Pensions' Progress

Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, which share a Congressional district in Michigan, last week elected a new Representative to succeed Henry M. Kimball who died last October.* Since Democrats have a House majority of 205 seats it made no national difference whether a Democrat or a Republican was elected. Yet rare indeed was the Congressman who failed to take notice of last week's Michigan returns, and when the Republican nominee was elected many a Republican and many a Democrat quaked miserably. The significance of the Michigan election was that it was the first victory of a candidate east of the Rocky Mountains who campaigned openly for old Dr. Francis E. Townsend's plan for $200-a-month pensions for all good citizens over 60 (TIME, Nov. 4 et ante). Hundreds of Congressmen could foresee the ominous days next autumn when they would have to stand for or against the rising tide of Townsendism.

In Michigan the tide did not rise very high. Verner Wright Main, a Battle Creek lawyer, won the Republican nomination last month in a five-sided primary because he had strong Townsend support. Dr. Townsend made two speeches in the district favoring Nominee Main's election. Republican Main polled 25,000 votes to his Democratic opponent's 11,000. However, the Michigan district in question has been consistently Republican for the last 36 years. Though a snowstorm on the morning of election day doubtless reduced the size of last week's vote, Townsendism as a vote-getter made no impressive record considering that, of Republican Main's predecessors, one in 1934 polled 41,000 votes, another in 1932 polled 49,000 votes. Moreover, the Main campaign was endorsed by Michigan's Governor Fitzgerald and Senator Vandenberg, both of whom are opposed to Townsendism. Winner Main himself estimated, after the election, that about 8,000 to 10,000 of his votes derived from his support of the Townsend Plan.

Of the 435 men who are elected to the House of Representatives next year, a goodly proportion realize that 10,000 votes more or less may make the difference between their winning or losing a $10,000 job. Under such circumstances it would be logical for 90% of the candidates to favor the Townsend Plan, but for the fact that 90% of the candidates also realize that the Townsend Plan is as likely to turn and bite its supporters as its opponents. To most members of Congress it is self-evident that the Townsend Plan is economically unworkable, that $20,000,000,000 a year in pensions would ruin the Treasury. In some districts voters would promptly defeat any candidate who espoused such a proposal. In all districts they would eventually annihilate those who brought such a thing upon the country.

Representative-elect Main tacitly deprecated the issue after his victory. Said he: "The Townsend clubs endorsed my candidacy after it was under way, but I entered the race at the urging of disinterested friends as the candidate of no group or faction. In the critical session of Congress just ahead I shall give my best efforts to representing all the people of the district on the various issues of domestic and foreign policy that may arise."

Fortnight ago in Washington, Dr. Townsend announced that the Townsendites would put a complete ticket in the field in 1936, with candidates for President, Vice President and Congress. Last week in Chicago Dr. Townsend pulled his punch on this third party threat by declaring: "This does not necessarily mean that in all States it would be necessary to exercise the third party prerogative. It is our hope that the attitude of one or both of the old political parties shall change toward the Townsend Plan and that their espousal of our cause will make it unnecessary to exercise the rights granted by filing as an independent or third party."

Political Townsendites were evidently out to emulate the efforts of the Anti-Saloon League and American Legion to win endorsements from candidates in exchange for votes. First step was to send letters to every member of Congress asking: "Can we rely upon your help to pass a bill embodying the Townsend Plan at the coining session? Yes. . . . No. ... In the issue of The National Townsend Weekly of Dec. 30 we will publish either your answer to this questionnaire or that you failed to answer. Please be assured that we desire only to correctly inform our followers of your attitude."

Last week in Battle Creek a rival to the Townsend Plan was broadcast. Its name: "Retire at Birth Plan." Its terms: to give every newborn child a $20,000 note payable by the U. S. in 20 years. The note would bear 3% interest ($50 monthly) payable to the child's parents. This $600 a year, plus $1,000 a year for a sinking fund, would cost the Government only $1,600 a year per pensioner compared to $2,400 under the Townsend Plan. If a boy and girl married at 20 they would have $40,000 capital to live on, so that they would never have to work. And as they procreated their income would mount $50 a month for each child.

* For the last 15 years a curious fatality has dogaed the Representatives of the district. Five in succession have died in office: 1) William Horace Frankhauser committed suicide in 1921: 2) John M. C. Smith died in 1923 after serving 21 months: 3) Arthur Bruce Williams died after an operation in 1925: 4) Joseph Lawrence Hooper lived more than eight years in office before expiring from a heart attack in 1934: 5) Mr. Kimball survived eleven months before succumbing.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.