CAN SECURITY BE GUARANTEED?
(Continued from page 12)
which the Washington free spenders
will utilize for whatsoever their generous (with taxpayers' money) he-arts
desire. The Supreme Court (Helvering
v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619) has already
ruled that tax money is not earmarked,
ancl that Congress is at liberty to
spend it as it wants. Furthermore, tlie
Court has beat down congressional
efforts to earmark taxes ancl set them
aside for special purposes (United
Slales v. Butler, 297 U. S. Page 1,
The Social Security Administration
at one time assured the Supreme Court
that it was not in the insurance business. Now, however, it seems to want
to give the impression that it is in the
insurance business.4 Ancl, as a matter
of fact, many insurance companies
view with alarm such federal encroachment, as well they might. The
need to purchase commercial life insurance is greatly reduced by the
ever-expanding compulsory federal
insurance. Moreover, the ability of the
average individual to pay for commercial life insurance is being drastically
reduced by the increased premium he
has to pay for the compulsory federal
insurance by pay roll deduction.
By letting the above area represent the total life
insurance needs ot an average family of four,
earning around $5,000 yearly, it can be seen that
this was the field in which private insurance companies had to operate before Social Security
The shaded area above reflects the amount of
federal compulsory "life insurance," limiting by
approximately half the field in which private
insurance companies have to operate at present.
The ultimate result of the movement
will be that insurance companies will
be unable to continue adding as many
new policy owners, and may be forced
to ask the government to take over
their liabilities. The government
would be in a position at such a time-
to say, "We will gladly assume the
liabilities, but in order to do so we
Examples of personal fortitude, in the face of almost impossible odds, are employees of Abilities, Inc.
at work in their Coil Winding Department. Here, they turn out electric components for companies
such as Remington Rond and Sperry Gyroscope Company.
must also take over the assets" — such
assets comprising most of the home
mortgages in America, office buildings
of the companies, stocks, bonds, etc.
It is in such a manner as this, warn
many insurance companies, that
socialistic "Greeks" in a "Trojan" horse
are being dragged into the camp of
Opponents of the Social Security
revision state that welfare-staters and
socialist-minded legislators have employed the old triccl-and-true emotional appeal to camouflage the implications of a revised program. For example, the increase in the tax, to
finance a revised program, may seem
small indeed compared with what the
tax will soar to later under the revision
in the Social Security Act. Under the
bill the tax will jump to nine per cent
It appears fairly obvious that a
larger and larger percentage of people
will be moving into the retirement
bracket, and a smaller and smaller
group will be shelling out more and
more taxes to support them.5 The government, even with its clever dollar
jugglers — past m-isters at fiscal legerdemain — cannot continue taking from
today's Peter to pay tomorrow's Paul.
Under the new plan women will
start drawing Social Security benefits
at 62, and disabled workers of both
sexes will start drawing benefits at 50
years of age. This new plan will help
breach the gap in the cradle-to-grave
security" which, critics say, seems so
desirable to some.
The revision will not be so all-
inclusive as manv believe, however-
Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-Utah)
made the following statement:
I believe in social security. I also be
lieve we- should help our disabled. But 1
do not believe this program is either nl
accord with the- fundamental principles ot
social security or that it will solve UH
problems of all our disabled. When a survey of my state tells me that this amend*
ment would help less than one out of f°l,r
... I am more convinced than ever tl'-1
this amendment is not the solution. . . -
I elo not think this amendment doe*
either equity or justice.7
Senator Harry F. Byrd (D-VaA
speaking before the United States Si-"'
ate, stated that private insurance c<"iv
panics had had unfavorable e-xpi'1'
ence with total-disability insurant*
which had resulted in losses of n11
lions of dollars. He stated, further
that a public-disability program woU*~
meist likely have the same expciie'11'1
in case there should come a busiii(>'
recession. The reason for this woi'1
be obvious — the tax under the D<S*
amendment might have to be subst""
tially increased at a time when -'"
people would be least able to pay
Senator Byrd pointed out that it h*
been impossible to devise a fed1'1'1
system of disability which would ■*
(Continued on page
'■The Houston Chronicle. March 19, 1956.
""What AbsEEEl the Plan to Pension the Des.eI"^
U. S. News and World Report < Meev- 18, 195
■SI CongrtmtlotUXl Record <195fl), p. 11853.
Facts Forum News, October.