Grassroots Voter 1960; 4; Agriculture

Here in Lincoln, Nebraska, where the corn belt meets the great planes, agriculture is likely to be the overriding issue in this year's election. Ralph Cole, a farmer from Holdridge, Nebraska, feels farm incomes are dangerously low. Marvin Russell, editor of a state farm paper, views agriculture as being in the midst of a technological revolution. Delmer Slopov, who farms near Lincoln, would like to operate without government controls that calls this wishful thinking. Here in Raleigh, North Carolina, we are aware that the low per capita income of our state is tied to the fact that we have more farm people than any other state. Low income per farm is one of our constant problems. To discuss the agricultural situation, we have with us Mr. Jim Graham, manager of Raleigh Farmer's Market, a gentleman dedicated to having the farmer receive a fair return for his produce, and Mrs. Annette Betwell, a housewife, interested in stretching the family dollars

around the rising cost of living. This is Ted Higgins at National Educational Television, the farm issue, important not only to the farm people, but critical for the nation as a whole, and the farm vote and the city vote are equally important to the candidates of both American parties. The vote is national, the issues are local, and wherever you live, they apply to you, the grassroots voter in 1960. NET, National Educational Television, Presents Grass Roots Voter, 1960, an evaluation of issues facing the American electorate between now and November 8th. This program on the farm issues originates in Raleigh, North Carolina, at WUNC TV, and at

KUN TV in Lincoln, Nebraska. Now speaking for National Educational Television, TFX Higgins. The presidential campaign is in full swing, major issues on which the election will depend have been defined, first by the parties at their conventions, second by the candidates in their speeches, debates, and statements since the conventions. The electorate listens, considers, is coming to a decision. On November 8th, the electorate will choose the candidate and party. They feel answers their need for action on these major issues. In some parts of the United States, a single issue over shadows all others, segregation in the South, farm problems in the Midwest. On this series, Grass Roots Voter, 1960, National Educational Television takes you to the local voters in key geographical areas of the United States, where decisions on the major issues

of the campaign are being made, decisions that affect us all, tonight the farm issue. The view of Grass Roots Voters in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Raleigh, North Carolina. Every day, every one of us is dependent upon the farmer. He provides the food to feed the United States, and most of us are a long way from the farm. The city people, the armed forces, the transportation workers, the farmers themselves, and all their families are fed by 9% of the people of this country, the farm population. And of these, at least 3% could leave the farm, and there would be no significant loss in production. Look at the map. For agriculture, the United States has everything. Wheat from the Great Plains, citrus from Florida and California, meat from the corn belt, or consider what you ate today, the milk for your breakfast coffee came from near your home, the sugar perhaps from Hawaii, the bacon from an Iowa hog, the orange juice from Florida,

and for every one of these industries, every one of these crops, there is a program of artificial prices. Every one of these is a product our farms produce in surplus. Automation or its equivalent came early to the farm. The tractor replaced the horse, and in the process, released for human food production, the acres that had been used to feed that horse. The result, surplus and a farm problem. In a democracy you have few duties. One of these is to vote, to vote as an informed citizen on the issues as they affect you and your fellow Americans. To see how the farm issue affects the Midwest, we switch to Lincoln, Nebraska, and any T affiliate KUN-TV, our correspondent there, Jack Hart. Ted, voters here in the Midwest have definite views on the farm problem. The price of hogs or wheat or corn affects the pocketbook of virtually everyone.

For a cross-section of how Nebraska voters feel about the farm issue, here are three grassroots voters from the area. Ralph Cole now operates 320 acres of irrigated land near Holdridge, where he raises corn and hogs. Ralph was on the agricultural economic staff of the University of Nebraska, and also served with the Farm Credit Administration in Washington before going into active farming. Marvin Russell is editor of the Nebraska farmer, and the Colorado farmer and rancher, which circulate widely in those states. Elmer Schlopov farms about 600 acres of land, about half of it irrigated, and keeps a feedlot full of cattle. The gentleman, as you know, in 1956, Nebraska and most surrounding states had Republican governors and nearly solid Republican delegations in Congress. Now these same states have Democratic governors, and at least half of their representation in Washington is Democratic. Now how much of this political change do you feel has been a result of the farm issue?

Marvin? I can't help but feel that it is all a result of the farm issue. Jack, there's been nothing else to change it. Ralph, what would be your views on that? I would agree with you, or with Marvin's act. I think it has been almost entirely a result of the difficulties that farmers have encountered during the past few years. With that feeling, then, I suppose it follows that the policies of Agriculture Secretary Ezra Benson in the last eight years have not been too favorable or too acceptable in this area. Would that be a fair conclusion? Elmer, what would be your reaction to that? That's probably right, because I reckon it's sure that our prices are lower now than they were in 52. I think the point is that the farmer's position has just continued to deteriorate during those eight years, Jack.

Ralph, how do you view these past few years? I feel much the same way. For the first four or five, or perhaps even six years, Secretary Benson had a lot of support in this middle-western area. But especially during the past two years, he's lost nearly all of it. Now we're into a new campaign. The farm issue, once again, is with us. What do you, gentlemen, view as the real differences in the approach between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in farm policy? Go ahead, Ralph. Go ahead, Mark. I think that the Republican platform, as I am acquainted with it to date, is pretty much a continuation of the Benson approach. I can't interpret anything particularly new in it other than that approach. The Democratic platform goes back to some things we've tried before, high-price supports, and rather stringent production controls, I suspect.

Also a look at the two-price plan, perhaps, and also the brand and plan, or the production payments plan. Ralph, would you agree that there's not much new to offering the Republican platform? I'm a little more optimistic than Marvin is on that point, Jack. It seems to me that while the Republican platform is very general, that there is provision in it for a sound constructive program if they carry out the ideas that could logically come within that statement. More than do you feel the real differences lie between the two parties in farm policy? Elmer, do you have any views on that? It seems to me that the Democrats in their platform are waving the high-price flag more freely than the Republicans, and of course that's what we're hurting now in our pocket

put. Other than that, I wouldn't know. And then what do you gentlemen feel would be the most feasible solutions to our farm problem? That's the toughest question of all. Let's start right down the line, Ralph. Well, there are, of course, many suggested programs which would get agriculture out of this difficulty, including subsidized consumption, the development of industrial uses for farm products, greater exports, foreign aid programs. And I think we would all agree that each of these has its place, and perhaps does some good. But if the ones mentioned, I would say that they're not put enough to really solve the problem that we have now.

As I see it, our difficulty lies in the fact that we have from six to eight percent more total output than is needed right now. And we have more farm commodities produced than the domestic and foreign demand will take. And that the only real solution is a program which will reduce that production to the point where the supply and demand operating will give farmers a price level for products which is on an equality basis. Marvin Russell, what would be your views on the... Well, I think Ralph stated there practically the thing that's going to have to be done somewhere or other is to bring supply and demand into balance if prices to farmers are going to be improved any. Ralph was rather modest in not mentioning the plan which he has been active in supporting and that is the plan of the Farm Policy Council, which is Ralph will permit me.

I'll say he's planned to take something like 80 million acres out of production on the basis of retiring some 20 percent per farm. Well, this is a possible approach to the supply end, the demand part of the question. There are good many things which have been proposed and a good many of them are already in effect. The foreign aid program, the food for piece program, these are somewhat effective but in overall they are not making a great dent in the surplus and surplus production problem. But in some way we do have to reach that balance in supply and demand. Elmer, along this line, where do you think the soil bank might fit into this whole picture? Well, it's obvious we're going to have to raise less and if we can work out a soil bank program of some kind to retire some land that needs retiring or that get a percentage

of the of each farm out of production it seems to me this something like this is going to have to work. But in the meantime as a farmer it's our problem to live with this situation under the situation here right now because prices aren't going up tomorrow. But it seems to me that we need to continue our research in production and utilization as well. And there are several things that would add on to what Ralph has outlined here and in allowing the farmer to live with the situation we have. One of these things is adequate financing for farming or financing to bring the financing up to date, the modern methods of financing, the modern farm operation which today is highly inadequate.

These things we have to put up with and I think we need those things to continue our production and the face of what we have. Right. Now I'm sure many people over the nation wonder why we don't get the government completely out of agriculture, abandon our agricultural programs and let the free market operate on all farm commodities. How do you gentlemen feel an approach of that nature would work? Well to anyone that would ask that question I would reply with a question which would be why not outlaw all labor unions, why not do away with all tariffs to protect industry, why not repeal the minimum wage law. All of these things are reflected in the prices that the farmer pays for what he has to buy and to protect him against that kind of thing he must have some sort of government program. And the surpluses that are in government hands today is prepared to me to be a real problem.

We not only are raising growing, producing 6 to 8 percent more than we're using we also have this surplus as a backlog that seems to me is going to be a great problem to give it up. Ralph what would be your opinion of turning agriculture loose so to speak? Well I think Marvin stated admirably the reaction that most farmers would have to that question I would perhaps add this that it would be, it would mean bankruptcy for large numbers of them Jack and it is a painful process which our society today would not be willing to go through with in my opinion. One does it follow that two gentlemen feel that government programs have really helped farmers?

