We are in the greatest economic crisis in almost 80 years and attempts at saving the economy, not only in the US, but throughout the world, are being turned into a circus.
First we had a big flap about earmarks, which while deplorable, represent minutia, and now we have what can only be describes as a lynch mob after the heads of the bonus recipients at A.I.G (.mp3).
The outrage is understandable, but the bonuses represent less than 1% of the money used to shore up A.I.G. If this becomes the basis for stopping further aid to the financial industry, then we would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
We have not and will not invest money in A.I.G. or anyone else to help them or their executives or their stockholders, but in order to save the liquidity of our economic system, and in the process revive our economy. Any distraction from that task is a disservice, particularly coming from politicians who have for years protected and defended the system they are now denouncing.
We have much to learn from history. During the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress issued I.O.U.s (since it had no taxing power) in order to pay its bills, including paying the men of the Continental Army. By the time the war ended it was generally assumed that these I.O.U. were worthless and speculators bought them up for pennies on the dollar. With Washington President, and Hamilton Secretary of the Treasury, the question arose whether the I.O.U.s should be paid at their face value. (Bulls, Bears, Boom, and Bust by John M. Dobson, p.64) The populist response was that to pay these speculators the benefits of their speculation was unfair and rewarded those who had done nothing for the war effort, while defrauding those who did. Hamilton argued, however that the issue was the “Full Faith and Credit” of the U.S. which would be endangered by a failure to honor its I.O.U.s. Hamilton prevailed and the “Full Faith and Credit” of the U.S. has never been in doubt since.
The point is that sometimes we must hold our noses and let those reap who have not sown, for the greater good of our nation.
But there is a lesson to be learned. We have arrived at this cross road because our vaunted capitalistic system has turned into crony capitalism. The outrageous bonuses paid the execs at A.I.G. are but the tip of the iceberg and we need to address the greater problem. This from the Wall Street Journal of April 28, 2008:
“According to the Congressional Research Service, the average pay for CEOs was more than 180 times average worker pay, up from a multiple of 90 in 1994. Total direct compensation for CEOs was a median $8.8 million, counting salaries, bonuses and other incentives, as well as the value of restricted stock, stock options and other long-term incentive awards at the time they were granted, according to a survey by the Hay Group of 200 major U.S. companies.”
But what is even more outrageous is the severance pay that top execs in our corporate culture receive. As long ago as December 25, 2005, the NY Times discussed this problem. “In 2000, for example, after three years as chief executive, M. Douglas Ivester left Coca-Cola with almost $120 million jangling in his pocket. Included were a six-year consulting agreement, office space, furniture, home security service and country club dues. Steven J. Heyer, a former Coca-Cola president, struggled under the weight of a severance package worth $24 million when he left the company in 2004. He held his position for only three years as well. And Douglas N. Daft, a former chief executive, pocketed more than $36 million when he left Coca-Cola in 2004.”
When executives leave after a successful stint in their jobs with such outrageous severance packages it is bad enough, but often it is after they have all but destroyed the company under their tutelage and leave pursuant to severance agreements that amazingly enough provide that they are entitled to such rewards if they are fired. In other words they do even better if they fail then if they succeed. Talk about reverse incentives!
Thus for example, the CEO of the company I used to work for, Richard J. Kogan, departed Schering-Plough after wrecking the company, received $13.2 million in severance and $26.4 million in retirement payments. This was after Kogan had gotten the company into a war with the one government agency no drug executive can afford to antagonize, the Food & Drug Administration, by reducing quality controls to unacceptable levels in an effort to cut costs, causing the companies share price to fall from $50 to about $36 in a short time, and after he was charged by the SEC of giving insider information to a group of select investors.
But this is but one of many outrages. Other examples are set forth on the Obama website referenced above.
These abuses occur not because competition of the market requires it, but because of a system where neither the public nor even shareholders have any say, and when execs destroy a company it is the shareholders and innocent employees who bear the burden. Unfortunately, it is not shareholders who decide on compensation. It is the Board of Directors! And who chooses the Board of Directors? Usually the CEOs. To be sure Shareholders get a chance to vote at shareholder meetings for the Board, and whatever issues are placed before them, but the only choices they really have is to vote yes or no on whatever the management chooses to let them vote on. And increasingly, shareholder meetings are held at out of the way places so as to discourage shareholders from attending. God forbid, they might ask embarrassing questions. They are asked to send in their proxies to confirm what has already been decided. The Chinese communist voting system is not much different.
We should not ever consider government compensation controls. But changing the governance of American corporations so as to give shareholders a real say in the companies they invest in, is way overdue.
We must not learn the wrong lessons from the banking and liquidity crisis!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Roosevelt and the Great Depression
On March 3, 2009 I distributed my commentary entitled, “The Stimulus Bill,” which is posted here.
I concluded with, “they are now even going so far as to rewrite the history of the Roosevelt New Deal. Now we hear that the New Deal was totally ineffective and that it was only World War II that saved the economy.
Thus the Right Wing, Heritage Foundation, published an article on its web-site on January 9, 2009 entitled, “More federal spending: New deal or raw deal?” They then published a graph issued by the Department of Commerce, which I reproduce below: The amazing thing is that anybody who takes the time to actually examine the graph will quickly see that the graph proves the opposite. The graph shows the unemployment rate between the years 1926 to 1947.
In ’26 it was a spectacular 2.5% but then it starts to inch up as the economy slows. By ’28 it is up to over 5%. By the time Roosevelt is inaugurated on March 4, 1933 it has peaked at 35.5%. Roosevelt starts his New Deal and unemployment starts to drop steadily until it gets to just above 20% in 1937, a drop of 15% or a cut in the rate of unemployment of almost 50%. It may not have brought us back to the boom year of ’28 but to minimize this achievement is the height of ignominy.
But despite these successes, Roosevelt was inherently in sympathy with conservative orthodoxy and in the ’37 election ran on a platform of balancing the budget.
Social Security taxes were just beginning to be collected; veterans' bonus payments ended. The Federal Reserve Board raised reserve requirements and supported the Department of the Treasury's advocacy of a cutback in federal expenditures to help achieve a balanced budget for 1938.
These policies choked the frail recovery and by August the economy was showing signs of recession. See here.
In fact this departure by Roosevelt of Keynesian economics caused an exasperated John Maynard Keynes to write the president, urging him to abandon his platform of balancing the budget and raising taxes. See here. In other words to the extent that Roosevelt had a setback in 1937 it was not due to following stimulative policies but rather abandoning them too soon.
All indications are that Obama has learned that lesson and will not make the horrendous mistakes of Hoover, nor the smaller ones of Roosevelt.
But as for Roosevelt having failed, a look at other statistics shows how far Roosevelt had succeed even before the advent of the War. For example let us look at the figures for six major indices.
Table 1: Statistics
1929, 1931, 1933, 1937, 1938, 1940
Real Gross National Product (GNP)
101.4 84.3 68.3 103.9 96.7 113.0
Consumer Price Index
122.5 108.7 92.4 102.7 99.4 100.2
Index of Industrial Production
109 75 69 112 89 126
Money Supply M2 ($ billions)
46.6 42.7 32.2 45.7 49.3 55.2
Exports ($ billions)
5.24 2.42 1.67 3.35 3.18 4.02
Unemployment (% of civilian work force)
3.1 16.1 25.2 13.8 16.5 13.9
For the Gross National Product we see that it was a whopping 101.4 in ’29. By the time Roosevelt came into office it had dropped to 68.3. Stimulative policies brought this above the ’29 rate, to 103.9 in ’37 but because Roosevelt temporarily deviated from sound Keynesian principles and tried prematurely to balance the budget it dropped to 96.7 in ’38, but upon a reversal of those policies reached a new high before the war of 113, higher then the record high of ’29.
We see a similar pattern for the other indices. Enormous improvement, a slight set back in ‘37, and again significant improvement by 1940. See the Right Wing website, Conservapivia.
Or let us look at still another graph showing unemployment and real GDP. The enormous success of Roosevelt’s policies is apparent, with a slight and temporary setback in 1937.
How anyone can claim failure for the New Deal given these incontrovertible statistics has to be a mystery to all who like to draw their conclusions from facts and not from immutable Ideology. If Roosevelt faltered it was not because he did too much too long, but because he didn’t do enough long enough. But the legacy that Roosevelt left us with, includes among others Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Unemployment Insurance and the many other programs, which even the denizens of the Right admit are brakes on the collapse of the economy. They are a testament to the success of the New Deal, no matter how convenient it may be for them to try to trash it.
As for World War II finally getting us back to full prosperity, I am waiting to hear from the opponents of stimulative spending as to how they think the war got the economy rolling. It took vast government spending on useless armaments (in the sense of having long range economic benefits-it goes without saying that they were essential to winning the war) that were destroyed on the battlefield, to sufficiently stimulate the economy into the post war booms.
I concluded with, “they are now even going so far as to rewrite the history of the Roosevelt New Deal. Now we hear that the New Deal was totally ineffective and that it was only World War II that saved the economy.
Thus the Right Wing, Heritage Foundation, published an article on its web-site on January 9, 2009 entitled, “More federal spending: New deal or raw deal?” They then published a graph issued by the Department of Commerce, which I reproduce below: The amazing thing is that anybody who takes the time to actually examine the graph will quickly see that the graph proves the opposite. The graph shows the unemployment rate between the years 1926 to 1947.
In ’26 it was a spectacular 2.5% but then it starts to inch up as the economy slows. By ’28 it is up to over 5%. By the time Roosevelt is inaugurated on March 4, 1933 it has peaked at 35.5%. Roosevelt starts his New Deal and unemployment starts to drop steadily until it gets to just above 20% in 1937, a drop of 15% or a cut in the rate of unemployment of almost 50%. It may not have brought us back to the boom year of ’28 but to minimize this achievement is the height of ignominy.
But despite these successes, Roosevelt was inherently in sympathy with conservative orthodoxy and in the ’37 election ran on a platform of balancing the budget.
Social Security taxes were just beginning to be collected; veterans' bonus payments ended. The Federal Reserve Board raised reserve requirements and supported the Department of the Treasury's advocacy of a cutback in federal expenditures to help achieve a balanced budget for 1938.
These policies choked the frail recovery and by August the economy was showing signs of recession. See here.
In fact this departure by Roosevelt of Keynesian economics caused an exasperated John Maynard Keynes to write the president, urging him to abandon his platform of balancing the budget and raising taxes. See here. In other words to the extent that Roosevelt had a setback in 1937 it was not due to following stimulative policies but rather abandoning them too soon.
All indications are that Obama has learned that lesson and will not make the horrendous mistakes of Hoover, nor the smaller ones of Roosevelt.
But as for Roosevelt having failed, a look at other statistics shows how far Roosevelt had succeed even before the advent of the War. For example let us look at the figures for six major indices.
Table 1: Statistics
1929, 1931, 1933, 1937, 1938, 1940
Real Gross National Product (GNP)
101.4 84.3 68.3 103.9 96.7 113.0
Consumer Price Index
122.5 108.7 92.4 102.7 99.4 100.2
Index of Industrial Production
109 75 69 112 89 126
Money Supply M2 ($ billions)
46.6 42.7 32.2 45.7 49.3 55.2
Exports ($ billions)
5.24 2.42 1.67 3.35 3.18 4.02
Unemployment (% of civilian work force)
3.1 16.1 25.2 13.8 16.5 13.9
For the Gross National Product we see that it was a whopping 101.4 in ’29. By the time Roosevelt came into office it had dropped to 68.3. Stimulative policies brought this above the ’29 rate, to 103.9 in ’37 but because Roosevelt temporarily deviated from sound Keynesian principles and tried prematurely to balance the budget it dropped to 96.7 in ’38, but upon a reversal of those policies reached a new high before the war of 113, higher then the record high of ’29.
We see a similar pattern for the other indices. Enormous improvement, a slight set back in ‘37, and again significant improvement by 1940. See the Right Wing website, Conservapivia.
Or let us look at still another graph showing unemployment and real GDP. The enormous success of Roosevelt’s policies is apparent, with a slight and temporary setback in 1937.
How anyone can claim failure for the New Deal given these incontrovertible statistics has to be a mystery to all who like to draw their conclusions from facts and not from immutable Ideology. If Roosevelt faltered it was not because he did too much too long, but because he didn’t do enough long enough. But the legacy that Roosevelt left us with, includes among others Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Unemployment Insurance and the many other programs, which even the denizens of the Right admit are brakes on the collapse of the economy. They are a testament to the success of the New Deal, no matter how convenient it may be for them to try to trash it.
As for World War II finally getting us back to full prosperity, I am waiting to hear from the opponents of stimulative spending as to how they think the war got the economy rolling. It took vast government spending on useless armaments (in the sense of having long range economic benefits-it goes without saying that they were essential to winning the war) that were destroyed on the battlefield, to sufficiently stimulate the economy into the post war booms.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
The Stimulus Bill
How did we get from there to here? How did we get from the booming economy of the Clinton years to the collapse of the economy in the eighth year of the Bush Administration?
It really all began during the Clinton Administration. Clinton had proved that not all tax cuts are stimulative and not all tax increases dampen economic activity. As the bible says (Ecclesiastes 3) and Pete Seeger made famous, “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:”
That is a lesson that the minions of the Republican Party have not learned or as has often been said about them, “They have never forgotten anything and they have never learned anything.”
They are wed to the proposition that taxes need to be cut all the time, and never, never raised. When Clinton proposed raising some taxes on the rich, the economy that he inherited from Bush pére was in the doldrums but interest rates set by the Fed were high. Clinton reached an agreement with Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, that if he reduced the deficit the Fed would lower interest rates. The result was a booming economy and a booming stock market. In fact the stock market entered a period of such an exaggerated boom that it caused Greenspan to coin the now famous phrase, “irrational exuberance", but he did nothing about it despite the fact that it was obvious that the stock market boom was caused by rampant speculation fueled to a large extent by buying on margin, i.e. using borrowed money to speculate in the market, or as it is called “leveraging” ones investments. The Fed has the power to raise or lower this requirement (see here) but Greenspan in keeping with his then philosophy of believing that the markets regulate themselves left the market to its own devices.
I believe that set the tone for the Bush fils eight years of wild speculation by the banks at unheard of levels of leveraging their loan portfolios. At the same time, following the policy that all tax cuts are good, these years brought about some of the largest tax cuts ever, leading to huge deficits, which were defended in the words of V-P Dick Cheney, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” and with the enthusiastic support of the Republican party in Congress.
What a change an Administration makes. Now, suddenly running up deficits, say Republicans, is “generational theft.” But are they really concerned with deficits even now. They agree that we need to stimulate the economy, and they agree that reducing the deficit now is the wrong prescription, but they want to do it with more tax cuts for, you guessed it, the wealthy. They don’t want to “redistribute wealth” after having presided over the greatest redistribution of wealth upward, toward the wealthy, in the history of the US. As a matter of fact the wealth redistribution upward began in the Reagan years. In 1980 the top 10% of households accounted for 33% of total household income. By 2000 this group accounted for 44% of total household income. Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40% and the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households own nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s.
According to the Economic Policy Institute the rich-poor gap widened with the nation's top one percent now collecting 23 percent of total income, the biggest disparity since 1928. According to the IRS there are now 47,000 Americans worth $20 million or more, an all-time high.
What does this tell us? Not all tax cuts and not all deficits are equal. When wealth is inordinately pushed upwards as in 1928 and now in 2008, it will no longer be invested prudently, but rather it leads to rampant speculation leading to a speculative boom followed by a bust.
Only a reversal of this trend, with a pump priming of the economy and a loosening of credit can reverse the impending disaster. More tax cuts for the wealthy can only compound the disaster and the cry of Republicans that the answer lies in tax cuts for “small business” is not the answer either. First of all, small business does not refer to mom and pop stores. “Small business” according to the Small Business Administration includes all businesses that have fewer than 500 employees and, e.g. in construction $33.5 million average annual receipts, hardly what one would call “mom and pop stores.
While they are the largest creators of jobs in our economy, they produce jobs when there is demand, and consumers produce 70% of demand.
If consumers aren’t buying no amount of tax reduction for the suppliers will cause them to produce that for which there is no market. It is the fallacy of supply side economics, which is really another word for redistribution of income upwards.
What is stimulative? Anything that puts money in the hands of those who need it most and who will spend it immediately out of necessity. Thus supplying money to those who are unemployed is the best stimulus. Even if they are simply given the money it will be stimulative because it will be spent creating demand. But this is not the best stimulus because it has no multiplier effect. It is better to employ that person. If we employ him/her to dig a ditch and fill it, it will be stimulative, but it has no multiplier effect. But if we employ that person, e.g. to seed the Capitol lawn we get a multiplier. Not only when they spend, will they cause businesses who manufacture the goods and who warehouse it and who retail it, etc. to ramp up production, causing them to hire additional people to meet the demand which in turn causes more spending, causing a chain reaction which reverses the cycle of layoffs, but in order to seed the lawn, seeds have to be bought, construction equipment has to be rented, each of which creates jobs leading to more jobs, and in the end we have the benefit of a better lawn. But this small bit of creative spending was ridiculed by Republicans and dropped from the bill. Yet unlike large projects, which give more permanent benefit, nothing could have been more “shovel ready.”
Giving money to the states is another example of a provision in the stimulus bill which could not be improved upon, because if we want quick results what can be better than hiring people, if it is not keeping them from being fired. States, unlike the federal government, have to have balanced budgets and so when as a result of the loss of tax revenues due to the recession, they are faced with deficits, they have no choice but to increase taxes or lay off employees, including police, firemen, teachers, etc. They have to stop repairing roads and they have to stop capital projects already under way or shovel ready. That is not what we need when we are trying to start such programs, not stop them. Yet this was the “pound of flesh” our three “moderate Republicans” demanded as a condition of their supplying the votes needed to stop a filibuster.
For a discussion of the filibuster see the paragraph preceding the antepenultimate one here.
They insisted that the amount allocated for aid to states be cut by $40 billion.
We might well ask why this opposition. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, the official Republican spokesman made it clear that Republicans were stills stuck on doing nothing. His main theme was to rely on Bush’s failure in Katrina to show government doesn’t work. How ironic. Republicans, after eight years of blindly supporting Bush are now running against him. Besides they seem unable to tell any story without lying. It appears that Jindal’s story about rescuers being threatened by federal agents because they didn’t have insurance and that he was there, was a total fabrication.
They are now even going so far as to rewrite the history of the Roosevelt New Deal. Now we hear that the New Deal was totally ineffective. As I will demonstrate in my next commentary the facts and figures belie that, but it shows that no distortion, nor any lie that will advance their agenda is off the table.
It really all began during the Clinton Administration. Clinton had proved that not all tax cuts are stimulative and not all tax increases dampen economic activity. As the bible says (Ecclesiastes 3) and Pete Seeger made famous, “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:”
That is a lesson that the minions of the Republican Party have not learned or as has often been said about them, “They have never forgotten anything and they have never learned anything.”
They are wed to the proposition that taxes need to be cut all the time, and never, never raised. When Clinton proposed raising some taxes on the rich, the economy that he inherited from Bush pére was in the doldrums but interest rates set by the Fed were high. Clinton reached an agreement with Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, that if he reduced the deficit the Fed would lower interest rates. The result was a booming economy and a booming stock market. In fact the stock market entered a period of such an exaggerated boom that it caused Greenspan to coin the now famous phrase, “irrational exuberance", but he did nothing about it despite the fact that it was obvious that the stock market boom was caused by rampant speculation fueled to a large extent by buying on margin, i.e. using borrowed money to speculate in the market, or as it is called “leveraging” ones investments. The Fed has the power to raise or lower this requirement (see here) but Greenspan in keeping with his then philosophy of believing that the markets regulate themselves left the market to its own devices.
I believe that set the tone for the Bush fils eight years of wild speculation by the banks at unheard of levels of leveraging their loan portfolios. At the same time, following the policy that all tax cuts are good, these years brought about some of the largest tax cuts ever, leading to huge deficits, which were defended in the words of V-P Dick Cheney, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” and with the enthusiastic support of the Republican party in Congress.
What a change an Administration makes. Now, suddenly running up deficits, say Republicans, is “generational theft.” But are they really concerned with deficits even now. They agree that we need to stimulate the economy, and they agree that reducing the deficit now is the wrong prescription, but they want to do it with more tax cuts for, you guessed it, the wealthy. They don’t want to “redistribute wealth” after having presided over the greatest redistribution of wealth upward, toward the wealthy, in the history of the US. As a matter of fact the wealth redistribution upward began in the Reagan years. In 1980 the top 10% of households accounted for 33% of total household income. By 2000 this group accounted for 44% of total household income. Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40% and the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households own nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s.
According to the Economic Policy Institute the rich-poor gap widened with the nation's top one percent now collecting 23 percent of total income, the biggest disparity since 1928. According to the IRS there are now 47,000 Americans worth $20 million or more, an all-time high.
What does this tell us? Not all tax cuts and not all deficits are equal. When wealth is inordinately pushed upwards as in 1928 and now in 2008, it will no longer be invested prudently, but rather it leads to rampant speculation leading to a speculative boom followed by a bust.
Only a reversal of this trend, with a pump priming of the economy and a loosening of credit can reverse the impending disaster. More tax cuts for the wealthy can only compound the disaster and the cry of Republicans that the answer lies in tax cuts for “small business” is not the answer either. First of all, small business does not refer to mom and pop stores. “Small business” according to the Small Business Administration includes all businesses that have fewer than 500 employees and, e.g. in construction $33.5 million average annual receipts, hardly what one would call “mom and pop stores.
While they are the largest creators of jobs in our economy, they produce jobs when there is demand, and consumers produce 70% of demand.
If consumers aren’t buying no amount of tax reduction for the suppliers will cause them to produce that for which there is no market. It is the fallacy of supply side economics, which is really another word for redistribution of income upwards.
What is stimulative? Anything that puts money in the hands of those who need it most and who will spend it immediately out of necessity. Thus supplying money to those who are unemployed is the best stimulus. Even if they are simply given the money it will be stimulative because it will be spent creating demand. But this is not the best stimulus because it has no multiplier effect. It is better to employ that person. If we employ him/her to dig a ditch and fill it, it will be stimulative, but it has no multiplier effect. But if we employ that person, e.g. to seed the Capitol lawn we get a multiplier. Not only when they spend, will they cause businesses who manufacture the goods and who warehouse it and who retail it, etc. to ramp up production, causing them to hire additional people to meet the demand which in turn causes more spending, causing a chain reaction which reverses the cycle of layoffs, but in order to seed the lawn, seeds have to be bought, construction equipment has to be rented, each of which creates jobs leading to more jobs, and in the end we have the benefit of a better lawn. But this small bit of creative spending was ridiculed by Republicans and dropped from the bill. Yet unlike large projects, which give more permanent benefit, nothing could have been more “shovel ready.”
Giving money to the states is another example of a provision in the stimulus bill which could not be improved upon, because if we want quick results what can be better than hiring people, if it is not keeping them from being fired. States, unlike the federal government, have to have balanced budgets and so when as a result of the loss of tax revenues due to the recession, they are faced with deficits, they have no choice but to increase taxes or lay off employees, including police, firemen, teachers, etc. They have to stop repairing roads and they have to stop capital projects already under way or shovel ready. That is not what we need when we are trying to start such programs, not stop them. Yet this was the “pound of flesh” our three “moderate Republicans” demanded as a condition of their supplying the votes needed to stop a filibuster.
For a discussion of the filibuster see the paragraph preceding the antepenultimate one here.
They insisted that the amount allocated for aid to states be cut by $40 billion.
We might well ask why this opposition. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, the official Republican spokesman made it clear that Republicans were stills stuck on doing nothing. His main theme was to rely on Bush’s failure in Katrina to show government doesn’t work. How ironic. Republicans, after eight years of blindly supporting Bush are now running against him. Besides they seem unable to tell any story without lying. It appears that Jindal’s story about rescuers being threatened by federal agents because they didn’t have insurance and that he was there, was a total fabrication.
They are now even going so far as to rewrite the history of the Roosevelt New Deal. Now we hear that the New Deal was totally ineffective. As I will demonstrate in my next commentary the facts and figures belie that, but it shows that no distortion, nor any lie that will advance their agenda is off the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
