Great Depression and Congressional Reforms
The period after the First World War, in the early 1920s, was characterized by rapid economic expansion, and the country’s wealth also doubled. Millions of Americans increased their wealth and owned properties, including houses. Millionaires, tycoons, janitors, and all other citizens rushed to invest their savings in the stock exchange, which expanded until its peak until its crash in 1929. It began with the collapse of the stock exchange in 1929, with a further blow in 1930 by the dust Bowl. The years that followed led to investors’ decline, as most of them were wiped out (Conti-Brown & Vanatta, 2020). Panic followed in Wall Street following these events. Investments drop, and so did consumer spending. Many people lost their jobs, an aspect that increased widespread poverty and mystery in the country. Industrial output was drastically reduced, and the economy of the United States took a deep dive. The recovery process was characterized by several legislations enacted during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt between 1933 and 1939. The 73rd Congress was responsible for diverse reforms in a bid to aid economic recovery.
President Roosevelt won the presidential elections of 1932 with the promise of recovering the economy of the country. The government of Franklin Roosevelt devised strategies to counter the economy down through a series of legislations and reforms aimed at increasing production and attracting investors, which were achieved through increased congressional authority (Conti-Brown & Vanatta, 2020). Due to the prevailing circumstances, the presidential powers allowed him to have increased congressional authority in a bid to make rapid reforms. The ‘New Deal’ was a series of regulations, reforms, and policies put n pace to help the United States in recovering from the great depression and improve its economy for the sustainability of its citizens (Braik, 2018). The great depression directly influenced these policies and legislation to stabilize the economy, save jobs, and reduce unemployment at the same time. Some of the notable policies include the bank holidays that led to the closure of banks for four consecutive days while Congress passed laws to govern banks’ reopening.
All the reforms made by the then president Roosevelt were attributed to the devastating effects of the great depression on the United States economy. At the time, over 20% of the population was unemployed, an aspect that led to widespread panic and loss of confidence in the United States government (Argersinger, 2017). The reforms agricultural production, stabilize industrials, and creations of jobs to improve the economy. Roosevelt also reformed the financial system by creating ‘Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’ (FDIC) that protected depositor’s accounts. The security and exchange commission (SEC) was also created to prevent abuse that led to the stock exchange crash and the stock market regulations.
The ‘New Deal’ was perceived as the road to economic recovery during the great depression in the United States. At the time, the country’s citizens had lost faith in the administration’s ability to lead them out of the great depression (Argersinger, 2017). President Rosevelt also communicated to the people regularly through the national radio, stating assuring them of the implications of the reforms he was making and the potential to maximize on the promises he had made. The great depression had threatened the collapse of the United States economy, and the legislation was the only aspect of the administration that gave the people hope. The other significant reform was the social security act that was passed by congress in1935. This legislation provided the American citizens with pension and employment and disability at old age. These legislations gave the aged hope of a better and secure life during their golden days.
The 1970s were characterized by a series of reforms to adapt to the economic and political changes. Congress was the primary responsibility for the formation of laws. A series of activities determined the changes in congressional authority in the 1970s; these included the increased demands on Congress due to dynamics in society (Stuteville, 2020). For instance, energy became an important issue due to increased technological advances in different fields and the need for jurisdictions ascertainment. Ethics also becomes a concern that Congress needs to address in different fields, including research, healthcare education, and governance. Congress also had to examine its ethics to assure the Americans of reliability in forming policies that affected all the citizens in the country.
Lyndon Jonson and the Watergate scandal also further brought concerns to Congress. For instance, the war powers in relation to the Vietnam War and other powers were brought to questions, and Congress’s role in all the actions. The legislative reorganization act of 1970 was also an instrumental change in congressional authority, an act that was proposed by the ‘Joint committee of organizations in congress.’ This led to the overhaul of the procedures of Congress that was limited by the House. The first versions of this bill were passed into law in 1970 (Aldrich & Rohde, 2018). These reforms also made the House of Representative’s public’s proceeding, specifically the committee hearings, therefore, by increasing transparency.
Reference
Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (2018). 6-3 Congressional Committees in a Continuing Partisan Era. Principles and Practice of American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings.
Argersinger, J. A. E. (2017). Toward a New Deal in Baltimore: people and government in the Great Depression. UNC Press Books.
Braik, F. (2018). New Deal for Minorities During the Great Depression. Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 1(1), 20-24.
Conti-Brown, P., & Vanatta, S. (2020). Bank Supervision, the Great Depression, and the Creation of the New Deal. Available at SSRN.
Stuteville, R. (2020). The Preacher and the Practitioner in 1970s Legislative Ethics Reform: John Gardner, Richard Bolling, and Congressional Ethics. Public Integrity, 22(1), 73-84.