Yes I should say that even though they haven't been perfect even though we haven't attained the goals that we should like to have attained that they've helped a great deal. Anyone knowing the conditions in the 30s knows that there was a definite help from the government programs? Now perhaps we could examine just a little bit the facts about food prices in relation to other prices paid by consumers. In other words are the present foreign policies actually raising the food bill for the American consumer? Marvin would you care to discuss it? I happen to have some figures on that Jack this, these figures are in minutes of time required to earn food products based on average hourly earnings in industry and they are Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. In 1925 it took 61 minutes of work to buy a dozen eggs.

In 1958 that was reduced to 18 minutes. For a pound of chuck roast it was 24 minutes in 1925 and 18 minutes in 58. For a quarter milk the time was cut in half more than in half in 1925 it was 15 minutes in 58 seven minutes. A loaf of bread exactly cut in half from 10 minutes to 5 minutes of work to buy a loaf of bread. I don't think you can say that agriculture is responsible for any high priced food. Would you gentlemen agree with that? Little heartedly Jack one of the greatest developments in the past 20 years has been this increase in efficiency of farm operation, the advanced technology which has made it possible for one farmer to feed 20 people where at the beginning of the century one farmer fed about three or four.

Elmer maybe you could tell us a little of your own experience on your farm. I think probably you've increased your output in recent years, how has your farm reacted to this technological revolution? Ralph mentioned a number of people that are farmer feeds besides himself now. It happened when I started farming in 1940. At that time I think the farmer was feeding 10 people besides himself and we had this up to 25 today or a higher, I think a very recent figure is that even a little higher. We've increased our operation on our farm. We have doubled our production through the use of irrigation and fertilizer but through the use of power equipment, for all the modern conveniences we can afford, we have raised that now. In fact, we're doing this now without a full-time man, we're using less labor now than we have any time since I've been farming.

So there in other words is a great part of the farm problem. Is that the story of the world of the country over? That through modern technology, fertilizer, machinery and so forth, the farmer has been able to produce increasingly greater amounts of farm goods. Now there's been a lot of talk that the farmer has been in great political power in the past. He has dominated many of the state legislators, legislatures. He has controlled much of the action of Congress. In recent years, however, we've seen this political power dwindling somewhat in the farm states as population moves to the cities. What do you gentlemen see as the future political influence of the farmer? We're getting to be more and more of a minority group. In other words, you're becoming a minor part of the national electorate.

More and more. I think farmers undoubtedly are becoming less potent at the polls, but I'd hate to believe that the rest of the economy is going to allow some political impotency to let the squeeze, the cost-price squeeze specifically, continue to bear down on the farmer. I think we have a fairer bunch of people in this country than that. Ralph, what's your view of the future? I agree thoroughly with what both Elmer and Marvin have said on that, and I feel further that the urban people cannot afford to let the agriculture of the country get into real difficulty because of the likelihood that it will mean wrecking the economy of the entire country. Those of us who remember what happened in the 30s know that we got into a terrifically damaging depression, and that agriculture had a great deal to do with it.

Now we've heard an awfully lot in recent years about the family farm. What do you fellows think about the present status of the family farm and what does it hold for the future? Elmer, you're a family farmer, what's your view of this? Well, I think the family farm is an important factor now, you know, it has been, it always will be. We're going to change. We're going to have to change. We have changed through the years, but through the years, through the coming years, I'm sure that the family farm is going to be able to compete with any corporation farm, and it will always hold its place. You're not terribly concerned then about agriculture being taken over by large corporations? No, not at all. I'm sure Jack that the figures bear out what Elmer is saying that there are just the percentage of all farms which are family farms today is just as great as it was 10 years ago or

20 years ago. And the figure hasn't changed, but it just hasn't changed at all. The family farm is larger, but it's still there. That's absolutely true, Jack, I think that there are many reasons why the family farm is more efficient than the larger unit, and about the only encroachment I can see in this percentage wise is inconsequential, is the case of a few wealthy individuals who like to use the farms a play thing, and take income tax losses on it to bounce out their other enterprises. I think I can explain part of that. You see the city man buys a farm and he expects a 7% return, and that's about how he gets. He gets 5% 2% in real money, and then about 5% in five, and that's about the percentage. There are several suggested remedies for our farm surpluses that everyone seems to agree with, but little seems to be done with them.

Now one of these is the increased industrial uses of farm products. There's been legislation proposed in that direction. There's been quite a little research along that line. Do you fellas think there is much real help in store for increasing the industrial use of farm products? I sure think there is eventually, Jack, but the next year, two years, even five years, ten years, this is one thing that's certainly not going to bail us out of our problems, and we must keep on with the research. We in Nebraska, you know, are leading the country in the way of state research. We have a program of agricultural research here on industrial uses that may show the way to a great deal of accomplishment in this field, but it can't solve the whole problem overnight certainly.

