Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Grabbing the Third Rail-Why we must reform Social Security...
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 1/12/05 | Michael Reagan

Posted on 01/12/2005 2:27:50 AM PST by kattracks

Nothing gets the Democrats’ partisan juices flowing faster than Republican attempts to straighten out the ailing Social Security system before the ailment becomes terminal.

Most Americans, unaware of the machinations and deceptions that attended the birth of Social Security when it was signed into law on August 14, 1935, think it’s some kind of pension system where they pay premiums in the form of payroll taxes which are put aside in a trust fund from which they can draw benefits once they reach the age of 65.

The late Sen. Carl Curtis, R-NE, elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1939, made a careful study of Social Security when it began making payments in 1940. As he told a friend of mine, he tried mightily to get the Roosevelt administration to stop calling the program an old-age insurance program and describe it for what it is: a tax on workers to pay benefits to those no longer working. Had they and his colleagues listened to him we wouldn’t be facing a fiscal catastrophe down the road.

But nobody was in the mood to listen because they recognized that the Social Security system would be the goose that laid the golden eggs – not for workers and retirees, but for Congress and the federal government who could loot the system to their heart’s content, using the money to pay for all the social welfare spending schemes they otherwise would have had to finance by raising income taxes.

Social Security was a Ponzi scheme that carried within it the seeds of an eventual collapse as long as it continued to be operated as it was created to operate. It was based on what amounts to a series of misjudgments and criminal deceptions.

• When the government established Social Security, they didn’t plan for most Americans to live long enough to collect the benefits. In 1940, the life expectancy was 63.6 years and the age at which benefits were paid was and is 65. And if you did live that long, you probably wouldn’t have been around much longer to draw money from the system. In other words, they found a new way to collect money from you based on the fiction that that it was yours and you could start collecting it when you reach 65, which they figured most of you would not.

• The government claimed that the Social Security taxes you paid belonged to you, and were being squirreled safely away in a trust fund on which you could begin to draw at the age of 65. But instead of putting the money in a trust fund, the Treasury spends the difference on roads, sex-education programs, parks etc. The trust fund gets an I.O.U. If you die before reaching 65, which they expect you to be gracious enough to oblige them by doing, your survivors in most cases collect a big fat zero.

Things are no different today, except that we Americans have been stubborn enough to live a lot longer, with life expectancy of the average American now approaching 80. That of course means that if you retire at 65 and live to be 80, you’ll be collecting benefits for 15 years. That’s significant in light of the fact that there are fewer and fewer workers paying into the system to provide Social Security benefits to more and more retirees.

Wrote the Heritage Foundation’s Rich Tucker "… starting in 2018 … the system will owe more in benefits than it will collect in taxes. Heritage Foundation Social Security expert David John estimates 'annual deficits will exceed $100 billion within about five years, $200 billion after about ten years, and $300 billion after about fifteen years.'"

At that point the burden will fall on income tax payers who will get socked with a horrendous tax bill.

This is what President Bush is trying to deal with. Tragically, the Democrats like the system just as it is – they’re hooked on looting the trust funds and they don’t want to get off the gravy train. Keep that in mind the next time you hear one of them lying about those rascally Republicans plotting to kill Social Security.


Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: socialsecurity

1 posted on 01/12/2005 2:27:50 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I "think" I read that congress presently owes Social Security somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 to $10 TRILLION ...
I can't recall if that was present debt or projected..
2 posted on 01/12/2005 3:03:10 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
present debt

That's the one.

3 posted on 01/12/2005 3:05:02 AM PST by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Tragically, the Democrats like the system just as it is – they’re hooked on looting the trust funds and they don’t want to get off the gravy train.

Even more tragically, Democrats like the system because it creates an indentured constituency.

4 posted on 01/12/2005 3:08:52 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Tragically, the Democrats like the system just as it is – they’re hooked on looting the trust funds and they don’t want to get off the gravy train. Keep that in mind the next time you hear one of them lying about those rascally Republicans plotting to kill Social Security.

Unfortunately, the Dems are not alone. Too many Republicans are starting to cave to attacks by leftist groups like AARP who want the existing junk scheme left alone.

SS is what happens when too many people and "legislators" don't ask enough questions. The younger folk deserve something better than this screw job and, if any of them are reading this, they need to start assaulting their elected "dear leaders" with mail and protests to force movement on SS reform - before they lose the opportunity.

