Press Releases

Social Security Trust Will Survive, AMAC Says

social security cards‘There are ways to avert a crisis’

WASHINGTON, DC, July 25 – The recent report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office declaring that the Social Security Trust will be “exhausted” by 2030 requires clarification, according to the Association of Mature American Citizens.

“But, the Trust will be in peril only if the President and Congress do nothing to prevent such an outcome,” explained Dan Weber, president of AMAC.

“But even if nothing is done and the combined Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Funds [OASDI] are used up in 16 years, the Social Security Administration would still be able to make partial payments.  The government would still be collecting SS payroll taxes and, thus, would be able to pay benefits albeit at reduced rates.”

Weber is confident that will not happen.  He believes that the American people would not accept benefit cuts and our lawmakers would be forced to take action.

“There are several ways to avert a crisis,” he added.  “To help spur our lawmakers to action, AMAC has introduced a proposed Social Security Guarantee. It will provide more money to older Americans living on a small income, add an enhanced voluntary savings plan and keep Social Security solvent for the next 75 years- all without raising taxes!”

Please see the AMAC Social Security Guarantee at www.amac.us

NOTE TO EDITORS: Dan Weber is available for telephone interviews on this issue.  Editors and reporters may contact John Grimaldi by phone at 917-846-8485 or via email at [email protected] to set up a call.

ABOUT AMAC

The Association of Mature American Citizens [http://www.amac.us] is a vibrant, vital and conservative alternative to those organizations, such as AARP, that dominate the choices for mature Americans who want a say in the future of the nation.  Where those other organizations may boast of their power to set the agendas for their memberships, AMAC takes its marching orders from its members.  We act and speak on their behalf, protecting their interests, and offering a conservative insight on how to best solve the problems they face today.  Live long and make a difference by joining us today at http://amac.us/join-amac.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by AMAC, John Grimaldi
Subscribe
Notify of
56 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Howard Last
5 years ago

Social Security does not need to be fixed; it needs to be repealed outright. The problem is how to make whole all our citizens that had their funds stolen over all these many years. Yes stolen, what else would you call it when something is taken under duress? Don’t pay your FICA and see what happens. There is a simple way to get their money back, just abolish all items in the budget not authorized by the Constitution. This would give better than 90% of the budget available to give their money back with interest. It would have an added benefit of getting Big Brother out of our lives.

How many people are aware that Social Security was the idea of Otto Bismarck and that Adolph Hitler refined it? Joe Stalin’s best friend FDR fits right in with these two great humanitarians. Bismarck made the retirement age 65 because most people did not live to 65. My father died at 62 and did not receive a dime that was stolen from him. I was self employed and put away in my own retirement fund approx. the same amount as FICA. I now receive a return about an order of magnitude (ten times) greater than Social Security. I retired at 57 and am now 70.

If Social Security is such a great deal how come it is not voluntary? Did Bernie Madoff put a gun to anyone’s head and say give me your money? So how come he is in jail and our politicians are free? No one was ever forced to join a Ponzi Scheme, but Social Security is a different matter.

Call Social Security by its proper names, “Stealing from your Children and Grandchildren” or “Bribing you with your own money”.

Anyone know which Section of the Constitution authorizes Social Security.

So anything other than abolishing Social Security outright is just a slight difference from what AARP and the crooks and/or mental midgets in Washington are doing or want to do. Modifying Social Security will not make it Constitutional or give you a better return than investing on your own.

If my post sounds familiar, I have said the same thing several times before.

Gary
7 years ago

Interesting comments. My 2 cents worth:
1st: elect a Republican majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

2nd: Impeach the lying, arrogant tyrant who occupies the White House and then convict him in the Senate.

3rd: Pass the Constitutional amendment that limits terms in both the Senate and House; (many States including Florida have passed it in their legislatures).

4th: Make ALL donations to politicians who run for national office illegal with mandatory prison sentences for those caught donating or receiving funds; instead make it a requirement that ALL broadcast stations (radio or TV) air up to 4 parties’ candidates’ (including the 2 present national parties) positions on the major issues with each party receiving equal time on a weekly basis e.g. 15 minutes; the operating principle being that the people have as much right to know the positions of the Green or Libertarian party as they do the Republican or Demo(n)cratic party. This would be a small sacrifice for the privilege of having been granted a part of the air wave spectrum.

5th: Require that ALL high school students take a course in the documents upon which this nation was founded including the Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, Federalist papers etc. Such a course would require the student actually read these documents rather then having some lying, liberal (I know, duplicative terms) tell them what these documents say. It is obvious that the majority of the population are abysmally ignorant of the Constitutional role of the Federal government and the limits placed on it.

