Banner Graphic, Volume 15, Number 145, Greencastle, Putnam County, 16 February 1985 — Page 3

opinion

LARRY GIBBS Publisher

Letters to the Editor Why PSI needs rate hikes

To the editor: Recently, Public Service Indiana asked the state Public Service Commission to approve a 7.6 per cent rate increase this year and a 1.6 per cent increase in 1986. Our sole reason for seeking the increases is to protect customer service. The extra dollars are not to pay for Marble Hill. Our financial difficulties made some people question last winter whether we would survive. Since then, we’ve taken a number of steps to insure our shortterm health. We slashed our nonnuclear work force by 19 per cent. We froze wage and salary budgets. We delayed certain maintenance on our equipment. Those steps and others have eased the, financial situation, but they’re beginning to threaten service. Just as an automobile needs regular tuneups, our generating stations, transmission lines and substations need regular maintenance. We’ve been deferring maintenance because we don’t have the funds. Our “tuneups” cost millions of dollars. But if we continue to delay, it’ll mean less efficient plants, higher costs and serious breakdowns in the long run. Good equipment is important to your service. But good people are even more vital. Wage freezes and salary cuts have pushed our turnover rate to three times the industry average. Our professional employees are currently paid nearly 13 per cent less than the Midwest utilities’ average.

Another fee a burden to some

To the Editor: As stated in the Banner-Graphic of Feb. 11, Councilman Albright is surprised that he has had no complaints in connection with the proposed $5 monthly trash collection fee to be charged, per dwelling unit, in the city. We realize that some of our councilmen and our mayor are privileged to live on more than one income source, in addition to their office. Their friends and close associates are probably also living on like amount of income. Another fee to these citizens will certainly not be a burden. However, there are many citizens who cannot afford another fee. Many of them even have to limit their food and other necessities to a bare minimum for 365 days a year. This doesn’t give a parent a good feeling, when you are trying to feed and clothe your children, and yet have pride enough to not desire a free handout. I truly believe that many citizens could be found who are concerned about

Garbage fee wouldn't be fair

To the Editor: Do you remember over a year ago I asked the police chief to help us start a “neighborhood watch?” We need to help each other. One of our group calls the police to help them with a case. Now with the snow “locking” some of us in, we can’t get to the doctor or store and some can’t get home. We have friends with snowmobiles that can help in emergencies, yet the same cnief of police wants to arrest them. I’ve been confined in my house for nearly two weeks and have watched cars go by. The only city vehicle to go by were street dept, and garbage trucks. I’m glad to see the police are saving gas and wear and tear on their cars. We really don’t need them, as we have honest, poor people. When the weather gets better, we may see them. We have another project coming up that will require poor and elderly

The Banner-Graphic welcomes your views on any public issue. Letters must bear the writer’s signature and printed or typed name, full address and telephone number. We routinely correct errors of fact, spelling and punctuation. All letters are subject to editing, but such will be held to a minimum and the intent of a letter will not be altered. We do not publish poetry or personal expressions of thanks as letters to the

ERIC BERNSEE Managing Editor

Without an increase, their pay is expected to fall more than 33 per cent lower than the average by the end of 1987. We’d like to keep the good people we have, but numbers like this make that job almost impossible. So one of the reasons we’re asking for an increase is to pay our workers a fair wage ... which will help protect your service. We also need to bring back about one in eight of the people who’ve been laid off. Today, about 100 fewer customer service employees than we had in 1972 are serving 80,000 more customers. We need to rehire about 200 workers (of the nearly 1,500 who lost their jobs com-pany-wide) to do the maintenance that’s been delayed, to install new lines and equipment as the economy grows (which it has) and to prevent or correct outages. Without enough people, the job may not get done as quickly as either the company or its customers would like. We know that customers want rates kept as low as possible, but they also expect quality service. Our request is an attempt to balance those two customer concerns. It’s large enough to protect service, but small enough to make it easy for most customers to handle. We’ve tried to ease the burden on customers by phasing in the increase and continuing our belt-tightening efforts. Hugh A. Barker Chairman, Public Service Indiana

