I he system must be
t age 65
c of mankind
t people are
. 0 i 1,1 '* is lo work without unduly burden-
«l States hold ^ ^ ^ ^ the safet, of
en bands, for > fum|s, They arp inves |n , ^
t our Anierii-..it(is „OV(.rnm(.n| ,)onds „,„.„. uo|||(|
st.tut.ons and.' -um^ |h(,m, WouW ^^ ^
mav he tin -iticize the present investment put them
'?" ? u.J 'ommereial bonds or loans? If we
1(1 '" ■'■l.gl.1^,1 ^„ wouId we not j, |ak(,
ie heart Hume "
illuge. unile-r if , . ,
l :„i,ir"llS'*<"ssmaii Al«er, who leels I
ry social iir^"*
Iv surrender th**0^1*'!"! could bring inflation wine
/of liberty aii«nkrupt the nation, presented his
the Republic fce same Facts Forum program:
leader and lea1'
No greater shock faced me as a fr.-h-
an congressman them getting the in-
dc information on "Social Security"
or Old Age Survivors Insurance
ASI as it is name-el 1. I thought we- held
und program -that we'd get our
1 saw the members of the House of
bresentatives "steamroller through'* a
w Soeieil Security bill withoul bear-
is, without debate, eunl without anv
of responsibility "because," I
s told, "it s a sun- way to seek und
ii v.ile--. just as it's political suicide
vole against it. Also, the Senate will
'Id healings ami thus can bear the
I when thev re*!,,,,, ,,f ,,,,1,1 jr. criticism. I saw the Soil,,■ v,„n.-5 mj] Securit) program become a political
suffers some "Tothall will, a straight party line vote
> or .io should -er w|1(.lll(.r |o ,||l|c| ||umi(, nearmgs «,
lid. Surely heJ.t- Republicans for hearings, llcnie.-
ralely ibun If als against. So I investigated em.I
nore often ha idieil as time would permit, mv -u-
e. fcions being aroused.
Ileprc5cntati*j ] |,.arnrlj ,},.,, S(l|ni. ,.,)MLrt,.—,,,,,,
relation cxtendjenlv admitted that rather lhan oppose
-mod peulv i--1 is politically popular bill bv idling the
hi put no ei? jojile the truth, they'd rather wail an,I
rogieiin would j ,| ,.„||.I|ISI. 0f its own weaknessej al„]
pick and to l'*|esponsiliilities then everyone would
are now force-Mtomulieally know it wees not sound
rogram ol -'*<l without th,- individual congressman
l will be a -lt''"'Tilii-ing himself politically to oppose
medicine and] |„ ||,js statesmanship?
ci- types of S°1I learned that the program was known
, he actuarially unsound that esti-
ibe coverage ° "es of its deficit wen- somewhere be-
are those wli°e,-„ 6(1 einel 225 billion dollars "but
■av il does no'! mailer becuuse the burden is being
- ha- eilwuys jfteel |n following generations." In-
.- wanted tic s£ad "f llu- 20 billion dollar hand it
does not iriV°* been asserted that there should be
iv Tliui-ileiv" 'iicwhcrc in lhe neighborhood of 250
id there are thphon dollars i.i support presenl fed-
a system sliou1' il commitments. Even tin- 20 billion
That would ll.n- is not 0n band because the -510
erv people wln'iniciil bee- spenl il I,, pay other ex-
icrully speuki"r'n -es. leaving I.O.I .'5 i„ the lill. This
I would slill l^lthc heriluge we leave our children in
.ireel goveriuiu'"' name- ,,f "Social Security." Where
tremendous step towards socialism by
making the governmenl the mortgage
holder over most business and at the
same lime-, weiuld we not reduce tlle
security of our funds?
As I see ii. Soeieil Security is safe. It
is sound. It offers the only practical
method for mosl people lo provide for
their own security. I am for il.
now are our watchwords of "liberty'
eenel "freedom"? Is anyone, our children
included, free when saddled with debt?
