text:
Thessaly

Thessaly (Θεσσαλία ; ancient Thessalian: Πετθαλία, Petthalía) is a traditional geographic and modern administrative region of Greece, comprising most of the ancient region of the same name. Before the Greek Dark Ages, Thessaly was known as Aeolia (Αἰολία, Aiolía), and appears thus in Homer's Odyssey.

Thessaly became part of the modern Greek state in 1881, after four and a half centuries of Ottoman rule. Since 1987 it has formed one of the country's 13 regions and is further (since the Kallikratis reform of 2011) sub-divided into five regional units and 25 municipalities. The capital of the region is Larissa. Thessaly lies in northern central Greece and borders the regions of Macedonia to the north, Epirus to the west, Central Greece to the south, and the Aegean Sea to the east. The Thessaly region also includes the Sporades islands.

Name and etymology
Thessaly is named after the Thessaloi, an ancient Greek tribe. The meaning of the name of this tribe is unknown, and many theories have been made about its etymology. According to the Dutch linguist Robert S. P. Beekes, the name predates Greek presence in the region and could come from the Pre-Greek form reconstructed as *Kʷʰeťťal-. The Greek linguist Georgios Babiniotis also assigns the origin of the name of the Thessalians to pre-Greek times, although he does not try to explain its etymology. In Aromanian it is referred to as Tesalia.

Mythology
In Homer's epic, the Odyssey, the hero Odysseus visited Aeolia, the kingdom of Aeolus, which was the old name for Thessaly.

The Plain of Thessaly, which lies between Mount Oeta/Othrys and Mount Olympus, was the site of the battle between the Titans and the Olympians.

According to legend, Jason and the Argonauts launched their search for the Golden Fleece from the Magnesia Peninsula.

Ancient history
Thessaly was home to extensive Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures around 6000–2500 BC (see Cardium pottery, Dimini and Sesklo). Mycenaean settlements have also been discovered, for example at the sites of Iolcos, Dimini and Sesklo (near Volos). In Archaic and Classical times, the lowlands of Thessaly became the home of baronial families, such as the Aleuadae of Larissa or the Scopads of Crannon. In the summer of 480 BC, the Persians invaded Thessaly. The Greek army that guarded the Vale of Tempe was alerted by Alexander I of Macedon and evacuated the road before the enemy arrived. Not much later, Thessaly surrendered to the Persians. The Thessalian family of Aleuadae joined the Persians subsequently. The following year, the Persians were decisively defeated at the Battle of Plataea and withdrew from all of their European possessions, including Thessaly. In the 4th century BC, after the Greco-Persian Wars had long ended, Jason of Pherae transformed the region into a significant military power, recalling the glory of Early Archaic times. Shortly after, Philip II of Macedon was appointed Archon of Thessaly, and Thessaly was thereafter associated with the Macedonian Kingdom for the next centuries. Thessaly later became part of the Roman Empire as part of the province of Macedonia; when that was broken up, the name resurfaced in two of its late Roman successor provinces: Thessalia Prima and Thessalia Secunda.

Byzantine period

Thessaly remained part of the East Roman "Byzantine" Empire after the collapse of Roman power in the west, and subsequently suffered many invasions, such as by the Slavic tribe of the Belegezites in the 7th century AD. The Avars had arrived in Europe in the late 550s. They asserted their authority over many Slavs, who were divided into numerous petty tribes. Many Slavs were galvanized into an effective infantry force, by the Avars. In the 7th century the Avar-Slav alliance began to raid the Byzantine Empire, laying siege to Thessalonica and even the imperial capital Constantinople itself.

By the 8th century, Slavs had occupied most of the Balkans from Austria to the Peloponnese, and from the Adriatic to the Black seas, with the exception of the coastal areas and certain mountainous regions of the Greek peninsula. Relations between the Slavs and Greeks were probably peaceful apart from the (supposed) initial settlement and intermittent uprisings. Being agriculturalists, the Slavs probably traded with the Greeks inside towns. It is likely that the re-Hellenization had already begun by way of this contact. This process would be completed by a newly reinvigorated Byzantine Empire.

With the abatement of Arab-Byzantine Wars, the Byzantine Empire began to consolidate its power in those areas of mainland Greece occupied by Proto-Slavic tribes. Following the campaigns of the Byzantine general Staurakios in 782–783, the Byzantine Empire recovered Thessaly, taking many Slavs as prisoners. Apart from military expeditions against Slavs, the re-Hellenization process begun under Nicephorus I involved (often forcible) transfer of peoples.

Many Slavs were moved to other parts of the empire such as Anatolia and made to serve in the military. In return, many Greeks from Sicily and Asia Minor were brought to the interior of Greece, to increase the number of defenders at the Emperor's disposal and dilute the concentration of Slavs.

Late Medieval period

In 977 Byzantine Thessaly was raided by the Bulgarian Empire. In 1066 dissatisfaction with the taxation policy led the Aromanian and Bulgarian population of Thessaly to revolt against the Byzantine Empire under the leadership of a local lord, Nikoulitzas Delphinas. The revolt, which began in Larissa, soon expanded to Trikala and later northwards to the Byzantine-Bulgarian border. In 1199–1201 another unsuccessful revolt was led by Manuel Kamytzes, son-in-law of Byzantine emperor Alexios III Angelos, with the support of Dobromir Chrysos, the autonomous ruler of Prosek. Kamytzes managed to establish a short-lived principality in northern Thessaly, before he was overcome by an imperial expedition.

Following the siege of Constantinople and the dissolution of the Byzantine Empire by the Fourth Crusade in April 1204, Thessaly passed to Boniface of Montferrat's Kingdom of Thessalonica in the wider context of the Frankokratia. With his Greek ties, Boniface won the support of the Greek population and of various important Greek families. In 1212, Michael I Komnenos Doukas, ruler of Epirus, led his troops into Thessaly. Larissa and much of central Thessaly came under Epirote rule, thereby separating Thessalonica from the Crusader principalities in southern Greece. Michael's work was completed by his half-brother and successor, Theodore Komnenos Doukas, who by 1220 completed the recovery of the entire region, and assigned pronoiai to aristocratic Greek families.

The Vlachs (Aromanians) of Thessaly (originally a chiefly transhumant Romance-speaking population) first appear in Byzantine sources in the 11th century, in the Strategikon of Kekaumenos and Anna Komnene's Alexiad). In the 12th century, the Jewish traveller Benjamin of Tudela records the existence of the district of "Vlachia" near Halmyros in eastern Thessaly, while the Byzantine historian Niketas Choniates places "Great Vlachia" (Vlãhia Mari) near Meteora. The term is also used by the 13th-century scholar George Pachymeres, and it appears as a distinct administrative unit in 1276, when the pinkernes Raoul Komnenos was its governor (kephale).

From 1271 to 1318 Thessaly was an independent despotate that extended to Acarnania and Aetolia, run by the dynasty founded by John I Doukas. John ruled from 1271 until his death in 1289 and was succeeded by his sons Constantine and Theodore. At this time, Thessaly came under Byzantine suzerainty, though it largely retained its independence. After Constatine's death in 1303, it was ruled by John II Doukas until his death in 1318. From 1306 to 1310, the Almogavars or Catalan Company of the East (Societas Catalanorum Magna), plundered Thessaly. In 1310, they occupied a series of forts in the south. From there they departed to the Duchy of Athens, called by the duke Walter I, whom they eventually killed in battle and took over the Duchy of Athens. In 1318, with the death of John II, Thessalian independence came to an end, and the Almogavars occupied Siderokastron and southern Thessaly (1319) and formed the Duchy of Neopatria. The other parts of Thessaly either came under Byzantine rule or were ruled by their own nobility. These local magnates eventually started fighting amongst themselves. Those in the south, such as the Melissenos family of Volos, sought the help of the Catalans, while those in the north, such as the Gavrilopoulos family of Trikala, turned towards Byzantium. At this time, some of Thessaly's ports came under Venetian rule. In 1332, most of Thessaly was taken by the Byzantines following a campaign by Andronikos III Paleologos. He left its administration to Michael Monomachos, who governed it for the next 10 years.

Groups of Albanians moved into Thessaly as early as 1268 as mercenaries of Michael Doukas. The Albanian tribes of Bua, Malakasioi and Mazaraki were described as "unruly" nomads living in the mountains of Thessaly in the early 14th century in Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos’ ‘History’. They numbered approximately 12,000. Kantakouzenos describes a pact they made to serve the Byzantine Emperor and pay tribute to him ca. 1332 in exchange for using the lowland areas of Thessaly in the summer months. Albanian groups were given military holdings Fanari in the 1330s and by the end of the 14th century and the Ottoman takeover of the region, they were an integral part of the military structures of Thessaly. Two of their military leaders known in Byzantine sources as Peter and John Sebastopoulos controlled the small towns of Pharsala and Domokos.

In 1348, Thessaly was invaded and occupied by the Serbian Empire of Stefan Dušan, under the general Preljub. After the latter's death in 1356, the region was conquered by Nikephoros Orsini after he won the support of the local Greek population. After his death three years later, it was taken over by the self-proclaimed Serbian emperor Simeon Uroš. Simeon's son John Uroš succeeded in 1370 but abdicated in 1373, and Thessaly was administered by the Greek Angeloi-Philanthropenoi clan until the Ottoman conquest c. 1393.

