It’s simple, Leave all the rules on collecting social Security funds the same. Just give the person contributing a choice of where he would like his money to go (either traditional Social security or 401k).Maybe this is a little too simple, but it seems to be plausible.
Soon elections will be meaningless if they’re not already. The most recent example is obama not appealing to the American public for action in libya. politicians now think they only need the governeds approval at election time. The rest of the time they will do what they want.
Social Security is a tax, ObamaCare requires you to buy a commercial product. See the distinction? If ObamaCare was like MediCare, a tax funded mandate, it would not be an issue.
ObamaCare, it seems to me, is worse than the British NHP and the HealthCanada or just about any other nationalized medical plan. We would have been much, much better off just adopting the Canadian system. Instead, we get something much, much worse.
Because Social Security is a hole that’s already been dug. It’s much easier to not dig a whole in the first place than to climb out of a deep one you spent decades digging. To get out of social security the gov would have to come up with a whole lot of money it doesn’t have. I’m not even 50, and already 15% of my gross wages over my lifetime would equal a pretty kitty. Yep, 15%, because my employers’ contribution in my name was money that should have been mine. It was taken from me, so either the contract has to be honored or the money has to be returned. Hell, I’ll be extra nice and not even ask for interest.
I tend to agree with Reagan on Social Security, who in 1964 said that “destitution should not follow unemployment on account of old age.”
This doesn’t answer the constitutional question but I see it as a principle worth standing on. Government exists to protect and defend our liberties and when necessary, to care for those who can’t care for themselves. In my view, the best system would be for each state to have it’s own social security system (which would be constitutional) with its benefits being transferrable across state lines, similar to a 401k plan.
Now that nearly all of our seniors are on welfare (Socisl Security, Medicare), we have a large portion of our population devoted to big government and the Welfare State.
While I do not agree that Social Security is Constitutional, the Federal court in was blackmailed into finding ti constitutional by means of a very very broad application of the taxing power, and an unlimited application of spending power.
That means to this day the court has maintained that nobody has a right to any money form the Social “Security” system. As far as the court is concerned the money was taxed by Washington for the uses of Washington. The federal Court turns a blind eye to the nature of the money’s uses being unauthorized by the Federal Constitution.
What the Federal goverment is asking you to do with the act of abomination is mandating you buy a private service from a private company. More then that its a service with strong historic and even cultural religious implications.(Even in the Western tradition healthcare has always been tied to religion) This of course is something completely new and wrong on numerous different fronts for the Federal Government Specifically.
Technically if the Federal Government wants to apply the freedom of religion clause of the 1st amendment to the States it should be striking down Massachusetts repressive law.(Again I am against the abomination that is incorporation)
The five MOST misunderstood words in the modern American lexicon, IMHO.
The Founders knew exactly what it meant. They created the federal constitution to act as a Constitution for the District of Columbia just as each state constitution acted for an individual State.
The federal Constitution itself defines jurisdiction :
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) ...............
The Rule of Exclusion applies - that which is not included is therefore excluded
§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
------------
The only federal authority that can legitimately act within a state is one that must, by definition, act as a concurrent authority WITH a State. Otherwise, the federal authority negates that which created it...a legal impossibility by the Founders' way of thinking.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions