Johnson's Farm Policy Fairly Well Received

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30724, 13 April 1965, Page 23

Johnson's Farm Policy Fairly Well Received

(Prom

FRANK OLIVER,

Special ■

Correspondent N.Z.P.A.]

WASHINGTON, April 12. j President Johnson’s long-awaited message on the nation’s farm and farm surplus prob- i lems has reached the 1 Congress and has got a j fairly warm newspaper i reception. i I The cynics say it 1 will not change much, 1 that the consumer, in- j stead of paying (out of his taxes) the farm subsidies, will pay a , little more for his bread and the other ; things that go with it 1 to make a hearty meal. ' The supporters of the plan , applaud the cut in subsidies and welcome the fact that the ; farmer will get a slightly j larger share of the money j the consumer pays for the > processed food he buys. As one newspaper says: . No-one can quarrel with the j President’s statement of purposes when he puts the nation’s goal at an abundance of food and fibre at stable prices, a workable balance between supply and demand

at lower costs to the Govern-i ment, an opportunity for the efficient farmer to earn parity of income from his farming, an equal opportunity for rural people and effective use of farm resources abroad. The hard facts are, it is being pointed out in the newspapers, that city folk are spending less of the total family income than ever before for a better diet than they ever had before and that the farmer is getting 5 per cent less for his produce than he got 15 years ago. The facts show clearly that the farmer often earns less than the statutory minimum wage. Not Supply And Demand There is no brutal attempt in the Johnson programme to let the laws of supply and demand take over. Few of his critics say this should be done. What they complain about is that the subsidy programme is “barely nicked” and that all the food now produced could be raised on a million farms instead of the present better than three million farms. One newspaper critic says: “After more than a generation of subsidies and surpluses Washington still needs the political heart and courage to face the facts down on the farm.” Moderate View This is regarded by others as itself a failure to look at

all the consequences to millions of citizens if such a drastic purpose was aimed at.

The moderate view is that not even a Johnson with large majorities in Congress can radically change overnight a farm situation that has grown up over a quarter of a century. It is added that subsidies are being cut. A start has been made, and the consumer will hardly have the nerve to quarrel with the fact that he will pay one cent more for a loaf of bread and over a year 30 cents more for the rice he consumes. At least that is how it works out in theory and in the calculations of the statistician. And against that the consumer is getting a “break” in taxation and may get a little more of a “break” when the excise tax has been dealt with later in the session. Johnsonian Strategy The farm message is a typical Johnsonian piece of strategy. He seems to know where he is going but remembers the old Chinese saying that the longest journey starts with a single step. He has made that initial step. As the “Washington Post” coments, the changes in the farm programme “are very complicated and difficult to analyse.” But in brief they add up to the idea that the farmer should get a little more out of the market place and a little less from Government coffers. In either case the consumer pays and it must be assumed that for psychological reasons he would rather pay out for bread and beef than for taxes to pay the farmer his Government subsidy. Vast Surpluses

The vast surpluses that American agriculture has piled up in Government granaries looked very ridiculous a decade ago but to many they will not look so silly in the ‘sixties. This is because more people have come to realise that half the world is still underfed and that 10 years from now, let alone 20, the number of hungry mouths in the world will amount to an unimaginable number. In short, by the time another generation has grown up and world population is bursting at the seams, the world will need all the food that all the agricultural nations can supply. This was underlined for many thoughtful Americans less than a month ago by that noted Swedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal. Speaking to a farmer audience in Chicago, he suggested the time was fast approaching when the United States must change gears and produce all the food its advanced agricultural technology permitted. If not, he added, the burgeoning populations of the world in underdeveloped countries face starvation involving hundreds of millions of people. And he underlined the possibility that starvation and want could have political results such as totalitarianism ushered in by violence.

President Johnson underlined the situation as well on Wednesday night when he mentioned the need for food and fibre in South-east Asia to allow the area to settle down to a period of development and advancement. Feeling Different Thus many people are feeling different about the farm surpluses, which now loom as a weapon against the spread of communism and totalitarianism of any kind. To some they are beginning to look pitifully small compared with the needs of the world a decade or two from now. It seems certain that a million farms could easily produce all the food than 180 million Americans can eat but there are those who are beginning to expand the Roosevelt dictum that the world cannot exist half slave and half free by adding more half well-fed and half-hungry. Anyhow, if the Johnson message comes out as legislation in more or less its present form there will be no drastic reduction of food production during the Johnson era.