mercial agriculture. They're part of our community. And so as a representative of a farm organization, an organization of commercial farmers, we welcome them into our organization if they are part-time farmers, but we are not primarily concerned with their other problems. We are primarily concerned with the folks who are in commercial agriculture.

On the other hand, rural community problems are of concern to us. The economic and adjustment problems of low income rural residents are not farm problems but actually problems for all America, for business, labor, church, education, government; all the different groups in this community where these folks live and where the effect of their lack of adequate income is so important.

Our task is to approach the solution of these problems in a sound manner and while there are social implications, I believe the low income problem of this segment of rural people is primarily an economic problem. Therefore, the solutions must be economic as well as social.

The greatest danger in relieving underemployment in agricultural areas is that politicians will capture the initiative before we have a chance to apply sound economic and social solutions to the problems.

We should first see what the problem is. I'm not going to try to describe it in all its ramifications, but simply say that I believe it is basically one of education. This is true where you have any group of people, whether in this country or some other nation, who have not been able to earn a satisfactory income.

Underemployment is related to the fact that the level of desires of individuals is not too high. As folks get a better education, their level of desires tends to rise. As your level of desires, together with your basic educational background, improves, you inevitably work harder for the things you want.

So this to me is an individual problem--it is not a problem primarily of government--State, national or even local government--it is not primarily a government problem. It is not primarily an organizational problem. It is a problem of individuals. It is true that government, organizations of all kinds--farm organizations, labor, church, service clubs, chambers of commerce, PTA's, women's organizations, veterans, youth--all these organizations can make a contribution to the improvement of the individual's opportunity to do better.

But again we need to know more specifically what these problems are. I mentioned a moment ago that we need better statistics. I want to emphasize that because there have been some checks made on the census figures which indicate that you can't accept these income figures at their face value. Many of the folks in my community believe that the employees of the census or the USDA make their statistics available to Internal Revenue, and as a result you cannot depend on census income statistics. They do not accurately report their income. So when somebody tells me there are so many million people living out here on farms with an income of less than $1,000, I automatically discount it

because I know it's not true. They cannot live at such a low level of cash income. We need better statistics.

The second point I wish to make is that there is an area for governmental activity. It is very definitely limited. The greatest limitation on any government activity to help individuals is at the national level. What impact can the national government have on individuals? It can have some, of course, but it is very limited.

If this is a problem of improvement for the individual in the way of better education, lifting the level of his desires, increasing his initiative, increasing opportunities--if this is primarily a problem of individuals, then the government can do very little. We need proper coordination between the different governmental agencies that touch the individual. Government can be helpful in securing better statistics. Government can be helpful in determining the general direction that these programs go by being sure that they go in the direction of helping the individual plan for his future, rather than planning for the individual's future by government. But in large part the Federal government activities are very strictly limited in this area. State government can do a little more. We've all seen examples where State governments have developed vocational training schools on an area basis and where State extension service programs have been geared to meet the needs of particular communities. State and Federal government cooperation is important but even the State government is quite far removed from the individual and always will be. And so the State governments' opportunity to help these folks is definitely limited.

Where you really get into the area of opportunity for government action is down at the community--the county--the local level. And here is where you can reach people. Fortunately many of our governmental agencies have trained, experienced workers at the local level and they can do a great job in helping people help themselves, if that is the direction in which the program is pointed by State and national leadership.

There is opportunity here for the extension service to be effective. I have been a little alarmed because a few extension workers have felt that the opportunities in agriculture were becoming restricted and so they turned to urban service. They show folks how to prune rose bushes and spray cabbage and that sort of thing.

Here are these vast areas of opportunity to work with people in rural communities who have possibilities to improve their earnings in agriculture or some other occupation, and yet a few who could help are sitting in offices answering telephones to tell people how to get rid of cabbage worms and mildew

on roses.

I could make the same comments about some other areas of government agricultural service.

Here is a wonderful opportunity for all of the various agencies working with agricultural people to redirect their programs so that they are aimed at serving the needs of the individual and the individuals in a rural community. Much of the activity of government has been directed at improving agriculture

as a whole, increasing the total farm income or the average individual farm income, saving so many acres by soil conservation, or reclaiming millions of acres by flood control or reclamation projects.

We like great national totals--they look impressive. What does all this avail if we have not helped the individual--if we haven't improved his opportunity-- if we haven't done something to cause him to want to provide a better education for his children, if we haven't in some way caused this rural family to raise the level of their desires and their incentive to work to attain those desires.

Many of our programs are directed at community improvement--a very intangible thing--when perhaps we ought to be talking about individual improvement and individual incentives.

I believe that America's low income farmers need more economic and educational elbow-room either to better themselves as farmers or to get jobs off the farm.

One of the real problems in today's society is the underemployed farmer-the man who can't quite make a go of it in his present situation but who can still be quite productive in the right spot, either on or off the farm. Key tools in the solution of his problem are basic education to help him become a more productive person--in either farming or an off the farm occupation. Secondly, there is need for a favorable economic climate which would provide opportunity to earn a better living, whether he stays on the farm or leaves it. And many of these folks will decide to leave.

