Ron Paul - Totalization is a Bad Idea

House Web Site ^ | 1-8-2007 | Rep Ron Paul (R-TX)

[jmc813]

Through a Freedom of Information Act Request, a private group recently obtained a copy of a 2004 agreement between the United States and Mexico that will allow hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to receive Social Security benefits.

The agreement creates a so-called “totalization” plan between the two nations. Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments simply to make sure American citizens living abroad did not suffer from double taxation with respect to Social Security taxes. From there, however, totalization agreements have become vehicles for noncitizens to become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The new agreement with Mexico would make an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens eligible in the next five years.

Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the U.S. could reach one billion dollars by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.

It’s important to note that Congress, like the American people, heretofore had not seen this totalization agreement. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government. If the president signs it, Congress will have to affirmatively act to override him and in essence veto the agreement. This is the opposite of how it’s supposed to work.

There are obvious reasons to oppose a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico. First, our Social Security system already faces trillions of dollars in future shortages as the Baby Boomer generation retires and fewer young workers pay into the system. Adding hundreds of thousand of noncitizens to the Social Security rolls can only hasten the day of reckoning.

Second, Social Security never was intended to serve as an individual foreign aid program for noncitizens abroad. Remember, there is no real Social Security trust fund, and the distinction between income taxes and payroll taxes is entirely artificial. The Social Security contributions made by noncitizens are spent immediately as general revenues. So while it’s unfortunate that some are forced to pay into a system from which they might never receive a penny, the same can be said of younger American citizens. If noncitizens wish to obtain Social Security benefits, or any other U.S. government entitlements, they should seek to become U.S. citizens.

Also, totalization agreements allow noncitizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the U.S. as little as 18 months. A Mexican citizen could work here for only a year and a half, return to Mexico, and retire with full U.S. benefits. This is grossly unfair to Americans who must work more quarters even to qualify for benefits-- especially younger people who face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.

Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of U.S. assistance to that country's aged. While poverty in Mexico truly is deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program.

[Leatherneck_MT]

The more I see and read about what goes on between our Country and Mexico, the more I'm convinced that the Republicans and the Democrats are simply different colored cats of the same breed.

[rabscuttle385]

This is grossly unfair to Americans who must work more quarters even to qualify for benefits--especially younger people who face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.

I just turned twenty one; I'm one of those younger folks. I wanted to "thank" the U.S. Government and the idiots running Congress (as well as the "progressives" and RINOs in my age group who believe that unchecked illegal immigration is a good thing and voted that way in the last election) who are mortgaging (stealing) the future of this and future generations for nought but a pipe dream.

I take solace only in the fact that what comes around eventually goes around.

[gubamyster]

ping

[weegee]

BUMP

[mugs99]

totalization agreements allow noncitizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the U.S. as little as 18 months.

Are noncitizens more important to our government than citizens?
.

[freeangel]

"are non citizens more important...?"

In a word, yes. Just ask the nitwits who are implementing this.

[helper]

I agree, except when I look at it in the context of the "North American Union"

I am getting the feeling that both parties want to assimilate Mexico, and perhaps Canada. Kind of a bloodless take over.

That would give our 535 Congress Criminals another big chunk of land, resources, and 150m more people to rule over.

Since those "new citizens" would be poor I would imagine they might support changing our form of govt into something that would resemble a ruling class of 535 as long as the bennies flow.

With our voting power reduced to a minority the CC could effect a bloodless change of Government.

I know sounds tinfoil but not much else makes sense.

[azhenfud]

It was a dismal day when in 2004 Vicente Fox announced the totalization plan before a group of legal and illegals in Chicago a full two weeks before such an ill-conceived raping of Americans would be announced to the American taxpayer by our own elected "leaters".

Then, to top it off, the agreement was to be ratified by the Mexican Congress but the US Congress would only be allowed to "review" it.

That was my final straw with the disgusting Bush Administration.

[mugs99]

I know sounds tinfoil but not much else makes sense.

We're living in tinfoil times and it does make sense.
.

[wolfcreek]

"I know sounds tinfoil but not much else makes sense."


IMO, it's not tinfoil at all. The CC would like for people to believe that in order for the implementation of their plot to go more smoothly. This needs to become a mainstream issue before We wake one day to find it's a DONE DEAL.

[texastoo]

It’s important to note that Congress, like the American people, heretofore had not seen this totalization agreement. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government.

Only Bush and Mexico had seen the largest entitlement agreement of giving hard working money to Mexico. Even Congress was locked out of the agreement via FOIA. This all done by so-called Republicans.

Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of U.S. assistance to that country's aged. While poverty in Mexico truly is deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program.

We thought we bailed Mexico out with NAFTA but 12 years later it has proved to be a dismal failure.

[azhenfud]

I wrote my Congressman, a Democrat, and expressed my disgust with the proposal to which he affirmed if it ever came to a vote before the US congress, he would summarily vote against any form of Social Security's totalization with Mexico.

I have that in writing and expect to follow his voice and expose him if he ever gets the opportunity to betray that "promise".

[WatchingInAmazement]

With our voting power reduced to a minority the CC could effect a bloodless change of Government.

Bloodless?

If only!

Illegal Alien Crime Wave

On April 7, 2005, the US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails. In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990. They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses.

CRIMINAL HISTORY

More than two-thirds of the defendants charged with an immigration offense were identified as having been previously arrested. Thirty-six percent had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4 times; and 12%,1 time. Sixty-one percent of those defendants had been convicted at least once; 18%, 5 or more times; 26%, 2 to 4 times; and 17%, 1 time. Of those charged, 49% had previously been convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violent offense; and 11%, other felony offenses. Twelve percent had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor. Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. Nine in ten had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, half had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions. Fifty-six percent of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted of a violent or drug-related felony. By contrast, under half of those charged with alien smuggling, a third of those charged with unlawful entry, and just over a quarter those charged with misuse of visas and other charges had previously been arrested. The criminal histories of these defendants were generally less extensive: more than 70% had been previously arrested fewer than 5 times. Sources: US Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, National Security Institute, National Association of Chiefs of Police, US Department of Justice

17 posted on 12/21/2006 8:53:07 PM PST by ckilmer

[The Westerner]

The very word 'totalization' is a smokescreen. What on earth does it mean? I would not have bothered to click on this thread had it not been for Ron Paul's name. The only connection between 'total' and 'totalization' I can conceive is 'totalitarianism'...which is what all the tinfoilers are fearing. The basic point is: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. That's what the democrats and Republicans believe in...as does the President of the United States, as evidenced by this new program.

[justshutupandtakeit]

One does not gain "full benefits" from working 18 months.

[Joe 6-pack]

Gettysburg College Alumni Bump!

[azhenfud]

You're quite right. The 18 mo's must be in combination with the "quarters" as shown by the Mexican equivalent.

We will be forced to accept a proven corrupt, lying, cheat government's word for their contributions and you can wager it all upon Mexico's not hesitating to "enhance" their records if it comes down to American taxpayers ending up supporting Mexican retirees and all their other "qualified" recipients.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not going to happen but raise the alarm anyway.

[texastoo]

It looks like we will have to stay on top of this. I wrote my congresscritters in 2004 when I first heard of this. So far Bush has not signed this and when he does it will take 60 workihng days for Congress to vote against it. If they can't do it within 60 days the agreement passes automatically. Scaarrrry!