Why. This is why I won't trust your number 12 to 20 with that date being hard be wary 1785 what. Oh. A. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. And from small pocket protests to huge rallies. Thousands of farmers in America's heartland are
organizing to fight for their own survival. Their struggle has caught the attention of the nation. As national media converge on the Midwest to cover what some say. Will be the death of the family farm. Tonight a look at the farm crisis. With Iowa Farm Bureau President Dean collector. And with Farmer activist Dixon Terry. Darling. This is the Sunday February 17th edition of our will process. Here is Dean board. Good evening. The news from farm country is not encouraging farm foreclosures bank failures Main Street businesses going under it all are part of the intricate weave of Iowa's social fabric that is unraveling at an alarming rate right now. Consider for example a Farm Journal survey taken last December that reports 42 percent of the respondents are in serious financial condition. The more recent survey done by the Iowa Department of Agriculture indicates fully one third of the responding I will farmers will
need to sell land to even plant this year's crop. Even so as many as 15 percent of Iowa's farmers may be unable to finance spring planting. Little wonder then that Iowa lawmakers are scrambling right now to develop legislation that will tie the state's farmers through what appears will surely be a lean year. Even so questions continue. What about the long term. What sort of future is there for agriculture in Iowa. We'll be exploring those and other questions this evening with our two guests. You're president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and Dixon Terry a board member of the Iowa farm unity coalition and to be questioned by John McCormack a a columnist for the Harris newspapers and by Jerry Perkins the business writer for The Des Moines Register. Terry what can be done in the short term to help Iowa's farmers getting a crop this spring. Well I'm glad you divided it out in the short term medium intermediate and long term solutions because obviously there are different things that need to be done on different levels. In the short
term I think we need emergency action to do with the avalanche of insolvency that's occurring out there because of the free falling state of land values and the general devaluation of the collateral farmers in terms of their land their equipment is bringing more and more farmers into this into this dangerous situation. And so one thing that needs to be done is to stop forcing this land on the market to stop for farm sales. At the same time we realize that many more farmers potentially will be forced out of farming because they simply can't get the money to put in their crops which is going to be coming up in just a few weeks. The other key emergency item in the news to be on the agenda is providing that short term financing to get the crop in and in that round something along an interest rate buy down or a loan guarantee I think would be the ideas most generally considered I did mention the word moratorium but is that what you meant by saying stopping foreclosures obviously stopping
foreclosures would mean a sense sort of moratorium some sort of freeze on force farm sales Yes I mean that's one item and a number of things that need to be done is that quite a working collector. We don't take the hit that a legislative moratorium would work but it would cause more problems we think than it would provide answers to or provide help for a broad interest or a more of a voluntary moratorium by bankers is one that we think would be helpful. Many banks are really practicing it on their own. Dean Clinton of the reform Unity Coalition has proposed. A series of solutions to the to the to the crisis does the Iowa Farm Bureau intend to join the eight members of the Iowa from Unity Coalition and any of their actions coming out this spring. Well I we were involved all of us aid organizations and in plastics more that art in farming were involved a couple Saturdays ago in a meeting where we developed a suggestion for the Iowa legislature for them to help because they
want to help they they think they need to do something here and I want to and I agree so. And in many areas we're working on a farm organization working together. Will you be at the rally in February 27 to names. Well probably have a lot of criticism when we were there was in Florida we didn't participate in the planning for it the fact Bob Elaina was invited Bobby Lino couldn't come in and he was told you come or nobody else so that's our farm bureau wasn't there. We think we're going to be at the wanted Ames not yet on the other hand nobody has asked us. Everybody said are you going to be there but the organizers have not asked us. We have said we will cooperate. I'm going to ask them to like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to the Farm Bureau as we have to all organizations in the state not only farmers musicians but business and industry industrial organizations and everyone will be walking because obviously this is an issue that affects the whole state of Iowa and you accept it you know can we make this idea here. I suspect that that will be there. We have already said that we are listed were
listed as a supporter. We had several calls last week and we said yes we will support it. And again I don't know the format. All I hear is rumors about the format rather where the people be on the platform. We don't know all that but we want to be helpful and cooperative and not on unhelpful and uncooperative addiction let me ask you Who is this rally directed at this illusion. Why mention in the opening about state legislator and the state will solve this problem that you all had to help absolutely necessary federal help is absolutely necessary. There's a there is a rule as I said for the state in terms of some emergency actions. But in terms of long term foreign policy to bring fair prices to farmers which is the key to the whole situation that has to be done federal level and the debt restructuring process that must come is going to be dependent on federal dollars so this rally is aimed and the focus is on the Reagan administration because we feel like farm state congressmen Congress people on a bipartisan basis are working hard but we're not getting results from the administration
hard about that girl I know there was a there was a Boeing register cartoony had pattered after the New York Post headline Reagan there farmers drop dead. We've been hearing David Stockman talk as if the going to war with a very good administration is to eliminate five of these. How do you read that and what is the vegan goal and what do you want the federal government to do. Well I don't know what the administration has frankly. I visit with David Stockman personally about two weeks ago and was in Washington Friday and had a meeting with him called off and that was the day after he said there were too many farmers and stockmen called that meeting off didn't crack or didn't suggest it be called off. I don't know if anything good could have come of it I don't know what they really want to do and there certainly the administration or or the Congress also has some responsibilities at the federal level but I think as Dixon said earlier this has to be broken down between emergency short term
get us farmers in the field get interest rates down temporarily so we get enough he'll get that money to plant the crops. Just long term and we're talking about 1986 for that sort of focus to spring I think has to be on short term emergency type situational can't can the state take care and actually the state can help but the federal government has to do some things too it's got to be both. If we're going to make it work very well. Well let's talk a little bit then about about longer range solutions to this problem. Dixon Terry you have proposed your farm policy reform act of. 85 and I noticed that within the bill it calls for a supply management program. Won't this be just more of the of the same programs that have cost the federal government millions and billions of dollars. You know the owner of the farm policy reform act of 1905 which you're referring to is the farm bill proposal that's emerged
from the grassroots rather than from Washington D.C. And it's you know has emerged from the input of many farmers ations from from Texas to the Canadian border. And the key to this to this farm bill proposal or this whole general approach is that we have not had effective supply management and programs in the past 20 years. And then we do need a strongly different approach to the way we manage. The supply problem and the way we set price and production goals in the agricultural economy and this is a distinct departure from the programs we've had in the past few years. Dean what Dixon is talking about is the government in agriculture apparently even deeper than it has been and hasn't defined position and began to get the government out of agriculture you know for the long range do you want the government out. Governments are always going to be in agriculture I think Farm Bureau has been misinterpreted our policies in the past. We are not for a complete free market get the government out at all cost forever and stay out that had
never been our position and it is not now the government does not now in the past hasn't been nor in the future will they be able to effectively legislate prices and I think really that's what some folks are saying and we've had that in the past but we haven't done a good job of it it's been good to do it but do a better job of learning and going to work has worked in the past. It's like throwing a journeyman another bucket of water. You don't need more water when you're drowning you need something else and you don't like rafter on an island. Well we haven't we haven't we got to the point though where the main actors affecting agriculture are really people outside of what we think of the tradition. No agricultural policy role systems such as the secretary of agriculture. Are we in a point now where David Stockman or William Brock of the special trade representative actually has more say in what happens here in Iowa than does the secretary of agriculture John Block and we got to that point I think probably so we've been there before and maybe haven't known it.
I've always thought that we as farmers ought to recognize that what happens off of our back 40 makes a lot more difference to our income and what happened right on our back 40 acres and certainly now the budget and you mentioned it was talking you're talking to the Office of Management Budget the budget is a driving factor this year. We are not going to have 15 billion dollars to pump in agriculture and that's what the fight is going to be about this summer dividing up the pie of five or six or seven billion dollars that the government will allow to be used for income support and that isn't very much the government have in agriculture I didn't quite wasn't quite clear you said farmer doesn't want I would entirely but what role do you want them to have or the government has a great role in in maintaining a free and unfettered trade between nations other words you know embargoes That's a government that's a government that doesn't in the past stopping dock strikes in the area of research disease. Control things like that are legitimately government rule no not for organizations or individuals can can have an impact there.
But government does not and should not start involving ourselves in setting prices because they can't do it it doesn't work and when they try we dig the hole deeper sort of talking about all get no give IQ you want all these things from the government but in the five and a half we going to have to agree to live under certain restrictions. Management used to Dickson used by the government. Like what. Well I don't know why I like like clock management. Well what we're remembering what you're proposing our proposal and the kind of farm do approach that many organizations are taking around the country now is one. Not the type of programs like the pick program or any of the programs of the last 20 years. But but a kind of farm program that aims in establishing a fair price in the marketplace and not making up for the difference between the market price and what the price should be. By making income payments and that's what the target price program has been about and that's what's been expensive the past few years our approach eliminates the target price.
Them eliminates direct government payments to farmers and in its place in establishes the supply management program where by setting them on rate at an income go or at a price goal that's adequate to cover our costs and that price is stablished in the marketplace. What's wrong with that. Well a salad will settle and I jumped up and clapped my hand saying her on her rock step that doesn't work never has worked never will work is how you work and what hasn't. It has not worked in a world where it will work if we shut off our borders from imports and if we retire half our growing production we could legislate $4 corn and $10 soybeans and I think we're going to talk about legislating prices we talk about $3 corn let's let's legislate $5 corn let's let's get a good income. The truth of the matter is you can't shut off the rest of the world that's what we're trying to do. We kissed. Thanks for that we go that route we don't export of those prices. The United States is the only nation in the world that has government policy land set aside in land diversion Japan a little bit of a rice diversion but
we are trying to balance the world supply and demand in the United States as well we are the world's major supplier where enough and we can't do it it's failed in the past it will fail in the future long as you get excited. You know I'd like to address that because it's simply not true we are the world's major supplier. We have over 70 percent of the world exports Sherron corn soybeans. We have over 40 percent of the world's exports in wheat even though we produce only 10 percent of the world's wheat. How much do we have to have 100 percent of all exports from the world before we start getting some impact on the prices we receive in this country I mean we already dominate the world export market we have for the for years now we've had an export oriented strategy for over 10 years and during that time most of the time our exports were increasing but at the same time our farm are farmed out we're skyrocketing the export oriented solution has not worked when we consider the government's role in food production. Shouldn't we also be considering national security isn't it the fact that we're at the point right now and considering our role in world affairs where food production
and the surplus that this country has is nearly as important as the DS and MX missile. And aren't we at a point where government has to be in and controlling. And I'm not saying how but controlling to some extent how we manage our food production. I think it is the responsibility of the government to manage this most basic of our industries. It's the most important not only the farmers but the whole society I mean we're not talking about simply farm policy here we're talking about policy for food production system. And in that sense every American does have a stake and for that reason the government has a responsibility to see that price rules and production goals are set not just to protect farmers but to protect consumers in times of sureties and skyrocketing prices also so we're talking about a real responsibility for a kind of management that's in the interests of the whole society. I realize that it does not have to be cost was a bit off the wall again but if you want to respond at all to that I guess I do.
