Harry Truman, from Missouri , was a different kind of President. He probably made as many important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

Historians have written the only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri . On top of that, his wife inherited the house from her Mother.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There were no Secret Service following them.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, 'You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale.'

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, 'I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise.'

He never owned his own home and as president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, 'My choices early in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference.

How true!

Now there's a saying that holds true!!

Keith

Actually, he rode the train back to his hometown, and even presidents today have to pay for personal travel and food expenses themselves. He also, after leaving office, inked a book deal on his memoirs that padded his wallet 'til the end of his life.

But still I get your point.

Side note: If The House of Representatives was apportioned as was originally drawn out in the constitution it would have almost 10,000 members today. It was limited to 435 in 1920 by guess what? An act of Congress just before the 1920 Census that dictates congressional apportionment. Maybe having 305,000,000 represented by a body from the 1920's designed to represent 90,000,000 has something to do with why our government is so corrupt.

Irie

You want MORE members of the House?

Absolutely.

There's supposed to be about one representative for every 30,000 American citizens to keep the Government more in line with the wishes of the people.

Imagine if every town had it's own Rep. It'd end Gerrymandering.

I'm all for more accurate representation.....do away with the existing electoral college and make it a proportional representation across the board.....no more "this State represents Mr. X", rather 64% goes to Mr. X and 36% to Ms. Y.........or better yet popular vote rules....Do we live in 2008 or not? We DO have the technology. Quit screwing around with pandering to the big marble bag holders and ignoring the rest. THEN you can say you are represented.

Slab: I agree in part, but if you do that the big cities will rule and rural areas will be screwed. Would be a big victroy for liberals.

Dave,
I hear the arguement that the liberals will control the presidency if we get rid of the electoral college, but I don't get it. Right now if 51% of a few elect states decide they want to vote for president, they can control it. I don't have the numbers, but what would happen if 51% of California, Florida, Texas, New York, Ohio and maybe one or two other states voted for a liberal, but 100% of the rest voted for a conservative? Not saying this will happen, but as more and more people move to the coasts, it seems more and more likely that a very few states will control the election. If these states are winner take all, then the chance grows more and more likely that a minority liberal will eventually be able to win every time under the electoral college. Under a true majority win, the smaller states may not get much attention, but their vote is more likely to count. Or am I missing the bigger picture. If it wasn't more winner takes all states, the picture would change.

As it stands right now, the Democrats are getting pretty good majorities in the biggest states, and while the Republicans are winning the flyover states, they're not winning them by big margins...I don't think it would change the results that much.

All of the states McCain won would have their electoral votes divided almost evenly between the Dems and Reps (more like 55-45 at best, 52-48 in most, 50.5 to 49.5 in many), and the Dems would still take the majority in the bigger states, all of which have far more people and electoral votes.

So long as the voting is population based (whether it be proportional or 100% electoral), the bigger population areas are going to carry the day, and they are preponderantly Democratic voters.

The fact of the matter is that there are more Democratic voters than Republican voters right now...no matter how you try to gerrymand or carve it up, they've got more votes...period.

If I were a Republican I'd worry more about winning elections by putting up good candidates who have virtually nothing to do with how Republican politics has been run the past 20 years...put up some actual conservatives and talk about what you have to offer, rather than put up fiscally irresponsible anti-civil rights folks who are far more worried about someone having an abortion or cornholing another dude than they are with actually moving our country forward.

In the long run policy will always trump politics...we just went through a period of Rovian politics trumping any meaningful policy, and look where that got us...if the Repubs are to start winning again they need a wholesale change in policy, one that is not tied to the fundie whackjob base, and one that returns to taking care of our money, and making sure business and banks do that, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, spoken like a political science major.

Sg

Not sure if that's a good thing...all the poli-sci majors I knew in college were getting their degrees in that field because it had the shortest list of requirements to graduate.

Fish on...

Todd

"...shortest list of requirements to graduate."

That explains a lot considering most politicians in office. Maybe they should have stuck around for a degree in Journalism.