OCR Text |
Show Hiife . "- THE FARM PROGRAM Secretary Sec-retary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson continues to win increasing respect for his forthriiht stand on the farm issue back here. That Secretary Benson has become one of the most outstanding members of the President's Cabinet was no surprise to us who knew him in Utah. But his stature and statesmanship states-manship have been a surprise to many eastern people who greeted his appointment with the words: "Benson? Who's he?" . RIGID SUPPORTS The Secretary Secre-tary this week nailed to the wall the false theory that the present rigid support program is primarily primar-ily benefitting the small family farmer. This is the impression that Secretary Benson's opponents are trying to put over. But the Secretary Sec-retary answered by letting the figures fig-ures speak for themselves. BIG OPERATORS Secretary Benson said flatly that the present pres-ent rigid farm supports primarily benefit the large producer. And he had figures to back him up. In 1953, the largest Government wheat payment in Kansas was $139,237 and the second largest was $125,198. Is this the type of program that is primarily for the benefit of the family farmer ? How many family farmers grow $139,-237 $139,-237 worth of wheat? MORE PIGURESIn California the .government paid one cotton producer nearly $1,250,000 last year. In Missouri the largest loan was $643,993. Yet the average loan was only $395. The Secretary 1 pointed out that it takes a vast number of loans to little farmers to overcome the large payments and bring the average so low. Is the present program designed to preserve the family-sized farm or is it to fatten the big operators at the taxpayer's expense? Secretary Sec-retary Benson asked. NEW PROGRAM Take an average av-erage farmer who receives $1000 in Government support loans. The difference between the amount supported at 90 per cent of parity par-ity and 80 per cent is at most $100. That is what this average farmer would receive for having his acreage slashed, for losing his freedom of decision and for the perpetuation of an unbalanced market. Of course, for the fellow that receives $500,000 in Government Govern-ment loans, the difference would be $50,000. But is he the family farmer. BENSON'S POSITION The Secretary outlined his stand in the following words: "My own quarrel quar-rel with the theory of rigid supports sup-ports is not that they give the farmer too much, but that in actual ac-tual practice they do not give him enough. They prevent him from attaining' full parity in the market place because they encourage price depressing surplusses of certain commodities. They disrupt normal economic processes. And finally, they threaten to collapse of their own weight, crushing in the process pro-cess the very people they were designed to help." |