SOCIAL SECURITY
UNSOCIABLE INSECURITY
One day, when I was about 17 or 18, an insurance salesman came
knocking at my door. Something about him was very intimidating. He had a badge
but I didn’t bother to read it. Anyway, he came into the house uninvited and sat
down and laid out his plan for my retirement. It went like this.
At age 65, I would get what would amount to about a 1% or less
return on my investment over the next 47 years, if I lived to 80, and my
earnings were in line with his projections. If I didn’t marry the money I
invested would go to him and his company. None of my relatives would have any
claim to it. I could not leave it in my will to anyone. It would not be enough
for me to keep my home or buy a new car or anything like that. It wouldn’t cover
the cost for my possibly having to go into a rest home and doctors and hospitals
were out of the question. It might cover the cost of my burial, if an orange
crate in the city dump were acceptable. The cost was so high, making additional
provisions for my retirement would cut into my life style during those years I
would be building my own life.
I contacted other insurance companies and they basically told
me for the investment his company was demanding, they could provide me with a
policy that would enable me to go out in style. The return on my investment
would not only let me keep my house but purchase a vacation home. I could
probably plan on replacing my car at least every five years. I could include the
benefits accumulated on my policy in my will to anyone I chose. I could provide
for rest home care to a point I would not only not be a burden on my family but
I could also live with the dignity I would want at that age. Basically, for the
same money invested, my return would be at least 12 to 20 times greater than the
other company. Better yet, if I simply invested the premium from my policy there
was a strong likelihood I could do everything I wanted without touching the
premium. I would have a handsome inheritance for my heirs.
Well after hearing this, I went back to that other insurance
agent and tried to tell him I wasn't interested in what he was peddling. The way
he laid it out to me it was nothing but a pyramid scam. His company had the
right to change the premiums and my return on the investment anytime they
wanted. Even if it looked like they, due to white-collar crime in their company,
might go broke, I still had to fork up. He called his company the Federal
Insurance "CONTRIBUTION" Act (FICA). I said to him, if it’s a contribution, why
are you threatening to take everything I have and through me in jail if I don’t
want to contribute to your scam. You even make my employer contribute more than
me. That money could be mine at no expense to my employer. What a con job.
Think about it. The average income in Connecticut today is
about $40,000 annually. Your "contribution" to the Unsociable Insecurity Act is
10% ($4,000) annually. Your employer is compelled to give another 11% ($4,400)
of YOUR money. If he didn’t have to give it to the government, he could give it
to you without any additional expense to the business. He’d even save money in
that it would cut his bookkeeping cost. That totals $8,400’s. Ask any Insurance
Agent; if I wanted to purchase an insurance policy for $700 a month/$8,400 a
year, what could I buy? Better yet don’t ask, you’ll get sick.
That’s when he got real nasty… " Look stupid I represent the
COMMAND CLASS. Are you questioning them or me? We put your money in a TRUST
FUND. Don’t you trust us? Are you questioning our motives? He almost said,
integrity, but backed off.
My family never had very much. From what my Pop told me he had
been cheated out of things due to his not doing a little "thinking like a
serpent but acting like a dove." Well Pop didn’t raise his children to be
suckers. So I’d been doing a little reading. John Attarian, a gentleman with a
Ph.D. in economics had done a very comprehensive study into this CONTRIBUTION
nonsense, and published a summary of his findings in "Ideas on Liberty", a
publication put out by The Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington, N.Y.
10533. This is what he found. FDR the undisputed godfather of the Command Class,
when he perpetrated this scam called "The Social Security Act of 1935", it
called for an "Old-Aged Reserve Account", not Trust Fund. All it had to do was
cover those years' benefits. The rest of the money he and his comrades took
would be invested in the Federal Debt (including unmarketable debt issued for
this purpose) earning 3% percent interest, or other government-guaranteed debt.
Presently criticism arose, Winthrop Aldrich of Chase Manhattan
Bank argued that the reserve would be FICTITIOUS; the government would just be
issuing promissory notes to itself. As for interest on the bonds, which
supposedly help pay future benefits, the government would get the interest money
from "the only source it could obtain it," the general taxpayer. It was as if, a
father took deductions from his childrens wages to invest for their old age,
"invested" them in "his own IOU’s, "and spent the money leaving his kids nothing
but those IOU’s.
