I read with great interest the excellent editorial in the Monday issue of the Washington Post entitled "Adaptive Agriculture." The editorial analyzes and vigorously disagrees with the recommendations of the Committee on Economic Development which call for cutting the farm labor force from 5.5 million to 3.5 million over a 5year period at which time agriculture would be on a free market with no further Government subsidy. A was glad to see the forthright position the Washington Post took against the CED proposals. The editorial rightly points out that the controls now in effect on rice. peanuts. tobacco. and cotton have not produced intolerable policing measures. that production controls hold out a larger hope for a prosperous rural America than the CEDs proposals for returning agriculture to the free play of the market. that the outlook for more rapid emigration from agriculture and for its easy absorption in nonfarm industry Is not good. and that such absorption would seriously diminish buying power in rural America to the severe detriment of the 45 to 50 million rural. nonfarm people in towns and villages across the land. We are dealing with human beings. not statistics. I agree 100 percent with the Washington Post stand that "the coercion of farm prices at poverty levels will not be needed to force the efficient use of manpower." I highly recommend the editorial which follows to the attention of all my colleagues:
Keywords matched
emigration