Social Security

Sept 15, 2006

If Americans of any age were ever to recognize how badly they've been conned by failed government programs such as Social Security, they would probably respond in a manner similar to the Boston Tea Party. And it’s not hard to imagine a few career politicians and bureaucrats floating in the harbor alongside the tea chests. Consider the weeping and wailing from the Democratic left in answer to President Bush's Social Security reform efforts. Originally devised as a stopgap measure, social security was to be a retirement supplement, not something retirees were to be totally dependant on. Franklin D. Roosevelt's first major step on the road to socialism initially required a quite small payroll tax. Once begun however, the way was clear to tinker with the system, steadily increasing the cost, and eventually burdening Americans with a thirteen percent confiscation from every dollar they earn. Politicians in Washington quickly recognized that the governments “take” from the taxpayers would exceed expenditures for quite some time. So, in a manner guaranteed to earn Enron executives a quick trip to jail, Congress began pillaging the fund, using the money to feed its endless quest for pork. Ostensibly, such violation of public trust is hidden by the substitution of IOU's, offered as a "guarantee" of repayment. Consider the absurdity of this concept, and how it exemplifies the contempt with which these politicians regard working Americans. Not even worth the paper it’s written on, any government issued "IOU" simply admits the fact that monies were indeed appropriated, and that sooner or later, somebody will be forced to repay them. Since governments cannot create wealth, and only possess that which can be forcibly extorted from the citizens, those promissory notes hold no monetary value whatsoever. Instead, they’re nothing more than confessions of the original theft. If they are to be repaid, it will be by the very same citizenry that was overtaxed to create the surplus in the first place.

The pillage of social security has continued for decades. Now however, the “Baby Boomers” are coming into retirement age, and to most of them, in this day of a skyrocketing cost-of-living, social security isn’t a supplement anymore, it’s a dire necessity. Meanwhile, politicians are still having a field day dipping into the coffers, essentially robbing from one citizen in order to purchase the loyalty of another. It is perhaps the biggest deception of the twentieth century to portray Social Security surpluses as anything other than a supplemental income tax, further burdening the citizenry while enabling big-government liberals from both parties to perpetuate "business as usual."

Thus, the phony outrage among these same liberals, intent on maintaining the system in its present form. And politicians who suggest another tax hike as some sort of corrective action are merely showing themselves to be willing to continue the theft, not only from this generation, but from future generations, until such time as the public wakes up to the scam. Such tactics are the lifeblood of liberalism, which on one hand publicly reviles the evils of capitalism, while on the other hand continually seeks to maintain its access to the lion's share of the money. Is it any wonder that liberals vehemently oppose revamping the system into a form that would allow average people some measure of independence, and would eventually force the system to become accountable? The anxiety of common citizens, particularly those who rely on Social Security for their sustenance, can be readily understood. But politicians who echo that alarmism show themselves willing to further the fears of their constituents in an effort to keep the money flowing in, rather than pressing for an effective solution. Every pyramid scheme in existence requires the inclusion of a "bottom tier" of people who are robbed blind in order to enrich those above them. Social Security is no different. In the private sector, such schemes are considered criminal actions. How much more criminal is it for the government to continually subjugate present and future working Americans by forcing them into financial dependence on our rapidly growing federal “Nanny State”?