As you prepare to watch the Obama administration destroy what is left of the once-mighty U.S. automobile industry, you might wish to ponder this little history lesson, complete with a fun quiz, that a friend sent me.
First, a few facts:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
Advertisement1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Which of these promises was kept? While you ponder that, here’s the quiz:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants who had not paid into the Social Security system?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Have a nice day.
* * * UPDATE * * * As several readers have pointed out, some of the particulars of the above are “urban myths.” It is worth noting, however, that the gist of the lesson — i.e., that Social Security system has, throughout its evolution, been a Democratic initiative — is true, all too true.
Which party refuses to talk seriously about any sort of social security reform or (even better) gradual abolition?
Trick question, its both!
Roger:
Check out snopes and SSA.
Most of this is simply not accurate.
SS is a ponzi scheme and cannot survive as designed, but truth is better than fiction.
Make a Great Day!
G
And who is reducing the DOD budget as a % of the total budget?
And who is sending millions of dollars to dead people (that can be excused because they
voted for Obamah)?
And who is looking to rig the next census?
The Social Democrats.
Thanks for the update – With revisionist history taking place all over, it is necessary to refresh the mind with the truth on occasion, least we forget the source of our problems.
You couldn’t have a Social Security trust fund even if you wanted one. The government must instantly return to the economy every cent it takes in, lest the money supply fall.
The particular mechanism used to do that is just bookkeeping.
Everything is ultimately in the general fund. As it happens, buying a Treasury IOU is the way it’s done so that the money goes back into the economy.
I keep reading that Social Security wont be “Broke” until 2041 or some such.
Why keep playing the Social Security fund obfuscation game when the Social Security Administration themselves provide a report and a nice graph that shows Social Security payments outstrip income by 2015 or so.
If the economy keeps on its current trend, that number will be 2010 in short order.
Since we know that the trust fund “lockbox” is stuffed with IOUs and does not contain any actual funds, and as we know the government is already borrowing trillions of dollars internationally because the money lifted from taxpayers and from the Social Security Trust Fund is nowhere near enough to pay for today’s expenditures, why is anyone still pretending that Social Security is not currently in deep deep trouble?
My “nice graph” link was supposed to point directly to Figure II.D2 on the report page.
Pajamas Media needs a preview button!
LOL
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
As several readers have pointed out, some of the particulars of the above are “urban myths.”
No, they’re not “urban myths,” they’re outright lies, and blame Democrats for Republican-enacted changes:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
I’m sure all of the “facts” about Roosevelt are equally “factual.” But then again, why let the truth get in the way of an argument? As Newt Gingrich has discovered, blatantly lying about just about everything only guarantees that the “liberal media” will treat you as a serious and important spokesman for Republicanism. Carry on.
I can make shit up too!
Today’s “liberals” no longer defend true liberalism, and today’s “progressives” do not appreciate how individual liberty and limited governement where the truly progressive concepts which changed the world.
Today, they claim to know better than the the original founders. No wonder everything gets destroyed!
To Roger Kimball,
I appreciate the post and the update. Which of the points are mythical, which are true, and what are the sources? Everyone makes mistakes, but which are the mistakes?
As it stands, everything you have presented is in doubt.
The original law, P.L. 271 of the 74th Congress set the tax rate at 1% for the years 1937-39, 1.5% for 1940-42, 2% for 43-45, 2.5% for 46-48 and 3% for 1949 and later.
In 1942 they lowered the rate for 1939-43 to 1% and the rate for 44-45 to 2%. They did not change the “outyears”.
In 1943 they set the rate at 1% beginning February 1944 and 2% beginning March 1944.
In 1944 they set the rate at 1% for 1939-45, 2.5% for 1946-48 and 3% for 1949+.
In 1946 1% was extended to 1946. 2.5% for 1947-48 and 3% for 1949+.
Later in 1946 they 1% was extended to 1947. They added a $3,000 taxable cap and began differentiating benefits based on income.
In 1947 1% was extended to 1949, 1.5% for 1950-51 and 2% for 1952+.
In 1950 1.5% was extended to 1953, 2% for 1954-59, 2.5% for 1960-64, 3% for 1965-69 and 3.25% for 1970+. The earnings cap was set to rise to $3,600 in 1951.
In 1951 they began requiring self-employed people to begin contributions.
In 1955 they started 3.5% for 1970-74 and 4% for 1975+. The taxable wage cap rose to $4,200.
In 1957 they reset the brackets: 2.5% for 1957-59, 2.75% for 1960-64, 3.25% for 1965-69, 3.75% for 1970-74 and 4.25% for 1975+.
In 1958 they set 3% for 1960-62, 3.5% for 1963-65, 4% for 1966-68 and 4.5% for 1969+. The taxable cap rose to $4,800.
In 1961 the set 3.125% for 1962, 3.625% for 1963-65, 4.125% for 1966-67 and 4.625% for 1968+.
In 1967 they added Medicare. OASDI was set for 3.8% for 1968, 4.2% for 1969-70, 4.6% for 1971-72 and 5% for 1973+. The hospital benefit was set at0.6% in 1968-72, 0.65% for 1973-75, 0.7% for 1976-79, 0.8% for 1980-86 and 0.9% for 1987+. The taxable cap rose to $7,800.
In 1971 OASDI added 5.15% for 1976+. The taxable cap rose to 9000 beginning 1972.
In 1972 OASDI changed to 4.85% for 1973-77, 4.8% for 1978-2010 and 5.85% for 2011+. Hospital tax rose to 1% for 1973-77, 1.25% for 1978-80, 1.35% for 1981-85 and 1.45% for 1985+. The taxable cap rose to $12,000 in 1973.
In 1972 OASDI 4.6% was extended to 1977, 4.5% for 1978-2010 and 5.35% for 2011+.
Later in 1972 OASDI 4.6% was cut back to 1972. 4.85% for 1973, 4.95% for 1974-2010 and 5.95% for 2011+.
In 1973 OASDI 4.95% was set for 1974-2010 and 5.95% for 2011+. Hospital tax for 1973 was left at 1%, cut to 0.9% for 1974-77, and cut to 1.1% for 1978-80. The taxable cap rose to $13,200 for 1974.
In 1977 OASDI went to 5.05% for 1978, 5.08% for 1979-80, 5.35% for 1981, 5.4% for 1982-84, 5.7% for 1985-89 and 6.2% for 1990+. Hospital reset to 1% for 1978, 1.05% for 1979-80, 1.3% for 1981-84, 1.35% for 1985 and 1.45% for 1986+.
Then I got tired.
Congress has been spineless about this program since its inception, putting off making the early contributors pay their fair share to build support for the program before proceeding to gouge us post-boomers, while labeling us as greedy if we get uppity and question them.
1. One reason SS is “in trouble” is because it has veered from its original intent to provide elderly Americans with a life-sustaining basic income.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit indicated in a 1937 ruling (in language and tone evoking Dickens’ ‘The Old Curiosity Shop’):
“The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey’s end is near.”
(I doubt any current sitting judge would dare use similar wording today in a ruling, not only because such wording, if read carefully, has politically incorrect overtones, but also because most of them would be incapable of effectively using such near literary language.)
But today, only about a third of cash benefits go to “elderly” or retired people. Most of the cash outlays are for widows, children, the disabled, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and several other categories.
In principal, I have nothing against this kind of assistance to those who need it. I have problems with the definitions of those who need it – the slightest “incapacity” and wham-o, you can get on one or more programs.
2. FICO score. I’m still waiting for someone to sue the 3 credit bureaus which establish your FICO score and keept it a secret.
(You can get it if you pay for it, but that’s not the same thing).
I’m amazed how Americans sheepishly submit to the “rulings” of this little 3 numbered score which can determine where you live, how much you pay for a loan, etc etc.
A score (or anything) that has such a determinant effect on your life should be readily available for viewing to anyone who asks for his score at any time, just as is your social security record of earnings, your current checking and saving account balances, etc.
Fake but true? Is that the editorial standard around here now? C’mon, man. You can do better than that.