FDR's policies still hurting economy today

In the article "On the origin of Liberalism" in the April 7 edition of The Miami Student, Aaron Turner claims former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped pass legislation to help the economy recover. I find this to be a popular but uninformed opinion. The following includes many examples of Roosevelt's failed policies, including some that still impact our economy today.

From 1934 to 1940, the median unemployment rate was 17.2 percent. At no point in the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent. Turner mentions Social Security as a great achievement, but as we all know, Social Security is currently bankrupting our government. Early in his presidency, FDR attempted to claim Social Security was a form of insurance, but this is simply not true because we are all forced to pay it. Also, premiums are not based on risk. The first recipients of Social Security never had to pay into the fund, and it does not set aside funds to provide for future payments. This contradicts normal insurance and/or planning. Social Security also gave the incentive for the elderly to quit their jobs because in its original creation, recipients were not allowed to work and receive benefits at the same time. Taxpayers were providing retirements for others, whereas prior to Social Security, the elderly relied on family or work.

Turner claims the FDIC was a great program and, although it did help stop depositors from panicking, banks still had to pay for this insurance. This forced lower risk banks to overpay as well as overly risky banks to underpay. Many small banks still failed because banks were not allowed to branch, thus, small banks couldn't diversify and failed.

FDR also established the National Labor Relations Act, which declared it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to hire replacements, get work done and carry on business during a strike. During this time, workers were going on strike and output was cut because the employers weren't allowed to replace the workers. On one occasion, there was a sit down strike on GM's private property. The workers wouldn't leave and vandalized the plant. Yet, because of the lack of government support to provide basic protection, GM caved in to demands so they could resume business.

With the establishment of the first minimum wage, African Americans in the South were hurt the most because many lacked education or a trade. Many were fired and replaced by machinery because of the inflated wages or the jobs were just left vacant. It has been estimated that 500,000 African Americans lost their jobs because of the first minimum wage. Higher labor costs also meant either the prices went up causing inflation or shareholders received less in the form of returns. Higher wages mean fewer workers and potentially higher prices.

There are many more problems with FDR's programs. The legislation created by the Roosevelt Administration took away many liberties, such as the private ownership of gold. It should also be noted many of FDR's programs were originally ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. FDR then attempted to fill the court with "his people."

In conclusion, FDR's policies had many negative effects, of which most Americans remain unaware. In my opinion, these programs prolonged the depression. The New Deal was created on the concept that government spending could solve economic problems. This was obviously not the case because in 1933, when FDR took office, government outlays were $4.5 billion. By 1940, FDR had doubled government spending to $9.4 billion and unemployment had not changed. More spending did not end the depression and neither did more regulation. Hopefully this gives a more accurate evaluation of the impact of Roosevelt's policies.

Mark Hutchinson HUTCHIMD@MUOHIO.EDU

Graduation speakers don't meet expectations This week Miami University finally announced this year's commencement speakers are going to be Miami alumni and congressmen Paul Ryan and Steve Driehaus. Why would the university choose a speaker who is entering his first congressional term and one entering his sixth? I have nothing against these two men and what they have accomplished. However, they are in no way qualified to be commencement speakers for a university celebrating its 200th birthday. Miami has been able to get many high profile and qualified speakers in the past, including former presidents George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy (who spoke at our 150th anniversary), William Howard Taft and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Instead of celebrating 200 years of tradition and love and honor to Miami, our administration has made the student body feel as though the Bicentennial celebration means little.

This is a total disrespect to much of our student body, alumni, as well as former and current faculty. It seems so much is being done for this great celebration, such as the printing of the 200-year sash, Bicentennial Celebration Week and changing the color of the graduation gowns to Miami red instead of black. Even our Bicentennial logo says "making history." How much history have these two congressmen really made? The current administration, however, has decided to stop this wonderful trend of commemorating Miami's 200 years by getting two obscure congressmen, yes, congressmen. Heck, having some obscure senators would mean more to us than some member of the House of Representatives. If the only qualifications these two speakers have are that they are Miami alumni, than why didn't the university get former Miamians such as Richard T. Farmer or Ben Roethlisberger? Farmer has made history by creating the Cintas corporation, which is a Fortune 500 company. Roethlisberger has become the youngest quarterback in NFL history to win two Super Bowls. So May 9, as we sit at Yager Stadium during the 200th commencement ceremony, our senior class, along with our parents and guests, will all be wondering why the administration made such an embarrassing choice of speakers. Instead of leaving Miami feeling inspired and eager to change the world, we will feel as though we're being kicked to the curb by a couple of less-than-notable alumni who have achieved mild success at best.

Richard Fetters FETTERJ@MUOHIO.EDU

Common courtesy doesn't require thanks

The Miami Student published an article in the April 3 issue titled "Please and thank you." In it, David Morgan recounts his frustrations with an unappreciative peer when she fails to acknowledge his chivalrous gesture to hold a door open for her. While I completely agree with Morgan's statement that "when, somehow, an individual goes out of the way to do something nice for you, give the stranger the courtesy of a response," I found his segment to be nearly as rude as the girl he was describing.

Understandably, Morgan believes common courtesy deserves some gesture of appreciation, regardless of how slight this gesture may be. However, not every good deed is recognized in a way that compares in scale. Should this discourage someone from ever seeing through another courteous act? Of course not. Never should someone hold open a door for another for the sole reason of receiving praise. Ideally, people should thank one another and show gratitude toward those who go out of their way to do something nice. However, it is obvious these situations will not always play out in such a manner.

Good intentions die fast when they are only used to gain something in return. Again, I do believe people should give out thanks when necessary. But just because someone does not receive a "thank you" for every good-natured thing, that shouldn't keep him or her from doing it again, and it certainly shouldn't give reason to retaliate against others. If people did, in fact, expect a "thank you" after every good deed, what would motivate anyone to perform a good deed when no one else was around to witness it? In these situations, it is more important to reflect on how you react and behave rather than critiquing the actions of others.

Chelsea Kiene KIENECD@MUOHIO. EDU