cancel each other. I mean exactly that. Recognizing the breadth of the statement I have just made, evidence evi-dence seems to be necessary. Let us look at these various plans, or certainly at the one that is scheduled sched-uled to take the place of AAA. First, the administration proposes pro-poses to take something like five hundred million Purpose dollars each year Is O. K. trom taxpayers In one form or anther an-ther to use for benefit payments to farmers. It proposes to use these funds to save the soil, to prevent further carrying away of productive produc-tive elements In our soil by continued contin-ued cropping. New Dealers describe de-scribe the purpose as prevention of erosion. With that purpose, It seems to me, there can be no quarrel. Ever since the successive portions of our country were settled and the forest coverings removed, soil has been subject to erosion by rain, flood and by wind. The Department of Agriculture Agri-culture says that the top soil of probably fifty million acres has been destroyed In that manner. It would seem, then, that It was high time our government was finding ways to stop It. Admitting the soundness of this phase of the program, one then must turn to another phase that is not written Into law but results from it If the fertility of soli Is improved, im-proved, is it not natural then that there should be an increase in production? pro-duction? And If there Is an Increase In production, is It not logical further fur-ther that we may find ourselves developing a huge surplus of commodities com-modities from the farm and with no foreign market? The answer obviously Is, yes. So, we find these two circumstances circum-stances in the administration farm bill, proposed, even driven, by that group of New Dealers who, until a few months ago, were declaring here, there and everywhere that to maintain price we must have scarcity scar-city of production. That theory was basic in the AAA and was carried car-ried out to the furthest by Secretary Secre-tary Wallace and Administrator Chester Davis. There seems to be no doubt among students of the farm problem that a subsidy, wheth-MustPay wheth-MustPay er by that name Benefits or some trick phrase, for agriculture agri-culture cannot be avoided. Some way, somehow, money Is going to be taken out of the federal treasury treas-ury to pay benefits, subsidies, to the farm population. I do not know whether anyone can predict where such a policy will lead as a long-term long-term national program. Political figures seem to he content with a temporary solution, something to get farm votes. In all of the debate that has moved through the ventilators ventila-tors of the house and senate chambers, cham-bers, discussion of the farm prob lem on a long-term basis has bpen noticeably absent. This fart Is Just as true when nn-tl-New Deal farm programs are subjected sub-jected to a searching analysis as Is the administration's plan itself. It applies to the proposal of an export bounty, offered by Senator McNary, senate Republican leader; to the plan of George Peek, former AAA administrator, to the piecemeal presentations of Senator Borah, Idaho Republican Presidential prospect pros-pect or to the ideas advanced by Senator Dickinson, Iowa Republican Republi-can or any of the others. Since It seems established that the subsidy plan will apd must be kept as a part of any farm policy, the problem Is narrowed down to the question of how It will be administered. ad-ministered. Each plan provides machinery ma-chinery political jobs for administration. admin-istration. That fact, however, would seem to guarantee Inefficiency rather rath-er than efficiency In administration. Each of the plans obviously must reach Into nearly every county In the United States and the experience experi-ence gained from AAA administration administra-tion forces the conclusion, regretful regret-ful as It Is. that no' efficient means for administration has been suggested. sug-gested. An unbiased Investigation of the whole situation, as far as I have been able to make It, prompts me to say that until partisan politics is eliminated from farm relief considerations, con-siderations, farm aid Is going to continue in a mess. Perhaps it Is a character of our system of government gov-ernment that the condition exists, but whatever the reason may be, I am convinced that there ought to be a distinction between the giving of a subsidy as such and the giving of a subsidy to accomplish other purposes. pur-poses. I moan by that if we are to have a subsidy, let us not get It all mangled up with a lot of prescribed conditions which bind the farmer hand and foot. I am one of those who believe that the average farmer farm-er Is better equipped to solve his own problem than are his professional profes-sional leaders who call themselves heads of farm organizations or the politicians who prate about the farmer and think only in the terms of his voting number. So I say until the farm problem can be separated sepa-rated from politics and until It can be separated from theories of regimentation regi-mentation and crop - control and binding the farmer by a lot of conditions, con-ditions, there will not be any effective effec-tive solution for the farm problem. Several years ago when the present pres-ent work-relief policy was young, a reader wrote me GraftersTake& rather critical Their Toll leer because I made the statement state-ment that crookedness was bound to crop Into administration of the relief programs. My prediction was predicated not upon any clairvoyance clairvoy-ance or ability as a soothsayer but upon a knowledge of the difficulty that necessarily harasses the management man-agement of a far-flung organization. It was predicated as well on an understanding that there was no way on earth to keep politicians and visionaries out of these organizations. organ-izations. I had no apology to make to that reader then but I do have the privilege of boasting Just a bit since administrative heads of these organizations in Washington have been put to the necessity of cleaning clean-ing up one dirty problem after another. an-other. It has happened In countless places, not with the consent of the ruling authorities, that petty grafters graft-ers have crept in, have taken their toll. Now, however, evidence is seeping seep-ing through to the top in record form, of another danger In the attempted at-tempted management of so many different groups from a central office of-fice In Washington. The best illustration illus-tration of this that I have seen comes from New York where the local lo-cal relief organization has a "writers' "writ-ers' project" In operation. . Just at this time the local New York authorities, au-thorities, with the assistance of Washington headquarters, are trying try-ing to find out whether radicals, many of them of foreign birth, have taken charge of the New York "writers' project." One man, Samuel McCoy, assistant assist-ant director, has been dismissed. He has charged that reds are In control and that they are taking up their time proselyting and seeking new members of a Communistic organization. organi-zation. Against his charges, those he attacked at-tacked countered with accusations that McCoy has continuously sought to promote Fascism among the writers. It Is an unhappy thing to occur. Here we have a paternalistic fed-, eral government spoking to provide people with work and some measure meas-ure of compensation for t tin t work, and we see a political problem Injected In-jected Into It. I do not know what the end will be, nor Is It pertinent to this discussion. The point is, after all, that It represents. Indeed It proves, the futili'.y of attempting to run all of these thlrgs from Washington. Those who favor tti! old Idea of states' rights certainly cannot want for ammunition In defense de-fense of their beliefs. 2 Wen'eni NpWRr"-r Union. |
