Critics say Social Security deal would give billions to Mexicans

WASHINGTON — A confidential 2004 agreement between the United States and Mexico could require Social Security to pay billions of dollars in benefits to Mexicans who paid payroll taxes in this country, according to a senior citizens' group that forced the document's disclosure.

The Social Security Administration insists that the agreement — which has yet to be signed by President Bush and sent to Congress for consideration — would cost the retirement and disability fund a relatively scant $105 million annually for the first five years.

But the TREA Senior Citizens League, an offshoot from a group of retired military personnel, and some members of Congress contend the agreement opens the door to paying benefits to millions of Mexicans who have worked illegally in the United States, as well as their dependents, even if they now reside in Mexico.

Sorry, I can't agree.

We didn't stop the democrat threat to filibuster Supreme Court Judges - Frist couldn't bring himself to pull that cord and invoke parliamentary rules. That was a BIG mistake. Should Bush get the opportunity for another nominiation - forget it - no chance now of a conservative. Ditto for all the other federal court appointees.

We didn't get school vouchers in the Education bill.

We didn't get immigration reform.

We didn't get permanent tax cuts.

We didn't get a bill to deal with fuel/gas/oil.

We didn't get to open up the oil field in Alaska.

We didn't hold back on spending

We didn't do anything about ethics in congress

We didn't get rid of ear marks

We didn't secure the border

We didn't get an amendment out to ban gay marriage

We didn't get social security reform

We had 12 years - and got very very little.

As for the republicans being better as a minority party - no thanks - I don't want to support a party that always sees itself as its finest role in being a minority.

As a conservative I feel totally deserted by the Republican Party.

I worked in both of George Bush's presidential compaigns as well as in a local House of Representative campaign (Bilbray).

From now on the only campaign I will consider working and voting for is Duncan Hunter. He is my representative and at this point I am convinved he is a true conservative.

Unless and until a true conservative comes along - count me out. I am a member of a Republican Women's Federated unit - and I am re-considering that. It's not the party affiliation that counts - its the policy of the party that counts and its willingness to carry that party out.

Here is a little tale to burn you up. I work with a pretty young girl who should be out enjoying her youth. Instead she is taking care of her mother who suffered a stroke, is confined to a wheel chair, yet cannot draw disability because she retired over ten years ago which means she has lost her Social Security policy.

The way it was explained to the victim is that Social Security is like an insurance policy and if you have not paid into it for ten years you have lost your policy even though the woman had paid into the system for thirty years.

She is not allowed to draw her husbands either. All this means that her entire care is the responsibility of a sweet daughter working three jobs to barely make ends meet.
No lawyer will take the case so the daughter is going to have to represent her mother in court.

Yet anyone from India to Mexico can bring their parents here for six months sign them up for SSI and every other freebie and send them back to their home countries where their payments will be mailed to them.

Make it over the border and you are assured Welfare, WIC, and free Medical. For the chump citizens of this nation I call this taxation without representation. Slowly from smoking ordinances to City Code enforcement designed to drive the elderly from their homes we are turning into a totalitarian state.

Our founders were well aware that Democracy is the most perfect form of government for stealing away the rights of the individual via the oppression of the majority, that is why we were intended to be a Democratic Republic consisting of States rights being supreme and easier to control by the average man. That is why they were wise enough to give us the hated Electoral College to keep such oppression from taking hold nationally.

Now our state representatives have given over their power to the central government in D.C. for the sake of commonality which has been proven a bad deal. I guess if these little personal tragedies that individual Americans are going through do not effect us personally it's easier to look the other way.

What you write makes sense. The problem is that it isn't quite the case here. You seem to be saying that illegal-immigrants can collect Social Security retirement checks. That simply is not true. I'm not referring to someone collecting on a fraudulent basis, heck a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant like myself born in America can defraud the SSA, yet I don't hear anyone clambering to cut off my funds.

Illegal immigration is a different subject entirely.

