The Federal Social Security Act, which may be regarded as the central core of the social security program, is an omnibus act, containing the following features: (1) a national, compulsory oldage insurance plan, covering all employees except certain exempted groups; (2) two measures designed to stimulate the states to enact state unemployment compensation laws, namely, (a) a uniform nation-wide tax upon employers, against which a credit is allowable for contributions made to approved state unemployment compensation plans, and (b) subsidies to the states to cover the administrative costs of unemployment compensation; and (3) grants-in-aid to the states for old-age assistance, pensions for the blind, aid to dependent children, child welfare, maternal and child health, vocational rehabilitation, and public health activities. It is estimated that each of the two forms of social insurance will apply to about 25,000,000 wage-earners, and, when the maximum rates become effective in 1949, will involve annual contributions of nearly $3,000,000,000. This amount is approximately equal to the normal annual expenditure of the federal government prior to 1930. In addition, the grants-in-aid to the states were estimated by the actuaries of the President's Committee on Economic Security to reach a total of a half-billion dollars annually within a few years.

History of the Federal Act

When, in a message to Congress on June 8, 1934, the President indicated that he would submit a program of social insurance for consideration at the following session, the Wagner-Lewis unemployment insurance bill and the Dill-Connery old-age assistance bill were pending. Shortly afterwards, the President, by executive order, created the Committee on Economic Security, consisting of the Secretaries of Labor (chairman), Treasury, and Agriculture, the Attorney-General, and the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator. This committee appointed Professor Edwin E. Witte, of the University of Wisconsin, as executive director, and proceeded to build up a staff of actuaries and experts to study the whole problem of economic insecurity, and to prepare recommendations.

Effective legislative supervision over administrative agencies depends on the means and methods employed. The main types of means and methods which may be employed include the following: (1) provision for securing adequate information concerning the work of the administration, by requiring records and accounts of administrative actions and financial transactions, regular reports of such actions and accounts, and requests for information on particular administrative affairs; (2) provisions for the examination of such reports, accounts, and other information, usually by means of legislative committees; (3) special investigations of a more intensive character of particular administrative services; and (4) impeachment and removal from office.

Records and Reports. Modern administrative agencies keep elaborate records of their acts and financial transactions, and publish a large volume of reports and documents, many of which are submitted to the legislative bodies. To a considerable extent, such records and reports are required by legislative provisions. But these legislative requirements vary widely with respect to different agencies; and the practice of the different agencies varies still more widely. The total mass of published reports and documents issued by national, state, and the more important local governments is so extensive, and presented in such a variety of form, that it is difficult to obtain a clear understanding of the general results. On the other hand, some administrative agencies and many of the minor local governments present such brief reports, or in some cases none at all, that no definite information is available to the legislative body nor to the general public.

As we enter another presidential contest, it is well to reflect on where we stand with reference to party funds and their public control. So much attention in the past two years has been concentrated on pressing emergency problems that this vital matter of regulating the real springs of public policy has been quite overlooked. But now that we are face to face with the realities of a huge quadrennial plebiscite, careful students of democratic institutions might profitably refresh the memories of voters and legislators and point out the significant facts about campaign funds and their regulation today, particularly those facts which have a bearing on the present situation.

In his study, “Government and Society,” Professor Charles E. Merriam makes an interesting observation which may be interpreted by enthusiastic students of government as evidence of progress in the movement to reform the complex and obsolete electoral system prevailing in a majority of the states. “The number of elective officers,” he writes, “estimated at more than 750,000 in the United States, has decreased somewhat in states, counties, and cities under the influence of the short ballot movement. The number of elective offices in 202 cities decreased from 3,118 to 2,343 in the period from 1915 to 1929.” These observations are unquestionably indicative of the tendency to shorten the ballot and, if accepted without qualification or modification, the decrease noted is sufficient evidence of progress to offer encouragement to the supporters of the short-ballot movement.

The trends in state public utilities legislation which were clearly discernible in 1933 continued in somewhat modified form in state legislation during the biennium 1934–35. Only a comparatively few out of the vast number of proposed utilities measures became law. The laws enacted, however, contain features which if adopted generally may have far-reaching effect upon the future of state regulation of public utilities. The intended effects of such features are: (1) to further the creation of public corporations empowered to furnish public utility services; (2) to establish a new method of utilities regulation in the form of contractual relations between the federal government or federal agencies on the one hand and public utilities corporations on the other; (3) to stimulate municipal ownership and operation of selected public utilities.

On March 10, 1936, Rhode Island held a constitutional convention referendum for the first time since 1853. With what proved to be nearly everywhere a straight party set-up, the Republicans defeated the proposal for a convention by about 12,000 votes in a total of some 183,000. The principal issue was increased representation of the cities in the senate, although other changes in the state government were also given some attention. The contest for equality of representation in Rhode Island goes back at least to 1811. Under the present constitution, up until five years ago each city and town had one senator in a total of 39. Now Providence has four in a total of 42, although its population is 37 per cent of that of the state. No other city or town has more than one, although they vary in population from Pawtucket with 77,149 to West Greenwich with 402. Even in the house, Providence is entitled to only 25 per cent of the seats. With the increasing strength of the Democrats in the cities, the Republicans are naturally concerned to maintain the present representation. The small towns are anxious to keep their power; but that there is more to it than this is indicated by the fact that about a third of all the small-town senators have offices in Providence.

On February 6, the Ohio supreme court handed down a decision invalidating the Cuyahoga county charter. While this was a severe blow to those who had worked for years for the modernization of the sadly disorganized polity of this metropolitan region, by far its most serious aspect was the court's adoption of an interpretation of the constitution which in effect abrogated the procedure for the adoption of a county charter by a simple majority of those voting in the county. This decision has doubtless set back the reform of county government a minimum of five to ten years.

As in previous lists, mention is here made only of units specifically authorized by law or established by the President by executive order under general authority vested in him.

Board of Survey and Maps. This board, which is composed entirely of representatives of government agencies, was originally created by Executive Order No. 3206 of December 30, 1919. Various changes in membership have been made by subsequent orders. Executive Order No. 7262 of January 4, 1936, again defines its membership, which consists of representatives of 24 agencies.

While it is quite true that French political life is characterized by its individualism, a question arises as to the degree of vacillation and cohesiveness evidenced by the various political groupings. With a view to answering this query, an analysis is herein undertaken of the vote behavior in the Chamber of Deputies during the year 1930.

The story of 1930 tells of the uncertain rule and fall of Tardieu and his cabinet. The Chamber with which he dealt had been elected during the period of the Poincaré coalition cabinet, which was supported by Right-Center forces and the Radical Socialists. The Radical Socialists withdrew their support in the fall of 1928, and Poincaré had to remake his cabinet with Right-Center support. In the fall of 1929, ill health forced Poincaré to resign, and, after others failed, Tardieu formed a cabinet with a majority support. Like Poincaré's 1929 cabinet, it was maintained by Right-Center forces.

The Estonian constitution of 1920, which was valid until January 24, 1934, was characterized by the lack of an independent head of the state and by the supremacy of the legislature over the other branches of government. Proving unworkable, it was superseded by the constitution of 1933, which, backed by the Estonian Nazis, was adopted by the popular referendum of October 14–16 of that year.