Congress and Social Security

Information Connection: Congress and Social Security

Our Senators and Congressmen don't pay in to Social Security, and, of course, they don't collect from it.

Hmm. If this is such a good deal, then why aren't they required to participate in it the way nearly all other US Citizens are? Instead, they have a special retirement plan that they voted for themselves many years ago.

For all practical purposes, their special plan (which we pay for) works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw their same pay, until they die, except that it may be increased from time to time, by cost of living adjustments.

For instance, former Senator Bradley, and his wife, may be expected to draw $7,900,000, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000 during the last year of her life. This is calculated on an average life span for each.

This would be well and good, except that they paid nothing in on any kind of retirement, and neither does any other Senator or Congressman.

This fine retirement comes right out of the General Fund: our tax money.

We pay for their luxury retirement plan, but draw an average of $1000/month from Social Security.

Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable that people would have extra deducted so that they could increase their own personal retirement income. A retirement plan that works so well, that Railroad employees, Postal Workers, and others who aren't in it, would clamor to get in.

That is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change were made. That change is to jerk the Golden Fleece retirement out from under the Senators and Congressmen, and put them in Social Security with the rest of us. Then watch how fast they fix it.

Write to your Congressman, today: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Click here to see all of our books on ponzi schemes.

Click here to see all of our books on social security.

Click here to see all of our books on government.

More about Social Security

This costly program is funded by a payroll tax deduction of about 15%. The fact that the govt needs to lie about this tells you something. It lies by pretending that the employer pays half and the employee pays half. Some people actually believe this lie, which means they also believe employers have unlimited funds for payroll. The fact is a unit of labor can cost only so much before the employer can't get a positive return on that unit of labor. So if a payroll tax is $1, that's simply $1 the employee won't be taking home.

Social Security is one of the largest taxes people pay. It's not as large as the inflation tax, but it's still large. Compare it to the 1040 tax, and it's huge. Less than half of all wage earners pay any 1040 tax. The purpose of the 1040 tax is not to fund the government, else the IRS would not spend multiples of an alleged tax bill just to presumably collect it. The purpose of the 1040 tax is to provide a (very) thin excuse for the existence of the IRS. From IRS misconduct over the years, we know its purpose is to subjugate the populace through systematic abuse and terrorism.

Social Security is a flat tax (with a cap, making it highly regressive). Why politicians campaign on replacing the 1040 tax with a flat tax is truly a mystery. If you abolish the 1040 tax and replace it with nothing, federal revenue will increase. And we already have a flat tax. Half of American wage earners pay 0% 1040 tax while still paying 15% SS tax.

The reality on Social Security is it's a way to impoverish people and create a situation of dependency. The fact that it was created by the 3rd worst President in US history tells you something important about it. This program is also the kind of government activity that is expressly prohibited by the 10th Amendment. In other words, it's flatly illegal.

So why doesn't CONgress restore lawful government or at least end this illegal Ponzi scheme? The short answer is now people are dependent upon it. Untangling this mess will not be easy.

One solution to the illegality of the SS is to legalize the SS program. Doing so would require a Constitutional Amendment. Unfortunately, merely making it legal does not solve the looming funding shortfall as demographics change.