Ralph, do you see any hope in this direction? Well, I think it's a thing that should be done. I believe that we should keep a strong research program on industrial uses of farm products. I'm perhaps a little less optimistic than Marvin. I think we'll do well to hold our own with industry even with such a program. Right. Now another one of these laudable goals is the use of our farm surpluses for foreign countries, particularly those which do not now raise enough food of their own. Do you think there's much hope in this direction? How do you view this? Well I'm sure we can do a lot of good in that field, Jack. As I see this, it wouldn't solve the problem, but it's one of the things that will add up to help the situation and give us a real good name and for an aid. We know there are starving people in the world who need the surplus that we are burdened

with, if I may use that word. And I'm sure that there are people in several countries of the world. That would certainly welcome some of our surplus production. Now do we run a risk there in perhaps alienating some of our friendly nations who also have surpluses in wheat, for instance. Marvin, is there a danger there? Well sure this is a problem. We can't go out and scuttle the markets of Canada, for instance, our good neighbor to the north by giving wheat to the people who would buy their wheat. But it seems to me there might be an approach through the United Nations where all the surplus producing countries could get together and really look the world over and see where these things are needed and go together to provide some of this help. It seems to me we talk about two different things and when we talk about feeding the hungry and feeding and ruling the world market for someone else.

I'm talking about the people who don't get a hold of the wheat that they buy from our friendly neighbors. These are the people we want to feed with our surpluses, the people who have nothing and there are plenty. Now there's one other proposed solution that both political parties I believe have included in their platforms and that's for the establishment of a strategic reserve of food in case of atomic attack or some other disaster. Ralph, do you think there's any chance of doing anything in this line? I believe there is, Jack. That is a proposal made by our friend Walter Geppinger over at Boone Island. He's been working on that diligently for the past six months and presented his views before the platform committees of both parties and it was rather encouraging to see that both of them recognized that proposal and wrote it into their platforms. It does look as though it has a place and I might go further and say that we hear so much

about this surplus that we have $10 billion worth of farm products and yet to something like half of that perhaps is really a strategic reserve against war or some other emergency. And if converted into usable items of food in place where the people in New York and Chicago and other cities can get it in case of atomic attack, it might be very, very useful. I hope our next Secretary of Agriculture will emphasize this to city folks a little. Do you feel then that our President Secretary of Agriculture perhaps has not emphasized the farmer's problem as he should? I've had the feeling that he's been busy spanking farmers and has really been spanking the wrong baby, well said. I'm sure then your gentleman would agree that during the coming weeks ahead of our election, here in the Midwest we're going to hear a great deal more about the farm problem and that

it will be a vital factor in our election. Would that be agreed by all? I certainly would. Probably will be. Fine. Now this is Jack Hard and Lincoln Nebraska. Now back to Ted Higgins at National Educational Television. Marvin Russell, editor of the Nebraska farmer and the Colorado farmer and rancher, put the issue for the farmer in brief terms. Some way or other supply and demand must be brought into balance. And a farmer Ralph Cole says, if you turn agriculture loose it would mean bankruptcy for many of them. The farmer too shows how long is the memory of the man on the farm. At the turn of the century, one in four of America's people were on the farm. Today it's less than one in ten and the depression of the thirties is for the farmer a powerful memory. He knows that fewer farmers today have fewer votes, perhaps less influence in sheer numbers. But the Nebraska farmer points to the need for a strong agriculture if we are to have

a strong country. There were a few warning lines for everyone in the conversation of these grassroots voters in Nebraska. The farm has had an experience that is now coming powerfully to industry. In industry, the word is automation. On the farm it's mechanization, but the word is less important than the fact. With mechanization, there is more production and markets must be found for those products. And the Nebraska's were reminding us how fortunate we are that our problem is a food surplus. They reminded us that with starving people in our world, we'd better keep a healthy agriculture if we are to feed a world of more people. The family farm is larger, but it's still there. Nebraska's find it efficient, but they suggest that it has to be increased in size, brought into line with 1960 techniques. And they count its value not just as a business, but as a builder of citizens. The national policy, the party platforms, and the Nebraska farmers all agree here.

Both parties accept the proposition that the problem of the American farmer must be resolved. They differ on how the plight of the farmer, and it's really the plight of each of us, is for 1960 the issue on which the battle will be joined. For the man on the land, for the man in the city, the farm issue compels attention. To give it that attention, let's go to Rolling North Carolina and any T Affiliate W-U-N-C-T-V. Our correspondent there, Jim Reed. We should like to have you meet the members of our panel who will take part in this discussion from Rolling North Carolina. First of all, Mr. Jim Graham. Mr. Graham is manager of the big Rolly Farmers Market here in the capital city of North Carolina, to which produce materials are brought from all over the section of the southeast. Next to Mr. Graham is Mrs. Annette Boutwell. Mrs. Boutwell is a homemaker.

