Historian Heather Cox Richardson, on her public Facebook page on October 28, 2021, wrote a long post about the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover, and FDR.
Her story about Hoover’s tax policy is false.
She writes:
President Hoover knew little about finances, let alone how to fix an economic crisis of global proportions. He tried to reverse the economic slide by cutting taxes and reassuring Americans that “the fundamental business of the country, that is, production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.” But taxes were already so low that most folks would see only a few extra dollars a year from the cuts, and the fundamental business of the country was not, in fact, sound. When suffering Americans begged for public works programs to provide jobs, Hoover insisted that such programs were a “soak the rich” program that would “enslave” taxpayers, and called instead for private charity.
What in fact did Hoover do? The opposite. Here are some excerpts from economist Steve Horwitz in “Hoover’s Economic Policies,” in David R. Henderson, ed. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
First, on taxes on imports, aka, tariffs:
Even those with only a casual knowledge of the Great Depression will be familiar with one of Hoover’s major policy mistakes—his promotion and signing of the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. This law increased tariffs significantly on a wide variety of imported goods, creating the highest tariff rates in U.S. history. While economist Douglas Irwin has found that Smoot-Hawley’s effects were not as large as often thought, they still helped cause a decline in international trade, a decline that contributed to the worsening worldwide depression.
Second, on his massive increase in income tax rates:
On top of these spending proposals, most of which were approved in one form or another, Hoover proposed, and Congress approved, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. The Revenue Act of 1932 increased personal income taxes dramatically, but also brought back a variety of excise taxes that had been used during World War I. The higher income taxes involved an increase of the standard rate from a range of 1.5 to 5% to a range of 4 to 8%. On top of that increase, the Act placed a large surtax on higher-income earners, leading to a total tax rate of anywhere from 25 to 63%. The Act also raised the corporate income tax along with several taxes on other forms of income and wealth.
If you want to know more about how income tax rates increased at each level of income, go here. Before the web existed, the go-to guy who documented income tax rates at each income level from the early 1900s to the late 1980s was the late Joe Pechman of the Brookings Institution. Fortunately, the Tax Foundation has made that so much easier.
HT2 Phil Magness.
READER COMMENTS
David Q
Oct 30 2021 at 1:51pm
“early 1900s to the late 19800s”
That’s a long time, even by Zager & Evans’ standards. On the other hand,
“1900s to the late 1980s”
is about 80 years.
David Henderson
Oct 30 2021 at 3:34pm
Oops. Thanks for the correction.
Cecil Bohanon
Oct 30 2021 at 1:58pm
What I don’t know is whether the author is simply speaking out of ignorance or just lying. Indeed, Hoover also supported deficits and public works spending. My Grandfather C.E. Bohanon (1899-1986) explicitly told me he voted for ROOSEVELT in 1932 because ROOSEVELT was calling for a balanced federal budget. I would love to see her references or her documentation of her claims. It is very important to counter this false claim of “depression a failure of government action” narrative! As usual: GOOD WORK DAVID!!
David Henderson
Oct 30 2021 at 3:38pm
You wrote:
Me neither. Either way, though, it’s bad. It’s bad to lie and it’s bad to be anyone, but especially an historian, to write about history without checking the facts.
You wrote:
Yes. That’s in Steve Horwitz’s excellent piece.
You wrote:
Interesting. And as I recall, FDR wanted to cut the number of government employees by 25 percent.
You wrote:
Ditto and thanks.
OBloodyHell
Nov 3 2021 at 7:03pm
PostModern Historians don’t care about facts. They make up their own history.
Hence:
Lincoln was a democrat
Income taxes affect the Uber-Rich
FDR’s policies were beneficial during the Depression
The racists “switched parties” in the 60s & 70s.
Bush lied
Trump was a Russian agent
Etc.,etc.,etc.
Make it up as you go along. Who’s gonna challenge you?
David Q
Oct 30 2021 at 2:01pm
Is there a reason why a well-meaning expert, (Historian Heather Cox Richardson) speaking on a matter that appears to be related to her field, might have gotten this wrong?
I’d like to think it was an innocent mistake, or that the historian was merely repeating what the newspapers of the day reported. The newspapers of the 1930s could have been wrong, because they didn’t have The Tax Foundation.
Daniel Kuehn
Oct 30 2021 at 9:22pm
Since she’s talking about the response to the stock market crash I would have thought the tax cut reference was to the Revenue Act of 1929, which did cut taxes. Isn’t that the more natural context?
If you’re looking to ding her I’d take aim at the quote about the fundamentals being on a sound basis. Although it’s fair to call it a reassurance from Hoover he wasn’t reassuring anyone about the crash since he infamously said those words a few days before the crash.
