Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
- Introduced Constitutional Amendment says: 'Democracy for People, Not Corporations'
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
Popular content
Today's Top News
Doing Debt Ceiling Battle the FDR Way
At times of fiscal crisis, President Franklin Roosevelt believed, you don’t give the awesomely affluent a free pass. You pound them — and then you pound some more.
Against a Congress where zealously rich people-friendly conservatives hold the upper hand, how much can a President of the United States committed to greater equality realistically hope to accomplish?
The answer from today’s White House: not much. Advocacy for equality has to take a backseat, Obama administration insiders insist, once fanatical friends of the fortunate in Congress recklessly put at risk our nation’s full faith and credit.
But history offers another alternative. Back in 1943, halfway through World War II, a President of the United States confronted a debt ceiling crisis eerily similar to our own. That President, Franklin Roosevelt, faced a congressional opposition to inconveniencing the rich — with higher taxes — every bit as rabid as ours.
FDR’s choice, in the face of this opposition? He doubled down on equality.
Roosevelt’s debt ceiling battle actually began in the months right after Pearl Harbor. The nation needed dollars — and lots of them — to wage and win the new war. FDR wanted those dollars raised as equitably as possible.
That would require, FDR and his New Dealers believed, a steeply graduated income tax, with tax rates on income in the top income brackets much higher than rates on income in the bottom brackets.
How high should the top rates go? All the way, FDR proposed, to 100 percent. At a time of “grave national danger,” the President told Congress in April 1942, “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year,” an income just shy of $350,000 in today’s dollars.
The year before, gun executive Carl Swebilius had pulled in $243,204 after taxes, the equivalent of over $3.7 million today. Steel exec Eugene Grace had grabbed $522,537, over $8 million today, in 1941 salary. But conservatives in Congress looked the other way. They never gave FDR’s plan any love.
Four months later, Roosevelt would try again. In his Labor Day message, FDR repeated his $25,000 “supertax” income cap call. Again Congress ignored him.
FDR would not back down. In early October, the President flexed his authority under the newly enacted Emergency Price Control Act and issued an executive order that limited top corporate salaries to $25,000 after taxes, a move, he pronounced, needed “to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort.”
America’s wealthiest, New Dealers explained afterwards to the press, “should be willing to get along on more than $2,000 a month while marines endure tortures on Guadalcanal Island for $60 a month and room and board.”
FDR’s executive order would infuriate conservatives. They saw red, literally. The “only logical stopping place for this movement,” fumed Princeton economist Harley Lutz, would be “a completely communistic equalization of incomes.” FDR’s salary cap, roared New Bedford publisher Basil Brewer, just might “lose the war.”
In Congress, meanwhile, lawmakers vowed to kill FDR’s executive order by any legislative means necessary. Roosevelt, in response, simply kept pushing. In January 1943, he reminded Congress that “the receipt of very large net incomes from any source constitutes a gross inequity undermining national unity” and asked lawmakers to make taxes on America’s highest incomes “fully effective.”
Roosevelt also asked Congress, in his 1943 budget message, to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. Conservatives indicated they would — if the ceiling bill included a rider that repealed the President’s $25,000 salary cap executive order.
Lawmakers would not go along with a debt ceiling hike, California Republican Bertrand Gearhart told reporters, until FDR’s “thoroughly un-American” salary cap, “fraught with such disaster to the Republic, is wiped from the books.”
At this point, no “realistic” observer could have faulted FDR if he simply threw in the towel. The 1942 mid-term elections the previous November, after all, had significantly strengthened the congressional conservative camp, in large part because millions of New Deal voters — soldiers overseas and workers who had migrated far from home for wartime factory work — couldn’t vote.
But FDR threw in nothing. To reporters and Congress, he reiterated his support for the $25,000 salary cap. Of course, the President added, he would “rescind” his cap in an instant if Congress passed legislation that limited all individual after-tax income, not just salary, to $25,000.
And if Congress couldn’t see fit to go that far, the President helpfully suggested, he hoped lawmakers would enact “steeply graduated rates” that brought taxes on top-bracket income up to the 90 percent neighborhood.
Eventually, both the House and Senate would pass the debt ceiling bill — with the salary cap repeal rider attached. Most Democrats went along, noting, as Senator Alben Barkley put it, “the importance of increasing the debt limit.”
Roosevelt well understood that importance, too. He would let the higher debt ceiling bill become law, without his signature. But FDR quickly signaled no surrender in his continuing battle to make sure that “not a single war millionaire will be created in this country as a result of the war disaster.”
Congress, Roosevelt pointed out, “had authorized the drafting of men into the armed forces at $600 a year regardless of what they had earned in civilian life,” but, with the salary cap repeal, had “refused to reduce the salary of a man not drafted no matter how high his income might be.”
The President, to be sure, had definitely lost the debt ceiling battle over his executive salary cap, as he no doubt knew he would. But sometimes a President can win by “losing.” FDR did not prevail on the salary cap. He did prevail in his far broader struggle to shape the wartime finance debate.
