Supports & Votes

At President Eisenhower's press conference, a reporter pointed out that some Republicans in Congress consider his farm program politically unfeasible. The President's response showed the depth of his conviction: he agreed that his program might not be smart politically, but he was sure that it was right. His Administration has studied the problem long and carefully, is convinced that the old plan is unworkable, believes that the proposed program is the best way to maintain a prosperous, stable agriculture.

There was evidence to support the President's view that it is time for a change in the farm plan. The old program is encouraging production of huge surpluses, keeping food prices high, destroying the farmer's market, costing the taxpayers $900 million a year--and yet it is still not preventing farm income from falling. To correct this disaster-breeding situation, President Eisenhower and Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson proposed flexible price supports, keyed to the law of supply & demand, but cushioned to prevent a sharp drop in farm income (TIME, Jan. 18).

"Long-Range Welfare." In the Senate, two men who have been close to the farm program for years, Vermont's Republican George Aiken, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and New Mexico's Democrat Clinton Anderson, onetime (1945-48) Secretary of Agriculture, were strong for the Eisenhower-Benson plan.

(A similar program, sponsored by Aiken, was passed by the 80th Congress in 1948, but has not come into operation.) In the farm belt, the president of the country's largest farm organization voiced his approval. Said Iowa Hog Farmer Allan Kline, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation: "The program is forward looking, with principles essentially sound for the long-range welfare of American agriculture." But the plan ran head-on into formidable opposition on Capitol Hill. Some longtime students of the farm problem, e.g., Georgia's Democratic Senator Richard Russell, argued with details of the program, but most opposition was based on politics. The opponents thought that most farmers would fear loss in the short run--because some support prices would be reduced--and would not be impressed by the plan's long-run virtues.

"Short-Range Thinking." This short-range thinking was sharply illustrated by Wisconsin's Joe McCarthy, whose approach was the precise opposite of Ike's.

McCarthy said that the Eisenhower program might be economically sound, but it could not be sold to the farmers by next Election Day. His New Dealish recommendation: keep the present rigid price supports, or adopt a flexible scale with a maximum that runs up to 110% of parity, 20 points higher than the present level.

This week it was clear that the President's farm plan is in serious trouble on Capitol Hill, might never get out of committee. Many members of Congress are ready to base their position on what they think is essential to get farm votes, not on what is good for the U.S.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.