Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    Social Security: Structurally Violates Freedom

    10/11/2012
     
    Personal Freedom and Prosperity 102:  Acquiring and Possessing Property

    That all Men are born equally free and independant, and have certain inherent natural Rights,…; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.
    -Virginia Declaration of Rights – 1776

    Social Security:  Structurally Violates Freedom

    In the first debate, President Obama said, “Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is -- the basic structure is sound.”

    No, Mr. President, the government's Social Security system is structurally bankrupt and politically corrupt.  Intentionally, America's Social Security structure does not save money for retirement.  

    “What? I've paid into Social Security all my working life,” is the response of the American worker.  What President Obama and most Democrats and Republicans don't tell you is that government spends our Social Security tax revenue not only on benefits, but also on other government programs - roads, education, welfare, wars, ObamaCare, etc.  Hence, none of money paid by working Americans has been saved!  Because of America's enormous debt (caused by Republicans and Democrats)  workers will be heavily taxed on promised Social Security benefits, which will in turn be reduced and denied for them.  President Obama's “tweaks”  increase taxes or breaks the implied contract with American workers by reducing benefits or extending the age of eligibility.

    President Obama's “Social Security is structurally sound,” exemplifies how most politicians – Republican and Democrats – deflect and disregard their fiscal and fiduciary duties to We the People.

    Wrongfully, politicians – Republicans and Democrats – have raided, manipulated and used our Social Security tax revenues for their immediate political purposes. 

    President Johnson added Social Security revenues to the general budget to hide the cost of the Vietnam War.  Nixon approved a 20% benefit increase and made sure every beneficiary knew of the increases just prior to the 1972 election.  Social Security was bankrupt within a decade.  

    To further understand the politicians mindset go to Nancy Pelosi's Congressional website.    Pelosi and Rachel Maddow brag about preserving the government's control of Social Security by defeating George Bush's attempt to have personal accounts.  Pelosi:

    That January, President Bush gave a gift to those who wanted to protect Social Security by saying that he was going to privatize Social Security.  I remind you he’s newly elected, he’s 58 percent in the polls, that’s very high, especially after a tough fight and he was very much up here. ... At the time we said: “President Bush wants to privatize Social Security, the Democrats want to preserve Social Security.”  And that was the fight.

    Since at least 1990, conservatives and libertarians have persistently warned that Social Security would eventually be bankrupt.  In 2004, there were viable plans to convert Social Security to personal accounts. Pelosi, Harry Reid and the likes of AARP demagogued Bush's personal accounts and offered no solutions.  Ignobly disregarding the crushing debt and government's promise to working Americans and future workers.  Again, Pelosi:

    But for us it wasn’t an issue, it was a value, it was an ethic, it was who we are as a country.  And we were going to fight that fight, even if it meant taking the slings and arrows of our friends who were saying, “why don’t you have a plan?  Poor dears, they don’t have a plan.”  Some even in the media saying: “how can you possibly come here without a plan?”  We have a plan, it’s called Social Security.  So, with that, that really – by September he (Bush) was at 38 percent.

    The only way to stop the political raids and manipulations is for private ownership.  The fatal flaw with funding and honoring government obligations is the worker does not own his or her account.  With ownership, workers will protect their property and every other worker's property. This is the only means to hold politicians fiscally and morally responsible.  

    More important, owning your rightfully obtained property is absolutely essential for freedom. Ownership allows a worker to save and invest for his or her particular desires.  It allows a person to select when to retire, and the beneficiaries of his or her estate.

    Chile, with the same political and debt problems bankrupting America, switched from a government-controlled system  to private accounts in 1980.  The accounts are absolutely secure and have earned a return of over 10% annually on their investment.  

    Jose Pinera is the mastermind behind Chile's conversion to personal accounts.  Pinera, who received his PhD in Economics from Harvard, writes about how the people of Chile prefer a market's risk over political corruption and manipulations.  

    "They (worker in Chile) trust the private sector and prefer market risk to political risk. If you invest money in the market, it could go up or down. Over a 40-year period, though, a diversified portfolio will have very low risk and provide a positive rate of real return. But when the government runs the pension system, it can slash benefits at any time."

    Only ownership can stop political corruption and malfeasance.  Ownership is essential for freedom and prosperity.

    3 comments
    Vlad Jersian
    01/09/2013

    Social Security is an "insurance scam".. just like most common "annuities" that the top insurance companies want to sell you. The biggest difference is in the "size of the pool"... The bigger the pool, the lower the unit cost per participant... Can't find a much bigger pool than 310,000,000 Americans... So, from a "cost" and "efficiency" and "value" point of view... can any other plan really compete?

    Vlad Jersian
    01/09/2013

    Are Social Security and Medicare "entitlements" or are they "benefits" that where bought and payed for?... Just asking...

    Joy Radford
    02/25/2013

    They were 'bought and paid for' by the recipient.. If the gov't spent the funds, too bad...The benefits belong to the 'beneficiary'. Soooo,, many more programs, wasteful spending should be cut; but, NO, the republicans have the big three,
    SS, Medicare, Medicaid, as their losing 'talking points'. So old tired-out themes.
    They have nothing to offer the country;; so , they spread their 'good news' , over and over. Perhaps they could find some new social ills to b____ about.

    Pages