DOCSLIB.ORG

New Deal Economic Policies FDR and the Congress, 1933 to 1938

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Deal Economic Policies FDR and the Congress, 1933 to 1938 New Deal Economic Policies FDR and the Congress, 1933 to 1938 'Ytftöi»^ ^"n n rr^!ir»T'k"«'o WrXttT* New Deal • Economic Policies FDR and the Congress, 1933 to 1938 4^ m University Publications of America STAFF President Paul P. Massa Executive Vice President James F. Connolly Vice President and Editorial Director Susan I. Jover Director of Congressional and Legal Services Steven F. Daniel UPA Editor-in-Chief Paul Kesaris Editor Joan Sherry Indexer Tim Shank Editorial Assistant Vanessa B. Hubbard Production Coordinator Dorothy W. Rogers Asst. Production Coordinator Debra G. Turnell Applications Programming Manager Andrew M. Ross Systems and Operations Manager Mojtaba Anvari Operations Supervisor Melvin M. Turner Computer Operations Nahid Hamedani, Stephanie Hiñes, S. Allen Paige Administrative Services Manager Lee Mayer Micropublishing Projects Production and Services: Vice President, Manufacturing William C. Smith Plant Operations Manager William Idol Documents Control Supervisor Bea Lamkin Documents Control Assistant Denise Anderson Camera Operators Gloria Robinson, Abel David Published by: UPA, an imprint of Congressional Information Service 4520 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, U.S.A. Copyright ©1990 by University Publications of America All rights reserved. Printed and Bound in the United States of America International Standard Book Number 1-55655-283-1 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39-48-1984. CONTENTS New Deal Economic Policy in Perspective, by Prof. Jordan A. Schwarz p. v User Guide p. ix Reference Bibliography p. 1 Index by Subjects and Names p, 51 Index by Titles p 167 Index by Bill Numbers p 175 Index by Superintendent of Documents Numbers p 177 Index by Document and Report Numbers p, 181 NEW DEAL ECONOMIC POLICY IN PERSPECTIVE Introduction to UPA Index and Microfiche Collection BY JORDAN A. SCHWARZ University Research Professor Northern Illinois University INTRODUCTION The world confronted a grave peacetime crisis on March 4, funds. As the country awaited new leadership to conclude the 1933, the day Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as presi- interregnum between the Hoover and Roosevelt presidencies, dent of the United States. Nothing less than the future of liberal it pondered the meaning of Franklin D. Roosevelt's promise capitalism was at stake. Emerging from the fourth winter of in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention to give the Great Depression, millions of Americans, one quarter of it a "New Deal." It soon became evident that a consensus the work force, were unemployed with little hope of a change among policymakers had emerged for capitalist planning that in their fortunes. The engines of capitalism, its banks, closed drew upon the regulatory experiences of the progressive era and by the thousands across the country, some temporarily, many the emergency measures of World War I. permanently. Moreover, it was a worldwide crisis•although in no country was the depression as severe as in the U.S. because no country enjoyed such extensive capitalist development as Banking the U.S. At stake was not merely a recovery of prosperity but the future of democracy itself. In Europe fascism was entrenched in Italy; Germany had just opted for the Nazi dic- The New Deal initially attacked the depression on several tatorship; and Russia had long since been captured by a Com- fronts: banking, agriculture, industry, public works, work relief, munist dictatorship. The rest of democratic Europe watched and regional development. Its policies were not consistent: these experiments in totalitariansim for indications that they Along with economic expansion, it paradoxically practiced could generate economic growth, security and stability, albeit governmental economy. But its first task was to save liberal at the price of liberty. At the same time, European attentions capitalism; Roosevelt had to save the banks. To resolve the bank- focused upon the U.S. for signs of how its liberal capitalism ing crisis Roosevelt first declared a national bank holiday under would fare. powers Congress conferred upon the president in the Trading- The U.S. response to the depression was exceptionally volun- with-the-Enemy Act of 1917. During the brief hiatus policy- taristic. The Hoover administration maintained that relief of makers agreed upon a strategy that closed many banks not the unemployed was the responsibility of private agencies and worth saving and reinforced stronger banks with RFC loans. state and local governments. President Hoover counted upon But loans only increased bank obligations and postponed com- the depression of the 1930's repeating the brevity of the plete recovery. Congress in the hastily devised Banking Act of 1920-1921 depression. He resisted proposals for escalated 1933 (B-333-H10) conferred additional powers and funds upon federal public works spending, arguing that such panicky the RFC and it now offered bankers a "Partnership" with measures would exacerbate cycle behavior from deflation to government by purchasing a bank's preferred stock. That gave inflation. But Hoover compromised on control of fiscal policy the banks new capital resources in exchange for tighter federal with Congress; some works spending was initiated and taxes supervision. Because many bankers opposed any apparent were increased in an abortive effort to make up the federal federal intrusion into their