Ottoman period
Ottoman control began in the late 14th century with the capture of Larissa in 1392-93 and consolidated in the early 15th century. Nevertheless, Ottoman control was threatened throughout this era by groups of Greeks, Albanians and Aromanians who based themselves in the mountainous areas of Thessaly. At the time of the Ottoman conquest, the great Eastern plain of Thessaly was almost entirely depopulated as a result of the nearly continuous warfare of the previous decades. It was resettled by Turkish settlers from Western Anatolia and Greeks from Western Thessaly and the surrounding mountains. In the following decades, the population of this area grew very rapidly as a result of law and order. Thessaly was ruled through the Sanjak of Tirhala administrative division during the Ottoman period. In the 1520s, Muslims made up of 17.5% of the population of the Sanjak.

Failed Greek uprisings occurred in 1600/1 and 1612, and during the Morean War (1684–1699) and the Orlov Revolt (1770).

In 1780, Ali Pasha of Ioannina took over control of Thessaly, and consolidated his rule after 1808, when he suppressed a local uprising. Heavy taxation, however, ruined the province's commerce, and coupled with the outbreak of the plague in 1813, reduced the population to some 200,000 by 1820. Rigas Feraios, the important Greek intellectual and forerunner of the Greek War of Independence was from the region. He was born in Velestino, near the ancient town of Pherae.

When the Greek War of Independence broke out in 1821, Greek risings occurred in the Pelion and Olympus mountains as well as the western mountains around Fanari, but they were swiftly suppressed by the Ottoman armies under Mehmed Reshid Pasha and Mahmud Dramali Pasha. After the establishment of the independent Kingdom of Greece, Greek nationalist agitation continued, with further revolts in 1841, in 1854 during the Crimean War, and again during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878. In 1880 Thessaly's population consisted of approximately 285,000 Greeks, 40,000 Turks, and 40,000 Jews.

Modern

Thessaly became part of the modern Greek state in 1881, after the Convention of Constantinople except the area around the town of Elassona, which remained in Ottoman hands until 1912. It was briefly captured by Ottomans during the Greco-Turkish War of 1897. After the Treaty of Constantinople (1897), Greece was forced to cede minor border areas and to pay heavy reparations. The remaining part of Thessaly held by the Ottomans was finally regained by the Greeks during the First Balkan War in 1912. In 1923, the entire Muslim population was sent to Turkey following the population exchange between Greece and Turkey at the end of the Greco-Turkish War.

During World War II, Thessaly was occupied by the Kingdom of Italy from April 1941 to September of 1943. After the Armistice of Cassibile, Germany occupied Thessaly until October 1944. It became a major centre of the Greek Resistance, most famously seeing the desertion of the Italian Pinerolo Division to the guerrillas of EAM-ELAS in 1943.

Geography

Thessaly occupies the east side of the Pindus watershed, extending south from Macedonia to the Aegean Sea. The northern tier of Thessaly is defined by a generally southwest-northeast spur of the Pindus range that includes Mount Olympus, close to the Macedonian border. Within that broken spur of mountains are several basins and river valleys.

The easternmost extremity of the spur extends southeastward from Mount Olympus along the Aegean coast, terminating in the Magnesia Peninsula that envelops the Pagasetic Gulf (also called the Gulf of Volos), and forms an inlet of the Aegean Sea. Thessaly's major river, the Pineios, flows eastward from the central Pindus Range just south of the spur, emptying into the Thermaic Gulf.

The Trikala and Larissa lowlands form a central plain which is surrounded by a ring of mountains. It has distinct summer and winter seasons, with summer rains augmenting the fertility of the plains. This has led to Thessaly occasionally being called the "breadbasket of Greece".

The region is well delineated by topographical boundaries. The Chasia and Kamvounia mountains lie to the north, the Mount Olympus massif to the northeast. To the west lies the Pindus mountain range, to the southeast the coastal mountains of Óssa and Pelion.

Several tributaries of the Pineios flow through the region.

Climate
Most of the province has a hot summer Mediterranean climate (Köppen: Csa), but also found is a cold semi-arid climate (BSk) including the capital Larissa (on its Mediterranean edge of category). Even in the north of Thessaly a rare humid subtropical climate (Cfa) can be found, although it is different from a climate typically below or above the tropics, it also marks the limit of this rare Cf subtype on the European continent (e. g. the small village of Kalvia).

Demographics
The population of the region of Thessaly was 687,527 in 2021 census. The region has shrunk by 45,235 people between 2011 and 2021, experiencing a population loss of 6.2%.

In 2011, the population of the region of Thessaly was 732,762 and represented 6.8% of the total population of Greece. A 2.8% decrease in the population since 2001 was noted, but Thessaly remains Greece's third most populous region.

The population break-down is 44% urban, 40% agrarian, and 16% semi-urban. A decrease in the agrarian population has been accompanied by an increase in the semi-urban population.

The metropolitan area of Larissa, the capital of Thessaly, is home to more than 230,000 people, making it the biggest city of the region.

An Aromanian minority resides in Thessaly. This region, along with Epirus and Macedonia, are the regions with the biggest concentrations of Greek Aromanians. Another notable population group of Thessaly are the Karagounides, an ethnic Greek subgroup.

Language
The Aeolic dialect of Greek was spoken in Thessaly. This included several local varieties, in particular the variants of Pelasgiotis and Thessaliotis. The language was not written.

Apart from Greek, Aromanian is also spoken in Thessaly. Some Aromanian dialects from the region have some unique peculiarities of their own, such as that of Krania, which is one of the few with differential object marking (DOM) along with those dialects spoken at the west of Ohrid in North Macedonia.

Major settlements

 * Kardítsa (Καρδίτσα)
 * Lárisa (Λάρισα)
 * Tríkala (Τρίκαλα)
 * Vólos (Βόλος)
 * Néa Ionía (Νέα Ιωνία) (Metropolitan area of Volos)
 * Elassóna (Ελασσόνα)
 * Fársala (Φάρσαλα)
 * Tyrnavos (Τύρναβος)
 * Kalabáka/Kalampáka (Καλαμπάκα)
 * Almyrós (Αλμυρός)

Economy
The alluvial soils of the Pineios Basin and its tributaries make Thessaly a vital agricultural area, particularly for the production of grain, cattle, and sheep. Modernization of agricultural practices in the mid-20th century has controlled the chronic flooding that had restricted agricultural expansion and diversification in the low-lying plains. Thessaly is the leading cattle-raising area of Greece, and Aromanian shepherds move large flocks of sheep and goats seasonally between higher and lower elevations.

In the last few decades, there has been a rise in the cultivation of dried nuts such as almonds, pistachios, and walnuts, especially in the region of Almyros. An increase in the number of olive oil trees has been also observed. The nearly landlocked Gulf of Pagasai provides a natural harbor at Volos for shipping agricultural products from the plains and chromium from the mountains.

The Gross domestic product (GDP) of the province was 9.7 billion € in 2018, accounting for 5.2% of Greek economic output. GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power was 16,100 € or 53% of the EU27 average in the same year. The GDP per employee was 65% of the EU average.

The unemployment rate stood at 20.6% in 2017.

Transport
There are a number of highways such as E75, and the main railway from Athens to Thessaloniki (Salonika) crosses Thessaly. The region is directly linked to the rest of Europe through the International Airport of Central Greece, which is located in Nea Anchialos, a small distance from Volos and Larisa. Charter flights link the region and bring tourists to the wider area, mainly in Pelion and Meteora. The new infrastructure includes a brand new terminal ready to serve 1500 passengers per hour and new airplanes.

Administration
Although the historical region of Thessaly extended south into Phthiotis and at times north into West Macedonia, today the term 'Thessaly' is identified with the modern Administrative Region which was established in the 1987 administrative reform. With the 2010 Kallikratis plan, the powers and authority of the region were redefined and extended.

Along with Central Greece, it is supervised by the Decentralized Administration of Thessaly and Central Greece, based at Larissa. The region of Thessaly is divided into five regional units (four were pre-Kallikratis prefectures), Karditsa, Larissa, Magnesia, the Sporades and Trikala, which are further subdivided into twenty-five municipalities.

The regional governor is, who was elected in the second round of the 2023 regional election and took office on 1 January 2024.

title: Thessaly


text:
Federal Housing Administration

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), also known as the Office of Housing within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is a United States government agency founded by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, established in part by the National Housing Act of 1934. Its primary function is to provide insurance for mortgages originated by private lenders for various types of properties, including single-family homes, multifamily rental properties, hospitals, and residential care facilities. FHA mortgage insurance serves to safeguard these private lenders from financial losses. In the event that a property owner defaults on their mortgage, FHA steps in to compensate the lender for the outstanding principal balance.

Under this insurance arrangement, lenders assume a diminished level of risk, thereby allowing them to offer a larger number of mortgages. The primary mission of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is to facilitate access to reasonably priced mortgage financing, with a particular focus on individuals with low to moderate incomes and those embarking on their first home purchase. Furthermore, the FHA lends its support to the construction of both affordable and market-rate rental properties, along with the establishment of hospitals and residential care facilities, not only in communities throughout the United States but also in its territories.

