Obama should look to Franklin D. Roosevelt, not Abraham Lincoln

I'll be honest, I took this from Thom Hartman's blog http://campaign.constantcontact.com

In his Madison Square Garden Speech on October 31, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt showed the spirit that President Obama needs today. Obama is facing the results of a Republican depression like Roosevelt, not a revolution like Lincoln.

"We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.

"For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

"They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

"I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

King needs history lesson about New Deal

From the Omaha World Herald; MIDLANDS VOICES
Facts are against New Deal’s foes

BY JIM BECHTEL

The writer, of Omaha, teaches at a local community college. He holds a master’s degree in modern American history.

In a Feb. 6 Midlands Voices essay, U.S. Rep. Steve King, (R) ­Iowa, echoes claims made by Wall Street Journal editors and Public Pulse writers: The New Deal is a bad model for Presi­dent Barack Obama’s recovery program because it failed. This is untrue.
Historian David McCullough warns that amnesia is as harm­ful for a country as it is for an individual. Let’s remember the realities.

In the first place, the New Deal consisted of many parts, including bank deposit insur­ance (there were 4,004 bank failures the year before it be­gan, zero the year after), Social Security, unemployment com­pensation, accessible Federal Housing Administration mort­gages, a minimum wage and the Glass-Steagall Act, which sepa­rated risky investment banking from commercial banking. (This was later rescinded, to our current misfortune.) Because it was so successful, the New Deal was overwhelm­ingly endorsed by Americans the first chance they had. In the 1934 midterm elections, the Re­publican Party suffered its worst defeat since its founding. Some haven’t gotten over it.

Then, as now, collapse meant private investment had dried up, so public investment had to fill the gap. Public workers built New York City’s Tribo­rough Bridge and Lincoln Tun­nel and the beautiful Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia. They went to work on 2,500 hos­pitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads and a thousand airfields.
The University of Nebraska at Omaha has a grand old build­ing, built by the Works Pro­gress Administration, that is still in use three-quarters of a century later. Now called Arts and Sciences Hall, you can see it at the northeast corner of the campus as you drive down Dodge Street.

It’s ironic that the South has become the core of the Republi­can base. History texts note that the modern South was born as a result of New Deal pro­grams. For example, the Ten­nessee Valley Authority, cham­pioned by Nebraska’s own U.S. Sen. George W. Norris, brought progress to many parts of Ap­palachia. Cheap electricity from its hydroelectric plants sparked the rebirth of Mem­phis, Tenn., and Atlanta.

With millions of workers re­building the nation’s infra­structure, as President Obama proposes doing, the unemploy­ment rate dropped by nearly 43 percent [I had "an average of five perect a year"] from 1933 to 1937! This is a simple fact of record.

Now, unemployment did bounce back up in 1937 when President Franklin D. Roose­velt, listening to conservatives, thought the economy had re­covered enough that he could cut social programs. This “turn to the right,” as it has been called, taught him a lesson. He resumed the stimulus pro­grams, and unemployment re­sumed its steady downward march.

Congressman King claims that the Depression was the “result” of the New Deal. This defies logic: A “result” must, by definition, come after its cause. The New Deal was launched in response to 25 percent unem­ployment. You can rewrite his­tory, but you can’t make time run backward. As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

And yet, right-wing publi­cists like Amity Shlaes persist in claiming the New Deal failed. How do they get away with it? Simple. They say “tem­porary jobs in emergency pro­grams” don’t count. That is, if your paycheck came from the WPA, then building that grand old structure at UNO was somehow not a “real” job.

Never mind increased pride in being usefully employed or the new shoes for the kids and the food on the kitchen table. Forget the grocer’s smile; ig­nore the decrease in human suffering. The jobs must be erased from history because they fly in the face of fervently held ideological dogmas about supply-side economics.

It seems like the obstruction­ists in Congress would rather sacrifice the common good to their “Invisible Hand” mythol­ogy and subordinate the public interest to partisanship.

Fear itself

Recently our Congressman, Steve King wrote an op-ed piece where he tried to make voters afraid of the Stimulus package currently before the Senate by comparing Obama's strategies to those of FDR. King wants to blame the Great Depression.

"The short-term result of FDR's spending was minimal. Food shortages remained, mil­lions of Americans still lacked jobs and true recovery did not occur. In the long run, FDR's stimulus led to higher tax rates and greater government in­volvement in Americans' lives. "

But tale a glance at this graph from the depression era and the correlation between New Deal policies and prosperity are pretty plain. You don't have to be an economist to see it. Once again, Republicans are pandering in fear and paralysis rather than practical, pragmatic action meant to bring about progress.