Daniel Kuehn
Oct 30 2021 at 9:52pm
I think the thing to remember about both the 1929 act and the much bigger 1932 act is that all of it was passed in a much different philosophical environment around public finance than we have today. Both cutting and raising taxes was aimed at budget balance not macroeconomic management (or at least only an indirect conception of macroeconomic management). The question is did that understanding of public finance serve us well? I think the answer is clearly no.
David Henderson
Oct 30 2021 at 11:02pm
You wrote:
That was a tiny change. And since her paragraph appears to be about the 4 years of the Hoover administration, the net effect was massive increase in taxes over those 4 years. So not, I don’t think that tiny reduction is the relevant measure.
You wrote:
I’m not “looking to ding her.” I’m noticing a huge error and pointing it out.
Daniel Kuehn
Oct 30 2021 at 11:26pm
If the question is what’s is the net effect of Hoover on taxes it was to increase them obviously but if the question is what could Heather Cox Richardson have been thinking when she said he cut taxes after the crash (and her post is clearly focused on the crash) I’d think it’s unfair to her to not mention the time he cut taxes right after the crash!
Jon Murphy
Oct 31 2021 at 3:35pm
If we have to look for the single data point that makes her case, then that implies she is cherry-picking data.
Daniel Kuehn
Nov 1 2021 at 10:02am
Was there more than one revenue act in 1929? I’m not sure we have much of a choice!
JFA
Oct 31 2021 at 7:18am
I was thinking that could be the source for misunderstanding, but the framing of the post is around the entirety of Hoover’s term and contrasting his policies with the New Deal. Examples:
1) “By 1932, over one million people in New York City were unemployed.”
2) “By the time Hoover’s first term limped to a close, Americans were ready to try a new approach to economic recovery.”
Her discussion of the foreign trade numbers (which occurs before the paragraph David is highlighting) seems to also reference multi-year trends.
Overall she seems to be critiquing the Hoover administration as a whole and not just referencing the immediate aftermath of the stock market crash (the post is also mostly a short summary of one chapter of her history of the Republican party).
Alan Goldhammer
Oct 31 2021 at 8:58am
“One of the good things” about the Internet is the almost instant peer review of misinformed commentary. Perhaps Professor Richardson takes to Facebook (of which I know almost nothing other than news stories; I have never used it, been tempted to, or plan to) as it is a convenient platform to post stuff that would likely never pass muster (at least one hopes this is the case) in a more scholarly publication.
If more people were relentless about seeking out the truth and exposing flim-flammery we we would be better off.
Jeff Hummel
Oct 31 2021 at 1:26pm
There is a minor error in Steve Horwitz’s discussion of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. To say that Herbert Hoover promoted the tariff in its final form is an exaggeration. When running for office in 1928, Hoover did advocate raising duties, but primarily on agricultural products. It was Republicans in the House who wanted a more sweeping tariff. At first, they couldn’t even get the Republican-controlled Senate to go along. Only after the stock market crash did the Smoot-Hawley tariff barely pass the Senate. President Hoover had already expressed reservations about the bill, and privately feared that it would provoke foreign retaliation, even describing the bill as “vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious” But he signed it anyway, in order to get the increase in agricultural tariffs.
David Henderson
Oct 31 2021 at 2:30pm
Thanks, Jeff.
Hmmm. Given that Steve is no longer with us, I need to figure out what to do about the entry.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Nov 1 2021 at 6:50am
Given the Fed’s errors in not aiming to keep NGDP growing (trying to manage stock prices in 1929 was particularly egregious) there was little Hover could have done to head off the Depression. Snoot-Hawley was bad policy, but with proper monetary management would not have affected real incomes much.
Mark Bahner
Nov 5 2021 at 10:18am
The whole account is a hilariously ahistorical account, considering it’s written by a historian. Look at the whopper of a mistake that starts the paragraph:
What a hoot! Is this the same Herbert Hoover whose father was a blacksmith and farm implement store owner (i.e. a member of the economic middle class)?
But the same Herbert Hoover eventually made a fortune buying mining companies and turning them prosperous? So prosperous in fact that Herbert Hoover had a net worth of $4 million ($100+ million in today’s dollars) before he became the U.S. president? (In contrast, the top 1 percent of U.S. household in 2021 has a net worth of $43 million.)
In terms of change in net worth at age 18 to net worth before entering presidency (without including wealth gained through marriage), Herbert Hoover may even be *first* among 46 presidents. So how exactly could such a tremendously successful financier “know little about finances”?
Curt
Nov 12 2021 at 10:51am
I have seen a few of Heather Cox Richardson’s posts and she is about as biased as one can get. Her knowledge of history seems to be only to the extent it supports here own beliefs. The sad thing is, a lot of people take her writings as gospel.
History is not just facts and figures, it must be weighed in context of circumstance as well as prevailing mindset of the people of the time. To second guess something or someone based on today’s knowledge and virtues does history a disservice and is blatantly wrong; more so if you claim to be a student of and even “expert” in the field.
Comments are closed.