It's important to distinguish the FHA from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees government-sponsored enterprises. Presently, the FHA is under the leadership of Assistant Secretary for Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner Julia Gordon.

History
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was under the leadership of the Federal Housing Commissioner Raymond M. Foley from 1945 to 1947. and Franklin D. Richards from 1947-1952. In 1954 Norman P. Mason was appointed as the Federal Housing Commissioner.

New Deal origins
Amid the Great Depression, a period marked by numerous bank failures, there was a substantial decline in both the availability of home loans and the rate of home ownership. During this era, the majority of home mortgages were characterized by short-term durations, typically spanning from three to five years. These mortgages lacked amortization features and often featured balloon payment structures. Additionally, the loan-to-value (LTV) ratios for these mortgages generally remained below sixty percent. This situation posed a significant obstacle for many working and middle-class families, rendering home ownership financially unattainable. During the banking crisis of the 1930s, all lenders were compelled to call in their outstanding mortgages, leaving no room for refinancing. Consequently, numerous borrowers, who were now unemployed and grappling with financial hardships, found themselves unable to meet their mortgage obligations. This unfortunate circumstance led to a substantial number of homes being foreclosed upon, which, in turn, precipitated a sharp decline in the housing market.

Banks, in the process of foreclosure, acquired the collateral in the form of foreclosed homes. However, the depressed property values at that time meant that these assets had limited value. In response to these challenges, a comprehensive restructuring of the federal banking system took place in 1934. This overhaul culminated in the enactment of the National Housing Act of 1934, which gave rise to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA was established with the specific aim of regulating the interest rates and terms associated with insured mortgages.

Prior to the establishment of the FHA, the prevailing mortgage landscape featured predominantly balloon mortgages, which necessitated substantial lump-sum payments at the conclusion of relatively short mortgage terms, typically spanning 5 to 10 years. Moreover, prospective homebuyers were required to make substantial down payments, often ranging from 30% to 50% of the property's value. With the advent of FHA-insured loans, the down payment requirement was significantly reduced, with borrowers now only needing to provide as little as 10% down. Furthermore, the mortgage repayment period was extended, spanning from 20 to 30 years.

In 1934, following its establishment, the FHA enlisted the expertise of Homer Hoyt as Chief Land Economist. His role was pivotal in formulating the initial underwriting criteria for FHA-insured mortgages, a process that ultimately led to the development of the Redlining policy.

Appraisal criteria and race discrimination

It's important to note that these innovative lending practices were, in some regions, exclusively available to white Americans. These practices effectively expanded the pool of white Americans who could manage both the initial down payment for a house and the ongoing monthly mortgage payments. Consequently, this expansion significantly enlarged the market for single-family homes. The FHA employed a specific methodology for assessing the appraisal value of properties, relying on eight distinct criteria. It instructed its agents, known as "appraisers," to allocate more funding to projects with higher appraised values, up to a predetermined maximum limit. Among these criteria, the two most pivotal were "Relative Economic Stability," accounting for 40% of the appraisal value, and "protection from adverse influences," contributing an additional 20%.

In 1935, the FHA furnished its appraisers with an Underwriting Manual, which included the following directive: "If a neighborhood is to retain stability it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes. A change in social or racial occupancy generally leads to instability and a reduction of values." Appraisers were further instructed to assign superior property and zoning ratings in areas deemed to have "protection against some adverse influences." The manual characterized these adverse influences as "infiltration by inharmonious racial or nationality groups." Due to the FHA's appraisal criteria, which stipulated a whites-only occupancy requirement, racial segregation became an integral component of the federal mortgage insurance program. This occurred because the FHA often classified properties in racially mixed neighborhoods or those in close proximity to black neighborhoods as high-risk, effectively endorsing and enforcing racial segregation as an official requirement.

Fannie Mae and G.I. Bill
In 1938, Congress established the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae. This creation played a pivotal role in setting up a secondary mortgage market, enabling banks and investors to buy and sell existing home loans. Following the enactment of the Serviceman's Readjustment Act, popularly known as the GI Bill, in 1944, the FHA orchestrated a system of long-term mortgages to facilitate the construction and sale of private homes.

Under the GI Bill, the Veteran's Administration introduced a home-loan guarantee program that allowed veterans to make a down payment of only one dollar, making homeownership more accessible to them. These transformative changes contributed significantly to a surge in American homeownership, with the percentage of families residing in owner-occupied homes increasing from 44% to 63% between 1934 and 1972.

Major housing projects
In 1935, Colonial Village in Arlington County, Virginia, was the first large-scale, rental housing project erected in the United States that was Federal Housing Administration-insured. During World War II, the FHA financed a number of worker's housing projects including the Kensington Gardens Apartment Complex in Buffalo, New York. During the Great Depression, Ohio Cities used federal government funds for building housing projects and first two of those projects completed in the United States were in Cincinnati and Cleveland.

Establishment of HUD
In 1965, the Federal Housing Administration was integrated into the Department of Housing and Urban Development following the enactment of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. With the integration of the FHA into HUD, it transformed into a distinct entity within the larger HUD framework. Under this arrangement, the FHA would be overseen by a Federal Housing Commissioner who concurrently held the position of Assistant Secretary. This Commissioner would be responsible for both FHA-specific functions and the administration of other HUD programs related to the private mortgage market.

While the FHA and HUD share some commonalities, they also exhibit differences in their roles and responsibilities. The designated Commissioner would assume authority over all departmental programs pertaining to the private mortgage market, in addition to their dual roles as Assistant Secretary and head of the FHA. The FHA and HUD both help borrowers with bad credit and insufficient down payment to be able to buy or repair a house.

Subprime mortgage crisis
In the late 1990s, a new category of mortgage products known as subprime mortgages emerged and began to compete with the traditional mortgages that were financed by the FHA. These subprime products were often poorly underwritten, if they were underwritten at all, and offered higher profits for lenders. Consequently, lenders had a strong incentive to steer borrowers towards these subprime products, even when these borrowers qualified for FHA loans, which were considered safer.

As the subprime mortgage market experienced significant growth, the FHA's share of the mortgage market declined. For instance, in 2001, FHA-insured loans accounted for 14% of home-purchase mortgages. However, by 2005, this percentage had dropped to less than 3%. The surge in these unregulated subprime loans played a role in inflating the United States housing bubble, which ultimately led to the subprime mortgage crisis and nearly caused the collapse of the housing market. Following the subprime mortgage crisis, The FHA, in conjunction with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, emerged as a substantial provider of mortgage financing in the United States. Notably, the proportion of home purchases funded through FHA mortgages saw a substantial increase, rising from a mere 2 percent to over one-third of all mortgages in the United States. This growth was in response to a contraction in conventional mortgage lending during a credit crunch period. By the year 2011, the FHA was responsible for backing approximately 40% of all home purchase loans in America. Since the year 2008, the FHA has supported more than 4 million loans and facilitated mortgage refinancing for 2.6 million families, resulting in reduced monthly payments. With the private subprime market, many of the riskiest buyers borrowed from the FHA instead, exposing the FHA to substantial potential losses. At the time, these possible losses were estimate as up to $100 billion. The troubled loans weighed heavily on the FHA's capital reserve fund, which by early 2012 had fallen below its congressionally mandated minimum of 2%, in contrast to more than 6% two years earlier. By November 2012, the FHA was essentially bankrupt.

Mortgage insurance
Since its establishment in 1934, the FHA and HUD have collectively provided insurance for nearly 50 million home mortgages. Presently, the FHA holds a portfolio that includes approximately 8.5 million insured single-family mortgages, as well as more than 11,000 insured multifamily mortgages. Additionally, it encompasses over 3,900 mortgages dedicated to hospitals and residential care facilities.

FHA down payment
A borrower has several options for sourcing their down payment. The 3.5% requirement can be met by using the borrower's personal funds or by receiving a qualified gift from a family member or another eligible source.

FHA mortgage insurance
FHA insurance payments consist of two components: the upfront mortgage insurance premium (UFMIP) and the annual premium, which is paid monthly and referred to as the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI). The UFMIP is a mandatory payment that can be paid in cash at the time of closing or included in the loan amount. The annual Mortgage Insurance Premium (MIP) for FHA-insured mortgages varies depending on factors such as the base loan amount, loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, and loan term. For a typical 30-year mortgage, the annual MIP rate ranges from 0.80% to 1.05%. Homebuyers who opt for a 15-year mortgage experience lower MIP rates, ranging from 0.45% to 0.95%. For loans with FHA Case Numbers assigned on or after June 3, 2013, the duration of MIP payments is determined by factors including loan term, LTV ratio, and previous payment history. The upfront mortgage insurance premium (UFMIP) is a fixed 1.75% of the base loan amount and is mandatory, payable in cash at closing or financed into the loan. These MIP payments are a fundamental component of FHA mortgage insurance, serving to protect lenders from potential losses.

