The Farmers' Decision

From the narrow stubbles of Vermont to the vast fields of Kansas, U.S. wheat farmers last week filed into courthouses one-room schools, community meeting halls and country stores to make a decision. The question they faced was one of both principle and pocketbook. Should they accept stern federal control of wheat production in return for high price supports, or should they take their chances in a free market?

Only about half of the eligible farmers voted, but their decision was clear-cut: for Government marketing quotas 361,000; against, 53,000. To throw the'quota machinery into gear, the favorable vote had to be at least two-thirds of the vote cast. It was 87.2%, the biggest margin U.S. farmers have ever given a Government grain-quota proposal.

Why Vote for Less? Everywhere, the farmers' reasons for voting yes were basically the same: a yes vote meant a support price of $2.20 a bushel with quotas; a no vote meant $1.20 without them. In Washington, Ind., where Daviess County farmers marked ballots in the stone courthouse, windburned Norman Lawyer (who has 136 acres of wheat) asked a basic question: "Why should any farmer vote to cut the wheat price support in half?" Said Tom Graham, who plants 600 acres of wheat on his 3,000-acre farm north of Washington: "If wheat price supports fell to 50% it would hurt not only the farmer but every businessman in this county." Added Edna Dougherty, whose husband has 30 acres of wheat on his 120-acre farm: "After all, unions protect the laboring man, and these controls are what protect the farmers."

Up the Ladder. Mrs. Dougherty's analogy, diffuse as it was, indicated how many a farmer explained away the paradox of disliking Government interference while voting for more. From 1920 on, U.S. farmers fought relentlessly for a standard of living on a par with that of city dwellers. The first real attempt to help them on a national scale, the McNary-Haugen bill, got through Congress, but was vetoed by Calvin Coolidge in 1927 and again in 1928. The Agricultural Adjustment Acts of the '303 finally began to raise the farmer's position on the U.S. economic ladder During World War II, the farmer raced higher: export markets were virtually un limited, prices were pegged at 90% of parity to stimulate production, and acreage was unrestricted. Finally he had money for electric lights, refrigerators, home freezers, television sets, college tuition and, in many cases, Cadillacs. When farm prices began to slip early last year, the farmer began to fear that his newly found standard of living was slipping away too An understanding of the farmer's attitude was reflected in what Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, a bitter foe of regimentation, had to say about the wheat vote: "Farmers have made a wise decision--a decision in their own best interests."

Echoes to Come. Inevitably, the wheat quota vote will send political echoes bouncing all through 1954. Some Republicans believe that the vote was politically good for them. Their theory: wheat farmers, with their crop still firmly supported will have little cause to be angry at the party in power. The loudest and probably the most important echoes will be heard when Congress comes to grips with farm policy next year. The vote undoubtedly will be used as an argument for continuing the rigid 90%-of-parity supports, instead f adopting a sliding scale which would lower the support level when surpluses pile up.

As Congress faces the farm problem next year, all but one of the six basic farm crops will be under some form of federal control (see BUSINESS). The U.S. will be looking to the Administration and Congress for a plan that will curtail surpluses in the granary and deficits in the treasury. Finding such a plan will be no easy task, and the farmers' decision last week made it no easier.

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