From his presser this afternoon:
This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify.
This is flat out false. And it's not the first time that the President has misrepresented FDR and/or the New Deal.
From the Social Security Website Archives:
CONDITIONS TO QUALIFY FOR RECEIPT OF OLD-AGE BENEFITS (Sec. 210c):
- At least 65 years of age;
- Not less than $2,000 total wages received after December 31, 1936, and before age of 65;
- Wages were paid to individual on some day in each of 5 years after December 31, 1936, and before age of 65.
OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS (Sec. 202):
- Date monthly benefits first payable, January 1, 1942.
- The amount of the monthly benefits payable is determined as follows:
(chart omitted)
- Illustrative benefits are as follows:
(chart omitted
- Non-qualified individuals upon reaching age of 65 are paid a lump sum equal to 3.5 percent of the total wages paid after December 31, 1936, and before the attainment of age 65 (sec. 204).
- Upon death of individual before age of 65, his estate receives payment equal to 3.5 percent of his total wages received after December 31, 1936; if he dies after age of 65, his estate receives the same amount less any benefits paid to him during his lifetime (sec. 208).
- Payment of benefit withheld for each month in which a qualified individual who has attained age 65 received wages for regular employment (sec. 202d).
- Payments not subject to assignment or other legal process (sec. 208).
Note that nowhere in the original legislation requirements was there any limitation to "widows and orphans," and in fact, specifically refers to "his" estate.
Compare that with his November 8th, 2010 statement that:
"We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly." - President Obama
The New Deal 2.0
As Leo Hindery pointed out at the time:
The truth is that FDR took office on Saturday, March 4, 1933, called Congress into special session to meet five days later on March 9th, and by June 15th, at the end of the "Hundred Days", had seen almost all of the early New Deal financial legislation passed.
I would simply point out that there is no way a truly progressive President would or could be so ignorant of the origins and provisions of the New Deal.
All the argument about whether he's playing chess, or caving, or whatever, seem to overlook something that is becoming more apparent every time he makes these kinds of misrepresentations: He simply doesn't know much about the New Deal.
Which would explain a lot of his frustration about comparisons to FDR, and why he's so outraged at criticism from the Left. If he is truly that misinformed about the New Deal, any criticism about his not upholding the New Deal, or any comparisons about his efforts versus those of FDR, are of course going to fall on deaf, unhearing ears because he doesn't understand the comparison.
I'm not saying he's stupid, or any nonsense like that. Just that he doesn't appear to be particularly well-educated in this particular era of history.
Why is that significant? Well, for one, as already noted, I think it may well explain why he is so tone-deaf to criticisms and comparisons regarding FDR, and progressive demands that he try to enact New Deal type legislation (i.e., the public option). Beyond that, it's hard to draw specific conclusions from such limited data. But it does pretty strongly suggest that FDR is not, and has never been, an important role model for his view of the Presidency.
Addendum/Update:
In the interests of fairness, and disclosure, I will point out that diarist/reader zonk has made the argument, in comments below, that Obama was referring to Title V of the Social Security Act. I will concede that it is possible that such is what he was referring to; however, I believe the clear import of what the President was implying was that only widows and orphans were initially covered by the act, or that they were the only persons to receive benefits under the act.
However, as I pointed out to him, under Title 1 of the act, block grants were issued to the states in order for funds to be distributed to the aged, commencing July 1, 1935 -- which only makes sense, because it would take a while to set up the SSA, and the initial earnings period for retirees. The funds for mothers (not necessarily just widows) and children were also administered through block grants to the state, and both the programs for the aged and for mothers and children had to be approved by the Social Security Board.
Thus, when the President stated "it only affected widows and orphans," such is, in my view, simply false. The aged received assistance under Title 1 just as quickly as mothers and children received assistance under Title V. So, I stand by that statement.
On the larger point, however, of the extent of the President's knowledge of the New Deal, zonk's comment does raise the possibility that the President is more conversant with the New Deal than is apparent from the comments I quoted in the diary. However, I remain unconvinced that such is necessarily the case; it seems to me that one has to give the President significant "leeway" with the facts for zonk's interpretation to be correct, i.e., that the President was specifically referring to Title V (and incorrectly construing "mothers and children" as "widows and orphans" to boot), rather than making a blanket assertion. I take the President at his own words.
I just want to be clear; I'm not "bashing" Obama. As noted in the comments below, I took 12 credits of German history 20 years ago, but frankly, couldn't remember any significant detail about the rise of the Prussian state today. The President has been a little busy in recent years, and while I am sure he, like most of us, studied the era at some point, it appears to me that, as it stands today, he doesn't recall it very clearly, and appears to misrepresent salient facts, and also to resent comparisons with FDR. If I am wrong, I offer him, and you, dear readers, my sincere apologies.
But as it stands, I am not convinced that I am wrong.
And on that note, I must leave. Cub scouts, doncha know! Thanks to all!