OBOF SS & MORE PART 19

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

Name	Published
OVERVIEW	Dec. 28, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1	Dec. 30, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2	Jan. 10, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3	Jan. 17, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4	Jan. 24, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5	Jan. 31, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6	Feb. 07, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7	Feb. 14, 2011
SPECIAL ISSUE	Feb. 18, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8	Feb. 21, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9	Mar. 01, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10	Mar. 07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1	Mar. 14, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1A	Mar. 21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 2	Mar. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 3	Mar. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 4	Apr. 04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 5	Apr. 11, 2011
SS & MORE PART 6	Apr. 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7	Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A	Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8	May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9	May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10	May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11	May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12	Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13	Jun. 20, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14	JULY 05,2011
SS & MORE PART 14A	JULY 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 15	JULY 19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 16	AUG. 03, 2011
SS & MORE PART 17	AUG. 15, 2011
SS & MORE PART 18	Aug.  29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 19	Sept. 12, 2011

SOCIAL SECURITY & MORE PART 19

IN THIS ISSUE

1.  Most important issues facing our country.

2.  Social Security ~ a must right now.

3.  Privatizing Social Security.

4.  A new way to steal from Social Security.

5.  Who stole the Social Security money.

6.  JOBS,  JOBS,  JOBS.

7.  Penny Plan to balance the budget.

~~~

"VOTE  AN  EDUCATED  VOTE"

~~~

WHAT  ARE  THE MOST  IMPORTANT  ISSUES  FACING OUR  COUNTRY  RIGHT NOW?

That's a hell of a question.  You could probably make a long list and it would be different for different people.  I'm going to give you my take, at this time, and why.

To me, there are three issues at the front door right now; 1) Final steps of the debt ceiling debate (Super Committee and it's deliberations), 2)  The status of the Big Three, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and 3) Jobs & the Economy.

One and two go hand in hand.  As you may or may not know, the function of the Super Committee is to come up with deficit reduction of $1.2 to $1.5 trillion by Thanksgiving.  This is the first step of the final steps of the debt ceiling proposal. 

The Super Committee had its first meeting last week and already one member has said he would walk out, if there was any more talk about reducing Defense spending.  They're off to a real good start.  Threats are not what is needed.  Sounds just like the Congressional mess we have had all year. 

What they definitely will be looking at is deficit reduction by way of reforming the Big Three.  What little I know about Medicare and Medicaid, it seems that there is some room for reform that will bring about some reduction in spending. 

HOWEVER, SOCIAL SECURITY IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM.  WHY DO I SAY THAT?

While recipients  pay some for Medicare, the Government pays the largest portion, thus contributing to the deficit.  In the case of Medicaid, a combination of Federal and State Governments pay the entire cost of that program, contributing to the deficit. 

WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL SECURITY IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CAN OF WORMS.  WHY?

Social Security does not cost the Government anything.  It never has and, depending on what they do to it, it never will, at least it shouldn't.  IT DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEFICIT.

I want to explain that and also to show you why we all must start, right now, talking and writing to our Legislators about the difference and why it should be treated differently than Medicare and Medicaid.

THIS IS URGENT AS THE SUPER COMMITTEE WILL BE LOOKING AT SOCIAL SECURITY THE SAME AS MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.  IT CAN'T BE!!

A little background is necessary, in order to understand why SS does not and never has contributed to the deficit.

In 1983 it was recognized that outgo was going to be exceeding income soon.  Also, in the future, Baby Boomers were going to be starting to retire and that was going to make things worse. 

First, it should be understood that Social Security is not an entitlement program.  An entitlement program is one in which the Government  pays all or the largest part of the cost.  As you will see, the Government does not and never has paid a dime for Social Security.  Social Security is an insurance program and workers pay a premium taken out of each pay check called FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Account).  That is your account not the Government's.

President Reagan appointed a committee to study the future of SS and they set up the following plan.  Before this plan, workers paid to cover the cost of SS for the previous generation.  In order to make the program solvent thru 2040, FICA was raised, so that workers were paying for the needs of the previous generation and their own generation.

