Can Security Be Guaranteed?
Left: Senator Harry F. Byrd (D-
VaJ said that it has been impossible to devise a federal system of
disability which would be abuse-
Right: Doctor Elmer Hess, President
of the American Medical Association, pointed out that a program of
disability benefits will be all but
impossible to administer.
WIDE WORLD PHOTO
security cannot be guaranteed, claim critics of the Social Security system.
They maintain that putting the government in the insurance business foretells an all-inclusive, socialistic government under which the citizen will
of necessity forfeit liberty for security. Such views are expressed below.
Seven score and nineteen years
ago our fathers brought forth on
this continent a new nation,
conceived in liberty . . . ancl then
along came Social Security in 1935,"
was tlie recent barbed comment of one
critic, averring that the entire system
was, from the outset, a "declaration of
dependence" — of sorts.
Then, to add insult to amendment
(1939, 1946, 1950, and 1954), complain other critics, along came House
Bill 7225, which embodied additional
changes in the Social Security system.
President Eisenhower, at a news conference before his signing of thc bill,
stated lie thought it "unwise" to saddle
the Social Security system with "something I don't think should be there."
Opponents of the revised program
are saying that too long has Congress
been viewing the system as the world's
best field of political hay. Moreover,
critics are saying that an unastigmatic
scrutiny of the system will reveal that
it is nothing short of a high water
mark in a socialistic flood, said flood
being pumped out of Washington disguised as humanitarianism.1
Having the original Social Security
program foisted upon them was bad
enough, claim foes of the system, but
now the present Big-Brother-knows-
best legislation is indeed a bitter "bill"
It has been pointed out that enthusiastic socialistic centralizers are well
aware that Social Security is part and
parcel of the Marxian design; and, if
the trend continues, that there will be
an ever-increasing "compulsory" projection of government into the life of
every citizen.2 Few will agree that the
phrase, "universal compulsory cover
age for everybody for everything. ''''
a pleasant and unregimcnted sound-
It has been charged that if some'J
the staunch defenders of incrc.^1'
Social Security benefits have th''
way, citizens of the United States rn*1-
soon be federally insured aga'-1'
everything except nosebleed. It ■
thought by many that hyper-emotio11
proponents, smitten with the comp*
sionate aspects of a revised prog'';"
are unable to see the built-in boorfl'
ang inherent in such a system.
Foes of the revised Social Sec-u1'1,
system point out that the increa5
pay-roll tax, which thc revised V.,
gram will necessitate, will make a-'•''
able United States Treasury mi'1'''
(Continued on ptitf
IYtE-r tt. Pay Paul,
I-eI.eei.eev 5, 1956.
Mutual Ilroaeleiisting SysP
Facts Forum News, October,