management, RFC Chairman Jesse deficit. Also, he conceded to bankers assistance from the federal Jones, a Houston banker, secured congressional creation of the treasury in the form of the Reconstruction Finance Corpora- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and coupled tion (RFC), a credit relief agency capitalized initially at a half it with bank sale of preferred stock (B-361-H1). Roosevelt had billion dollars and modeled after the War Finance Corpora- resisted suggestions for deposit "guarantees," maintaining that tion of 1918-1929. It was intended to engender public confidence without proper regulation bankers would take unnecessary in- in the absence of private credit pools. Many critics and sup- vestment risks or engage in corrupt practices for which the porters of the RFC recognized in it the beginnings of state federal government would be responsible. Yet he accepted Con- capitalism that drew upon public financial experiments dur- gress's linkage of FDIC with regulation and it became one of ing the Great War of 1917-1918. But Hoover strenuously op- the New Deal's distinct successes. However, along with most posed additional federal programs. RFC administration over American bankers, Roosevelt demanded the separation of com- the winter of 1932-1933 was timid with the consequence that mercial and investment banking, while resisting bank consolida- several state governors had to contain bank closings by declar- tions that also permitted branch banking. These requirements ing "bank holidays" to prevent depositors from withdrawing automatically limited the size and strength of American banks. New Deal Economic Policies Agriculture credit. Although AAA policies were more dramatic, farmers believed that CCC went further toward restoring farm pros- Roosevelt's decision to confront next the depression in perity by ridding them of a great burden. agriculture stemmed from the fact that nearly half of all Americans depended upon farm prosperity and that a rural National Industrial Recovery Act crisis had persisted in varying degrees since 1920. Most policy- makers favored a strategy using farmer cooperatives•cartel- Early in the New Deal some congressmen, led by Senator like organizations exempt from prosecution under the Sherman Hugo Black of Alabama, proposed legislation mandating the Antitrust Law. In particular, a handful of agricultural reduction of hours worked in interstate trade to no more than economists promoted a "domestic allotment" scheme that thirty per week (I-351-S1). Economists and the administration would have the cooperatives create national commodity deemed this effort to spread work among more workers as organizations to restrain production for the purpose of reduc- inefficient in restoring prosperity. Nevertheless, it compelled ing supplies and increasing prices. The New Deal's Agricultural policymakers to offer alternative proposals for planning the Adjustment Administration (AAA) bought the scarcity scheme. industrial marketplace. The result was an omnibus bill that Initially it sought to slash farm output through emergency promised something for everybody: the National Industrial measures such as the slaughter of pigs before they reached Recovery Act (NIRA) (I-332-S1). It had two distinct parts; the market size, trampling cotton before it could be picked, or dum- first created a National Recovery Administration (NRA), and ping milk. At a time filled with deprivation, the wanton destruc- the second called for a Public Works Administration (PWA). tion of necessities horrified people. But AAA policy emphasized The NRA was given blanket powers to concoct a strategy for democratic decision-making to limit output so that commodity increasing industrial prices. Modeled on 1918's War Industries prices rose in a controlled manner. It established target prices Board (WIB), which had successfully boosted wartime produc- based upon prices during the last prosperous pre-war period, tion while restraining prices, NRA's commission called for 1909-1914. However,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Brief Description of Federal Taxes
    A BRIEF DESCRIFTION OF FEDERAL TAXES ON CORPORATIONS SINCE i86i WMUAu A. SU. ND* The cost to the federal government of financing the Civil War created a need for increased revenue, and Congress in seeking new sources tapped theretofore un- touched corporate and individual profits. The Act of July x, x862, amending the Act of August 5, x86i, is the first law under which any federal income tax was collected and is considered to be largely the basis of our present system of income taxation. The tax acts of the Civil War period contained provisions imposing graduated taxes upon the gain, profits, or income of every person2 and providing that corporate profits, whether divided or not, should be taxed to the stockholders. Certain specified corporations, such as banks, insurance companies and transportation companies, were taxed at the rate of 5%, and their stockholders were not required to include in income their pro rata share of the profits. There were several tax acts during and following the War, but a description of the Act of 1864 will serve to show the general extent of the coiporate taxes of that period. The tax or "duty" was imposed upon all persons at the rate of 5% of the amount of gains, profits and income in excess of $6oo and not in excess of $5,000, 7Y2/ of the amount in excess of $5,ooo and not in excess of -$o,ooo, and io% of the amount in excess of $Sxooo.O This tax was continued through the year x87i, but in the last two years of its existence was reduced to 2/l% upon all income.
    [Show full text]
  • Ways and Means Committee's Request for the Former President's
    (Slip Opinion) Ways and Means Committee’s Request for the Former President’s Tax Returns and Related Tax Information Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f )(1) Section 6103(f )(1) of title 26, U.S. Code, vests the congressional tax committees with a broad right to receive tax information from the Department of the Treasury. It embod- ies a long-standing judgment of the political branches that the tax committees are uniquely suited to receive such information. The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose. In assessing whether requested information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose, the Executive Branch must give due weight to Congress’s status as a co-equal branch of government. Like courts, therefore, Executive Branch officials must apply a pre- sumption that Legislative Branch officials act in good faith and in furtherance of legit- imate objectives. When one of the congressional tax committees requests tax information pursuant to section 6103(f )(1), and has invoked facially valid reasons for its request, the Executive Branch should conclude that the request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose only in exceptional circumstances. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information. Under section 6103(f )(1), Treasury must furnish the information to the Committee. July 30, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The Internal Revenue Code requires the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to keep tax returns and related information confidential, 26 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality Vs
    Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality vs. Public Disclosure* by Boris I. Bittker* * I. INTRODUCTION This article will examine the relationship between the individual's interest in privacy, reflected in such recent statutes as the Privacy Act of 1974, I and the public's right to know, which underlies legislation like the Freedom of Information Act. 2 The subject is of intrinsic impor­ tance, but it is particularly appropriate for an article in this lecture se­ ries, since privacy3 and disclosure4 were values of special interest to Justice Douglas. Neither the individual's right to privacy5 nor the pub­ lic's right to know6 is explicitly protected by the Constitution, but both do have constitutional overtones, and both are protected by various statutory provisions. Using federal income tax returns as the centerpiece of the discus­ sion, I propose to show how privacy and disclosure can come into con­ flict-a possibility that has been insufficiently recognized by the courts and the commentators. The leading treatise on political and civil rights,7 for example, treats the two subjects in separate chapters with virtually no acknowledgement that they are related, let alone that they • Copyright 1981 by Boris I. Bittker. •• Sterling Professor of Law. Yale University. This article is the modified text of a speech delivered at the Fifth Annual William O. Douglas Lecture Series. October 30. 1980. I. Pub. L. No. 93-579, § 3, 88 Stat. 1897 (amended 1975 & 1977) codified at 5 U.S.C § 552a (1976». 2. Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383 (1966) (amended 1967, 1974, 1976 & 1978) (codified at 5 U.S.C § 552 (1976».
