Another Social Security topic from W...

[TM7]

FYI.......TM7
.
.
SOCIAL SECURITY: AMERICANS ONLY - PLEASE!
By Phyllis Spivey

Bewildering, isn’t it, that with the entire nation focused on the solvency of the Social Security system, the press continues to ignore a Bush Administration plan that by itself could break the bank? No, we’re not talking privatization; it’s the Mexicanization of Social Security that’s getting neither ink nor sound bites.

Political opponents apparently intend to spare George Bush the embarrassment of having to explain why, while trying to edge Americans off Social Security, he’s putting Mexicans on it. Even the American Association of Retired Persons, so stridently opposed to private accounts, is mum on the plan to extend Social Security benefits to Mexicans who work, or have worked – even illegally – in the U.S.

News of the plan broke in December 2002, when articles began appearing in major newspapers. In September 2003, Congress conducted hearings on it, where projected costs for the plan went as high as $345 billion over ten years. The same month the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a study faulting the Social Security Administration (SSA) for its deeply flawed analysis of the proposal and describing costs as highly uncertain due to unknowns about the "size, work history, earnings, and dependents of the unauthorized (read that illegal) Mexican population."

But just when related news, e.g., President Bush proposing quasi amnesty for illegals and dire warnings about the financial condition of Social Security, should have shoved the social- security-for-Mexicans scheme into the headlines, the issue all but faded from view. Even the accelerating presidential campaign failed to restore media interest.

Then, on June 29, 2004, SSA Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart and her Mexican counterpart quietly signed the proposed agreement, committing U. S. taxpayers to a one-sided contract of which few Americans were aware and on which there had been no public debate, despite its huge ramifications for a retirement system already in trouble.

The Center for Immigration Studies put things in perspective with its September 2004 release of an eye-popping study, predicting the plan would:


permit partial payment of Social Security benefits to Mexicans who work in the U.S. as little as 18 months;

permit Mexicans to return to Mexico and collect benefits, including disability pensions and survivor benefits;

cover not just Mexican workers, but their families as well, even if they have never lived in the U.S;

eventually compel the U.S. to pay billions in benefits to Mexicans for credits acquired while using fraudulent Social Security numbers prior to obtaining legal status.

In September 2004, Rep. J. Hayworth, Arizona, proposed legislation to block benefit payments to Mexicans, but the House of Representatives quietly defeated it, 178-225, California Republican Congressmen Dreier, Issa, Lewis, and Thompson, voting "no." Throughout the presidential campaign, John Kerry remained silent, ignoring an issue that might well have made him president.

Today, a SSA web site still carries the June 29, 2004 press release announcing: "United States and Mexico Sign Social Security Agreement. Another site states, "... the President will submit the agreement to Congress where it must sit in review for 60 session days. If Congress takes no action during this time, the agreement can move forward."

Meanwhile, the SSA – its numbers thoroughly discredited by numerous public and private groups, including the Government Accounting Office – continues to minimize the financial impact of the agreement, passing it off as just another of the 20 plus "totalization" agreements the U.S. has been racking up since 1978. The totalization countries include Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, France, Portugal, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Greece, South Korea, Chile, Australia and most recently Japan (expected to take effect in late 2005).

The SSA describes totalization as "international social security agreements that coordinate the U.S. Social Security program with the comparable programs of other countries." Critics, however, say Mexico's retirement system is in no way comparable and that the actual goal is to force U.S. taxpayers to subsidize the corporate hiring of cheap foreign labor to replace American workers. Particularly galling is that foreigners are getting social security benefits on far better terms than U.S. citizens, even where there is no totalization agreement.

In July 2003, for example, author Phyllis Schlafly told of a report in The Economic Times of India. It indicated the Bush Administration had assured India that its citizens coming to the U.S. to work on H-1B visas would receive Social Security benefits in six years, instead of the ten required for Americans. It’s unlikely this policy applies only to India.

Despite a lack of publicity on the accord with Mexico, opposition is growing, and it’s led by Congressmen from the President’s own party. In February, Rep. Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Virginia, announced plans to introduce a resolution asking the President not to submit the agreement to Congress. If the President goes ahead, Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona, has promised to block it with another resolution.

And, according to the Washington Times, the Seniors Coalition, a seniors advocacy group, has joined the opposition with 387,000 petitions from angry members. "It’s a double cross that they do not understand ..." a spokesman asserted in the February Times report.

Did they say "double cross?" Consider this: The U.S. already has an active agreement with Canada; the deal with Mexico would give the U.S. totalization deals with both of its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) "partners." But now the Bush Administration is pushing congressional action on another open border trade pact - the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which includes the countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.

Once CAFTA is approved, how could the U.S. possibly deny social security benefits to CAFTA countries, having already put Third World Mexico on the social security take?

Preposterous, yes. But the facts suggest that social security is not just being Mexicanized; it’s being internationalized. Only Congress can stop it. Contact your Congressman at 1 - (877) – 762 – 8762 (toll free). Demand that he (or she) oppose the social security agreement with Mexico and support Congressman Ron Paul’s H.R.858, which would reserve America’s social security system for Americans – Americans only! What a novel idea.

April 28, 2005

[Leverdude]

Maybe the best thing is to start SS from scratch again. Send everyone all the money they put in so far & then start it anew with recipients getting what they put in + intrest upon retirement or permanent disability.
You only put in for 10 years thats what you get, put in 40 years get what you invested. They know exactly what everyone with a SS card put up so it should be an easy & simple thing to accomplish.

I saw President Bush on tv not long ago pushing his privatization plan & one of the things he pointed out was that money wouldnt be available for the gov't to spend. Wouldnt be available for the reat of the population either & since they pay retirees with what we pay now it would appear this would lessen the money available to pay benefits to those who already paid in & are now collecting. Doesn't seem right to me.

A better plan by far would be for congress to draft & pass a bill forbidding Washington touching that money for any reason, its not theirs anyway, its not public funds, its the hard earned cash of the American people.

Its a sad day when we've got billions to spare to help the helpless in the world but cant even manage to give our own people a fair return on their investments. Now we're gonna share whats not enuff for us with forieners.
They oughtta tax the immagrant workers for SS & put it in the pot for us.
A small price to pay if you ask me for the right to take jobs from Americans in their own land.  :roll:
They dont like it too bad, go home & make your country a profitable place.

[magooch]

On the subject of what should be done with the surplus Social Security   funds; you can't just shove the money into a giant vault somewhere.  These excess funds have been accruing since back in the Eighties.  By law, the excess funds have been used to purchase Treasury Bonds.  These bonds might not be the best investment in terms of what they pay but they are possibly the safest.

The Social Security system is flawed and no amount of tinkering is going to make it a sound, fair, lucrative retirement supplement program.  The idea of gradually shifting to private accounts is probably the least painful of all the possibilities, but the cost to do that is very high.  Any other fix is also going to cost big time, but the fairness issue will be what really goes south.

[Sourdough]

The thing that bothers me is that they take the money from Social Security, pay out benifits then transfer the rest to the general fund and spend it on other things.  That way at the end of the fiscal year social security is broke.  Then they start all over.  If they were to leave the money in the Social Security account it would not be nearing insolvency.  They are spending our money on other things, President Bush admitted that on national TV.

[magooch]

Sourdough, the practical effect is close to what you stated; however there is no difference in how our government spends the monies generated by the sale of treasury bonds to the Social Security Administration or to any other entity; all of the money is spent as if it were regular revenue.

Just because the money gets spent, it doesn't mean that Social Security lost it.  The General fund still owes the money, plus interest, to the SS system.  President Bush and all of the other politicians should use more care in explaining this process.

There is a very big catch to this whole process, though.  In about four or five years if nothing changes, the surpluses will peter out.  At that point, the federal government will have to cut spending, raise taxes, or borrow more money from foreign countries or from wherever it can.  Everyone in the government knows that it is nearly impossible to rein in the spending, so get ready for some massive inflation, and/or tax increases.

[magooch]

The fact that President Bush is willing to consider making the Social Security system even more unfair, i.e., skewing it even more in favor of the lower income particiants is a sure indication of his perception of how much trouble the system is in.  I think he is absolutely right about the looming problems, but I do not think it gets better by making it even more unfair.  

It worries me when I agree with anything that liberals think, but on this one, I believe that liberals are right when they say that universal acceptance of the Social Security system is necessary for it to continue.  When the fairness of the system begins to wane, its acceptance will also sour.  When the return on the dollar invested begins to be totally out of syn for middle and upper income folks, the system will lose support and it will be brought down.

[ironglow]

Magooch;
   
   Pres Bush is dead wrong when he doesn't stiop the "Mexicanization" of SS...
  ..But I don't see where you believe you are agreeing with the Libs on SS ..or any other Mexicanization issue !
 
  A) It's the Libs that want the SS paid for by the working/ earning folks so the non-working can collect.

  B) It's the Libs that want no ID cards or ID checks to take place .

  C) It's the Libs that want you and I to p[ay for illegal's medical bills..

   D) It's the Libs (like ACLU) that are trying to disrupt the apprehension of illegals entering our country.

   E) It's the Libs that want the illegals to vote..they're the ones fighting ID checks on voters.

   F) And to add to that, it's the Libs that want felons to vote..you know, murders, rapists and child molesters ..should vote to change our laws..

      So the way I see it, I don't agree with the Pres where in this case he is apparently agreeing with the LIBERALS...

[magooch]

Ironglow,
The only thing that I agree with the libs about the Social Security system is that in order for it to continue, it has to be at least perceived as fair.  If it becomes an even more obvious wealth transfer system than it is already, it will begin to fall apart.

I personally believe the program is fatally flawed and will someday have to be changed or it will swallow the entire budget.

[magooch]

TM7,
I don't know if you are just using the wrong initials or if you don't know the difference between SSI and Social Security.  At the risk of offending--SSI is Supplemental Security Income and the only thing it shares in common with the Social Security system is that it is managed by the Social Security Administration.  SSI funds come from the general fund, not FICA taxes.

SSI is not what I would consider a great program, nor is Social Security.  
Both of these programs have been great windfalls for those who got in on the ground floor, but they are both unsustainable in the long term as they are currently financed and configured.

[ironglow]

SSI draws from the Social Security funds...it takes care of the handicapped that cannot work..that's fine...but it seems to go into supporting all kinds of parasites..
   Paid for by Soc Sec funds...

[magooch]

All Ponzi schemes fail, as will Social Security if it is not changed.  There is a limit to how many times taxes can be raised to keep the plan afloat.  People need to be cognizant that their true contribution to the plan is 12.4% and not 6.2%.  Yes, your employer pays half of it for you, but that doesn't change the fact that your contribution is 12.4%.  Do the math on what that would amount to if it were invested conservatively for 40 years or so.

When Democrats say that all the system needs is a little tweeking, what they are really saying is tax increase.  As all you business owners are well aware, these little tweeks are tweeking you to death.  At some point, there is no reason to go into, or stay in business if it is just to support your employees and boondoggle social programs.