Agricultural relief: Agricultural relief

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1831932415

Document type:: Multivolume work

Title:: Agricultural relief

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: Gov. Pr. Off.

Year of publication:: 1928

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1831932598

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-232069

Document type:: Volume

Title:: Agricultural relief

Volume count:: Pt. 1

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: Gov. Pr. Off.

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: III, 69 S.

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Statement of Chester H. Gray, Washington representative of the American Farm Bureau Federation

Collection:: Economics Books

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF al Commencing several years ago, remarking somewhat upon the evolutionary growth of the farm-relief idea, this committee considered that the surplus was not the question. The fundamental objective varied in the different farm relief bills back yonder; but every farm relief bill now, which is presented, including the one I am talking about, confesses that the surplus is the question. I want to call attention to the evolutionary progress made in farm relief. We have gone from a position several years ago, where in farm relief, we were talking about various ideas of relief, to the position where we are talking now about the same idea; namely, surplus disposition and control. This is true, whether the bill is the one we are talking about now or any of the others which have come before this committee. Another point we have progressed along is that in years past, those bills which have carried the equalization principle had different methods for putting that principle into operation. In the first bills carrying the equalization principle the fee was assessed directly on the producer and any residue of the fee, after an operation period had concluded, was allocated back to the producer. That condition in the bills prior to this one gave rise to lots of discussion, much controversy, and a great deal of misunderstanding about the equal- ization plan for disposing of surpluses. We have elvolved, we have progressed, if I may use that latter word, to the point where, in the present bill, the individual producer, so far as the equalization fee is concerned, does not come into contact with the fee, except that he gets the benefit from the stabilization and perhaps a slight hightening of the market price of the commodity which he gets for his product. In this bill, about which I am speaking, the producer, whether he is marketing cotton; peanuts, or what not, does not pay the equali- zation fee; he does not get back as a residue any amount of money which might be left in the stabilization fund after marketing, or after the operation period has been concluded. That is perhaps a part of the progress which has been made and which did not exist in the former bills. Let it be definitely understood that the equalization plan in this bill does not collect this fee from the individual producer. The equalization fee, or the fee left after the period of operation is con- cluded, does not go back to the individual producer, but the fee is collected from the commodity at the most convenient point where that commodity flows through the direct channels of commerce of our country, and if any residue is left in a particular stabilization fund, that residue is retained by the Federal Farm Board for use in a subsequent operation period of the same commodity. Another progress or another point of evolution which farm relief has gone through is that several years ago farm relief was started on account of a wheat situation in the Pacific Northwest. It was an emergency situation which the farm relief bills in those States sought to cure. Sometime later the emergency situation removed into the mid-West with referemce to corn, there being an emergency situation in the production of corn. The producers thereof were desperately situated, and the bills at that time were spoken of as a temporary way of meeting this emergency situation. . Some time later, an emergency situation appeared with reference to cotton, either in an overproduction or at least, if not that, a large

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Agricultural relief (Pt. 1)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation