During his inaugural speech, Newsom called for “a Marshall Plan for affordable housing and lift up the fight against homelessness from a local matter to a state-wide mission.”
Our hackles should go up anytime a powerful politician calls for a Marshall Plan, which refers to the United States’ enormous aid package (100 billion in current dollars) to rebuild Europe after a world war that claimed 70 million lives and turned cities into rubble. Those were not good times. Housing prices have indeed reached disturbing levels in California, but that’s the result of our insane land-use restrictions. Homelessness is a visible problem especially in San Francisco, but a rash of makeshift homeless encampments does not equal Dresden.
These problems can be addressed — and I know I’m dreaming here — with a series of modest policies that are mainly the purview of city and county governments. We don’t need a Marshall Plan. We need a variety of decidedly non-exciting approaches involving regulatory changes, social services, policing, local shelters, non-profit activities and whatnot.
If it ain’t enumerated in the Constitution freedom-loving Americans do not need or want it.
Commentators have given Newsom’s speech mixed reviews, but few have zeroed in on his Marshall Plan grandiosity.
He didn’t reference New Deals or Marshall Plans, but he did chide “market capitalism,” referring to it as a “tool, like a staple gun or a toaster.” That’s like calling free expression a tool given that capitalism simply is the sum total of the private economic decisions made by individuals. What’s the alternative to the free exchange of goods within the marketplace?
But in the meantime the rest of us should be leery whenever politicians of any stripe bloviate about national emergencies, Marshall Plans, New Deals and other government-led crusades. Such things never end well, at least not for the public.
Let me start with a clarification. I am criticizing the Marshall Plan —— not General George Catlett Marshall (1880-1959) (Secretary of State 1947–1949 —— Secretary of Defense: September 21, 1950 – September 12, 1951): In simple words General Marshall was the best of the best in war and peace. Vladimir Putin is the worst of the worst all of the time.
This article is ludicrous considering what happened to the world since 1947:
Russian president Vladimir Putin could be turning the tables on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Policies once enacted by the United States to contain Soviet expansion into Western Europe are now being used to restrict NATO's eastward expansion into regions deemed critical to Russia's national interest.
During his June 2017 interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly, President Putin chose to conclude their discussion with a particularly reflective comment: "I will never forget the state in which Russia was in 1991." Having been an intelligence officer at the time, it is reasonable to assume that the events surrounding the Soviet Union's failure replay in Putin's mind quite often. Surely, he has learned from them.
Perhaps most useful among these lessons are those extracted from the U.S. policies that brought this demise to fruition, such as the Marshall Plan and its ensuing containment policy. Devised in part by renowned diplomat George Kennan and enacted by secretary of state George Marshall in 1947, the Marshall Plan is regarded as one of the most effective policies of the 20th century.
Secretary Marshall tasked members of his Policy Planning Staff to concoct the Marshall Plan when the further erosion of Europe's social and economic circumstances became untenable. At its most basic level, the plan was designed to curtail Soviet expansionism, reduce Soviet political and economic influence in Europe, and stimulate the economies of European capitalist states, most notably by propping up West Germany after its partition from the East. (Benn Steil's recent work on the subject is a refreshing new take on the advent of the Cold War – The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War [New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018].)
George C. Marshall’s name is on the plan because President Truman insisted. In truth, General Marshall had nothing to do with its creation. George Kennan, and William Clayton, conceived and wrote the Marshall Plan.
Modern Europe—as an actual entity, rather than just an idea or some stray fact of geography—was born on June 5, 1947. That's the day that George C. Marshall traveled up to Harvard to stand on the steps of Memorial Church and announce, "The United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace."
Thus began the Marshall Plan, the effort of the United States to aid the rebuilding of Europe after the Second World War. Clark Clifford and Dean Acheson, advisers to President Truman, had wanted to call it the Truman Plan, but the Democratic president had proved more politically astute: "Anything going up" to Capitol Hill "bearing my name will quiver a couple of times, turn belly up, and die," he told Clifford. "I've decided to give the whole thing to General Marshall. The worst Republican on the Hill can vote for it if we name it after the general."
