creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Michael Barone
Michael Barone
13 Feb 2012
Romney Appeals to White Collars, Santorum to Blue

Rick Santorum won big victories in three small contests in the Republican presidential race last Tuesday. In … Read More.

9 Feb 2012
GOP Must Convince Young People It's the Party of Options

The Republican presidential candidates, except for Ron Paul, haven't been paying much attention to young … Read More.

6 Feb 2012
Box-checking Obama in a Liberal Cocoon

It's unusual when a reporter sympathetic to a politician writes a story that makes his subject look bad. But … Read More.

Obama's New New Deal No Better Than the Old One

Share Comment

With victory in sight, Barack Obama's supporters are predicting that he will give us a new New Deal. To see what that might mean, let's look back on the original New Deal.

The purpose of New Deal legislation was not, as commonly thought, to restore economic growth but rather to freeze the economy in place at a time when it seemed locked in a downward spiral. Its central program, the National Recovery Administration (NRA), created 700 industry councils for firms and unions to set minimum prices and wages. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), the ancestor of our farm bills, limited production to hold up prices. Unionization, encouraged by NRA and the 1935 Wagner Act, was meant to keep workers in jobs that the unemployed would have taken at lower pay.

These policies did break the downward spiral. But, as Amity Shlaes points out in "The Forgotten Man," they failed to restore growth. Double-digit unemployment continued throughout the 1930s; despite population growth, the economy failed to rebound to 1920s production levels. High taxes on high earners (a Herbert Hoover as well as Franklin Roosevelt policy) financed welfare payments ("spread the wealth around") but reduced investment and growth.

The political verdict was negative. New Dealers were whalloped in the 1938 off-year elections. Polls show that Democrats would have lost the White House in 1940 if that election had been decided on domestic issues. But war loomed. France fell in June 1940, just before America's two national party conventions, and Adolf Hitler and his then-ally Joseph Stalin controlled most of the landmass of Eurasia. Republicans did not have an experienced leader in this world crisis — Democrats did: Franklin Roosevelt, who cynically engineered his nomination for a third term and then swept to victory on foreign policy.

Roosevelt had thought that economic expansion was a thing of the past. But World War II stimulated huge growth in the American economy. New Deal welfare programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) arts program were terminated. Wartime domestic policies were growth stimulators. Veterans Administration home mortgage loans, building on the FHA mortgage program, encouraged home-buying and after the war converted a nation of renters to a nation of homeowners. The G.I. Bill of Rights subsidized higher education for millions of veterans. These programs stimulated growth partly because they required real effort — down payments, military service — from beneficiaries before they received aid.

The postwar Republican Congress elected in 1946 dismantled some New Deal anti-growth policies.

Labor unions' powers to strike were sharply restricted. Tax rates were lowered, and wage and price controls were dismantled. Many hold-the-economy-in-place policies were retained until the deregulation of the 1970s and 1980s. But the New Deal was transformed sufficiently to permit buoyant economic growth for two decades after the war.

Obama seems determined to follow policies better suited to freezing the economy in place than to promoting economic growth. Higher taxes on high earners, for one. He told Charlie Gibson he would raise capital gains taxes even if that reduced revenue: less wealth to spread around, but at least the rich wouldn't have it — reminiscent of the Puritan sumptuary laws that prohibited the wearing of silk. Moves toward protectionism like Hoover's (Roosevelt had the good sense to promote free trade). National health insurance that threatens to lead to rationing and to stifle innovation. Promoting unionization by abolishing secret ballot union elections.

The impulse to social engineering is unmistakable. Government officials will allocate resources, redistribute income, and ration good and services. Use government stakes in banks, insurance companies and Detroit auto manufacturers to maintain the position of those already in place, at the cost of preventing the emergence of new enterprises that might have been spawned by the capital being allocated.

Social engineering of course is far easier when you are dealing with an economy that is frozen in place. It's harder when you have to deal with the creative destruction, the emergence of new firms and businesses, and the decline of old ones, which as Joseph Schumpeter taught is the inevitable consequence of economic growth.

Roosevelt in the 1930s had some extremely competent social engineers, like Harry Hopkins, Harold Ickes and Fiorello LaGuardia, who could enroll 750,000 people on welfare in three weeks and build an airport in less than a year. But even they could not spur the economic growth produced by utterly unknown and unconnected people, as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates were in 1970.

When financial crisis looms, there is an impulse to freeze everything in place and accept what is as the best there can ever be: Barack Obama's new New Deal. The history of the old New Deal suggests this is not a sustainable approach in the long run.

To read more political analysis by Michael Barone, visit www.usnews.com/baroneblog. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

??

??

??

??


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... Let me first say that we need more than a new deal... We need a new deck of cards... The cards we have give protection to property... The party system makes a property of our government... The government says nothing about the distribution of wealth as a goal, one way or the other... In fact, the distribution of wealth interferes with, and puts out of reach, every stated goal of the government, even national defense... If the government was doing its job, the wealth distribution would never have been allowed to grow so extreme...Look at the many ways government can distribute wealth from poor to rich... Excise and sales taxes weigh on the poor. Import policy injures the poor to help those who export capital...Income taxes, designed to get the support of the rich for society were turned on working people... The old stand by schemes, of currency manipulation and inflation and deficite spending have always been carried by the poor... When the rights of labor were curtailed in favor of property rights the labor movement was through... Its only value to the rich is to divide and weaken the working class...When the military defends our interests, which are the interests of the rich abroad, it is the poor who bear the entire sacrifice in taxes and sweat and blood... . As a commonwealth as republics are, having a constitution with clearly stated goals, as we have; where is the actual justification for a distribution of wealth so benefitial to so few???. Does it lead to union, to tranquility, to peace, to general welfare, or justice??? If the government was doing its job, it would demand all people support the society in some equal measure, and it would support justice... Is there a need for a labor union, or a teacher's association, or an NAACP??? Our government makes unions and association necessary by failing, deliberately, in seeking justice for all... The government should be our union... It is not...It was never formed only to defend the property of the rich, but to defend the property of all, the whole country, where each might rise through invention, intelligence, or hard work... As it was originally formed, it redistributed wealth... It put pressure on wealth because wealth paid for the government which favored their interests and protected their property... Do you fear the income tax being used to redistribute wealth??? The income tax has been used to distribute wealth to the rich.. It put a double load on labor, but it put a false weight on the rich, and one they are continually shifting onto labor... The problem with your little fairry land, is that fewer and fewer workers in productive high paying union supported jobs cannot sustain the great weight of government, and military needed to support international capitalism... The rich are not more numerous, but they weigh more, and they demand more of government... I think you rich folks ought to pay your way... I think that was how the country was designed, and it never stopped people from becoming rich... But income taxes carried by the poor do make working people poor... It is not their government they support.. The poor support rights they never enjoy... The poor buy goals they never recieve... Now; the government, for a long time, has been backing off new deal promises... Watch what the people do, starting with the old, when the govenrment cannot meet its obligations because it lacks the will to take back on behalf of the people what has been taken from the people... Consider, that it is not just the rich in any land that suffer when their societies fail... They lose all because the general injustice has knocked all the supports from beneath their positions... Your posititon has no support; not in near history, nor far history, and not in fact.... You just want the status quo... Sorry... It doesn't live here any more...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:40 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Michael Barone
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
Jackie Gingrich CushmanUpdated 16 Feb 2012

19 Jan 2012 South Carolina Hoping to Pick Next President

24 May 2008 The Rev. Wright Connection Still Haunts Obama

1 Jul 2010 Robert Byrd's Life -- Good, Bad and All American