In the present day, approximately 46% of first-time homebuyers in the United States utilize FHA loans for their home purchases. Notably, 1 in 16 FHA loan borrowers maintains a credit score below 600, while the average credit score among first-time FHA loan borrowers stands at 677. These first-time homebuyers account for 82% of all FHA purchase loans. Additionally, 23% of all homebuyers opt for an FHA loan, with 28% of those aged 37 or younger choosing this financing option. Among the challenges faced by homebuyers, 13% of all buyers and 24% of those under the age of 37 find the down payment requirement to be the most daunting task. On average, the down payment amount is $6,624. FHA borrowers have an average debt-to-income ratio of 40.34%, and the typical FHA loan amount is $191,650. It's worth noting that a minimum credit score of 500 is required for an FHA loan with a 10 percent down payment.

Legacy
The establishment of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) had a significant impact on the housing market in the United States. Homeownership rates experienced a notable increase, rising from 40% in the 1930s to 61% and 65% by 1995. The peak of homeownership was nearly 69% in 2005, coinciding with the height of the US housing bubble. Within just four years of the FHA's inception in 1934, prospective homeowners could secure a house with a mere ten percent down payment, with the remaining ninety percent financed through a 25-year, self-amortizing, FHA-insured mortgage loan.

Following World War II, the FHA played a pivotal role in financing homes for returning white veterans and the families of white soldiers. Its assistance extended to the purchase of both single-family and multifamily homes. During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the FHA played a crucial role in catalyzing the construction of millions of privately owned apartments designed for elderly, handicapped, and lower-income Americans. In the 1970s, amid soaring inflation and energy costs that threatened the viability of numerous private apartment buildings, the FHA's emergency financing provided essential support to financially struggling properties. Additionally, during the 1980s, when economic conditions did not favor increased homeownership, the FHA helped stabilize falling property prices, enabling potential homeowners to secure financing, especially in regions where private mortgage insurers had withdrawn due to economic challenges, such as oil-producing states. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has had its most pronounced impact on minority populations and urban areas. In particular, nearly half of the FHA's business in metropolitan areas is concentrated in central cities, a significantly higher proportion than that observed with conventional loans. The FHA has also extended loans to a larger proportion of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, as well as younger borrowers with limited credit, playing a role in the growth of homeownership within these demographic groups. However, as the capital markets in the United States evolved over the course of several decades, the influence of the FHA waned. By 2006, FHA loans constituted less than 3% of all loans originated in the United States. In the fiscal year 2019, FHA-insured mortgages represented 11.41% of the total dollar volume for single-family residential mortgage originations. Notably, 82.84% of these FHA-insured single-family forward purchase transaction mortgages in fiscal year 2019 were availed by first-time homebuyers. Furthermore, minorities accounted for 36.24% of FHA purchase mortgage borrowers in the calendar year 2018, a significant contrast to the 19.94% observed through conventional lending channels.

Redlining
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) implemented mortgage underwriting standards that had a discriminatory impact on minority neighborhoods. This discriminatory practice is evident in the fact that between 1945 and 1959, African Americans received less than 2 percent of all federally insured home loans. As subsidized mortgage insurance became increasingly significant in the housing market, property values in minority neighborhoods within inner cities experienced a sharp decline. Additionally, approval rates for mortgage loans among minority applicants remained exceedingly low. Beginning in 1935, the FHA instituted guidelines designed to discourage private mortgage investors from extending loans to properties in minority areas. This practice, known as redlining, was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Redlining has had long-lasting effects on minority communities. The legacy of redlining continues to exert its influence today in certain regions of the United States. Redlining has had a detrimental impact on the contemporary wealth gap between African Americans and White Americans.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Federal Housing Administration


text:
Johnson Act

The Johnson Act of 1934 (Foreign Securities Act, ch. 112,, , 1934-04-13) prohibited foreign nations in debt from marketing their bond issues in the United States. The law was enacted on April 13, 1934, and although it was impacted by the Bretton-Woods Agreement, it was not repealed and continues to have the force of law.

Senator Hiram Johnson sponsored the Act that included a passage that forbade loans to nations in default on their debts.

On May 5, 1934, Attorney General Cummings rendered an opinion on the meaning of the terms "default" and "partial default" used in the Act. He held that Czechoslovakia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Great Britain and Canada were not in default, despite the fact only Canada had paid its debts, and Soviet Russia was in default.

The Act is again relevant now if Venezuela withdraws from the IMF and World Bank (as it says it is doing) and is in default in payment of its obligations "to the United States."

title: Johnson Act


text:
Reciprocal Tariff Act

The Reciprocal Tariff Act (enacted June 12, 1934, ch. 474,, ) provided for the negotiation of tariff agreements between the United States and separate nations, particularly Latin American countries. The Act served as an institutional reform intended to authorize the president to negotiate with foreign nations to reduce tariffs in return for reciprocal reductions in tariffs in the United States up to 50%. It resulted in a reduction of duties. This was the policy of the low tariff Democrats in response to the high tariff Republican program which produced the Smoot–Hawley tariff of 1930 that raised rates, and sharply reduced international trade. The Reciprocal Tariff Act was promoted heavily by Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) into law in 1934. It gave the president power to negotiate bilateral, reciprocal trade agreements with other countries and enabled Roosevelt to liberalize American trade policy around the globe. It is widely credited with ushering in the era of liberal trade policy that persisted throughout the 20th century.

Tariffs in the United States were at historically high levels from the American Civil War to the 1920s. In response to the Great Depression, Congress accelerated its protectionist policies, culminating in the Smoot–Hawley Act of 1930, a smorgasbord of high tariffs across many American industries. At the same time, European countries enacted protectionist policies.

The RTAA marked a sharp departure from the era of protectionism in the United States. American duties on foreign products declined from an average of 46% in 1934 to 12% by 1962.

Trade agreements under RTAA
Between 1934 and 1945, the United States signed 32 reciprocal trade agreements with 27 countries. Furthermore, the conclusion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was made by the authority under the RTAA.

History
The authorization under the RTAA has been granted for three years from the day of enactment (June 12, 1934) the RTAA. The authorization was extended to in 1937, in 1940, in 1943, in 1945.

The extension law was not enacted by June 11, 1948, the due date of the extension in 1945, and the right of reduction was revoked. The extension law was established on November 26, 1949, and was extended until June 11, 1951, and then 1951. The year was extended by two years and revoked in 1953 and extended on August 7., also for one year until 1954. Met. The 1954 extension was also for one year,. The law, which was once revoked in 1958 but extended on 30 August 1960, was enacted.

The RTAA, which has been updated intermittently until 1961, is a multilateral trade negotiation in GATT and negotiations with new member states.

The power to cut down expired in 1961, but in November, President Kennedy advocated a new tariff reduction negotiations, which would be called Kennedy Round, and in response, the new tariff reduction, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, was enacted, and the President was granted the power to reduce tariffs by June 30, 1967.

From then on, rounds and free trade area negotiations in GATT (later WTO) included the negotiating powers of non-tariff measures in the respective legislation, such as the Trade Law of 1974, was granted to the President, but the power to reduce tariffs was generally similar to the RTAA.

Differences between RTAA and other trade agreements
Before the RTAA, if Congress wanted to establish a lower tariff for particular imports, it would act unilaterally and tackle the foreign country's tariff rate as fixed. Congress would choose a tariff rate that was either a little higher or lower than the median preferred tariff, depending upon the composition of the Congress. Generally, a Republican-controlled Congress would prefer higher tariffs, and a Democratic-controlled Congress would prefer lower tariffs. Thus, tariffs were chosen based on US domestic politics. Individual members of Congress were under great pressure from industry lobbyists to raise tariffs to protect it from the negative effects of foreign imports.

The RTAA's novel approach freed Roosevelt and Congress to break that trend of tariff increases. It tied US tariff reductions to reciprocal tariff reductions with international partners. It also allowed Congress to approve the tariffs with a simple majority, as opposed to the two-thirds majority necessary for other treaties. Also, the President had the authority to negotiate the terms. The three innovations in trade policy created the political will and feasibility to enact a more liberal trade policy.

Reciprocity was an important tenet of the trade agreements brokered under RTAA because it gave Congress an incentive to lower tariffs. As more foreign countries entered into bilateral tariff reduction deals with the United States, exporters had more incentive to lobby Congress for even lower tariffs across many industries.

By giving the President the authority to negotiate the deals, the Congress effectively ceded a part of its power (authorized under US Constitution, Article I, Section VIII) to the executive branch. The President had to consider the welfare of all Americans, his foreign policy priorities, and what was feasible with other countries in making his decisions on tariffs. Those considerations generally left presidents more inclined to reduce tariffs than the Congress. Whether Roosevelt or Congress foresaw that result is a matter of historical debate.

Historical partisan divide over tariffs and the RTAA
After the Civil War, Democrats were generally for trade liberalization, and Republicans were generally for higher tariffs. The pattern was clear in congressional votes for tariffs from 1860 to 1930. Democrats were the congressional minority in the majority of Congresses between the Civil War and the election of Roosevelt. During their brief stints in the majority, Democrats passed several tariff reduction bills. Examples include the Wilson–Gorman Act of 1894 and the Underwood Tariff Act of 1913. However, subsequent Republican majorities always undid the unilateral tariff reductions.

By the Great Depression, tariffs were at historic highs. Members of Congress commonly entered in informal quid pro quo agreements in which they voted for other members' preferred tariffs in order to secure support for their own. No one took into account the aggregate toll on American consumers or exporters. That practice is commonly referred to as logrolling. Roosevelt and key members of his administration were intent on stopping the practice.

Democrats voted for trade liberalization far more often than Republicans but were not uniform in their preferences. Democrats skeptical of reducing tariffs during the Depression included Representative Henry Rainey (D-IL) and members of Roosevelt's own administration: Rexford Tugwell, Raymond Moley, and Adolf Berle. However, the administration decided to take advantage of having a Democrat-controlled Congress and Presidency to push through the RTAA. In 1936 and 1940, the Republican Party ran on a platform of repealing the tariff reductions secured under the RTAA. However, when they won back Congress in 1946, they did not act to remove the tariffs. In the years since the enactment of the RTAA in 1934, the economies of Europe and East Asia had been decimated by the violence of World War II, which left a huge global production vacuum that was filled by American exporters. During the war, the United States had its highest positive account balance in its history. Republican preferences for tariffs started shifting, as exporters from home districts began to benefit from increased international trade. By the 1950s, there was no statistically significant difference between Republicans and Democrats on tariff policies, a change that has endured ever since.

Reciprocity
Another key feature of the RTAA was that if Congress wanted to repeal a tariff reduction, it would take a two-thirds supermajority. That means that the tariff would have to be especially onerous, and the Congress would have to be especially protectionist. Once enacted, tariff reductions tended to stick.

As more American industries began to benefit from tariff reductions, some of them began to lobby Congress for lower tariffs. Until RTAA, Congress had been lobbied mostly by industries seeking to create or increase tariffs to protect their industry. That change also helped to lock in many of the gains in trade liberalization. In short, the political incentive to raise tariffs decreased, and the political incentive to lower tariffs increased.

World changes caused by RTAA
As American duties dropped off dramatically, global markets were also increasingly liberalized. World trade expanded rapidly. The RTAA was a US law but provided the first widespread system of guidelines for bilateral trade agreements. The United States and the European nations began avoiding beggar-thy-neighbour policies, which pursued national trade objectives at the expense of other nations. Instead, countries started to realize the gains from trade co-operation.

Led by the United States and the United Kingdom, international co-operation flourished, and concrete institutions were created. In talks begun at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, the International Monetary Fund was created. By 1949, the first international board governing trade, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), had been established. In 1994, the GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO), which still oversees international trade agreements.

The US Department of State also found good use of the expansion of free trade after World War II. Many in the State Department saw multilateral trade agreements as a way to engage the world in accordance with the Marshall Plan and the Monroe Doctrine. US trade policy became an integral part of US foreign policy. That pursuit of free trade as diplomacy intensified during the Cold War, as the US competed with the Soviet Union for relationships around the globe.

title: Reciprocal Tariff Act


text:
Tydings–McDuffie Act

The Tydings–McDuffie Act, officially the Philippine Independence Act, is an Act of Congress that established the process for the Philippines, then an American territory, to become an independent country after a ten-year transition period. Under the act, the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines was written and the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established, with the first directly elected President of the Philippines. (Direct elections to the Philippine Legislature had been held since 1907.) It also established limitations on Filipino immigration to the United States.

The act was authored in the 73rd United States Congress by Senator Millard E. Tydings (Dem.) of Maryland and Representative John McDuffie (Dem.) of Alabama, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Provisions
The Tydings–McDuffie Act specified a procedural framework for the drafting of a constitution for the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines within two years of its enactment. The act specified a number of mandatory constitutional provisions, and required approval of the constitution by the U.S. President and by Filipinos. The act mandated U.S. recognition of independence of the Philippine Islands as a separate and self-governing nation after a ten-year transition period.

Prior to independence, the act allowed the U.S to maintain military forces in the Philippines and to call all military forces of the Philippine government into U.S. military service. The act empowered the U.S. President, within two years following independence, to negotiate matters relating to U.S. naval reservations and fueling stations of in the Philippine Islands.

Immigration
The act reclassified all Filipinos, including those who were living in the United States, as aliens for the purposes of immigration to America. A quota of 50 immigrants per year was established. Before this act, Filipinos were classified as United States nationals, but not United States citizens, and while they were allowed to migrate relatively freely, they were denied naturalization rights within the US, unless they were citizens by birth in the mainland US.

History

An attempt to set a final date for Philippine independence was first manifested in the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act of 1933. Though Congress passed it, overriding President Hoover's veto, it failed to create a concrete timeline for independence. Requiring the consent of the Philippine Senate for it to be implemented, the bill failed after the then-President of the Senate Manuel L. Quezon convinced it to reject the bill because of the act's provision that would have allowed for the U.S. to station military bases in the islands permanently. Thus, it was necessary for Congress to draft a new bill to address these complaints and finally establish a timeline for the colony's independence.

In 1934, Manuel L. Quezon, the President of the Senate of the Philippines, headed a "Philippine Independence mission" to Washington, D.C. It lobbied Congress and secured the act's passage.

In 1935, under the provisions of the act, the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines was drafted and became law, establishing the Commonwealth of the Philippines with an elected executive, the President of the Philippines. The Commonwealth was to be a transitional government lasting for a period of ten years, with independence to be granted on July 4, 1946.

Accordingly, President Harry S. Truman issued Proclamation 2695 of July 4, 1946, officially recognizing the independence of the Philippines.

Immigration
The immigration quota under the act was low, and immigration continued at levels much higher than the legal quota. This was due to the strength of agricultural lobbies, such as the Hawaiian sugar planters, which were able to successfully lobby the federal government to allow more male Filipino agricultural workers provided that they demonstrated a need. This further increased the Filipino population in Hawaii which had at one point been 25% of agricultural workers on the islands.

The act also led to the Filipino Repatriation Act of 1935.

This act extended the Asian-exclusion policy of the Immigration Act of 1924 to the soon-to-be-former territory. This policy hampered the domestic lives of many Filipinos within the US because any Filipino who wished to go to the Philippines and then return to the United States would be subject to the restrictions on Asian immigration to America and would likely never be allowed to return.

In 1946, the US decreased the tight restrictions of the Tydings–McDuffie Act with the Luce–Celler Act of 1946, which increased the quota of Filipino immigrants to 100 per year and gave Filipinos the right to become naturalized American citizens. Filipinos would have been barred from immigrating to the U.S. without the Act. Two days later, on July 4, 1946, the Philippines became independent with the signing of the Treaty of Manila.

title: Tydings–McDuffie Act


text:
Neutrality Act

Neutrality Act may refer to:
 * Proclamation of Neutrality, 1793, declared the US neutral in the conflict between France and Great Britain
 * Neutrality Act of 1794, makes it illegal for an American to wage war against any country at peace with the US
 * Neutrality Acts of the 1930s, passed by Congress in the 1930s in response to turmoil in Europe and Asia

title: Neutrality Act


text:
Neutrality Acts of the 1930s

The Neutrality Acts were a series of acts passed by the US Congress in 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939 in response to the growing threats and wars that led to World War II. They were spurred by the growth in isolationism and non-interventionism in the US following the US joining World War I, and they sought to ensure that the US would not become entangled again in foreign conflicts.

The legacy of the Neutrality Acts is widely regarded as having been generally negative since they made no distinction between aggressor and victim, treating both equally as belligerents, and limited the US government's ability to aid Britain and France against Nazi Germany. The Acts were largely repealed in 1941, in the face of the Lend-Lease Act.

Background
The Nye Committee hearings between 1934 and 1936 and several best-selling books of the time, like H. C. Engelbrecht's The Merchants of Death (1934), supported the conviction of many Americans that the US entry into World War I had been orchestrated by bankers and the arms industry for profit reasons. That strengthened the position of isolationists and non-interventionists in the country.

Powerful forces in the US Congress pushing for non-interventionism and strong Neutrality Acts were Republican Senators William Edgar Borah, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Gerald P. Nye and Robert M. La Follette, Jr., but Congressional support for non-interventionism was not limited to the Republican Party. The Ludlow Amendment, requiring a public referendum before any declaration of war except in cases of defense against direct attack, was introduced several times without success between 1935 and 1940 by Democratic Representative Louis Ludlow.

Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and especially Secretary of State Cordell Hull were critical of the Neutrality Acts for fear that they would restrict the administration's options to support friendly nations. Even though both the House and Senate had large Democratic majorities throughout these years, there was enough support for the Neutrality Acts among Democrats (especially Southerners) to ensure their passage. Although congressional support was insufficient to override a presidential veto, Roosevelt felt he could not afford to snub the South and anger public opinion, especially while he was facing re-election in 1936 and needed congressional co-operation on domestic issues. With considerable reluctance, Roosevelt signed the Neutrality Acts into law.

Neutrality Act of 1935
Roosevelt's State Department had lobbied for embargo provisions that would allow the president to impose sanctions selectively. This was rejected by Congress. The 1935 act, passed by Congress on August 31, 1935, imposed a general embargo on trading in arms and war materials with all parties in a war. It also declared that American citizens traveling on warring ships traveled at their own risk. The act was set to expire after six months. When Congress passed the Neutrality Act of 1935, the State Department established an office to enforce the provisions of the Act. The Office of Arms and Munitions Control, renamed the Division of Controls in 1939 when the office was expanded, initially consisted of Joseph C. Green and Charles W. Yost.

Roosevelt invoked the act after Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in October 1935, preventing all arms and ammunition shipments to Italy and Ethiopia. He also declared a "moral embargo" against the belligerents, covering trade not falling under the Neutrality Act.

Neutrality Act of 1936
The Neutrality Act of 1936, passed in February of that year, renewed the provisions of the 1935 act for another 14 months. It also forbade all loans or credits to belligerents.

However, this act did not cover "civil wars", such as that in Spain (1936–1939), nor did it cover materials used in civilian life such as trucks and oil. U.S. companies such as Texaco, Standard Oil, Ford, General Motors, and Studebaker sold such items to the Nationalists under General Franco on credit. By 1939, Spain owed these and other companies more than $100,000,000.

Neutrality Act of 1937
In January 1937, Congress passed a joint resolution outlawing the arms trade with Spain. The Neutrality Act of 1937 was passed in May and included the provisions of the earlier acts, this time without expiration date, and extended them to cover civil wars as well. Furthermore, U.S. ships were prohibited from transporting any passengers or articles to belligerents, and U.S. citizens were forbidden from traveling on ships of belligerent nations. In a concession to Roosevelt, a "cash-and-carry" provision that had been devised by his advisor Bernard Baruch was added: the president could permit the sale of materials and supplies to belligerents in Europe as long as the recipients arranged for the transport and paid immediately with cash, with the argument that this would not draw the U.S. into the conflict. Roosevelt believed that cash-and-carry would aid France and Great Britain in the event of a war with Germany, since they were the only countries that controlled the seas and were able to take advantage of the provision. The cash-and-carry clause was set to expire after two years.

Japan invaded China in July 1937, starting the Second Sino-Japanese War. President Roosevelt, who supported the Chinese side, chose not to invoke the Neutrality Acts since the parties had not formally declared war. In so doing, he ensured that China's efforts to defend itself would not be hindered by the legislation: China was dependent on arms imports and only Japan would have been able to take advantage of cash-and-carry. This outraged the isolationists in Congress who claimed that the spirit of the law was being undermined. Roosevelt stated that he would prohibit American ships from transporting arms to the belligerents, but he allowed British ships to transport American arms to China. Roosevelt gave his Quarantine Speech in October 1937, outlining a move away from neutrality and toward "quarantining" all aggressors. He then imposed a "moral embargo" on exports of aircraft to Japan.

Neutrality Act of 1939
Early in 1939, after Nazi Germany had invaded Czechoslovakia, Roosevelt lobbied Congress to have the cash-and-carry provision renewed. He was rebuffed, the provision lapsed, and the mandatory arms embargo remained in place.

In September 1939, after Germany had invaded Poland, the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany. Roosevelt invoked the provisions of the Neutrality Act but came before Congress and lamented that the Neutrality Acts may give passive aid to an aggressor country. Congress was divided. Republican Senator Gerald Nye wanted to broaden the embargo, and other isolationists like Vandenberg and Hiram Johnson vowed to fight "from hell to breakfast" Roosevelt's desire to loosen the embargo. An "outstanding Republican leader" who supported helping nations under attack, however, told H. V. Kaltenborn that the embargo was futile because a neutral country like Italy could buy from the US and sell its own weapons to Germany, while US companies would relocate factories to Canada.

Roosevelt prevailed over the isolationists, and on November 4, he signed the Neutrality Act of 1939 into law,  allowing for arms trade with belligerent nations (Great Britain and France) on a cash-and-carry basis, thus in effect ending the arms embargo. Furthermore, the Neutrality Acts of 1935 and 1937 were repealed, American citizens and ships were barred from entering war zones designated by the president, and the National Munitions Control Board (which had been created by the 1935 Neutrality Act) was charged with issuing licenses for all arms imports and exports. Arms trade without a license became a federal crime.

End of neutrality policy
The end of neutrality policy came in September 1940 with the Destroyers-for-bases deal, an agreement to transfer 50 US Navy destroyers to the Royal Navy in exchange for land rights on British possessions. This was followed by the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941, which allowed the U.S. to sell, lend or give war materials to nations Roosevelt wanted to support: Britain, France and China.

After repeated incidents in the Atlantic between German submarines and U.S. ships, Roosevelt announced on September 11, 1941, that he had ordered the U.S. Navy to attack German and Italian war vessels in the "waters which we deem necessary for our defense". This order effectively declared naval war on Germany and Italy. Following the sinking of the U.S. destroyer USS Reuben James (DD-245) while she dropped depth charges on German U-boats on October 31, many of the provisions of the Neutrality Acts were repealed on November 17, 1941. As a result, merchant vessels were allowed to be armed and to carry any cargoes to belligerent nations.

On December 4, 1941, the US press published Rainbow Five, a leaked plan outlining US war strategy. The U.S. formally declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Japanese declaration of war of the previous day; Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941, and the U.S. responded with a declaration of war on the same day.

Subsequent application
The provision against unlicensed arms trades of the 1939 act remains in force.

In 1948, Charles Winters, Al Schwimmer and Herman Greenspun were convicted under the 1939 Act after smuggling B-17 Flying Fortress bombers from Florida to the nascent state of Israel during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Winters was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $5,000, while Schwimmer and Greenspun were each fined $10,000. Schwimmer was also stripped of his voting rights and veteran benefits.

All three received presidential pardons in subsequent decades. Greenspun was pardoned by John F. Kennedy in 1961, Schwimmer was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001, and Winters was pardoned by George W. Bush in 2008.

title: Neutrality Acts of the 1930s


text:
Motor Carrier Act

Motor Carrier Act may refer to:

 * Motor Carrier Act of 1935, an amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act that regulated bus lines and airlines as public utilities
 * Motor Carrier Act of 1980, a law that deregulated the trucking industry

title: Motor Carrier Act


text:
Social Security Act

The Social Security Act of 1935 is a law enacted by the 74th United States Congress and signed into law by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The law created the Social Security program as well as insurance against unemployment. The law was part of Roosevelt's New Deal domestic program.

By 1930, the United States was, along with Switzerland, the only modern industrial country without any national social security system. Amid the Great Depression, the physician Francis Townsend galvanized support behind a proposal to issue direct payments to older people. Responding to that movement, Roosevelt organized a committee led by Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins to develop a major social welfare program proposal. Roosevelt presented the plan in early 1935 and signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935. The Supreme Court upheld the act in two major cases decided in 1937.

The law established the Social Security program. The old-age program is funded by payroll taxes, and over the ensuing decades, it contributed to a dramatic decline in poverty among older people, and spending on Social Security became a significant part of the federal budget. The Social Security Act also established an unemployment insurance program administered by the states and the Aid to Dependent Children program, which provided aid to families headed by single mothers. The law was later amended by acts such as the Social Security Amendments of 1965, which established two major healthcare programs: Medicare and Medicaid.

Background and history
Industrialization and the urbanization in the 20th century created many new social problems and transformed ideas of how society and the government should function together because of them. As industry expanded, cities grew quickly to keep up with demand for labor. Tenement houses were built quickly and poorly, cramming new migrants from farms and Southern and Eastern European immigrants into tight and unhealthy spaces. Work spaces were even more unsafe.

By the 1930s, the United States was the only modern industrial country in which people faced the Depression without any national system of social security, though a handful of states had poorly-funded old-age insurance programs. The federal government had provided pensions to veterans in the aftermath of the Civil War and other wars, and some states had established voluntary old-age pension systems, but otherwise, the United States had little experience with social insurance programs. For most American workers, retirement during old age was not a realistic option. In the 1930s, the physician Francis Townsend galvanized support for his pension proposal, which called for the federal government to issue direct $200-a-month payments to the elderly. Roosevelt was attracted to the general thinking behind Townsend's plan because it would provide for those no longer capable of working, stimulate demand in the economy, and decrease the supply of labor. In 1934, the Dill-Connery bill for federal funding of state pensions programs, passed the House of Representatives and came near passage in the Senate that May. According to one study, ‘Roosevelt took ‘no open stand on the bill, but called supporters to the White House and persuaded them to delay passage until the administration prepared its own, "more comprehensive version.”’ That same year Roosevelt charged the Committee on Economic Security, chaired by Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, with developing an old-age pension program, an unemployment insurance system, and a national health care program. The proposal for a national health care system was dropped, but the committee developed an unemployment insurance program that would be largely administered by the states. The committee also developed an old-age plan; at Roosevelt's insistence, it would be funded by individual contributions from workers.

