<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Saturday Evening Post &#187; Government</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/topics/government/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com</link>
	<description>Home of The Saturday Evening Post</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 20:18:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>E Pluribus Trivia</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/vice-presidents-trivia.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=vice-presidents-trivia</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/vice-presidents-trivia.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Jeanes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trends & Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vice presidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=82001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Odd and fascinating facts about our vice presidents.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/vice-presidents-trivia.html">E Pluribus Trivia</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?attachment_id=81793" rel="attachment wp-att-81793"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/WorstVPs_TeddyRooseveltrb.jpg" alt="Teddy Roosevelt" width="350" class="alignright size-full wp-image-81793" /></a></p>
<p>Nine of our 47 <a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=79784">vice presidents</a> inherited the presidency—eight from a president’s death and one because <a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/11/06/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/nixon.html">President Richard Nixon</a> quit. Seven vice presidents died in office. Two vice presidents resigned: John C. Calhoun to go to the Senate, and Spiro Agnew to go into hiding. </p>
<p><strong>George Clinton</strong> was the first of seven vice presidents to die in office (1812). The second was Elbridge Gerry (1814), who gave his name to the notorious and ongoing practice of gerrymandering—creating misshapen voting districts to ensure your party’s victory. Both served under James Madison, president from 1809 to 1817. </p>
<p><strong>Richard Mentor Johnson</strong>, V.P. under Martin Van Buren (1837–1841), rose to political prominence partly on his reputation for having personally killed Shawnee Chief Tecumseh in the war of 1812. His reputation came undone in subsequent years when word got out that his common-law wife, with whom he had two daughters, was the light-skinned slave Julia Chinn. She died in the cholera epidemic of 1833, and her existence was conveniently swept under the rug during his period serving as V.P. For the record, Johnson educated and deeded property to his two daughters. </p>
<p><strong>Theodore Roosevelt</strong> found the job of presiding over the Senate so tedious that he often slept at his desk. He famously said of his senatorial charges, &#8220;When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer &#8216;Present&#8217; or &#8216;Guilty.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>Charles G. Dawes</strong> is the sole vice president to write a hit song. His 1912 “Melody in A Major” later had words added and became “It’s All in the Game.” Tommy Edwards took the song to number one in 1958, seven years after Dawes’s death.</p>
<p>Not until <strong>Alben Barkley</strong> in 1949 was the vice president called “The Veep,” a term coined by a young Barkley relative. It was noted by the Oxford English Dictionary in 1949 and has passed into common usage.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/vice-presidents-trivia.html">E Pluribus Trivia</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/vice-presidents-trivia.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Worst 10 1/2* Vice Presidents</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/worst-vice-presidents.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=worst-vice-presidents</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/worst-vice-presidents.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Jeanes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trends & Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vice presidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=79784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A selective view of some who were No. 2 in more ways than one. </p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/worst-vice-presidents.html">The Worst 10 1/2* Vice Presidents</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Hannibal Hamlin, and Millard Fillmore have in common? All are former <a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=82001">vice presidents of the United States</a>. Two are on Mount Rushmore; two are not.</p>
<p>Forty-seven men have occupied the office of vice president, and while they were in there, they did little other than serve as presiding officer of the Senate, their only constitutional mandate. </p>
<p>Vice presidents were chosen more for perceived vote-getting abilities than because of genuine credentials as public servants—which many had. Even so, an aura of veiled weirdness has hovered over the office for more than two centuries. </p>
<p>In 1788, the U.S. held its first presidential election under a flawed system: The man with the most electoral votes got to be president, and the man finishing second became vice president. President John Adams, elected following Washington in 1796, and Vice President Thomas Jefferson detested each other. Imagine George W. Bush with Al Gore as vice president or an Obama-Romney administration, and you’ll understand.</p>
<p>In 1800, Jefferson and Adams faced off—the first time two former vice presidents mutually sought the presidency. But Adams finished third while Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied with 73 votes each. Burr had agreed in advance to serve as Jefferson’s vice president, and that’s how things ultimately worked out. </p>
<p>Jefferson’s near-disaster led to the passage of the 12th Amendment, which required electors to cast separate votes for the two offices. This spared us, up to a point, acrimony between the two top office holders. Since the first vice president was elected in 1788, a motley of murderers, traitors, bribe takers, and outright crooks have paraded through the vice presidency. What’s more, during the 224 years between 1788 and 2012, the office has stood vacant on 18 occasions for a total of almost 38 years.</p>
<p>The nation survived not only those 18 vacancies but also the 10 and one-half vice presidents we examine below. </p>
<div class="product-info-block">
<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?attachment_id=81783" rel="attachment wp-att-81783"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/WorstVPs_AaronBurrrb.jpg" alt="Vice President Aaron Burr" width="150" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-81783" /></a></p>
<h2>Aaron Burr</h2>
<p><strong>(1801-1805)</strong></p>
<p>Our third vice president, Aaron Burr of New York, set the tone of lunacy that so often defines the office. Burr killed Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in an illegal duel and got himself charged with murder in both New York and New Jersey. After leaving office, shady land deals in the western wilderness got him charged with treason. He was never convicted of either crime.<br />
<div style="clear:both;"><!--this is a clear div--></div>
</div>
<div class="product-info-block">
<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?attachment_id=81788" rel="attachment wp-att-81788"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/WorstVPs_JohnTylerrb.jpg" alt="Vice President John Tyler" width="150" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-81788" /></a></p>
<h2>John Tyler*</h2>
<p><strong>(1841)</strong></p>
<p>How do you get one-half of a vice president? John Tyler of Virginia did it this way. He was the “too” of the 1840 campaign slogan, “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” The “Tippecanoe” half of the ticket was William Henry Harrison who spoke for three hours at his rainy inauguration, caught pneumonia, and died 31 days later, making Tyler our shortest-serving vice president. </p>
<p>Incredibly, though the Constitution provided for a vice president, it did not state expressly that the vice president would assume the office of president following a chief executive’s death. A quick-acting Congress rectified this … in 1967.</p>
<p>Before even being elevated to the presidency, Tyler signaled his lack of interest in his elected position. In fact, immediately after Harrison’s inauguration, Tyler left Washington and didn’t return until he was summoned at the president’s death. On his return, Tyler resisted congressional attempts to name him “temporary” or “acting” president and served almost a full term as a no-asterisk president. In that post, however, he was unremarkable and historians have called him weak. He so alienated his party that he was denied its nomination for the election of 1844.<br />
<div style="clear:both;"><!--this is a clear div--></div>
</div>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/worst-vice-presidents.html">The Worst 10 1/2* Vice Presidents</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/02/19/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/worst-vice-presidents.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Corporate Corruption</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/10/17/archives/address-congress.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=address-congress</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/10/17/archives/address-congress.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Post Editors</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Archives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Jackson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Post archives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=73361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In an 1833 article, Andrew Jackson shared his suspicion that the Bank of the United States intervened in local and national elections.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/10/17/archives/address-congress.html">Corporate Corruption</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>President Andrew Jackson harbored a deep-seated distrust of banking and corporate influence. In an address to the Congress published in the <em>Post</em>, he shares his suspicion that the Bank of the United States intervened in local and national elections. <em>(See also &#8220;America&#8217;s Wealth Gap&#8221; in the Nov/Dec 2012 issue.)</em></p>
<p><div class="recipe"></p>
<h2>Fifth Annual Message to Congress</h2>
<p><strong><em>December 3, 1833</em></strong><br />
<em>Fellow Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/address-to-congress.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/1833_12_07.jpg" alt="Fifth Annual Message to Congress, 1833" title="Fifth Annual Message to Congress, 1833" width="350" class="alignright size-full wp-image-73382" /></a></p>
<p>On your assembling to perform the high trusts which the people of the United States have confided to you, of legislating for their common welfare, it gives me pleasure to congratulate you upon the happy condition of our beloved country. By the favor of Divine Providence health is again restored to us, peace reigns within our borders, abundance crowns the labors of our fields, commerce and domestic industry flourish and increase, and individual happiness rewards the private virtue and enterprise of our citizens.</p>
<p>Our condition abroad is no less honorable than it is prosperous at home. Seeking nothing that is not right and determined to submit to nothing that is wrong, but desiring honest friendships and liberal intercourse with all nations, the United States have gained throughout the world the confidence and respect which are due to a policy so just and so congenial to the character of the American people and to the spirit of their institutions.</p>
<p>In bringing to your notice the particular state of our foreign affairs, it affords me high gratification to inform you that they are in a condition which promises the continuance of friendship with all nations.</p>
<p>With Great Britain the interesting question of our North East boundary remains still undecided. A negotiation, however, upon that subject has been renewed since the close of the last Congress, and a proposition has been submitted to the British Government with the view of establishing, in conformity with the resolution of the Senate, the line designated by the treaty of 1783. Though no definitive answer has been received, it may be daily looked for, and I entertain a hope that the overture may ultimately lead to a satisfactory adjustment of this important matter.</p>
<p>I have the satisfaction to inform you that a negotiation which, by desire of the House of Representatives, was opened some years ago with the British Government, for the erection of light houses on the Bahamas, has been successful. Those works, when completed, together with those which the United States have constructed on the western side of the Gulf of Florida, will contribute essentially to the safety of navigation in that sea. This joint participation in establishments interesting to humanity and beneficial to commerce is worthy of two enlightened nations, and indicates feelings which can not fail to have a happy influence upon their political relations. It is gratifying to the friends of both to perceive that the intercourse between the two people is becoming daily more extensive, and that sentiments of mutual good will have grown up befitting their common origin and justifying the hope that by wise counsels on each side not only unsettled questions may be satisfactorily terminated, but new causes of misunderstanding prevented.</p>
<p>Not withstanding that I continue to receive the most amicable assurances from the Government of France, and that in all other respects the most friendly relations exist between the United States and that Government, it is to be regretted that the stipulations of the convention concluded on 1831-07-04 remain in some important parts unfulfilled.</p>
<p>By the second article of that convention it was stipulated that the sum payable to the United States should be paid at Paris, in 6 annual installments, into the hands of such person or persons as should be authorized by the Government of the United States to receive it, and by the same article the first installment was payable on 1833-02-02. By the act of Congress of 1832-07-13 it was made the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to cause the several installments, with the interest thereon, to be received from the French Government and transferred to the United States in such manner as he may deem best; and by the same act of Congress the stipulations on the part of the United States in the convention were in all respects fulfilled. Not doubting that a treaty thus made and ratified by the two Governments, and faithfully executed by the United States, would be promptly complied with by the other party, and desiring to avoid the risk and expense of intermediate agencies, the Secretary of the Treasury deemed it advisable to receive and transfer the first installment by means of a draft upon the French minister of finance.</p>
<p>A draft for this purpose was accordingly drawn in favor of the cashier of the Bank of the United States for the amount accruing to the United States out of the first installment, and the interest payable with it. This bill was not drawn at Washington until 5 days after the installment was payable at Paris, and was accompanied by a special authority from the President authorizing the cashier or his assigns to receive the amount. The mode thus adopted of receiving the installment was officially made known to the French Government by the American chargé d&#8217;affaires at Paris, pursuant to instructions from the Department of State. The bill, however, though not presented for payment until 1833-03-23, was not paid, and for the reason assigned by the French minister of finance that no appropriation had been made by the French Chambers. It is not known to me that up to that period any appropriation had been required of the Chambers, and although a communication was subsequently made to the Chambers by direction of the King, recommending that the necessary provision should be made for carrying the convention into effect, it was at an advanced period of the session, and the subject was finally postponed until the next meeting of the Chambers.</p>
