Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Everything old is old again

Forbes, “Obama: Campaigning Like It’s 1936”:

While Republican presidential candidates are looking forward by proposing variations of a flat income tax, President Obama’s tax-the-rich campaign strategy is looking backward—to Franklin Roosevelt’s 1936 reelection campaign. FDR won his reelection, but the American people lost: Roosevelt’s new taxes on business and the “economic royalists” gave us the “Roosevelt recession” of 1937-38.

By August of 1935, Roosevelt had achieved some of his signature pieces of legislation: a new entitlement program known as Social Security, banking reform, pro-union reform, infrastructure expansion and massive transfers of wealth to the poor and middle classes. Sound familiar?

FDR also ran up federal spending significantly: from 6 percent to 9 percent of the economy.

However, FDR needed more revenue to support his big-government schemes. More importantly, he needed a villain to explain why, given the passage of his New Deal legislation, government spending and regulations, the economy was still struggling.

So he proposed raising taxes on the rich, which he dubbed a “Wealth Tax.” As he explained to Congress in June 1935, “Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few, and they have done little to prevent the unjust concentration of wealth and economic power. … Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods.” President Obama couldn’t have said it better himself.

[…]

Like Obama, FDR faced what he saw as a big problem: Businesses had a lot of cash on hand but weren’t spending it. “Regime uncertainty,” the reluctance of business to hire and invest when faced with a growing onslaught of new taxes and regulations, suppressed capital spending. No one knew what the future held so businesses held on to their cash hoping to survive. Again, sound familiar?

Roosevelt believed that forcing businesses to spend that money would create jobs. So he proposed, and got, his undistributed profits tax. If the government were going to tax idle money anyway, maybe businesses would put it to work.

The irony, of course, is that the more FDR dreamed up new taxes and regulations to get the economy moving, the more regime uncertainty he created. And those efforts had a predictable effect: the economy began to turn south in 1937, resulting in the Roosevelt recession. Unemployment had fallen from a high of 24.9 percent in 1933 to 16.9 percent in 1936, the year of FDR’s first reelection—still significantly higher than the post-war high of 7.5 percent during Reagan’s 1984 reelection and the current, and likely to remain, 9.1 percent unemployment rate under Obama.

However, unemployment under Reagan and Roosevelt were dropping quickly in their reelection years, which boosted voter confidence. Not so with Obama. And Obama’s embracing of FDR’s “soak the rich” tax policies—as FDR’s critics called it—will do just as much economic harm now as they did then. While the unemployment rate fell to 14.3 percent in 1937, it rose to 19 percent in 1938 and only declined to 17.2 percent in 1939.*

If President Obama is trying to draw lessons from FDR’s 1936 reelection, he is learning the wrong ones. FDR had a huge majority in both houses of Congress, so he was able to get his class-warfare agenda passed—though his efforts expanded the growing divide between conservative and liberal Democrats. Obama may complain about the need to tax the rich; Republicans won’t let him do it.

Unless they get really really bullied and bloodied by the press.

Then it’s likely Boehner will squirt a few orange-tinged tears and explain to us how the GOP only controls 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, and that the American people wanted him to compromise.

Obama is merely exploiting a weakness in GOP leadership. As for the unemployment numbers? This is a postmodern presidency, sillies. Those percentages can just be “adjusted” to meet whatever perception needs to be met — in this case, I look for them to magically fall into the 8s in time for the 2012 elections, so that the message becomes that we’re moving in the right direction and we shouldn’t risk changing leadership just as the economy is bouncing back.

We shall see just how open Americans are to socialist propaganda. The left has been successfully insinuating it into our institutions for years, and they’re betting it all that this is the time when the tipping point is finally reached — and Americans accept the managed decline and the democratic socialist state that every big government advocate dreams about.

(h/t Instapundit)

9 Replies to “Everything old is old again”

  1. sdferr says:

    The Reactionary Left: what they do when they got nothin’ but nothin’ — resort to nostalgia.

  2. BBHunter says:

    – Memories of that “2nd recession” in ’36 is probably what got the Pols tongues wagging about a double dip a few months back.

    – The only thing that saved FDR’s ass was the war. Just prior to Pearl Harbor the impeachments talk was getting louder and louder.

  3. sdferr says:

    Bill Nelson (D-Fl [and not for long yet!]), via Jeff’s tweet:

    Repeating Biden’s quote about “this is not your father’s Republican Party,” Nelson offered harsh words for current Republicans. “This is a strange kind of extremist,” said Nelson.

    See? Even nostalgic for someone else’s Party. The Donkey disorientation runs deep.

  4. sdferr says:

    Stephen Hayward, The Liberal Misappropriation of a Conservative President:

    Of all the unlikely developments in American politics over the last two decades, the most astonishing is this: liberals suddenly love Ronald Reagan. They have taken to celebrating certain virtues they claim Reagan possessed—virtues they believe are absent from the conservative body politic today—while looking back with nostalgia at the supposed civility of the political struggles of the 1980s.

  5. John Bradley says:

    “The only good conservative is a dead conservative.”

    At least they’re fairly consistent on one point.

  6. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Didn’t Orwell say something somewhere about how, the future being known, control of the past was the only thing really up for grabs?

    I think I remember reading that.

    Or maybe I’m so sick in the head that I’ve convinced myself I remember reading something never written by someone who never existed. Sometimes it’s hard to be sure.

  7. newrouter says:

    “control of the past was the only thing really up for grabs?”

    Censorship of images in the Soviet Union

  8. […] Obama’s tax-the-rich campaign strategy is looking backward—to Franklin Roosevelt’s…Show original Share this: This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Thanks […]

  9. Crawford says:

    OK, but are you sure he’s running like it’s 1936 in the United States?

    Because those hash-tag armbands are more than a little creepy.

Comments are closed.