In January 1935, Roosevelt proposed the Social Security Act, which he presented as a more practical alternative to the Townsend Plan. After a series of congressional hearings, the Social Security Act became law in August 1935. During the congressional debate over Social Security, the program was expanded to provide payments to widows and dependents of Social Security recipients. Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. As a result, "65 percent of the African American workforce was excluded from the initial Social Security program (as well as 27 percent of white workers). Many of these workers were covered only later on, when Social Security was expanded in 1950 and then in 1954."The program was funded through a newly established payroll tax, which later became known as the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax. Social Security taxes would be collected from employers by the states, with employers and employees contributing equally to the tax. Because the Social Security tax was regressive, and Social Security benefits were based on how much each individual had paid into the system, the program would not contribute to income redistribution in the way that some reformers, including Perkins, had hoped. In addition to creating the program, the Social Security Act also established a state-administered unemployment insurance system and the Aid to Dependent Children, which provided aid to families headed by single mothers. Roosevelt believed that social security should cover everyone, stating that “I see no reason why every child, from the day his born, shouldn’t be a member of the social security system. When he begins to grow up, he should know he will have old-age benefits direct from the insurance system to which he will belong all his life. If he is out of work, he gets a benefit. If he is sick or crippled, he gets a benefit….I don’t see why not. Cradle to the grave-from the cradle to the grave they ought to be in a social insurance system.” Compared with the social security systems in Western Europe, the Social Security Act of 1935 was rather conservative. However, it was the first time that the federal government took responsibility for the economic security of the aged, the temporarily unemployed, dependent children, and the handicapped.

Titles
The Social Security Act has been amended significantly over time. The initial act had ten major titles, with Title XI outlining definitions and regulations. More titles were added as the Social Security Act was amended.

Title I—Old age
Title I is designed to give money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals.

Title II—Federal Reserve account
Title II establishes the Federal Reserve account used to pay for Social Security benefits and gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to invest excess reserves from the account.

Title III—Unemployment
Title III concerns unemployment insurance.

Title IV—Child aid
Title IV concerns Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Title V—Child welfare
Title V concerns maternal and child welfare.

Title VI—Public health
Title VI concerns public health services (investigation of disease and problems of sanitation). It grants the Surgeon General the power to distribute money to the States for that purpose with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Title VII—Social Security Board
Title VII establishes the Social Security Board and outlines that it is to be composed of three appointees chosen by the President and approved by the Senate and serving for six years.

Title VIII—Taxes with respect to employment
Title VIII establishes a payroll tax used to fund Social Security. In the amendments of 1939, the tax was removed from the Social Security Act, placed in the Internal Revenue Code, and renamed the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. When Medicare was established in 1966, the FICA tax was increased to fund that program as well.

Title IX—Tax on employers of eight or more
Title IX establishes an excise tax to be paid on the first day of every year by employers proportional to the total wages of their employees. It also establishes the first federal unemployment insurance program in the United States.

Title X—Blindness
Title X concerns support for blind people.

Title XVI—Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled
Title XVI establishes and concerns Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Title XVIII—Health Insurance for the Aged and Disabled
Title XVIII establishes and concerns Medicare.

Title XIX—Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs
Title XIX establishes and concerns Medicaid.

Title XX—Block Grants to States for Social Services
Title XX establishes the rules for state-specific shares of the federal cap according to a formula.

Title XXI—State Children's Health Insurance Program
Title XXI establishes and concerns CHIP.

Social Security Act Amendments of 1939
H.R.6635 Approved, August 10, 1939, Public Law 76-379

Expansion of benefits
The original Act provided for only one Federally-administered benefit: Old-Age Insurance, which was paid only to the insured worker. The 1939 Amendments transformed the very nature of the Social Security program. The Amendments created two new benefit categories under §202 of the Act:

 * Payments to the spouse and children of a retired worker called dependents or family benefits, a provision of Old-Age Insurance.
 * Payments to the family of an insured worker in the event of the premature death of the worker, called survivors benefits, the provision of the then-newly created Survivors Insurance program.

Retirement-aged wives, children under 16 (under 18 if attending school), widowed mothers caring for eligible children, and aged widows were all made eligible for dependents and survivors benefits.

Under select circumstances, parents of deceased insured workers were also made eligible for Survivors Insurance. To be eligible parents must be at least age 65, not entitled to Old-Age Insurance, wholly dependent upon the insured worker for income, and mustn't have married since the death of the insured worker. Furthermore, the parent(s) are not eligible if the deceased insured worker leaves a widow or unmarried surviving child under the age of 18.

The 1939 Amendments also increased benefit amounts and accelerated the start of monthly benefit payments from 1940 to 1942.

Alteration of financing mechanisms
The Old-Age Reserve Account previously established under §201 of the Act was replaced by the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, administered by a Board of Trustees. The Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and the Chairman of the Social Security Board were all ex-officio members. The composition of the Board of Trustees has been significantly altered since.

War Mobilization and Reconversion Act of 1944
S.2051 Approved, October 3, 1944 Public Law 78-458

Title XII

Social Security Act Amendments of 1946
H.R.7037 Approved, August 10, 1946 Public Law 79-719

Title XIII

Social Security Act Amendments of 1950
H.R.6000 Approved August 28, 1950 Public Law 81-734

These amendments raised benefits for the very first time and placed the program on the road to the virtually universal coverage it has today. Specifically it is the introduction of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).

H.R.6291
Approved June 28, 1952 Public Law 82-420

Social Security Act Amendments of 1952
H.R.7800 Approved, July 18, 1952 Public Law 82-590

Social Security Act Amendments of 1954
H.R.9366 Approved September 1, 1954 Public Law 83-761

H.R.9709
Approved September 1, 1954 Public Law 83-767

Title XV

Maternal and Child Health and Mental Retardation Planning Amendments of 1963
H.R.7544 Approved, October 24, 1963 Public Law 88-156

Title XVII

Social Security Amendments of 1965
H.R.6675 Approved, July 30, 1965 Public Law 89-97

Title XVIII Title XIX

Constitutional litigation
In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and New York State's minimum-wage law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire. The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes played a leading role in defeating the court-packing by rushing these pieces of New Deal legislation through and ensuring that the court's majority would uphold it. In March 1937, Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the court's four conservative justices, shocked the American public by siding with Hughes and the court's three liberal justices in striking down the court's previous decision in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which held that minimum wage laws were a violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and were thus unconstitutional, and upheld the constitutionality of Washington state's minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. In 1936, Roberts joined the four conservative justices in using the Adkins decision to strike down a similar minimum wage law New York state enforced in ''Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo and his decision to reverse his previous vote in the Morehead'' decision would be known as the switch in time that saved nine. In spite of widespread speculation that Roberts only agreed to join the court's majority in upholding New Deal legislation, such as the Social Security Act, during the spring of 1937 because of the court packing plan, Hughes wrote in his autobiographical notes that Roosevelt's court reform proposal "had not the slightest effect on our [the court's] decision" in the Parrish case and that the delayed announcement of the decision created the false impression that the Court had retreated under fire. Following the vast support that was demonstrated for the New Deal through Roosevelt's re-election in 1936, Hughes persuaded Roberts to no longer base his decisions on political maneuvering and side with him in future cases that involved New Deal legislation

Records show Roberts had indicated his desire to overturn the Adkins decision two days after oral arguments concluded for the Parrish case on December 19, 1936. During this time, however, the court was divided 4-4 following the initial conference call because Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, one of the three liberal justices who continuously voted to uphold New Deal legislation, was absent due to an illness; with this even division on the Court, the holding of the Washington Supreme Court, finding the minimum wage statute constitutional, would stand. As Hughes desired a clear and strong 5–4 affirmation of the Washington Supreme Court judgment, rather than a 4–4 default affirmation, he convinced the other justices to wait until Stone's return before both deciding and announcing the case.

U.S. Supreme Court cases
Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
 * Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S., 548 (1937) held in a 5–4 decision that given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare." The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions were that the Social Security Act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution. They argued that by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.
 * Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program: "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way." That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.

Other cases

 * Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) upholding §1104, allowing Congress to itself amend and revise the schedule of benefits. Further, however, recipients of benefits had no contractual rights to them.
 * Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 254 (1970) William Brennan Jr. held there must be an evidentiary hearing before a recipient can be deprived of government benefits under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 * Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) held that a male widower should be entitled to his deceased wife's benefit just as a female widow was entitled to a deceased husband's, under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Impact
In 1940, Social Security benefits paid totaled $35 million and rose to $961 million in 1950, $11.2 billion in 1960, $31.9 billion in 1970, $120.5 billion in 1980, and $247.8 billion in 1990 (all figures in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation). In 2004, $492 billion of benefits were paid to 47.5 million beneficiaries. In 2009, nearly 51 million Americans received $650 billion in Social Security benefits.

During the 1950s, those over 65 continued to have the highest poverty rate of any age group in the U.S. with the largest percentage of the nation's wealth concentrated in the hands of Americans under 35. By 2010, that figure had dramatically reversed itself with the largest percentage of wealth being in the hands of Americans 55–75 and those under 45 being among the poorest. Elder poverty, once a normal sight, had thus become rare by the 21st century.

Reflecting the continuing importance of the Social Security Act, biographer Kenneth S. Davis described the Social Security Act "the most important single piece of social legislation in all American history."

title: Social Security Act


text:
National Labor Relations Act of 1935

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions. The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The National Labor Relations Act seeks to correct the "inequality of bargaining power" between employers and employees by promoting collective bargaining between trade unions and employers. The law established the National Labor Relations Board to prosecute violations of labor law and to oversee the process by which employees decide whether to be represented by a labor organization. It also established various rules concerning collective bargaining and defined a series of banned unfair labor practices, including interference with the formation or organization of labor unions by employers. The act does not apply to certain workers, including supervisors, agricultural employees, domestic workers, government employees, and independent contractors.

