Program's imbalance

The Hutchinson News ^ | 9/17/09 | FRED R. JOHNSON, Ph.D.

[kathsua]

In the last few years, many alarms about the bankruptcy of the Social Security program have been sounded. Some people have calculated and published dates when it will be insolvent. Part of the problem has been shown that the number of people contributing to the program is shrinking and the number of people drawing from the program is increasing. The situation seems to be most critical as the baby boomers retire and begin drawing benefits from the program. There must be some reasons for this imbalance.

One reason for this imbalance, according to some hearsay reports, is that the federal Congress borrowed money from the account in the days when the fund carried a healthy balance in the black. It is not clear whether or not they repaid those loans.

----------advertisement-----------

I would like to suggest another reason. It is related to a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1974, the justices ruled that it was a woman's right to abort a baby. In the years since then, estimates of legal abortions of unborn babies are reported to be more than a million each year. If we do the math, that was 35 years ago. This means that more than 35 million people were killed during this span of years. If these babies had been permitted to live - and if we assume only half of them would grow up, find jobs and contribute to the Social Security system - there would be more than 17 million who could have helped fund the system. The benefits to the system and to the elderly people of our beloved country would have shown incremental gains each year in the number of participants, many of whom would have contributed most of 20 years to date. If the court had decided for life, the economic situation of Social Security after these 35 years would be a much different story.

Let us hope that the members of this present court will exercise better judgment as they decide the cases on the dockets throughout their new season.

[kathsua]

In Roe V. Wade the Supreme Court said government could restrict late term abortions because of the economic contributions. We need politicians to at least restrict these abortions.

[Jacquerie]

Roe v. Wade is a violation of the Natural Law, the Unalienable Rights espoused by our founders. Governments eventually get into trouble when they abridge the rights of the people.

Think of the historically recent court decisions that violate our wonderful Constitution. Roe v. Wade, Campaign Finance, Prayer/worship in public places, Private Property taken for private use, School Vouchers, Partial Birth Abortion, governance by unelected bureaucrats. I'm sure I have missed other outrages.

The recent Tea Parties and Town Halls show that we, the people are finally getting restless over our loss of liberties.

[pnh102]

It is not wise to drag the abortion abomination into the social security debate. Even if abortion was a non-factor, social security would still be going broke.