She, as we have said, is interested in the cost of living, the cost of farm products when they get to her home, and what she can do to keep the cost of products down as far as her family is concerned. Next to Mrs. Boutwell is Graham Jones. Graham is a newspaper man. He's had extensive experience in covering news events throughout North Carolina and this part of the country. He knows quite a bit about the farm problem, where interested in his ideas. And finally, a businessman, Mr. John Hunter. Mr. Hunter is manager of the big Sears Robuck and Company store here in Rolling North Carolina. And his ideas from a businessman's point of view should be interesting too. All panel, let's talk a little bit about agriculture as we see it here in North Carolina. Some of the things that are going to be facing us and we're going to think about between now and election time. The first thing that comes to my mind is the fact that North Carolina's per capita income has been held down through a combination of a great number of small farms and low per

farm income. Now, do you members of the panel feel that political factors are involved in this problem? Mr. Graham? Well, certainly the political implications will have some definite bearing, however I'm of the opinion, that's my personal opinion, that economically speaking that we should have larger size units, but with the importance of the small family type farm here in North Carolina, we definitely need them and there's backbone of the state and we certainly don't want to get rid of them. Do you think then that the fact we've got small farms does tie in with one political aspect or another then? Well, I know for telling a small farm you take a lot of men, a lot of people can make good living of four or five acres but growing several thousand dollars, for instance.

Well, so I'm up on favor of seeing the small family type farm abandoned. I will agree, however, that the larger unit that a man can efficiently manage the better opportunity he'll have for success. Well, Mr. Hunter, can you give us some idea of your impressions about this? Well, I think it has a great political implication in that I think the history of our farm programs nationally has caused the smaller farm to stay on the farm because the subsidies or the different commodities he raised, he's been able to receive from the federal government money over the years that has kept him on the farm rather than to go out and seek employment in industry. Mr. Graham, you got it? Well, I'd like to ask Mr. Hunter a question, can this man engage in the family's small farm and will industry accept him? That's my real worry, of course, I'll agree that we need subsidy or some type of assistance for the small farmer.

And I'm strongly in favor of it because the other fees of our economy are subsidized as well. I would prefer to see him operating a free enterprise but I certainly think that the small Famicized Farm should be subsidized as other fees of our economy. Gentlemen, you've hit this a little bit here right now, but one thing that comes up, we've talked about the political implications of it and maybe there's some more to it too. Because we have had a policy in this country, I believe, nationally of favoring the family farm. Well, now, maybe in many parts of the country that day is over, we're getting more and more to big types of farms. Should we change our policy? Should we try to nationally reverse the trend and get back to smaller farms? You think that would be better? Jim, you're talking about it. Well, I don't know, I've been in my opinion, I know Secretary Benson, I don't agree with his policies, Secretary of Agriculture.

And it seems to me like with the help of the economists of the country, which I'm not economists, I don't protest to be, that it seems to me like it's been geared to get rid of the family type farm. Of course, you can argue about what is a family type farm, where there's 2,000 acres or 18 or 20. But it seems to me like the trend is now, back toward the family farmers that have away from it. I think we're leading ourselves into the destruction if we don't maintain and sustain the family type farm in America. Do you think that's more efficient to Jim or John? Well, I think it certainly is going to have to be efficient. I just don't think he can wipe them off. Of course, they're going to have to be subsidized to maintain their place in society. I'd rather hear from Graham Jones here, he'd been writing about it. Well, Graham, Jim, certainly a family size farm in North Carolina is important as it is throughout the nation.

And it is true that there's been a mass exodus in this state and in other states. I would question whether the family size farm had been encouraged in the last possibly seven and a half years. Well, gentlemen, let's talk about something else a little bit. We talk about encouraging small farms. We get into the business. The words already been mentioned subsidy. The fact that we do have subsidies for some very important crops, as far as we're concerned here in North Carolina. What about subsidies, Jim? Why not just cancel them and have them done away with completely? What would happen? Well, certainly I would like to be the first to admit, would like to see agriculture, even though dynamic as it is, be able to operate in a free society, free enterprise, but in order to compete with the trend of times and economically speaking, we must have some form of subsidy.

In other words, to assure the farmer or the country that he will be paid a fair price for the crops that he produces. In other words, I'll just say this here in North Carolina, we know our number one case crop is tobacco. If it's subsidy, if it's sports, that have voted but tobacco farmers were suspended. There's cancel out. I think it'd be just like cutting all red lights down a favorable street, about everyone over the top beach. Other than being one of the worst impressions this nation has ever seen, that was my opinion of that. That's what I think it means, and just like the week to the mid-western farmer. Jim? Yes, ma'am. I want to interrupt here. You're using the word subsidy and then support. I just like to object to the word subsidy. I want to say one thing in favor of the farmer. When you say subsidy, it means in case it's done a poor job, but you can't say it's done a poor job when over the past few years, it used to take 40 or 50 percent of our population just to produce food in fiber for the rest of us.

