Social Security is it a government obligation
Democrat Congressman: Gov't Has No Contractual Obligation to Pay Social Security Benefits
(CNSNews.com) – Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said that most Americans do not understand that federal entitlements are not “bank account” programs that hold their money, adding that Social Security is not even a legal guarantee.
“Are these vested benefits? Are these contractual benefits?" Cooper asked of Social Security benefits. "Well, it turns out they’re not. Legally, they’re not even promises. They’re scheduled benefits and most Americans are not even aware of that.”
Cooper, asked about potential reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, said that the core problem was that the public does not understand the true nature of entitlements.
“Many Americans don’t really realize that Medicare is a government program,” Cooper said at a press conference with fellow Blue Dogs on Wednesday. “We have to start first with diagnosing the problem, helping all Americans understand the true nature of the programs.”
“Many people think that Social Security and Medicare are bank account programs, and money that they’ve paid in is stored up in their name just for them,” he said. “That is a widespread misconception.”
Cooper said that Congress could do itself a favors by explaining to Americans that the payroll taxes deducted from their paychecks go into the government’s coffers and are used to pay benefits for current retirees and are not saved for their retirement.
“There’s a lot we could do to help people understand that the payroll taxes they pay in this month are paid out next month to somebody they’ve never met, a complete stranger,” he explained.
Cooper also said that Congress should be explaining that it does not account for entitlement spending in the normal way, but puts it off on what he called a “government credit card,” rather than accounting for it through the normal budgeting process.
“There’s another huge set of issues having to do with government accounting,” Cooper said. “We put most of these precious, vital programs on the government credit card, as opposed to treating them in the regular budget process.”
Cooper is referring to a process known as off-budget accounting whereby Congress accounts for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds separately from its regular revenue and spending calculations. This process separates entitlement spending from the regular yearly budget, often making it difficult to gauge how much money the government actually spends in a given year.
Retired beer truck driver Frank Ferrira, 90, talks about social security on Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009 at a senior center in Pembroke Pines, Fla. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)
Many critics have argued that bringing entitlements back into the regular budgeting process is a more honest way to account for them because it would allow the public to see the entirety of federal spending and taxation every year.
Cooper noted one final misconception that Congress should correct--that most people believe that Social Security benefits are legal obligations of the federal government. In fact, he noted, they are nothing of the sort. Instead they are merely “scheduled benefits” that can be altered at any time.
“A further issue has to do with the legal treatment of these programs,” Cooper said. “Are these vested benefits? Are these contractual benefits? Well, it turns out they’re not. Legally, they’re not even promises.Tthey’re scheduled benefits and most Americans are not even aware of that.”
Cooper said Congress has “a lot of work to do” to educate the public about the true nature of entitlement programs.
“So we have a lot of work to do here as a Congress to start getting people’s heads in the game and understand the true nature of the dilemma,” he said.
Democrat Congressman: Gov't Has No Contractual Obligation to Pay Social Security Benefits
Mr Cooper is mistaken. These benefits are a legal obligation of the U.S. Government and the Supreme court would hold that they are. The supplemental benefits paid to those other than US citizens are just a Government program and could be and should be dropped.This program was sold to the people as a retirement program and the government seized our money under that fraud.- they are responsible.A verbal contract is a contract no matter what Mr cooper says and there are about 300 million people whom would fill the jury box in any suit that would vote to convict them. A democratic socialist snake that try's to change the rules without a just settlement will fine himself on the wrong end of a revolution. Here is an idea for Mr. Cooper-- all the salary and benefits paid to our elected officials were just a government program that paid them in error-- therefore we the people must insist that every elected official must return to the federal government every dime they have received from the people-- if they are unable to pay up all their assets are to be seized and used by the treasury for the benefit of the people.
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your
employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before
taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to
$220,500.
If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your
employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on
the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have
$892,919.98.
If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and
it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age
65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If
you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime
income of $2,976.40 per month.
The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie
Madhoff ever had.
Entitlement my ass, I paid cash for my social
security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make
my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!
Congressional benefits ---- free healthcare, outrageous retirement
packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid
sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social
security retirement entitlements?
We're "broke" and can't help our own Seniors, Veterans,
Orphans, Homeless
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey .
And now Pakistan ......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of
DOLLARS!!! Not only these but terrorist organizations like
the PLO, the muslim brother hood. What the hell is wrong with our
government paying them to kill us! CORRUPT CORRUPT CORRUPT
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they
get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour
Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of
us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time
for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the
government borrow from it in the first place? Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT*
gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
Sad isn't it? WE ARE SCREWED
99% of people won't have the guts to forward this.
I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did.
employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before
taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to
$220,500.
If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your
employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on
the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have
$892,919.98.
If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and
it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age
65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If
you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime
income of $2,976.40 per month.
The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie
Madhoff ever had.
Entitlement my ass, I paid cash for my social
security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make
my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!
Congressional benefits ---- free healthcare, outrageous retirement
packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid
sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social
security retirement entitlements?
We're "broke" and can't help our own Seniors, Veterans,
Orphans, Homeless
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey .
And now Pakistan ......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of
DOLLARS!!! Not only these but terrorist organizations like
the PLO, the muslim brother hood. What the hell is wrong with our
government paying them to kill us! CORRUPT CORRUPT CORRUPT
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they
get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour
Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of
us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time
for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the
government borrow from it in the first place? Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT*
gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
Sad isn't it? WE ARE SCREWED
99% of people won't have the guts to forward this.
I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did.
People believe that Social Security benefits are legal obligations of
ReplyDeletethe federal government. They are nothing of the
sort. Instead they are merely “scheduled benefits” that can be altered
at any time. I hope that Congress and Senate fall under the same misconception when they get ready to retire, and find their entitlements altered. So why did they take our money all these years and tell us they would give us a pension when we come to that age?
