He knows you’ve been scammed, but won’t admit it
By Chris Ingram
Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is engaging in typical Democrat party scare tactics by suggesting Republicans are engaging in a risky scheme to privatize the depression-era social welfare program.
The problem with Senator Nelson and his ilk in the Democrat party is that their tactic is not only misleading, but they are also lying about the law regarding Social Security entitlement, and, most importantly, they lack any honest proposals to extend the life of the program.
Earlier today I received the following unsolicited e-mail from Senator Nelson’s congressional office:
How would you feel about turning over to (sic) your guaranteed Social Security savings to Wall Street?
You probably wouldn’t feel too good about it. Not too many Americans do.
That’s why Republicans have tried to keep their latest plan to privatize Social Security quiet — and that’s why our public petition to oppose the Republican plan has been gaining so much steam.
We’re joining together to bring some unwanted attention to the Social Security privatization plan Republicans have quietly introduced in the House, but we need support from Americans like you to make sure it doesn’t go anywhere.
Sign our public petition opposing House Republicans’ Social Security privatization plan now.
We should work within the current structures of vital programs like Social Security and Medicare to ensure both remain intact for those who pay into them during their working years, not turning them over to profit-above-all-else interests.
Let’s join together to make sure this happens.
Thanks for staying engaged,
What immediately caught my eye was not Nelson’s misleading suggestion about turning over your Social Security savings to Wall Street. No, the most disengenous line in his opening salvo is that benefits are somehow “guaranteed.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security “contributions” only support current recipients and that one’s “earnings” are worth nothing more than the paper the annual earnings statement is printed on. In the case of FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603, Mr. Nestor’s Social Security benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.
In short, the Social Security program is nothing but a government authorized and managed ponzi scheme that is dependent on the next generation to pay promised benefits. They put Bernie Madoff in jail for doing this kind of thing. President Roosevelt and practically every member of Congress since the program’s inception belong in jail with him for having perpetuated this scheme on the American people.
All Nelson needs to do to understand what a doozie of a lie he’s told is just read the fine print of our own government’s Social Security Administration website which reads: “There has been a temptation throughout [Social Security’s] history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled “RESERVATION OF POWER,” specifically said: “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.”
So while it would certainly prove to be politically imprudent for Congress to diminish one’s Social Security benefits (either through direct reduction, or by extending the retirement age, etc), those benefits, according to the Supreme Court are not actually yours to begin with – despite the fact that you get an “earning statement” every year, it ain’t really your money.
Shame on Bill Nelson and the Democrats for their lies. They know the truth, but lying to the public is easier than finding a viable solution to the problem.
While the timing and the communications of the Republican plan to slowly move Social Security contributions into individually controlled retirement savings accounts may leave something to be desired, at least they’re making an attempt to fix things.
According to news reports:
House Republicans on Friday introduced legislation that would allow workers to partially opt out of Social Security immediately, and fully opt out after 15 years.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-NY), who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, and several other Republicans introduced the Savings Account for Every American (SAFE) Act. Under the bill, workers would immediately have 6.2 percent of their wages sent to a “SAFE” account each year.
That would take the place of the 6.2 percent the workers now contributed to Social Security.
Another 6.2% is sent to Social Security by employers. Under the Sessions bill, employers would continue to make this matching contribution to Social Security, but after 15 years, employers could also send that amount to the employee’s SAFE account.
Kudos to the GOP for trying to do something – other than scare old people on the social welfare program – just so they can get reelected.
Chris Ingram is the president and founder of 411 Communications a corporate and political communications firm, and publisher of Irreverent View. Ingram is a frequent pundit on Fox News and CNN, and has written opinion columns for the Washington Times, UPI, and National Review online. He is the Republican political analyst for Bay News 9, the only 24 hour all news channel in Florida’s largest media market. The opinions expressed here are those of author and do not represent the views of Bay News 9. E-mail him at: Chris@IrreverentView.com.
Please feel free to submit a comment on our blogs. By posting a comment you acknowledge reading and following the terms and conditions of posting found here. You may also submit a comment by e-mail. If you e-mail a comment you consent to your comment and name being posted on the Irreverent View website. If you wish to remain completely anonymous, please state so in your e-mail.