XXXXX
Presented by George C. Marshall, then secretary of state, the plan had several fathers. State Department fixtures George Kennan and Charles Bohlen were the government’s most influential analysts of the USSR. Dean Acheson had the president's ear on international finance (and would succeed Marshall as secretary of state). The wealthy Texan William Clayton would lead the diplomatic charge on economic matters.
The original Marshall Plan, along with all of the Baby Marshall Plans that followed, were disasters for this country because they were nation-building at their worst. A New Yorker article put the Marshall Plan in perspective both in 1947 and today. Critics in 1947 were right on the money:
Even at the time, not everyone in the United States was convinced. “We are through being ‘Uncle Sap,’ ” Senator Alexander Wiley, of Wisconsin, declared. To Senator Homer Capehart, of Indiana, the Marshall Plan was “state socialism.” To congressman Frederick Smith, of Ohio, it was “outright communism.” Not to be outdone, Senator Joseph McCarthy, of Wisconsin, later called it a “massive and unrewarding boondoggle” that had turned the United States into “the patsy of the modern world.” The very fact of McCarthy’s denunciation could be taken as a powerful argument in the Plan’s favor, and it is tempting, at this distance, to see such critics as blinkered isolationists, partisan hacks, or incurable xenophobes. But a significant number of eminent economic historians - - notably, the British scholar Alan Milward - - have questioned just how vital Marshall Aid really was for Europe’s postwar recovery. According to Milward, recovery was under way well before the advent of the Marshall Plan, and reconstruction of damaged infrastructure was far advanced before the funds reached Europe. The program was also too small to have a significant effect on Europe’s capital stock. The total aid package was equivalent to less than three per cent of the recipient countries’ combined national income, and it represented less than a fifth of their gross investment.
Over the years I tried to make the case against Marshall Plan Thinking.
The Marshall Plan was designed to rebuild Europe in order to deal with the Soviet Union threat in Europe.
The Soviet threat in 1947 is where Marshall Plan advocates still fail to see the flaws in their thinking. I am not ashamed of engaging in a little Monday morning quarter backing to point out those flaws.
First and foremost, the U.S. had a monopoly on the atomic bomb. Threatening the Soviets with dire consequences if they opposed the Marshall Plan was shortsighted. The Soviet Union had no choice but to restrain itself because of the bomb. There was no need to check the Soviets with the Marshall Plan.
As you can probably tell, I am not a big fan of the Marshall Plan for many reasons. Topping the list:
The Marshall Plan financed European Socialism. I can think of no result worse than the “unintended consequences” that came from the Marshall Plan. One of those consequences blossomed into European hatred and envy of America. Had Europe rebuilt without the Marshall Plan, I doubt if Socialism would have such a strong grip on today’s world.
Variations of the original Marshall Plan multiply in foreign policy think tanks outbreeding rats in a garbage dump. Every political crisis, every charity hustle, elicits calls for another Marshall Plan, prompting the question: Was the original Marshall Plan a success?
Answer: NO. It was an abject failure for Americans. The significant factors were America’s political system at the beginning of the Cold War. The Soviet empire eventually imploded to be sure, but the implosion was caused by America’s military-might coupled with nuclear superiority, the Strategic Air Command, and nuclear submarines —— not the Marshall Plan.
NOTE: Stalin must have laughed himself silly watching the Marshall Plan pay for Socialism’s foundation in Europe while he concentrated on neutralizing America’s greatest advantage. Stalin acquired the bomb not too many years after 1947. Thanks, in large part, to American traitors in FDR’s administrations half of Europe was behind the Iron Curtain, and China had gone Communist. Oh yeah! Stalin was intimidated by the Marshall Plan. I doubt if Stalin’s plans for the world could have done any better if he had the bomb all along.
Aside from the dubious benefit the Marshall Plan provided in dealing with Soviet Communists, the Marshall Plan went the way of all historical events —— facts buttressed by opinions. Challenge an opinion and you get hit with a fact supporting the opinion. Frankly, I have nothing against opinions. This may come as a surprise to those who read my messages, but I have been known to have a few opinions of my own. My objection to the Marshall Plan is more than opinion alone.
For one thing, the Marshall Plan morphed into a morality blueprint for taxation curing all of the world’s ills. Let me give you two examples that are directly rooted in Marshall Plan thinking.
