Monday, May 31, 2010

New York Times: Social Security 'promise'?


Chicago Monday PM 31 May, 2010

Editors, The New York Times

Gentlepeople:

The New York Times OpEd “Easy Money, Hard Truths” of Thursday, May 27 says “Government accounting is done on a cash basis, so promises to pay in the future... [such as] Social Security benefits....”

The United States Supreme Court, in its 1960 Fleming vs. Nestor decision, said:

“The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments.

“To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act.”

Social Security has nothing to do with promises. And since its 1935 inception not a single wage earner has ever written a check to Social Security System for his 'contribution'. Do you think FDR would trust individual wage earners to voluntarily contribute anything? All the checks come from employers. If they don't remit, they go to jail. But as opposed to individuals, employers can pass on the entire Social Security remittance to their customers in higher prices. The Social Security 'promise' is nothing but a silent, painless national sales tax.

On top of that, do you think FDR ran right down to the Riggs Nattional Bank to deposit those first contributions in some special acount? No, they went directly to the general fund, as they continue to do 75 years later, to be spent on whatever Congress wants. Pay old age pensions? We'll get to that when we need it. We can always pay enough to keep the geezer vote.

Then there's that pesky old Constitution, without a word about old age pensions. What about 'the general welfare clause'? James Madison explained in his Federalist number 41 what the founders meant by “general welfare”:

“Some... have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution... that the power 'to provide for the general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the general welfare.... But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?”

What follow are 17 clauses specifically defining what Congress can do, from “borrow Money” thru “make all Laws... necessary... for carrying into Execution... [all] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States....” Not a hint of old age pensions.

Social Security is clearly unconstitutional, and so is Medicare, and ObamaCare. After the Constitution is blatantly ignored three times in 75 years (all by the same political party) how many more hits can it take before it has no more meaning than a Soviet Russia 'constitution'?

Arnold H Nelson


Thursday, May 20, 2010

NYTimes: Congress powers... "to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare?"


Chicago PM 20 May 2010

Editors, The New York Times

Gentle people:

The New York Times Editorial “Health Care Reform and the Courts” says 20 state attorneys general and governors have filed a lawsuit contending that “Congress has no constitutional power to compel people to make purchases from a private company....” but that the Justice Department “argued that Congress can impose and enforce the mandate under its powers... to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare.”

Is there not a single member of the Times' editorial board, a fact checker, a proof reader, aware of James Madison's explanation in his Federalist number 41 of what the founders meant by “general welfare”?:

“Some... have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution... that the power 'to provide for the general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the general welfare.... But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

What follows are the 17 clauses specifically defining what the Congress can do, from “borrow Money on the credit of the United States” thru “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

But not a hint of health care, nor old age pensions, either.

Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional, and so is Medicare, and Social Security. So after the Constitution is blatantly ignored three time in 70 years (all by the same political party) how many more hits can it take before it has no more meaning than a Soviet Russia 'constitution'?

Arnold H Nelson




Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Letter to Washington Post: Robert Samuelson on Balancing the budget


Chicago Tuesday AM 18 May 2010

Editors, The Washington Post

Gentlepeople:

The Washington Post's Robert Samuelson says in his Monday, May 17 “Wake up, America” column that “What Americans resolutely avoid is a realistic debate about the desirable role of government,” and that this “lack of seriousness is defined by three missing words: 'balance the budget.'” Mr. Samuelson further explains that “The virtue of balancing the budget is that it forces people to weigh the benefits of government against the costs.”

The reason this virtue is resolutely ignored by voters can be found in the 2010 Statistical Abstract of US, table #468, page 311 that shows in 2008, the federal government took in a total of $2.745 trillion, 62% of which was withheld from wages. So nearly 2/3 of all the actual dollars that came into the US general fund were from employer bank accounts, not employee's .

Employers pass all of this on to customers in higher prices, resulting in almost 2/3 of federal income coming from an invisible national sales tax. This hoax has been going on since the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, but because of a regularly expanding national economy, it's all but painless to voters.

There is a solution: Changing paragraph 3402 of USC Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages'... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." The employer would still calculate the tax, replacing the reassuring (but thoroly misleading) note "you earned and your employer paid" with "here is how much the feds are expecting you personally to send in within 30 days"

Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy. But I think after a few months of writing checks on their personal bank accounts to the Federal Government for 20% of their take-home pay Americans will resolutely join the debate on the desirable role of government with a realistic vote on election day.

Arnold H Nelson


Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Letter to WSJ Another part of the First Amendment


Chicago Tuesday AM 11 May 2010

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal's L. Gordon Crovitz closes his fine Monday, May 10 OpEd “Tech-Savvy Justices Protect Free Speech” with the crucial, but rarely so clearly stated, observation that “Speech rights are the same whether exercised through pamphlets or the Web, and whether by individuals or through associations of individuals, incorporated or not."

Everyone knows the First Amendment's “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech....” How many go on 5 more words to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble...?” And what is a corporation but people peaceably assembling?

Arnold H Nelson


Thursday, May 6, 2010

Letter to Daniel Henninger WSJ...


"... Uncle Sam is the lean, mean dude in the "I Want You!" World War II posters"?...

Thursday, May 6, 2010 7:48 PM

...Mr. Henninger, I don't think so.

A quick Google showed its first use in 1917 - WW I.

But, aside from that, your Thursday "Blame Obama, Why Not?" was well up to your usual top standards.

Arn Nelson in Chicago (The Democrat-occupied west bank of Lake Michigan (IL 9th CD, repped by Nancy {Elosi's evil twin. Jan Schakowsky.))

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

WSJ: VAT has potential of raising an enormous amount of revenue?


Chicago Tuesday PM 4 May 2010

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The excellent Wall Street Journal Fred Barnes article of Tuesday, May 4 may have its most telling statement buried deep in its 15th paragraph, where the VAT is described as “... a hidden sales tax with the potential of raising an enormous amount of revenue.” But its enormity is severely limited by the fact that 2/3 of all federal income is already a hidden national sales tax called employer withholding.

In 2008, the federal government took in a total of $2.745 trillion, 62% of which was withheld from wages (most recent figures in 2010 Statistical Abstract of US, table #468, page 311.) So nearly 2/3 of all the actual dollars that came into the US general fund were from employer bank accounts, not employee's .

Employers pass all of this on to customers in higher prices, resulting in almost 2/3 of federal income already coming from an invisible national sales tax. This hoax has been going on since the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, but because of a regularly expanding national economy, it's all but painless to voters.

There is a solution: Changing paragraph 3402 of USC Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages'... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." The employer would still calculate the tax, replacing the reassuring (but thoroly misleading) note "you earned and your employer paid" with "here is how much the feds are expecting you personally to send in within 30 days"

Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy. But how 'hidden' will it look to voters writing a check on their personal bank accounts to the Federal Government every month for 20% of their take-home pay?

Arnold H Nelson