<p>Not withstanding it has been supposed by the French ministry that the financial stipulations of the treaty can not be carried into effect without an appropriation by the Chambers, it appears to me to be not only consistent with the character of France, but due to the character of both Governments, as well as to the rights of our citizens, to treat the convention, made and ratified in proper form, as pledging the good faith of the French Government for its execution, and as imposing upon each department an obligation to fulfill it; and I have received assurances through our chargé d&#8217;affaires at Paris and the French minister plenipotentiary at Washington, and more recently through the minister of the United States at Paris, that the delay has not proceeded from any indisposition on the part of the King and his ministers to fulfill their treaty, and that measures will be presented at the next meeting of the Chambers, and with a reasonable hope of success, to obtain the necessary appropriation.</p>
<p>It is necessary to state, however, that the documents, except certain lists of vessels captured, condemned, or burnt at sea, proper to facilitate the examination and liquidation of the reclamations comprised in the stipulations of the convention, and which by the 6th article France engaged to communicate to the United States by the intermediary of the legation, though repeatedly applied for by the American chargé d&#8217;affaires under instructions from this Government, have not yet been communicated; and this delay, it is apprehended, will necessarily prevent the completion of the duties assigned to the commissioners within the time at present prescribed by law.</p>
<p>The reasons for delaying to communicate these documents have not been explicitly stated, and this is the more to be regretted as it is not understood that the interposition of the Chambers is in any manner required for the delivery of those papers.</p>
<p>Under these circumstances, in a case so important to the interests of our citizens and to the character of our country, and under disappointments so unexpected, I deemed it my duty, however I might respect the general assurances to which I have adverted, no longer to delay the appointment of a minister plenipotentiary to Paris, but to dispatch him in season to communicate the result of his application to the French Government at an early period of your session. I accordingly appointed a distinguished citizen for this purpose, who proceeded on his mission in August last and was presented to the King early in the month of October. He is particularly instructed as to all matters connected with the present posture of affairs, and I indulge the hope that with the representations he is instructed to make, and from the disposition manifested by the King and his ministers in their recent assurances to our minister at Paris, the subject will be early considered, and satisfactorily disposed of at the next meeting of the Chambers.</p>
<p>As this subject involves important interests and has attracted a considerable share of the public attention, I have deemed it proper to make this explicit statement of its actual condition, and should I be disappointed in the hope now entertained the subject will be again brought to the notice of Congress in such manner as the occasion may require.</p>
<p>The friendly relations which have always been maintained between the United States and Russia have been further extended and strengthened by the treaty of navigation and commerce concluded on 1832-12-06, and sanctioned by the Senate before the close of its last session. The ratifications having been since exchanged, the liberal provisions of the treaty are now in full force, and under the encouragement which they have secured a flourishing and increasing commerce, yielding its benefits to the enterprise of both nations, affords to each the just recompense of wise measures, and adds new motives for that mutual friendship which the two countries have hitherto cherished toward each other.</p>
<p>It affords me peculiar satisfaction to state that the Government of Spain has at length yielded to the justice of the claims which have been so long urged in behalf of our citizens, and has expressed a willingness to provide an indemnification as soon as the proper amount can be agreed upon. Upon this latter point it is probable an understanding had taken place between the minister of the United States and the Spanish Government before the decease of the late King of Spain; and, unless that event may have delayed its completion, there is reason to hope that it may be in my power to announce to you early in your present session the conclusion of a convention upon terms not less favorable than those entered into for similar objects with other nations. That act of justice would well accord with the character of Spain, and is due to the United States from their ancient friend. It could not fail to strengthen the sentiments of amity and good will between the two nations which it is so much the wish of the United States to cherish and so truly the interest of both to maintain.</p>
<p>By the first section of an act of Congress passed on 1832-07-13 the tonnage duty on Spanish ships arriving from the ports of Spain previous to 1817-10-20, being 5 cents per ton. That act was intended to give effect on our side to an arrangement made with the Spanish Government by which discriminating duties of tonnage were to be abolished in the ports of the United States and Spain on he vessels of the two nations. Pursuant to that arrangement, which was carried into effect on the part of Spain on 1832-05-20, by a royal order dated 1832-04-29, American vessels in the ports of Spain have paid 5 cents per ton, which rate of duty is also paid in those ports by Spanish ships; but as American vessels pay no tonnage duty in the ports of the United States, the duty of 5 cents payable in our ports by Spanish vessels under the act above mentioned is really a discriminating duty, operating to the disadvantage of Spain.</p>
<p>Though no complaint has yet been made on the part of Spain, we are not the less bound by the obligations of good faith to remove the discrimination, and I recommend that the act be amended accordingly. As the royal order above alluded to includes the ports of the Balearic and Canary islands as well as those of Spain, it would seem that the provisions of the act of Congress should be equally extensive, and that for the repayments of such duties as may have been improperly received an addition should be made to the sum appropriated at the last session of Congress for refunding discriminating duties.</p>
<p>As the arrangement referred to, however, did not embrace the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico, discriminating duties to the prejudice of American shipping continue to be levied there. From the extent of the commerce carried on between the United States and those islands, particularly the former, this discrimination causes serious injury to one of those great national interests which it has been considered an essential part of our policy to cherish, and has given rise to complaints on the part of our merchants. Under instructions given to our minister at Madrid, earnest representations have been made by him to the Spanish Government upon this subject, and there is reason to expect, from the friendly disposition which is entertained toward this country, that a beneficial change will be produced.</p>
<p>The disadvantage, however, to which our shipping is subjected by the operation of these discriminating duties requires that they be met by suitable countervailing duties during your present session, power being at the same time vested in the President to modify or discontinue them as the discriminating duties on American vessels or their cargoes may be modified or discontinued at those islands. Intimations have been given to the Spanish Government that the United States may be obliged to resort to such measures as are of necessary self-defense, and there is no reason to apprehend that it would be unfavorably received. The proposed proceeding if adopted would not be permitted, however, in any degree to induce a relaxation in the efforts of our minister to effect a repeal of this irregularity by friendly negotiation, and it might serve to give force to his representations by showing the dangers to which that valuable trade is exposed by the obstructions and burdens which a system of discriminating and countervailing duties necessarily produces.</p>
<p>The selection and preparation of the Florida archives for the purpose of being delivered over to the United States, in conformity with the royal order as mentioned in my last annual message, though in progress, has not yet been completed. This delay has been produced partly by causes which were unavoidable, particularly the prevalence of the cholera at Havana; but measures have been taken which it is believed will expedite the delivery of those important records.</p>
<p>Congress were informed at the opening of the last session that &#8220;owing, as was alleged, to embarrassments in the finances of Portugal, consequent upon the civil war in which that nation was engaged&#8221;, payment had been made of only one installment of the amount which the Portuguese Government had stipulated to pay for indemnifying our citizens for property illegally captured in the blockade of Terceira. Since that time a postponement for two years, with interest, of the 2 remaining installments was requested by the Portuguese Government, and as a consideration it offered to stipulate that rice of the United States should be admitted into Portugal at the same duties as Brazilian rice. Being satisfied that no better arrangement could be made, my consent was given, and a royal order of the King of Portugal was accordingly issued on 1833-02-04 for the reduction of the duty on rice of the United States. It would give me great pleasure if in speaking of that country, in whose prosperity the United States are so much interested, and with whom a long- subsisting, extensive, and mutually advantageous commercial intercourse has strengthened the relation of friendship, I could announce to you the restoration of its internal tranquillity.</p>
<p>Subsequently to the commencement of the last session of Congress the final installment payable by Denmark under the convention of 1830-03-28 was received. The commissioners for examining the claims have since terminated their labors, and their awards have been paid at the Treasury as they have been called for. The justice rendered to our citizens by that Government is thus completed, and a pledge is thereby afforded for the maintenance of that friendly intercourse becoming the relations that the two nations mutually bear to each other.</p>
<p>It is satisfactory to inform you that the Danish Government have recently issued an ordinance by which the commerce with the island of St. Croix is placed on a more liberal footing than heretofore. This change can not fail to prove beneficial to the trade between the United States and that colony, and the advantages likely to flow from it may lead to greater relaxations in the colonial systems of other nations.</p>
<p>The ratifications of the convention with the King of the two Sicilies have been duly exchanged, and the commissioners appointed for examining the claims under it have entered upon the duties assigned to them by law. The friendship that the interests of the two nations require of them being now established, it may be hoped that each will enjoy the benefits which a liberal commerce should yield to both.</p>
<p>A treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and Belgium was concluded during the last winter and received the sanction of the Senate, but the exchange of the ratifications has been hitherto delayed, in consequence, in the first instance, of some delay in the reception of the treaty at Brussels, and, subsequently, of the absence of the Belgian minister of foreign affairs at the important conferences in which his Government is engaged at London. That treaty does but embody those enlarged principles of friendly policy which it is sincerely hoped will always regulate the conduct of the two nations having such strong motives to maintain amicable relations toward each other and so sincerely desirous to cherish them.</p>
<p>With all the other European powers with whom the United States have formed diplomatic relations and with the Sublime Porte the best understanding prevails. From all I continue to receive assurances of good will toward the United States &#8212; assurances which it gives me no less pleasure to reciprocate than to receive. With all, the engagements which have been entered into are fulfilled with good faith on both sides. Measures have also been taken to enlarge our friendly relations and extend our commercial intercourse with other States. The system we have pursued of aiming at no exclusive advantages, of dealing with all on terms of fair and equal reciprocity, and of adhering scrupulously to all our engagements is well calculated to give success to efforts intended to be mutually beneficial.</p>
<p>The wars of which the southern part of this continent was so long the theater, and which were carried on either by the mother country against the States which had formerly been her colonies or by the States against each other, having terminated, and their civil dissensions having so far subsided as with few exceptions no longer to disturb the public tranquillity, it is earnestly hoped those States will be able to employ themselves without interruption in perfecting their institutions, cultivating the arts of peace, and promoting by wise councils and able exertions the public and private prosperity which their patriotic struggles so well entitle them to enjoy.</p>
<p>With those States our relations have under-gone but little change during the present year. No reunion having yet taken place between the States which composed the Republic of Colombia, our chargé d&#8217;affaires at Bogota has been accredited to the Government of New Grenada, and we have, therefore, no diplomatic relations with Venezuela and Equator, except as they may be included in those heretofore formed with the Colombian Republic.</p>
<p>It is understood that representatives from the three stattes were about to assemble at Bogota to confer on the subject of their mutual interests, particularly that of their union, and if the result should render it necessary, measures will be taken on our part to preserve with each that friendship and those liberal commercial connections which it has been the constant desire of the United States to cultivate with their sister Republics of this hemisphere. Until the important question of reunion shall be settled, however, the different matters which have been under discussion between the United States and the Republic of Colombia, or either of the States which composed it, are not likely to be brought to a satisfactory issue.</p>
<p>In consequence of the illness of the chargé d&#8217;affaires appointed to Central America at the last session of Congress, he was prevented from proceeding on his mission until the month of October. It is hoped, however, that he is by this time at his post, and that the official intercourse, unfortunately so long interrupted, has been thus renewed on the part of the two nations so amicably and advantageously connected by engagements founded on the most enlarged principles of commercial reciprocity.</p>
<p>It is gratifying to state that since my last annual message some of the most important claims of our fellow citizens upon the Government of Brazil have been satisfactorily adjusted, and a reliance is placed on the friendly dispositions manifested by it that justice will also be done in others. No new causes of complaint have arisen, and the trade between the two countries flourishes under the encouragement secured to it by the liberal provisions of the treaty.</p>
<p>It is cause of regret that, owing, probably, to the civil dissensions which have occupied the attention of the Mexican Government, the time fixed by the treaty of limits with the United States for the meeting of the commissioners to define the boundaries between the two nations has been suffered to expire without the appointment of any commissioners on the part of that Government. While the true boundary remains in doubt by either party it is difficult to give effect to those measures which are necessary to the protection and quiet of our numerous citizens residing near that frontier. The subject is one of great solicitude to the United States, and will not fail to receive my earnest attention.</p>
<p>The treaty concluded with Chili and approved by the Senate at its last session was also ratified by the Chilian Government, but with certain additional and explanatory articles of a nature to have required it to be again submitted to the Senate. The time limited for the exchange of the ratification, however, having since expired, the action of both Governments on the treaty will again become necessary.</p>
<p>The negotiations commenced with the Argentine Republic relative to the outrages committed on our vessels engaged in the fisheries at the Falkland Islands by persons acting under the color of its authority, as well as the other matters in controversy between the two Governments, have been suspended by the departure of the chargé d&#8217;affaires of the United States from Buenos Ayres. It is understood, however, that a minister was subsequently appointed by that Government to renew the negotiation in the United States, but though daily expected he has not yet arrived in this country.</p>
<p>With Peru no treaty has yet been formed, and with Bolivia no diplomatic intercourse has yet been established. It will be my endeavor to encourage those sentiments of amity and that liberal commerce which belong to the relations in which all the independent States of this continent stand toward each other.</p>
<p>I deem it proper to recommend to your notice the revision of our consular system. This has become an important branch of the public service, in as much as it is intimately connected with the preservation of our national character abroad, with the interest of our citizens in foreign countries, with the regulation and care of our commerce, and with the protection of our sea men. At the close of the last session of Congress I communicated a report from the Secretary of State upon the subject, to which I now refer, as containing information which may be useful in any inquiries that Congress may see fit to institute with a view to a salutary reform of the system.</p>
<p>It gives me great pleasure to congratulate you upon the prosperous condition of the finances of the country, as will appear from the report which the Secretary of the Treasury will in due time lay before you. The receipts into the Treasury during the present year will amount to more than $32,000,000. The revenue derived from customs will, it is believed, be more than $28,000,000, and the public lands will yield about $3,0900,000. The expenditures within the year for all objects, including $2,572,240.99 on account of the public debt, will not amount to $25,000,000, and a large balance will remain in the Treasury after satisfying all the appropriations chargeable on the revenue for the present year.</p>
<p>The measures taken by the Secretary of the Treasury will probably enable to pay off in the course of the present year the residue of the exchanged 4.5% stock, redeemable on 1834-01-01. It has therefore been included in the estimated expenditures of this year, and forms a part of the sum above stated to have been paid on account of the public debt. The payment of this stock will reduce the whole debt of the United States, funded and unfunded, to the sum of $4,760,082.08, and as provision has already been made for the 4.5% stocks above mentioned, and charged in the expenses of the present year, the sum last stated is all that now remains of the national debt; and the revenue of the coming year, together with the balance now in the Treasury, will be sufficient to discharge it, after meeting the current expenses of the Government. Under the power given to the commissioners of the sinking fund, it will, I have no doubt, be purchased on favorable terms within the year.</p>
<p>From this view of the state of the finances and the public engagements yet to be fulfilled you will perceive that if Providence permits me to meet you at another session I shall have the high gratification of announcing to you that the national debt is extinguished. I can not refrain from expressing the pleasure I feel at the near approach of that desirable event. The short period of time within which the public debt will have been discharged is strong evidence of the abundant resources of the country and of the prudence and economy with which the Government has heretofore been administered. We have waged two wars since we became a nation, with one of the most powerful kingdoms in the world, both of them undertaken in defense of our dearest rights, been successfully prosecuted and honorably terminated; and many of those who partook in the first struggle as well as in the second will have lived to see the last item of the debt incurred in these necessary but expensive conflicts faithfully and honestly discharged. And we shall have the proud satisfaction of bequeathing to the public servants who follow us in the administration of the Government the rare blessing of a revenue sufficiently abundant, raised without injustice or oppression to our citizens, and unencumbered with any burdens but what they themselves shall think proper to impose upon it.</p>
<p>The flourishing state of the finances ought not, however, to encourage us to indulge in a lavish expenditure of the public treasure. The receipts of the present year do not furnish the test by which we are to estimate the income of the next. The changes made in our revenue system by the acts of Congress of 1832 and 1833, and more especially by the former, have swelled the receipts of the present year far beyond the amount to be expected in future years upon the reduced tariff of duties. The shortened credits on revenue bonds and the cash duties on woolens which were introduced by the act of 1832, and took effect on 1832-03-04, have brought large sums into the Treasury in 1833, which, according to the credits formerly given, would not have been payable until 1834, and would have formed a part of the income of that year. These causes would of themselves produce a great diminution of the receipts in the year 1834 as compared with the present one, and they will be still more diminished by the reduced rates of duties which take place on 1834-01-01 on some of the most important and productive articles.</p>
<p>Upon the best estimates that can be made the receipts of the next year, with the aid of the unappropriated amount now in the Treasury, will not be much more than sufficient to meet the expenses of the year and pay the small remnant of the national debt which yet remains unsatisfied. I can not, therefore, recommend to you any alteration in the present tariff of duties. The rate as now fixed by law on the various articles was adopted at the last session of Congress, as a matter of compromise, with unusual unanimity, and unless it is found to produce more than the necessities of the Government call for there would seem to be no reason at this time to justify a change.</p>
<p>But while I forbear to recommend any further reduction of the duties beyond that already provided for by the existing laws, I must earnestly and respectfully press upon Congress the importance of abstaining from all appropriations which are not absolutely required for the public interest and authorized by the powers clearly delegated to the United States. We are beginning a new era in our Government. The national debt, which has so long been a burden on the Treasury, will be finally discharged in the course of the ensuing year. No more memory will afterwards be needed than what may be necessary to meet the ordinary expenses of the Government. Now, then, is the proper moment to fix our system of expenditure on firm and durable principles, and I can not too strongly urge the necessity of a rigid economy and an inflexible determination not to enlarge the income beyond the real necessities of the Government and not to increase the wants of the Government by unnecessary and profuse expenditures.</p>
<p>If a contrary course should be pursued, it may happen that the revenue of 1834 will fall short of the demands upon it, and after reducing the tariff in order to lighten the burdens of the people, and providing for a still further reduction to take effect hereafter, it would be much to be deplored if at the end of another year we should find ourselves obliged to retrace our steps and impose additional taxes to meet unnecessary expenditures.</p>
<p>It is my duty on this occasion to call your attention to the destruction of the public building occupied by the Treasury Department, which happened since the last adjournment of Congress. A thorough inquiry into the causes of this loss was directed and made at the time, the result of which will be duly communicated to you. I take pleasure, however, in stating here that by the laudable exertions of the officers of the Department and many of the citizens of the District but few papers were lost, and none that will materially affect the public interest.</p>
<p>The public convenience requires that another building should be erected as soon as practicable, and in providing for it it will be advisable to enlarge in some manner the accommodations for the public officers of the several Departments, and to authorize the erection of suitable depositories for the safe-keeping of the public documents and records.</p>
<p>Since the last adjournment of Congress the Secretary of the Treasury has directed the money of the United States to be deposited in certain State banks designated by him, and he will immediately lay before you his reasons for this direction. I concur with him entirely in the view he has taken on the subject, and some months before the removal I urged upon the Department the propriety of taking that step. The near approach of the day on which the charger will expire, as well as the conduct of the bank, appeared to me to call for this measure upon the high considerations of public interest and public duty. The extent of its misconduct, however, although known to be great, was not at that time fully developed by proof. It was not until late in the month of August that I received from the Government directors an official report establishing beyond question that this great and powerful institution had been actively engaged in attempting to influence the elections of the public officers by means of its money, and that, in violation of the express provisions of its charter, it had by a formal resolution placed its funds at the disposition of its president to be employed in sustaining the political power of the bank. A copy of this resolution is contained in the report of the Government directors before referred to, and how ever the object may be disguised by cautious language, no one can doubt that this money was in truth intended for electioneering purposes, and the particular uses to which it was proved to have been applied abundantly show that it was so understood. Not only was the evidence complete as to the past application of the money and power of the bank to electioneering purposes, but that the resolution of the board of directors authorized the same course to be pursued in future.</p>
<p>It being thus established by unquestionable proof that the Bank of the United States was converted into a permanent electioneering engine, it appeared to me that the path of duty which the executive department of the Government ought to pursue was not doubtful. As by the terms of the bank charter no officer but the Secretary of the Treasury could remove the deposits, it seemed to me that this authority ought to be at once exerted to deprive that great corporation of the support and countenance of the Government in such an use of its and such an exertion of its power. In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions. It must now be determined whether the bank is to have its candidates for all offices in the country, from the highest to the lowest, or whether candidates on both sides of political questions shall be brought forward as heretofore and supported by the usual means.</p>
<p>At this time the efforts of the bank to control public opinion, through the distresses of some and the fears of others, are equally apparent, and, if possible, more objectionable. By a curtailment of its accommodations more rapid than any emergency requires, and even while it retains specie to an almost unprecedented amount in its vaults, it is attempting to produce great embarrassment in one portion of the community, while through presses known to have been sustained by its money it attempts by unfounded alarms to create a panic in all.</p>
<p>These are the means by which it seems to expect that it can force a restoration of the deposits, and as a necessary consequence extort from Congress a renewal of its charter. I am happy to know that through the good sense of our people the effort to get up a panic has hitherto failed, and that through the increased accommodations which the State banks have been enabled to afford, no public distress has followed the exertions of the bank, and it can not be doubted that the exercise of its power and the expenditure of its money, as well as its efforts to spread groundless alarm, will be met and rebuked as they deserve. In my own sphere of duty I should feel myself called on by the facts disclosed to order a scire facias against the bank, with a view to put an end to the chartered rights it has so palpably violated, were it not that the charter itself will expire as soon as a decision would probably be obtained from the court of last resort.</p>
<p>I called the attention of Congress to this subject in my last annual message, and informed them that such measures as were within the reach of the Secretary of the Treasury had been taken to enable him to judge whether the public deposits in the Bank of the United States were entirely safe; but that as his single powers might be inadequate to the object, I recommended the subject to Congress as worthy of their serious investigation, declaring it as my opinion that an inquiry into the transactions of that institution, embracing the branches as well as the principal bank, was called for by the credit which was given throughout the country to many serious charges impeaching their character, and which, if true, might justly excite the apprehension that they were no longer a safe depository for the public money. The extent to which the examination thus recommended was gone into is spread upon your journals, and is too well known to require to be stated. Such as was made resulted in a report from a majority of the Committee of Ways and Means touching certain specified points only, concluding with a resolution that the Government deposits might safely be continued in the Bank of the United States. This resolution was adopted at the close of the session by the vote of a majority of the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>Although I may not always be able to concur in the views of the public interest or the duties of its agents which may be taken by the other departments of the Government or either of its branches, I am, not withstanding, wholly incapable of receiving otherwise than with the most sincere respect all opinions or suggestions proceeding from such a source, and in respect to none am I more inclined to do so than to the House of Representatives. But it will be seen from the brief views at this time taken of the subject by myself, as well as the more ample ones presented by the Secretary of the Treasury, that the change in the deposits which has been ordered has been deemed to be called for by considerations which are not affected by the proceedings referred to, and which, if correctly viewed by that Department, rendered its act a matter of imperious duty.</p>
<p>Coming as you do, for the most part, immediately from the people and the States by election, and possessing the fullest opportunity to know their sentiments, the present Congress will be sincerely solicitous to carry into full and fair effect the will of their constituents in regard to this institution. It will be for those in whose behalf we all act to decide whether the executive department of the Government, in the steps which it has taken on this subject, has been found in the line of its duty.</p>
<p>The accompanying report of the Secretary of War, with the documents annexed to it, exhibits the operations of the War Department for the past year and the condition of the various subjects intrusted to its administration.</p>
<p>It will be seen from them that the Army maintains the character it has heretofore acquired for efficiency and military knowledge. Nothing has occurred since your last session to require its services beyond the ordinary routine duties which upon the sea-board and the in-land frontier devolve upon it in a time of peace. The system so wisely adopted and so long pursued of constructing fortifications at exposed points and of preparing and collecting the supplies necessary for the military defense of the country, and thus providently furnishing in peace the means of defense in war, has been continued with the usual results. I recommend to your consideration the various subjects suggested in the report of the Secretary of War. Their adoption would promote the public service and meliorate the condition of the Army.</p>
<p>Our relations with the various Indian tribes have been undisturbed since the termination of the difficulties growing out of the hostile aggressions of the Sac and Fox Indians. Several treaties have been formed for the relinquishment of territory to the United States and for the migration of the occupants of the region assigned for their residence West of the Mississippi. Should these treaties be ratified by the Senate, provision will have been made for the removal of almost all the tribes remaining E of that river and for the termination of many difficult and embarrassing questions arising out of their anomalous political condition.</p>
<p>It is to be hoped that those portions of two of the Southern tribes, which in that event will present the only remaining difficulties, will realize the necessity of emigration, and will speedily resort to it. My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.</p>
<p>Such has been their fate heretofore, and if it is to be averted &#8212; and it is &#8212; it can only be done by a general removal beyond our boundary and by the reorganization of their political system upon principles adapted to the new relations in which they will be placed. The experiment which has been recently made has so far proved successful. The emigrants generally are represented to be prosperous and contented, the country suitable to their wants and habits, and the essential articles of subsistence easily procured. When the report of the commissioners now engaged in investigating the condition and prospects of these Indians and in devising a plan for their intercourse and government is received, I trust ample means of information will be in possession of the Government for adjusting all the unsettled questions connected with this interesting subject.</p>
<p>The operations of the Navy during the year and its present condition are fully exhibited in the annual report from the Navy Department.</p>
<p>Suggestions are made by the Secretary of various improvements, which deserve careful consideration, and most of which, if adopted, bid fair to promote the efficiency of this important branch of the public service. Among these are the new organization of the Navy Board, the revision of the pay to officers, and a change in the period of time or in the manner of making the annual appropriations, to which I beg leave to call your particular attention.</p>
<p>The views which are presented on almost every portion of our naval concerns, and especially on the amount of force and the number of officers, and the general course of policy appropriate in the present state of our country for securing the great and useful purposes of naval protection in peace and due preparation for the contingencies of war, meet with my entire approbation.</p>
<p>It will be perceived from the report referred to that the fiscal concerns of the establishment are in an excellent condition, and it is hoped that Congress may feel disposed to make promptly every suitable provision desired either for preserving or improving the system.</p>
<p>The general Post Office Department has continued, upon the strength of its own resources, to facilitate the means of communication between the various portions of the Union with increased activity. The method, however, in which the accounts of the transportation of the mail have always been kept appears to have presented an imperfect view of its expenses. It has recently been discovered that from the earliest records of the Department the annual statements have been calculated to exhibit an amount considerably short of the actual expense incurred for that service. These illusory statements, together with the expense of carrying into effect the law of the last session of Congress establishing new mail routes, and a disposition on the part of the head of the Department to gratify the wishes of the public in the extension of mail facilities, have induced him to incur responsibilities for their improvement beyond what the current resources of the Department would sustain. As soon as he had discovered the imperfection of the method he caused an investigation to be made of its results and applied the proper remedy to correct the evil. It became necessary for him to withdraw some of the improvements which he had made to bring the expenses of the Department within its own resources. These expenses were incurred for the public good, and the public have enjoyed their benefit. They are now but partially suspended, and that where they may be discontinued with the least inconvenience to the country.</p>
<p>The progressive increase in the income from postages has equaled the highest expectations, and it affords demonstrative evidence of the growing importance and great utility of this Department. The details are exhibited in the accompanying report of the PostMaster General.</p>
<p>The many distressing accidents which have of late occurred in that portion of our navigation carried on by the use of steam power deserve the immediate and unremitting attention of the constituted authorities of the country. The fact that the number of those fatal disasters is constantly increasing, not withstanding the great improvements which are every where made in the machinery employed and in the rapid advances which have made in that branch of science, shows very clearly that they are in a great degree the result of criminal negligence on the part of those by whom the vessels are navigated and to whose care and attention the lives and property of our citizens are so extensively intrusted.</p>
<p>That these evils may be greatly lessened, if not substantially removed, by means of precautionary and penal legislation seems to be highly probably. So far, therefore, as the subject can be regarded as within the constitutional purview of Congress I earnestly recommend it to your prompt and serious consideration.</p>
<p>I would also call your attention to the views I have heretofore expressed of the propriety of amending the Constitution in relation to the mode of electing the President and the Vice-President of the United States. Regarding it as all important to the future quiet and harmony of the people that every intermediate agency in the election of these officers should be removed and that their eligibility should be limited to one term of either 4 or 6 years, I can not too earnestly invite your consideration of the subject.</p>
<p>Trusting that your deliberations on all the topics of general interest to which I have adverted, and such others as your more extensive knowledge of the wants of our beloved country may suggest, may be crowned with success, I tender you in conclusion the cooperation which it may be in my power to afford them. <em>—Andrew Jackson</em></p>
<p><div style="clear:both;"><!--this is a clear div--></div><br />
</div></p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/10/17/archives/address-congress.html">Corporate Corruption</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/10/17/archives/address-congress.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Time for a Third Party?</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/27/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/time-party.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=time-party</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/27/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/time-party.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frederick E. Allen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trends & Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-party system]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=51132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>With few exceptions, the U.S. has been a two-choice nation for most of its existence. Is it time for a change?</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/27/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/time-party.html">Time for a Third Party?</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><div id="attachment_51134" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 378px"><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/27/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/time-party.html/attachment/sep_julaug80_cover" rel="attachment wp-att-51134"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/SEP_JulAug80_Cover-e1329424356517.jpg" alt="Two Party System" title="SEP_JulAug80_Cover" width="368" height="404" class="size-full wp-image-51134" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Illustration by B.B. Sams/© SEP.</p></div>
<p>In the past year we’ve watched Washington, D.C., freeze into paralysis. The wheels of government have nearly ground to a halt as Congress barely even agreed to provide the money for spending already required by laws it had earlier passed. And the inhabitants of the two sides of the political aisle bitterly blame each other. Ask Republican Congressman Allen West who’s at fault, and he says the Democrats who have “a vicious propaganda machine. It espouses lies and deceit.” Ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and it’s entirely the Republicans who stop all progress with “obstructionism on steroids.” Ask the American people, and they agree with both; according to at least one recent poll, they blame the two parties equally. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with our two-party system.</p>
<p>In fact, passing the buck seems to be the only thing the parties can agree on right now. They each agree that the other party is broken. So it’s hardly surprising that there is serious talk of a third-party presidential candidacy this year. Ron Paul, the libertarian Texan, has suggested he may run on his own if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination, and an outfit called Americans Elect has worked quietly but diligently to make sure the paperwork has been done to assure that some third-party candidate can run in all fifty states. Almost everyone is fed up with Democrats and Republicans.</p>
<p>Are we on the verge of the collapse of the two-party system? You might think so, but it has been amazingly resilient, surviving through catastrophes as great as the Civil War and the Depression. The last time a president was elected who wasn’t a member of today’s Democratic or Republican party was in 1848. “E Pluribus Unum” says the motto on the Great Seal—“Out of many, one.” Maybe that should be “Out of many, two.” A recent Gallup poll found that 31 percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats and 27 percent as Republicans. Considerably more—40 percent—are independents, disdaining both parties. But that leaves only 2 percent to belong to any other party out there.</p>
<p>How did it get this way? Can it really last much longer? And what, at bottom, do the two parties stand for?</p>
<p>At the very beginning, the founders didn’t want parties, yet we’ve had them almost always since. There seems to be something basic to both human nature and our political system that makes us split along either/or lines. Those either/or lines have shifted and drifted over the centuries, but they’ve almost never not been there.</p>
<p>The electoral college elected the first president, George Washington, in 1788 unanimously. He was so indisputably the right choice that no other candidate was even imaginable. Yet by the time he delivered his farewell address in 1796 near the end of his second term, national unity had so ruptured into two battling sides that he felt compelled to warn of  “the alternate domination of one faction over another &#8230; a frightful despotism” that would bring “disorders and miseries.” Thomas Paine, on the other side of the new political divide, responded that “the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor, whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.” And that was George Washington he was talking about. The parties have been at each other’s throats since the very start.</p>
<p>At the heart of that gulf, then just as today, lay a tension between wanting a relatively big, active government and wanting a small, unthreatening one. Washington and Alexander Hamilton, his first secretary of the treasury, were among the champions of a nation of strong, well-enforced laws that actively worked to encourage banking and manufacturing and trade. On the other side, Thomas Jefferson idealized a land of free, independent farmers whom government would touch only with the lightest hand. Hamilton’s side became known as Federalists, Jefferson’s as Democratic-Republicans. In 1796, in  the first contested presidential election, Jefferson faced off against the Federalist John Adams. The law then stated that whoever got the second-most votes became vice president, so Jefferson had to end up awkwardly serving as his political enemy’s second-in-command.</p>
<p>In 1800 Jefferson won the top job, and in his inaugural address he expressed the hope that the two-party system could become a thing of the past, saying, “We are all Republicans. We are all Federalists.” No such thing happened. However, the Republicans had the upper hand for quite a while, winning the next five presidential elections. The Federalists came to seem elitist, and by 1828 they appeared to be withering away. But in the election that year the Democratic-Republicans split into two factions, creating what became the two parties of the next several decades. Andrew Jackson won in 1828 under the banner of a new Democratic party. He was frontier-born and a war hero, a man of the people, a strong upholder of individual liberties against institutions such as a national bank—and the farthest cry yet from the kind of Virginia aristocracy that George Washington had personified. Jackson’s party grew into the Democratic party we still know today. The other party, the Whigs, was the remnant of the Federalists and less populist Democratic-Republicans.<br />
<div id="attachment_51135" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 410px"><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/27/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/time-party.html/attachment/tea_party_protest_hartford_connecticut_15_april_2009_-_028_sageross" rel="attachment wp-att-51135"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/Tea_Party_Protest_Hartford_Connecticut_15_April_2009_-_028_SageRoss-400x266.jpg" alt="Not gonna take it: Launched as a tax protest, the Tea Party movement grew into a position of influence in the Republican Party and is poised to break out on its own. Photo by Sage Ross." title="Tea_Party_Protest,_Hartford,_Connecticut,_15_April_2009_-_028_SageRoss" width="400" height="266" class="size-medium wp-image-51135" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Not gonna take it: Launched as a tax protest, the Tea Party movement grew into a position of influence in the Republican Party and is poised to break out on its own. Photo by Sage Ross.</p></div></p>
<p>That pairing lasted until the 1840s when the issue of slavery poisoned everything. Think there’s a lack of civility in politics today? Emotions about this issue grew so violent that when Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts angrily denounced slave owners in 1856, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina beat him almost to death right on the Senate floor. The Whig party split apart and crumbled in the 1850s. After a flurry of short-lived parties with names like Free-Soil and Know-Nothing flared up and died, a new anti-slavery party emerged: the Republicans. It elected its first president, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860, and it survives as the Republican party of today.</p>
<p>And so the two parties we still know—Andrew Jackson’s Democrats and Abraham Lincoln’s Republicans—were already in place 150 years ago. They have evolved and changed continually, though. Throughout the rest of the nineteenth century, the Republicans were the party of business and of relatively strong centralized government power, partly because the opponents of slavery had tended to be prosperous citizens of the industrialized, urban North. Meanwhile the South became overwhelmingly Democratic, in opposition to the party that had risen from the antislavery movement. The Democrats were the party not only of the white-dominated South but also of states’ rights and small government and rural interests.</p>
<p>From time to time events shifted the two parties and their relative power. At the turn of the twentieth century a “progressive” movement grew up that sought to clamp down on big business. A Republican progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, served as president from 1901 to 1909, and the Democrats elected their own progressive, Woodrow Wilson, in 1912. But in the boom years of the 1920s, old-fashioned business-friendly Republicans took charge again—until the crash of 1929 and the Depression.</p>
<p>By 1932 Republicans had held the White House for 11 straight years, but the Republican-led boom had turned into a Republican-led bust, and in the depths of the Depression the nation elected a Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who would serve until his death in 1945. There would be a Republican in the White House for only eight years between 1933 and 1969. Roosevelt won all but two states in 1936, and the Republican Party appeared to be all but dead.</p>
<p>As the nation fought a world war and climbed out of the economic depths, however, the Republican party slowly healed its wounds. It almost won the White House in 1948 when the Chicago Tribune ran its infamous mistaken “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline. It did take the presidency in 1952, electing the greatest military hero of World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower. It barely lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960.</p>
<p>The 1960s were a time of tumult for the two parties just as they were for America as a whole. The Vietnam War drove a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, to announce that he wouldn’t run for reelection in 1968, and the agonies of the Civil Rights movement, which he had championed, led many white Southern politicians to abandon the Democratic party just as they had swept into it a century before. From 1969 to 1993 there would be a Democratic president for only four years, during the single, luckless term of the last of the powerful Southern Democrats, Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>Today the same two parties still dominate the political world in the U.S. The Republicans are broadly seen as the party of business and of less rather than more government action and regulation. The Democrats remain the standard-bearers for organized labor and the entitlements that grew up with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Democrats are generally considered the stronger party among blacks and other minorities as it has been since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (and it had been gaining ground among those minorities earlier), but since race is a much smaller part of our national politics than it once was, that is less          of a defining difference now than in the past.<br />
<div id="attachment_51133" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 410px"><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/27/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/time-party.html/attachment/day_60_occupy_wall_street_november_15_2011_shankbone_18" rel="attachment wp-att-51133"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/Day_60_Occupy_Wall_Street_November_15_2011_Shankbone_18-400x273.jpg" alt="Populist uprising: Occupy Wall Street protesters made the “99 percent” slogan notorious. Protesters gathered at Zuccotti Park on Wall Street in November. Photo by David Shankbone." title="Day_60_Occupy_Wall_Street_November_15_2011_Shankbone_18" width="400" height="273" class="size-medium wp-image-51133" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Populist uprising: Occupy Wall Street protesters made the “99 percent” slogan notorious. Protesters gathered at Zuccotti Park on Wall Street in November. Photo by David Shankbone.</p></div></p>
<p>Why are the parties getting along so terribly right now? It hasn’t always been this bad. They have sometimes seemed especially polarized and antagonistic but sometimes quite similar and cooperative. They grew somewhat alike during the progressive era; they were bitterly opposed during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. They had much in common during much of the late twentieth century when Republican Richard Nixon carried on some of the Civil Rights initiatives of Democrat Lyndon Johnson and when Democrat Bill Clinton realized some of the welfare-limiting and budget-balancing dreams of Republican Ronald Reagan. Basically, they have tended to move closer together when economic times are good and there is less to drive them apart. Since the Great Recession began in 2008 and economic times turned bad, they have been as sharply divided as ever.</p>
<p>What lies at the base of all their differences, beneath all the individual policy matters they face off about such as abortion and immigration policy and tax breaks for the wealthy and so much else? And what has made them endure for so long? Why do we have two parties instead of three or four or more? There is probably just one answer to all these questions: The parties, at bottom, represent fundamentally opposed basic concepts of government. They stand for government as either essentially good or essentially bad. Americans who believe that government can and must be a powerful force for good tend to be Democrats. Americans who believe that government gets in the way more often than it helps, that it should be as limited and small as possible, tend to be Republicans. Before Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrats were more the small government party and Republicans the big government one; Roosevelt’s New Deal and the rise of the broad government programs we have had ever since turned that around. The shift of the South from Democratic to Republican in the 1960s and 1970s cemented that change.</p>
<p>However, as dangerously and irreconcilably divided  as the parties seem right now, they’re almost certainly not about to crumble. In fact, the sharpest rift right now may be within one of the parties, the Republicans. Since the rise of Tea Party power in the 2010 elections, the Republicans in the House of Representatives have been embattled among themselves, with speaker John Boehner struggling endlessly—often hopelessly— to get them to agree on anything. Similarly, the lead-up to the 2012 Republican primaries has been marked by a stubbornly unyielding polarity between staunchly conservative and Tea Party-favoring candidates like Michele Bachmann and more moderate ones like Mitt Romney. It may be that the Republican party will soon redefine itself, as both parties have so often done in the past, but there’s nothing happening to suggest that we’ll soon have three or four major parties.</p>
<p>Why? Because so much of what people disagree on comes down to that basic tension between big, strong government and small, limited government. And that tension can probably never be finally resolved, at least in a nation that is based on free enterprise and individual liberty and initiative—and that is also based on equal opportunity and equal rights and fairness for all. The division between left and right will probably be with us always. In fact, it has become so central to our national psyche that I’d suggest another way of looking at the great divide, by seeing us all as a great American family with a timeless family dynamic.</p>
<p>If indeed we are in any sense a national family, then maybe, just possibly, in an abstract sense, within that family Republicans are our father and Democrats are our mother. I mean this: Your stereotypical father protects the home fiercely but also expects his children to be strong and resilient and self-reliant and to learn by tough love and end up looking out for themselves, just as Republicans are stereotypically strong on defense and weak on coddling. Your stereotypical mother builds the nest and is nurturing and gives everyone their meal and wants all the children to embrace love and fairness, just as Democrats focus more on supporting workers and striving to lift up the poor and the struggling. It’s no coincidence that it’s mostly Republicans who attack “the nanny state” and Democrats who warn, “Big Brother is watching you.” These are of course clichés, both about mothers and fathers and about Democrats and Republicans. But doesn’t every cliché contain a grain of truth?</p>
<p>And if there is a grain of truth here, then I’d add that just as the traditional ideal of a strong family has two parents, a mother and a father, then perhaps also our nation does best with two parties, Democratic and Republican. They may fight noisily from time to time, but who would have it any other way? Who wouldn’t want to have both kinds of love and care and moral passion? We need them to balance each other and show us the whole range of love and support. The system, like any marriage, and even the institution of marriage itself, may be far from perfect, but what else could possibly be better?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/27/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/time-party.html">Time for a Third Party?</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/27/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/time-party.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Work (Or Jail Time) for Everyone</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/post-perspective/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/post-perspective/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 14:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Nilsson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Archives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Post Perspective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A Post Retrospective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compulsory Work Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World War I]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=52725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>How the U.S. achieved 98% employment in 1918.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/post-perspective/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html">Work (Or Jail Time) for Everyone</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/then-and-now/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html/attachment/b-slacker-poster1-2" rel="attachment wp-att-53051"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/B-slacker-poster11-e1330705487412-306x450.jpg" alt="" title="B-slacker poster1" width="306" height="450" class="alignleft size-large wp-image-53051" /></a>
<p>The high unemployment of the past few years has led to the demand by some Americans that the government “create jobs.” Opponents argue that this is not the role of government; no Federal or State agency could put everyone to work.</p>
<p>Yet nine state governments did exactly that between 1917 and 1918. Each one passed a mandatory-work law to support national defense after America had entered the First World War.</p>
<p>Massachusetts&#8217; Compulsory Work Law, which was typical of these programs, announced the new law in these words:</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/then-and-now/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html/attachment/b-manbehindgun" rel="attachment wp-att-52926"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-52926" title="B-ManBehindGun" src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/B-ManBehindGun-206x300.jpg" alt="" width="206" height="300" /></a>The object of this act is to require [able-bodied men] to engage in some useful occupation.</p>
<p>All able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 50 must work 36 hours each week at some useful occupation…</p>
<p>Persons possessed of independent incomes that may not make it necessary for them to work for their own support… [are] included within the scope of the act.</p>
<p>Persons failing to comply with the provisions of the law are liable to a penalty of a $100 fine, three months in jail, or both.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p></blockquote>
<p>An article in the September, 1917, <em>Country Gentleman</em> reported how the program worked in Maryland.</p>
<blockquote><p>By proclamation… every able-bodied man in Maryland not regularly employed was ordered to register [with the Compulsory Work Bureau].</p>
<p>There is a fifty-dollar penalty for failing to register, and the man who can’t pay this fine must work it out under special laws passed as emergency measures during the war.</p>
<p>Three classes of work have been designated by the governor as necessary for the protection and welfare of the state—work on farms and in orchards, work in canneries, work on state and country roads and on the streets of Baltimore.</p>
<p>A man placed in any one of these fields of work who refuses to do that work is liable to a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.</p></blockquote>
<p>The state expected that the incorrigibly idle would refuse to work so they could take the maximum penalty and spend a quiet, comfortable winter in jail. But the head of the state’s Compulsory-Work Bureau was ready:</p>
<blockquote><p>“We’re going to upset that little scheme, for we have an emergency law that lets us put a man on the state roads to work out his fine.”</p></blockquote>
<p>There was no denying that the U.S. was facing a critical shortage of labor—and everything else—when it entered the war. After joining the Allied forces, it urgently needed to build an army of 4 million men, arm them, and transport them to Europe as quickly as possible, even though we had almost no soldiers, weapons, or ships.</p>
<p>Making the guns and ammunition for this army would be an immense task, but so would feeding it. Farmers were urged to put all available acreage under the plow. Consequently—</p>
<blockquote><p>There is a crying need… for more farm labor. The shoe began to pinch the farmer long before the United States actively entered the war. Our munitions plants, enlarging their capacities for war orders… have been working at top speed for several years [and] have been steadily draining farm labor from the fields to the cities.</p></blockquote>
<p>Legislators believed the labor shortage would be solved by these mandatory-work laws. But some Americans hoped the laws would have the broader effect of banishing vagrants and hobos from the American countryside and re-instilling a strong, new work ethic.  According to a 1918 article in the <em>Post</em>, there was a &#8220;universal recognition&#8221; among Americans:</p>
<blockquote><p>
<div id="attachment_52947" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 183px"><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/then-and-now/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html/attachment/hobos" rel="attachment wp-att-52947"><img class="size-medium wp-image-52947" title="hobos" src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/hobos-173x300.jpg" alt="" width="173" height="300" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Some of the &quot;million men, able-bodied&quot; who were &quot;chronically, habitually and professionally idle.&quot;</p></div>
<p>the idler, the loafer, must go. The industrial slacker, the drone in the hive of a busy nation, is today a doomed man.</p>
<p>It is, indeed, a far-reaching revolution in the spirit of a people that in so short a time the mere shirker from work should be looked upon with as much contempt and treated almost as much like a criminal as an evader of the military draft.</p>
<p>Never were there so few idlers in this country as now. The beggar has gone from the city street, the tramp from the kitchen door and the hobo from the railroad track.</p>
<p>Even before the war there could hardly have been more than five or six million men, from age eighteen to sixty-two, who were not engaged in &#8220;gainful occupations,&#8221; as the census puts it. It is doubtful if much more than a million able-bodied [men] are chronically, habitually and professionally idle.</p>
<p>A million loafers may not seem many in a nation of a hundred million people. But the nation is now in no mood to permit even these few to get in its way.</p></blockquote>
<p>Then, as now, the law seemed to violate civil rights. But it was, at least, being fairly prosecuted.</p>
<blockquote><p>It is clear that no compulsory-work law would stand any chance of being enforced unless it were used against the idle rich as well as against the idle poor.</p></blockquote>
<p>The <em>Post</em> reported the case of a &#8220;Mr. B.&#8221; who was young, independently wealthy, and well connected. His friends gave him a token job to avoid prosecution, but the Compulsory Work Bureau found he only showed up a few hours a week. Despite the pressure from his influential family, he was re-arrested. Before he could be sent to a state-made job, he joined the army.</p>
