Only One Lied

by Bill Sandry

Democrats rang the national alarm after the first debate by proclaiming that Romney’s debate was based on lies. I’ve not heard them identify what his lies were, not one. On the other hand I can point to a specific lie by Obama.

Obama said “Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked . . . But the basic structure is sound.” Social Security is not structurally sound. Economists tell us that for years the model is not sustainable because the ratio of workers to retirees has changed significantly and can no longer support the increasing relative percentage of retirees. Additionally, contrary to the recent article by the Arizona Republic on Social Security, there is not a solvent Trust Fund. Congress spent our money years ago and left us with our own IOU’s for us to pay ourselves as tax payers. That’s like taking money out of our left pocket to put it in our right pocket, only there’s no money in the left pocket, it’s borrowed from China. A fundamental change is required, not just being “tweaked”, to make the program solvent. Additionally, what the politicians don’t tell you is that there is no guarantee for the government to pay you. In Flemming v Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) the Supreme Court established that there is no contractual obligation for the federal government to pay Social Security benefits. As the Court held, the denial of payment of benefits is the “mere denial of a non contractual government benefit.”

The irony of the typical politician’s position (not just democrats) is that “it is very risky to privatize your Social Security program.” The three counties that opted out of the Social Security system in 1981 adopted the Galveston Plan (see “An American Model for Social Security Reform” by Judge Ray Holbrook). Their participant members receive a 7-8% return on investments providing 300-400% greater retirement benefits than their social security counterparts (us) and they have survivor benefits. Wouldn’t it be better to receive $3,600 or $4,800 per month instead of $1,200? They invest in very “risky” investments like guaranteed tax-free government bonds. Who would have thought of conservative government guaranteed investments? The misrepresentation that your privately owned fund, that you run, will wildcat in the stock market is a fallacy. Galveston funds have money in the bank; not unenforceable IOU’s. When the government is holding the IOU’s and you can’t sue to collect, what can you do?

In the 1980’s when other counties realized how much better the Galveston plan was than Social Security, 50 of them lined up to opt out of Social Security. Well, . . . Congress could see the stampede coming to drain their slush fund in their unaccountable cookie jar and passed a statute making it illegal to opt out of Social Security. So instead of having free choice for a system that actually has money, is solvent, and pays 3 or 4 times greater benefits and has a survivor benefit, the government denied our free choice and compelled us into a system that, despite Obama’s misrepresentation, is not solvent, has no funds, is losing money and that, if push comes to shove, is not collectable. That takes more than a “tweak” to correct and it is disingenuous at the least to misrepresent to any one, not just seniors, a solvent status for social security. Our children have the unalienable right to freedom of choice in their constitutional right to their “pursuit of happiness”.

I would like to thank Bill for contributing this post to my blog, changes are needed to Social Security now. I’m personally for privatizing the program, anyway it can be accomplished.

Tea Party Infidel