Agree or Disagree (2) ?

[Poimen]

Agree or Disagree?

Social Security
The Declaration of Independence declares "all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ..."

The Preamble of the US Constitution shows how these rights are to be secured including "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".

Two clear distinctions should be made here:
Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach.
For example, I'll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it!
General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.
Social Security is a form of individual welfare not authorized in the Constitution.
The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. We advocate phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system. Until the current Social Security system can be responsibly phased out, we propose that:

The Social Security tax not be a "rainy day" fund which politicians can pirate, or from which they can borrow to cover their errors and pay for their excesses.
Individuals who have contributed to Social Security be allowed to withdraw those funds and transfer them into an IRA or similar investments under the control of the individual contributor.
Any sort of merger between the U.S. Social Security System and that of any foreign country be banned, so the distribution of benefits will not go to persons who have not qualified for payments under American law as legal residents.
Earning limitations on persons aged 62 and over be removed, so that they may earn any amount of additional income without placing their benefits at risk.
Those provisions of the Social Security system which penalize those born during the "notch years" between 1917 and 1926 be repealed, and that such persons be placed on the same benefit schedules as all other beneficiaries.
We support the right of individuals to choose between private retirement and pension programs, either at their place of employment or independently.

[dolfan]

I generally agree that SS shouldn't be, but is certainly used as, a fund for pork and other unnecessary spending, and to finance non-SS programs. I agree that people should be able to opt in or out. I agree that payors should have the option to privatize a portion of their SS payments if they opt in.

The recent bailout is the opposite. Instead of privatizing SS, Congress and President Bush have now nationalized IRAs and 401(k)s, etc. The takeover of the many institutions and assets by the government of institutions in which many citizens' retirement monies are invested erases any hope of ever having any privitization of SS in any sense. Once government takes something over, it doesn't let it go. The proposal, although the philosophy on which it rests is one I support in general, is moot forever, period. There's no going back. Every retirement investor is now a dependent of the federal government and is officially a welfare recipient by mere virtue of government control of the assets. And, although you may not feel that way now ....... just you wait.

I don't agree with the oversimplified view of "promote" general welfare, and of what "general" welfare means. The guy's conclusion simply is not supported by history, nor is it demanded by the language of the constitution. And, even if it were otherwise, he simply describes a problem without offering a solution to it.

And, while the Constitution does not specifically authorize the federal government to administer a SS system, it does authorize the regulation of commerce among the states. He interprets the constitution absurdly; under his view, the absence of any mention of Congress authorizing missile defense would make funding it unconstitutional. But, we know the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "raise and support armies" (armIES?) and "to provide and maintain a Navy". We imply the power to develop new weapons and to fund that development as a "Law necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...". (All in Article I). The same Article empowers Congress to "have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (Art. I, Sec. 8 ). Just as Congress provides for our common defense, it does so (in theory, now) for our general welfare with the Social Security Act which was initially designed to insure certain poor or old people a fund from which to draw and help them survive. I'm not arguing that they've done that well, or that they've done it right, but to say Congress has no constitutional authority to do it is simply incorrect. It may be a difference of opinion about what "provide for" should mean -- and that's a good discussion to have -- but the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to state what it does mean, and they've done so repeatedly in favor of the SS Act's validity under the Constitution.

[Poimen]

Interesting feedback Dolfan.

BTW, just so ya know, these are NOT quotes from Chuck Baldwin.