Stop listening to the fear-mongering. We need some good old fashioned Relief, Recovery and Reform. King and the national Republicans want to make us scared because they're scared because they were the ones who benefited most from dismantling all the New Deal reforms that Reagan and both Bushes managed to do over the last few decades. Lobbyists, special interest money and the whole culture of corruption were designed to take advantage of the working middle class.

The best thing for our economy would be if President Obama WERE more like FDR. Tell King to go back to school and take a few History and Economics classes.

Supply Side Economics

Okay, quick economics lesson:
Demand-Side Economics, you raise wages, that increases the spending and saving ability of the middle class- heck it even grow the middle class. That demand, drives a need for greater supply. It works like a perpetual motion machine, the demand drives the supply, the supply feeds demand. That sustains the economy (although, admittedly, it may not grow the economy beyond what is reasonable).

Worked pretty dang good from 1932-1980, it even provided tax revenue to provide for things like the providing for the common defense, securing domestic security, promoting the general welfare, and especially securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity (the "American Dream," where each generation had it a teensy bit better than the last one.

Supply-Side Economics (aka Reaganomics, aka Bushonomics) on the other hand is SUPPOSED to work so that if you drastically cut the taxes of the wealthy and corporations, they'll (theoretically) reinvest in research, production, and infrastructure (see the cartoon above on the current bail-out) which (in theory) would provide more jobs to the middle and lower classes and make up the revenue short-fall with payroll taxes. The idea was that "a rising tide lifts all boats."

IN PRACTICE, human nature being what it is, greed plays a roll. CEOs pay themselves 400x as much in salary as their employees make, executives put their own interests ahead of both their share holders and the common good- and certainly their share holders still come before the common good of the community, state, or nation. Investors use their tax cuts (and looser regulations) to gamble on bigger and bigger and quicker and quicker returns.

Was it Aesop or the Grimm brothers who told us about the goose that laid the golden eggs? Feeding, caring for, and nurturing the goose gets you years of golden eggs. Butchering the goose to get what eggs are in it's belly only gets you that one or two eggs. Greed vs. sustainability. Bubbles of rapid growth, or perpetual but gradual climb? Which is better for America in the long run?

As someone with a college degree in History, I'm here to tell you friends that 1980-2008 looks a lot like 1909-1929. A "gilded age" of conspicuous consumption , unregulated corruption, and unbridled ambition. PLEASE think about this when you vote on Tuesday. PLEASE.

This is not the difference between "Socialism" and "Pro-American," this is the difference between moral (good steward, civic-responsible) capitalism and amoral (malignant, cancerous) capitalism. PLEASE put America back on the right track.

"Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men." ~ From FDR's first inaugural address, 1932

Raiders of the Lost Rs

Professor Jones had just finished his lecture and was explaining to the museum curator about how a competing archaeologist had set a trap for him and taken the idol which Jones had spent months trying to procure.

“Of course, Indy, of course, you know the museum will pay for anything you have, but my friend,” Brody urged, you may have something bigger to tackle for now,” and he ushered his colleague into the college library where two very official looking men were waiting by a research table in trench coats, brief cases, gray fedora hats and dark glasses.

“Dr. Jones,” the bigger man greeted him as all four settled into library chairs, “what do you know about the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith?”

“Legends mostly, it’s a powerful myth among some western civilizations, especially the oil seeking tribes of old white male elephants and war hawks in North America,” the grizzled adventurer noted, “they treat it like a deity, really, supposed to guide the ebb and flow of financial markets.”

“We’ve found evidence in the beltway of this cult, policy makers chanting an obscure incantation ‘Laissez-faire,’ and something about a great god ‘Reagan’ and cutting things call ‘the prime rate,’ does any of this make sense to you?"

“Oh, sheez ,” Jones mumbled as he rubbed his face. “Let me read you something that a very wise man once wrote,” he started as he pulled a yellowed and dog-eared edition from his leather satchel.

“…Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men…they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money-” Jones read with the help of his seldom worn spectacles.

“He, he’s ssu su-saying that they had let things get out of hand because of their own greed and materialism and then when they tried to fix it, they just did more of the same- like throwing gas on a ff-fa-fire, is that right?” asked the smaller of the two men, nervously fiddling with his own glasses.

“Something like that,” sighed the hard-boiled hero.

“Is there anything we can do? A better way? Even if it’s difficult and takes years to get back on track?” Inquired the big man. “There’s great fear of an ancient demon, the elephant and hawk tribes fear it so much that they dare not even utter it’s name, ‘Ree-Sez-Eon’ or something like that.”

This drew another heavy sigh from the archaeologist. He stood up slowly, ran his hand threw his hair, and headed for a section of books behind where the g-men were sitting.
“What is it?” asked the bigger man.

“The Rs the Rs” Jones muttered almost under his breath.

“Ah, the ARRRs,” nodded his friend Marcus Brody in recognition.

