The Moon & Six Points

Out of the political mist enshrouding U.S. farm policy, doughty Ezra Benson emerged last week with a plan for shrinking overproduction. His plan would keep flexible price supports but would go beyond them by paying farmers to switch from surplus-making crops to soil-building grass and trees. Apart from its agricultural soundness, which came first with stubborn Ezra Benson, the "soil-bank" proposal looked like a political convincer. It was not a new plan; the New Deal put a similar scheme into effect from 1936 to " 1943. But coming from Benson, it was evidence that the Secretary's inflexible opposition to inflexible price supports was no satanic scheme to impoverish U.S. farmers.

The soil-bank proposal was one of six points that Benson, addressing the Republican National Committee in Chicago, outlined as the basis of his legislative program in 1956. The others:

More exports to dispose of surpluses.

More U.S. purchases to lighten immediate market gluts.

More attention to low-income farm families.

More Government and business research in new uses of farm products and in new markets.

More speed in the Great Plains development program for sounder use of land.

Income from Conservation. From the total 356,250,000 U.S. acres now sown to non-sod crops, the soil-bank plan would take 16 million out of production in the first twelve months of a 15-year, $1.4 billion program aimed at eliminating 23 million acres. An eventual total of 1,000,000 U.S. farmers would be paid up to $5,000 a year, get $15-$20 an acre for cover-crop seeds, plus annual payments of 5%-7% of the appraised value of the land they convert.

Said Benson: "Its impact will be chiefly in areas where topsoil is being wasted in growing crops not needed by today's markets. It will mean better soil and water conservation [and] added income." While the last item was the key for farmers, the emphasis on conservation was a key to the plan's legality. Not forgotten was the adverse Supreme Court ruling in 1936 on the early Agricultural Adjustment Act, held unconstitutional because it paid farmers outright to restrict production.

"Not Going to Pot." The soil-bank plan, Benson warned his fellow Republicans, is "no nostrum." He called it a constructive "move in the direction we must go with a many-sided program." Indications of the pressure on Benson were evident enough last week, when hog prices dropped to the lowest point in 14 years, and U.S. farm economists met in Washington for an annual "outlook" conference that expressed much long-range confidence but brought little news of immediate cheer. For 1956, they foresaw a continued cost-price squeeze, though not so serious a one as the 10% farm decline in 1955. Predicted the experts: if farmers want to live as prosperously through the present stage of agricultural readjustment as they did in the 1942-51 bonanza period, they must reduce savings and seek more income from nonfarm sources. Not until supply and demand are rebalanced can they expect much else.

Last week, accusing Democrats of promising farmers the moon, Ezra Benson said: "Agriculture is not going to pot, and this Administration is going to do everything that is sound and right to help American farmers."

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