<blockquote><p>[So] the rich idler who has inherited sufficient wealth to live in luxury is placed in the same class as the ordinary vagrant.</p>
<p>No longer may the scions of prominent families languidly gaze from the windows of their Fifth Avenue clubs upon the man who toils… They must really work.</p></blockquote>
<p><div id="attachment_52925" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 228px"><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/then-and-now/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html/attachment/b-stenographers" rel="attachment wp-att-52925"><img class="size-medium wp-image-52925" title="B-stenographers" src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/B-stenographers-218x300.jpg" alt="" width="218" height="300" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Women helped fill the critical labor shortage by entering the industrial workforce in large numbers for the first time.</p></div></p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard to tell the overall effect of the mandatory-work laws. We do know, however, that from 1917 to 1918 the unemployment rate dropped from 4.5% to 1.4%.</p>
<p>After the war, all the compulsory-work laws were declared illegal (though a 1916 Supreme Court ruling declared they were constitutional, even in peacetime).</p>
<p>In the long run, the labor shortage had a profound effect on working Americans. The war-time government was so desperate for war workers that, for the first time, it supported the claims of organized labor and forced its suppliers into binding arbitration with unions. It pressured employers to raise wages and hire minorities.</p>
<p>When faced with a severe labor shortage, both Federal and State government have shown they can be surprisingly innovative.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/post-perspective/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html">Work (Or Jail Time) for Everyone</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/03/03/archives/post-perspective/mandatory-work-laws-america-achieves-98-employment.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Social Security</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/02/28/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/social-security.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=social-security</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/02/28/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/social-security.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frederick E. Allen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trends & Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franklin D Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=46270</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>You’ve heard the rumors. Here are the facts.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/02/28/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/social-security.html">Social Security</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the spring of 1935, at the depths of the Great Depression, Congress voted by a landslide to create Social Security—372 to 33 in the House and 77 to six in the Senate. Almost nobody was against it. In the years since, it has grown to be the biggest government program in history, anywhere ever, and arguably one of the most successful. It has lifted tens of millions of Americans out of poverty. Today it provides 56 million people a guaranteed paycheck, and nearly two-thirds of retirees count on it for more than half of their income. Yet many now see it as a huge failure. Among the 2012 presidential candidates, Rick Perry has called it a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie,” and Mitt Romney has written that “to put it in a nutshell, the American people have been defrauded.” We are told it is going bankrupt. What happened? Where did Social Security come from? And is it really in such grave danger?</p>
<p>The story begins more than a century ago in Imperial Germany. In 1889 Chancellor Otto von Bismarck got a law passed setting up an old-age insurance program that required German workers to contribute a portion of their wages to a fund that would pay them in their retirement. Why? In a time of frightening worker unrest and socialist ferment, Bismarck bluntly admitted that he wanted “to bribe the working classes &#8230; to regard the State as a social institution &#8230; interested in their welfare.” In other words, he feared he had to start doing more for the workers or they might rise up against him.</p>
<p>Before long other European nations followed. The U.S., with its powerful spirit of self-reliance and independence, did not. Yet old age was getting harder for Americans. By the end of the 19th century the nation had gone from mainly agricultural to industrial, from rural to urban, and from extended families in which generations stayed together to what we now call the nuclear family, of parents and children alone. Americans who worked in factories or offices could easily find themselves out of a job in economic hard times, and when they retired they couldn’t fall back on their families as their parents had. Also, people were living longer. That all added up to more and more people facing long old ages without any resources.</p>
<h2>A timeline of Social Security</h2>
<p><span style="font-size:.8em;">Click on the arrows or dates to scroll through key moments in this interactive timeline.</span></p>
<div id="containertimeline">
<div id="timeline">
<ul id="dates" class="timelineul">
<li><a class="selected" href="#1889">1889</a></li>
<li><a href="#1933">1933</a></li>
<li><a href="#1934">1934</a></li>
<li><a href="#19341">1934</a></li>
<li><a href="#1935">1935</a></li>
<li><a href="#1940">1940</a></li>
<li><a href="#1941">1941</a></li>
<li><a href="#1944">1944</a></li>
<li><a href="#1950">1950</a></li>
<li><a href="#1956">1956</a></li>
<li><a href="#1961">1961</a></li>
<li><a href="#1972">1972</a></li>
<li><a href="#1977">1977</a></li>
<li><a href="#1983">1983</a></li>
<li><a href="#1993">1993</a></li>
<li><a href="#2000">2000</a></li>
<li><a href="#2005">2005</a></li>
<li><a href="#2008">2008</a></li>
<li><a href="#2010">2010</a></li>
<li><a href="#2011">2011</a></li>
<li><a href="#20112">2011</a></li>
<li><a href="#20113">2011</a></li>
</ul>
<ul id="issues_timeline">
<li id="1889" class="selected"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/bismarck.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>European inspiration</h1>
<p>German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck passes an old-age insurance program that becomes a model for Britain and other European nations.</li>
<li id="1933"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/townsend.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>An early American plan</h1>
<p>Retired doctor Francis E. Townsend devises a program—funded by a two percent national sales tax—that would pay every American over 60 a pension of $200 a month that had to be spent within 30 days.</li>
<li id="1934"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/long.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Protection for all</h1>
<p>Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long launches the Share Our Wealth Society, which calls on the government to guarantee every family an annual income of at least $2,000.</li>
<li id="19341"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/perkins.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Talks grow serious</h1>
<p>Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins heads a committee that recommends a federal social insurance plan, which includes unemployment insurance and &#8220;old-age&#8221; security.</li>
<li id="1935"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/roosevelt.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>The beginning</h1>
<p>Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act on August 14. Payroll taxes are first collected in 1937.</li>
<li id="1940"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/fuller.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>MONTHLY PAYMENTS start</h1>
<p>On January 31, Ida May Fuller becomes the first to receive a monthly check. The amount is $22.54.</li>
<li id="1941"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/roosevelt.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>The guarantee</h1>
<p>President Roosevelt is quoted as saying: &#8220;We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program.&#8221;</li>
<li id="1944"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/blank.png" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>The program grows</h1>
<p>Mary Thompson, a widow, is the one millionth Social Security recipient.</li>
<li id="1950"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/blank.png" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Inflation, duly noted</h1>
<p>Social Security adds a cost of living adjustment.</li>
<li id="1956"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/blank.png" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Help for the disabled</h1>
<p>Social Security is amended to provide monthly benefits to disabled workers ages 50 to 64 and for disabled adult children.</li>
<li id="1961"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/kennedy.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>An early retirement option</h1>
<p>President Kennedy signs an amendment permitting men to retire at 62 with a reduced benefit. (Women had been given this right in 1956.)</li>
<li id="1972"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/nixon.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>A better inflation plan</h1>
<p>President Nixon signs an amendment to make cost of living adjustments automatic.</li>
<li id="1977"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/blank.png" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>First fears of insolvency</h1>
<p>Legislation is enacted to raise taxes and scale back benefits.</li>
<li id="1983"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/reagan.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Money worries continue</h1>
<p>President Reagan signs a law taxing benefits. The retirement age is raised from 65 to 67, but not until 2000.</li>
<li id="1993"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/blank.png" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Still more concerns</h1>
<p>The taxable portion of benefits is raised from 50 percent to 85 percent.</li>
<li id="2000"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/clinton.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Staying on the job</h1>
<p>President Clinton signs a bill eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test (RET), allowing seniors who continue working to receive full benefits.</li>
<li id="2005"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/bush.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>The privatization effort</h1>
<p>After winning re-election, President Bush uses political capital to push for partial privatization—a program in which individuals would manage their own accounts. In the face of resistance from seniors and their advocacy groups, the plan slowly dies.</li>
<li id="2008"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/kirschling.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Generation Shift</h1>
<p>Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, generally recognized as the first-born member of the baby boom generation, receives her first Social Security check.</li>
<li id="2010"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/blank.png" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>A new insolvency threat</h1>
<p>The U.S. Deficit Commission, set up by President Obama, recommends raising the retirement age to 68 and reducing the annual cost of living increases. The plan is not adopted.</li>
<li id="2011"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/romney.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>The Challenge</h1>
<p>&#8220;There are one of two ways you can make Social Security work forever. One is to raise the retirement age by a year or two. The other is having slower growth in inflating the benefits of higher-income of Social Security recipients.&#8221; —Mitt Romney</li>
<li id="20112"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/perry.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>An outright attack</h1>
<p>Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Perry calls Social Security a &#8220;Ponzi scheme.&#8221;</li>
<li id="20113"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/obama.jpg" alt="" width="256" height="256" /><br />
<h1>Drawing a line in the sand</h1>
<p>&#8220;We should … strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.&#8221; —President Obama, State of the Union</li>
</ul>
<div id="grad_top"></div>
<div id="grad_bottom"></div>
<p><a id="next" href="#">+ </a><br />
<a id="prev" href="#">- </a></p>
<h3 id="prev_text">Click Arrow For Previous Event </h3>
<h3 id="next_text">Click Arrow For Next Event </h3>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>There were modest pensions for veterans and a few company pension plans, especially among railroads. After the Stock Market Crash of 1929 a few states tried to set up old-age pension systems, but didn’t have the power to effectively implement them. Most older Americans had nothing to fall back on. By 1934, it is estimated, more than half of the elderly in the U.S. were unable to support themselves.</p>
<p>Popular movements arose to challenge this dire situation and agitate for impossible solutions. Huey P. Long, then governor of Louisiana, started the Share Our Wealth Society, which called on the government to guarantee every family in the nation an income of at least $2,000 a year (about $33,000 today), plus a pension for everyone over 60 and confiscation of every personal fortune above $8 million. By 1935 Share Our Wealth had 7.7 million members. Francis E. Townsend, a broke 66-year-old retired doctor, launched a proposal in 1933 to pay every American over 60 $200 a month ($2,400 today) on the condition they spend the money within a month. The payments would be funded by a two percent national sales tax. He soon had millions of followers who organized Townsend Clubs across the country to promote his plan.</p>
<p>President Franklin D. Roosevelt said at one point, “The Congress can’t stand the pressure of the Townsend Plan unless we have a real old-age insurance system, nor can I face the country.” So, on June 8, 1934, he sent Congress a message urging it to enact “social insurance &#8230; to provide security against several of the great disturbing factors in life—especially those which relate to unemployment and old age.” He added that “lessons of experience are available from states, from industries, and from many nations of the civilized world.” He set up a committee of five cabinet-level officials headed by Labor Secretary Frances Perkins to come up with a plan.</p>
<p>The committee soon had a large staff and an array of subcommittees. The five officials divided their job into three parts, with one big group tackling unemployment insurance, one big group working on health insurance, and a much smaller group focusing on old-age security. The unemployment team bogged down in disputes, and the health care reformers were kept from doing much by opposition from the American Medical Association, which didn’t want doctors restrained by national regulation. The old-age group, however, came together on a plan where workers and their employers would each contribute, paycheck by paycheck, to a fund that would provide the workers a pension after they retired. It was a relatively moderate, conservative answer to the radical ideas of people like Long and Townsend.</p>
<p>At first the proposed Social Security law was attacked by liberals as doing too little and by conservatives as approaching socialism; but opposition faded, and President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act of 1935 on August 14 of that year. The law included unemployment insurance, aid to dependent children, and other elements, but its biggest feature was the old-age part we now think of as Social Security. Taxes for it were first collected in 1937, and for three years the trust fund was built up before the first monthly Social Security check was written in 1940, giving Ida May Fuller, a retired legal secretary in Ludlow, Vermont, $22.54.</p>