“What are these ‘ares?’ wh-what are they?” asked the little man in glasses.
Indiana Jones traced his finger along the spines of several large books until he finally found the one he needed. He slipped it off the shelf, dragging cob webs and the smell of mildew with it. Insects scurries into the dark gap left by the heavy volume.

“Here,” Jones said as he heaved the massive book in front of the two agents, opening it to the middle, a cloud of dust in it’s wake. He carefully brushed away another layer of dust with his hand and began tracing a column of paragraphs with his finger, stopping in the middle and pointing, “Here,” he said, pointing again with his finger to emphasize the discovery. Each of the men scooted closer in their seats, the one straightened his glasses while the other pulled a pair out of his coat pocket and put them on, straining to read the ancient words.

“Relief, Recovery, and Reform?” read the larger man who’d just donned his glasses.

“Yeah,” sighed Jones, as if the weight of the world depended on the words. “Relief, Recovery, and most importantly REFORM,” he repeated.

“In the first part of the century, the people practiced strange religions, ‘materialism,’ ‘unsupervised capitalism,’ ‘conspicuous consumption,’ ‘social-Darwinism,’ they were ruthless, heartless, and above all reckless cults that not only raped the land of resources but built empires on the backs of the poor and the middle classes. Ironically, the elephants and hawks held onto power by making the under-classes afraid of what they called ‘class-warfare’ and socialism, not to mention immigrants and Blacks.” He explained, “It was terrible, banks failed, unemployment skyrocketed…”

“And these three ‘R’s fixed everything?” the large man pressed.

“Well, you’re never going to have things perfect,” said Jones, “The deal was that you had to be pragmatic. The important thing was to try to make things fair for the most people, not just the people who already had it good. Of course there were also some very important pieces like collective bargaining for workers- which of course meant letting them to organize in the first place. A progressive tax structure, the idea was that we’re all in this together and the more you could handle, the more you were asked to take on. That way, it was easier for the people who actually worked for a living to save and get ahead. And then there was the biggest R of all was what prevented things like bank failures in the first place,” Jones paused for dramatic effect, and gave the g-men an intense look, “Regulation.”

"What kind of a book is this?" asked the two men it ogether.

"U.S.History, what else?" he replied.

Markets low, oil high?

"...the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failures and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True, they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money.

Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored conditions. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.

They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled their high seats in the temple of our civilization (see Matthew 21:11-13). We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.

The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money, it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.

The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow-men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be values only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit, and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.

Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live."

From FDR's first inagural address, 1933- the speech where he declared we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Do you ever feel like our leaders have been trying to use fear to manipulate us?

• Fear of terrorists (trying to link AlQuaeda to Iran, even though Iran is Shi'a and hates Muhabeist Suniis like AlQuaeda)
• Fear of "the other"- blaming our economic and crime problems on immigrants desperate for a better way of life
• Fear of what is different, a black man with an Arab middle name, or homosexuals or anyone who believes differently that the most visible and vocal television preachers.
  

But fear is wrong, even in the most difficult times. "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." 1 John 4:18

Just some things to think about.

Social Insecurity

Social Insecurity
by Ted Mallory Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper Thurs. March 3, 2005

As a History Major, I believe that we can learn a lot from our predecessors. I believe that we can learn a lot from “the Greatest Generation” which can help us with today’s problems. Please consider what President Franklin Roosevelt State of the Union Address from January 6, 1941- a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor that drew us into WWII:

“For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and
strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and
economic systems are simple.

They are:

● Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
● Jobs for those who can work.
● Security for those who need it.
● The ending of special privilege for the few.
● The preservation of civil liberties for all.
● The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and
constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As examples:We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.

We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.

I have called for personal sacrifice. I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call.

A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my Budget Message I shall recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.

If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause.”

FDR believed in the old Midwestern, common sense axiom, “We’re all in this together,” but in George Bush’s “ownership society” it’s every man for himself. He got himself elected by telling us that we deserved a tax cut, he said that the budget surplus was our money so the government should give it back. Of course, 80% of the cut went to the riches 2% of Americans. That certainly wasn’t in line with FDR’s “principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay.”

In his last State of the Union, former President Clinton proposed that any budget surplus be reserved until Social Security is strengthened. You’d have thought that Bush would’ve rethought, even retracted his massive tax cuts immediately after 9/11 especially after considering how it affected the economy.

Now Bush wants to “privatize” Social Security. He makes it sound good by candy coating it with the notion that you will own your own Social Security in a personal “savings account.

First of all, Social Security isn’t in as much trouble as Bush wants to scare us into thinking it is. Even if we do nothing, Social Security will be safe until at least 2042. After that it will still be able to pay 75% of benefits. Thanks to a commission set up in 1983 by President Reagan and Alan Greenspan, Social Security has a reserve fund of nearly $ 1.6 Trillion. Those are in U.S. Treasury bonds, quite literally, the safest investment in the world.

