home

The Hundred Days

Below I state that Obama must be bold at the outset of his Presidency. In the NYTimes, Jean Edward Smith, who wrote a fine biography of FDR, describes the famous Hundred Days of FDR:

While many Americans think Roosevelt had the entire New Deal in mind for the special session, he in fact initially assumed that Congress would deal only with the banking crisis and then adjourn. The president had closed the nation’s banks by executive order and, like Lincoln in the Civil War, needed legislative authority to confirm his action and reorganize the financial system.

When Congress met on March 9, F.D.R.’s Emergency Banking Act was introduced in the House with the ink still wet. There were no committee hearings, no debate, no amendments. The measure was whooped through with bipartisan support and no roll call. Most members had not read the bill, and took on faith what the leadership presented. Three hours later the bill passed the Senate (73-7), and an hour later Roosevelt added his signature. The entire legislative process, from the bill’s introduction in the House to the president’s signature, took less than six hours.

. . . After consolidating his position, F.D.R. opened the New Deal floodgates. There was no preconceived order in which legislation was sent to Capitol Hill. As soon as a measure was ready, Roosevelt sent it forward — carefully preparing the ground beforehand with the Congressional leaders who would be responsible.

. . . Bills to reorder the nation’s agriculture, housing and mortgage markets followed in short order. Acreage allotments, price supports and crop set-asides reshaped the face of American agriculture. Farm mortgages were refinanced and the Farm Credit Act provided operating funds at low interest rates. The urban housing market was rescued with the establishment of the Home Owners Loan Corporation, which purchased the mortgages of distressed home owners, provided money for taxes and repairs, and set repayment schedules over 30-year terms at 5 percent interest. The loan corporation assumed one-sixth of all home mortgages in the United States, and soon made home ownership a goal to which most Americans could aspire.

On March 21, Roosevelt asked Congress for $500 million for unemployment relief. Congress complied and the president appointed Harry Hopkins to administer the program, the first ever by the federal government.

. . . Legislation to establish the Tennessee Valley Authority, providing cheap electric power to one of the most poverty stricken regions of the country, was introduced April 10 and became law five weeks later.

The excesses of Wall Street, blamed by many for the Depression, were reined in with the passage of the Truth in Securities Act on May 27. “If the country is to flourish,” said Roosevelt, “capital must be invested in enterprise. But those who seek to draw upon other people’s money must be wholly candid regarding the facts on which the investor’s judgment is asked.”

To make American farm products more affordable on the world market, F.D.R. took the United States off the gold standard, and Congress passed follow-up legislation nullifying the clauses in private contracts that required payment in gold.

The Glass-Steagall Act, one of the most far-reaching economic measures ever enacted, required banks to divest themselves of securities operations; gave the Federal Reserve Board the authority to set interest rates; and established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to guarantee individual bank deposits, assuring the average citizen that his money would be protected by the government.

. . . The 100 days that Congress was in session in 1933 shattered all records for legislative activity. Roosevelt had sent 15 messages to Capitol Hill requesting action, and Congress had responded with 15 historic pieces of legislation.

FDR was as bold a leader as the Nation had seen in 1933. Obama must follow his example.

Speaking for me only

< Mixed Verdicts for 'America's Sheriff' | The Worst 43 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I add one thing: (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by scribe on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 06:09:43 PM EST
    When a group would come to FDR to state their case (usually a liberal one) and ask him for his help, his standard answer was:

    "I agree with you.  Now, make me do it."

    All those people in the "don't criticize Obama", "don't criticize his works" or "don't protest" schools need to drop their reluctance.  A politician will only move when pushed.

    You can be sure that the neocons (who have, by one means or another largely preempted the foreign policy experts who worked on the campaign), the corporatocrats (who seem to have seized the banking and economic reforms), the established powers that be in the CIA, NSA, and DoD (who want to keep torturing, spying on you and your communications, and having wars to have wars), the Beltway Establishment Village (who want to break the law and have no accountability for it, while they suck up millions of your dollars and treat you like crap) and the Republicans are neither hesitant about, nor disinclined to, pushing Obama hard and in the direction that protects them from accountability and lines their pockets.

    If we don't push back - we get the shaft again.

    Last week, after what sounded like Obama waffling on Gitmo during Little Georgie's interview on ABC, the left blogosphere went nuts, and within a day Obama committed to an Executive Order closing Gitmo on Day One, as well as ending torture.  Then Holder was no less unequivocal during his confirmation hearings.  They heard us and listened.  But if they don't hear us - they will listen to the people they do hear.

    Keep up the pressure and we may get somewhere.


    I haven't read (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 06:38:13 PM EST
    much about the invitation Obama sent to Paul Krugman, and others, and which Krugman snubbed. The article I read didn't give a reason for the slight.

    I know that Paul is a great economist, but I never knew him to be as passionate regarding the Bush gang as he wrote Thursday.

    This may be why he declined Obama's invitation:

    ****************

    "Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it's probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he's going to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's not a conditional oath to be honored only when it's convenient.

    And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that's not a decision he has the right to make."

    To decline the invitation is (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    neither a snub nor a slight.

    Think of it as trying to keep a separation between the subject of commentary and the commentator.

    If only the MSM had such ethics.

    Parent

    Very good point. (none / 0) (#11)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:59:50 PM EST
    Makes perfect sense.

    Parent
    Obama himself cannot (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by weltec2 on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 10:41:42 PM EST
    hold them to account. To do so would point the finger of complicity at Pelosi and the Democratic leadership and they would never have it. It's why they made him president. He's already agreed to comply.

    Remember last fall when Pelosi went on The View and said we of course would try to impeach Bush if it could be proven that he had committed any crimes. I never came so close to throwing the TV out the window. And this was not that long after Kuchinich had stood up and read off a whole list of Bush crimes.

    "If my thought dreams could be seen..."

    Parent

    So True (none / 0) (#8)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:22:29 PM EST
    Allowing such crimes to go unpunished should be a crime unto itself. Surely there is a precedent?

    I can see it now: The GOP tries to impeach Obama from day one because he refused to protect the Constitution by allowing the previous GOP bunch off the hook. Film at 11.

    Parent

    Repeal of stem-cell ban (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    as promised would be nice, leading to adding a lot more than 100 days to thousands of lives -- but Politico says Obama is backtracking:

    Obama may not lift stem cell limits

        PHILADELPHIA - President-elect Barack Obama signaled Friday that he might not use his executive authority to reverse Bush-era limits on stem cell research, but instead might wait for Congress to change the policy.

        Obama pledged during the campaign to lift the restrictions, and political observers had expected him to move swiftly to reverse President Bush's 2001 executive order - most likely with his own executive order.



    Lifting the ban (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Steve M on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    is a job-creation measure as well.  A total no-brainer.

    Parent
    Good. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 07:38:54 PM EST
    I'd much rather see it codified into law that continue to be a political football subject to the whims of each President.  A better result for those people who are betting with their lives for stem cell advancements.  

    I fully expect that DeGette will push through the legistation that is needed to get the job done.  

    But then, I prefer to look for the best possible result rather than finding ways to denigrate the incoming President.

    Repealing the EO or passing legislation is not going to add any time for those who need it the breakthroughs today.  The research is an excruciating slow process, not an over-night cure to us.  Getting it started and keeping it going to the only end-result that matters.  

    Parent

    Obama's own words "denigrate" him? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:42:43 PM EST
    You have an interesting take on a pledge.  

    And, of course, on this current crop in Congress.  

    Parent

    My, what a.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    ...JimmyPBJ-esque non-response.  Clearly you're more invested in making this part of your crusade to bash Obama than doing what is best to get public funded SCR up and running.

    I'll say it again, I don't care one whit about any pledge, only doing what's best to get the program funded and working and not subject to constantly changing political whims.  

    As someone with one kidney and a better than average chance of ending up on a transplant list someday, one would think you would want that too.  

    Parent

    So I guess Obama is setting his Presidency (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 11:52:39 PM EST
    up in a way that Congress has to do everything, and he will sign off on it. An interesting way of avoiding making decisions.

    Given that our Congress has been a near total failure for some time now, I'm not hugely over the moon.

    Parent

    With Pelosi at the helm (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 02:04:53 AM EST
    nothing substantive will get done. You can believe that.

    Parent
    Another day, another non-surprise (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 09:24:06 PM EST
    They're doing a remake of 'The American President' starring Obama; it's called 'The Invisible President'.

    Way to Status-Quo, dude.

    FDR had something we, as a nation, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Radix on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    haven't had for a long time, a citizenry with a back-bone.

    A Democratic PATRIOT Act (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    seems in order. Package everything you could possibly want, and ram it through.

    Okay I'll admit (none / 0) (#3)
    by SOS on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    feeling at least a little bit euphoric that in three days Bush and his Motley wrecking crew will be gone.

    Yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 10:32:40 PM EST
    . . . The 100 days that Congress was in session in 1933 shattered all records for legislative activity.  

    Records are meant to be broken, let's make this happen.