The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Inaugural Address of Joseph P. Jarvis, 4 March 1921​

Four years ago, I stood before you, the American people, to swear to you and to God to defend this nation; during the course of my administration, the Great War drew to a close, American soldiers, our sons, returned home from the bloodied fields of France, and America, as a whole, has been made secure from war. Not only have we found ourselves free from war, this great Union has continued to grow economically and industrially; the poorest men in this nation today are wealthier than most men anywhere else on Earth, and this prosperity has come from a free market; these next four years, I will continue to champion a free market, free trade, and free people. Together, we can continue to make this nation even greater!

Bills have already been introduced to reform our voting franchise, to create a more effective system in place for our grandchildren; Secretary Little is soon to propose amendments concerning civil rights, and I, this very evening, will send my economic proposal to the Congress. This will be an era of growth, of freedom, and of peace.

For many years, our Constitution, and the ideals of our Founders have been pushed aside in favour of ‘new ideas;’ I these four years as a chance to return to the grand experiment of liberty, opposed to the centralism and expansion of government, or the pursuance of great and terrible wars, or the foolish insistence on holding to the darkest shadows of the past, will make America, and the world, stronger and a better home for freedom.

In this great age, this Age of Liberty, I will begin a era of limited government, a cessation of great federal power in favour of individual freedom and states’ rights, whilst promoting freedom and equality of opportunity and law whenever and wherever possible; any colonial holdings ((is we still have any control of Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, since I have continually forgotten what we’ve done with them)) will be granted either full statehood, or total independence! A League of American States, if one is supported by our Congress (for I will never extend the power of the executive into the realm of the legislature like some of my predecessors) will help to bring stability and free trade to all of the hemisphere, while guaranteeing the rights of those sovereign nations, and America will change course from Imperialism, that long and dark path to tyranny and decadence, to the luminous and beauteous path of Freedom, of Self-Determination, and of Non-Intervention!

I said this four years ago, and with all my heart, I say this again; thank you, all of you, not only for supporting me, but for making America freer, stronger, and greater than ever before.

-----------------------------------------------------

I will maintain my current cabinet appointments; while some of them may not have supported me in the last election, they have proven themselves capable in these four years, and to simply toss aside their talent for political purposes would be a grave mistake. If Mr. Horshington so wishes, he can remain the Secretary of State.

-----------------------------------------------------

Economic Reform Act of 1921

Article I
1. The tax rate for all classes is to be limited to a maximum of 10% during peacetime.
2. During wartime, the rate may be raised to 20% for the duration of the war.
3. Tariffs cannot be raised above 5% during peacetime.
4. They can be raised to a maximum of 7% during wartime.

Article II
1. The Federal Reserve will be dismantled.
2. A gold/silver standard will be written into law.

Article III
1. Federal interference in loans and other areas of banking will be ended immediately,
2. Federal interference in business will be repealed (the exceptions will be in unemployment aid and in safety standards, which will be transitioned over to the states over the decade).

((Just gonna say it right now, there's no way in hell this is going to pass.))

((Yeah, I don't expect it to either, but I'm going to try, darn it!))

Congratulations, President Jarvis, on a well-fought campaign and on attaining your second term as President. Though I may (strongly, vehemently, with a passion equal to the heat of a thousand burning suns) oppose your domestic policies, I and the Progressive Party nevertheless look forward to working with you to make this a stronger, better America.

On that note, let me be the first to cast a vote on the Economic Reform Act: No. This is perhaps the least aptly-named piece of legislation I've ever seen as an elected official, which I predict would bring the federal government to a screeching halt and usher in an era of underfunded assistance programs, strangled public works efforts, and a calamity of massive proportions, followed by Day 2. I would sooner cut off one of my limbs or excise a major organ from my body than allow this bullet to the head of a great legacy of statesmen to become law.

In any event, President Jarvis, congratulations yet again! I look forward to another four years of vigorous debate.

Michael Sullivan, Governor of Illinois

NAY to all voting acts except the prisoner voting act, on which I vote YEA. I also definitely do not approve of the Economic Reform Act. Let us hope this is a fruitful next four years for our nation. And lastly, warm thoughts to all patriots on our Day of Independence.

In Service,
Walter Mandrake
Secretary for War

Even I cannot put into words how much I oppose the "Economic Reform Act", or describe how it shall ruin the social fabric of our nation.

I vote no to the Economic Reform Act, however i wish to remain Secretary of State, Mr. Jarvis
((i dont know why but i wanted to post this my shaked political career :Secretary of State to the Republic,Federals((secretly)),Republic,Radical-Progressive,Republican))

I vote YES on the economic reform! Finally some sense from our president! I hope he returns to be the libertarian hero of old, not the controversial figure of these last years.

Yes to the Economic Reform Act of 1921

I applaud the president's reasoned support of electoral reforms and civil rights, and I have high hopes for his public support for a League of American States. However, I have no support for this so called economic bill that would destroy the ability of the government to promote common security and well being of the nation as a whole. I do not support the forcing of arbitrary figures and unsustainable trivialities on our future generations - nor even on our current one. This is what happens when parties turn blindly to ideology rather than thought out policies and common sense.

Kaisersohaib said:

I vote no to the Economic Reform Act, however i wish to remain Secretary of State, Mr. Jarvis
((i dont know why but i wanted to post this my shaked political career :Secretary of State to the Republic,Federals((secretly)),Republic,Radical-Progressive,Republican))

Click to expand...

((It's no worse than ol' Ignacio Vallejo: Whig, Democratic, National Republican, States' Republican, Republican, New Democratic, Republican/New Democratic, New Democratic, Republican.))

I must agree with Ms Vallejo; this proposed economic reform is mere ideological nonsense, that constrains our country and threatens to deprive us of prosperity in an ever changing world. Indeed, this proposition threatens the great progress that has been made in this country over past decades. I would have hoped for better for the leader of the greatest country on earth, not least as he is renowned for the reasoned arguments he is forsaking in seeking some ideological folly.

My argument is entirely valid; I oppose military adventurism, and statism, and by limiting the power of government to tax its growth, and to dismantle the Federal Reserve (which I will do in this term regardless of this legislation), I would remove their funding and ensure that government remains limited. Furthermore, by promoting international cooperation, through free trade agreements, continental Leagues (European, American, African, and Asian Leagues to look after their own issues, rather than having America or Britain or Germany looking after everyone), and generally not engaging in imperialism that my predecessors have engaged in (which most of you have opposed, and have only happened because the federal government has been given more power to tax and to act aggressively) will simply not warrant high taxes, protective tariffs, or excessive spending.

And I must challenge your assertion that we've made progress; have we truly? We've engaged in more wars, lost millions more lives, and grossly expanded government authority at the expense of both the states and the people, which our great intellectuals, Jefferson, Madison, Clinton, and others warned against.

Furthermore, once we have reduced Federal interference in the market (which I will do in my four years), we will have little need to tax people; and considering how taxes result in less growth overall (since taking money from investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs, in favour of spending money on large programmes, warfare, and useless other such federal endeavours) we will only hamper growth in the future.

My next issue comes from the Federal Reserve interfering in interest rates, which it does seem to have authority on (unconstitutionally, I might add), could, and likely would, disrupt the natural order of the market (which most federal programmes do in some way, though less egregiously) and could lead to a depression or other form of economic retraction.

My proposal is not ideological nonsense; indeed, my ideas of self-control, limiting federal growth, and opposing greater spending for war or social welfare, is an entirely reasonable notion, one that all of our founders agreed with. And of one last note, we have low taxes in place, and an even lower tariff rate; simply writing those into law will ensure that, in peacetime, the tax rates will not rise to some unreasonable level.

I will remind President Jarvis that the Federal Reserve was established through an act of Congress and can only be dismantled through another act by the legislative branch or a determination by the judicial branch that the Reserve is unconstitutional. Given that both the Federal and Progressive parties, as well as moderates within your own Republican Party, oppose this legislation or anything like it, I sincerely doubt that such a promise can be kept barring some kind of military junta.

Furthermore, while your proposal to permanently cut taxes would indeed end military adventurism by reducing the American military to three men and a rowboat, it would also slash funding for necessary programs like old-age pensions, unemployment benefits, veterans' health-care, and federal infrastructure projects. While I am sure that privileged scions of political dynasties like the Jarvis family can afford to pay for their own roads and bridges, it is unlikely that the working man will be able to do the same without the federal government pooling funds from rich and poor alike. Another hidden "benefit" to this tax proposal is that it would dramatically reduce the responsibility of the wealthy and well-off from those privileged families to pay for frivolous expenses like health-care and worker safety for those born to less fortunate wombs.

This so-called 'tax fairness' is really nothing more than a transparent attempt to implement a permanent oligarchy in this country, anarcho-capitalism where the poor toil endlessly and the rich coast to prosperity on the backs of those less fortunate. It is a ridiculous idea cooked up in the salons and parlors of the well-off as a method to reward themselves for their success, whether earned or not, and appeals solely to those already benefiting from privilege. Were it possible to recall a sitting president, I would be the first to support such a motion, for President Jarvis' thin veneer of moderate respectability has been stripped away to reveal a craven, privilege-blinded Leviathan, seeking nothing more than a world where the strong eat the weak.

Firstly, you seem to misunderstand the idea of cooperation; in a global league, everyone would be responsible for everyone else and there are different parties that will enable proper debate to take place and action to be taken. By proposing regional instead of global league's, you are emasculating the global community of its power to act, promoting regional hegemony, which is not conductive to cooperation but reminiscent of the imperialism you rally against and isolating this country from the decisions that really matter, both here and for millions around the globe, which will inevitably take place in Europe.

Yes, we have made progress; though many have lost their lives in various wars, just or unjust, millions more would have died without the support of the government against poor working conditions, poverty and starvation. The franchise has been made universal, the security of our citizens has been assured, slavery has been abolished, worker manipulation has been reduced, trusts have been crushed, social and economic strike has been avoided by the actions of past federal governments, the freedoms we enjoy have been preserved and extended and life is better for it. Your assertion that federal endeavours have been made at the expense of the people is frankly untrue; maybe some people, I grant you, but not the poor or the hard-working or the entrepreneurial, only the repressive, selfish, power-craving rich and the social class you represent.

You are right that once you have dismantled the federal system you will have no need of taxation, but then you will have millions starving on the streets, living in overcrowded dwellings, left without health care or protection from emergencies. We will see deaths on a scale not seen since the black death. We will see inequality not seen since the stone ages. The President wants to take this country back in time and I for one will not let him.

The Federal Reserve is totally constitutional, otherwise it would have been rejected by the supreme court. Furthermore, it is the stability that the Reserve offers that will reduce economic turmoil in the future, not make it worse; if you want to find the problems that cause recessions, look to the tariffs that obstruct free trade or the speculation that makes unsustainable economic bubbles bound only to burst and unleash misery on the masses.

You fail to note that the states have taxes as well, and can fund roads and other infrastructure without federal intervention. Combined with some private roads and a little federal support, I am certain the roads will be maintained. Old-age pensions can be privately funded or provided by states, and without the risk of the federal government dipping into them for extra revenue; unemployment benefits would be reduced, yes, but combined with the likely job growth, and the fact that people will have more of their own money, and that goods would become cheaper due to more investment, the issue becomes less important; military pay will certainly be maintained, especially since our military has been, and will, to a lesser extent, continue to be downsized.

That you say letting people keep more of their hard-earned money is establishing a permanent oligarchy, or is a symbol of anarcho-capitalism, is interesting; would you rather run the risk of having total government installed? Or perhaps several wars would better suit you? The poor will not suffer; indeed, their workload will decrease from more investment, more efficiency, and an excess of opportunity. Private unions will remain in place to protect worker's rights, we will maintain our safety standards, and the poor will become more prosperous; will their growth be on par with the wealthy? I cannot say. Is that the issue? Not at all. Having more growth, more investment, and a system of natural business growth will promote more wealth, more prosperity, and a higher standard of living than ever before. We have already seen it in the past four years, despite recovering from wartime controls, and a corresponding dip in growth, every man, woman, and child in this nation is wealthier than before, and given the opportunity to further reduce the size of government, the scope of federal power, and the promotion of private enterprise and peaceful coexistence will lead to a better America; far better than the statist system that the Progressive Party would create!

And, when you say I am nothing more than a puppet for the privilege-blinded Leviatian, consider my support for safety standards, for civil rights, and my complete opposition to war, which hurts the poor and benefits the rich; and I firmly believe that limited government leads to the most growth and the most prosperity for the most people.

And I would ask you, Mr. McCahill, where in the constitution does it say a national bank, or any form of Federal Reserve system, is legal?

I congragulate our president on his victory, when historians look back on this day they will say it was the birth of a new age of liberty to our country. I voice my Support to both Amendments, the prison reform act and President Jarvis's new economic reform act. These laws make this nation, more democratic, refocus our prisons on reforming our inmates and not torturing them and allow our economy to reach bold new heights. Later tonight I will address this congress with some of my own legislation but for now I must Now take my leave and prepare.

And I would ask you, Mr. McCahill, where in the constitution does it say a national bank, or any form of Federal Reserve system, is legal?

Click to expand...

And where, Mr President, does it say it is not?

Gloa said:

I applaud the president's reasoned support of electoral reforms and civil rights, and I have high hopes for his public support for a League of American States. However, I have no support for this so called economic bill that would destroy the ability of the government to promote common security and well being of the nation as a whole. I do not support the forcing of arbitrary figures and unsustainable trivialities on our future generations - nor even on our current one. This is what happens when parties turn blindly to ideology rather than thought out policies and common sense.


((It's no worse than ol' Ignacio Vallejo: Whig, Democratic, National Republican, States' Republican, Republican, New Democratic, Republican/New Democratic, New Democratic, Republican.))

Click to expand...

((Respect to him))

Specifically in that powers not given expressly to the general government are reserved to the states and to the people.

(( :sad: That'll teach me not to ask a question I don't know the answer to...))

But is the federal government not given powers to "regulate the Value thereof [money]", for which the powers vested in the federal Reserve are important?