Alice
7 years ago
Reply to  Gary

Well thought out. A good plan if we could get the elected types to actually do it.

My next comments are aside from what Gary presented.

I do not agree with the article in general. I do not believe there is or ever has been a Trust fund with real money in it. I believe that all that is in the trust fund is IOU’s. Asking the government to guarantee us anything except higher taxes is a laugh. Even if we are Blessed, and Dr. Ben Carson or some other NEW viable person is elected in ’16, there are going to have to be drastic changes made in a lot of areas including S.S. We all better be ready to tighten our belts and dig in for the long haul in order to get our country back. One of the first things that should be done along with what Gary outlined is to defund the U.N. and all the other places that our tax money goes that is wasteful. There has to be major, drastic changes to the salary and perks that go along with being a member of congress, too.

Changes can not take place unless we start to make changes with the upcoming elections.

KarenFaye
7 years ago

Just as Dr. Carson has proposed a Health Savings Account for health care; a retirement savings account should be established for Americans as soon as they start their first job. Instead of FICA or whatever the government calls robbing your paycheck, individuals need to formulate their own manner of savings – bank, investment account – whatever- and let it build over the years, hopefully, untouched. Keep the FEDS hands out of it! People need to take responsibility for their own means of living in their later years. I wish we’d have been that smart and had the means to do it in our younger days.

PaulE
7 years ago
Reply to  KarenFaye

Yes KarenFaye, the first thing anybody should do upon landing their first job is to to setup their own retirement / savings / investment accounts. People need to invest in themselves, in a manner that allows them to control what their money is invested in for their own eventual retirement. Reliance on the government for this or anything is pure folly, as the government can change the rules of the game anytime they want with the people paying the price.

If your employer offers a 401-K that’s fine, but that shouldn’t mean you don’t try to do anything additional for yourself. I tell young people they have to realize that at the end of the day, the only person who can ensure you have the best chance of a decent retirement down the road is them. No one will look out for your best interests better than you. Certainly not the government that is constantly looking for ways to tax or confiscate (re-distribute) what you’ve earned to give it to someone they deem more deserving. I agree completely with your statement of “People need to take responsibility for their own means of living in their later years.”

GeorgeCL
7 years ago

There is no SS Trust Fund. Only about a third of Social Security taxes are actually used to pay benefits. The other two thirds go into the general fund and are spent.

1. The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into a pool
or trust fund, but:

“The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes
are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue
generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way.”

[Helvering v. Davis, U.S. 619, 635 (1937)]

2. The Court points out that payroll deductions of American
workers are NOT payments on premiums for insurance of any kind,
but are simply income taxes:

“… eligibility for benefits … (does) not in any true
sense depend on contribution through the payment of taxes.”

[Flemming v. Davis, 363 U.S. 603, 609 (1960)]

3. Furthermore, payments made by employers for each of their
employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the
employee, but constitute an EXCISE TAX on the employer’s right to
do business. Consequently, his so-called “contributions” go
directly into the general fund of the treasury.

4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions
do NOT acquire property rights or contractual rights through
their payments, as they would if they were paying on an insurance
policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are
no guarantees! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to
citizens even, though they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amounts
of benefits granted are at the option of Congress. Flemming v.
Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960).

5. Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT
considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity
or gesture of charity. As the Court states:

“Congress included in the original Act, and has since
retained a claim expressly reserving to it the right to
alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the Act”.

[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610-11 (1960)]

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  GeorgeCL

Good to, GeorgeCl. So much for that Trust Fund so many have been yacking about.

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

That first sentence was supposed to be, “Good to know.”

PaulE
7 years ago
Reply to  GeorgeCL

Thank you for citing all the important aspects of case law involving Social Security for the AMAC members as a whole. Perhaps even to Mr. Weber, who appears to believe Social Security is setup substantially different from how it really is. Far too many people continue to believe the fantasy that they’ve been told for decades by politicians, on both sides of the aisle, that they’ve been contributing their own money to dedicated retirement accounts or that the taxes paid into the system were somehow “owed them”, when the reality is Social security is largely a pay-go system of current workers paying for current retirees. Some of us have been trying to get these and other points across to the members of AMAC, but have been having very limited success. Perhaps your post will make more progress.

Again, thank you GEORGECL for the amount of effort it took to parse through all the various case law to produce this excellent post. It is appreciated by those of us who value dealing in the reality of actual facts and not merely on what various politicians would like us to believe.