    [Show full text]
  • RESTORING the LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E
    COPYRIGHT © 2017 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION RESTORING THE LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E. Hickman* & Gerald Kerska† Should Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents be eligible for pre-enforcement judicial review? The D.C. Circuit’s 2015 decision in Florida Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Department of the Treasury puts its interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act at odds with both general administrative law norms in favor of pre-enforcement review of final agency action and also the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the nearly identical Tax Injunction Act. A 2017 federal district court decision in Chamber of Commerce v. IRS, appealable to the Fifth Circuit, interprets the Anti-Injunction Act differently and could lead to a circuit split regarding pre-enforcement judicial review of Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents. Other cases interpreting the Anti-Injunction Act more generally are fragmented and inconsistent. In an effort to gain greater understanding of the Anti-Injunction Act and its role in tax administration, this Article looks back to the Anti- Injunction Act’s origin in 1867 as part of Civil War–era revenue legislation and the evolution of both tax administrative practices and Anti-Injunction Act jurisprudence since that time. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1684 I. A JURISPRUDENTIAL MESS, AND WHY IT MATTERS ...................... 1688 A. Exploring the Doctrinal Tensions.......................................... 1690 1. Confused Anti-Injunction Act Jurisprudence .................. 1691 2. The Administrative Procedure Act’s Presumption of Reviewability ................................................................... 1704 3. The Tax Injunction Act .................................................... 1707 B. Why the Conflict Matters ....................................................... 1712 * Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register
    > 11TTTO& ' FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 3 \ 1934 NUMBER 141 i/AHTED^ W a sh in gton , T h u rsd a y, J u ly 21, 1938 Rules, Regulations, Orders his hand and caused the seal of the De­ CONTENTS partment of Agriculture to be affixed in the city of Washington, District of Co­ RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE lumbia, this 19th day of July, 1938. T itle 7—A griculture: [ seal! M. L. W ilson, Agricultural Adjustment Ad­ AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT Acting Secretary of Agriculture. ADMINISTRATION ministration: Page [F. R. Doc. 38-2079; Filed, July 20,1938; Fresh prunes grown in Uma­ P roclamation W ith Respect to B ase 9:32 a. m.] tilla County, Oreg., Walla P eriod to be U sed for P urpose of Walla and Columbia M arketing A greement and O rder Counties, Wash.: R egulating H andling of F resh P runes Base period for marketing G rown in U matilla County in State Order R egulating the H andling in In ­ agreement and order__1779 of Oregon, and W alla W alla and terstate and Foreign Commerce, and Order regulating handling Columbia Counties in State of W ash­ Such H andling as D irectly Burdens, in interstate, etc., com­ ington Obstructs or Affects I nterstate or F oreign Commerce of Fresh P runes merce_________________ 1779 By virtue of the authority vested in G rown in U matilla County in State Mainland cane sugar area the Secretary of Agriculture by the terms of Oregon and W alla W alla and Co­ ferais, determination of and provisions of Public Act No.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. 82-156 Gov Major Acts of Congress And
    REPORT NO. 82-156 GOV MAJOR ACTS OF CONGRESS AND TREATIES APPROVED BY THE SENATE 1789-1980 Christopher Dell Stephen W. Stathis Analysts in American National Governent Government Division September 1982 CONmGHnItNA^l JK 1000 B RE filmH C SE HVICA^^ ABSTRACT During the nearly two centuries since the framing of the Constitution, more than 41,000 public bills have been approved by Congress, submitted to the President for his approval and become law. The seven hundred or so acts summarized in this compilation represent the major acts approved by Congress in its efforts to determine national policies to be carried out by the executive branch, to authorize appropriations to carry out these policies, and to fulfill its responsibility of assuring that such actions are being carried out in accordance with congressional intent. Also included are those treaties considered to be of similar importance. An extensive index allows each entry in this work to be located with relative ease. The authors wish to credit Daphine Lee, Larry Nunley, and Lenora Pruitt for the secretarial production of this report. CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................. 111 CONGRESSES: 1st (March 4, 1789-March 3, 1791)..................................... 3 2nd (October 24, 1791-March 2, 1793)................................... 7 3rd (December 2, 1793-March 3, 1795).................................. 8 4th (December 7, 1795-March 3, 1797).................................. 9 5th (May 15, 1797-March 3, 1799)....................................... 11 6th (December 2, 1799-March 3, 1801)................................... 13 7th (December 7, 1801-Marh 3, 1803)................................... 14 8th (October 17, 1803-March 3, 1805)....... ........................... 15 9th (December 2, 1805-March 3, 1807)................................... 16 10th (October 26, 1807-March 3, 1809)..................................