We're good. Government management if that's what we've come down to the government management of farm prices and farming and exports and soon that consumers are taken care of and that's what we've had to do was tinker with cheap food prices. Government Management is not it is not proper management. If that's the route we go the route Dixon is advocating a it is a legitimate route to take that road is wrong. The market oriented the market oriented route is the other way. If we want to drug addicts with advocating for more years eight more years of what we've had because the only thing he's saying let's he manage better government don't manage worth a hoot now and they never will many is worth a hoot in the future. Throughout with the Farm Bureau why isn't a good activist climate like you couldn't find a man instead of being out here is some I want to be Sasha. I don't think there's anything wrong with all the good farm your members are most of the people we work with in the farm Unity Coalition as a matter of fact are Farm Bureau members and in fact many County Farm Bureau chairs are active in the work that we're doing I mean I'm
not I don't I certainly don't mean to imply by the differences that maybe Dean and I have that we're anti Farm Bureau because the Farm Bureau out on the grassroots level is playing a role in this farm crisis organizing a lot of things out trying to get added I think there's a perception among the public that one of the problems farmers have is that you guys can't get together that you're in all different directions and we seem to be getting a little of that here today. Is that is that a serious problem in trying to find a solution to the fire. I think it has been a serious problem diversion but I think it's a problem are overcoming For instance this rally we were referring to is being sponsored by national organizations including farmers farmers union and for the National are you see the Grange and many others and not only have we got unity among farmers as Asians but we're finding an amazing amount of support for this type of farm to approach from consumer groups from organized labor and others so I think that unity is coming and that's going to be key for
unity coming. Well there is surely agreement on the issue that Dixon is talking about of the farm crisis but. Politicians use the matter that quite a few farmers get together and give you what you want a bunch of baloney. I don't know of any farmer in the nation ten years ago to believe in daylight saving time we got daylight savings time Dixon and I and all the rest of the harmonization developed a policy program here two weeks ago to put the Iowa legislature I haven't heard of it since the time we developed it. They love to talk about you guys get together so we know what you want. They wouldn't want to do we ever did get together because things are decided politically and they use it as a policy is that if you agreed on that got lost. Well it was a proposal for one of the dozen authority on the Iowa legislature for state government help in the current economic crisis. It was a matter of the Iowa state legislature are where they are Iowa guaranteeing a percentage of the 80 percent of the loans that were made to spring for crop planting.
Do I hear you say you don't expect much out of the Iowa legislature as far as helping farmers. No I didn't do it what I meant to say I think they will do something they want to do something seriously and I think they will. But the needs are so great that neither the Iowa legislature and the federal government nor the federal government are even working together are going to be able to do to get them out of money or restructuring out here that needs to be done to keep a great number for me what they do will help. But it will be inadequate. Well Secretary Bloch was doing was asking bankers lenders to do something. What would you like to see the banking community the fine credit system in the other and the other agricultural lenders do that rob a bank rate down Mitch McConnell's time and I think yesterday announced that they're going to knock off 3 percent on their own without having anybody else do anything. Three percent interest on farmers won't grow that was all farmers from their bank or some I mean I'm not sure they could that's running they can do a do something about interest for those that they really need help. The state government I think should be willing to kick in some
state money or some state guarantees federal government's got to do the same thing on an interest which they have announced that they will do. But gentlemen the state the national debt for farming is two hundred twelve billion dollars. If we get two or three billion dollars extra out of this I will be the most it will help. But what's that compared to two hundred twelve billion. I need more net income. How are banks setting the value of the collateral down which is largely land in Iowa how are they setting it is there that much land changing hands that we know what the price of land really is valued at now. They don't know how to set it that's one of their problems a they are really concerned and upset because they don't want to value is in there. I think they're going to do it by walk off the wall or by the seat of their pants. But that's wrong the problem is they don't know what values that we farmers have that gives them security to land on that is really the big problem today. What you do what do you take you have what is land work right now compared to what it was a year ago.
Real quickly the peak was really quickly in my opinion. I will land today across the state averages 40 percent of what it was at the high time it's off 60 percent that means in my opinion the land it was $3000 at the high today would sell for about twelve hundred dollars where you actually had a cash sale with buyers and sellers that day and I agree with that and you know when the world doesn't that doesn't that tell you then that there is going to be an incredible shakeout as Mr. Stockman said. Dixon what kind of Agriculture would you like to see come out of this shakeout I mean where should farming be ten years twenty five years from now. Well David Stockman I think missed Mr. Simon's comments were very useful. My reaction is a little different maybe than some people's because I think in a very concise and straightforward way he told us what the policy assumptions the basic policy policy assumption of the Reagan administration is and that is that we need to get rid of farmers and that we're going to do it over the next few years. And the price projections that we're getting for the free market alternative $2 corn through into the next decade undoubtedly means we'll lose up
to half our farmers if we go through the shakeout route we'll have a type of agriculture that means the death of many of our small communities and it's going to mean a more concentrated type of control over farming that's going to be a detriment of the whole society. What I'd like to see and what we're working for. We maintain that we have not enough family farmers. We can't afford to lose even 5 percent we're talking about 20 percent. I'm tired of hearing this every time we discuss how many farmers are going to lose we always seem like the experts are always prefacing it by saying well we can't save them all. I'm tired of hearing that you know maybe we won't save them all but we cannot write off 20 percent or even 5 percent of our farmers and say they're expendable. We need more farmers in the system because the family farm type of agriculture is in the whole societies and I know we haven't been able. No we can't save all. I agree with what Dixon I agree it was very much with what Dixon was saying some of what he was saying I disagree with some. We do need more farmers in Iowa we need family farmers we don't need corporate farms and I don't know who would think that we do know what a
farmer has been accused of being and representing only corporate farms which is bunch of hokum. Nixon says and we should write it down I ask is he five years from now. Dixon said we're going to have maybe have half the farmers five years from now that we've got now I think we're going to have more farmers five years from now than we've got now. I realize that's much in the minority. Let me tell you isn't the whole trouble today. It isn't a family farmer. Many of them are. It's the larger farmers that are in more trouble today than the smaller family farmers it could be that we're going to get rid of some talent 2000 acre farmers today and in their place five years from now we will have two three four five farmers farming that 2000 acres. They may be back to 320 that 2000 acre farmer and somebody else be farming that other 700 acres and that may be good and the small towns may not die. You're going to hear oh I'm going to be a day going to still be independent contre could noises we as we see the family farm are going to be working for somebody you know having that kind of contract feeding hogs. Like that.
I don't know they may they may be in the contracting of the whole new subject or one is coming in and that's actually keeping survivors on the farm today the contracting. I've gotten a lot of questions and doubts about contracting but 100 tickets were a 20 acre farm or that we may have more of in the future may have a job off the farm too and trying that hundred six year 320. I'm not so sure that that's true but that's bad because I mean the jobs we've done a lot of head shaking I really want to give you a chance. First of all the statistics show that it's not just the farmers that are in trouble at all it's across the board I mean the smallest farmers that make their living off the farm obviously are not in trouble because they don't depend upon the farm for their living. But all the medium range sized farmers who we consider family farmers who make their living off the farm you know the size is not the variable in the situation it's the degree of debt more than anything else and it's affecting all sizes. And so in the long run I cannot see that how this is going to lead to more farms I mean and that definitely is a minority position because including our economic experts are telling us that we are definitely moving toward a time when
the productive farmers who earn their living off the farm are going to be shrinking all the time and I don't think it's a viable alternative to to work nights farming as a hobby and make your living off the farm and in the long term family farming can survive that way. Can can you get government out of farming. If if the if the kind of concentration and agriculture the Dixon is talking about can you get the government out of farming if that is the kind of concentration is occurring to concentrate I don't know if you met a concentration of wealth and tax policies for instance have been accused of leading to contract feeding of cattle contract feeding and I agree no question we need to change our tax policies. I think the tax policies of this country have led to that and led to cattle feeding leaving the state of Iowa and campaigning won't come back to Iowa. Until we get out of the tax cheating which is what it's gotten to in Kansas and Oklahoma Nebraska and Texas if we change that we could bring cattle feeding back and we won't if we don't change it so government has has been a
player in that. I agree that it's a degree of debt the amount of debt the farmers have today that determines the trouble or when they have high debt they have high treble load that is little trouble maybe not as much income as we like for their low debt people but they are going to be there forever. Addiction is a very when I raise hogs and we can make a living on 160 or 240 or 320. You cannot make a living from a hundred sixty acres a day crop farming. And if those people want to do it that means they got to have an outside source of income. I just love to see I was a livestock state. The trend is the other way and I know that you have a background in sociology. We're talking worst case as well. If this current trend continues what are the social ramifications the social ramifications of already made clear I mean in terms of the way it's affecting individual farm families the farm unity coalition has been dealing with a
terrible kind of suffering for over three years now. I mean three years ago we were only losing two or three or four or five percent and we didn't care about them but the farm unity coalition has been outstanding side by side with all farm families that have been are being forced out and it's taken a terrible toll on. I mean instances of child abuse and spouse abuse suicide all those indicators of the internal struggle that's going on are there. And in the long run it's just going to expand as a whole community start to dry. But can we get along without the family farm or the social ramifications in the long run. This is the source around the kitchen for the whole thing. We can get along without the family farmer in terms of supplying food for years to come. But I think if we go to a corporate based agriculture we would have an agriculture that can be sustained for a long period I mean in other words I don't think corporate agriculture would maintain the resource base in terms of the soil
water quality. And I've got to interrupt because rather good at least. Thank you Dean and Dixon for being our guest today and I will Preston will be back next week with another decision of I will press until then for our panelists today. John and Jerry Perkins I'm bored. Stay tuned now for more than hello with take one. Major funding was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. I will press the talk 21 February 24th 1989.