GeorgeCL
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

I cannot take credit for this information. I found it on a web site called supremelaw.org authored by a man named Richard McDonald. Lots of good information there.

Alice
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

And thank you, Paul E and Ivan Berry for your well thought out responses to various articles through these last months that I have been receiving the AMAC e-letter. Your posts have educated me and I appreciate it.

PaulE
7 years ago
Reply to  Alice

You’re welcome Alice. Glad to have been of assistance in some small way.

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Me, too. Thanks for the thanks, Alice (if you are still checking on this article).
And if anyone else is interested, if we keep teaching each other all we can, eventually we could become the smartest Serfs in the Gulag. We had better get and stay busy, not just singing to this chior but to the congregation as well. Let us all get out and spread the word.
The Declaration of Independance, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, including that forgotten Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the IXth which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.

HAM
7 years ago
Reply to  GeorgeCL

Even so, that still does not excuse politicians/administrations from the moral responsibility of the “implied” promises of a retirement income from the money deducted from our paychecks. If they want to play this card you speak of, then they can suffer the consequences at the polls. If the money is not going to be used for what “the people ” were told it was going to be used for, then we need to start pushing for the tax to be abolished & individuals establish their own retirement accounts. However, we all know there will be some who don’t have the skills to manage these accounts, so something would have to be done to help them with that. We must all remember “But for the grace of God, go you”.

HAM
7 years ago
Reply to  HAM

My previous comment was in resly to GeorgeCL’s comment. It didn’t quite fall in the sequence I thought it would.

Peace
7 years ago

As the Baby Boom generation continues to populate the ranks of retirement, it adds to the number who share the attitude of “I’m a senior citizen and I vote.” The political pressure to “save” social security will continue to grow. And, while I expect to continue to receive benefits for the rest of my life, I expect that those benefits will be reduced, probably by a reduction, or elimination, of annual increases. In the meantime, we are being very careful about how we spend our life savings. After all, with the changes to Medicare, we’ll probably have to spend it for health care.

therealguyfaux
7 years ago

A little history lesson is in order:

Back in the 1930’s the New Deal Dems had a choice. They could pass Social Security, an insurance program based on actuarial soundness (the money coming in covers the cost of benefits and administration) predicated on the idea that, as with homeowners or auto insurance, not everyone collects. They did this by setting the retirement age at 65, an age that half the population didn’t live to see. In effect, the dead would pay the living. And the majority of those living to collect would do so only till roughly their early seventies at the latest (based on longevity charts), and, more likely than not, not even until 70. That’s the concept and the math the program was based on. It was insurance against destitution in the last handful of years you might have.

The alternative was the Townsend Plan, which boiled down to its essence was a bribe to older workers to leave the job market to free up positions for men and some women of younger years raising families. This sounded good, in the Depression– a stipend to old people to avert penury, while employing a younger cohort of workers to pay for it AND earn a check to support themselves instead of being on welfare. The trouble was, as designed, it was unsustainable, and not even the pinko Dems could vote for it, not because in their heart of hearts they wouldn’t want to– they were afraid that once the public caught on to the scam, they’d vote GOP for the foreseeable future. The Plan was a transfer payment program, pure and simple. (Oscar Wilde: “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”)

I needn’t remind anyone, I hope, that Social Security eventually morphed into the Townsend Plan once the basic assumptions of the original program were rendered incorrect by the greater longevity of the lives of Americans. So if we’re going to debate the subject, let’s just not kid ourselves about what it is we’re talking about.

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  therealguyfaux

The lesson was fine, Guy, but what I hope we have been trying to talk about is what we’ve got, not what could have been.
However, I don’t recall anywhere in the legislation where insurance is mentioned. Do you happen to have the record of that? Or know where it can possibably be found?

Alfred Somerville
7 years ago
Reply to  therealguyfaux

Well done, Guy! The whole thing is living proof that Democrat lies and double-talk didn’t start with Obama(although he has made lying an art form). Something you fail to mention is the raiding of Social Security beginning with the Second World War and continuing today. A life-or-death proposition like a war to stop fascist ideologues in both Germany and Japan from achieving world domination is hard to argue with, but Social Security has become a funding source for all manner of government programs that have nothing to do with providing a safety net for our elder citizens. Obamacare is only the latest incarnation of such programs, based this time on false promises of “universal health care” that will be “affordable” to all citizens. There is already talk of expanding the plan to cover illegal immigrants not in any legal way eligible for coverage-and all this is being funded in large part by dipping into Social Security and Medicare funds. I’m wondering how long it will take for the American public to “catch on” to the latest in a long line of “scams” being aggressively pushed by the deluded adherents of socialism who infect our body politic.