What does it take to be eligible to receive Social Security benefits in the first place? It depends on where you live. In the U.S., a worker who turned 62 after 1990 needs about 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, a partial benefit can be paid based on the proportion of the worker's total career completed in the paying country. The agreements allow the Social Security Administration to "totalize" U.S. and foreign credits if the worker has six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage.

Let’s looks at a more concrete example. If an individual accumulates 5 years of coverage under the U.S. Social Security system and 10 years of coverage in another country’s system that requires 15 years of coverage for full benefit eligibility, both countries will treat the individual as if a total of 15 years had been completed under each system. However, the U.S. benefit would be 5/15 of the total benefit earned in both countries during the 15-year period (and 10/15 in the other country).

Brad Phillips, a spokesman for TREA Senior Citizens League (a very vocal critic of totalization with Mexico) has argued that a totalization agreement with Mexico could “give billions of dollars worth of our seniors’ Social Security money to illegal Mexican workers”. This is a stretch to say the least, since the agreement deals only with the benefits earned by immigrants during their time of LEGAL employment in the USA.

Whose money is it to begin with? The SSA's Office of the Chief Actuary has estimated that a totalization agreement with Mexico would cost the U.S. $78 million in the first year, and $650 million by 2050. (That's millions, not billions) And that most of this amount is based on permanent residents and U.S. citizens receiving their SSA pension in Mexico.

Understandably, many Americans are concerned about the costs of a totalization agreement with Mexico. However, the money that would be paid in a totalization agreement with Mexico is money that never belonged to American workers in the first place. It was earned by Mexicans, not Americans.

People are confusing Social Security with welfare benefits. The reason so many illegal-immigrants live in California is due to their high welfare benefits, but that is a state function not a SSA function.

Think about this for a moment. You are an employer and you knowingly or not, hire an illegal immigrant. You still tax his check 6.2% for FICA and send it to Washington along with matching funds. Your employer matching funds would be spent whether this person was a Mexican or a pure-bred Valley Girl, so it's not in the equation at all.

Now, since the government has been raiding companies, large and small lately for hiring illegal immigrants and making a big deal of it in the media, you as an employer are certainly going to ask for a social security card before you hire this person. If it's fake, who cares? You have plausible deniability and won't be going to court over this. But you most certainly will not be likely to hire the guy and pay him under the counter.

The social security administration freely takes this money posting it to a specific account for X number of years. Now, when this person decides to retire, if they are found to be in the USA illegally, SSA isn't going to pay them. Nor are they going to refund any of the money they were taxed.

Remember that in general, or on the average, nobody gets all their money back. Theoretically, SSA collects money, holds money, earns a bit of money, pays benefits and still has enough to pay for administration. Illegal immigrants more than likely are going to be in that portion of the population that dies sooner than later. I personally can understand not advertising this information.

Actuaries know their stuff, hands down. People that paid the most into SS will receive the highest benefits, period. Today benefits are paid out on a certain life expectancy like 75 years old. If you retire at 62 your yearly benefit will be (your portion) divided by 13 and if your retire at 67 it will be (the same portion) divided by 8. If you live longer, then you are lucky. I've been paying into the SS system for 42 years. Thirty eight of them I have paid the maximum in taxes, hence, my monthly benefit will be much larger than someone who has been a minimum wage earner all his life. It will also be larger than a Mexican who paid SS tax for only 5 years even if he paid the maximum.

In my opinion all of this hype is simply obfuscation to hide the real problem of the borrowing (stealing) from the SSA trust fund for general spending. Sometime down the line that money has to be repaid, and it has to come from the general funds of the United States. That is, normal federal income taxes. By positioning the problem as a S.S. problem our congress can all glad hand themselves by raising the Payroll Tax and/or the $87K upper limit and claim that they finally "made the toughest decision facing America today."

After all, everyone that works pays payroll taxes, but a little less than half of us pay federal income taxes.

I agree that 15-20 million illegal immigrants are a huge problem, a problem that must be solved. It's just not a Social Security problem, and may be, quite ironically, a solution.

Just my opinion, by the way.

"This is a stretch to say the least, since the agreement deals only with the benefits earned by immigrants during their time of LEGAL employment in the USA."

You are totally wrong. The totalization agreement is for "unaurthorized" workers from Mexico who are sometimes known as illegal aliens.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03993.pdf

The Government Accounting Office has done studies on this. If you will click on the following url, this thread will clearly explain that this is for illegals in this country and will encourage more illegal immigration. Believe it or not this is a non-partisan url. All freepers needs to read this as this is the pros and cons of the totalization with Mexico. There is even a copy of a letter from Jo Anne Barnhart giving her side.

Read the second paragraph. This paragraph informs you of who is eligible for the funds.

"Whose money is it to begin with? The SSA's Office of the Chief Actuary has estimated that a totalization agreement with Mexico would cost the U.S. $78 million in the first year, and $650 million by 2050. (That's millions, not billions) And that most of this amount is based on permanent residents and U.S. citizens receiving their SSA pension in Mexico."

Read page 16 of 35 of the report from the GAO regarding the $78 million.

Look at the chart on page 18 of 35 of the estimates of the previous countries for the underestimate and the overestimate. We underestimated Portugal 600%. What if that happened with Mexico especially since we don't know how many are here.

Take a look at this petition. The signatories are US citizens being denied SS benefits. Many of them are veterans. Read some of the testimonies. The SSA is as broken as Homeland security. But this administration cares nothing about what SSA paying citizens are going through, they're too busy providing benefits for NON citizens.

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?SSDC&251

Samples.

5849. Ruth Montgomery Texas 75041 No one can draw disabily if you havent worked and paid in SS in the last five years We had to us saving until my husband was 62. And he had worked 30 years under SS.

5820. John Overholt Michigan 49441 It seems , if you are not a US citizen you do not have near the problems with getting these benefits ,WHY?

5786. David Texas 75143 I have stage IV lung cancer and it has also gone into my bones. I have 3 to 9 months to live. We are about to lose our home and everythings and they have to wait to get our claim worked even though they already have paper work stateing it is TERMINAL. Then I can't even get medicare for 24 months into the program. FOLKS THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG HERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WILL BE DEAD BY THEN. But they sure managed to take the money from me every pay day. And I didn't have an option.....They just took it.

5722. Gerry Steele In 47408 I had two major craniotomies in the past 2 1/2 yrs. and the last MRI showed two more developing which I will have to have more treatments. So far the tumors have been benign. I may have been better off if they were cancerous. Maybe someone would have listened to me. as a result of the surgeries, I suffer from balance problems and use a walker and a cane to get around. I also have double vision. I am also deaf in my left ear because of the surgeies. I have a cronic fatigue problem that my neurosurgeon says comes from the craniotomies and may never go away. I am also blessed with herniated disc from working my butt off to be able to have a nice life and pay a life time of taxes and pay into Social Security. My life savings are getting smaller and smaller while I wait for a hearing after being turned down twice. I hope the anti-depression meds that my doctor put me on is strong enough to wait the government out!

Well.....I think you have demonstrated the precise reasoning that has created the rift that the democrats exploited and used to defeat the RNC and demolished GWB's ability to lead the party.

It is unfortunate, but a fact that the unappeasable wing of the RNC caused the caucus to engage in what is called "base politics". This in turn soured the middle ground, or Reagan democrats as some refer to them, against the Republican party and they voted accordingly. It also caused some Republican support to fail to even show up at the polls in disgust.

It was wedge issues like Shiavo, Meirs, the Ports, Immigration reform and the war to some extent in the final days that made the difference for the Dem's, and will continue to fracture the party base, which BTW, you don't have control of.

Politics is a delicate business, and very word means the art of compromise! as a art form, it can be viewed from many perspectives, but the essential ingredient is to coalesce regardless of differences on a common goal by election day.