Federal Government’s Debt, Unfunded Obligations Grew Rapidly Last Year
ReplyDeleteRob Bluey
June 7, 2011 at 5:00 pm
(12)
According to a new analysis from USA Today, American households are now on the hook for $534,000 to pay for the county’s debt and the unfunded obligations, or excess costs, for programs like Social Security and Medicare.
USA Today reveals the eye-popping numbers for the federal government’s mounting fiscal problems. A staggering $5.3 trillion was added to the government’s tab last year, putting the overall figure at an astonishing $61.6 trillion.
The report offers fresh evidence that the time to act is now. Entitlement programs, in particular, are driving the debt crisis, despite what some in Congress and the White House would have you believe.
USA Today puts the increase for Medicare at $1.8 trillion. Social Security wasn’t far behind with $1.4 trillion increase.
When the $61.6 trillion is broken down per household, that equals $534,000 — a figure “more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else,” according to USA Today. By program, it looks like this:
•Medicare: $24.8 trillion
•Social Security: $21.4 trillion
•Federal debt: $9.4 trillion
•Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion
•Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion
•State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion
Despite the heated political rhetoric about programs like Medicare, the reality is that Washington can’t ignore the problem. Heritage’s new plan, Saving the American Dream, presents a path forward for fixing the debt, cutting spending and restoring prosperity.
New polling out today suggests America is seeking leadership on these issues. President Obama fairs poorly in the Washington Post-ABC News poll, getting negative marks from six in 10 on the deficit and economy.
It is humane and sane for the government to care for its citizens.The government needs to take care of its citizens. Too often, citizens are subject to the wills and whims of their employers. There is not enough health care coverage in the United States, when we could easily be taxing the top 1% of earners and covering everybody's needs. There are people dying of poverty and malnutrition in this supposedly "first-world" country. If that isn't inhumane, I don't know what is. The government has an ethical and moral obligation to look after its citizens. It's even in the government's best interest. Keep citizens alive, and they'll continue to be able to give back to their country.
ReplyDeleteis the government obligayes... the government should be working for the people... its people should not fear the government. we worked and pay taxes for many thing but we pay into taxes for our s.s after retirement as well as insurance for senior years those are some of the taxes that we pay. and, that is not a free hand out but what we have paid for our future.we did not ask for our government to waste that our monies we spent wrongly.our government should not exspect us to pay for their mistakes of spending either.our promise that ... those tax dollars would get a prcentage upon retirement is not a free hand out but earned by our hard works.a promise by mouth is a contract.word of mouth in trust and believing what our government promise on those tax dollars.other tax dollars other than those was the governments to waste but we should not have to work longer years to pay for the waste.alot are not healthy enough to work until 68 years or 70 years of age.but do we have a voice to say .. no we do not.but we are given more and more taxes to pay. .. and , we do it is the law. so i feel a promise made and taxes taken for that reason should be kept also.so by that the government should be obligated to do for their people.
ReplyDeleteThe PointWorking together is the fundamental point of having an organized society instead of going it alone. Those who think they oppose it overlook the numerous things the government does (such as enforcing contract law, providing roads, police, etc.) that make it possible for individuals to succeed. When the government looks the other way the baser elements of human nature emerge and people take advantage of each other. Every organization looks to its head for guidance, whether it's the coach of a sports team or the government of a country, that top spot is there to provide leadership and care for its members. Otherwise, what's the point?
ReplyDeleteSocial Security vs. Individual Mandate: Constitutionality?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to ask the question of constitutionality about the Social Security system in the United States: Social Security seems on the surface to be a requirement that everyone purchase retirement and survivors' insurance, so how did that pass muster with the Supreme Court?
Well, a little study of history shows that this was a big controversy back in 1937, when the Supreme Court took the case Helvering v. Davis. The Court ruled that Social Security was constitutional under the Tax and Spending Clause, Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.
The US government, in that case, went to great lengths to argue that Social Security was not an insurance plan. It was just public policy to provide for the general welfare of the country, and it was supported by a tax system not directly related to the specific policy. The Court agreed.
Note the difference with health care insurance today, and the individual mandate. It seems pretty clear that the individual mandate is to buy insurance -- a real contract with a private company, not a "maybe we will give you something when you retire" sort of scheme with the Federal government (again, the government argued that social security was NOT an insurance contract in the general meaning of that phrase). And you could avoid social security by not working and not paying the tax. The penalty of the individual mandate is a funny kind of tax for sure, which you avoid by engaging in the activity.
Remember that the individual mandate exists to avoid folks gaming the system, waiting until they get sick to buy insurance. Such behavior results in pre-exisiting conditions clauses, something most of us find very disturbing. But there are other ways around this problem, as in requiring insurance companies to issue to anyone who has continuous coverage (see my earlier posts). To save the folks who still game the system and end up sick and at our doors begging for mercy, there could be a high risk pool (as there now is) funded by general tax revenues...or even a tax on the insurance that the rest of us buy. Such a plan would seem to be on safer constitutional ground as it does not mandate that anyone do anything.
Such a plan is not without its problems, and would still be subject to gaming unless the high risk pool carried a significant cost, as in substandard coverage. Such a plan also would have would have made the price tag of dealing with those who try to avoid buying insurance real obvious, with the cost to everyone clear in the taxes they paid.
So in order to get the Bill passed (and I think to be able to say that the US has mandatory coverage) the Administration opted for the tactic of making everyone buy insurance, thereby avoiding the price coming to the government and having to be funded by taxes. And we are in the midst of a long protracted legal battle -- with declining support in the public and in Congress for the bill. Again, go back to the Social Security court fight -- there we had increasing public and Congressional support for the legislation.