Friday, October 30, 2009

Should Michigan Opt Out of Social Security?

The first question that needs to be asked; “Is Social Security VOLUNTARY?

Well, according to Sec. 218 of the Social Security Act, Social Security is VOLUNTARY and the States formed a Voluntary Agreement to cover state and local EMPLOYEES. But, don’t take my word for it, CLICK HERE and read the definition of terms for yourself.

But keep in mind, that while the states made voluntary agreements to OFFER this insurance to it’s employees, it does not say that employees must accept this coverage.

Northwest Ordinance (1787)
Section 14.
"Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of
… representation of the people in the legislature…"

"Art. 3. "… their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed"
Declaration of Independence (1776),
"The Organic Laws of the United States of
America." (Title 1 United States Code)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"
"As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' — that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — 'that all men are endowed' — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — 'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these' — not grant them but secure them — 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) J. Fields concurring
"His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken away from him by due process of law and in accordance with the Constitution." Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 47 1905
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added) West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS FOR COVERAGE OF STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES[245]

Purpose of Agreement
Sec. 218. [42 U.S.C. 418] (a)(1) The Commissioner of Social Security shall, at the request of any State, enter into an agreement with such State for the purpose of extending the insurance system established by this title to services performed by individuals as employees of such State or any political subdivision thereof. Each such agreement shall contain such provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, as the State may request.
(2) Notwithstanding section 210(a), for the purposes of this title the term “employment” includes any service included under an agreement entered into under this section.


This question was posed at a luncheon forum, by Paul R. Farago, Director and Senior Advisor Cascade Policy Institute on June 23, 1997.

Let's say you're, oh, 39 years old and expect to work until your about 68. Which retirement deal would you choose if you had the freedom?

One in which you would begin getting back all the money you've put in, plus a market rate of return -- starting when you hit 134 years young? Or a plan in which your payroll contributions, and those of your employer, grow at the far faster speed of the stock market or, if you prefer, with the certainty of an insurance annuity?

Likewise, if misfortune should hit and you die before your time, would you prefer a plan whose death benefits might pay for the cold cuts at your wake? Or would you choose one substantial enough to send your kids to college?

Apologies for the embarrassingly easy questions, but I'm afraid the gap in both dollars and sense between the current Social Security system on the one hand, and privatized alternatives on the other, is just that stark. Mortifying, if you will.

These disparities are pointed out very well in "Should Minnesota Opt Out of Social Security?" by Paul R. Farago of Oregon, who describes how and why the legislature in Salem recently petitioned to allow the entire state of Oregon to do just that. The idea, as you will read, is not nearly as wild or untenable at it may first seem.

For example, the federal government, until 1983, allowed certain groups -- public employees, mainly -- to leave the system. Which is to say, this is not a radical and untested idea. Citing one ongoing illustration, Mr. Farago writes:

The 5,000 public employees of Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda counties in east Texas no longer pay taxes into the Social Security system. Instead their payments, still matched by their employers, go into a private plan operated much like an annuity. . . . Since 1981, that return has averaged 6.5 percent, compared to Social Security's return of about 2.2 percent for a worker born in 1950. Participants are fully vested immediately, so they can change jobs and take their retirement funds with them.

Also for critical example is Chile's remarkable success since 1980 in FULL STORY

Last night Glenn Beck interviewed Rick Gornto, the Galveston Plan Designer. Take a look at where Galveston employees are compared to those who receive Social Security.



Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]

Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.

Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.

Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's. FULL STORY

This article by Mark Brandly along with the rest of the information her should fully educate everyone to be able to make an informed response to the question.

The Social Security Scam

Mark Brandly is a professor of economics at Ferris State University and an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The release of the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report indicates that the current economic crisis has negatively impacted the Social Security budget. It's now projected that by 2016 Social Security spending will exceed revenues. According to the report, the financial condition of the Social Security program "remains challenging" and "need(s) to be addressed soon." A look at the numbers shows us the severity of the Social Security budget problem.

Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. This means that when you work, the government takes your money and gives it to Social Security recipients. In order to get workers to accept this system, the government promises to take other people's money and give it to you when you retire. Think of it as an exponentially larger version of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. FULL STORY


SHOULD MICHIGAN OPT OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY?

2 comments:

Jacob said...

I saw this segment on Beck last night and was intriqued. Boy, I sure wish MI would give us that choice. Of course, I wouldn't want them doing anything with the money either!!!

John M. Susko said...

Yes! Yes!! YES!!! Opt out of everything "federal".