Changes

==Rationale==

==Rationale==

Both versions of AAA were designed primarily to solve the economic crisis in rural America--farmers had too little money because they produced too much and the prices they received were very low.  Under President [[Herbert Hoover]], the Federal Farm Board in 1931-32 repeatedly urged farmers to cut production so that the abysmally low prices could be lifted; that was a good idea for everyone, but for each individual farmer it was better to grow as much as possible, thus resulting in more surplus and even lower prices.  The farmers welcomed help from the New Deal, but instead of the crop-reduction plan those more on the left wanted a "cost of production" scheme that would have involved vast subsidies. They want prices set by the government (as happened in World War I), but the new Secretary of Agriculture [[Henry A. Wallace]], rejected price fixing, explaining it had worked during the war because demand was much higher than supply, but that exports had shrink and supply was now much higher than demand.

Both versions of AAA were designed primarily to solve the economic crisis in rural America--farmers had too little money because they produced too much and the prices they received were very low.  Under President [[Herbert Hoover]], the Federal Farm Board in 1931-32 repeatedly urged farmers to cut production so that the abysmally low prices could be lifted; that was a good idea for everyone, but for each individual farmer it was better to grow as much as possible, thus resulting in more surplus and even lower prices.  The farmers welcomed help from the New Deal, but instead of the crop-reduction plan those more on the left wanted a "cost of production" scheme that would have involved vast subsidies. They wanted prices set by the government (as happened in World War I), but the new Secretary of Agriculture [[Henry A. Wallace]], rejected price fixing, explaining it had worked during the war because demand was much higher than supply, but that exports had shru nk and supply was now much higher than demand.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) (P.L. 73-10 of May 12,  1933) restricted production by reducing crop acreage and animal production.  The first AAA used the "domestic allotment" system to tell farmers how many acres to use. Producers of corn, cotton,<ref>In 1936 the Bureau of Agricultural Economics reported that in the case of cotton, farm income would have been at least as high, if not higher, in the absence of the AAA. (Leander D. Howell and John Sanderlain Burgess, ''Farm Prices of Cotton as related to its Grade and Staple Length in the United States, Seasons 1928-29 to 1932-33'' [U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin no. 493, 1936]). Cf. Thomas E. Woods, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=ltSIOnW6XLsC The politically incorrect guide to American history]'' (Regnery Publishing, 2004) ISBN 0895260476, p. 147</ref> dairy products, hogs, rice, tobacco, and wheat would decide on production limits for their output. Every farmer was told how much of their land to use. Farmers rented their unused their land directly to the government and were paid for that.  They were not allowed to grow crops on this rented land, and if any had started in spring 1933 they had to be plowed over.  A farmer could refuse to participate, but then would have a 50% tax on his sales. They all participated. Processors had to pay a new tax to the federal government, which was used for the rental payments to farmers. The rental income was new cash into rural America.  More important, the farm output was lower so the prices of crops and animals increased, thus solving the problem of very low crop prices.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) (P.L. 73-10 of May 12,  1933) restricted production by reducing crop acreage and animal production.  The first AAA used the "domestic allotment" system to tell farmers how many acres to use. Producers of corn, cotton,<ref>In 1936 the Bureau of Agricultural Economics reported that in the case of cotton, farm income would have been at least as high, if not higher, in the absence of the AAA. (Leander D. Howell and John Sanderlain Burgess, ''Farm Prices of Cotton as related to its Grade and Staple Length in the United States, Seasons 1928-29 to 1932-33'' [U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin no. 493, 1936]). Cf. Thomas E. Woods, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=ltSIOnW6XLsC The politically incorrect guide to American history]'' (Regnery Publishing, 2004) ISBN 0895260476, p. 147</ref> dairy products, hogs, rice, tobacco, and wheat would decide on production limits for their output. Every farmer was told how much of their land to use. Farmers rented their unused their land directly to the government and were paid for that.  They were not allowed to grow crops on this rented land, and if any had started in spring 1933 they had to be plowed over.  A farmer could refuse to participate, but then would have a 50% tax on his sales. They all participated. Processors had to pay a new tax to the federal government, which was used for the rental payments to farmers. The rental income was new cash into rural America.  More important, the farm output was lower so the prices of crops and animals increased, thus solving the problem of very low crop prices.

One criticism from the left was that in the cotton belt South the AAA favored rich landowners over the impoverished tenant farmers and sharecroppers.  The allegation was false but was widely spread in history books.  (The AAA required land owners to maintain the same number of tenants and croppers as before.)  

One criticism from the left was that in the cotton belt South the AAA favored rich landowners over the impoverished tenant farmers and sharecroppers.  The allegation was false but was widely spread in history books.  (The AAA required land owners to maintain the same number of tenants and croppers as before.)  

In 1933-35 there was a group of leftist lawyers had moved into the Agriculture department, led by Jerome Frank. They were big city people who were on the far left; several were secret Communists or fellow travelers.<ref>One who later became infamous as a Soviet spy was [[Alger Hiss]].  Jess Gilbert, "Eastern Urban Liberals and Midwestern Agrarian Intellectuals: Two Group Portraits of Progressives in the New Deal Department of Agriculture," ''Agricultural History,'' Vol. 74, No. 2 (Spring, 2000), pp. 162-180 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3744845 in JSTOR]</ref> They wanted to use the New Deal farm program to redistribute income and power AMONG farmers--they favored the tenant farmers and sharecroppers as opposed to the farm owners. (The "conservatives" wanted to give taise farm incomes so that farmers would regain their historic [[parity]] with urbanites.)   

In 1933-35 a group of leftist lawyers had moved into the Agriculture department, led by Jerome Frank. They were big city people who were on the far left; several were secret Communists or fellow travelers.<ref>One who later became infamous as a Soviet spy was [[Alger Hiss]].  Jess Gilbert, "Eastern Urban Liberals and Midwestern Agrarian Intellectuals: Two Group Portraits of Progressives in the New Deal Department of Agriculture," ''Agricultural History,'' Vol. 74, No. 2 (Spring, 2000), pp. 162-180 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3744845 in JSTOR]</ref> They wanted to use the New Deal farm program to redistribute income and power AMONG farmers--they favored the tenant farmers and sharecroppers as opposed to the farm owners. (The "conservatives" wanted to raise farm incomes so that farmers would regain their historic [[parity]] with urbanites.)   

The AAA head was Chester Davis, an "agrarian" who belonged to the more  "conservative" faction that deeply distrusted the leftists as un-American. The agrarians issued the rule that (in cotton) a landowner had to keep the ''same number'' of croppers. The red position was the landowner had to keep the same number ''and the same people'' as croppers. The radical solution would have the effect of locking the croppers to a piece of land--something like serfdom did in old regime Europe. The radicals wanted that so they could eventually build a stable base of voters among the croppers (who otherwise moved so often they seldom could be mobilized.)

The AAA head was Chester Davis, an "agrarian" who belonged to the more  "conservative" faction that deeply distrusted the leftists as un-American. The agrarians issued the rule that (in cotton) a landowner had to keep the ''same number'' of croppers. The red position was the landowner had to keep the same number ''and the same people'' as croppers. The radical solution would have the effect of locking the croppers to a piece of land--something like serfdom did in old regime Europe. The radicals wanted that so they could eventually build a stable base of voters among the croppers (who otherwise moved so often they seldom could be mobilized.)