In this connection our organization is firmly opposed to legislation which in any sense tries to decide who stays and who leaves. Almost everyone will agree that many of the folks on the farm must get into other occupations. Many of them already have; many more will need to. Many young men and women who are born on the farm are going into other occupations.

This is not bad--it is good. Our progress in this nation is related rather directly to the fact that agriculture has become a business of increased efficiency and we have been able to release these millions of workers to go into other businesses and industry and into the service professions. We couldn't have had the tremendous growth in standard of living--and I mean standard of living in its broadest sense--culture, religion, schools--if agricultural efficiency had not improved rapidly and constantly.

This progress in agriculture has meant progress nationally and it will continue. I believe there will be a continuing tendency to produce what we need in the way of food and fiber with a lower percentage of the population. That is a good trend.

However, if this is to happen, we need to have improved basic education and a favorable economic climate for these folks who must make this rather rough adjustment. Political action to keep people in certain occupations is not good for the people or for the nation, and yet this is the intent of many proposals now before Congress.

A good example of the fallacy of the idea that you can decide by political action what is best for people occurred in my own farm neighborhood. A few years ago a fellow with three sons started to farm in our community. During the years of inflation it was relatively easy to secure credit. This fellow bought a tractor for each of his three sons. They had 200 acres of farming land and they had three new tractor outfits--a very unwise and very inefficient kind of operation. One day the banker came to see me and he said, "I've got a note with the tractor as security. What would you do with it?" "Well," I said, "I wouldn't advise anyone to cash in, to take the tractor. I wonder why you were so foolish to have taken this note for this third tractor on 200 acres of cultivated land." He said, "It looked good--he promised to give me his government check. The only trouble is that he made two or three other similar promises."

Now the point of this story is that this man continued in agriculture several years longer than he would have otherwise if there hadn't been a government subsidy check. Congress had decided to encourage this man, who either could not or would not adapt to an efficient business type of agriculture, to continue farming. And what happened? He finally failed and had to quit. The six-year delay hurt him far more than if he had learned that he could not compete at an earlier date. The job that he got was much poorer than if he had been turned out of agriculture six years previously.

Political decisions in economic areas are seldom good for the individual-seldom good for the community--seldom good for the nation.

Above all, the choice between on-farm and off-farm employment should be the farmer's. To enable him to choose wisely he needs knowledge and opportunity--not direction.

The problem of helping the underemployed farmer is one that can best be solved through action of local groups of private citizens working through business, agricultural, civic, labor and other organizations--aided where necessary by local, State and Federal government agencies.

It must be recognized that the underemployed or low income farmer's problem is not entirely a farm problem--it is a social and educational problem. In common with all other citizens, farmers are interested in helping these lowincome families improve their opportunities and ability to earn a satisfactory living through vocational training, information on job opportunities, decentralization of industry or any sound plan to give them the chance to secure productive work.

From the standpoint of agriculture, one of the most serious effects of the current recession is the reduction in opportunities for off-farm employment.

I've been proud of the fact that this is one recession that can't be blamed on agriculture because our prices had started to go up before the recession took off. This discredits the idea that all recessions start with agriculture. We've been down for so long that this recession cannot be charged to agriculture. The farm situation today is one of the bright spots in the picture.

We are interdependent, but no one section of the economy determines what all the rest does.

Any plan or program of activity directed toward improving the position of the low income farm family should be such as to: First, enable the person with the ability and the desire, to continue or get into full-time farming, to get the necessary land, capital and management skill necessary to make a satisfactory living. In other words, if the man has the desire and ability to go into agriculture then we ought to help facilitate this desire in every way practical.

Second--to develop more opportunities for the low income farmer to get

off-farm employment.

Third--to provide the necessary basic educational facilities through schools and vocational training to improve the knowledge and provide the technical skills needed in whatever occupation he chooses.

The Rural Development Program is providing a pattern, on an experimental basis, which may help bring about the adjustments needed to improve the opportunities for low income families, within or outside of agriculture.

County and State Farm Bureaus and other organizations are doing and can do much to speed up this approach and develop similar activities wherever the problem exists.

Basic to any attempt to provide more gainful employment for low income farmers is a favorable national economic climate. This recession is bad enough, but far worse is the possibility that in trying to cure the recession we will rush into unsound Federal spending programs which could stimulate even more inflation in years to come. I was on a panel recently with a very prominent leader in another type of organization. He was advocating unlimited Federal spending and reduced taxes. Of course this is a good way to get elected to office, I understand, but this is not a very good way to provide for the future security and improvement of a free enterprise economy. It is a pretty sure recipe for socialism and an eventual socialistic dictatorship.

Government action can certainly influence the economic climate of the nation. Federal fiscal and monetary policies largely determine whether we have inflation, deflation or a stable price level. Without a favorable economic climate you cannot have good farm income, high consumer demand, healthy business activity and a high level of employment.

While it has been demonstrated that a high level of employment does not automatically guarantee farm prosperity, it certainly can be said that the opportunity for farmers to prosper will be greater when employment and productivity are rising rather than when the reverse is true. Employment creates the purchasing power that is essential to a good demand for farm products, and a rising level of employment creates opportunity for underemployed farm people to obtain off the farm employment. Too many times when local people recognize there is a surplus of manpower in the community, they turn to the great national corporations for the development of local industry.