this issue. Of course, many citizens have been discouraged from voicing opinions, since on other issues they were told quite strongly that citizens do not know what is best for them and the ones in charge would make the decisions. Many citizens are also concerned about the rush for the city to take over the water department, which has had an excellent record of operation for many, many years. If this is not a must, as some councilmen have apparently indicated, why does the change need to be made? Many government officials today (city, state and national) seem to quickly forget that they were elected by citizens, to represent the wishes of those citizens. If they would only look in the mirror, they could see that the impression they give is one of handing out orders as a dictator, with no concern for the citizen. Marjorie B. Birt rural Greencastle

people to pay for garbage collection for the wealthy by paying $5 a month. The one who has one bag a week will pay $5 a month, the one with two bags still pays $5 a month. But look at this bargain: I saw six bags at one house that would be picked up for $5, even 10 bags would be picked up for $5. I saw one out-of-town woman put out garbage bags at her parents’ house. Some who come to work in Greencastle set bags out on South Jackson Street. If we charge by the bag with “Greencastle” printed on them or with tags on them identifying them at 25 cents or 35 cents, we could each pay our own way. What’s wrong with all paying their share? I dare the City Council'to try to be fair, considerate and smart. Use your heads and do what’s right. James F. Green 1127 Avenue E

Signed letters are welcome

editor. Letters containing personal attacks on individuals, libelous statements or profanity will not be considered for publication. Use of initials in lieu of the writer’s full name will be permitted only in cases in which the Banner-Graphic determines there is an appropriate reason. Send your letters to: Letters to the Editor, The Banner-Graphic, P.O. Box 509, Greencastle, Indiana 46135.

■Ronald and the Sacred Cows Subsidize agriculture? Farm policy debate political and emotional; nothing is certain yet, except continued arguing

By SETHS. KING c. 1985 N.Y. Times News Service WASHINGTON With reports of more farm bankruptcies and rural bank failures pouring into Washington from many parts of the country, President Reagan has presented a budget for the fiscal year 1986 that includes proposals for revolutionary changes in America's basic farm policy. The major proposal calls for gradually eliminating the farm price support system that has been in effect since 1933 with only slight variations. Reagan also wants to take the Agriculture Department out of the emergency farm loan business and turn that business pver to the commercial banking system. Almost any action that affects farmers ignites Washington’s political and emotional fires. This is particularly true when Congress and the administration acknowledge that many farmers are still mired recession while the rest of the economy is rapidly recovering. Thus it was hardly surprising to see tempers flare on Capitol Hill last week as Congress and the administration squared off over the farm credit crisis and Reagan’s proposals. The arguments came down to a basic issue: Should taxpayers continue to subsidize agriculture? The background For the past 20 years the basic structure of American agriculture has been changing. Family-owned farms have grown larger and larger, and the total area under cultivation has been expanded. The costs of operating these spreads have grown proportionately, and today’s farmers are among the country’s biggest individual borrowers. Although the number of people actually working the land and raising livestock has steadily declined, the number of people making and selling the advanced machinery, equipment and supplies these large farmers need has grown just as rapidly in the last 10 years, even though some well-known manufacturers have been financially distressed. In this same period, the volume of American farm exports has soared. So has the volume of grain, cotton and livestock that farmers can produce, even in years of adverse weather. This has made American farmers increasingly dependent on selling half to two-thirds of their grain and cotton abroad. If they cannot, surpluses quickly pile up, prices fail and their income declines. To cushion this effect, Congress has followed the Depressionborn formula of controlling production by paying farmers to reduce their plantings; by giving them subsidies to make up the difference between the market price and their estimated cost of production, and by lending them money and allowing them to repay these loans with crops if the market price is not high enough to equal the cost of the loan. But acreage reduction payments have failed even to dent the volume of crop production. Grain, meat and cotton production has also increased steadily in virtually all parts of the world except Africa. Other agricultural countries have become more efficient exporters, and with help from the high value of the dollar, making American products more expensive, they have taken over some of America’s traditional markets. As farm prices have fallen at home, the amount of government farm aid has tripled since the late 19705, passing sl3 billion last year In each of the past four years farm profits have shrunk. An increasing number of farmers, big, small and medium-size, are now dangerously in debt. Some are no longer able to make payments on these debts and face bankruptcy; others have overstretched their credit and are having difficulty borrowing enough to operate this year. For continuing aid The grounds for continuing to subsidize agriculture and protect it from the forces of change are both emotional and economic. Proponents assert that farming is a way of life that exemplifies the best American qualities of stabililty, hard work and occasional sacrifice in providing Americans with the best and cheapest food supply in the world. Agriculture is still this nation’s largest industry and its biggest export earner. If more family farmers fail, aid proponents argue, food production will fall into the hands of big corporations that will limit the supply and force up the cost of food. They say that farmers are still