Roosevelt’s relentless campaign to cap top incomes kept that debate focused on taxing the rich. Conservatives didn’t want to do that taxing. They wanted a national sales tax instead, as do many conservatives today. But FDR’s aggressive advocacy for equity never let that regressive sales tax notion get traction.
The war revenue debate would be fought on Roosevelt’s terms — not on whether to tax the rich, but on how much. And, in the end, that “how much” would turn out to be quite a great deal. By the war’s end, America’s wealthy would be paying taxes on income over $200,000 at a 94 percent statutory rate.
Americans making over $250,000 in 1944 — over $3.2 million today — paid 69 percent of their total incomes in federal income tax, after exploiting every tax loophole they could find. In 2007, by contrast, America’s 400 highest earners paid just 18.1 percent of their total incomes, after loopholes, in federal tax.
None of the debt ceiling “deals” that House and Senate leaders advanced last week asked any of these top 400 — or any other rich Americans — to pay a penny more in taxes than they do now. In the 2011 debt ceiling struggle, inequality has clearly triumphed.
So what ought we learn, amid this triumph for greed, from FDR’s debt ceiling battle? Maybe this: We really can have a more equal America. We just need to fight for it.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




17 Comments so far
Show AllWhy are we discussing FDR when Obama's and the GOP's mission is to destroy what remains of the New Deal and replace FDR's legacy with Raygunomics?
Not only do any of the debt ceiling deals not require "any rich Americans to pay a penny more in taxes", the "tax reform" that Obama keeps insisting needs to be part of the "deal" is Obamaspeak for further reducing tax rates for megacorporations that are already subject to a negative tax rate (they recieve a taxpayer funded check each year in exchange for filing a tax return).
You can safely bet your last nickle that the "deal' will include reduced corporate taxes that will siphon more money out of the US Treasury and free up more cash that corporations will use to speculate on commodities, thereby increasing the rate of inflation, and more cash for corporations to bribe politicians who will return the favor with even more corporate tax cuts.
DOWN with BARRY ZERO !!! PRIMARY HIM OR STFU already!!
I think this whole "sock it to the poor" strategy will EVENTUALLY boomerang, and drive what's left of our nation to institute an income CEILING. Once an individual earns more than $2 million a year, anything over that sum, would lawfully return back to the commons, or to needs of the collective. In other words, it recycles back into the nether zone from which it was generated.
There are some human animals who strive so relentlessly to have more than others, that rather than see society seek to quell this interior strain, instead let it be used in something that woud resemble a national Ego Marathon.
Imagine the hot shot financial wizards of 2020 A.D. and beyond. Listen in:
"Yeah, I passed the Income Ceiling three times already, and I'm only 37!"
"Let's see if you can pass it six times, like I did, by the time you're 56!"
When Ted Turner asked writers to submit their visions of the future, I did so back in l990, and I wedded this income cap premise into my text, along with the concept of a Universal Time Bank where regardless of the nature of the skill expressed, everyone's hours of labor were equal.
In this future vision I related that "title holders would become title givers." What was meant was that since no one would be allowed to own excess public land, or too much of anything, the sole (from a capitalist standpoint) freedom that remained would be that of determining to which group the asset would be bequeathed.
Instead of war as the show of bombast through one fiery tempest or another, I suggested putting all that pyrotechnic creativity to use in firework displays. There, as in the Olympics, judges from a variety of nations would lend scores. So instead of war, the visual display of firepower would be judged as an art form, and the "winner" would get to further their particular ambitions. NONviolently!
It's amazing what is really possible when Mars alone is not given the freedom to rule.
We need to be talking much more about FDR and the New Deal, because we need to be reminded that progressive policies are achievable and bring prosperity to the country. We are pounded daily by the right-wing lies of the mass media propagandizing many people into believing that such policies are far, far left, socialist and nutty. They also give progressives good arguments (talking points) that can and should be used frequently when they get a chance to speak, whether locally or in a tv/radio interview. It would not hurt the progressives to get together to speak with one voice to bring back the New Deal, and it would make it much harder for the MSM to ridicule us.
On the subject of a primary or general election against Obama, we have massive election fraud done mainly by the two companies who do the counting of ballots in almost all the counties in the US. How are we going to get any good candidate elected except in safe mostly minority districts until we all start doing something major about this issue. I have written to Public Citizen, People for the American Way and other organizations about the issue, but they continue to ignore it, as do all the other groups I know of except for blackboxvoting.org and VerifiedVoting.org, and they continue urging us all to send lots of our money to one or another election campaign. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Let's grow up here and take charge of our former democracy again!
Who are these two companies that "count the ballots in almost all the counties in the US?"
Yes, Obama pounds the populace every chance he gets.
"Against a Congress where zealously rich people-friendly conservatives hold the upper hand, how much can a President of the United States committed to greater equality realistically hope to accomplish?"
____________________
I appreciate the nostalgic trip down Memory Lane, but nowadays the relevant question is "Against a Congress where zealously rich people-friendly conservatives hold the upper hand, how much can a zealously rich people-friendly President of the United States realistically hope to accomplish?"