Gary Zeiher (MSgt, USAF, Ret)
7 years ago

So long as Washington DC is packed with millionaires who where “elected” to represent us the chances of the every day people like us out here of getting anything accomplished in our behalf is all but zilch. All these “elected representatives” care about is re-election and gaining more $$$$ through the gaggle of lobbyists who want something passed to gain even more $$$$$ for them and those they work for. WE have NO ONE working on our behalf. Oh, the majority of our “elected representatives” will SAY they are “working for us” but in reality that’s nothing but a total LIE. Their priorities lie with re-election and sponsoring/passing bills that make them look good. Am I fed up with these money grubbing, two faced, lying lechers? You BET I am and YOU should be as well. Elections are just around the corner and WE can make our voices heard loud and clear!

BMARK
7 years ago

Well said, I wish more people would pay attention to blogs like these and educate themselves and their friends and families on what is really going on in govt. We are being duped and if the people don’t wake up this election cycle, I’m afraid we may lose this great republic to the money grabbing, greedy, elites who have ahold of our so called leaders by the “you know whats”! WAKE UP AMERICANS AND FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT AND FOR WHAT OUR FOUNDERS STARTED AS THE BEST CIVILIZATION THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN!

The Purple Heart
7 years ago

The misuse of this SS fund is what is REALLY killing it. SS did NOT start out so that 30 y/o’s w/ a hang nail prblem can get disability payments or money to ILLEGALS. Did I mention that our own fed gov. has ransacked OUR money that WE paid into for our retirement numerous times ? The ‘cease & desist’ of those 3 actions alone would make the SS fund very liquid. Fifty years ago, when I first entered the workplace ( knowing the same actions that take place ) it was clear to me that I would never TRULY reap SS benefits as intended. And you know what ? I don’t.

Raymond
7 years ago

More and more nonsense about S.S.. Like I’ve said before KILL S.S. and put in something better. To start with, KILL Welfare. Save billions right there. Then after the civil war that would bring. (Imagine the people getting free this and free that who would have to go and work. WORK? Are you kidding?

Kenneth Myron Bonnell
7 years ago

Whatever final solution rises from which our nation once more returns to a Constitutional Republic will not be pleasant. Unpleasantness that hundreds of thousands of voters will not allow, even knowing they vote for their own demise.

Bob M.
7 years ago

The way things are going,America as we know it will be something for the history books in a few years.Saving America seems to be more important then saving social security.This is the second week that this subject has been brought up on here.Nothing like beating a dead horse.What are we going to do to save our country?What is left to save anyway.

nooneuknow
7 years ago

Yes, the Social Security Fund will survive. It will be paid for with the same WORTHLESS PAPER DOLLARS that the Federal Reserve is printing today! It is well past time for a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in this country to return us to the Constitutional Republic as originally set up by our Founders! It is unfortunate that the “establishment” faux government that we now suffer from in Washington would fight such a change (and they are now) tooth and nail. A return to a Constitutional Republic would deprive virtually every one of them their power base from which they now sell their influence to big money interests. Basically, every elected official now in Washington is a TRAITOR to the original concept of government in this country. Not only should they be ashamed, they should be JAILED!

Alice
7 years ago
Reply to  nooneuknow

Amen!!!

Razor Harte
7 years ago

In all these complaints about the size etc. of the federal government, I see one elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge or is even conscious of?! That elephant is: RE-ELECTION. I believe it was old Ben who said: “as soon as this job becomes pecuniary the system will fail!”. He knew of what he was speaking; and, we are quite simply reaping the result of allowing politicians to become permanent fixtures on the tax payers dole. They line their pockets and re-election campaign funds and use their “seniority” to grow even more powerful. Even our president is frantically campaigning and acting like a rock star knowing he will continue to profit after his two terms are up. ONE TERM, whatever length, should be the limit with no remuneration other than a very modest “expense” budget.
IF YOU’RE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT THE RE-ELECTION ELEPHANT, STOP CRYING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

mike
7 years ago

but will the government stop the COLA ??

KarenFaye
7 years ago
Reply to  mike

They practically have. Seniors get 1 or 1.5% and the Welfare recipients get 30%.

TBR
7 years ago

AMAC,
So what is the REAL story?
Is the cash from SS Fund looted and replaced with NON-negotiable/NON-marketableNON-interest bearing IOU’s that must be paid from appropriated funds?
Are my SS payments competing with other budget items for annual funding/borrowing ?