The idea was, that a surplus would build up, so that when the Baby Boomers started to retire in about 2018 there would be a surplus of more than $3 trillion.  This was determined to be sufficient to meet the added outgo when Baby Boomers retired and when worker FICA would be reduced. 

It was a great plan and would have worked, except for one thing.  Presidents and Congresses of both Democrat and Republican just couldn't stand to see all that money just sitting there, being invested to add the interest to the surplus.  So, what did they do?  They STOLE the entire surplus that had amounted to $2.6 trillion at the time it was depleted.  This was fraud pure and simple.  It was against the law to use the surplus in this manner.  The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 made it illegal.

Starting in 2010, SS income did not meet outgo, so the Government had to put money into the SS program.  Now many are claiming that this adds to the deficit and that SS is now costing the Government.  I maintain that this is not true and that the money the Government is putting into the SS program now is simply a small down payment on the $2.6 trillion that has been stolen from the Social Security Trust Fund.  If that money was in the Trust Fund, as it was suppose to be, the Government would not be putting any money into the SS program and the program would be solvent till 2036.  The youngest Baby Boomer will be 79 by 2041. 

There does need to be some reform in, the future, in order to keep the program solvent for 75 more years, but it shouldn't be, and can't be, treated the same as Medicare and Medicaid. 

SOCIAL SECURITY IS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS EVER DEVELOPED.     

  PRIVATIZING  SOCIAL  SECURITY

DON'T  EVER  DO  IT!!

EXAMPLE:  WHY  NOT?

I am a perfect example of why we should never privatize Social Security.  There are a few in our population that could probably invest the money that they put into SS and do better than what SS pays.  On the other hand, I think there are a number of those that are just like me.  I feel that I have a little above average intelligence, yet I lost my money by bad investments that I thought were solid. 

There would be a number of people that could wind up the same as me and if there were no SS, because of privatizing, what is going to happen to them.  As that happens, and I feel it certainly would happen, there would have to be some way of not just letting them die.  We wouldn't do that, so here we go back to some kind of program to take care of them, like maybe Social Security.  IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO DO AWAY WITH SS. 

WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE THAT SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO INVEST THEIR MONEY OR DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY MONEY TO INVEST?  To think that most people would save the money they didn't pay into FICA is simply putting your head in the sand.  It will be used for things that they feel they need.  That is one of the reasons SS was started in the first place.

REMEMBER, SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.  IT IS AN INSURANCE PROGRAM.  YOU HAVE PAID PREMIUMS TO HAVE THAT COVERAGE WHEN YOU QUALIFY.  IT DOES NOT COST THE GOVERNMENT ANYTHING.  IT IS SELF SUPPORTING.

CALL AND WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS TO TELL THEM YOU DON'T WANT ANY CHANGES TO SOCIAL SECURITY NOW. 

ALSO, TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT STEALING THE $2.6 trillion FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND.

All that I have told you here is true facts that can, and have been proven.  Dr. Allen W. Smith Ph.D. has spent the last 10 years of his life researching and trying to get the facts about Social Security out to the public.  He has written three books on the subject.  Most legislators either don't know these facts or if they do, they don't want to admit them.   

A  NEW  WAY  TO  STEAL  FROM  SOCIAL  SECURITY

Not only has Social Security been successful in meeting its original intent, it has been successful as a BAILOUT RESOURCE for the Federal Government for the last 25 years.  Now that they have depleted the SS Trust Fund, they still look to SS for another BAILOUT. 

They have, I think for the past year, and now want to continue another year of reducing, even more, the FICA.  That's right, they are using SS once again as a way to accomplish something that the program was not intended to do. 

It sounds great right now, BUT in the future the Federal Government will have to put more money into the SS program, which does add to the deficit.  This then gives those who want to do away with SS all together, more ammunition to make their case, saying that the program just costs too much.

If they ever did do away with SS, I don't know what the Government would do for a kiddie bank, when the next need for extra cash comes up.

The President is making this as a big thing, "cutting taxes," but a year or a year and half from now it isn't going to sound so great when they, the Republicans, mount a drive to get rid of SS all together.  This is going to be just like they have done with the Trust Fund.  Nobody realizes what is happening until it's too late.

WHO STOLE THE SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY & WHAT ONES ARE STILL IN THE SENATE OR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Scott Burns, Universal Press Syndicate and published on "chron.com," conducted some research relative to what legislators were in office in 1983, when the Social Security reforms were passed and who are still in office today.

While his findings are interesting, I don't agree with the final action he is advocating.  I will provide his information and you can decide for yourself what you feel and want to do.

He found that there are 44 Senators and Representatives still in office that were in office at the time of the vote on the Social Security Reforms of 1983. 

Of the 44, 23 voted for the bill.  It is Burns' belief that the 23 made the $2.6 trillion theft possible and supported it for 28 years.   

He further states that "If they voted against it, as 16 did, we have to ask what constitutes cosmic ineffectiveness in office, surely they qualify."

The remaining five didn't vote "on the most important program run by the U. S. government.  And they are still in office."

According to Burns, 9 of the 44 are Senators who have held the same seat since or before 1983, 7 are Senators, who voted in their earlier position as a Representative. Twenty-eight are Representatives who have held that office, since 1983 or earlier.

This group of 44 either watched or participated in the outright stealing of the $2.6 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund.

Mr. Burns wants us to "Work hard to get the 23 who voted for the bill out of office."

This is where I disagree with Mr. Burns.  There may be other reasons to vote them out of office, such as longevity.  Mr. Burns wants them out, because they made possible the stealing of the $2.6 trillion.   That, alone, doesn't warrant voting them out. 

I think the Bill was a good Bill.  It would have done what it was suppose to do, if the greedy legislators had not ignored the law and turned into criminals.  The 23, by themselves, did not cause the stealing. 

At any rate, for whatever it is worth, I am listing below the 23 Mr. Burns refers to.   

Name -  State -  Party -  Office

Burton, Dan IN R C

Baucus, Max MT D S

Bingaman, Jeff NM D S

Cochran, Thad MS R S

Dicks, Norm WA D C

Dingell, John MI D C

Durbin, Dick IL D S*

Grassley, Charles IA R S

Harkin, Tom IA D S*

Kaptur, Marcy OH D C

Leahy, Patrick VT D S

Levin, Carl MI D S

Levin, Sander MI D C

Lugar, Richard IN R S

McCain, John AZ R S*

Miku43lski, Barbara MD D S*

Miller, George CA D C

Petri, Tom WI R C

Rangel, Charles NY D C

Rogers, Hal KY R C

Shelby, Richard AL R S*

Stark, Pete CA D C

Young, Bill FL R C

Note: C=Congressional Representative, S=Senator, S*=Currently in Senate, was a Representative in 1983

REMEMBER!! Call and write your Senators and Representative.  Tell them that you don't want any changes now in the Social Security Insurance program.  Point out that SS has never and isn't now contributing to the deficit. 

JOBS,  JOBS,  JOBS

PRESIDENT  OBAMA

HITS  A  HOME  RUN

In his speech to a Joint Session of Congress, President Obama finally did what we Progressives have been wanting to hear, a forceful, serious,and determined presentation.  There were no light moments

throughout his 34 minute speech.  There could be no question, at the end, as to what he meant to say.

Having said that, however, it must be remembered, that the President actually can do very little, beyond asking Congress to pass his bill.  He has only one more thing that he can do and that is to take his plan to the people and try to create enough pressure on Congress, from the people, to get his bill passed.

His plan, while not yet complete, sounds like it should have bipartisan support.  HOWEVER, the Republican agenda remains the same, and that is to, defeat the President in anyway they can.  I have little faith that the Republican House is going to pass his bill, UNLESS, we, out here in the field, can mobilize  strongly behind the President.

THIS, AND SOCIAL SECURITY, ARE THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT NEED OUR VOICES TO BE HEARD, LOUD AND CLEAR, IN WASHINGTON.  DON'T DELAY!!  DO WHAT, WE ALL KNOW, IS NEEDED.

In my opinion, the following is worthy of your time to read.

