Glenn Beck: Obama and FDR


New Deal or Raw Deal?

By Burton W., Jr. Folsom


GLENN: Burton Folsom is an author of New Deal, Raw Deal, and you'll learn more about FDR than you've ever learned and, of course, Burton, I'm sure, have they started to try to discredit you yet?

FOLSOM: Well, that press conference by President Obama last night did send a sharp Barb against those who are critical of FDR and indeed he did not get us out of the Great Depression. His version of a stimulus package of the 1930s did not work and, hey, I think that has historical lessons for the president.

GLENN: Okay. So here is what Obama said last night and then, if you will, just jump off from there, Burton. Here it is.

FOLSOM: Sure.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Some of the criticisms are really with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. You have some people very sincere who philosophically just think that government has no business interfering in the marketplace and, in fact, there are several who suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.

GLENN: You know what's funny is I thought they resolved a long time ago during the American Revolution. I mean, I'm sorry to point out that every founding father would be the one that would say, "Yeah, government really has no place in business."

FOLSOM: Absolutely. Article I, Section 8 makes that so clear, limited government. Not even building roads and that kind of thing.

GLENN: Yeah.

FOLSOM: Absolutely.

GLENN: I mean, I love -- here we are talking about healthcare, universal healthcare. Even Ben Franklin didn't go to the government, and he could have. Ben Franklin was wildly influential, wildly popular. What did he do? He built the first hospital, but he built it with private money. He went to all the rich people he knew. He didn't say that government should take the money from the rich. He went and said, "Hey, this is the right idea. We should build a hospital." And so they built a private hospital. The first one in the United States. Built privately by one of the founders who could have had the -- he did -- correct me if I'm wrong, Burton. He had the power. He could have gotten that through congress but that's not the way they understood America at the time.

FOLSOM: Absolutely not. And when it came to library buildings, Franklin had private funds building libraries in Philadelphia. When we wanted something done in this country in the 1700s, groups of people got together, formed associations and got the job done.

GLENN: Right. This is exactly the opposite now of what Barack Obama and FDR believed. FDR -- and really it started with Woodrow Wilson, they believed that government was the answer. Barack Obama said something stunning that only government can create the jobs needed to be able to pull us out. Give me the comparisons between the New Deal and the stimulus deal and the facts that America may have never heard before on the new deal in the 1930s.

GLENN: Well, the new deal did promise a kind of stimulus package. It wasn't labeled that way, but it was the idea, "Hey, we're good to fix farming and then we're also going to provide infrastructure for roads and highways and that thing through the WPA." So you have the AAA, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, we're going to fix farming. And sure enough prices, farm prices went down. Well, they went down because government had already been involved passing the biggest tariff in United States history. Nations were retaliating against us because we had put a high tariff on their product. They were refusing to buy our wheat and corn. So we put in the AAA, we're going to raise farm prices. And the way we decide to do it is by Roosevelt by paying farmers not to produce on part of their land. If we paid them not to produce on part of their land, they won't grow as much and they will get more money and that will raise prices. Well, that is not really going to fix the problem, Glenn. In fact, two or three years after the AAA in 1935 we were actually importing corn to the tune of 35 million bushels, wheat to the tune of 13 million bushels, cotton to the tune of 36 million pounds because we weren't greedy enough in part because we were paying farmers not to produce the products we were now importing and that is called fixing the prices.

GLENN: May I ask you, Burton, and I don't know this part of history but I'm just guessing. The way we got away with importing all of this, not having an outcry was I'm guessing they sold it to the American people if they even knew about it at the time. They sold it to the American people as something of, we're helping the rest of the world and mending fences and being able to be protectionist in nature.

FOLSOM: I want to give him credit. He did reduce tariffs. He had the act of 1934 and he began to reduce some of those tariffs. And yes we were able to improve our trade relations but still that's at a price of the absurdity of paying farmers not to produce on part of their land and then importing some of those very products we were paying farmers not to produce.

GLENN: Okay, all right. So there we have farming. Then what else did we do?

FOLSOM: Well, the WPA was designed to build roads but here's the thing. And the same thing with the stimulus package, Glenn. You are going to build roads. It sounds good, you are going to build schools, you are going to fix bridges and all of this. But then the next question is who decides what bridges and what roads get built and fixed?

GLENN: Wait a minute, hang on just a minute. In the school thing, I don't know if anybody saw the speech last night but when he was talking about that one school from the 1800s that shakes when the train goes by, there's no money in this stimulus package to build new schools. Just thought I'd throw that out.

FOLSOM: Okay.

GLENN: But when you're talking about the work project program, you built Hoover Dam, you built gigantic projects that were good for the country. How could you possibly say that this program didn't work?

FOLSOM: Right. Well, the first -- as I said, the first thing is you have to decide who is going to choose which areas get built and which ones don't get built and what we found immediately was the Democrats were choosing, it's going to be our areas in our districts that are going to get rebuilt and we're going to use that rebuilding to seek votes from the voters. Yeah, I have quotes. For example, we have a fellow by the name of V. G. Copeland who is saying in the, "Hey, what I think will help is to change the WPA management from top to bottom, put men in there who are in favor of using these Democratic projects to make votes for the Democratic Party." You have another man, James Doherty, a New Hampshire Democrat that says, quote, "It is my personal belief that to the victor belongs the spoil and the Democrats should be holding most of those WPA positions so that we might strengthen our fences for the 1940 election" so you are going to get projects built but the Democrats are going to go out and say "We built the projects, vote for us" and they will not decide to vote for projects in areas that Republicans might like to have them built. So in effect you are transferring wealth to a political party.

GLENN: So really -- and this we're already seeing with Obama where he is taking the census and moving it away. 1903 the census moved to the commerce department and it's been there forever. Now he's moving it to the White House and Rahm Emanuel, which would indeed be a way to shift all of these projects and the money to Democratic areas. If you don't have an actual head count where you could just estimate, "Well, I estimate on that block over there, there's 2500 people living" and they could -- in fact, that's what these projects would do. They would move to those areas.

FOLSOM: I think you have a good point, Glenn, and I that I that kind of thing could possibly happen. Part of the thing is I can't tell much about President Obama's character yet. Roosevelt had very poor character and he was very quick to use a lot of money, federal money for political expediency. I think Obama really believes that the stimulus package will work. I'm not sure that Roosevelt completely believed that, but I do think he thought he could help the Democratic Party with it. If Obama really thinks the stimulus package will work, maybe he'll wake up when it doesn't work.

GLENN: Yeah... no. I think what Obama believes in is collective governance.

(Buzzing sounds).

GLENN: Excuse you. Are you shaving or -- with a buzz saw?

FOLSOM: I'm sorry.

GLENN: What is that noise?

FOLSOM: I'm sorry. We're chopping the stimulus package up, Glenn, into pieces over here.

GLENN: Okay. So listen, here's the thing. I think he believes in socialism, as many of the people did back in the New Deal and all they are doing is putting framework of socialism in here. Here's probably -- I don't like strawman argument. So I'm going to give you the toughest argument on the other side. The toughest argument on the other side, on Obama's side is this, and this comes from -- who is this, Stu? This is one of the -- yeah, this is one of the guys that's cited everywhere on, you know, pro, you know, pro FDR New Deal stuff. He says, I heard that, you know, the New Deal didn't work, et cetera, et cetera. On deeper examination I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the recession on the years straddling '37 and 1938 but that was four years into Roosevelt's term, four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal spending programs but because Roosevelt listened momentarily to conservatives and backed off them. Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman notes in '37-'38 FDR was persuaded to balance the budget and cut spending and the economy went back down. Tell me if any of that is true.

FOLSOM: That is a standard New Deal argument, Glenn. That is what you often get in the textbooks. What happened is Roosevelt had incredible spending and their argument is if he had only spent more and stepped it up in the late Thirties, it would have had more recovery potential. And what I'm suggesting is that, we doubled the national debt in the 1930s and that we had higher interest rates, we had instability and that was causing the lack of recovery.