A major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. The focus of hope for economic recovery has begun to shift to the Iowa legislature that can state lawmakers make a difference. Tonight an insider's look at the progress of the Iowa legislature with analysis by prominent state House reporters. This is the Sunday February 24th as you know violent crime here is being born. Good evening.
Well the governor of the Iowa Development Commission numerous businessmen in Iowa's largest cities and indeed Iowa's congressional delegation to court General Motors officials in hopes of luring GM Saturn plant to Iowa existing industry in the state appears to be folding. Most recently just this week swift packing company an F and C link belt speeder the heavy equipment manufacturer announced they will be closing plants in Iowa a move that will cost more than a thousand jobs in Iowa's farm economy continues deeply troubled by debt and persistent high interest rates. In the past the public has looked to Washington for answers today however the answers are expected to come from the State House. Indeed the Iowa legislature has been active on multiple fronts but is it making any progress. Well for an answer we're going to turn this week to the people who monitor the legislature daily. Tom will toss the statehouse reporter for The Des Moines Register. Mike Glover of the Associated Press and they'll be joined by John McCormack a columnist for the Harris newspapers. Mike up on Capitol Hill
here in Des Moines. How are things moving are you seeing any progress this session and mostly we are talking about the economy. Do you see any any move out there to help farmers or anybody else. Well there are there are significant moves going on right now. In fact I like to think of it in terms of there are two legislative sessions happening instead of the one that we usually get with that the foreign legislative session and the regular legislative session. Right now we're in the closing hours of current legislative session and we'll see what happens from that. There have been a lot of things floated out there but I think at the moment we're going to fight where we're going or if we're going anywhere really. Tom would you would you picture it like that of there being two sessions and oh yeah and the thing about it is that in the farm session as my cause it has really sort of upset the way things usually go up there. There's much more emotion up there more intensity there. There are people up there who are acting like it's the last week in the session. It's it's been hard on a lot of them and they are trying to work as hard as they can to
come up with a solution. The problem is though I think is that I'm not sure that there's a solution there for the state to do the stuff that is happened in Washington this last week has provided them with I think an answer then so that they don't have to do anything because they're just not the one working on that. Is this some opportunism too is there that much that can be done on the state level and isn't this perhaps just a nice issue to zero in autumn look like you're doing something. Well there is there's a considerable amount of posturing going on right now. Credible enough and a lot of people seem to view the whole farm crisis as kind of a great political opportunity for them. Now others are in turn just a little bit green around the gills because I think Tom hit the nail right on the head. I don't know that there's much they can do here and they're bumping up against that now because if you really get out of that farm economy and get involved it takes a whole lot of money. The other thing about it I just had this is that there's also another side to this whole
farm thing and that is while there are 10 to 15000 farmers in trouble there's also 60 percent of the state's farmers who aren't in trouble. There are also a lot of urban folks who wonder who are going through the same thing in some way through unemployment and that type of thing. And they're and they're a little resentful. They say you know what about me and why should I be forced to let's say pay an extra cent percent on my sales tax to a bailout some folks who probably weren't good managers to begin with. It saved me it's totally ridiculous for the legislature even to be wasting your time on this. Thing where you know if there was any great historic watershed in the 1930s and new deal it was the decision by the Supreme Court when it finally approved the Triple-A that agriculture was a national problem and national responsibility and that individual states can't do very much about it that it is so so completely tied up in national and international markets
and international international commerce that there's nothing at stake there I didn't touch on this man to go and his question is Isn't it seems to me there's just a lot of a lot of politicking going on here perhaps misleading farmers and others into believing that the state of our 10 or even should be trying to do anything. Or maybe the legislature be a lot better off. It read the same history that you've read. But I think the pressure that it was really kind of an incredible phenomenon at the beginning of the legislative session the pressure on them to do something and that's to quote you here and do something was intense it was incredible. They all reacted they all jumped up and it seemed as though people were going out of their way to become the first person or the strongest person now when they come right down to the choice. Well now that we've committed to do something what are we going to do. They're coming up short of answers. And the House has given its answer. Let's raise the sales tax. We'll see where that goes in the Senate it's a different story. There isn't as
far as anybody in the Senate says there's not enough votes to pass a sales tax increase there. Any time the session lower Jenkins the Senate majority leader says he has eight votes you need twenty six. Far far far away from getting a majority. They have looked to a bonding program there. They've come out with three different bonding ideas each one of them has run into just incredible difficulties. There's another question here that is bother some of the legislators and that is if they help farmers for one year or if they help farmers for two years they become bankers in effect and they have to make the decision at some time in the future where they're going to have to cut off possibly cut off farmers from any assistance even if you believe that the farm problem is not going to go away in a year or two years. They're buying themselves a package to package trouble six seven eight years down the line of the farmers didn't they by their own they voted overwhelmingly in our tears once but twice for Ronald Reagan who has made it clear from the very beginning who he had a reading and it was
late again it was last week. When I was secretary Brock reiterating that the objective is to get government completely out of agriculture that their agriculture should should operate in a free market and we hear farmers echoing theirs not only verbal way but with their vote. That's what they want. So what do you say they have running the legislature or anyplace else for help when they say they want to be in a free market. Well John that's why you're a coward. I just do. I just report on the points I don't make judgments. You said Tom that there would be the sentiment in town of our paying you know city residents paying a sales tax increase to bear out farmers. Well there also be some resentment among farmers who aren't in trouble and who in fact may very well be sitting there waiting for the neighboring farm to go on the block so they could buy at the primaries also are going to be resentful about having to bail out other farmers who are less fortunate than them. I think so. Basically I talked to a couple of senators who've been around
awhile and they have just basically said when they go to the coffee shop they're told Look I've worked hard I've been on my farm for a number of years. I am not in any trouble. I don't I sort of resent the fact that because I'm not in trouble I'm going to have to pay the full amount of interest on my operational loan whereas a guy who has not done well in terms of managing. It's going to get a break. I don't particularly feel compelled to help him out. Underlying that of course is what you say and I think that that could be true. Let's move on Mike if I could make one point. If you buy the hypothesis that there are two sessions were coming to the end of the foreign session target yet again this may be feels differently I feel a backlash out there. I feel a backlash growing against this whole farm crisis the whole farm problem. I sense that the city people some of the farmers who are in trouble all of those kinds of people are sort of quietly starting to voice their opinion and I feel that in the legislature that maybe there is some steam running out and the farm
station will just die of its own weight rather than come to a conclusion. Whatever the backlash or not isn't it a no win situation particularly for the Democrats I mean given the traditional Republican loyalty of Iowa farmers. No matter what this Democratic legislature God knows from current emergency fire where's your citation. Can you imagine that that guy our neighbors and our goal drive can use to likely Democratic candidates for governor. The legislative leaders are going to have our farm support if they run two years well it will of course you know the other thing about it though is that with the action in Washington with the Meese confirmation that type of thing it has opened an escape hatch for him because they can say Look Washington is not paying attention to us we've been on the cover of Time we've been on the cover of Newsweek or on every national news show now they're paying attention to us and Washington which is the place where they're going to make the answers. They're answering now we can leave it with them and now we'll go back to our had our regular
censored cover of Newsweek and you're back and see if you can get an extension. Well I guess that's a good. That also brings up the bank and problems and that have happened a lot of legislators up there believe that not only is this a farm bailout. These ideas are to bail out farmers but it's also to help bankers who have the possibility of holding on to millions and millions of dollars worth of land. I think to add my two cents to I think there is political advantage here Mack I think that no matter how it comes out if there is something done and if the right person can and Donnie Vinson I think is probably been out front on this. I think there is political advantage there in the next gubernatorial election providing he or somebody else doing it doesn't fall on their face because he's out there leading and doing something and I think that whether it works or not is going to work to his advantage. The car argument to that argument to that though is that Governor Branstad has been
out in front centering his attention on the one place where the answer can and must come from that's in Washington and he has not really looked too seriously at a basic state solution. Let's move on to this lottery which is a foregone conclusion moving ahead on that but where is that money going to be spent Mike. Well the lottery which has now passed both chambers legislature is now back in the Senate and the house they attached a whole laundry list of. Development projects will be funded by the lottery the World Trade Center is in there for about 30 million dollars. There is some education research money there is a third Krock research money. Interestingly enough the showdown appears to be between the legislature which of course the leaders have proposed. Their Iowa plan and the governor who is proposing some of that money for a business tax break. There is great fear that the bill will go down stairs and that the governor will approve a lottery privy to all of their spending. What happens there and what is the likelihood of that what's the likelihood that the governor will use this item
veto and legally so on appropriations measures which would be attached wouldn't it in this case through the lottery build and spending the money as he wants. If they get it down to him early enough to see that this is the whole chess game that's going on. What is the timing right to send something down to Governor Branstad. Because if you send it down to him too early he's going to veto everything he doesn't like you know. And he's going to send it back up and say send me something else and then they go into negotiations this whole thing the way this lottery money is going to be spent on lesson. Really wrong on this it's going to be decided on the Last Night of the session whenever it is. There is another argument though that I'm beginning to hear and that is that a lottery will not bring in a lot of money to begin with the earliest that a lottery can start would be sometime late this year maybe even the first of January. Well if you take the estimates of 50 million dollars all that's going to give you is 20 to 25 million dollars for the next fiscal year. If you have that that's not enough money to do anything with except it is enough money to balance your
budget no matter what happens. There's been one proposal by Senator Richard Drake to it to do exactly that in other words take the first 20 million off the lottery just use it put it in the balance and then everything over that in the next fiscal years that's what you do your economic development programs with. There is a certain amount of support for that in the Senate for two reasons one it's easy. And two it isn't going to create a whole mess of other problems in trying to get something done. What methods of economic development those seem to be holding most favor up there this repeal of the sales tax on the equipment and farm equipment holding the promise that that is an almost incredible phenomenon as a farm problem. Everybody knew that Governor Brown was going to propose repealing the machinery equipment that everybody assumed that would be dead on arrival in Democratic legislature. In fact that has been put on the Democratic priority list. In all probability they're going to find some way to exempt at least a portion of that machinery equipment tax. So there we're talking about they're
faced with playing another 30 20 40 50 million dollars. That's another one of those things that I suspect from the last night's Russian. That's one of the why there was if the lottery turns out not to be quite the golden goose that these guys have been told it's going to be forgotten conclusion and I presume it is politically but there were a lot of social questions or questions about it and I presume they're still lingering around there. Well there's the whole Stanfield group the church consortium as the show you were the thing is move they have now changed their focus from lobbying against the lottery persay. Trying to put restrictions on it to try and put some Gambling Anonymous type money into it and that sort of stuff. I know they're trying to restrict the amount that would be spent for the promotion would be any limits on promotion. I don't think so. It will be all out. Will the leaders are committed to as wide open a bill to make as much money as they possibly can.
I mean it's just one of those things they need the money and they want it wide open then why don't we have already had Governor Thompson of Illinois on this program in December and why the question we asked him was why there ever though I was worried about new competition from the Iowa lottery instead of hiring He said Not at all because they would simply step up their promotion and make people the head of the I was so I can assure them that they have I live along the river we're going to be caught between two very big ongoing promotion to the convention all of us to buy a lot of the unimagined some day and somewhere down the line so we read a story it's called The Lottery wars or something like that. I think that's probably true. I'm just wondering where it's all all going to leave but I think if they do some of your people down the road really who are filthy and all the time you think it's possible that there may even be people mortgaging the farm. Right right right. You have to have a far better eye out there are a lot of laws that were caught your bad money.
Where are they going to tax me when the session is over or are they going to extract more taxes from John McCormack and me and the rest of us here in Iowa. There you have to look at the legislature now in terms of the Senate in the House the Senate which I cover is dead set against as is meant they don't want any tax increase and nothing major at least now you can finagle over a cigarette tax that could go through. Gas tax might go through with the price of gas as low as it is. And I was having good memories of paying a dollar thirty dollar and a quarter a gallon dollar five a gallon isn't going to bother them too much at least as the perception is up and up in the state house. The general tenor though in the Senate is that they do not want tax increases of any major proportion. My can talk for the House I think it's pretty obvious that they they don't mind it. Taxes are taxes I think if we can tie this in the machinery equipment tax which Governor Branstad with example now the
Democrats legislation want to exempt the cigarette tax is I think building for momentum I think if you smoke cigarettes you can just about get on it. Pack more intact although that's never certain. The gas tax I would agree with Tom I think we could easily see the gas tax increase but that's less certain in the House they're willing to raise the sales tax to get into the higher taxes raising taxes more palatable in the house why is that more palatable there than it is in the Senate. That goes back I guess more or less to the different traditions of the Senate over the years I think it's been a more conservative body. There are fewer people in there and then and when it doesn't go to the junk and even some leadership events and how it's just out of you know what I did to a certain degree it does but yeah but their opposition to a sales tax increase in the Senate really is no different now than it has been over the last few years. Now they did vote to increase it a couple years
ago. But even Governor Brown Governor Branstad proposed it so therefore everybody was able to you know you're blaming each other for acting very casually and I'm on the air. If anybody in either House is speaking up about the really desperate need for additional. Go grab a new you know two or three years ago we were all uptight about how we're going to have to do something about the crumbling infrastructure now with our great new workers and their. And believe me it's crumbling our city streets are hardly fit to drive on and there's a desperate need for additional revenue. Which cities are not in a very good position to raise on their own but which they could get out of an additional share of tax revenue if we could increase it. Now you say the increase could be relatively painless with the price going down but it still takes a certain amount of legislating courage to get out and push it through I saw it was the highway idea. Pete was
campaigning for well anymore I think. If we pretty carefully I think that the danger of repeating myself the two session phenomena if there are there there is an undercurrent for a gas tax increase but it's been so overwhelmed by the the farm thing that nobody is talking very much about it and probably won't until the farm things are all going the other any move in that direction is going to come later in the session I think that's the point and we're not sloughing it off it's just not up on the front burner. Following up on big question about what you know where we got to get next. Is there any talk about paid much attention to what point to developing in Washington on that the revenue reform proposals right which you remember from the from Secretary Reagan was to eliminate the deduction on your federal income tax out of your state income tax which would in effect make our state income tax much more painful to all of us if we can no longer be
adopted from our federal. It's that type of thing influencing any thought up their numbers. Not yet only because Washington hasn't moved. So you're going to have a lag period in here what most of the legislative legislative leaders have told me is that we'll see what they do and then will will respond probably if we have to in a special session sometime this fall. I think that this was an answer. Well I think the home the whole state budget process is something that. It is advanced very far. This is the last week for the committees which work on the state budget to meet they're going to have that all preliminarily drafted at the end of this week. In all likelihood as a lot earlier than usual as much or much earlier than usual in fact the state budget is almost drafted. That's almost all out of the way and they have done very very little in terms of reacting to the federal cuts. Seems like we're obsessed here with money and maybe it's because the state doesn't have any. But I was intrigued this week by the agreement that the this committee that deals with the
bargaining committee appointed by the state worked out with the state union asked me in that calls I believe it is for a one percent increase in January of 1986 for state pay of those union workers and then 5 percent the following year. Does the state have the money to finance that and what is the ripple effect then on other state nonunion employees. Well first of all it's 1 percent. First year on January 1 1900. So yes 4 percent. Thank you. In 1987 total at five point five percent but that's just the cost of living. There's also what is known often used it also is the step increase which amounts to most for most employees about a three to four percent pay increase total of the package is about it would be about 6 1/2 percent per year once it's all paid out it isn't going to happen in two years. One stop paid on its own march about six and a half percent raise a year. The ripple effect on all state employees good question. There's been a tradition up in the ledge in the legislature and in the executive branch to
