AGRICULTURE: Revolution, Not Revolt

• Share

(7 of 7)

Unsighted Goal. This does not mean that the farm situation will not be a top issue. Even Benson's flexible support program is obviously not the whole answer. Farm income continued to fall and surpluses to pile up for a year after the flexible support program became effective. The proposed soil bank would cut surpluses by restraining each farmer's production, but its value remains to be proved. In a study just completed for the National Planning Association, Agricultural Economics Experts John D. Black (Harvard) and James D. Bonnen (Michigan State) argue that the ultimate solution is to let farm commodities seek their level in the market and supplement farmers' income with direct payments from the Federal Treasury. This is close to the old Brannan plan, which many farmers consider an unpalatable dole.

Commenting on Lyndon Johnson's charge that he had broken his promises to farmers, President Eisenhower last week reiterated the position that he has taken from the first: that his real goal is "100% of parity for the farmer in the marketplace, meaning that we must get the supply and demand so adjusted that the farmer is getting a good price without depending upon 90% or 80% or any other kind of supports."

At spring planting time 1956, that goal is by no means in sight. There is scant chance that it can even be approached in an election year. It can be reached only if U.S. farmers, the President, the Congress, and the Secretary of Agriculture strip the politics and the past away from the problem and recognize what the revolution has wrought.