And today, it's around 9 percent that is providing food in fiber for 91 percent. And I don't think that indicates inefficiency, and I am for one that is in favor of your small farm, because that is a family unit, and it's still the backbone of the nation. And once we destroy that independent living, well, I think we've destroyed the moral fiber of this country. Along the lines of what a net was saying, Jim, ma'am, you know, there's a difference between parity and charity, what is paid to the farmer is, and I suspect we'll get some disagreement over here. What is paid to the farmer is no different than what is paid, for instance, to the airlines or any industry that has the protection of tariffs or any industry that uses bulk mail rates or all the thousands and other industries and units of our society that are subsidized or directly or indirectly by the government, which has by the way been going on since George

Washington's time. Well, you'd agree that support is about aware that it's on wares. That's a problem. All right. How are we going to towel this into the political situation as we have it? Is one party, one group advocating one thing is another party traditionally associated with the subsidies that we're talking about? What's the outlook as far as the country is concerned and as far as we hear in North Carolina are concerned? Jim, you got an idea? Well, certainly, it must have some meaning or we know from the reading in the papers that we hear much discussion about a farm bill and about the appropriations for agriculture. I personally feel that there's something will be done for agriculture, we call it necessary. One thing about the political implication, I wish to bring out here, and that is that you read a lot about the amount of money that's appropriated. I think in excess of $4 billion for agriculture.

But now that does not mean that the farmer himself receives that. I think the figure is something less than $1 billion actually goes to the farmer in support prices. The other is for the protection of the urban areas, the form of milk inspection, meat inspection, and lunchroom programs, and stockpiling, that type of thing. Of course, it's got a lot of political implications. I have my own beliefs and I'm very opposed to some of them and we should have them corrected and improved. I'd like to hear from my business friend over here a little bit. He's been mighty calm, Mr. Reed. Go ahead, Mr. Hunter. Well, I think it has the political application of either Democrat or Republican. I don't know if it's going to make any difference, which one wins, because I think that the foreign problem is going to be with either party that wins.

Now as to what they're going to do about it, I think it's something that they would like to not discuss themselves. To me, the only difference between the two parties is the difference in the percentage of parity, how much subsidy they're going to give. Well, Republicans, they don't believe in a slide in flexible scale and the Democratic party believes in a 90% of full parity. Well being a Democrat, I can't see why the Democrats have not, since they've control the Congress for the last seven years or six years, why they hadn't already done something for the farmer. Well, by the same token that they haven't been in position, or they couldn't, because they have the Secretary of Agriculture and his program is going along with the President. And that has made it a little more difficult there. I don't think, of course, a lot of things have to work itself out, but politically it can be of help, because to assure this nation of continued prosperity, and because we

don't have a strong stable agriculture. And the farm, man, along this places aside, we just won't have a strong nation, it's about referred to there a while ago. And I don't worry about agriculture, because I know it's important, because this world population continues to expand and explode, and well, we just must have a strong agriculture, and it must be worked out by the leaders of this country. Of course, I think that you won't be going to see in the next two or three days, some changes, but what each party will do. But it seems funny to me that Mr. Nixon would drop Mr. Benson after praising for seven and a half years. That's hard for me to understand. All right, Mr. Graham. Ms. Boutlow, anything you want to add in here about this? Yes, I do. As a tax payer and as a consumer. Now from one platform to the other, as Mr. Graham and Mr. Hunter have mentioned, I haven't seen where they have promised the consumer a reduced food price.

Now, I've... Well, you mean the food price, now, when you go to the store... But I'll pay it. Well, it's going up. Well, you go by, and that's service, you're not paying for food, you're paying for two services. Well, that's true, but anyway, the price of food keeps going up month by month. And over the past, well, last month, there's, now, it's gone up another one percent. Well, now, where is the ceiling? What can we anticipate? Now, what... We hear all what they're paying, the farm of this, they're paying, uh, uh, support price for this, that or the other. Well, now, I want to know where we can expect a ceiling to be placed on food prices, because the family budget is going to stretch just so far. Well, that's a very different question to answer, and I'm concerned about two, because you just referred to that the food cost increase, uh, say, one percent or two percent, well, then that doesn't reflect to the farm, because the farmer's income is decreasing all the time.

Well, I've read that too, but the cost of food keeps going up, so where is it going? Maybe I could pick up one statement of Mr. Graham in that, uh, I have not seen in writing a herd in voice where either of the political parties has a concrete farm program, all it's most vague as to what they are going to do for the farmer, if anything, other than just, uh, maybe it'll go away. Well, I'm not an authority, uh, Mr. Hunter on the Republican plank. I have had a chance to read the Democratic plank, and the Democratic plank says that they will do what President Eisenhower bought a way promised to do in 1952, when it was campaigning for office, and somehow, God lost, I believe, Mr. Graham in the process, that was 90 percent of parity. Now, as I said, I'm not an authority on the Republican plank, on that matter, I'm sure they have one. Yeah, but that is only one phase of the farm problem, is the parity question, and so far is the rest of the farm problems are concerned, uh, they've only discussed one phase, 90 percent

of parity. There's other phases of a farm problem, rather than the commodities, it must have parity. And distribution, of course, is a big, big problem. Well, it, it seems to me, then, we've got some, some very interesting aspects here about the fact that, uh, that all of us here in North Carolina, this is a representative group are pretty concerned with agriculture, and the fact that somebody's got to do something about it. Graham, what did we ever do, what did the farmer ever do before the government stepped in here, were these, uh, these controls and aids and help, so how did the farmer get along? Well, they just had a bad existence, uh, he, uh, either run, financial crop, uh, with bankers, and, uh, more of his year to year, and he just, uh, that's one of the reasons that, uh, that his standard of living, uh, reached the position it, it did, I, uh, as I say, if the farmer can be assured of a fair price, for what he produces in sales and

open-free marketing comparison to what he buys, then, uh, he'll be able to, uh, take care of himself. I, uh, I am fully realizing with what my friend, uh, Mr. Hunter, thanks, and, uh, in rest of the panel, I know a lot of people think they can understand why that it doesn't, that we don't, uh, receive help from the government aid for my business or that business, but just remember that, uh, that there's a set, set, uh, figure there for measures of profit. And, uh, the farmer and agriculture of people of the nation just bare had a bad existence. That's the reason that we're in the shape we were for a while. Isn't it true that the reason that, uh, we still have this great problem is that the politicians want the problem because there are more voters in the farm section, uh, engaged in farming in any other industry. No, at this time, I don't think, John, that's one of the thing that, uh, let's see, there's

about 12 percent of the people engaged in farming, and only 88 percent of the people engaged in non farming. But it's just as important to that man in that urban area because without a strong dynamic exploding agriculture, you're set for this, uh, we just can't expect to continue. John, well, that's, that's a real point to think about and to talk about right here. I think we have agreed that here in North Carolina, uh, we've got more people working in agriculture than we have any other form of employment. That is either on the farm or in some, uh, business that is associated with agriculture. That is moving the crops to market or packaging. That's at the business, John. Agribusiness is the word that we use here in the Tar Heel State. And, uh, as one of you said, the farmer has been a real big political power in the past. Now, as we get more and more, uh, toward people living in cities, do you think that the farmer's political power has, uh, faded a little bit? Do you think that our political leaders in the country, uh, have taken a, have a tendency

to, to mention the farm plank in a platform and then go right onto something else. Or do you think that this year, the farmer is really going to be a big thing as far as politics is concerned? How about? Well, it's certainly there's a national in it, it's certainly there's North Carolina. If you're the judge, Jim, by the amount of, uh, space that Mr. Nixon has had refuting, uh, the policies of the administration of which he has been associated with, and if you're the judge by recent campaigns in this state, it surely will play, uh, the former surely will play a major role in this political campaign, the extent of it, as I said, has already been indicated. I like that. It's up there. I think historically, uh, our national leaders, the majority of them have come from farms, are farm areas. And I think the majority of our, uh, leaders today are coming from those same areas. And I think it has a great political implication because the, uh, the farmer still is the greatest voter in eye section of the country, and they're going to send the people who, uh, will

be their representatives. So it is definitely political in North Carolina. Well, another thing is the farmer's contribution, um, it's important, right, today because we can do it without a lot of manufactured goods, but we cannot do without food and fiber. And with the expected explosion in population rate, and with the farm, the percent of the population engaged in farming, well, then more and more demand is going to be placed on him to produce more. Now, I don't want to hit the surplus angle right here, but, uh, his place is important, and I think is going to be even more important in the years ahead. I agree with you, Ms. Baltimore. Well, I think the surplus is something we might mention because, uh, part of this business of support and so forth, you actually get paid or the intubation is that you get paid for not doing so and so where there are certain sections of the world who do not have enough

food. Do we have a moral issue there that maybe ought to transcend, uh, the, the man at this end? What do you think about that? Well, some, as I mentioned a few minutes ago about food distribution, uh, Jim is one of the real problems of the nation and one of the real problems of agriculture. And, uh, we read about and know that people go, some people go to bed at night hungry. Well, certainly they must be some reasons why that, uh, we can't work out, do something about that. And I think some of the, uh, late CERN to Scott recently, some years ago, referred to a food bank for distribution. And to me, food is not surplus. Food is, is, is, is vital and food must be distributed, uh, in some matter into these countries and maybe some of them don't want them. I don't know, but I know that agriculture and food distribution is vital to our livelihood. Do you think the thing then is that, uh, we shouldn't raise more food if we don't know

what to do it, if we don't have a distribution then to, to get it to, we have, we have some distribution there. And, uh, of course you see, uh, we can produce whatever it needs to be produced. The farmer was called upon in 1953 to reach these goals and he did, he went out and produced them. Uh, he didn't produce just to let the market. He produced it because he's, he's the man of it. It's, it's demanded of him, but, uh, this, uh, this problem pertaining to this sur, the surplus drain and so forth, but with the proper distribution in time, I think the new farm program, Graham, will, will help eliminate some of this problem. Graham, how much hope that it will be done? Graham, do you agree with that? I, I, I certainly do, Jim. I'd like to back up just a second while we're talking about, uh, surpluses and go back to a previous question that, uh, Jim Graham spoke to so well. And that is this, but for a parody in this state, at least we knew that as a five cent, tobacco and five cent cotton date in with Jim and a merchant family and the most merchants

in the city and the industries in the city suffered and a rep proportion that we all remember nationally in the Midwest and throughout, uh, the east and throughout certainly the south. Those, uh, days and the early 20s, when the farmers were having depression and nobody in the city, it, it seemed at that time was much concerned, but pretty soon it got around to the city about 1929, it got around the Wall Street and we have, uh, suffered since that time. All right. It looks to be like that we all agreed, no matter which way we look at it, that somebody's got to do something about the farmer and we're vitally interested in it. Our time is up. Uh, members of the panel, thank you so much for being with us from the North Carolina point of view. Our panelists here have been Jim Graham, manager of the Rolly Farmers Market, a man who's particularly concerned with the farmer and his, uh, outlook on the crop situation. Next to him is, uh, Annette Boutwell, a housewife, a homemaker who has a family to think about

the price of things there. Graham Jones, one of our top newspaper men of the state who has followed, uh, North Carolina and agriculture from one end of the state to the other, and John Hunter, who is manager of the big seer's rubuck store in Rolly North Carolina. That's it. This is Jim Reed returning you to Ted Higgins at National Educational Television. In North Carolina, the discussion was with people affected by the way the farmer works and earns and the impact of the farms on the cities is clear. They remember the farm depression and remind us that it began in the 20s with 5 cent cotton and 5 cent tobacco by the 30s that had hit the cities and the nation. Jim Reed closed the discussion with, somebody has got to do something about the farmer and we're vitally interested. So are the parties. The democratic platform offers to increase consumption at home, increase consumption abroad, improve marketing practices, and promises loans on basic commodities at not less than

90 percent of parity. Everybody by the way is a method of establishing value for farm goods. It's arrived at by a complicated formula designed to pay the farmer on a scale something like the scales that prevail in other parts of the economy. It's intended to provide him with a reasonable level of earnings even when he's faced with a glut on the market, bad weather conditions and the like. And to farmers, it's a magic word. The democrats charge the republican administration with a 30 percent drop in farm income and with forcing tens of thousands of farmers off the farm. The republican platform opens its section on farm policy by pointing out that are the best fed, best clothed people in the world. But ads, too many farmers have gone unrewarded for their part in this achievement. The republicans charge that the democratic controlled congress has clung to outmoded programs designed for different times and different problems.

The republican platform offers a strategic food reserve, efforts to distribute surpluses to schools and needy citizens, new cooperative efforts to feed the hungry nations, and they offer a crash program to develop industrial uses of farm products. The republican platform doesn't put a specific percentage of the parity price they'll support. The republican platform uses the words price supports at levels best suited to specific commodities. Charge and countercharge, promise and counter promise. That is the pattern for the election. With farms faced with apparently permanent surplus production. With the family farm a strong national policy. With the farmers switching his vote increasingly. This will be one of the hardest fought issues of the election. The issue is local, irrigated west or humid south, the dairy farm near the city and the city itself, and your vote will be local. But its impact will be national, far more city wherever you live.

You will vote on this issue and election day is November 8th. Produced for the National Educational Television and Radio Center. This grassroots voter program on the farm issues originated in Raleigh, North Carolina at WUNC-TV and in Lincoln, Nebraska at KUN-TV. Committing for National Educational Television was TFX Higgins. This is National Educational Television.