The Hell You Say, Harry.
The FPA [Former Presidents Act] came into being because former president Harry Truman made a series of representations to both Congress and the public regarding the supposedly problematic financial situation he faced, during the five and half years that passed between the end of his presidency and the statute’s enactment. These representations provided the purported factual basis for enacting the statute in the first place; furthermore, these financial difficulties continue to be cited whenever the fact that taxpayers provide millions of dollars per year to ex-presidents becomes a matter of public attention and comment. Indeed, more than 60 years after the FPA’s enactment, Truman’s financial struggles remain essentially the only justification that is ever put forward, in either the academic or popular literature, for the existence of the extremely generous benefits package all former presidents continue to enjoy.
As we shall see, the supposedly difficult post-presidential economic situation faced by Harry Truman was a complete fabrication, created by Truman himself via what can only be characterized as a series of shockingly dishonest and radically misleading statements to Congress and the public. Drawing on recently released documents from Bess Truman’s personal files, this Article demonstrates that, contrary to the claims of all his major biographers11 – who seem to have relied exclusively on Truman’s own representations regarding his financial situation when evaluating it — Harry Truman was in fact a very wealthy man on the day he left the White House. Part of the reason he was so wealthy is that, during his elected term, he misappropriated essentially all of a government expense account worth $2.2 million in 2021 dollars. He then became much wealthier shortly afterwards, by cannily exploiting his status as a former president to greatly increase his already great wealth.
This is from Paul Campos, “The Truman Show: The Fraudulent Origins of the Former Presidents Act.” It was published on July 28 and revised today.
Campos is a law professor who understands the importance of adjusting for inflation. He lays out how Truman biographer David McCullough and many others were bamboozled by Truman’s sob story.
Read the whole thing.
I’ve always thought the the huge payments to past presidents were and are obscene. The one justification always given, as Campos notes above, was the “Truman was poor” justification. Not even close. Even before the 1958 law, he was a multimillionaire in today’s dollars.
READER COMMENTS
John Hall
Aug 26 2021 at 8:49pm
I view the large payments to former Presidents as insurance that they won’t try to upset the constitutional order when they leave office. Before this act, if they try anything untoward and it succeeds then the have a big payoff and if they fail then there is no penalty to them. After this act, if they do nothing, then they get the payout, if they do anything untoward then they get a big payoff but if they fail then they would likely lose those payouts. If anything, the payments should be larger the wealthier a President is (though that’s got bad optics, particularly given Trump).
Jon Murphy
Aug 26 2021 at 9:37pm
I don’t know, John. That seems like a solution to a problem that didn’t exist. The Office of the President existed for nearly 200 years (170, to be precise) before the passage of the FPA. Did any of them even so much as sniff at doing that might “upset the constitutional order”?
robc
Aug 27 2021 at 9:05am
John Tyler served in the Confederate House of Representatives.
Jon Murphy
Aug 27 2021 at 9:12am
And?
robc
Aug 27 2021 at 10:03am
Depending on your views of the constitutionality of succession, that qualifies as “upsets the constitutional order”.
Aaron Burr would be a 2nd example, but he was only VEEP.
Jon Murphy
Aug 27 2021 at 10:54am
Still not following.
Yeah, I don’t follow this example, either.
robc
Aug 27 2021 at 11:10am
Tyler: fought a revolution against the US government (upset the constitutional order). Also, in case my spelling was what was causing you to not understand, I meant secession, not succession.
Burr: Was tried for treason for attempting to create a new country within the Louisiana Purchase. Was acquitted as the evidence was questionable at best (and was thrown out by the courts), but he had some shady stuff going on that probably would have upset the constitutional order.
Jon Murphy
Aug 27 2021 at 11:21am
Oooooooooooh, now I follow. With Burr, I thought you were referring to the dueling.
With Tyler, I don’t think that really counts. I mean, he wasn’t claiming legitimacy or anything like that. In fact, he worked hard to compromise and prevent secession.
BC
Aug 26 2021 at 10:53pm
What presidents spend in office costs taxpayers a lot more than what presidents receive after they leave office. I would like to incentivize presidents to save taxpayer money by paying them a pension based on how much less their spending in office is relative to some benchmark. The less they spend, the higher their pension.
Presidents are a particularly good target for spending incentives because they have veto power over Congressional spending bills. In fact, back when we actually cared about budgets and spending, I think one proposed budget reform was to give the President a line-item veto on spending bills.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Aug 26 2021 at 11:14pm
I always thought that Grant was the poster boy for penurious ex-Presidents.
Alan Goldhammer
Aug 27 2021 at 8:31am
I was going to post the same. I think he wrote his autobiography to make money as he had very little when he left office.
robc
Aug 27 2021 at 9:06am
If Lincoln had only sent those crates of booze, Grant might have had more money.
David Henderson
Aug 27 2021 at 11:01am
Grant is the poster boy. But things were quite different in the 20th century when ex-Presidents had more earning power. More important, it was Truman, not Grant, who was trotted out to make the case for these large annual payments.
zeke5123
Aug 27 2021 at 9:43am
Isn’t there an argument that paying ex-Presidents is a good way to reduce corruption? For example, if we could pay Presidents, I don’t know, $10m p.a. if they agree not to take a cent for any work post-Presidency, then perhaps you reduce corruption while in office (i.e., wink wink we have this great job for you after you leave office — unrelated we also have a problem with XYZ).
This doesn’t happen today but the pension I don’t think is subjective to the clause I suggest.
Vivian Darkbloom
Aug 28 2021 at 7:12am
In 2016 a bill to reform the Former President’s Act passed Congress (reducing benefits) but was vetoed by President Obama:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/22/statement-press-secretary-presidential-allowance-modernization-act-2016
The promise by Obama to sign a different reform bill if subsequently presented at a time when he was almost out the door rang a bit hollow to me…
David Henderson
Aug 28 2021 at 10:07am
Yes. Paul Campos discusses that in the article.
Vivian Darkbloom
Aug 28 2021 at 2:22pm
I see that now. I hadn’t read past the abstract. The point is worth repeating, though: the rot may have started with Truman, but it certainly didn’t end with him. Obama could have covered his lost first year revenue with a couple of speeches, easily.
David Henderson
Aug 29 2021 at 5:59pm
I agree that it’s worth repeating.
Brian
Aug 28 2021 at 9:48pm
Apparently, when he said “the buck stops here, he meant it.” 🙂
David Henderson
Aug 29 2021 at 5:58pm
Good one!
Comments are closed.