If the youngsters don't start fighting granny and grandpa now over the future of SS - THEIR future - they will end up with nothing better than the rest of us who have put up with this dreck legislation for so long.
5 posted on 01/12/2005 3:29:57 AM PST by DustyMoment (Repeal CFR NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Stretch here...The Old Geezer... Remember, folks, even tho it is a ponzi scheme---then and now.... At the time it was started we were in the greatest depression the world has ever known. Most people had little education. Only the wealthy could finish school and college was only a dream. Kids quit school at 14 or 15 to help out. ten and fifteen cents an hour was the going rate for common labor. The small towns had no industry. There was no chance of the old folks (old at about 40) trying to save a cent. They never got caught up. I remember when Henry Ford announced that every worker will be paid $5.00 per day... And that was a fortune. But there were no jobs to be had...NONE, ZILCH, NADA... And many of the old folks on social security are from those working days... My mother never worked. My father eaked out a miserable "getby" living on a small farm. Never worked in a place where they paid a wage to pay into social security. When my dad was too old to work he lived off the genorosity of his children. He never paid in a cent and lived to 69. never drew a penny because he never paid into it. There were some "welfare programs, but he would never accept such. "No relief for him" That was shameful....
Wages didn't rise much until during the 70's. Three and four dollars an hour was a good wage then. I graduated high school but couldn't even think of college because I had to contribute so much to the family. I worked in offices, meter readers, taxi driver, small factories that paid next to nothing...anything that paid a little more than what I was earning. I went to work for Studebaker Corp. where I earned about three dollars an hour, but they went bankrupt in the early fifties. I finally got into construction. Our union finally got to $5.00 an hour in 1970.. And that was a big wage. Those are the wages on which I am drawing my social security. Many, many old people today are drawing social security on those kind of wages... $2, $3,$4, an hour. Many were never able to save anything.
Today's retirees are coming from a different world.. a world where they earned a huge amount of money compared to whose who worked in the 30's and 40's. Today one can put away a little...many even a lot. But it wasn't there then for the old folks today. The wealthy living in Florida in retirement homes were the fortunate ones who were able to get a good education; ie, the county government workers, the auto workers, supervisors, teachers... and small businessmen, farmers who were able to sell their lands at a huge price.
What I am saying is this: don't be too hard on the old folks drawing SS today. Many aare products of the "GREAT DEPRESSION" of the 30's... I have been lucky. For the past 25 years I have earned enough to save some but got into some real-estate where I made some good money. But, think of the many who had no chance such as I did. The politicians are the ones to blame for the SS fiasco with their greed. If the SS money could have been placed into investment accounts, the interest earned would be astronomical..... and there would be no need for a fix.


6 posted on 01/12/2005 4:43:09 AM PST by Stretch (Rats, dogs, cats and other vermin protect their babies; Liberals kill theirs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
I believe the 7 to 10 trillion number is the total projected liabilities of Social Security.

The SSA claims the so-called trust fund had $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004. The trust fund is nothing more than IOUs from the Treasury, and there are no dedicated assets at either the Treasury or SSA backing those IOUs. So when SSA needs to cash them in, Treasure will either need to take the money out of revenues, or issue bonds to pay or default.

There are two important points in the current system's time-line. First is when Social Security payments exceed revenue, projected around 2018. Thats when SSA will start to cash the IOUs. The second critical point is somewhere around 2042 when SSA uses up all the IOUs. At that point, there is no obligation to bail out the system. Congress has two choices then, either do nothing and slash benefits or fund a massive expense out of general revenues, crowding out most other government programs.

See http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm for more info, although they present the trust fund as if it's something with real value. Folks need to be educated. If they understood how badly the system was ripping them off, no one under the age of about 40 would ever vote for a politician who supports maintaining the status quo.
7 posted on 01/12/2005 4:58:32 AM PST by javachip (The words "Social Security" and "Trust Fund", used together = fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stretch

You make some good points. Just keep in mind when the greedy crooks try to scare old people into keeping Congress's gravy train going as it has the past 50 years that if private companies spent their pension funds the way Congress has done, their officers would all do jail time. Instead, we have re-elected the looters, letting them buy votes with our pension money so they can stay in office. And now they are trying to convince the gullible that they can be trusted more than the US stock market that would return 4-5 times as much in benefits for only a 3-4% investment of SS funds. I guess that's the beauty of a government school system that teaches little in the way of math and nothing in the way of logic.


8 posted on 01/12/2005 5:02:10 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Stretch

I, for one, don't think the folks, at least most of them, who are drawing and have drawn Social Security checks are to blame. Some blame goes to lobbying groups like AARP who have and are fighting reforms that could keep the system viable. The bulk of the blame goes to politicians who have refused, and are refusing, to acknowlege that times have changed and the system needs to adapt. The longer they wait, the bigger the problem gets.


9 posted on 01/12/2005 5:04:11 AM PST by javachip (The words "Social Security" and "Trust Fund", used together = fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Just a little more perspective. I'm 52 and have been in the DOD Civilian Thrift Saving Plan for 5 years. By the time I'm 62, my average input (along with the 5% being matched by the plan) will be about 18% if I don't change anything.

