SECURITY IN SOCIALISM "Folks . . . have we got a good deal for the American people. With all the soup kitchens, with all the hungry people waiting in line for food, with all the elderly people with no place to sleep or call home, we've decided to implement a program to eliminate the chances for anything like that ever happening again." "It won't cost the average person much at all. We will put a small charge on the salary of all working people. Each employer will contribute a larger amount. All these monies will be put into an insurance fund. Employers will be able to afford the higher assessment. After all, look at all the profits they make. We will pay these funds to everyone at age 65 so no one will ever have to worry about their golden years again." "In fact, to be fair to the women, we will begin to pay them at age 62 since women have less earning power and outlive their husbands. The citizens will now have fewer problems as they get older and receive benefits from this system." This system will be called Social Security. It's time for the government to take care of it's hard working people." The length and depth of the depression in the early 1930s was a significant selling point for the social security program. Many researchers and historians claim the depression was orchestrated. Behind the scenes power brokers wanted the slump to give the government reason to implement socialistic programs. There is much reading available in this area of history also. This adventure in socialism began in earnest in August 1935 when Congress passed the Social Security Act. The act established the Social Security Board. It consisted of 3 members who were chosen by the President and approved by the Senate. They were to be so independent that they were to report directly to the president. This continued until 1939 when the board became part of the Federal Security Agency. They created this agency to include health and education activities. Health and education activities? It looks as though our government recognized the importance of educating the people in socialist principles way back in 1939. What a farce. What a sham put over on the American people. Show me where there is any security in socialism? I'm not twisting words around. That's exactly what Social Security means . . . security in socialism. Let me tell you there is NO SECURITY IN SOCIALISM! Our federal government has been violating the law since the beginning of this program. There is no permission in our Constitution for any socialist programs. We gave no authority for free cheese, specific welfare such as food  stamps, medicare, medicaid or Social Security. How did our nation ever manage 146 years without such an idiotic program? Didn't we have any people who lived to be 65? How did they ever survive without big brother looking out for them? How did our country manage to endure with all those old people dying right in our streets? Did we just allow them to starve to death with no handouts from government? Regardless, you say, they only have our own good in mind. Don't you believe it! There is only one thing they have in mind . . . the destruction of our Constitution. Control of the American people is also high on their list. Looking at social security practically, it is simply another form of taxation. The operation of the taxing provisions of the social security system are now part of the Internal Revenue Code. Encyclopedia Americana tells us "The term 'social security' is usually employed to indicate specific govern- ment programs designed primarily to prevent want by assuring to families the basic means of subsistence." How white of them. What business is it of government? Where can you find any authorization in our Constitution for programs to prevent want? They are encroaching into lives of citizens without a legal right. Unconstitutional . . . it's a seizure of powers we did not grant when we estab- lished the authority for government. If they assume any power we did not allow, it's illegal. That's pretty strong so now let's go ahead and prove it. The supremacy clause of our Constitution makes that crystal clear. We have established that our document is the supreme law of our land. Any laws made which don't conform to the authority we granted in the basic document are NO GOOD! And if that weren't plain enough for the people working for government, the Tenth Amendment clears that up. ARTICLE X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." I'm certain any reader can understand that. Why do you suppose the federal government can't understand it? Is it possible they prefer to think the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist? Either that is true or this is an obvious case of collusion between the branches of our government. Recently a program concerning our Constitution aired on PBS. The moderator said he had gone to every lawyer and judge he could find the day before the program. He asked if any of them knew what the Tenth amendment said and NOT ONE could answer his question! Not one even knew the general subject matter of the amendment. Does our Constitution still exist? So much for our intelligent judges and  lawyers. Give me a break. When the first twelve proposed amendments were submitted to the states in 1789 to become our Bill of Rights, the Congress included this introductory statement (or preamble): "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconcep- tions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution:" (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States. House Document No. 398, 69th Congress, 1st Session 1965) The First Congress is assuring the people that these new amendments will be a tighter rope to confine the government. And the legal eagles today do not know what the tenth amendment says or means? When we get into a discus- sion of the Bill of Rights, you will quickly see how the federales believe the preceding preamble. Going back to our venture into socialism, let's take a look at the numbers for a moment. What happens to the money which a man has paid into the system for 40 or more years? And what if he should die before he becomes eligible to collect benefits? Does it go to his wife or survivors? You know better than that. It's gone . . . it has become a gratuitous donation to Big Brother. An amount equal to taxes collected from individuals are assessed from their employers. All this money goes to the general fund and spent for anything, legal or illegal. And assuming there is now a widow, what would she receive from his donations? Certainly not the amount paid into the system, nor even the interest on those funds. How many of our elderly citizens do not have enough money to pay for their rent, utilities or food? We won't even mention an occasional night out to the movies or a vacation to enjoy their remaining years. How many of our older citizens have to depend on a church function for a meal? How many wait at the Salvation Army or some other private charity for Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner? This is a crime. What did they say was the intent of the Social Security program? To prevent want by assuring to families the basic means of subsistence. Horse manure! People for generations have been led to believe that this program would take care of them in later years. What's the story we hear often now? The program will be broke in 'X' numbers of years. Mercy, it's running out of money so we have to increase the withholding levels. The government, the way it is running today, is the solution to nothing . . . it's the problem.  