get ready for 4 more years of hate in congress

[celestemekent]

Incoming House Judiciary Chair Said That Medicare And Social Security Are Unconstitutional

By Ian Millhiser on Nov 13, 2012 at 11:43 am

The Hill reports that Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is expected to take over the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee in January, replacing Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) who will lose his gavel due to term limits. Goodlatte is a hardliner on immigration who is expected to oppose immigration reform bills that fall under his committee’s jurisdiction, and he also embraces a far right “tenther” vision of the Constitution that would render most of what the United States government does unconstitutional. Indeed, in a town hall meeting in 2011, the incoming House Judiciary Chair claimed that Medicare and Social Security both violate the Constitution.


If the house of representatives is going to get anything done we do not need such people as chairmen of committees. Boehner and Cantor (the republican leadership in the house) could have chosen someone else for those committee assignments but didn't. This is a sign of further republican obstruction for the next 4 years.

 

[HeavenlyWarrior]

Incoming House Judiciary Chair Said That Medicare And Social Security Are Unconstitutional

By Ian Millhiser on Nov 13, 2012 at 11:43 am

The Hill reports that Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is expected to take over the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee in January, replacing Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) who will lose his gavel due to term limits. Goodlatte is a hardliner on immigration who is expected to oppose immigration reform bills that fall under his committee’s jurisdiction, and he also embraces a far right “tenther” vision of the Constitution that would render most of what the United States government does unconstitutional. Indeed, in a town hall meeting in 2011, the incoming House Judiciary Chair claimed that Medicare and Social Security both violate the Constitution.


If the house of representatives is going to get anything done we do not need such people as chairmen of committees. Boehner and Cantor (the republican leadership in the house) could have chosen someone else for those committee assignments but didn't. This is a sign of further republican obstruction for the next 4 years.

Thank you for informing us of these Important News, Celeste! As always you are right on top of the things that really matter to the people of this country and we thank you for that. This news item is just right in line and even goes further now with what many have been saying about how the Republicans and their folks want to do business here in the U.S. of A. And it is indeed sad that this man with his far rightwing views can be considered for such a high-profile post. What he is trying to do away with, according to this article, is the very fabric of what people in this country elected him and others to save.

And I bet that many people who voted for Republicans to retain the House and now only to learn about this are beside themselves and rightfully so! Those who depend on Medicare and Social Security, for one, and that averages into the MILLIONS of older people in this country who depend on these services. Millions depend upon Social Security alone as their ONLY source of income but who may have voted Republican this year. Well, they may well harvest what they planted if this guy gets enough votes to push through his extreme agenda to take all of that away from them! And it will be a sad day for all others in this country as well. But it can only go to show than many have still not learned their lesson that the Conservatives are all about CUTTING what is rightfully yours. All of the years you worked to put money into Social Security, Medicare, etc. with the belief that you would one day be able to retire in peace and have it help you in your time of need in your golden years may be in great jeopardy due to people like this and a party that has literally thrown the Middle-Class, the Poor and many others under the bus. Indeed they may not need Medicare and Social Security at all since most are financially well off and are able to pay any and every bill in cash that they incur or that comes their way but the vast majority of others in this country are not as fortunate and have to depend on these services that are not 'given' to them free but that they have put their hard-earned tax dollars into for many of their working years.

It is a real SHAME that the Democrats did not take the House in this election in order to preserve the very things this Congressman wants to do away with and there can be no doubt that with Congressmen like this and their far right wing agenda many are going to be Voting For A Democrat in 2014 and 2016! If they do not, they will have no one else to blame but themselves when they see that these and other expected services start to erode right from under them when they need it the most and when they could have voted to Save them. But thank God that President Obama was re-elected with a mandate to do away with this kind of rubbish the other side is trying to push through. While indeed we can look forward to more division, consternation, and stalemate with the failed policies of the past and present under Republicans it is ultimately the American People who will greatly lose and suffer should any of what he and his other cronies may want to propose and get passed in the House. We pray for better days ahead but again, we must be very grateful to President Obama who will surely VETO any efforts to get such rubbish passed by the Republicans that would hurt the majority of the American people he was re-elected to represent.

 

[Tommy4Christ]

The cause of liberty, must be a repentance on the scale of Nineveh!

Yes our liberty as an American citizen is vanishing, but as a child of God we know our liberty is IN Christ, as we obey Him and His government based on obedience, sacrifice, holiness, and separation, this liberty represents freedom from the bondage's of sin and corruption, a defiant world and church may never see unless they heed the call to repent as God commands!

Tommy

 

[JimJimmers]

And I bet that many people who voted for Republicans to retain the House and now only to learn about this are beside themselves and rightfully so! Those who depend on Medicare and Social Security, for one, and that averages into the MILLIONS of older people in this country who depend on these services. Millions depend upon Social Security alone as their ONLY source of income but who may have voted Republican this year. Well, they may well harvest what they planted if this guy gets enough votes to push through his extreme agenda to take all of that away from them! And it will be a sad day for all others in this country as well. But it can only go to show than many have still not learned their lesson that the Conservatives are all about CUTTING what is rightfully yours. All of the years you worked to put money into Social Security, Medicare, etc. with the belief that you would one day be able to retire in peace and have it help you in your time of need in your golden years may be in great jeopardy due to people like this and a party that has literally thrown the Middle-Class, the Poor and many others under the bus. Indeed they may not need Medicare and Social Security at all since most are financially well off and are able to pay any and every bill in cash that they incur or that comes their way but the vast majority of others in this country are not as fortunate and have to depend on these services that are not 'given' to them free but that they have put their hard-earned tax dollars into for many of their working years. [/B]

I'm not a Republican, but I've never seen a compelling argument that Social Security or Medicare are Constitutional. This is not to say that the proverbial rug should be jerked out from under seniors, as they paid into the system in good faith (along with the little thing about the threat of being charged with tax evasion to anyone who doesn't pay into it), but the bigger question is, what if a young man decides he doesn't want to pay into the system, and instead wants to try a different retirement system?

In America, if I want my retirement account to be a pile of scrap copper that I sell when I retire from the plumbing business, isn't that my right? It is well-documented that the entire Social Security system was built on the (broken) promise that you will never have to pay more than 6% of what you earn into it.

Furthermore, The Supreme Court has ruled that I as a citizen have no right to any of the money I put into Social Security. The 'benefits' are determined by the government.

My question to you is, how does any of this fit in with the principles of The Constitution?

 

[jimmydiggs]

My question to you is, how does any of this fit in with the principles of The Constitution?

It doesn't. Unfortunately that doesn't matter to most.

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Liberty is Slavery
Theft is a 401(k)
Mandates are Taxes
etc etc

Just call it what you want when it's convenient.

 

[HeavenlyWarrior]

I'm not a Republican, but I've never seen a compelling argument that Social Security or Medicare are Constitutional. This is not to say that the proverbial rug should be jerked out from under seniors, as they paid into the system in good faith (along with the little thing about the threat of being charged with tax evasion to anyone who doesn't pay into it), but the bigger question is, what if a young man decides he doesn't want to pay into the system, and instead wants to try a different retirement system?

In America, if I want my retirement account to be a pile of scrap copper that I sell when I retire from the plumbing business, isn't that my right? It is well-documented that the entire Social Security system was built on the (broken) promise that you will never have to pay more than 6% of what you earn into it.

Furthermore, The Supreme Court has ruled that I as a citizen have no right to any of the money I put into Social Security. The 'benefits' are determined by the government.

My question to you is, how does any of this fit in with the principles of The Constitution?

Greetings! Social Security was enacted as a basic Human Rights entitlement by those who certainly knew the Constitution in order to prevent people from being downgraded to a condition beyond their means of support and the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly upheld that right although there may be some Republicans who do not wish to receive what they would otherwise be entitled to. In that case and imho since I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice, if you also feel that way, you might surely want to contact the Social Security Administration to tell them not to prepare any S.S. checks for you when you become of age to collect them as you are opposed to the program in principle and would rather just let your share go into the S.S. pool. I'd be very interested to learn what their response might be!

For more on this, please see this very authoritative article: https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/circle/modules/module11b.htm

 

[JimJimmers]

Thanks for your response. However, I asked three questions, and you didn't answer any of them.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I've never seen a compelling argument that Social Security or Medicare are Constitutional.

I've never seen a compelling argument that they are not constitutional.

Posted by JimJimmers:
My question to you is, how does any of this fit in with the principles of The Constitution?

The preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
*emphasis added

I know there are people who will argue that the founding fathers didn't mean "welfare" when they said "welfare." I have heard those arguments. I disagree with them. To me, social security and medicare seem to fit in very well with the principles of the constitution, as laid out in the preamble quoted above.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Thanks for your response. However, I asked three questions, and you didn't answer any of them.

I thought he did answer the last one of them, but I will try to clarify that one, and answer the other two for you.

This is not to say that the proverbial rug should be jerked out from under seniors, as they paid into the system in good faith (along with the little thing about the threat of being charged with tax evasion to anyone who doesn't pay into it), but the bigger question is, what if a young man decides he doesn't want to pay into the system, and instead wants to try a different retirement system?

I would call this a run-on sentence, but the last part does indeed appear to be a question. Specifically, "What if a young man decides he doesn't want to pay into the system and wants to try a different retirement system?"

You are correct: Heavenly Warrior did not answer this question. Though I can understand how he missed it. I will attempt to answer it for you.

If a person does not want to rely on the U.S. Government for their retirement income, there is no requirement to do so. He or she may invest in a pension that may be offered by an employer, or in an individual retirement account through any of a number of banks and investment companies. That does not mean this person is no longer part of the society, no longer a citizen of the United States, and no longer subject to the laws therein.

This is exactly the same as almost any other service provided by the government. If a person does not want to send his or her children to a public school, there are private schools to choose from in most major metropolitan areas. The parents still have to pay taxes to support the public schools, as long as they own property in an area where taxes are collected for said purposes. That is part of being a member of a civilized society.

If a person does not want to pay property taxes, said person simply need not own property. If a person doesn't want to pay income tax, the solution is equally simple: don't collect an income.

If you don't want to rely on government services, you are not required to. If you wish to live in the U.S. as a citizen, and a member of this civilized society, then you are agreeing to a social compact, and part of that compact includes paying taxes.

I hope that answers your first question.

In America, if I want my retirement account to be a pile of scrap copper that I sell when I retire from the plumbing business, isn't that my right?

It is absolutely your right.

In America, we have rights, and we have responsibilities.

Yes, you have the right to acquire a pile of scrap copper which you plan to sell when you turn 65 and use the proceeds from that sale to fund your later years.

Having this right does not mean you don't have to pay your taxes. I'm not sure why anyone would think it did mean that.

My question to you is, how does any of this fit in with the principles of The Constitution?

Those who enacted Social Security believed -- as many of us still believe today -- that part of what makes this country great is that we are a community. The individualism, the rugged "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" mentality is not a complete picture of what it means to be American. We are a nation of rugged individuals, yes, but many of us believe that the Founding Fathers' intent was not to ignore the plight of the poor, the destitute, those who, for whatever reason, don't seem to have bootstraps up by which to pull themselves. Those who enacted Social Security did so not "in spite of" the constitution, as you seem to think, but in response to it. They felt -- as many people still feel -- that the constitution does indeed charge government with the task of caring for those in greatest need.

As I said in my previous post, I understand that many people disagree with this assessment of the constitution. I am married to one such person, and I love and respect him, though we disagree on this topic.

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[celestemekent]

Except GrungeDiva, that the whole bootstrap thing comes to us from a series of books not from the constitution and remarkably everyone of those books always had some rich uncle or friend who could start them out with an investment. The myth grew up around the bootstraps but ignored the fact that knowing the right people is a more consistent way to make it big.

 

[JimJimmers]

I thought he did answer the last one of them, but I will try to clarify that one, and answer the other two for you.

He said it fit in with the principles of The Constitution because The Supreme Court didn't strike it down, which is a historically bad litmus test for something fitting in with said principles.

If a person does not want to rely on the U.S. Government for their retirement income, there is no requirement to do so. He or she may invest in a pension that may be offered by an employer, or in an individual retirement account through any of a number of banks and investment companies. That does not mean this person is no longer part of the society, no longer a citizen of the United States, and no longer subject to the laws therein.

This is exactly the same as almost any other service provided by the government. If a person does not want to send his or her children to a public school, there are private schools to choose from in most major metropolitan areas. The parents still have to pay taxes to support the public schools, as long as they own property in an area where taxes are collected for said purposes. That is part of being a member of a civilized society.

If a person does not want to pay property taxes, said person simply need not own property. If a person doesn't want to pay income tax, the solution is equally simple: don't collect an income.

If you don't want to rely on government services, you are not required to. If you wish to live in the U.S. as a citizen, and a member of this civilized society, then you are agreeing to a social compact, and part of that compact includes paying taxes.

Paying taxes is a fair part of living under a government, and I don't mind. Originally, taxes were assessed to the states, who then determined the best way to raise the revenue, which I believe was much better.

I don't object to paying taxes, but Social Security is passed off as something that will go to a retirement fund that you then collect from later, and that's completely untrue. It is supported by new "investors", much the same way Bernie Madoff 's investment firm ran things.

Furthermore, Social Security was started as a (arguably sexist and racist) program built on the lie that you will NEVER pay more than 6% of your income into it. I don't believe this fits in with the principles of the Constitution.

Those who enacted Social Security believed -- as many of us still believe today -- that part of what makes this country great is that we are a community. The individualism, the rugged "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" mentality is not a complete picture of what it means to be American. We are a nation of rugged individuals, yes, but many of us believe that the Founding Fathers' intent was not to ignore the plight of the poor, the destitute, those who, for whatever reason, don't seem to have bootstraps up by which to pull themselves. Those who enacted Social Security did so not "in spite of" the constitution, as you seem to think, but in response to it. They felt -- as many people still feel -- that the constitution does indeed charge government with the task of caring for those in greatest need.

As I said in my previous post, I understand that many people disagree with this assessment of the constitution. I am married to one such person, and I love and respect him, though we disagree on this topic.

I hope this answers your questions.

Yes, it does answer my questions. I see where you are coming from, and I appreciate your response. I have just seen no evidence that our benevolent government started the program out of kindness. They created a huge cash pool that they then robbed for other projects, creating a need for population growth to support the quasi-Ponzi Scheme.

As a Christian man, I obey the laws and pay my SS taxes. I still believe it to be unconstitutional and a government overreach.

Thomas Jefferson was actually concerned that the purchase of Louisiana territory was unconstitutional, and I respect him for that. I think everyone should ask themselves if laws they are pushing for are Constitutional, and not merely declare, "I think it's good, so it's fine."

We should not be afraid to pass legislation, but I believe we should examine all sides of every law.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Except GrungeDiva, that the whole bootstrap thing comes to us from a series of books not from the constitution and remarkably everyone of those books always had some rich uncle or friend who could start them out with an investment. The myth grew up around the bootstraps but ignored the fact that knowing the right people is a more consistent way to make it big.

Oh, I don't disagree that the origin of the "bootstrap" theory is myth. I would argue that it is a powerful force in Americana, and should not be taken lightly or cast aside, despite such mythical origins... similar to how I think you and I both view much of Scripture, especially the OT: "It may not have happened this way, but it most certainly is true!"

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I don't object to paying taxes, but Social Security is passed off as something that will go to a retirement fund that you then collect from later, and that's completely untrue. It is supported by new "investors", much the same way Bernie Madoff 's investment firm ran things.

This gave me a chuckle. You're not too far from the truth, although an understanding of the time value of money is required to "grok" the full effect of the Social Security plan, and why, despite outward appearances, it is not a ponzi scheme. Have you, by any chance, taken some upper-level accounting / economics classes where time-value of money is discussed? I would not recommend said coursework to anyone who doesn't really like mathematics, and advanced math at that. Both of my parents have PhD in mathematics-related fields, so I suspect I'm genetically predisposed to understand the stuff. And even with this "evolutionary advantage," shall we say, I still struggle with actuarial tables and similar topics. So your observation is amusing, and appreciated, though not 100% accurate.

I have just seen no evidence that our benevolent government started the program out of kindness.

I doubt it was.

Keynesian economics is not based on kindness at all. It is based on the theory that it is what is most beneficial to the greatest number of people.

A very simplified example:

You know the expression, "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he never goes hungry"?

Okay, let's take a micro-micro-micro-micro economic example of an economy with two people. One "have" and one "have-not."

The "have-not" comes to the "have" and says, "I'm hungry, I have nothing to eat."

Well, the "have" can allow the "have-not" to die of starvation, or he can give the "have-not" a fish, which costs 5 gimlets, or he can teach the "have-not" how to fish, which will cost him 50 gimlets.

If the "have" allows the "have-not" to die, he has lost half his population. That is not in his best interest.

If he gives the "have-not" a fish, the next day the "have-not" comes back, needing more fish.

If he teaches the "have-not" how to fish, sure, it's a big investment up front, but he never has to worry about that whiner again.

A government's decision to provide social programs like state pensions, public education, single-payer health care, and all sorts of other programs you see, are not necessarily out of benevolence on the part of the government. They are based on cool, calculated, economic decisions: A government will spend less, in general, if it educates its public to a minimum level, than if it does not provide some free education, so that only those who can afford education will receive it. An uneducated lower-class will be less productive, will bring in higher rates of crime (thus requiring more security, which costs money), and will end up costing the upper-classes more in loss of capital and productivity than it would have cost them just to send the dirty urchins to school. <sarcasm off>

Now, I'm sure many politicians -- on both sides of the aisle -- do genuinely feel compassion for the people they govern, and at least most of them, I hope and pray, base their decisions not solely on economic welfare but on concern for their fellow human being. My point is, even if a politician were a complete scrooge, economically, social security and other "socialist" programs do tend to cost less than their "trickle-down" alternatives.

Just sayin.

 

[JimJimmers]

This gave me a chuckle. You're not too far from the truth, although an understanding of the time value of money is required to "grok" the full effect of the Social Security plan, and why, despite outward appearances, it is not a ponzi scheme. Have you, by any chance, taken some upper-level accounting / economics classes where time-value of money is discussed? I would not recommend said coursework to anyone who doesn't really like mathematics, and advanced math at that. Both of my parents have PhD in mathematics-related fields, so I suspect I'm genetically predisposed to understand the stuff. And even with this "evolutionary advantage," shall we say, I still struggle with actuarial tables and similar topics. So your observation is amusing, and appreciated, though not 100% accurate.

I understand the basic theory of time-value. As far as I know, money that is robbed from a fund and spent ceases to have added time-value, does it not?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I understand the basic theory of time-value. As far as I know, money that is robbed from a fund and spent ceases to have added time-value, does it not?

Actually, it does not.

Money always has time-value. The value of time may be more or less, and it may not even be worth consideration, depending on whether the economy is experiencing inflation, depression, or relative stability, but it ALWAYS has time-value.

 

[JimJimmers]

Yes, money always has time-value, but since it is not in the Social Security fund any longer, the time-value of the money cannot be credited for the Social Security plan, correct? It is not accruing interest in a fund, and the fact that by the time you retire your money will be worth far less than when you gave it to the treasury doesn't really explain how Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. (I actually called it a quasi-Ponzi scheme, that's the sort of language some leading economists are using.)

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Yes, money always has time-value, but since it is not in the Social Security fund any longer, the time-value of the money cannot be credited for the Social Security plan, correct?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there is no money in the Social Security fund. There are billions of dollars in that fund, and, in fact, without any changes Social Security can continue for another 10-20 years before there would be any funding problems. The thing is, in 10-20 years, if we don't do something now, we will be facing some funding problems. If we wait 10-20 years to do something, it will be too late, so we have to start now to decide how to face the issue, whether to increase the money going into the fund (raise taxes), or decrease the money coming out (lower the benefit).

But you seem to think the fund is already bankrupt? That just isn't true. And whoever told you that is wrong.

The fund IS earning interest. Not great interest, but some. And yes, any US Citizen working today will get more out of it than they put in. What isn't certain is if those who are not yet working -- those under 18 now, who have not yet started to pay into the system -- will have this system when they start entering the American work force. That is as of now an unknown.

 

[JimJimmers]

I saw this on Forbes.com, what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/

It reads very alarmist, although that doesn't mean it's untrue. I hope it's not true, it would restore some faith in my government, but then I saw this from CBS MarketWatch (Hardly a right-wing place): [T]he Social Security "trust fund" is invested in special government bonds issued by the federal government. Principal and interest on these bonds must be repaid by future generations, according to law. The bonds in the Social Security trust fund are counted both as an asset of the trust fund and as a liability, since they are part of the total federal debt. Basically, one hand of the government owes the other hand, and the investments in the "trust fund" are not separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund.

If MarketWatch is correct, this tells me the Forbes guy is correct, at least in one assertion.

How do you see things? In total sincerity, I would be thrilled to find out the Forbes guy is wrong.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I saw this on Forbes.com, what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/

It reads very alarmist, although that doesn't mean it's untrue. I hope it's not true, it would restore some faith in my government, but then I saw this from CBS MarketWatch (Hardly a right-wing place): [T]he Social Security "trust fund" is invested in special government bonds issued by the federal government. Principal and interest on these bonds must be repaid by future generations, according to law. The bonds in the Social Security trust fund are counted both as an asset of the trust fund and as a liability, since they are part of the total federal debt. Basically, one hand of the government owes the other hand, and the investments in the "trust fund" are not separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund.

If MarketWatch is correct, this tells me the Forbes guy is correct, at least in one assertion.

How do you see things? In total sincerity, I would be thrilled to find out the Forbes guy is wrong.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

What's a thread bump?

Is that when you post something to "remind" someone of something, like this, that I forgot I had promised to look up some articles on Social Security? If so, thank you for the reminder, and here's a few

>>>Blog (not the best on reliability, I know, but spells it out very clearly)<<<

>>>From Washington Post, a fairly middle-of-the-road newspaper (not particularly liberal nor conservative, known for being relatively unbiased) -- and with good references ... still more opinion than fact, but getting there.<<<

>>>Lots of information -- a whole page from a non-profit, non-partisan organization<<< I'd actually recommend this one, first, but it's not just an article, it's a whole website dedicated to teaching people about the entire federal SS/MC system, how it works, the history, the legislative changes that have been made, the current debates, etc. Excellent resource, but you have to "go digging." It doesn't have all the information at one glance, the way the first two more biased articles do. But it says the same thing.

So fear not.