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAT:M SENATE
    • 1934 _CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAT:m 1039 Societies, representing upward of 100,000 men, against House Hale Lonergan Pittman Thomas, Utah Harrison McAdoo Pope Thompson bill 5978 relating to birth control; to the Committee on the Hastings McCarran Reynolds Townsend Judiciary. Hatch McGlll Robinson, Ark. Trammell Hatfield McKellar Robinson, Ind: Tydings 1707. Also, petition of Philip and Felicia Kornreich and Hayden McNary Russell Vandenberg 46 other residents of Paterson, N.J., against the passage <>f Johnson Murphy Schall VanNuys the Tugwell bill; to the Committee on Interstate and For­ Kean Neely Sheppard Wagner Keyes Norris Shipstead Walcott eign Commerce. King Nye Smith Walsh 1708. By Mr. SNELL: Petition of citizens of Canton, N.Y., La Follette O'Mahoney Steiwer Wheeler protesting against war preparations of the United States; to Lewis Overton Stephens White the Committee on Appropriations. Logan Patterson Thomas, Okla. 1709. By Mr. SUTPHIN: Petition of West End Parent­ Mr. FESS. I desire to announce that the senior Senator Teachers Association, endorsing the principles enunciated in from Rhode Island [Mr. METCALF], the junior Senator from the proposed revision of the present Federal Food and Drug Rhode Island [Mr. HEBERT], the Senator from South Da­ Act; to the Committee on Agriculture. kota [Mr. NORBECK], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED] are necessarily absent from the Senate. Mr. LEWIS. I desire to announce that the Senator from SENATE Louisiana [Mr. LoNG l is necessarily detained from the Senate. MONDAY, JANUARY 22,, 1934 The VICE PRESIDENT. Ninety-one Senators having (Legislative day of Thursday, Jan. 11, 1934) answered to their names, a quorum is present.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Farm Bills, National Agricultural Law Center
    A research project from The National Center for Agricultural Law Research and Information University of Arkansas • [email protected] • (479) 575-7646 Agricultural Act of 1949 Pub. L. No. 81-439, 63 Stat. 1051 (Originally cited as ch. 792, 63 Stat. 1051) The digitization of this Act was performed by the University of Arkansas’s National Agricultural Law Center under Cooperative Agreement No. 58-8201-4-197 with the United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library. 6,;3 STAT.] 31sT CONG., 1ST SESS.~CHS. 791, 792-QCT. 31, 1949 1051 [CHAPTER 792J AN ACT OctobN 31, HH9 To stabilize prices of agricultural commodities. [H. R. 5.145] JPublic Law 439] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative" of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may Agricultural Act of be cited as the"Agricultural Act of 1949". D49. TITLE I-BASIC AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES PrIce support to co· S>:c. 101. The Secretary of AgricuJture (hereinafter called the operators. "Secretary") is authorized and directed to make available throngh loans, purchases, or other operations, price support to cooperators for any crop of any basic agricultural commodity, if producers have not disapproved marketing quotas for such crop, at a level not in excess of 90 per centum of the parity priee of the commodity nor less than the level provided in subsections (a), (b), and (c) as follows: The level of support shall be not less (a) For tobacco (except as otherwise provided herein), corn, than the follow- "heat and rice, If the supply percentage
    [Show full text]
  • The Revenue Act of 1924: Publicity, Tax Cuts, Response
    The Revenue Act of 1924: Publicity, Tax Cuts, Response Daniel Marcin∗ March 25, 2014 Abstract The elasticity of taxable income (ETI) with respect to the marginal net-of-tax rate is an estimate of the aggregate response to tax rate changes. It is estimated without attributing cause to avoidance, evasion, or changes in economic growth. Historical ETI estimates in the public nance literature often rely on assumptions about income dynamics. A provision in the Revenue Act of 1924 for publicity of income tax returns allowed major newspapers to run lists of names, addresses, and tax payments in their pages. From these records, I constructed a dataset of very high income taxpayers. Over 10,000 individuals can be easily matched between the two years. In addition, the Revenue Act of 1924 sharply cut marginal tax rates. These changes can be used to estimate the ETI without distribution or rank preservation assumptions. Preliminary estimates indicate a positive ETI around 0.3 to 0.6, consistent with previous research. ∗Acknowledgements: Paul Rhode, David Albouy, Martha Bailey, and Josh Hausman for serving on my committee, seminar participants at Michigan, the Midwest Economics Association, the Economics and Busi- ness History Society, the World Cliometric Congress, and Nic Duquette for various helpful comments. Fund- ing: SRA, OTPR, Rackham, EHA, MITRE 1 I wish it to be understood that I have not the slightest prejudice against multi-millionaires. I like them. But I always feel this way when I meet one of them: You have made millionsgood; that means you have something in you. I wish you would show it.
    [Show full text]
  • THE NEW DEAL, RURAL POVERTY, and the SOUTH by CHARLES
    THE NEW DEAL, RURAL POVERTY, AND THE SOUTH by CHARLES KENNETH ROBERTS KARI FREDERICKSON, COMMITTEE CHAIR GEORGE C. RABLE LISA LINDQUIST DORR ANDREW J. HUEBNER PETE DANIEL A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2012 Copyright Charles Kenneth Roberts 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the political and administrative history of the Farm Security Administration (FSA) and its predecessors, the New Deal agency most directly associated with eliminating rural poverty. In addition, it studies and describes the efforts to remedy rural poverty, with an emphasis on farm security efforts (particularly rural rehabilitation) in the South, by looking at how the FSA’s actual operating programs (rural rehabilitation, tenant-purchase, and resettlement) functioned. This dissertation demonstrates that it is impossible to understand either element of the FSA’s history – its political and administrative history or the successes and failures of its operating programs – without understanding the other. The important sources include archival collections, congressional records, newspapers, and published reports. This dissertation demonstrates that New Deal liberal thought (and action) about how to best address rural poverty evolved considerably throughout the 1930s. Starting with a wide variety of tactics (including resettlement, community creation, land use reform, and more), by 1937, the New Deal’s approach to rural poverty had settled on the idea of rural rehabilitation, a system of supervised credit and associated ideas that came to profoundly influence the entire FSA program. This proved to be the only significant effort in the New Deal to solve the problems of rural poverty.
    [Show full text]
  • ^ 1934 ^ Washington, Wednesday, November 13, 1940
    REGISTER ^ 1934 ^ VOLUME 5 NUMBER 221 * Wa n t e d ^ Washington, Wednesday, November 13, 1940 The President vessels of Egypt and the produce, manu­ CONTENTS factures, or merchandise imported in said vessels into the United States from THE PRESIDENT Egypt—Suspension op T onnage D uties Egypt or from any other foreign coun­ Proclamations: BY THE PRESIDENT OP THE UNITED STATES OF try; the suspension to take effect from Suspension of tonnage duties: Page AMERICA October 3, 1940, and to continue so long Dominican Republic_________ 4442 as the reciprocal exemption of vessels A PROCLAMATION Egypt------------------------------ 4441 belonging to citizens of the United States Guatemala_____________'_____ 4441 WHEREAS section 4228 of the Revised and their cargoes shall be continued, and Haiti------------------------------- 4443 no longer. Statutes of the United States, as Venezuela___________________ 4444 amended by the act of July 24,1897, c. 13, IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have Washington, closed area under 30 Stat. 214 (U.S.C., title 46, sec. 141), hereunto set my hand and caused the the Migratory Bird Treaty provides, in part, as follows: seal of the United States of America to A c t------------------------------ 4443 be affixed. Upon satisfactory proof toeing given to the Executive Orders: President, by the government of any foreign DONE at the City of Washington this nation, that no discriminating duties of 7th day of November in the year of our Arkansas, public land with­ tonnage or imposts are imposed or levied Lord nineteen hundred and drawal in aid of flood con­ in the ports of such nation upon vessels trol ------- 4450 [ seal] forty, and of the Independence wholly belonging to citizens of the United Civil Service Rules, general States, or upon the produce, manufactures, of the United States of America or merchandise imported in the same from the one hundred and sixty-fifth.
    [Show full text]