Alexander Hamilton argued fervently in Paper No. 84 that we did not need a Bill of Rights since the Constitution was in itself a bill of rights. He asks the question, "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" (The Federalist Papers.) He insisted that the national government could do nothing which was not specifically allowed in the document. However the Congress proposed a Bill of Rights. It was adopted to further tie down the new government to prohibit any abuse of its powers. How does this government get itself involved in the business of welfare or social security? The amendment process was not invoked to ask for our consent agreeing to a change. I didn't agree to any change allowing for socialism, did you? Can our constitution be changed by an act of Congress or by an order by the executive branch? Maybe an order by a federal judge can do it. Not true! It can only be changed under Article V if you and I agree to the change at the voting booth. So--did you agree to the change? Remember what the Tenth Amendment said? Let's pretend for a moment there was no social security program enacted. The people had not been lulled into a false sense of protection by a devious government. Suppose then the people had put the same amount of money into a savings account for the same period. They could retire very comfortably on the interest alone. Let's carry our fairy tale a little further. As in the previous illustration, let's say a man paid into a trust fund for 30 or 40 years. Then he died before reaching 65. What would the family live on in a case like this? Why all the money which had not been donated to big government. His widow and entire family could live extremely well on the interest received from the trust fund. And there would be money for education. That would be if our government in their 'wisdom' had not tried to exercise control over people in violation of our basic law. I don't for a moment suggest that we cut off social security payments tomorrow. There is no question what the outcome of such a drastic measure would be. The vastness of the dilemma and the people who exist only because of those meager payments shows a real problem. The program should be phased out over the next 15 to 20 years. People who are now paying into the system should be given the option for their money to be withheld as it is presently. If they so choose, the money can go into a private trust to gain interest and increase in value. The difference now being that these monies will remain the property of the one allowing the deductions. Naturally it would pass on to his or her heirs as with any other prop- erty. Congress could not use this money for any expenditure they feel the urge to implement. For example, they couldn't use these funds to raise their own salaries at whim. For others who don't want money taken out of their salaries, they should drop out of the system altogether.  Government has no right to intrude into the private affairs of Americans. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpa- tions, pursing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." (Declara- tion of Independence.) The lone woman on the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Conner) remarked to a TV reporter one day that she used to think Social Security was unconstitutional. Now she doesn't think so . . . wonder who gave her the indoctrination? How do we correct the situation? Since Congress created the boondoggle, Congress will have to be the ones to change it. Call the local offices of your Senators and Representatives and ask questions about this adventure in socialism. Be certain to point out the lack of jurisdiction for these type of programs. Tell them you want something done about this violation of our Constitution. Further, remind them you will be watching to see what is being done. Phone calls every couple of weeks wouldn't be too often. It has to be impressed on their minds that these socialistic programs have to cease. I'm certain you will hear a story like, "These things are so interwoven in the fabric of our society, they would be impossible to change." Remind our illustrious 'leaders' that if any practice was unconstitutional when it began, it is still unconstitutional. No amount of usage will make the practice legal or give it an illusion of respectability. There was never any intent on the part of the Founders to allow the phrase "general welfare" to signify a right to establish any specific welfare programs. To find the origin of this statement, we must look to our first compact of government, The Articles of Confederation. Article III states: "The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever." (Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union) From this it's obvious what the term general welfare means. There is no need to insult the readers intelligence to imply that the general welfare clause magically became authorization for specific welfare. Another area in our Constitution which they may argue is permission for social security, is the "necessary and proper" clause (Art I, Sec 8). That's weak and won't hold water. This only gives power to make laws which are necessary and proper to carry out the duties and powers listed in the basic document. It's not for anything they decide is a great idea.  Hamilton, in Paper #78, said: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void." Anything they do which is beyond what we have allowed or agreed to is void. To return to the greatness this country was destined to achieve, we must demand our government obey the law. It must return to the confines to which we agreed when the Constitution was established. If you ever see the original of our Constitution (or an exact copy), the first three words use decorative letters. WE THE PEOPLE. Their authority for government comes from us and only we can agree to a change. If the members of Congress are not receptive to our demands, we have a duty to vote them out of office. We must sent Americans to Washington who will obey the oath to support the supremacy of our Constitution which we ordered in Article VI, Sec 3. For this evil to continue, all we need do is nothing! There is a limit to their power and that limit is you and me. Recently, in a controversy concerning the poor and food, Reagen put his foot in his mouth. (Or, maybe it was Nancy's foot!) He said the poor were unable to find food or stamps due to a lack of knowledge. A late-night comedian commented that if that is true, his staff must be starving to death! 'Nuff said. REGISTRATION IS ONLY $19.95.