Does the New Deal really deserve such credit?

Paul Krugman takes the time today to discuss the New Deal and FDR. He makes sure to point out that "George W. Bush isn't FDR." He also criticizes the Heritage Foundation for neglecting the poor in its suggestions of how to help New Orleans. But was the New Deal that helpful to the and poor?

The scholarly article by Jim Couch and Peter Williams, "New Deal or Same Old Shuffle?" studies the the distribution of New Deal money spent in Alabama. They found that:

"The conventional wisdom regarding the New Deal is that all efforts were made toward improving the life of the ordinary person. This paper questions this view of the New Deal and provides evidence that political considerations had an impact on the distribution of dollars across Alabama. Empirical evidence suggests that politicians used a large portion of the appropriations for their own private interest while neglecting the public interest at a time when may citizens were desperately in need."

Additionally they found that:

"Fewer dollars flowed to poorer regions and, in particular, the impoverished South, because 'living standards are so low that standards of acceptance for relief have been lower than in other sections.'"

According to the article, a high ranking WPA administrator was:

"convinced that the government should force destitute Negroes and Mexican-Americans off the rolls and into agricultural labor. Then limited...money could provide work relief for the middle class without lowering their accustomed living conditions."

Yes that definitely sounds like an administration that truly cared about the poor. So let us hope that George W. Bush is no FDR.