the main customers of the rural suppliers and the small-town merchants. If more farmers fail or sell out, rural communities will languish. Sen. James Abdnor, R-S.D., who has many farmers among his constituents, pleaded for administration recognition of agriculture’s plight. “I want to alert you to a clear and present danger, an America without agriculture the way we have always known it," he said. “If we fail with agriculture, we will have a rural America without economic purpose and an America without its heritage. The continued failures of our farmers, our rural bankers, our Main Street merchants will ripple disastrously throughout the fabric of our national life for generations to come.” Country bankers in the Middle West, who have seen an increasing number of rural bank failures in the past year, argue that many banks are holding very risky farm loans and could fail if borrowers defaulted because of a cutoff of government aid. This would devastate the small communities they serve, the bankers say. Against continuing aid Those who oppose continuing current farm policies, including Agriculture Secretary John R. Block, say policies that made sense in the Depression no longer work. The subsidy and price-support loan system, they say, is propping up farmers’ prices and encouraging overproduction. Furthermore, opponents argue that the country’s agriculture is not monolithic. Grain and cotton farmers, who are currently in the biggest trouble, are also the producers that rely most heavily on subsidies. But, as Block noted last week, two-thirds of American farmers make money without government subsidies. He said the rest must learn to do the same. “I‘m certain American agriculture has a great future,” Block said, “but only if it is willing to compete for exports at world market prices. We can’t do that if we continue with a farm policy built on false hopes and high dependence on the government.” Opponents of retaining current aid programs concede that the prolonged farm recession and credit crisis may force out as many as 10 percent of the farmers in the corn and wheat states, where the problems are the greatest. But they argue that at least half the country’s farmers are free of serious debt and about 25 percent of the rest can weather the economic storm. They also contend that no matter what the government does, the restructing of American farming will continue, with a certain number of farmers selling out each year as they have been doing for the past decade. Opponents of the current system reject contentions that corporate farmers take over when family farmers fail. They note that 95 percent of American farms are still owned by farming families, although many of these farms are now so large that they are, in effect, business enterprises. As for the rural bankers holding risky farm loans, David A. Stockman, the budget director, minced few words last week. Stockman, an architect of the administration’s farm proposals, told the Senate Banking Committee he could not understand “why the taxpayers of this country should have the responsibility to go in and refinance bad debt that was willingly incurred by consenting adults.” He was echoed by Block, who reminded the bankers that in the prosperous farming days of the late 1970 s it was they who were lending farmers money at high interest rates and encouraging them to expand. The government did not make those loans, Block said, the bankers did, and he argued that the bankers had the main responsibility for helping in the current situation. The outlook A result of last week’s political skirmishing was an easing of federal conditions for guarantees on farm loans, essentially expanding the emergency credit program President Reagan announced last November. But rural bankers and farm legislators called the arrangement a temporary solution at best. For its pains, the administration extracted little, if any, commitment from Congress to support the president’s new farm proposals. At this point, little seems certain except continued feuding when legislation to carry out Reagan’s proposals is introduced next week.