<p>The idea was not to provide a pension where people would always get back the amount they put in; rather it was to collect a pool of insurance money from people and return it to them if and when they needed it. Thus what you receive depends on when you stop working, and a disabled worker can start collecting early and end up getting more than that worker paid in. Originally the law required you not to work at all after 65 to get Social Security no matter how much you had paid in. This requirement was intended to remove older people from the labor pool, creating more jobs for the young. The law also excluded farm and transient workers, domestic servants, and anyone working for someone with fewer than 10 employees. Those people may have needed Social Security the most, but legislators believed the tax would be too hard to collect from them.</p>
<p>The system has been modified and expanded many times since its creation. In 1940 benefits were added for a survivor of a retiree who died. In 1950 cost of living raises were introduced. Disability coverage was added in 1954. Also, Medicare and Medicaid, begun in the 1960s, are both officially part of the Social Security System. In the 1970s fixes started being made to keep the system from losing money; in 1977 the tax rate was slightly increased and benefits were slightly reduced, and in 1983 the retirement age was raised (to eventually reach 67 for full benefits) while the payout for early retirees and people still working was reduced.</p>
<p>Because the nation is going through an enormous demographic change with aging baby boomers, none of those adjustments has made the system permanently sound. There are now more Americans over 65 than ever before to take money out of the system and not enough younger workers paying in to keep up. Social Security’s financing is in need of repair. Nonetheless, the system is hardly on the brink of collapse, as some claim.</p>
<p>Around 56 million Americans, a sixth of the population, received Social Security benefits in 2011. The system is paying them a total of $727 billion. After years of taking in more than it paid out and building up a surplus, the system has just begun to dip into that surplus—the “trust fund” of government bonds, now at a peak of $2.6 trillion. No one can say exactly how fast the trust fund will diminish, but the Social Security Administration and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) both estimate that if nothing is done it will last until around 2036. But even in that extreme case, Social Security will be able to pay out as much as it takes in. It just won’t be able to pay recipients 100 percent of what they get now; instead, they’ll get something like 76 percent.</p>
<p>How can the loss of money be stopped? There are four possible ways: raise the retirement age; reduce benefits or cost of living increases; raise the top income level for paying Social Security taxes; or raise the Social Security tax rate. If the tax rate were raised from its present 12.4 percent, half paid by employees and half by employers, to 14 percent, that would do it, according to the CBO. More likely is a mix of a smaller tax rise, a modest increase in the retirement age, and a rise in the cap on taxed salary.</p>
<p>In other words, Social Security has very real long-term funding problems, but it is not in a crisis that can’t be fixed. And as for those who say that its trust fund doesn’t really even exist because the government has spent all the money in it, in a sense that’s true—but it’s not a very meaningful sense. The trust fund’s money is all in government bonds, which pay an average of 2.76 percent. Any bond is, in effect, a loan of money to the bond’s issuer and only has value if the bond issuer can repay the loan. The bonds that compose the Social Security trust fund are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S., and it is almost universally agreed that the U.S. government is more dependable than any other issuer of bonds—or any other investment—on Earth. So the Social Security trust fund may not be 100 percent safe, but any other conceivable investment is probably less safe. That’s one reason why attempts to “privatize” Social Security—replacing the trust fund with individuals’ investments in stocks and other securities, such as President George W. Bush proposed in 2005—haven’t gone very far. After the recent stock market crash, privatization appeals to fewer people than ever.</p>
<p>And here’s a glimmer of good news in that long, uncertain future: Eventually, the flood of baby boomers will end, and older people won’t so greatly outbalance younger ones as they do in this unique period of history. So even if the next generation can’t retire quite as comfortably as Americans could in the unprecedentedly prosperous years since World War II, maybe the generation after that will be more comfortable again—as long as we don’t give up on a Social Security system that has worked wonders for millions of Americans for most of a century. There’s a reason it has been “the third rail of American politics” ever since House speaker Tip O’Neill first called it that in the 1980s: Everyone worries about it, but virtually no one wants to lose it.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/02/28/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/social-security.html">Social Security</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/02/28/in-the-magazine/trends-and-opinions/social-security.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Toward Abolishing Poverty</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/08/09/archives/abolishing-poverty.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=abolishing-poverty</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/08/09/archives/abolishing-poverty.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Zach Waltz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Archives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Depression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Henry Ford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poverty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Recession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=26125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>As we debate how to deal with recession during a time when government is increasingly responsible for alleviating poverty, we find it interesting that Henry Ford argued how business can abolish it.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/08/09/archives/abolishing-poverty.html">Toward Abolishing Poverty</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Henry Ford (July 30, 1863 – April 7, 1947), an entrepreneur in the automobile industry, wrote this article at the beginning of the Great Depression. As we debate how to deal with recession during a time when government is increasingly responsible for alleviating poverty, we find it interesting that Henry Ford argued how business can abolish it.</p>
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
<p><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/pdf-icon.png" alt="This is a PDF download.  You need Acrobat Reader in order to view this file." target="_blank" title="PDF download"/>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/henry-ford-toward-abolishing-poverty.pdf">Read  &#8220;Toward Abolishing Poverty,&#8221; by Henry Ford and Samuel Crowther.  Published August 16, 1930.</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/08/09/archives/abolishing-poverty.html">Toward Abolishing Poverty</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/08/09/archives/abolishing-poverty.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dismayed in the USA</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/07/07/in-the-magazine/letters/from-the-editor/july-august-2010.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=july-august-2010</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/07/07/in-the-magazine/letters/from-the-editor/july-august-2010.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:08:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steve George</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From the Editor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[editor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jul/Aug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[July/August]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=24641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>"There's one thing I'd really like to see made in America—more jobs," says Editor-in-Chief of The Saturday Evening Post in regards to the Jul/Aug feature stories. </p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/07/07/in-the-magazine/letters/from-the-editor/july-august-2010.html">Dismayed in the USA</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the this issue we have a story spotlighting products that are still made in the USA. When I first read the piece, I was pleased to see so many familiar things. But I was almost equally dismayed to find that certain names I expected to see on this list—makers of cars and planes and other big, impressive all-American goods—didn’t qualify because so much of their manufacturing or component parts now originate from overseas.</p>
<p>More than that, I found myself thinking about the one thing I’d really like to see made in America—more jobs.</p>
<p>So, where are they? It’s a question on a lot of minds, especially in the wake of economic conditions that saw nearly 7 million jobs vanish. When the 2009 multibillion dollar stimulus package was unveiled, the government promised that stimulus would create and save some 3.5 million jobs, but making that promise was much easier than actually keeping a job tally, and many believe that the actual number will ultimately fall short of the mark.</p>
<p>The pundits say things are getting better. But it’s hard to be upbeat about the economy when most</p>
<p>of us are still reeling from one of the worst downturns since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, stimulus funding to date seems to be favoring Wall Street more than Main Street. Small business, the very heart of American private enterprise, is also the engine that drives the creation of</p>
<p>new jobs, yet recovery funds don’t seem to be making their way down to entrepreneurs—and the people they might employ—with a speed or efficiency that has made a real difference yet. Until it does—if it does—it’s hard to look on the bright side.</p>
<p>But it is surely there. While we may lament our ongoing economic woes, there’s something about tough times that brings out the best in us, that makes us roll up our sleeves and work harder, like the men and women profiled in writer Doug Donaldson’s story, “Enterprising Endurance.” Reading their stories reminded me that even in difficult times, America has an abundance of ambition, motivation, and even optimism. Thankfully, these things, too, are still made in the USA.</p>
<p>Stephen C. George</p>
<p>Editor-in-Chief, <em>The Saturday Evening Post</em><br />
Pick up a copy of the Jul/Aug issue on newsstands at most major bookstores or click <a href="https://ssl.drgnetwork.com/ecom/sep/cgi/subscribe/order?org=SEP&#038;publ=SE">here</a><em> to subscribe and save.
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/07/07/in-the-magazine/letters/from-the-editor/july-august-2010.html">Dismayed in the USA</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/07/07/in-the-magazine/letters/from-the-editor/july-august-2010.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scandal and Frustration: Teapot Dome and the Call to Reform</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/09/archives/post-perspective/teapot-dome-scandal.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=teapot-dome-scandal</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/09/archives/post-perspective/teapot-dome-scandal.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:10:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Nilsson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post Perspective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1920s]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1924]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gifford Pinchot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[teapot dome scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren G. Harding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=23565</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A scandal hits Washington in the early 1920s. There's an investigation. Not much is done. Life goes on.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/09/archives/post-perspective/teapot-dome-scandal.html">Scandal and Frustration: Teapot Dome and the Call to Reform</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 1924, Gifford Pinchot was fed up with Washington&#8217;s corruption and mismanagement of resources. Writing for the <em>Post</em> in May of that year, he alluded to a dirty deal of 1921 that was still being investigated: the illegal sale of public resources at the Teapot Dome, Wyoming.</p>
<p>According to a recently written history, the theft was no slight bit of corruption. In fact, the orchestrators of the theft secured the nomination for President Harding knowing he would give a free hand to his supporter, New Mexico senator Albert B. Fall, who worked diligently to sell as many natural resources as he could grab.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;It was this policy of conservation which Albert B. Fall undertook to overthrow, and he wasted no time about it. Fall took office as Secretary of the Interior in March, 1921. By April first he had already launched the idea of transferring to his department the forests of Alaska, then under the wise and efficient care of the forest service in the Department of Agriculture. Along with this came the rumor of a transfer of naval oil reserves from the Navy Department to the Department of the Interior. The next month—May, 1921—that transfer was actually made.</p>
<p>&#8220;Soon afterward, Fall extended his scheme of transferring the Alaskan forests to his department to take in all the national forests, and was evidently making ready to include in his attack every natural resources that was under the control of his department already, or that could be brought under it.</p>
<p>&#8220;Mr. Fall was confident and ambitious, but he made one mistake. He took in too much territory. Moreover, he imagined that as a public official he still could live on the Three Rivers plane, and that the methods of the old frontier would go in Washington. He was seriously mistaken.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Fall made private deals with Harry Sinclair of Mammoth Oil Company and Edward Doheny of the Pan American Petroleum Company. In return for gifts of cash and no-interest, don&#8217;t-hurry-to-pay-it-back loans, Fall allowed Mammoth and Pan American to take the oil from the reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming, which were intended to fuel the U.S. Navy in wartime.</p>
<p><div id="attachment_23690" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 210px"><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/09/archives/retrospective/teapot-dome-scandal.html/attachment/warren_g_harding" rel="attachment wp-att-23690"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/warren_g_harding-200x200.jpg" alt="" title="President Warren Harding" width="200" height="200" class="size-thumbnail wp-image-23690" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">President Warren G. Harding</p></div></p>
<p>The deal came to light. The public was outraged. Washington investigated. President Harding died before the inquiry reached him. No one was imprisoned for the crime except the fall guy; Albert B. Fall served one year in prison.</p>
<p>To the American public, the conclusion was as unsatisfying as that of the Enron scandal of 2001. Enron had grown from a pipeline company to a massive energy trader, but suddenly collapsed in a cloud of fraud, scandal, and suspicions of collusion with Washington insiders. Enron&#8217;s president, Ken Lay, died shortly before he was to be sentenced for his role in the collapse, which destroyed the jobs and pensions of 4000 workers.</p>
<p>Gifford Pinchot, in his 1924 <em>Post</em> article, was rightly scornful of corrupt business practices, but he unleashed his full wrath on Washington legislators who cooperated with such practices. His words, written 86 years ago, seem to capture a spirit very much alive today.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Washington has been adrift. Some of the leaders of the people have gone astray. They thought the Ten Commandments had lost their force. It would be safe to wager that some of them think otherwise today, and safer still to believe that the American people see, as they seldom have seen before, the need for honesty in government; and are determined, as they seldom have been before, that honesty in government heneceforth shall prevail.</p>