TBR

Tom
7 years ago

There is no trust fund. It exists as IOU’s from the govt to the govt. SS is just another part of the federal budget as both revenue and expense. When the gov’t spent the $, they left an IOU for that amount, to be redeemed through future taxes. So, benefits are ultimately all paid by taxes. In 2030 and beyond, the only difference will be that the IOU charade will not be necessary. This kind of article only promotes the charade..

CS
7 years ago
Reply to  Tom

Tom has it exactly right. The ‘trust fund’ is simply the statutory authority for the SSA to claim a share of current tax revenues as needed. In reality it protects Congress and whoever is the President at the time from raising the social security tax on current workers wages in order to pay current retirees. As that mechanism runs out, the political battle between parents (beneficiaries) and their children (working tax payers) will intensify. The AMAC proposal offers the only way out.

mike failla
7 years ago

As it is run by the government it will not continue to be viable. Politicians dip into it to fund their pet projects and leave and IOU in return. An IOU wont buy you a bag of groceries. Quit looting it and use it for what it was intended. Politicians seeing all that money are like a vampire in a blood bank. They just cant help themselves (and then they do help themselves)
Anything the government does is designed to enrich them at AT your expense.

Remember: when people fear their government you have tyranny. When government fears the people you have liberty!

Everybody's Shrink
7 years ago
Reply to  mike failla

“…like a vampire in a blood bank.” Yep. And wait until they come for your IRA and 401(k), too.

PJH
7 years ago

I’m in agreement with that Shrink. My doubts about SS availability have driven my discipline with retirement savings. My fear is the day they get their grubby hands on that. My great grandparents’ mason jar and mattress savings plans are looking more and more attractive.

Gary
7 years ago
Reply to  PJH

Careful now. All they need to do is make the money worthless, like the Yankees did to the south during the Civil War, and poof! You instantly have nothing. Also, did you know that it’s against the law to keep cash in the bank safety deposit boxes?

William Riczing
7 years ago

The organization would do well in listening to the previous commentators. SS & Medicare are actuarially bankrupt – there is no other way to describe the situation. We Boomers have done it to ourselves. Would that our most infamous legacy to the future be one of unfunded debts.

AMAC should be providing leadership in the discussion of this critically important issue – not more palliative nonsense.

If AMAC wants my vote, you’d better get off the Koolaid. For a more in-depth discussion, try visiting: http://www.informedmajority.com.

ONTIME
7 years ago

SS, Medicare and the Bill of rights is always under threat, they can always find money for foreign aid, abortion, illegals and welfare/ food stamps but SS is never in the congressional budget and the Unaffordable HCA has gobbled up far more than Medicare with ill-gotten results by illegal means…..Get the crony government out of the entitlement biz and and the private sector and let’s get this economy on tract…..we like self reliance and the choices given by capitalism and the free market….

Rick
7 years ago
Reply to  ONTIME

As we consider the solvency of Social Security it is important to understand that we contributors were forced to pay 15% of our earnings into the system. (Employer and Employee Contributions) If these payments were not forced by the government the salary of the employees would or could have included the additional 15%.

SO… for the 35 years that 15% of my earnings were confiscated by the government all they are doing when I apply for SS is return my money. It is not a benefit until the monies returned to me exceed the sum of the monies contributed. Furthermore, the “contract” / “understanding” relative to these confiscated monies declares that I earned 3.5% interest on the monies over the course of my working life (35 years) and the years I have left to obtain my full level of annual return.

The point here is that the words we use are key if we are to properly frame Social Security Payments. I for one would gladly take the monies I contributed; without interest, in a lump sum and then have nothing to do with the Federal Government’s Ponzi scheme.

Furthermore, the Social Security System has become linked with Medicare; another forced entry by the government that is mandatory at 65 years of age. Forced is the operative word once again. The government’s force of law now dictates and provides the care guidance for all insurance plans. My insurance plan is a contract between me and a company. The purpose of the contract is for me to insure, provide a methodology by which I can mitigate some of the financial risk that is associated with future health care expenditures. With the advent of mandatory Medicare at 65 the government has once again unilateraly imposed its will on me.

THE TAKE AWAY IS TO INTERNALIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BENIFIT AND REPAYMENT OF SOMETHING YOU WERE FORCED TO PAY INTO.

Ivan Berry
7 years ago
Reply to  Rick

Well said, Rick. .

Svoboda
7 years ago

there is no trust fund quit dreaming.

56
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x