February 16,1985, The Putnam County Banner-Graphic

Put farm program on a diet By STUARTHARDY U.S. Chamber of Commerce Did you know that Uncle Sam pays $lO for every 100 pounds of milk that dairy farmers agree NOT to produce? Or that your government spent sl2 billion in 1983 paying farmers NOT to grow grain and cotton? Did you know that 51 large farms were given more than $1 million each in government payments last year, at a time when record numbers of farm families were tottering on the brink of foreclosure? AND DID YOU KNOW that these and other farm programs have a double whammy effect on you, the public? You pay as taxpayers and again as consumers. Take the dairy program, for instance. Increases in the government milk support price pushed program costs to a record $2.6 billion in 1983. At the same time, consumers were paying hundreds of millions of dollars in higher retail prices for milk, cheese and ice cream. But despite massive injections of taxpayers’ dollars, the farm economy remains depressed, with declining farm income and record indebtedness. This is the sorry harvest of government farm programs and policies which are rooted in the Dust Bowl days of the late 1920 s and 19305, and which now fail to keep pace with rapid changes in the structure and technology of modem agriculture. In the next few months, Congress will begin to fashion a new “Farm Bill” or agriculture law that will determine the scope and direction of federal farm policy for the rest of this decade and beyond. The prospect of new, multi-year farm legislation has generated intense public debate and widespread awareness that the farm programs of yesterday won’t meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH farm programs? For starters, they cost too much. Annual federal outlays for crop supports have risen from between $2 billion and $3 billion during much of the 70’s to sl9 billion in 1983, the latest year for which figures are available. At the same time, the congressionally mandated programs benefit large producers who need them least. For example, in 1983, the largest 12 per cent of all farms were given nearly half of total government payments. Another problem is that Congress sets minimum or guaranteed commodity prices at levels higher than world market prices. This adds to consumers’ grocery' bills, prices U.S. commodities out of world markets and induces farmers to produce for government warehouses rather than the marketplace. GOVERNMENT administrators have tried to deal with burgeoning grain, cotton and dairy surpluses caused by overly generous price guarantees by attempting to control the volume of production. But production controls - such as paying farmers not to farm -- have made the situation only worse. Foreign competitors have taken advantage of U.S. cutbacks in production by expanding their own production and taking over our export markets. Instead of reducing farm output, we should use our vast agricultural potential to benefit U.S. farmers, our economy, America’s position in world trade and the millions of starving and malnourished people in the developing world. The new Farm Bill will be a crucial test of how serious Congress and the administration are about cutting federal spending and ending the failed and wasteful policies of the past. Our elected officials should seize this opportunity to cut farm subsidies, dump production controls and free farmers to compete in world markets.

This means that Uncle Sam should get out of the tractor seat and let farmers, not government planners, decide how much to grow. The Agriculture Department has spent billions of dollars to induce greater production, and then billions more to reduce it. IN ADDITION, the government should no longer set the price of crops in a misguided effort to prop up farm income. Artificially high crop prices penalize consumers, undermine export competitiveness'and give windfall benefits to big farmers with low production costs per unit. If Congress insists on supplementing farm income, it should do so with direct payments targeted to the neediest farmers. These fundamental reforms should be brought about in a gradual and orderly fashion. The adjustment to marketresponsive agriculture will cause some pain and discomfort, but the end result will be a more efficient, competitive farm sector. The alternative is to keep on the same path with the certainty of huge costs, loss of export markets and farmers dependent on government largesse. If Congress doesn’t have the guts to tackle the bloated, obsolete farm programs, can we realistically expect spending cuts in other government programs? (Hardy is manager for food and agriculture policy for the U .S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H St. NW, Washington. D.C. 20062)

A3