Is this "social security"' for them, or
"-in ial failure"? Is II rather u mass rejection of our religious belief in personal responsibility, in exchange for a
fanciful governmenl guarantee with
compounded bureaucratic mistakes?
The future cosl will be in excess of 20
billion dollars per vear by 1975 in ad-
ililiiin lo income lax. *1 011 may not know
this either, but under the increasing
costs many will be paying more lax in
Social Security than income lax—it's
going up. For comparison it is sale to
sav that Ibis adding on increasing cost
is equivalent lo increasing your presenl
income lux by 50 per cent—just to break
even on Soeieil Security income against
benefits. Actually, no one knows bow
badly off wc are yel the benefits are
blandly increased by Congress. Some
instances an- reported where 126 dollars
can buy 30 thousand dollars benefits.
Who wouldn't be interested? In other
instances, tuxes are collected well beyond the amount due. but are- never refunded. In slill others, millions of our
people will not receive benefits because
of bureaucratic rulings handed down
and becuuse of red tape. Yet they are-
forced lo pay in. Is this liberty and
Many, many questions have been
asked I pose some- now—which have n't
been answered, bul avoided by congressional leaders who refused to bold
hearings, playing polities instead. (If
course, it is un easier course us a congressman to climb aboard a popular
cause, in this case- tin- offer of security
und something for nothing, them il is to
oppose it- -but the fiscul foolishness is
now loo obvious lo permit such a course
without sacrificing ethics eunl conscience.
I In- people should be told—and I, for
i News, /«»■"■"
Ws Forum News, January, 1956
one. am not afraid to expend the efforl.
lo raise the questions, many of which
.11c those ei-ke-ei of the committee which
then refused lo bold bearings lo gel the
Facts. Vet they brought forth a bill anil
pushed it through.
lb-re are only u few questions. What
are lhe fuels on age qualification in
wives, working men and willows I in
view eef age reduction tor some from 65
lo 62 in this bill)? What are the fails
on lengthening life expectancies'.'' How
fur in debt is the program al ihis time?
What payment schedule is necessary to
make the program sound actuarially?
What protections againsl destroying in-
centive em- then- in the- cash disability
program? How does the disability program lie in with the expanding federal-
state vocational rehabilitation? These
and many other questions require
In the disability program it appears
that if wc wanted lo kill initiative und
create the best environmenl for "gold-
bricks'' possible, we've done it in the
present bill. The temptation is there—
why should a man rehabilitate himself
und be taken off a federal pension?
Further, will there be shopping around
to find a doctor lo support lhe claim
for a federal pension? Why should 50
years be the designated age?
Any foolish fiscul program endangers
our nation economically -particularlj
such ;i comprehensive program as this.
Inflation is always the danger to tin
value of money. This program could
bring on inflation, inflation could in
turn kill tbe program by watering tbe
money, eunl bankrupt the nation.
Hut tbe crowning delusion is llie built-
in boomerang that will hurt mosl those
now deluding themselves most in their
trust in the Soeial Security program. Il
weis voted in it can In- voted out any
lime. Congress is so empowered. The
very children wc arc saddling with the
debl and future payment of this program
eun refuse to pay simplv bv so instructing their congressman. Then, no Sue ieel
Security program al all!
Isn't it belter, therefore, lo study the
program now. putting it on a sound
basis, if possible, or taking sucb action
as is apparently necessary, than to hem-
il forced on us later ul the expense of ee
greal hoax mi millions of trusting older
citizens? After all. we're playing the
joke on ourselves. Who i- kidding who?
Also, do you feel it i- political suicide
lor a congressman to call your attention
lo ibis mess or do vou. loo. believe il
is a congressman's duty to call il as he
sees il? I have only touched some ol
ihe present problems. Congressmen
await your decision. Let them know. It s