One of my friends back in Boise sent along an email that’s been circulating around the internet regarding Social Security and how those evil Demonicrats are destroying it. So, of course, I had to reply…
It’s good to get an email from you! Feel free to send me anything you think I might be interested in. But beware, when I find an opinion I disagree with or a myth I can debunk, I usually do. And it tends to get pretty long…
Go Ralph Nader!
Yes, go Ralph Nader. Go to Australia. Go to the moon. Go somewhere else and don’t run for president here!
You know, of course, that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George W. Bush. Perhaps that’s what you meant; I seem to remember that you are a good ol’ red-state Repugnican. The ironic thing is that I voted for Nader in 2000. I bought into the argument that there was no substantive difference between Repugnicans and Demonicrats. (In my defense, I lived in Idaho, a 69% Bush state, so my Nader vote didn’t hurt Gore at all.)
Now, almost four years later, we’ve got $500,000,000 budget deficit, 1,500,000 jobs lost, workforce re-entry at -20% of previous wages, over 900 dead American soldiers in Iraq, a foreign policy that is a recruitment tool for al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden still running around loose, restriction of women’s right to control their own bodies, a continued war on sick people in medical marijuana states, a jihad against free speech and expression, an attempt to enshrine homophobia in the Constitution, and the emnity of nearly every country in the world.
I guess there IS a difference!
Nader is right about a lot of things. We must reform the campaign process, corporate lobbying, political cronyism, environmental destruction, and certainly the irrelevance of minority parties in our political process. But by running, Nader helps to elect Bush and assure that the things he cares most about have no chance in hell of being implemented.
Voting for Ralph this time around is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Too bad John McCain isn’t in the running.
John McCain did run in 2000 and the Bush team slammed him so hard with negative attack ads and smear tactic innuendoes that he lost the South Carolina primary and subsequently the 2000 Repugnican nomination. It’s hard for me to believe that McCain is sucking up so hard to the RNC and the Bush re-election campaign that he could forget or forgive this (from http://www.mblog.com/dispatches_from_the_culture_wars/067440.html):
After McCain’s surprising defeat of Bush in the New Hampshire primary in 2000, the Bush campaign targeted South Carolina, the next big primary, and began calling voters, particularly elderly voters, to ostensibly take a poll. But rather than asking how they felt about an issue, they asked this question: “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he had fathered a bi-racial child?”. Now, they didn’t actually say that he DID father a bi-racial child. But at campaign stops, you could see McCain and his wife Cindy with their dark-skinned daughter, Bridget. They adopted Bridget from an orphanage in Bangladesh. This is how you play dirty politics, folks. You plant seeds that push buttons, all with plausible deniability. But it’s vile as hell. It didn’t stop there. They also put out “anonymous” pamphlets all over South Carolina telling people that McCain’s wife had a history of drug addiction (she apparently was addicted to prescription pain killers at one point).
And now, let me (with the help of the good folks at the urban legend debunking site http://www.snopes.com) tackle this bit of incredibly false internet flotsam regarding:
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
From the Social Security Administration’s own website, http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $1,400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.
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, and,
The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have “promised.” It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)
In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department.
And that would be the Reagan Administration.
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.
FALSE. The Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction. From http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jul/socsec.htm:
The Social Security tax has been raising more money than is needed to pay for current benefits, in order to build up a surplus to help finance the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. All of this surplus is lent to the U.S. Treasury when the Social Security Trust Fund buys bonds from it. The money is then used to finance the federal deficit, just like any other money the government borrows. The bonds held by the fund pay the same interest as bonds held by the public. These bonds are every bit as real (or as much of a fiction) as the bonds held by banks, corporations, and individuals. Throughout U.S. history the federal government has always paid its debts. As a result, government bonds enjoy the highest credit ratings and are considered one of the safest assets in the world. Thus the fund has very real and secure assets.
AND from http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2002/news/0405_news_1.html:
Although “trust fund” is the term generally used, there are actually four trust funds – two for Social Security and two for Medicare. At the last accounting, they held assets totaling almost $1.3 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office projects they will grow by $2.5 trillion over the next decade. Their holdings consist of U.S. securities currently earning 6.9 percent.
AND while we’re at it:
Lyndon Johnson had a profound affect on the benefits received. He pushed and signed the legislation for Medicare benefits. He went to Independence Missouri, Harry Truman’s home town, to sign it. LBJ signed Harry’s card as the first recipient. These are some of his words: http://www.ssa.gov/history/lbjstmts.html
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
FALSE. Actually, it was Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who signed a bill taxing Social Security benefits. From http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
In the early 1980s the Social Security program faced a serious short-term financing crisis. President Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as the Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make recommendations for legislative changes. The final bill, signed into law in 1983, made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits, the first coverage of Federal employees under Social Security and an increase in the retirement age in the next century.
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.
This one may be true, but the best possible bill that Gore supposedly broke the tie for was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. This Act was a huge bill that covered everything from agricultural commodities, licensing of radio spectrum, luxury automobile taxes, fuels, banking, Medicare, etc. The bill passed in the House by a vote of 218-216 and in the Senate by 51-50. You can try to read it at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR02264:TOM:/bss/d103query.html. There was nothing I could find in there that started taxing social security annuities, but I don’t read legalese so well, so…
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!
FALSE. That happened during Nixon’s Administration. According to the Public Law 92-603, enacted October 30, 1972:
The individual must reside within one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia and be a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or permanently residing in the United States under color of law. Persons living outside the United States for an entire calendar month lose their eligibility for such a month.
The SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and the automatic annual COLA (Cost of Living Adjustments) based on the Consumer Price Index were pushed, signed, and implemented during the Nixon administration. So immigrants first received SSI under the Republican administration of President Richard M. Nixon.
It was actually Bill Clinton that signed legislation barring immigrants from receiving SSI as part of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This changed the following year with the signing of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Where we stand now is:
Individuals who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled, who continue to meet the income and resources tests, citizenship/qualified alien status, U.S. residence, and certain other requirements. Eligibility may continue for beneficiaries who engage in substantial gainful activity despite disabling physical or mental impairments.
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
No, the worst part is that the internet provides the engine for spreading rumors and falsehoods, and most people are too lazy to do the research for themselves.
____________________________________________________________________
|
_ | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/
| Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this
| © 2004 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.
