The Candidates and the Farmer

Old MacDonald had a farm, 175 acres or so, where he and his two sons raised corn and hogs. His income had plummeted during the Eisenhower administration and he was anxious to examine the initial statements of the Nixon and Kennedy farm policies. Then, instead of voting on election night, he walked down to the Grange Hall to mope quietly with the rest of his friends.

It seems that quiet meditation or strong drink are all that remain for the farmers. The Kennedy program offers them only a streamlined version of the Democratic price support program which has been in effect since the war years. Although the Nixon program sets forth a definite plan to diminish surpluses, it also threatens literally to "abolish the farmers."

Until the mid 1950's farmers prospered as never before. From 1941 through 1945 they supplied the troops abroad; from 1945 through 1953 they produced food for an impoverished Europe and later for troops in Korea.

When the demand tapered off after Korea, the government stepped in to buy up surplus, to guarantee stable prices, and, in general, to prevent a market crisis. Congress instituted the Soil Bank program to reduce the increasing surplus by paying the farmer to take land out of cultivation.

However, using modern equipment acquired during the war, the farmer still produced too much. While the large farmers increased their holdings, the smaller ones fought not to be overwhelmed. (At present 57 per cent of the total farms account for eight per cent of salable products.)

Against this background, it is apparent that neither candidate's platform could substantially raise the farmer's buying power to the level which urban businessmen enjoy. However, one of them offers a gimmick which could very well reduce the grain stockpiles.

Operation Consume, the Republican program, offers to repay the farmer in kind for land which he agrees to take out of production. Under this program, no farmer would receive funds from the Federal government. Instead, for example, a wheat-grower will allow his land to lie fallow, receiving the equivalent amount of grain from the Federal storage bin. He would then sell this wheat at market prices.

While reducing the surplus, this program would also insure a stable income for the farmers concerned. When the storage bins reached the desired level, the GOP would institute a long term price support program based on market prices of immediately preceding crop years.

It is the second part of the Republican program that might threaten the farmer's existence. Termed Operation Safeguard, it calls for "a substantial expansion of the conservation reserve program." Mr. Nixon would ask farmers to withdraw land from production and rent it to the government for periods of three to ten years.

Although the farmer might receive a steady income from such rents, what could he and his family do for ten years? How could they meet the rising cost of living if dependent only on a fixed subsistence income?

Although it has no concrete plan for acreage reduction the Democratic program does not present such a complete threat to the small farmer's existence. Kennedy proposes to raise price supports to 90 per cent of parity and to reduce the acreage under cultivation by 25 per cent. (Parity is an ephemeral standard based upon the relation between prices of farm produce and those of consumer goods in 1914.) At present, prices stand at about 75 per cent of parity for most crops.

Basically, the Kennedy plan is an extension of the one now in effect, which is losing over $1,000 per minute for wheat storage alone. Since 1953, farm wages have dropped approximately 24 per cent over those of the preceding decade. The purpluses continue to mount.

In a more dramatic gesture to reduce surplus, both candidates have proposed to dump it on needy nations. Though undoubtedly benevolent, this idea is not so simple as it appears. Were the United States to distribute free wheat abroad, the international market would react like a man with dropsy.

Since the present farm program must cater to international politics, as well as to corn farmers in Kansas and apple growers in upstate New York, it has failed to cater to anyone. Hence, the difference in candidates will mean almost nothing to the farmers when they pull the levers on Nov. 8. It seems almost inevitable that most of their sons will be city dwellers.