GLENN: But did he have spectacular economic growth in the first four years?

FOLSOM: I would say that that's absolutely false unless you consider 15% -- it's slightly under -- unemployment to be spectacular economic growth. We've only had one period in American history, the 1890s, where we had unemployment that was anywhere near that high. I say that --

GLENN: If I'm not mistaken -- I'm sorry. If I'm not mistaken, when FDR got into office if you took three lines of men and you started in Los Angeles, they would go all the way, work lines, three mile lines of men all the way to Maine. When he left -- or in 1939 that line went from Los Angeles to Maine and then meandered down the coastline all the way into Virginia.

FOLSOM: Absolutely.

GLENN: So unemployment never went down. We were just shifting jobs from one group to another group it seems.

FOLSOM: We did have some ups and downs and sometimes the defenders of Roosevelt liked to take the low figure right there in 1936 and match it with the high figure when he came into office. But I think the fair thing to do is, hey, look at what happened in his second term. Unemployment steadily went up because of the instability. Roosevelt even put a tax on corporate undistributed profits. We have a 79% marginal tax on incomes and we simply have entrepreneurs refusing to invest in the economy and unemployment remaining high because of that.

GLENN: Will you do me a favor. Tonight I know you are going to join me on TV. Just have some of these stats and figures and look for a couple of things. Did in 1936 the Supreme Court finally allow the unions to finally come into play and do, just crippling business. I believe that passed in 1936. And then there was another thing if I'm not mistaken that you just mentioned, and explain this on television tonight because I've only got 10 seconds here, where FDR forced people if you didn't reinvest in your business, then you would be taxed and all that money would go away and the businesses didn't want to do it because of a possible other down turn and that is also what happened in that same year. If you can just cover that tonight on television on Fox, Fox News Channel, 5:00. By the way, the name of this book is New Deal, Raw Deal by Burton Folsom.

The great beyond. What does it hide from us? Do unknown lifeforms linger in the dark? In other words, was David Bowie right? Is there life on Mars? The head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department contends that, yes, there is. Well, not that there's life on Mars. I'll explain in just a minute.

In an academic article for the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Dr. Avi Loeb, the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department, claimed that an alien probe entered our solar system. He claimed that it is masked as the space rock Oumuamua (Ow-moo-ah-moo-ah), "the first interstellar object to enter our solar system." It turns out that "space rock" is way more than a musical genre.

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

In his own words:

Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that 'Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment.

His evidence? pointed to the space rock's abnormal acceleration, activity which he gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope.

He added that "the lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets."

Sounds a bit like Star Wars, no? Or are you more of a Star Trek fan? Either way, it's an odd thing to hear from the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department. Typically, we hear these sorts of things from the darker corners of the History Channel.

Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

"I don't care what people say," Loeb said. "It doesn't matter to me. I say what I think, and if the broad public takes an interest in what I say, that's a welcome result as far as I'm concerned, but an indirect result. Science isn't like politics: It is not based on popularity polls."

Honestly, I believe the guy. Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Heck, I welcome alien lifeforms. Maybe they can give us some advice on how to get our world together.

The third annual Women's March is approaching, and the movement has shown signs of strife. It's imploding, really. An article in Tablet Magazine revealed deep-seated antisemitism among the co-chairs of the movement, which is funny for a movement that brands itself as a haven of "intersectionality." The examples pile up, and just yesterday there was another. I'll tell you about it in a minute.

The Women's March has been imploding, and it started at the very top. Four women have come to represent the diverse face of the movement, the co-chairs: Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Bob Bland.

RELATED: LEFTIST INSANITY: Woman attacked at women's rights rally for exercising her rights

Increasingly, we've learned that anti-Semitism is common among these women.

Teresa Shook, who founded the Women's March has repeatedly asked them to step down: The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs."

Tamika Mallory gave us the latest example, by continuing to stand by Louis Farrakhan. Check out Tamika's arrogant, nonsensical response. But the real problem came at the end of Mallory's rambling non-answer.