I looked at my plans projections for payout this morning and discovered that at the low end I am expected to receive about $1600/month and at the high end I could get as much as $2700/month at age 62. That would be after only 15 years of putting in amounts comparable to what Social Security receives from me. My projected Social Security payments are about $1000/month at age 62.

It's easy to see that if I had been putting all my Social Security money into a private account over the years, I would be getting a LOT more money per month (most likely over $20,000 as a low-end) compared to what Social Security pays. Anyone opposed to reforming Social Security is opposed to having the future retirees being anywhere from comfortably well-off to half-way wealthy.

10 posted on 01/12/2005 5:39:31 AM PST by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In 1940, the life expectancy was 63.6 years and the age at which benefits were paid was and is 65. And if you did live that long, you probably wouldn’t have been around much longer to draw money from the system. In other words, they found a new way to collect money from you based on the fiction that that it was yours and you could start collecting it when you reach 65, which they figured most of you would not.

The AVERAGE or MEDIAN life expectancy was 63.6 years. In orther words HALF the population lived longer...many quite a bit longer. If the author is wrong about something so basic is this article worth anything at all?

11 posted on 01/12/2005 7:49:17 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stretch

What I am saying is this: don't be too hard on the old folks drawing SS today.



I don't criticize those who currently need and draw it. I criticize those who draw it, and will not be doing so for more than 10 more years, but who insist on voting to keep the system from being repaired for the benefit of those generations whose earnings they have been spending.

Reform has nothing to do with current retirees. It's none of their business, frankly.


12 posted on 01/12/2005 8:23:33 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

Doesn't matter, if the current median is higher than the original, and retirement age is still 65, the logic stands


13 posted on 01/12/2005 8:46:53 AM PST by waverna (I shall do neither. I have killed my captain...and my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: waverna
But it does matter.

The author claimed that there were very few beneficiaries initally. WRONG. But it is true that the rise in the median has created problems which must be addressed.

14 posted on 01/12/2005 8:56:19 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Reform has nothing to do with current retirees. It's none of their business, frankly.



12 posted on 01/12/2005 8:23:33 AM PST by Beelzebubba (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]




IMHO you are wrong. They are the REASON the system is in the shape it is. THEY lobby the Congresscritters to get them more free stuff.

They Lobby Congresscritters to give them a larger COLA than I get even though I pay in and they don't.

They are (mostly) part of the Largest Lobbying group in America. THEY must be involved.

They must also accept the fact that they along with the rest of us are going to have to take a lump to get past this mess we currently have.

There is absolutely NO reason that the richest Generations alive are being supported both Financially and Medicallly by the Pooorest generations. Not while they sit with hundreds of Thousands in savings they won't or don't have to touch.

I resent the notion that a couple with a kid has to struggle just to get by, after both paying in (including their employers portion) 17 percent of their income so the Greedy Old Geezers can live in their Summer homes in Florida in some gated community , clog the highways with their fifth wheel travel trailers, and bitch about the price of stuff while standing in line waiting for their 10% Senior Citizen discount, get free medical and now a perscription drug card. ALL THINGS the working parents can't afford. What's worse is they Retirees HAVE the savings to pay their own way but won't.

The sooner they are made to acknowledge their Greed has created the mess we have the sooner we can fix it.

As to Stretch...and others. I started paying in over 6% of my income. It currently is 8.65

Those that have been retired for 20 years paid in on average less than 1.5% of their incomes that were what 2-4k dollar range. Today they receive checks from SSI that are close to 1k a month. Those on SSI now get back in benefits PLUS INTEREST what they paid in in less than 3 years. Let's not forget the costs we all pay to them as part of medicad/medicare.

I am hard on that generation. They deserve it. Look at the mess THEY HELP CREATE. I was 6 Years old when Johnson raided the SSI fund. I didn't elect him nor the crooks that promised a chicken in every pot. Those that recieved those chickens should have to suffer along with the rest of us.

(/rant)


15 posted on 01/12/2005 9:21:01 AM PST by Area51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Area51

I share your rant.

Current beneficiaries should enjoy no benefit (e.g. retiring before 70, no means testing, non-taxability of part) that those who are working to support them can't be guaranteed.

Moreover, they should not get more of a benefit for a given contribution than those who are making a comparable (inflation adjusted) contribution can be expected to receive. That means that if the retirees were SS taxed only 3% on the first 10,000, and the rest are taxed more than double that on the first 90k, things should be adjusted.

That is "fair" and should be the starting point for reform.


16 posted on 01/12/2005 10:55:15 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson