Recently I received a political email forward from a friend concerning Social Security. The whole point of the email was to demonstrate the evils of Social Security and that the Democrats are solely to blame for them all. Now anyone who has been on this site before knows that criticism of the progressive left is a regular feature on this blog. But, in the interest of objectivity, I did some looking into the assertions of this forward in order to get to the truth of it.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program,
Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, wit h Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! I asked a close friend who teaches U.S. History to look into the matter for me. He emailed some questions to a certain scholar from Stanford who is an authority on U.S. History, particularly during the Depression and WWII eras. Here is the content of their correspondence (answers in blue):
What is the the level of accuracy of these statements concerning the history of social security?
1.) That, in the beginning, it was promised that participation in the Program would be completely voluntary? I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS. THERE MAY BE SOME ROOM FOR ARGUMENT ABOUT "THE BEGINNING," SINCE THE FIRST FORMAL PROPOSALS FOR OLD-AGE PENSIONS WERE IN THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY PLATFORM OF 1912 (A DOCUMENT YOU CAN FIND ON-LINE). BUT THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY THAT FDR APPOINTED TO DRAFT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT PRESUMED FROM THE OUTSET THAT COVERAGE WOULD BE AS CLOSE TO UNIVERSAL AS POSSIBLE, AND THEREFORE OBLIGATORY FOR WHOMEVER WAS TO BE COVERED.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program? THE 1% TAX IS CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO THE OLD-AGE PENSIONS PART OF THE ACT. (ONLY EMPLOYERS PAID INTO THE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND, THE OTHER MAJOR PIECE OF THE LEGISLATION). OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE $1400 CEILING, BUT THAT NUMBER WAS APPROXIMATELY THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1935. See: http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1934-36.pdf
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year? IT WAS NEVER DEDUCTIBLE
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program? NO MONEY FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM WAS EVER DIRECTLY ALLOCATED TO GENERAL TREASURY FUNDS.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income? SOME FRACTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME WAS TAXED FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY AFTER LEGISLATION IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION YEARS. SEE: http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Don't misinterpret this blog entry as any kind of defense for government entitlements. Nor am I suggesting that the assertions of this email are entirely untrue.
The alarming truth is that big entitlements like Social Security and Medicare (with their $45+ TRILLION in unfunded obligations), along with the national debt and skyrocketing deficits, are literally bankrupting America for generations to come. My interest, however, is in the
truth, and that means thinking about accusations before making them.
So my charge to you is to think before you forward. Don't send emails just because they appear damning to your political opposition, even if they are partially, or even mostly, true.
3 Comments:
Good comments. Despite the internet conspiracy theory inaccuracy, Social Security is STILL unconstitutional, in my mind. But, you are correct...we need to represent the facts accurately. Truth will out and we are more credible if we have the WHOLE story. Good work!
Jason, would you mind elaborating on your statement that Social Security is unconstitutional? If your elaboration requires more than a few lines of explanation, perhaps you would be willing to type something up and allow me to post it as a stand-alone blog entry (under your authorship, of course).
If this is not enough, let me know. As a teacher, I have learned that less is more.
I believe that the right to one's property is enshrined in the Constitution. There has to be due process enacted before the federal government can deprive us as citizens of property. What is Social Security but a taking of our personal property without due process? We are taxed in such a way that our property (money) is taken FROM us and given to another person who DID NOT EARN it. Where is the due process? Where is the protection of my personal property?
Beyond that, I see no permission in the Constitution to redistribute wealth. The elastic clause is NOT a sufficient source of this power. If the Constitution does not explicit permit a federal government action, then isn't it forbidden? The WHOLE purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT what the federal government can do, so as to protect our rights. Such policies as Social Security are relegated to the states (amendment 10). If Ohio wants to have Social Security for Ohio, then the people can change the Ohio Constitution, but it is not a federal prerogative. But there is NO permission granted to the federal government to enact such policy.
I know this reasoning may be esoteric and "lofty" and too philosophical...not practical, on the face of it. But I still think it is true! I know that our postmodern progressive culture does not believe in universals, but I see many of the principles found in the Declaration and the original US Constitution as reflecting immutable laws of nature. Therefore, as unfashionable as it may be, I believe we need to look to our Founders for guidance on such contemporary issues as Social Security.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog