Mcallen Daily Monitor

A WASHINGTON DAYBOOK

By

HERBERT PLUMMER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1. - One of the most successful methods employed by the republican high command in the present campaign to get a "rise" out of the democrats has been to charge that "new deal" relief expenditures have been speeded to the country just at election time.

Chairman Fletcher of the republican national committee sent Secretary Wallace of agriculture into something akin to a rage by his charge that AAA checks to western corn-hog producers were being held up for political purposes. A "contemptible" charge was the way Wallace characterized it.

AAA's explanation for the delay was that corn-hog contracts just recently have been cleared through regular machinery. Chester Davis, farm administrator, admits that an increase in farmers' income always is likely to affect elections "because the farm situation in my 17 years of observation always has been closely identified with politics."

"What is happening now, however," he says, "is evidence that the administration is doing something positive about the problem."

Accounting For Money

What irks "anti-new dealers" is that the 3,000,000 or more cotton, wheat, corn-hog, tobacco and sugar growers who signed contracts to cooperate with AAA crop control plans are to receive a total of $900,000,000 in federal money.

Where is it to come from? Does it loom as an obligation to threaten the nation's financial set-up?

AAA says "no" and cites its own estimates and treasury figures as proof. These show that to date processing taxes have brought in more than $500,000,000 or some $100,000,000 more than has been paid out to the farmers in benefits.

The processing tax, paid by the consumer, during the months ahead will reach sufficient proportions, according to AAA estimates, to balance its budget.

For And Against

The G. O. P. was quick to interpret the recent national referendum of corn and hog raisers as evidence of growing opposition to "regimentation." In Kansas the farmers voted against continuance of the program.

The general percentage for the corn belt was about 65 per cent in favor and 35 per cent opposed.

Those who sponsored the referendum, however, have a different explanation. They say that possibly the drought, which will cause a shortage in corn next year, prompted many to vote nay because of a belief they could make a "killing," if crops are good, without cooperating with the government.

Then, too, they explain many farmers are buyers of corn and they are not in favor of any plan which increases the cost to them.

And finally many farmers were irritated and unwilling to go on because of the manifest complications and difficulty in operation, of the first year's program.