The tsunami that originated in the Indian Ocean is my first example. Indonesia was hit the hardest. Before the tidal wave receded then-Secretary General Goofy Annan was calling for money to rebuild the devastated areas. Of course, the money was supposed to go through the U.N. over a period of ten years (10 billion for openers). Goofy never mentioned the Marshall Plan, but there is no doubt that that is where he was coming from.
Earthquakes that devastated Haiti in 2010 is my second example. Billions of dollars were quickly collected —— and just as quickly disappeared down the rat hole without any beneficial results worth mentioning. Bill Clinton was up to his crooked hips in that one. Apparently, Bill’s involvement with the Haiti rat hole did not harm the Clinton Foundation’s reputation.
It is no longer enough to jump in and help people in the days immediately after a natural disaster strikes, Marshall Plan thinking says that Americans must pay for the rebuilding, too. Go one step further and you will see that Marshall Plan thinking is being used to manipulate Americans into paying for improvements in everyone’s standard of living. In short: A global welfare state built on Socialist ideology.
The Marshall Plan came about after a major war. The original Marshall Plan had practical military/political applications for the U.S. In just the last few decades charity hustlers jumped on the Marshall Plan concept and turned it into charity scams promising to rebuild the world. Transforming the reason for the Marshall Plan into touchy-feeling thinking in the hands of charity hustlers never provides one benefit that I can see.
Parenthetically, the American people fought and won the war. The federal government coordinated the war effort. In many respects they screwed up the peace to a large degree. They gave half of Europe to the Soviet Union. They lost China to Communism. They funded European Socialism with the Marshall Plan; and they handed America’s independence to the United Nation. Not a sterling record in my opinion.
Those now-Socialist peoples in Europe who benefitted from the Marshall Plan ripened into vehemently anti-American, UN-loving, zealots. Trading the oppressive Soviet Union for a Europe where most Europeans think Socialism is a good thing can hardly be called an unqualified success story. By combating the Soviet Union with the Marshall Plan the American taxpayer inadvertently financed Communism’s survival in Europe. And do not you just love it that Putin is biting the world on the ass with his own Marshall Plan.
The lesson that should have been learned by now is this: Beware of Marshall Plans regardless of what they are called today.
No less of a “Republican” than-Secretary of State Colin Powell bragged about the Millennium Summit Account when he sweetened the pot with Marshall Plan thinking:
If fully funded by Congress, MCA would provide the largest increase in U.S. development assistance since the Marshall Plan. By 2006 it would represent an increase of 50 percent over our core development assistance funding level in 2002. From 2006 onward, we would invest $5 billion per year in the MCA. Our funding for existing development assistance programs, which now comes to more than $10 billion annually, will continue to rise.
In plain English the amount of money American taxpayers pay for worldwide Socialism is handed over to U.N. control.
If I interpreted Powell & Company correctly the U.S. was buying a leadership role with all of the responsibilities that role encompasses, while the United Nations remained in the driver’s seat. Or should I say that the U.N. is the backseat driver? Clearly, that is what the U.N. crowd lusted after all along.
There is one undeniable fact about Colin Powell: No matter how you interpret his comments he was consistently in favor of a stronger U.N. He said as much when he was Secretary of State. I never heard him say that he stands for America’s unconditional independence, or that he stands for private sector individual liberties.
Finally, Powell is no different than every other totalitarian that ever fed at the public trough. His core belief is that the product of all private sector labor is owned by the government and should be distributed by government parasites as they see fit. That totalitarian view was bad enough when Socialists were implementing it domestically through the tax code. Baby Marshall Plans is making it a lot worse globally.
I doubt if Powell & Company ever considered the number of additional hours every working American toils less for themselves every week, and more for the U.N. every week in order to implement more Baby Marshall Plans.
p.s. Morality attracts idiots and charity hustlers to politics faster than horse manure draws flies.
Marshall Plan Is A Synonym For Charity Hustle
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Flanders
During his inaugural speech, Newsom called for “a Marshall Plan for affordable housing and lift up the fight against homelessness from a local matter to a state-wide mission.”
Bookmarks