GOP LEADERS SHOULD LISTEN TO FARM ADVICE

A major fight has erupted within Republican ranks in Washington over the future direction of agriculture, and congressmen from this area are in the thick of it. As far as we are concerned, they are on the right side.

Congressman Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has come forward with a bill that would essentially "decouple" or divorce farm support from commodity prices. In so doing, he would, in our opinion, turn the agriculture program into another welfare entitlement program where still more citizens could be paid to sit on their butts rather than being encouraged to produce commodities for the common good. In a very real sense, we see very little difference in that approach than in the current stupid, backward, approach toward welfare generally, where teen-age unwed mothers are rewarded for having illegitimate babies. (They are not rewarded, you may recall, for not having illegitimate babies, through they, and society as a whole, would be better off if they were.)

Under the Roberts bill, which evidently carries the endorsement of House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Majority Leader Dick Armey of Fort Worth, farmers would get stipulated cash payments, on a declining scale, for the next seven years, regardless of the market, regardless of the price of commodities. The farmer would get the same amount, whether his crops were good or bad, whether the market was high or low.

Mr. Roberts represents essentially grain country. As far as we know, there is no cotton grown in Kansas. And as far as we know, the Roberts plan may be of some benefit to his region. But for our own region it seems to us that his plan is potentially disastrous. We are most pleased that Rep. Larry Combest of Lubbock and Rep. Mac Thornberry of this district joined in opposing the Roberts bill. That required a great deal of courage. We hope they will hang in there, and we suspect they will.

This is not an argument over saving money to balance the budget. Combest, a member of the Agriculture Committee, introduced his own bill, which would save essentially the same as the Roberts bill, but would maintain the link between market prices and the federal support system. Mr. Thornberry was a co-sponsor of the Combest bill. It would accomplish the purpose of making the program less costly but would be far less disruptive (and destructive) than the Roberts bill.

We hear by our Washington grapevine that Gingrich and Armey are exceedingly unhappy with Combest and those who went against "the leadership" on this issue. Combest, we are told, was even referred to by Armey as a "traitor" in one of those closed-door meetings where the leadership gathered to assess the situation. He should not worry. Neither should Mr. Thornberry. Both men were sent to Washington to represent the people and interests of their Districts. They made those promises to their constituents, and we are happy to see them carry out their promises.

There are perhaps excuses for the positions of Gingrich and Armey. Both are "intellectuals." Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with being a "visionary," so long as there are people around who can fashion a way to make the vision work. But neither Gingrich nor Armey know anything about the agricultural sector generally or specifically. They ought to listen a little closer to Combest, who does. Perhaps then they wouldn't get embarrassed by seeing Republican defectors on a bill of such importance to the nation's economy, or to their own role as leaders.

In short, there's only one thing that makes a leader. That's followers. And intelligent followers do not follow leaders who propose to lead them in the wilderness.

Ken Towery is a writer for The Lamplighter, a newspaper serving the Texas communities of Floidada and Crosbyton. Congressman Bill Emerson of Cape Girardeau also was among those who opposed the Republican leadership's farm bill.