The Augusta Courier

Republican Party's Farm Policy Brings Distress To Geo

Reasons For Plight In Rural Areas Of State Are Reviewed By Senator Russell

The decline in farm income is causing acute distress in the rural areas of Georgia, according to Senator Richard B. Russell.

In a speech made at the annual Chamber of Commerce banquet in LaGrange, Georgia, on October 22, 1959, the Senator blamed this condition upon the Secretary of Agriculture.

According to Russell there is only one remedy and that is to get rid of Benson.

Here's what he said:

In assessing our present and future economic progress, we must not ignore the urgent problems that are confronting some vital elements of our state's economy. These problems must be met and solved if we are to achieve our goal of a balanced and healthy economy.

Distress In Rural Areas

One such problem that is causing acute distress in the rural areas of Georgia is the continued slump in farm income. Nationally, farm income has dropped 17 percent since 1952 and still appears to be sliding downward. Our farmers have been caught in a vicious squeeze between falling prices and rising costs. Some of them literally are being squeezed off the land.

The farm pinch in Georgia has been particularly painful and cruel. Between 1952 and 1957, farm income in Georgia dropped from $394 million to $312 million.

In sharp contrast, this has been a period of prosperity for our non-farm people generally. Non-farm income in Georgia between 1952 and 1957 increased by more than a billion dollars.

Denied Fair Share

That our farmers should thus be denied their fair share of our national prosperity and wealth is not merely a national tragedy. It is a national disgrace.

The plight of our farmers has been brought about in large part by the irrational, impractical and unworkable farm theories of the Republican administration and the Republican Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson.

Secretary Benson has undertaken to solve the problem of farm surpluses through the simple process of driving down prices by lowering or abolishing farm price supports. But his price-busting practice has backfired; it actually has resulted in greater farm production and greater surpluses through the stimulus of lower prices.

Greatest Spendthrift

Despite Benson's claims to the contrary, the record shows that he has been able to wring from Congress much of the authority he wanted to reduce price supports. He has, in fact, brought about a reduction of 20 percent in the average of all price supports. Yet government-held surpluses have increased by 300 per cent since he took office.

And speaking of spenders! The expenditures by the Department of Agriculture since Benson took office now amount to more than 31 BILLION dollars. This is more than was spent by all previous secretaries combined since the Agriculture Department was created in 1862.

Unfortunately, there is little that can be done to restore sense and solvency to the farm program so long as Benson remains in office. He has prevailed upon the President to veto every attempt by