Some Republicans have suggested one approach that hasn’t occurred to Bush- raising the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes, which is now about $90,000 a year. Barely 6% of Americans earn more than $90,000 a year. Why should those of us in the middle and working classes have to pay for Social Security, but the wealthy don’t? That’s not fair. That’s morally wrong.

Imposing Social Security taxes on incomes of up to $200,000 would go a LONG way toward shoring up whatever weaknesses Social Security has. That would certainly be more in line with FDR’s “principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay.”

What Bush isn’t telling us is that it would cost as much as $3 Trillion to change Social Security from what we have now to what he proposes. What he also fails to tell us is that optional private accounts will siphon money out of Social Security. When you take your money out of the group insurance plan at work, the costs go up for everybody else in the plan. When you take money from a public school so that parents can use a voucher at a private school, the public school has less money- how can it be expected to improve itself? The people who know how to invest wisely and feel comfortable doing it are people who already have plenty of money. The people who depend on Social Security the most will have less funds to count on.

I propose that Millionaires waive their right to collect Social Security. That would be the fastest and easiest way to save it. So what if there are fewer workers paying in once the Baby Boomers retire? If none of the Millionaire Boomers are collecting, because they’ve got plenty of personal investments already, then those people who really need it won’t have to worry about losing it.

Just when you thought that the negative campaign ads ended with the election, last week, Bush supporters went so far as to accuse the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) of opposing troops in Iraq and supporting gay marriage. It’s a smear campaign led by a conservative lobbying group called “USA Next” who plan to spend $10 million on commercials attacking the AARP because it opposes privatization.

In his first inaugural address in March 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR told us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. He also made it clear that we all have to help each other, because we’re all in this together:

“…We now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good.”

Social Security was established because we felt a sense of social responsibility. Bush believes only in personal responsibility, in individual ownership, competition, and survival of the fittest (richest), the law of the jungle. So did the three Republican Presidents who preceded FDR-Harding, Coolidge and Hoover and it led to the Great Depression. That’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea to invest Social Security in the stock market.

The Progressive Party Platform, 1948

The Progressive Party Platform, 1948 | Democracy for Washington:

Have you ever heard of Henry A. Wallace? Publisher of "Wallace's Farmer," Secretary of Agriculture & then Vice President and finally Secretary of Commerce under FDR?

He was from Iowa, he started as a Republican, became a Democrat, and ended up reviving the "Progressive Party" The Progressive Party was first created by Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican President who promised Americans a "square deal," until he was betrayed by his own party. It's not communism or socialism, but it does oppose the kind of oligarchy that we have now, where the top 2% gets massive tax cuts and special perks for the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and the Abu Dhabi-based Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

My personal political biliefs are those of Teddy Roosevelt and Henry A Wallace. If that makes me a "liberal" then I guess I'll have to live with that!

Principles of the Progressive Party

The Progressive Party is born in the deep conviction that the national wealth and natural resources of our country belong to the people who inhabit it and must be employed in their behalf; that freedom and opportunity must be secured equally to all; that the brotherhood of man can be achieved and scourge of war ended. The Progressive Party holds that basic to the organization of world peace is a return to the purposes of Franklin Roosevelt to seek areas of international agreement rather than disagreement. It was his conviction that within the framework of the United Nations different social and economic systems can and must live together...The Progressive Party holds that it is the first duty of just government to secure for all the people, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, national background, political belief, or station in life, the inalienable rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The government must actively protect these rights against the encroachments of public and private agencies. The Progressive Party holds that a just government must use its powers to promote an abundant life for its people. This is the basic idea of Franklin Roosevelt's Economic Bill of Rights. Heretofore every attempt to give effect to this principle has failed because Big Business dominates the key sectors of the economy. Antitrust laws and government regulation cannot break this domination. Therefore the people, through their democratically elected representatives, must take control of the main levers of the economic system. Public ownership of these levers will enable the people to plan the use of their productive resources so as to develop the limitless potential of modem technology and to create a true American Commonwealth free from poverty and insecurity. The Progressive Party believes that only through peaceful understanding can the world make progress toward reconstruction and higher standards of living; that peace is the essential condition for safe-guarding and extending our traditional freedoms; that only by preserving liberty and by planning an abundant life for all can we eliminate the sources of world conflict. Peace, freedom, and abundance - the goals of the Progressive Party - are indivisible. Only the Progressive Party can destroy the power of private monopoly and restore the government to the American people. For ours is a party uncorrupted by privilege, committed to no special interests, free from machine control, and open to all Americans of all races, colors, and creeds. The Progressive Party is a party of action. We seek through the democratic process and through day-by-day activity to lead the American people toward the fulfillment of these principles.