Another idiot saying Obama wants to do the right thing bullshit. Thom hartmann is spewing the same shit saying Obama is a progressive but We The People aren't helping him enough. It's good that sellout dem apologist doesn't still live in portland - I might punch him in the face if i saw him on the street. (thats a joke - sort of)
These apologists are just as bad as the upfront fascists.
Yeah, mtdon, that's a classic criticism from the liberal-lite realpolitik primer.
It's in the chapter that discusses strategic antecedents, e.g. "He WANTS to do it, and he's tasking us to MAKE him do it!" and the dual necessity of resolutely "holding his feet to the fire" and "creating the 'political space' that will allow him to act".
Unfortunately, this kind of ostensibly pragmatic dogma is entirely compatible with battered-mate syndrome.
Because typically, the politician's cloven hooves prove frustratingly elusive, or show signs of being entirely comfortable while enduring brief and fleeting captivity above a flickering and fitful heat source.
Or the politician will balk like a mule at actually ENTERING that political space, and may even kick up its heels to fill it in with dirt as assiduously as earnest True Believers work to open it up.
Team Obama and the Democratic Party's response to the movement for "single-payer" health care or even the problematic "public option" is a classic example of the latter.
The problem with this orthodoxy is that it invariably sets up the practitioner to blame the victim, i.e. themselves. If this approach doesn't produced the intended, desired, and hoped-for results, the natural tendency is to assume responsibility.
Exactly like the abused mate, the failed and disappointed supporter will assume that "we" didn't make the fire hot enough, or didn't grab those feet firmly enough or hold them long enough. Or "we" didn't open up a big or attractive enough "political space" this time around, and so forth.
This kind of despairing and even enraged blame used to pop up more frequently in CD comments threads. But there will probably be a resurgence as the next dreadful campaign cycle ratchets up.
It's like listening to some terrified but angry mom yelling at the kids for not washing the dishes fast enough or keeping the house tidy enough to please the demanding dad, who's probably on the way home from the bar expecting dinner.
Every time I see Team Obama chastise members of their base who question them, it is clear that Team Obama doesn't want their base to MAKE them do anything.
Corporate contributions are all that matter to Team Obama.
That's what I was going to say, OS. The author's fatal flaw is that he assumes that Obama wants to help the 90% of Americans on the bottom.
He doesn't.
And we definitely need more Roosevelt. How about this?
" 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 only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish."
More at this post - http://wagelaborer.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-is-wealth.html
This was a much different country then, & FDR, though he did make some serious mistakes (think Japanese-American internment, which even J. Edgar Hoover didn't agree with), was not a soon-to-be K Street corporatist sellout lobbyist like the guy we have in the White House now. To compare a time when we were fighting against some truly frightening real enemies that we absolutely had to beat, and now, when most of our problems are self-inflicted, is just a waste of effort ....
During FDR's administration at least we had the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans between the US and those "truly frightening real enemies".
Although they may not dress in uniforms, sport funny mustaches or goose step today's "truly frightening real enemies" reside among us (although the greatest concentrations are in NYC and Washington DC) and have far more global military and financial power than than the WWII Axis Powers ever did.
Turn on your TV almost any time of the day or night and you have the opportunity to watch "truly frightening real enemies".
Make that "Debt Sealing".
Sharpen the guillotine, already. They leave no other option, so this is where we will be heading, ready or not. I'm not advocating this, merely predicting.
"We just need to fight for it."
Really, Sam?
How? Pray, tell?
As many CD'ers can attest, I've been posting, ad nauseum, that our tax rates should be restored to Eisenhower levels for a looong, loooong time. I regularly write the GOP goons who "represent" ME (HA!) and suggest this and many other means to raise revenue that are much more fair and logical than anything I've heard from any politician's mouth.
Things like a flat tax on every investment purchase transaction (and NO, there are NO discounts for economies of scale. That wouldn't be FLAT, Dad, ...would it?!!);
Retirement salary increases for all 20+ year military veterans, but you don't get that until you reach retirement age. 55 if you'll take a healthy cut in the rate for early retirement. And all hardship exceptions still apply.
All federal employees (Yes, John, Jon, you guys too!) immediately go on to SSI system for your retirement, (yes you have to start paying into it, and NO you can't vote yourself a raise to pass the cost on to anyone else. Only a despot would even consider suggesting it.) and regardless of your age, you go onto medicare for your health plan. Maybe then you'll finally learn some respect for it.
Stop the off balance sheet financing of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. If you've been at war somewhere for over 10 years, don't tell me you haven't budgeted for it! Stop these 2 wars. Cut 20% from the military budget immediately, and across the board, except for the coast guard.
All I get for my efforts are jury summons.
Obama is essentially a fool. He has painted himself into a corner of his own making. He should have been strong and invoked the 14th amendment. Now he can talk about jobs, jobs, jobs all he wants but he cannot create any as he has no money! Nor can he create his vaunted infrastructure bank. He has also doomed the economy to another recession and his un-election next term. Just what the Republicans want. He fell into their trap! That is why Bonier is so happy! Worst Dem. Pres. since forever!