The NLRA was strongly opposed by conservatives and members of the Republican Party, but it was upheld in the Supreme Court case of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., decided April 12, 1937. The 1947 Taft–Hartley Act amended the NLRA, establishing a series of labor practices for unions and granting states the power to pass right-to-work laws.

Background
The act's origins may be traced to the bloody Colorado Fuel and Iron Strike of 1914. Colorado Fuel was a subsidiary of Standard Oil, and John D. Rockefeller Jr. sought expert advice from the new field of public relations to prolong the settlement of the strike. He also recruited the former Canadian Labour Secretary (and future Prime Minister) MacKenzie King to the Rockefeller Foundation to broker a solution to the prolonged strike. The settlement resulted in the establishment of a Management-Labor conciliation board, which evolved into a company union and template for settling labor disputes. Although a step forward in labor relations, the company union was effectively a public relations ploy that had the opposite impact of thwarting the organization of trade unions in the great organizing drives of the period.

President Franklin Roosevelt signed the legislation into law on July 5, 1935.

It also has its roots in a variety of different labor acts previously enacted:
 * National War Labor Board (1918)
 * Norris–La Guardia Act (1932)
 * National Industrial Recovery Act (1933)
 * National Labor Board
 * Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935
 * including the Works Progress Administration ("WPA")

Content
Under section 1 of the Act, the key principles and policy findings on which the Act was based are explained. The Act aims to correct the "inequality of bargaining power between employees who, according to the Act's proponents, do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". To achieve this, the central idea is the promotion of collective bargaining between independent trade unions, on behalf of the workforce, and the employer.

"encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection."

Various definitions are explained in section 2, including 2(5) defining "labor organization" and 2(9) defining "labor dispute". The Act aims to protect employees as a group, and so is not based on a formal or legal relationship between an employer and employee.

Enforcement
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was established in NLRA 1935 sections 3 to 6, is the primary enforcer of the Act. Employees and unions may act themselves in support of their rights, however because of collective action problems and the costs of litigation, the National Labor Relations Board is designed to assist and bear some of the costs. Under section 3, the NLRB has two basic functions: overseeing the process by which employees decide whether to be represented by a labor organization and prosecuting violations. Those processes are initiated in the regional offices of the NLRB. The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board give legal advice. Sections 4 and 5  set out provisions on the officers of the Board and their expenses. Section 6 empowers the Board to issue rules interpreting the labor legislation. This will generally be binding, unless a court deems it to have acted outside its authority.

Under section 10 the NLRB is empowered to prevent unfair labor practices, which may ultimately be reviewed by the courts. Under section 11 it can lead investigations, collect evidence, issue subpoenas, and require witnesses to give evidence. Under section 12 it is an offense for people to unduly interfere with the Board's conduct.

In practice, the act was often ignored when it suited political powers, most notably by Walt Disney in 1940 who formed a company union in violation of the law in order to prevent the Cartoon Unionists Guild, a Trade Union, from gaining a foothold in Disney Studios.

Collectively bargaining
Section 7 sets out the general principle that employees have the right to join a trade union and engage in collective bargaining.

"Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3)."

Specific rules in support of collective bargaining are as follows.
 * There can be only one exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of employees.
 * Promotion of the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.
 * Employers are compelled to bargain with the representative of its employees.
 * Employees are allowed to discuss wages.

Unfair labor practices
Under section 8 the law defines a set of prohibited actions by employers, employees, and unions, known as an unfair labor practice. The first five unfair labor practices aimed at employers are in section 8(a). These are,
 * (a)(1) "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7". This includes freedom of association, mutual aid or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union.
 * (a)(2) "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it"
 * (a)(3) "by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization"
 * (a)(4) discriminating against employees who file charges or testify.
 * (a)(5) refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of the employer's employees.

In addition, added by the Taft–Hartley Act, there are seven unfair labor practices aimed at unions and employees.

Election of bargaining representatives
Under section 9 the people elected by a majority of the workforce have the right to become the exclusive representatives of workers in collective bargaining with the employer.

Exclusions
The NLRA 1935 does not cover two main groups of employees: those working for the government and in the railway or airline industries. Section 2(2) (29 USC §152(2)) states that the Act does not apply to employees of the "United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act". Under section 19, people who have religious convictions against joining a trade union are entitled to not associate or financially support it.

The NLRA 1935 also does not include additional measures to protect the rights of racial minorities in the workplace. At the time, unions like the American Federation of Labor did not grant membership to black laborers while other unions like the CIO engaged in internal discrimination, providing more preferable jobs and seniority to its white members. Employers also engaged in discrimination against black union members by restricting their ability to organize and collectively bargain with white laborers. The NAACP urged Senator Robert Wagner to add a non-discrimination provision to the bill to protect against union and employee race discrimination. Despite pushes from the NAACP and National Urban League to correct discriminatory practices, the law was written without the inclusion of an anti-discrimination clause. The act also excludes independent contractors, domestic workers, and farm workers. In recent years, advocacy organizations like the National Domestic Workers' Alliance have worked on the state level to pass a Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights, to extend to domestic workers the protections granted under the NLRA. Similar advocacy efforts are taking place on behalf of farm workers.

Reactions
The act was bitterly opposed by the Republican Party and business groups. The American Liberty League viewed the act as a threat to freedom and engaged in a campaign of opposition in order to repeal these "socialist" efforts. This included encouraging employers to refuse to comply with the NLRB and supporting the nationwide filing of injunctions to keep the NLRB from functioning. This campaign continued until the NLRA was found constitutional by the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937).

Labor groups, while overwhelmingly supportive, expressed a set of reservations. The American Federation of Labor and some employers accused the NLRB of favoring the Congress of Industrial Organizations, particularly when determining whether to hold union elections in plant-wide, or wall-to-wall, units, which the CIO usually sought, or to hold separate elections in separate craft units, which the craft unions in the AFL favored. While the NLRB initially favored plant-wide units, which tacitly favored the CIO's industrial unionism, it retreated to a compromise position several years later under pressure from Congress that allowed craft unions to seek separate representation of smaller groups of workers at the same time that another union was seeking a wall-to-wall unit.

Employers and their allies in Congress also criticized the NLRA for its expansive definition of "employee" and for allowing supervisors and plant guards to form unions, sometimes affiliated with the unions that represented the employees whom they were supposed to supervise or police. Many accused the NLRB of a general pro-union and anti-employer bias, pointing to the Board's controversial decisions in such areas as employer free speech and "mixed motive" cases, in which the NLRB held that an employer violated the Act by using misconduct that ordinarily would not result in termination to fire an employee who was engaged in pro-union activity. In addition, employers campaigned over the years to outlaw a number of union practices such as closed shops, secondary boycotts, jurisdictional strikes, mass picketing, strikes in violation of contractual no-strike clauses, pension and health and welfare plans sponsored by unions and multi-employer bargaining.

Many of these criticisms included provisions that employers and their allies were unable to have included in the NLRA. Others developed in reaction to NLRB decisions. Over all, they wanted the NLRB to be neutral as to bargaining power, but the NLRA's policy section takes a decidedly pro-employee position:

"It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection."

Some of these changes were later achieved in the 1947 amendments.

Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually undone the efficacy of the NLRA by inhibiting the law from applying to shifting circumstances.

Amendments
Opponents of the Wagner Act introduced several hundred bills to amend or repeal the law in the decade after its passage. All of them failed or were vetoed until the passage of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, or the Taft–Hartley Act, in 1947.

More recent unsuccessful efforts included attempts in 1978 to permit triple backpay awards and union collective bargaining certification based on signed union authorization cards, a provision that is similar to one of the proposed amendments in the Employee Free Choice Act. Under the NLRA, unions can become the representative based on signed union authorization cards only if the employer voluntarily recognizes the union. If the employer refuses to recognize the union, the union can be certified through a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB.

In the 2010s, Democrats began seeking the narrowing of the Act's provisions allowing workers to be hired as independent contractors, thus bringing them under the jurisdiction of the Act. Legislators have introduced a standard for independent contracting termed the "ABC test", after its three criteria A, B and C.

To be hired as an independent contractor, the worker must:  Be free from the employer's control and direction in the performance of the current work; Perform work that is outside the usual course of the employer's business; Have an independently established business in the same kind of work as performed for the current employer.

Independent contractors and employers have objected to B, the limitation on working in the employer's usual business. Objections are based on the inconveniences and costs of meeting the criterion. For instance, it prevents small venues from hiring performers, even for one-night stands, unless they are hired as employees. As a result, in the California phase of the campaign, numerous occupations of independent contractors were exempted from the test in California Assembly Bill 5 (2019).

Legacy
The Little Wagner Act, written by Ida Klaus, is the New York City version of the Wagner Act. The New York State Employment Relations Act was enacted in 1937.

Along with other factors, the act contributed to tremendous growth of membership in the labor unions, especially in the mass-production sector. The total number of labor union members grew from three million in 1933 to eight million at the end of the 1930s, with the vast majority of union members living outside of the Southern United States.

title: National Labor Relations Act of 1935