<p>&#8220;It would be foolish to believe that the various investigating committees have found or will ever find all the dishonesty and betrayal that have been going on in Washington.</p>
<p>&#8220;What the country needs is a revival of faith in its Government. But there can be no such revival until the Government is worth believing in. There is no way the Government can be restored to public confidence unless the men who defiled it are thoroughly cleaned out.</p>
<p>&#8220;The breakdown of government machinery always stirs up the remedy brokers, whose confidence in any good-for-what-ails-you cure-all is the greater the less it has ever been tried. But the remedy does no lie in communism or Bolshevism or any other ism of the kind. It lies in a return to the simple, old-time, dependable virtues of personal and official honesty, fidelity and loyalty to the United States.</p>
<p>&#8220;Many years ago I was riding with a lumberman through the timbered mountains of Western North Caroline. He was no great talker, and neither of us had spoken for a long time, when suddenly he burst out: &#8220;Say, there&#8217;s a lot of good readin&#8217; in the Bible, ain&#8217;t there?&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes; and a lot of it applies to the situation at Washington today. The trouble is perfectly diagnosed and the remedy accurately prescribed: &#8220;Thou shalt not steal.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/09/archives/post-perspective/teapot-dome-scandal.html">Scandal and Frustration: Teapot Dome and the Call to Reform</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/09/archives/post-perspective/teapot-dome-scandal.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Convert Your IRA?</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/02/in-the-magazine/finance/convert-ira.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=convert-ira</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/02/in-the-magazine/finance/convert-ira.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Russell Wild, MBA</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finacial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRA conversion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roth IRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traditional IRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=21727</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>3 questions to ask yourself before moving to a Roth IRA.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/02/in-the-magazine/finance/convert-ira.html">Should You Convert Your IRA?</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Traditional IRA. Roth IRA. What’s the difference? And should you, as many headlines have recently suggested, swap one for the other?</p>
<p>Only the first question is easy. The traditional IRA allows you to sock money away and get an immediate  tax deduction. But when you eventually withdraw the funds, you pay tax.</p>
<p>The Roth, in contrast, gives you no deduction stepping in, but you pay zero tax when taking the money out. In other words, the traditional IRA offers tax-deferred growth; the Roth offers tax-free growth.</p>
<p>The ability to convert from the traditional to the Roth is nothing new. That’s been allowed since 1998. As of January 1, 2010, however, there is no longer a $100,000 income cap on who can convert to a Roth. Now anyone can. All you have to do is pony up the taxes due. But just because you can convert does not mean that you should.</p>
<p>“For many people the conversion can make enormous sense. For others it can be a disaster,” says Robert Keebler, CPA, MST, a partner in the accounting firm of Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP, in Appleton, Wisconsin.</p>
<p>Which group are you in? Here’s how to tell:</p>
<h3>Will your future tax rate go up?</h3>
<p>With the federal debt mounting and personal income tax rates lower than they’ve been in decades, taxes overall are likely to rise. But what about your personal tax bracket? That is perhaps the single biggest consideration in deciding whether to convert.</p>
<p>“If you are paying 30 percent in taxes today, or 30 percent tomorrow, you are, in a strict mathematical sense, going to be no better or worse off by converting,” says Keebler. If you expect your taxes to rise in future years, however, you are a good candidate for conversion. If you expect your taxes to fall, which might be the case for a highly paid professional looking to retire soon, the conversion will probably not make sense.</p>
<h3>When will you need the IRA funds?</h3>
<p>The longer you have before tapping the funds, the more the Roth can grow tax-free and the more the conversion will help secure your nest egg. If you plan to use the funds within the next three to seven years, converting to a Roth probably won’t work to your advantage, says Keebler. If, on the other hand, you plan to not touch the money for decades, or perhaps never touch the money—leaving it to your kids, for example—the Roth conversion may add substantially to family wealth, he says.</p>
<h3>Do you have the cash to pay the taxes now?</h3>
<p>If you convert, say, $20,000 of your traditional IRA to a Roth this year (you can choose to convert all or part of your traditional IRA), you will likely owe income taxes (both federal and state) on the $20,000. If you are in the 30 percent total tax bracket—assuming the $20,000 doesn’t push you up into a higher tax bracket—you’ll have to cough up an extra $6,000 ($20,000 x 30 percent) by tax time. Or, you can take advantage of a special law currently in effect that allows you to defer recognizing the conversion income until you file your 2011 and 2012 tax forms. “Either way, the conversion will be more advantageous if you have the cash outside of your IRA to pay the tax,” says Scott Jacobsmeyer, CFP, president of Argent Wealth Management in Round Rock, Texas. In addition, he warns, if you pay the tax due out of the IRA and you are not yet 59 1/2, you may be subject to a 10 percent penalty.</p>
<p>Fortunately, you don’t need to figure this all out today. To convert for tax year 2010, you need to make your move by the end of December. And there’s always next year … and the year after that. “In fact,” says Jacobsmeyer, “for many people, partial conversions over a number of years (so you’re not taking too big a tax hit in any one year) might be the best strategy of all.”</p>
<p><div class="recipe"><h2>Conversion Calculators</h2></p>
<p>Just about every brokerage house now offers Roth-conversion calculators  online (check the sites below). “The calculators can be useful tools and a good place to start,” says certified  financial planner Scott Jacobsmeyer. But he warns that they all use assumptions that may be true for the masses, but not necessarily for you. “To get the clearest picture possible, you should consult a financial professional. The question as to whether to convert is, unfortunately, rather complex.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.archimedes.com/ vanguard/roth/RothConsumer.phtml">Vanguard.com</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.individual.troweprice.com/public/Retail/Retirement/IRA/Roth-IRA-Conversion">Troweprice.com</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.dinkytown.net/java/RothIRA.html">Dinkytown.com</a></p>
<p></div><br />
<em><strong>Russel Wild, MBA,</strong> is a NAPFA-registered financial adviser who has written nearly two dozen books, including</em> Index Investing for Dummies<em> and</em> Bond Investing for Dummies</p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/02/in-the-magazine/finance/convert-ira.html">Should You Convert Your IRA?</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/06/02/in-the-magazine/finance/convert-ira.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Political Debate</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/08/22/archives/ben-franklin-blog/political-debate.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=political-debate</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/08/22/archives/ben-franklin-blog/political-debate.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Nilsson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[What Would Ben Franklin Say?]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benjamin Franklin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=10489</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Of course, it would be interesting to know Benjamin Franklin’s opinion about a new, government-run health care program. But we believe he would want to address the issue of civil discourse before the problem concerning medical insurance.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/08/22/archives/ben-franklin-blog/political-debate.html">Political Debate</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The news has recently been full of raucous town hall meetings and angry protesters. These meetings with Congressional representatives—once quiet, sparsely attended affairs—have become scenes of shouting, disruptions, threats, accusations, and great passion.</p>
<p>We haven’t seen protests of such ferocity since the 1960s, when young Americans—perhaps some of the same people protesting health care policy today—disrupted cities and college campuses.</p>
<p>Of course, it would be interesting to know Benjamin Franklin’s opinion about a new, government-run health care program. But we believe he would want to address the issue of civil discourse before the problem concerning health insurance.</p>
<p><strong>Don’t Be Fooled by the Stuffy Portraits</strong></p>
<p>Franklin was a man of strong passions. Yet he forced himself to shape his outrage for effectiveness. He succeeded so well that he became America’s first, and perhaps most important, diplomat. His persuasive power secured the vital support of France, which proved essential for the success of our revolution.</p>
<p>He was not always such an effective speaker. His mastery began when, as a young man, a Quaker friend “kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud; that my pride showed itself frequently in conversation; that I was not content with being in the right when discussing any point, but was overbearing, and rather insolent, of which he convinced me by mentioning several instances; I determined endeavoring to cure myself, if I could, of this vice.”</p>
<p><!--ben-->“I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it. I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself … the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as ‘certainly,’ ‘undoubtedly,’ etc., and I adopted, instead of them, ‘I conceive,’ ‘I apprehend,’ or ‘I imagine a thing to be so or so,’ or ‘it so appears to me at present.’”<!--//ben--></p>
<p>Being right, Franklin discovered, wasn’t enough. If he wanted the support of reasonable people, he had to appeal to their reason.</p>
<p><!--ben-->“When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc.”<!--//ben--></p>
<p>The benefit, Franklin discovered, was far more than a control of his passions. It earned him an unexpected persuasiveness.</p>
<p><!--ben-->“I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.</p>
<p>“And this mode, which I at first put on with some violence to my natural inclination, became at length so easy, and so habitual to me, that perhaps for these fifty years past no one has ever heard a dogmatical expression escape me. And to this habit … I think it principally owing that I had early so much weight with my fellow-citizens when I proposed new institutions, or alterations in the old, and so much influence in public councils when I became a member; for I was but a bad speaker, never eloquent, subject to much hesitation in my choice of words, hardly correct in language, and yet I generally carried my points.”<!--//ben--></p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/08/22/archives/ben-franklin-blog/political-debate.html">Political Debate</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/08/22/archives/ben-franklin-blog/political-debate.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Classic Post Election Covers</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2008/11/03/archives/post-perspective/classic-post-election-covers.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=classic-post-election-covers</link>
		<comments>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2008/11/03/archives/post-perspective/classic-post-election-covers.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:48:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Perry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post Perspective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2009 presidential election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society and Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://72.3.135.59/wordpress/?p=511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Relive some election memories with this collection of Post covers.</p><p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2008/11/03/archives/post-perspective/classic-post-election-covers.html">Classic Post Election Covers</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Relive some election memories with this collection of <em>Post </em>covers.</p>
<p><div id="attachment_2533" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_aug_18_56_election_cover.jpg" alt="August 18, 1956" title="illustration_2009_03_19_aug_18_56_election_cover" width="600" height="774" class="size-full wp-image-2533" /><p class="wp-caption-text">August 18, 1956</p></div><div id="attachment_2764" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_nov_7_1936_election_cover1.jpg" alt="November 7, 1936" title="illustration_2009_03_19_nov_7_1936_election_cover1" width="600" height="797" class="size-full wp-image-2764" /><p class="wp-caption-text">November 7, 1936</p></div><div id="attachment_2541" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_oct_30_48_election_cover.jpg" alt="October 30, 1948" title="illustration_2009_03_19_oct_30_48_election_cover" width="600" height="793" class="size-full wp-image-2541" /><p class="wp-caption-text">October 30, 1948</p></div><div id="attachment_2539" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_nov_12_60_election_cover.jpg" alt="November 12, 1960" title="illustration_2009_03_19_nov_12_60_election_cover" width="600" height="778" class="size-full wp-image-2539" /><p class="wp-caption-text">November 12, 1960</p></div><div id="attachment_2538" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_nov_12_55_election_cover.jpg" alt="November 12, 1955" title="illustration_2009_03_19_nov_12_55_election_cover" width="600" height="776" class="size-full wp-image-2538" /><p class="wp-caption-text">November 12, 1955</p></div><div id="attachment_2537" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_nov_8_58_election_cover.jpg" alt="November 8, 1958" title="illustration_2009_03_19_nov_8_58_election_cover" width="600" height="779" class="size-full wp-image-2537" /><p class="wp-caption-text">November 8, 1958</p></div><div id="attachment_2535" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_nov_4_44_election_cover.jpg" alt="November 4, 1944" title="illustration_2009_03_19_nov_4_44_election_cover" width="600" height="792" class="size-full wp-image-2535" /><p class="wp-caption-text">November 4, 1944</p></div><div id="attachment_2534" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_mar_6_20_election_cover.jpg" alt="March 6, 1920" title="illustration_2009_03_19_mar_6_20_election_cover" width="600" height="818" class="size-full wp-image-2534" /><p class="wp-caption-text">March 6, 1920</p></div><div id="attachment_2533" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 610px"><img src="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/illustration_2009_03_19_aug_18_56_election_cover.jpg" alt="August 18, 1956" title="illustration_2009_03_19_aug_18_56_election_cover" width="600" height="774" class="size-full wp-image-2533" /><p class="wp-caption-text">August 18, 1956</p></div></p>
<p><a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2008/11/03/archives/post-perspective/classic-post-election-covers.html">Classic Post Election Covers</a>

<a href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com">The Saturday Evening Post</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2008/11/03/archives/post-perspective/classic-post-election-covers.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