Breaking from Newsmax  Published 8-4-11

Connie Mack’s 'Penny Plan' Can Balance Budget

By Lanny Davis

Now that the national debt-ceiling deal is done — and liberals like me are unhappy and conservatives deservedly have more to cheer about — Thanksgiving 2011 will be more than about good turkeys.

This is the deadline for the so-called “super” congressional committee of six Democrats and six Republicans from the House and Senate to cut at least $1.2 trillion in the projected budget deficit for the next 10 years.

I favor at least one-half of this $1.2 trillion to be funded by a combination of tax reform — closing tax loopholes — and increases in marginal tax rates of upper-income taxpayers (including me).

But if you are an anti-tax conservative who sincerely believes that you have to cut spending and not “feed the beast” with more revenues, then one approach on spending cuts for the super committee to consider is the simple and creative “Penny Plan” introduced by Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla.

Mr. Mack’s bill, H.R. 1848, would cut one penny out of every dollar actually spent by the federal government from year to year for the next six years, from FY 2012-FY 2017.

Beginning in FY 2018, there would be a budget cap of 18 percent of GDP (the average federal revenue as a percentage of GDP over the past 30 years). And by FY 2019, America would finally have a balanced budget — that is, assuming revenues naturally increase from the current 14.8 percent of GDP to 18 percent of GDP by 2019, after which the budget would be in surplus.

There is an automatic spending cut “trigger” under Mack’s plan — one he came up with well before the trigger used in the recently passed national debt ceiling bill.

If Congress failed to enact a budget implementing the 1 percent actual spending cut required under Mack’s measure, then there would be automatic, across-the-board actual cuts in all federal programs to meet the 1 percent reduction, and that means all: in defense, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, defense, and national security spending. Everything.

Mack’s plan may seem draconian to some. It would cut the accumulated budget deficits by an estimated $7.5 trillion over 10 years — more than three times the amount achieved by the debt-ceiling deal that Congress approved last Tuesday.

But it actually has a rather modest impact on reducing our total national debt. It won’t be until eight years from now that the budget will be in balance and the national debt starts getting paid down.

We had $1 trillion in surplus — money in the bank — when Bill Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001, just eight years after he began his presidency inheriting a $300 billion deficit. Now we are heading toward a $15 trillion debt. How did this happen? Both parties are guilty.

I am a liberal Democrat who believes that the national debt and annual deficits are the country’s greatest moral issues. We cannot continue to use credit cards to pay for wars, corporate jet write-offs, and Social Security and Medicare — and leave it to our children, grandchildren, and probably great-grandchildren to pay our bills.

That is simply wrong. It is a moral stain on our generation if we leave this red-ink legacy for generations to come to deal with.

Mack’s Penny Plan may be imbalanced from my perspective, lacking in the revenue-raising component endorsed by the bipartisan Gang of Six and the Simpson-Bowles commission.

I believe Republicans will have difficulty in the 2012 congressional and presidential elections defending the proposition that the national debt can be significantly paid down from budget cuts alone, or that the wealthier in our society shouldn’t pay more or at least stop taking advantage of tax loopholes to pay less.

But since the “balanced” solution of both increased revenues and spending cuts entitlement reform is supported in virtually every poll by substantial majorities of all voters, including large numbers of Republicans, Democrats need to find a spending cut formula that they can live with.

The Mack Penny Plan seems a good place to start — it is simple, it makes common sense, and with some adjustments protecting the poor and the unemployed, it could be seen as fair even to many of the most liberal Democrats.

Despite our philosophical differences, I am a great admirer of Rep. Mack. I respect his deeply felt conservative philosophy and values. Most of all, I respect his ability to disagree agreeably.

In this time of crisis — and I believe our national debt is a genuine and historic crisis — we need members like Connie Mack who know how to reach across the aisle, as I have seen him do many times, to find common solutions.

The Mack Penny Plan deserves serious consideration — as serious as the man who proposed it.

Well I think that will about do it for this time.  If God is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again on Sept. 26th.  Till then, keep the faith and help the President.  God bless you all.

Floyd