Brannan Plan

The Brannan Plan was a proposal of "compensatory payments" to American farmers in response to the major post-World War II agricultural problem of large agricultural surpluses stemming from price supports for farmers.[1] The Brannan Plan was named after Charles Brannan, who served as the fourteenth United States Secretary of Agriculture from 1948 to 1953 as a member of President Harry S. Truman's cabinet. It was opposed by conservatives who permanently defeated it.

Background

During World War II, agricultural products were in very high demand by the fact that food was needed overseas. The government encouraged maximum production by setting prices for farm products well above the market-clearing level. This ultimately led to overproduction.[2] While the demand for agriculture during the war was high, these wartime conditions proved to be unrealistic when the war ended. Following the war there were large farm surpluses. Subsequently, prices stemming from the price support became higher than consumers were willing to pay.

Prior to Brannan's proposal, the Agricultural Act of 1948, a revision of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, had recently been implemented. However, this act had merely extended the price support programs of the wartime law that would soon expire; something had to be improved. With the need for reform, Charles Brannan proposed for "Production and price adjustment with a definite income objective," which quickly became known as the "Brannan Plan."[3] The goal was to provide high prices for corn, wheat, tobacco, cotton, milk, eggs chickens, hogs, beef and lambs. The political assumption was that American farmers were so morally critical to America that they should be given higher incomes, regardless of marketplace supply and demand. The plan was opposed by the business community and by the nearly unanimous farmers organizations, except for the left-wing National Farmers' Union, which was its chief sponsor.[4][5]

Proposal

In the free market, the prices that yielded were considered to be unfair to farmers. Under the traditional support system, the government would raise the price to a "parity" price, at which consumers would not be willing to buy as much. In turn, the government would purchase excess supply, leading to large amounts of storage. However, under the Brannan PLan, the government would allow the surplus to be sold for whatever price it would bring.[6] Consequently, the price would drop to that determined by the market, resulting in an elimination of the surplus. To compensate for the low prices, the Treasury would write checks to farmers for the difference between the high parity price and the low new market price. All together, consumers would pay lower prices for farm products, resources would not be wasted producing food simply for storage, and farmers would benefit by receiving the parity price while producing the quantity demanded at the market price for the surplus.

Opposition in Congress

Brannan's plan was opposed largely by conservative Republican representatives. Leading counterarguments included the belief that one hundred percent of parity (or more) was too great a price differentiation and granted on too many commodities, the burden on taxpayers would become too serious, and that only supporting farmers and not other groups would raise ethical concerns. Senator George Aiken believed the matter of support levels was "a fundamental concern not only of economics, but of philosophy of government as well." The Brannan Plan would "require either huge payments from the Treasury or detailed and severe controls over agricultural production and marketing."[7] It seems that despite Brannan's merit and effort, much of Congress agreed that his plan valued farm prices at unrealistically high levels.

Aside from failing to garner enough congressional support, a contributing factor to the Brannan Plan's ultimate failure to be adopted was its overarching political context. Firstly, there was a good deal of political unrest after Truman's victory in the 1948 presidential election. In utilizing agricultural policy during his first term and representing the "blue-collared" American, Truman surprisingly received support from Midwestern farmers and upended heavy-favorite Republican opponent Thomas Dewey.[8] Consequently, the Republican-controlled Congress made it difficult for Truman and Brannan to approve the plan. However, perhaps more importantly, Brannan's proposal came at a time when the Cold War was taking off and the battle against communism was gaining public attention. This shift of attention made farm policy revision seem less necessary.[9]

gollark: Well, yes, but it blocks BlahOS.
gollark: ```lua-- Ensure code does not contain evil/unsafe things, such as known browsers, bad OSes or Siri. For further information on what to do if Siri is detected please consult https://pastebin.com/RM13UGFa line 2 and/or the documentation for PS#ABB85797 in this file.function potatOS.check_safe(code) local lcode = strip_comments(string.lower(code)) for category, list in pairs(banned) do for _, thing in pairs(list) do if string.find(lcode, '[^"]' .. string.lower(thing)) then --local ok, err = pcall(potatOS.make_paste, ("potatOS_code_sample_%x"):format(0, 2^24), code) --local sample = "[error]" --if ok then sample = "https://pastebin.com/" .. err end local text = string.format([[This program contains "%s" and will not be run.Classified as: %s.%sIf you believe this to be in error, please contact the potatOS developers.This incident has been reported.]], thing, category, category_descriptions[category]) potatOS.report_incident(string.format("use of banned program classified %s (contains %s).", category, thing), {"safety_checker"}, { code = code, extra_meta = { program_category = category, program_contains = thing, program_category_description = category_descriptions[category] } }) return false, function() printError(text) end end end end return trueend```
gollark: There's a bit of code in `load` which checks user code for stuff which looks like known virii/bad OSes.
gollark: I may need to improve the potatOS antivirus.
gollark: I've not *heard* of one.

References
  1. Walton & Rockoff, p. 508.
  2. Thompson
  3. Dean (1996), p. 268.
  4. Dean (1993) pp 37-38
  5. Charles M. Hardin, "The Politics of Agriculture in the United States." Journal of Farm Economics 32#4 Part 1 (1950) pp: 571-583.
  6. Walton & Rockoff, p. 509.
  7. Dean (1996) p. 274.
  8. Benedict, 156.
  9. Dean (1996) p.281.

Further reading
  • Benedict, Murray R. "Farm policies of the United States, 1790-1950: A Study of their Origins and Development." New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1953.
  • Christenson, Reo M. The Brannan Plan: Farm Politics and Policy (University of Michigan Press, 1959)
  • Dean, Virgil W. An Opportunity Lost: The Truman Administration and the Farm Policy Debate (University of Missouri Press, 2006) online
    • Dean, Virgil W. "The Farm Policy Debate of 1949-50: Plains State Reaction to the Brannan Plan." Great Plains Quarterly (1993): 33-46. online
    • Dean, Virgil W. "Charles F. Brannan and the Rise and Fall of Truman's 'Fair Deal' for Farmers." Agricultural History (1995): 28-53. in JSTOR
    • Dean, Virgil W. "Why Not the Brannan Plan?" Agricultural History (1996) 70#2, pp. 268-282. in JSTOR
  • Flamm, Michael W. "The National Farmers Union and the evolution of agrarian liberalism, 1937-1946." Agricultural history (1994): 54-80. in JSTOR
  • Matusow, Allen J. Farm Policies and Politics in the Truman Years (Harvard University Press, 1967)
  • Thompson, Robert L. "Agricultural Price Supports," The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.