Women's March Leader Tamika Mallory Doubles Down On Love For Louis Farrakhan youtu.be


Later this week I'll go over the entire controversy on Glenn TV. It's harrowing, really. For now, I'll leave you with this. Critics of 4th wave feminism have argued that the radical identity politics of the left will lead to the exact kind of mistreatment that feminists claim to be against. That argument has been written off as using the slippery slope fallacy. But, as we see with the Women's March, it is in fact a brutal reality.

Remember how serious Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were last week, when they gave their "rebuttal" to President Trump's address? They made it seem like this government shutdown is apocalyptic. A lot of Democrats have done the same. On social media and CNN at least. Thirty Democrats, however, took a different route. Puerto Rico. For cocktails at the beach.

RELATED: The President won the night, but don't count on the media to admit it

A group of 30 Democrats have turned the government shutdown into a live-action interpretation of a Jimmy Buffet song:

Nibblin' on sponge cake, Watchin' the sun bake.

No, seriously. In the words of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:

Democrats in Congress are so alarmed about federal workers not getting paid they're partying on the beach instead of negotiating a compromise to reopen the government and secure the border.

A photo of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez at a resort beach has gone viral.

They arrived via chartered jet. They're staying at a seaside resort, and attended the ridiculously-priced and overhyped play "Hamilton," where tickets for opening night "ranged from $10 to $5,000," according to the Associated Press. They even attended several afterparties.

Of course, the official occasion seems legit. They're in San Juan for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC. According to a memo for the gathering:

This year's winter retreat promises to be our most widely attended yet with over 220 guests, including 39 Members of Congress and CHC BOLD PAC supporters expected to attend and participate!

Also in attendance, about 109 lobbyists, from a number of places, including "R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association."

Donald Jr. said it well:

And of course no one says anything. I'm not even in government and I'd get killed in the press if I was on vacation right now. Why won't they cover their democrat buddies lobbyist sponsored vacation in the islands???

Maduro takes office and Venezuelans vote with their feet

CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images

Venezuela continues to collapse. A country that used to have the world's largest oil reserves is now in rags. Its money is worthless, with inflation near one million percent. People must work an average of five days at minimum wage just to afford a dozen eggs. But there is one person still pumped about Venezuela's future – its noble president, Nicolas Maduro! I'll tell you why he's still enthusiastic in just a minute…

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro had a stellar 2018. Here are some highlights:

  • Running water and electricity only work occasionally and prices for basic goods doubled.
  • Doctors, engineers, oil workers, and electricians fled the country en masse. Over 48,000 teachers also left the country.
  • Over half a million Venezuelans fled to Peru alone.

Maduro created a new digital currency called the "petro." One petro is supposed to equal the price of a barrel of oil, about $60. U.S. Treasury Department officials call the petro a scam. Who could've seen that coming?

Maduro also announced a 3,000 percent minimum-wage hike. Even Ocasio-Cortez might roll her eyes at that one. Or find it inspiring.

And just yesterday, a Human Rights Watch report detailed how Venezuelan intelligence and security forces are arresting and torturing military personnel and their family members who are accused of plotting against Maduro. The torture includes: "brutal beatings, asphyxiation, cutting soles of their feet with a razor blade, electric shocks, food deprivation, [and] forbidding them to go to the bathroom."

It's so bad in Venezuela that even The Washington Post admits Venezuela's problems are mostly due to "failed socialist policies." But President Nicolas Maduro gave a televised New Year's address calling 2019, "the year of new beginnings." He's pumped, you see, because today he will be sworn in for his second six-year term as president. He was "re-elected" last May in an election that the international community declared illegitimate.

Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency.

Maduro doesn't have many friends left at home or abroad. Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency. This week, the U.S. added more Venezuelan officials to its sanctions list.

In a press conference yesterday, Maduro said:

There's a coup against me, led by Washington. I tell our civilians and our military to be ready. Our people will respond.

I think the people of Venezuela who have the means are already responding – by leaving.