treat your state employees all the same union nonunion. If you do that with the nonunion folks you have a probably about 100 million dollar increase in spending just for pay increases now that's over a two and a half to three year period coming at a time I wonder how this is going to sit with the general public coming at a time when most workers are ad being asked to give up some of their current wages in order to keep the company going. The settlement with asking puts the state in a devilishly quickly situation because there has been a tradition of extending the pay and benefits to the rest of the state employees. That would be very expensive but if you flip that over and if they don't extend it to the rest of the workers that makes organizing the rest of the state workers just that much easier. I think one of the reasons that the settlement came in. Openly the state employee workforce and state employee union the very powerful political force there 40000 state workers out there and there's an election coming up in two years less than two years and half and half the employees now
are unionized. So that just gives them that much more clout. And and you've got to give in-system our credit they've they've pretty much bargained themselves on a pretty good package from the standpoint of a lot of folks are going to get a raise at all. John got it. To go back there for a minute while we talked about whether or not to what extent the economic trouble might be genuine and how far up might go. Nevertheless we do know there are individuals who are hurting people. People are suffering as a result of that. The farm economy and we read about a family break ups and their personal psychological shift. Ask for counseling and all that sort of thing. There are some human misery connected with it but it's not the first human misery and I was I mean there is we had a lot of human misery connected with people who were not well off economically that our whole department of social services deals with. Now Mike you said that the budgets pretty raúl been approved and I take it without any real significant increase and
now in the social safety net is it worth for four ADC people of Medicaid people and and the others who are who like the farmers now have wrong turn to the state for for economic help right about there. No the state has not proposed in the budget and so far to increase the amount of money they're going to those types of social service programs in fact if you are going to be slightly decreased or about the same they have not reacting to that. It's interesting because the only people who are talking about those types of issues on the Hill these days are conservative Republicans who twit the Democrats a little bit for not treating their traditional constituencies very well. And no they're not reacting to it and I think those kinds of people cannot anticipate additional state funding this year or additional state help. Are you saying that the Democrats seem to be more interested at now and in the farm or in trouble than they are in the A.D.C. by either of their other traditional constituencies and I don't think that's fair. I really don't I think it's whoever has the attention at that moment the thing
about it ATC and Medicaid of course there's a there's another little twist to it. The state is going to be collecting more money from the federal government because of the the bad state of our economic. Economic situation and the thing that the state is doing is they're going to continue the benefits as they are at their current level. But what that means is less state dollars have to go in to pay for them because we're going to be picking up I think it's about 10 million. Don't hold me to that figure. There is there is some concern about that some people have complained that Democrats have complained the Governor Branstad child protection programs are trying but it doesn't cost anything and that's why he wants them and that there's a there is a bill to taking children out of jeopardy. That's another one that's out there that remains unresolved. I'm not sure what's going to how would I ask you about two emotional things that have come up in this session. One is the mandating of the state school year. You know that's creating more discussion than is any practice in Greece right now that's going to be signed by the governor. We don't know. Last year he came down on all three sides of the issue. He
knew some folks who wanted it some folks who didn't and other folks didn't care. Pretty much kept his options open are going any way that he wants to run at all that it was interesting just last Friday there was a bill signing ceremony for the governor of one of the governor's priority building education which was mandating a five year plan and be drawn for education in the state and during the signing ceremony a Democratic legislator leaned over to him and asked him when there would be a signing ceremony for that other education bill that was down there and it visibly upset him. That's the mandating of a state school here that's one of your favorite word him that someone would raise the question they're going to move on something w a y in the session. That's a good question. Very good I'll let you know. OK you don't know that when you do that I have to go I had sour state parks and right and didn't back stab one time they even proposed Valentine of the day going to a state highway. Well no I would rather that the other thing that the state might do that let go of that they now have control of is the sale of wine and I'm sure that all your take you know in
John. You know what I believe he was in favor of this school mandating because when I was a kid you always started your school the day after Labor Day and you always got out the day before Memorial Day and that way you always knew how long they thought I was going to be and every chance they had I've always been the last. Never could never could you know one thing John we're never at a loss on we have 30 minutes for this program and we always know what it's going to and it's standing right now thank you very much for that comment and the nice lead in for me. Thank you gentlemen for being with us this week. We'll be back next week with another edition of I will press in that time. U.S. Senator Tom Harkin will be with us so until then for John the crumbly Mike Glover and Tom were toss the I'm doing board. Stay tuned for Morgan helical with take one. Good night. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television.
