Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Govt. Market Interventionist

There are several things we, must address in my opponent's arguments, and I will break them down into different sections, Public Projects, Taxes and Tariffs, the government's budget, and comparisons to FDR and the Keynes system. 1)Public Projects. My opponent lists the Hoover dam, San Francisco bay bridge, and the Los Angeles aqueducts. Looking at the Hoover dam first, this project was set in motion back in 1900, when congress began looking at the area for the purpose of placing a dam. And the Hoover Dam was authorized in 1928 (people should note that Hoover took office in 1929), yet didn't actually start construction until 1931 [1]. But even considering that, one should see that this is a business smart investment. It cost $49 million to build, and has been generating revenue for near 80 years (currently generates about $400 million a year). The bay bridge, likewise, was not approved by congress until 1931, and construction didn't even begin until July 1933 (after Hoover left office) [2]. Regarding the LA aqueducts, I believe my opponent will need to re-look at that, as they were started in 1908, and finished in 1913 [3]. He might be referring to repairs made to the aqueducts after the collapse of the St. Francis dam in 1928, however, government getting involved after a major tragedy (that cost 350+ lives) is hardly "big government." The level to which these public projects stand on a governmental level is rather insignificant, also when noticing that they began well after the 1929 crash, they can hardly be called "responses" to the crash. 2)Taxes and Tariffs My opponent likes to point to the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Hoover went into his 1928 election promising greater protection (through tariffs) for American agriculture, however, he also promised lower tariffs for industry [4]. The bill actually started as much of what he wanted, but by the time the senate republicans got through with the bill, tariffs (at request of the industries themselves) were at record levels, and Hoover referred to the increases above what he wanted as "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious," however he had decided to go with what the republicans in congress wanted [5]. These tariffs were not what Hoover wanted, he was just too spineless to stand against his own party and say no. Given that unemployment after the crash never went above 10% and even dropped back below 7% before the tariff act, most progressives, democrats, Keynesists, and big governmentalists were against this type of action. I will go over a decent Keynes response in part 4. 3)Federal Budget This is the part where Hoover utterly fails as a big governmentalist. Hoover was a rock solid balanced budget man. This remained until his last year, 1932, when he changed his ways and attempted to actually do things, by this point it was too late to make a difference before the election. We can see that in 1929 and 1930, he maintained a federal surplus [6], and in 1931, a deficit of only $129 million (would be comparable to a modern deficit of about $110 billion). Between 1929 – 1932, the US federal spending went from $3.809 billion to $4.266 billion, a 12.0% increase over the 4 years. However, defense spending went from $1.372 billion to $1.672 billion, or 21.9% increase. The non-defense spending went from $2.437 billion to $2.594 billion, or 6.4% increase over 4 years [6]. It should also note that in the 1932 budget, there was only $2 million in welfare, a 50% cut from the $4 million in 1929 (in 1933, this was upped to $294 million, and $589 million in 1934). Governmental "other spending" only increased from $872 million to $925 million, or about 6.1% between 1929 and 1931 and to $955 million in 1932. All of this clearly shows that Hoover made no attempt at growing government and made no real attempt at governmental intervention on any kind of national scale. 4)Compared to FDR and Keynes Hoover grew the defense spending by 21.9% over his 4 years, FDR cut it by 35.3% in his first 2 years [6]. Hoover grew the non-defense spending by 6.4% over his 4 years, FDR grew the non-defense spending by 87.3% in his first 2 years (from $2.594 billion to $4.895 billion). Hoover cut welfare by 50%, FDR increased it by 29,350% in just 2 years (from $2 million to $589 million). Hoover refused to allow deficit spending until his last year, 3 years after the collapse, FDR embraced it. If there you know only one thing about Keynes and Big Government (though I encourage everyone to learn more than one thing) it is that it supports deficit spending in bad time, through tax cuts and government stimulus spending. Hoover did the exact opposite. He did not increase government by any meaningful amount (only 6.4% over 4 years), he cut welfare, and he raised tariffs. All the exact opposite of what should have been done by basic big government principles. Hoover did change his tune a bit as the election began to come along, however, as with every politician in election cycle, that was nothing more than political posturing. What he said on the campaign trail, is more what he needed to say to try to get re-elected, rather than an accurate representation of what truly happened. The Crash happened in 1929, but no real change in spending occurred until 1932. That is why Hoover has the "do nothing" label, because he did nothing for years. Pulling all the stuff he did at the end of his term, as if he actually supported that from the beginning is false. He wasn't big government at the time of the crisis, he wasn't big government in the years following the crisis, he was only big government in his last year, and probably only because he knew that being fiscally conservative was not going to win him re-election. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://future.state.gov... [5] Robert Sobel, The Age of Giant Corporations: A microeconomic History of American Business pp. 87 – 88 [6] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...