We did not do that. We tried but it could not happen unless the conservative right wing was willing to give a bit. They did not and kept up the verbal infighting all the way through the general election and up to the present, as you have indicated in your post.

What you will get in return for this is nothing.

The warnings were given dozens of times, and were unheeded and rejected. You never get everything in politics, not ever! A good session is 70%!

Unless and until this anomaly is repaired, there will be no Republican majority, ever again.

The only other option is to shed the entire right wing block, and move dramatically to the center and usurp the democrat base. This would ensure a third party that would dilute the RNC voter base and likely be unsuccessful in the end. But, it is the only other option, and if we can't get it together within a few cycles, lets say by 2012 or 2014, this will happen....perhaps sooner than later.

So what you achieved by cracking down, was a crack up......and that's the name of that tune. A sad tune for the future of the nation. A sad tune indeed.

The way it was explained to the victim is that Social Security is like an insurance policy and if you have not paid into it for ten years you have lost your policy even though the woman had paid into the system for thirty years.

That's not exactly true.

Disability goes to those who are of working age, but cannot work for some qualified physical or sometime mental reason. It is not easy to get as some decry in all cases, and takes a average time of a year or more of appeals to get it if you don't have a recent working history, which is why lawyers get involved.

What is happening to her is that she was not working at all prior to her claim and this indicates that she is not a qualified disabled worker. You must be a worker to get SSI. She has to go through a long appeal process, and may or may not be successful, but I doubt it.. SSI is a temporary measure to pay a person while he/she is recovering from some disability.

It was never designed for permanent disability. What she needs to do is try for early retirement on her social security account because of a disability, and if she paid in very little, her account is not of much value.

I would suggest that she probably can be helped by Medicaid and the State run disability program. It is separate from social security but in some states is run differently. Since she apparently has no dependents, the process takes time. Had she been taking care of someone with her wages, it would have been easy.

Social security is not welfare. The State has this responsibility and is aided by the fed. Her Social security account is still there, but she can't access it until she is 65 and six months, IIRC. She should have been informed as to how much she has paid in and she has something coming back, but a non worker for ten years shows that she does not qualify for the temporary SSI payments. She can appeal for early retirement however, and she has to prove her disability and the like. But forget about SSI..You can't reasonably think she could qualify for it which is why lawyers won't take the case.

You could consult a social security lawyer who deals with this stuff, but they get a chunk of the money if it is ever paid out, and they are not necessary to the process. She won't have much to begin with.

I would keep trying. But do check with the State, as far as Medicaid and forget SSI. It was not designed for this situation.

Once again our government puts its own citizens last. What other country in the world advances the interests of non-citizens at the expense of its own people? I bet signing this will be one of Bush's last acts in office. See also: Social Security for illegal aliens
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES January 4, 2007
An agreement the Bush administration reached with Mexico on Social Security benefits would allow illegal aliens granted amnesty in the future to claim credit for the time they worked illegally.
The deal was reached in 2004 but never released publicly because it hasn't been submitted to Congress. The TREA Senior Citizens League, a Social Security advocacy group, recently obtained the document through a Freedom of Information Act, and said it confirms the group's worst fears.
The document is a jumble of definitions and legal language, but a spokesman for the group said what's important is what's not in the text: It does nothing to prevent undocumented aliens who later get legal status from receiving benefits for the time they worked illegally. And that comes as the Social Security system's finances are about to be put under greater strain by the retirement of baby boomers.
"If you open up the trust fund to people who have been working in the country illegally for many years, that bankruptcy date can only come sooner," spokesman Brad Phillips said. "People on the other side of this, people who have been arguing that of course illegal aliens can't get their hands on Social Security benefits, now can't make that argument easily anymore." ....
The deal has not taken effect because Mr. Bush has not signed it or submitted it to Congress. Once he does, Congress would have 60 days to vote against it or it automatically could become law...Some lawmakers say Mr. Bush has not submitted the agreement because it would get caught up in the debate over Social Security's poor fiscal health, which could doom the measure. ...more at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070104-120950-4277r.htm

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.