But isn’t the money taken from us by coercive force for our
retirement really in a trust fund? You decide. A trust fund is money,
investments, or other property held in trust, a trust being… "A fiduciary
relationship with respect to property, subjecting the person by whom the
property is held to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit
of another person, which arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention
to create it." All trusts must have a "settlor," who sets up the trust and puts
property into it: a "trustee," who manages the trust and has legal title to the
property in it; a "beneficiary," who holds equitable title to the property and
for whom it is managed; property; and terms of trust stating its purpose and
duties, the powers of the trustee(s), and the beneficiaries rights.
Does Social Security’s Trust Fund meet these criteria? You
judge.
Though congress legislated the Trust Fund, it is not the
settlor, because a settlor puts HIS OWN property into a trust, which congress
did not do. As for the Board of Trustees, who in a true trust would hold legal
title to its property, Section 201 of 1939 Amendments did not even mention its
having title to anything.
Nor do the purported trust "beneficiaries" have property in
the fund to which they have an enforceable property right, as beneficiaries of a
true trust do. Social Security maintains NO accounts containing funds earmarked
for individuals, and never has.
Professor Charles Rounds, a fellow of the American College of
Trust And Estate Counsel stated…" Despite the term "trust," the Social Security
system contains NOTHING that remotely resembles the common law trust. There is
NO SEGREGATION OF ASSETS from the general fund, NO EQUITABLE PROPERTY RIGHTS, NO
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT (all characteristics of the common law trust). It
is merely a system of taxation and appropriation sprinkled with trust terms to
hide its true nature. Social Security’s "Trust Fund" is bogus/extortion.
Stealing assets from a Trust Fund constitutes a felony crime but the small print
in the Social Security Act tells us it never was a Trust Fund.
What has our Retirement money been used for. Most recently to
finance the carnage the Contemptible Liar Bush is raining down on Iraq. Over the
years God only knows what else. Thieves rarely disclose what they do with the
loot so it is up to us to stop our bleeding and make the best of the situation.
The first thing to do to salvage the mess is get it out of the hands of the
thieves. My program would be as follows:
Immediately establish a true Trust Fund to secure the
funds still in the Treasury’s hands for the purpose for which they were
taken. Rewrite the Act to insure the representations to beneficiares were
truthful and legally binding.
Conduct a certified audit to find out what the true
situation is.
Set up a Board of Trustees consisting of one delegate from
each State appointed by the State Legislators. They would be empowered to
elect five people to act on their behalf but be held accountable for their
actions. This would bring accountability closer to home.
Take any and all control of the fund away from the Federal
government.
All outstanding obligations would be met or improved on,
NEVER REDUCED.
If Social Security had been handled like any other insurance
policy over the years, it would have netted the beneficiaries similar benefits
to insurance policies in the private sector. In the rewriting, your money would
remain yours to the extent you could leave it to any person of your chosing at
the time of death, or you could cash out, again like a policy in the private
sector.
Consider the other "benefit" the Socialist government we serve
has gained under the
"Unsociable Insecurity" system. We now have numbers instead of
names so tracking us is much simpler. Can you buy or sell without your number?
What just is it you can do without your number? It certainly makes it easier for
the government to manage your money.
May 10, 1991 Washington D.C. Senator Patrick Moynihan stated…"
The retirement System, which includes survivors insurance and disability
benefits, is fully secure and at the present HUGELY OVER-FUNDED. The surplus
comes to almost $1, 500,000,000 a WEEK. It will rise to $3,000,000,000 a WEEK by
the end of the decade. The issue is whether it is proper for government to use
pension funds for other purposes. AS WE ARE NOW DOING.
"Frankly," said the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee as
the debate came to a close, "we are…deciding whether the [Social Security] Trust
Fund’s surplus is safer being misused as it is today, or is it safer just
reducing it so that it cannot be misused."
THE SENATE RESOUNDINGLY VOTED FOR MISUSE.
I wonder. Who teaches who between the Republicans and
Democrats how best to deceive the people. They pillage, they lie, they use. I
think government is now a contest between them to see who can do it better.
Sadly, we seem to buy the scheme of the one who promises us the most not
considering they will take the most.
