Social Security Truths

A rock in rural Iowa off of Highway 25.
Artist: Ray "Bubba" Sorensen.

Table of Contents

• Introduction

• Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies! Promises FDR made to get Social Security passed

• Social Security: House of Cards

• Social Security Required to Claim Tax Credit on Child

• Solutions for debt crisis go far beyond tinkering

• The Pension Catastrophe by Gary North
  Can you trust your pension, especially the one from government?

Introduction

Social Security, as we Patriots like to say, is really UnSocial InSecurity. It is unsocial because it far from fair. It is insecure because it may soon go bankrupt.

Allow me to ask three questions:

1. Do you or your children plan to receive the Mark of the Beast? (This is a chip that will embedded in the back of your right hand or in your forehead. Without it, as the Biblical book of Revelation predicts, you will not be able to buy or sell goods or services. See Rev. 13:17.)
2. If you choose not to receive the Mark of the Beast how then will you receive your Social Security check?
3. If you will never receive Social Security, then why do you continue to pay into a system that is morally bankrupt?

Now please understand, there are many of you out there that have not yet learned to fully appreciate the Christian Scriptures. Even so, there are still plenty of reasons to distrust the Social Security System. So whether you are a Christian or you just see the dangers in begging an ever increasing government for the return of some of your hard earned money, you will find these truths to be of interest to you.

UnSocial InSecurity

The fact is that Social Security is in trouble.

It was just in the Spring of 2004 that Allan Greenspan confirmed what we already knew: Social Security needs to be "reinforced." The prediction is that it is going to run out of money in the near future; most predict 20 to 30 years. (One of the major reasons why Social Security will go bankrupt is because we have been killing off a large portion of the next generation with abortion. It is likely that the same generation which is largely responsible for turning its back on these innocent victims, will become victims themselves. God is not without an ironic sense of humor.)

The estimates of today (please be patient as I find my references) show the average citizen will receive 75 cents in return for every dollar placed into Social Security. Now where does the other 25 cents go? It goes to feed an ever expanding bureaucracy. And then some of it simply disappears.

There is a high price to be paid for our little security system. As Ben Franklin once said, ""They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." If only we were interested in principle, we would get back principle plus interest.

Make no mistake about our views. We are not against providing for our elderly. We are just against the government being the provider. There is simply no reason for all of our money to go up to Washington, only to have a percentage flow back down. There is simply no reason why 70-90% of our population should not be capable of providing for their own retirement.

The Social Security system rewards those who do not know how to save. It rewards those who live for the moment. The family who struggles and saves over a lifetime, if they do not do something to protect their assets, are drained within a matter of months after being admitted into a nursing home. Those that live for the next party or the next weekend end up in the same equal financial plane.

There may be an argument that the government needs to mandate that we put a certain percentage of our income into IRA's to help those who have a hard time being responsible. There may also be an argument that the government can help out in true hardship cases. Beyond that, we simply don't need our government stealing our hard-earned money.

The Social Security System is Unjust in how it distributes the money it collects.

Many of us have this false notion that every American is treated fairly. We have this false notion that our local bureaucrats use hard formulas to calculate every person's pension based on how much each individual put into the system. This simply is not true.

First of all, the people on the poorer end of the scale tend to get the better deal. This ordinarily may not be a bad thing except that we have had a deluge of foreigners who come to this country, put in their minimum 7-9 years of employment, then "retire" back to their respective countries and live like kings within their hometown. I understand that our Social Security Department has in recent years opened up a branch in Mexico just to service the numerous people in Mexico who receive benefits! This is not for what our Social Security System was intended.

Second, the distribution is not always fair. Within the borders of my small town, there are people who were able to call up their local politician, tell of their dire circumstances, and be placed on Social Security. It did not matter that they were several years away from 65. I have learned that all it takes is a couple of threats to the bureaucrats who are mostly interested in keeping their jobs.

To add insult to injury, one of these individuals decided to help out one year in the campaign for the opposing candidate. He received a call from the same politician who had originally helped him and was told,, "What was done can be undone."

Invariably whenever money flows up the ladder to the government, it will eventually flow back down the ladder, but before it gets to the citizen, it will pass through the hands of many politicians and bureaucrats. These people are most interested in themselves, which means they will use this money's influence to accomplish what clearly benefits them. This will range from simple job security to increasing one's political power.

Also in this small town of mine, there is evidence that certain minority groups get a disproportionate amount of benefits. Politicians and judges alike will do anything to avoid being branded "discriminatory" or a "racist." When they are challenged with whether or not a certain individual deserves a higher benefit, the politically correct will usually cave to avoid that discrimination label. These "public" benefits belong not to those who worked the hardest to pay into the system, but rather to support those who yell the loudest regardless of their work history.

The Social Security System's solvency will be challenged like never before by same-sex marriages:

Of late, there has been a lot of focus on same-sex marriages. Do homosexuals have the same right as the rest of the population to have government recognize their marriages? I am not even going to attempt to answer this question, only to pierce through the veil that appears to be covering the eyes of most Americans as well as the media.

Same-sex marriage is not about marriage! It is about Money! Do you know of anyplace in America today where two individuals who want to live together are prevented from doing so? Do we know if those two people of the same gender living down the street who are sharing a home are also sharing a bedroom? Is there anyone barging into their bedroom and saying, "AAAA HA, I caught you! Now we are going to separate you!"

It just doesn't happen. So why do homosexuals want to be recognized by our government? One possibility, and the way that it is portrayed by the media, is that it is a pure rights issue: homosexuals simply want to be equal with their heterosexual counterparts. But I see something much deeper. They want to be equal where benefits are concerned.

First of all, there will be social security benefits to unworking partners. This means that one partner can stay home and tend to the "family."

Second, there will also be life and health insurance benefits to be paid to both partners. That means that companies will be forced to provide insurance coverage to same-sex partners (irregardless of how long they have been together.) That may seem FAIR on the surface except for this: homosexuals, because of their lifestyle, require far more medical attention then the rest of the American population. The Aids epidemic is just the tip of the iceberg. This means that the struggling family of 4.5 is now forced to financially support a lifestyle which is very different from its own and one that is wrought with problems.

This same dilemma will find its way into the Social Security issue for the reasons stated above: Social Security is not distributed according to inflexible formulas.

Do Senior Citizens know that their benefits are about to be taken away from them? Or at the least extremely reduced? Not likely, but they need to know, and the major media is not helping.

The Time is Now!

The time to prepare for the inevitable collapse of the Social Security System is now while we still have time to prepare for our future and the future of our parents. I believe this is one case where charity needs to begin at home. As I mentioned earlier, if only we simply had the money we put into Social Security, we would have $1.05 for every dollar we put in instead of 75 cents. So what is the solution? For many of us, that would mean taking the money we would ordinarily put into the Social Security System and put it into an IRA instead.

For others, that might mean completely revoking our Social Security number. There are many of us who believe that our own government one day may be a part of the one-world government.. When we are dependent to such a great degree on government that we need their check in order for us to eat, then who can stand against this government? Some of you may recognize that those very same words are used to describe the beast (Rev. 13:4.)

For those of you who are hesitant to give your Social Security as well as to give your government (your "corrupt government" I might add) the heave ho, let me put it this way: (I will say it in "teenage vernacular" because you need to realize that the teenagers of today will one day be administering your pension plan) If you are stupid enough to give your government your hard earned dollars with the expectation that you will get your fair share back, you deserve to be ripped off!

The Patriot Network can help you in which ever way you desire to go. Robert Clarkson has had years of experience taking on the government in its own courts. As one of the few people with years of legal experience without being one of the insiders, he can help you fight one of the most corrupt governments in our history. (The fact is that Clarkson has nothing to lose; he cannot be disbarred for using arguments that the government does not want to hear!) Clarkson will show that you can turn what most consider to be the governments greatest asset - its unlimited size and resources - into a liability against itself.

Within the Patriot Network, you will also find an added benefit of fellowshipping with others who share your point of view, many of whom have gone down the same path before you. They will help you avoid the pitfalls of the inexperienced.

If you are like many of us, you are so disenchanted with our present form of government that you are willing to follow the path of our forefathers and fight against an unjust "king" and serve the True King, Jesus Christ, instead, then follow our example. But by no means go it alone. There are many strategies to be considered. Mind you, there is nothing that we do here that is illegal. We simply use "weapons" of our government against itself.

For more information, choose the appropriate item under "Join Us!" and join us at our monthly meetings.

"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies!"

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the ! participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated ! the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! The worst part about it is this: uninformed citizens believe it!

Social Security: House of Cards

In the history of the United States, there is probably no more dramatic demonstration of deliberately designed misinformation than the literature put out by the social Security (FICA) administration. One need go no further than 3 decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, two in 1937 and one in 1960, to realize what blatant deception the current Social Security literature contains. Here is what the court said:

1. The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into any pool or trust fund but: "The proceeds of both (employee and employer) taxes are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way." Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619, 635 (1937)
2. The court points out that payroll deductions of American workers are NOT payments on premiums for insurance of any kind, but are simply income taxes; "...eligibility for benefits... does NOT in any true sense depend on contribution through the payment of Taxes." Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 603, 609 (1960)
3. Furthermore, payments made by employer for each of their employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the employee, but constitute an EXCISE tax on the employers rights to do business. Consequently his so-called "Contributions" go directly into the general fund of the treasury and "are not earmarked in any way." Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 635 (1937)
4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions do NOT acquire any property rights or contractual rights through their payments as they would IF they were paying an insurance policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply, there is NO guarantee! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to citizens even though they had paid SS taxes. Also, the payment of amounts of benefits are at the option of Congress. Fleming v. Nestor, 363 US 603, 610 (1960)
5. Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity or gesture of charity. As the court states: "Congress included in the original act, and has since retained, a claim expressly reserving to it the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the act." Fleming v. Nestor, 603 US 610-11 (1960) In effect, Social Security benefits are like pensions to be given or withheld at the discretion of Congress.
6. Payroll deductions which a worker pays (income tax) do nothing more than qualify him for consideration as a recipient of a charitable gift. His payments do NOT guarantee him any thing. They do NOT guarantee the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or abolish the entire program at any time.

Literature from the Social Security headquarters also continued to talk about its "insurance plan" and the "contributions" which are "pooled" in a "trust fund." All of this was deliberately misleading in view of the Supreme Court decisions cited above. Had a private insurance company so grossly misrepresented its position on this same manner, its officers probably would have ended up in jail?

Ever since 1935 the SS Administration has laid such great emphasis on its "trust fund," that the average citizen believes his benefits are paid out of this fund. The administration knows this is NOT true since benefits are paid out of the general treasury fund. It therefore refers to its so-called trust fund as a "reserve of assets" to back up the SS program. What this "reserve fund" amounts to is simply an accumulation of US bonds which wouldn't pay the liability of the system even it they were all cashed in tomorrow. Furthermore, a US Bond is nothing more than a claim on the American people for taxes not yet collected. This is also true of the interest which has to be paid on the bond. Neither the bond or the interest to be paid on it constitutes an "asset" in any real sense of the term.

For government agency to accumulate a quantity of the government owned bonds and call these a "reserve" of assets is like a man writing himself a bundle of I.O.U's and listing these assets on his financial statement to the bank. Because ALL funds collected in the name of SS are NEVER earmarked for any special way they are intermingled and spent each year like other funds.

In recent years there has been considerable talk about the SS system becoming "insolvent" and getting close to "bankruptcy." The government itself is largely to blame for this misconception because it has used this line to justify the gigantic leap in SS TAXES. They said these increases were absolutely necessary to keep the system "sound." At the same time, the SS Administration has been promising tremendous increases in "benefits" if the people would tolerate this new wave of increases. The main thing to keep in mind is that SS cannot go bankrupt in the ordinary sense of the term because it is able to depend upon government power to raise revenue through taxes rather than a trust fund such as insurance companies are required to have.

The SS board of trustees emphasized their power to tax as a secret weapon in a 1972 report to Congress: "Because compulsory social insurance is assured of continuous income, it does not have to build up a kind of reserves that are necessary at all times in an institution that cannot count on current income to meet current obligations." This single decision assured ever mounting tax bills for the system without any possibility of relief.

Solutions for debt crisis go far beyond tinkering

What if the affluent got limited government retirement benefits ­ and "affluent" was $50,000 a year?

What if the government said it wouldn't pay for your $100,000 life-saving operation?

Americans may soon have to start thinking the unthinkable to solve the severe financial problems that the retirement of baby boomers will bring the Social Security and Medicare systems. These two beloved programs are on a collision course with financial reality that threatens the nation's prosperity and the well-being of the next generation of elderly.

USA TODAY reported Monday that taxpayers have a hidden debt of at least $53 trillion in government obligations, mostly from Medicare, Social Security and the federal debt. This debt equals $473,456 per household, dwarfing the $84,454 in personal debt per household owed for mortgages, car loans and other borrowing. (Related graphic: Crunch the numbers, see what your share adds up to)

The federal government would have to double taxation or cut benefits in half immediately to make good on its promises of providing health care and pension benefits for retirees in the coming decades. Both major political parties and the presidential candidates have avoided confronting the problem for fear of angering voters.

"It's a game of chicken, and nobody's moving even though we have a crash coming," says economist C. Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, a research organization in Washington, D.C.

The first of 78 million baby boomers ­ those born between 1946 and 1964 in the post-World War II population boom ­ qualify for Social Security benefits in 2008 at age 62. Boomers start qualifying for Medicare at age 65 in 2011.

Longer life expectancies, soaring medical costs and slow growth in the number of young workers to help finance the programs have created a formula for disaster.

Despite the silence from most politicians, Congress and every recent president have encouraged a small industry of experts ­ inside and outside government ­ to analyze what it would take to solve the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security.

What's agreed: Big changes are needed. What's disputed: Which changes to make.

"Almost everyone agrees there will be significant cutbacks in Social Security and Medicare," says Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, chief economic adviser to President Clinton. "What's still in play is what the changes will be and when they will occur."

In general, Republicans favor solutions that encourage people to save money in tax-free investment accounts in exchange for giving up some Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Democrats generally favor solutions that ensure equal access to health care but give government greater power to control medical costs. Experts in both parties generally agree that:

�Retirement ages need to be raised for Social Security and possibly Medicare.

�Benefits should be reduced for the affluent.

�Everyone should pay higher Medicare co-payments and deductibles so people don't treat medical care as if it's free.

However, it is tricky to make even these changes without triggering other problems.

Conservatives and liberals also concur that Social Security's financial problems can be solved, if dealt with soon. But Medicare, which provides medical insurance from age 65 to death, cannot survive as we know it without a huge increase in the tax burden.

The USA now spends about 15% of its income on health care ­ about half paid by the government, the rest by private insurers and patients or their families. Other industrialized countries spend an average of 8.5% of national income on medical care ­ about 75% paid by the government.

As the population ages, the federal government will pay a growing share of that amount, perhaps as high as 80% in 40 years.

U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, the federal government's chief accountant, says the nation must make Medicare and Social Security solvent, control other spending and consider higher taxes. "The problem is so great that you have to do all three," he says.

Delay costs the nation more than $1 trillion a year.

"Before you can solve a problem," Walker says, "you have to admit you have a problem."

USA TODAY asked leading experts what should be done to solve the problems of Medicare and Social Security. The changes could reshape the social contract between government and its citizens in the 21st century. Find this article at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-04-debtsolutions-cover_x.htm