hear all the time or read in email: Congress has stolen trillions
from social security! However, one must understand the history
of social [in]security to understand where your social security
taxes actually go:
year after the Social Security Act's passage, it was challenged
in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Helvering
v. Davis. The court held that Social Security is not
an insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both employee and
employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other
internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
In a 1960 case, Flemming
v. Nestor, the Supreme Court held, “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.”
after Americans had been duped into thinking that the money taken
from them was theirs, the Social Security Administration belatedly
— and very quietly — tried to clean up its history of deception.
Its web site explains, “Entitlement to Social Security benefits
is not (a) contractual right.” It adds: “There has been a temptation
throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that
their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal,
Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting
the law”. The Social Security Administration failed to mention
that it was the SSA itself, along with Congress, that created
the lie that “the checks will come to you as a right.”
my question to those who protest that their Social Security checks
are not an entitlement or handouts: Seeing as Congress has not
“set up a Social Security account for you” containing your Social
Security and Medicare “contributions,” where does the money you
receive come from? I promise you it's neither Santa Claus nor
the tooth fairy. The only way Congress can send checks to Social
Security and Medicare recipients is to take the earnings of a
person currently in the workforce. The way Congress conceals its
Ponzi scheme is to dupe Social Security and Medicare recipients
into thinking that it's their money that is put away and invested.
Therefore, Social Security recipients want their monthly check
and are oblivious about who has to pay and the pending economic
calamity that awaits future generations because of the federal
government's $100 trillion-plus unfunded liability, of which Social
Security and Medicare are the major parts."
must understand SS (Social Security) and Medicare ARE Ponzi schemes.
A Ponzi scheme is the same as a pyramid scheme. What does the
General Government do with entities or individuals who run a Ponzi
scheme? Why the Department of Justice indicts, prosecutes and
convicts. SS can only operate by bringing in new tax contributors
to pay to others for their retirement. In the case of Medicare,
it's to bring in new taxpayers to pay for someone else's medical
care. Without the new generation of slaves, those programs would
need to understand SS is not insurance. It is simply a tax forced
on an individual with a gun to their head to apply for benefits
at a future date IF they applied for a SSN. The new duped are
told their SS tax payment is for their retirement fund. Wrong.
As the court held in Helvering, those SS taxes go into the general
fund of the U.S. Treasury and are not earmarked for any specific
spending purpose. Translated, that means money spent for
endless wars, foreign aid, dues to the communist controlled UN,
etc. Since the people's purse, the U.S. Treasury is overdrawn
$17 TRILLION dollars, those SS payments are borrowed debt. The
truth is your SS taxes go to pay John Smith's retirement in Delaware.
Your children's SS taxes pay for your retirement. Your grandchildren
pay for your children's retirement. A pyramid scheme funded by
the 'old' days, SSA kept a ledger of what you paid and what would
be the payout if you decided to claim benefits at a later date.
With computers, your SS payments are now simply a digital record.
Right now as I type, SS obligations are in excess of $16 TRILLION
dollars, Medicare in excess of $87 TRILLION dollars, "free" prescription
pills in excess of $22 TRILLION dollars totaling $126 TRILLION
dollars or a debt owed by every taxpayer of $1.1 MILLION dollars.
All ponzi schemes.
me quote from constitutional attorney Larry Becraft on SS because
this is a very important point - another lie fed to the American
people to dupe them into applying for the SS Ponzi scheme:
federal social security act arises from events of the Great Depression.
While that era saw extraordinary unemployment and a tremendous
decline in national production, still it was not as cataclysmic
as other events in our nation's history, such as the War Between
the States. Further, no constitutional amendment was adopted during
this era which can offer any basis for an expansion of Congressional
powers. The legislation which started Social Security in 1934
must be viewed in the light of the various Supreme Court cases
decided within a few decades of that legislation and prior thereto.
When Congress adopted the Social Security Act in 1935, the Supreme
Court had already addressed the first such act of 1934 and held
Retirement Board, supra, 295 U.S., at 368, that Congress
had no authority to establish a retirement scheme through its
most tremendous power, its control over interstate commerce:
catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an
employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort
of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance
and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education
of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety
be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain
and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to
regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any
or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really
and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker,
and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such?
We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously
lie outside the orbit of congressional power."
the revolutionary acts of Congress adopted in the two preceding
decades had been emasculated in a series of Supreme Court decisions.
Are we to suppose that, against this legal background, Congress
decided to enact legislation of the caliber which had been struck
as unconstitutional in the same year?
the second Social Security Act of 1935, Congress imposed excise
taxes upon employers and those tax receipts were to be deposited
with the Treasury. The act further provided schemes whereby participants
could enjoy unemployment and retirement benefits. When the act
was adopted, parties opposed thereto made challenges to the act,
relying upon some, if not all, of the various cases cited above.
The major arguments mounted against the act were premised upon
contentions that the legislation constituted an invasion of state
rights. In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548,
57 S.Ct. 883 (1937), an employer challenged the unemployment tax
imposed upon it and the Court held that such tax was an excise
which Congress could impose.
reference to the contention that the subject matter of the act
was properly within the historical field reserved to the states,
the Court held that Congress could enact legislation to aid the
states in an area of great concern. The Court placed considerable
emphasis upon the fact that the states were reluctant to adopt
unemployment acts because such taxes created differentials between
states which had such legislation and those which did not. By
creating a national unemployment act, this difference was eliminated
and a great benefit to the American people resulted. The Court,
therefore, found nothing constitutionally objectionable to the
act as to the issues which were raised. In Helvering v. Davis,
301 U.S. 619, 57 S.Ct. 904 (1937), the same rationale was used
to uphold the retirement features of the act. The importance of
these two cases upholding the Social Security Act concerns the
issues which these cases did not raise: neither of them addressed
the issue of whether there was a requirement for any domestic
American to join Social Security. The reason that this issue was
not raised is because there is no such requirement, unless of
course one works for a state government which has contracted into
Social Security; see Public Agencies Opposed To Social Security
Entrapment (POSSE) v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Cal.
1985), rev., 477 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 2390 (1986).
above review should readily demonstrate that there is indeed a
real question concerning the point of whether one must submit
an application to join Social Security. The cases which challenged
the constitutionality of Social Security simply did not raise
this issue, and it appears that no case has as yet dealt with
it. The reason for this absence of a challenge to such alleged
requirement can only be explained by analyzing the act itself
to determine if there is such a requirement. Because Congress
lacks the constitutional authority to compel membership in Social
Security, the act simply imposes no such requirement.
modern version of the act is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 301-433.
If there were a requirement that every American join the Social
Security scheme, one would expect to find language in the act
similar to the following: "Every American of the age of 18 years
or older shall submit an application with the Social Security
Administration and shall provide thereon the information required
by regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every member of Social
Security shall pay the taxes imposed herein and records of such
payments shall be kept by the Secretary for determining the amount
of benefits to which such member is entitled hereunder." Amazingly,
no such or similar language appears within the act, and particularly
there is no section thereof which could remotely be considered
as a mandate that domestic Americans join Social Security. The
closest section of the act which might relate to this point is
the requirement that one seeking benefits under the act must apply
for the same. But, this relates to an entirely different point
than a requirement that one join and secure a number.
If you want to read a Social Security document which states that
"Getting a Social Security number for your baby is strictly voluntary,"
here. Also, please
read the SSA letter to Scott McDonald which states that a
citizen within the States is not required to get a SSN.)
purported duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security number
therefore boils down to this: you get it if you need it or request
it. There is no legal compulsion to do so."
also have an almost identical letter as Scott's from the Commissioner
of SSA. So, SS is a forced tax to pay for someone else's retirement,
but you are not required to get a SSN to live or work in the U.S.
However, the deceitful dogs in the U.S. Congress decided everyone
would be taxed whether or not they ever applied for a Social Security
number to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat.
let's look at Obamacare. The impostor in the White House and his
lackeys repeatedly told the American people Obamacare was not
a tax. Just like the Liar-in-Chief told the American people they
could keep their existing health care policy, period. They could
keep their doctor, period. We now know those were deliberate lies
and that Soetoro aka Obama knew it back in 2010.
Tax legislation has to originate in the House; the health-care
all the fraud perpetrated in the passage of Obamacare — and the
fraud has been epic — the lowest is President Obama’s latest talking
point that the Supreme Court has endorsed socialized medicine
as constitutional. To the contrary, the justices held the “Affordable”
Care Act unconstitutional as Obama presented it to the American
people: namely, as a legitimate exercise of Congress's power to
regulate interstate commerce.
sustain this monstrosity, Chief Justice John Roberts had to shed
his robes and put on his legislator cap. He rewrote Obamacare
as a tax — the thing the president most indignantly promised Americans
that Obamacare was not. And it is here that our recent debate
over the Constitution's Origination Clause — the debate in which
Matt Franck, Ramesh Ponnuru, Mark Steyn, and yours truly have
probed the historical boundaries of the “power of the purse” reposed
by the Framers in the House of Representatives — descends from
the airy realm of abstraction and homes in on a concrete violation
is not just that the intensely unpopular Obamacare was unconstitutional
as fraudulently portrayed by the president and congressional Democrats
who strong-armed and pot-sweetened its way to passage. It is that
Obamacare is unconstitutional as rewritten by Roberts. It is a
violation of the Origination Clause — not only as I have expansively
construed it, but even under Matt’s narrow interpretation of the
so, it may now drop back into Roberts' lap: Lawsuit
over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’
wait! It gets better!
Sebelius admits Obamacare is a fine… not a tax (October 9,
"First it was a fine, then it was a tax, and now it's a fine again
the definition of Obamacare changes depending on the politically
expedient position of any given moment. It couldn't be called
a tax in the beginning because people don't like taxes. It couldn't
be a fine during the SCOTUS hearings because then it'd be unconstitutional.
But, alas, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
was on with Jon Stewart calling the law a fine once again."
SS were mandatory, everyone would be forced into the system, but
that's simply not true. You have to apply for the number
and later in life if you choose to do so, apply for the benefits.
Congress could not force you to join the 'Old-age
and survivors insurance benefit payments' - 42 USC § 402,
only be taxed separately for it. Oops....that's right, it's not
There a Right to Social Security?
Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering
v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security
was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds
of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the
Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not
earmarked in any way.” In other words, Social Security is not
an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one
side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security
benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in
Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past
and is likely to do so in the future."
Retirement Board, supra, 295 U.S., at 368, the court basically
said employers are not required to provide for the "satisfaction
and comfort" of employees. Forcing a private sector employer to
provide medical health coverage (which no one even knows yet what
that is going to be) absolutely could be considered to "relieve
the employee of mental strain and worry". Forcing employers in
the private sector to provide heath care coverage has nothing
to do with interstate commerce, companies operating safely or
anything other than the social welfare of workers.
the justices wrote heavily in that decision about interstate commerce,
what this really boils down to is whether or not Congress has
the constitutional authority to force employers to provide Obamacare
to employees. I say Congress didn't have any constitutional authority.
Obamacare, everyone affected by it will be forced to pay a tax
for a product they don't want - including employers if not challenged.
Obamacare, ALL of us will be taxed to pay for those who apply
for health care under the [Un]Affordable Care Act, but can't afford
the policy in the form of subsidies. Americans will be forced
to pay their own more expensive health care plans AND someone
else's with a gun to their head.
taxes everyone to provide for someone else's retirement, yet the
individual is not required to enroll in SS. I am not required
to enroll in Obamacare, but I will be taxed anyway.
of us will be forced through taxes to pay for someone else's health
care through subsidies even though an individual may not be required
under that unconstitutional Act to obtain health insurance through
ObamaCare. That would be me. My husband is retired military, so
we pay for our own health care through TriCare and are not affected
by Obamacare. However, the IRS intends to steal from me to pay
subsidies for someone else's health care premiums. If you're forced
to obtain health care under Obamacare, you will be paying your
new higher premium PLUS you will be taxed to pay subsidies for
someone else who can't afford a policy.
pay my own health care premiums. I pay state taxes to pay for
someone else's medical treatment under Medicaid and Medicare at
the federal level even though I do NOT want to be sucked into
that Ponzi scheme. How many more taxes for other people's personal
responsibilities will I be forced with a gun to my head
to pay? And for the record: At the state level, personally I don't
have a problem with the small amount of taxes it costs me every
year for Medicaid for those truly who have no money to see a doctor.
BUT, the states do not allocate enough resources to stop massive
Medicaid fraud and so millions are wasted, which in turn keeps
raising Medicare taxes. The voters should be demanding very strict
accountability, but they don't bother because football or heading
to the mall is more important.
brings me to the final part in this monstrous legal mess - again,
courtesy of constitutional attorney Larry Becraft, who has been
practicing law in federal courts for more than 35 years:
is a constitutional problem regarding Obamacare that nobody has
mentioned: it violates principles of equal protection. The Fifth
Amendment's Due Process Clause contains an equal protection component,
and thus equal protection principles apply to the feds. See Bolling
v Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954); and Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224 (1995).
alleged need for Obamacare to take over the whole medical system
in this country was based on the failure of a segment of American
society to have medical insurance. Apparently, those who don't
have medical insurance adversely impact the medical industry and
the delivery of medical services. However, it must be noted that
those with medical insurance did not cause this problem. For purposes
of argument only, let's presume that the insured American public
constitutes 80% of the populace, while the uninsured comprise
20% of the populace.
a legislative body is attempting to address a social problem,
whether great or small, it cannot impose duties on those who are
not a part of or the cause of the problem without violating equal
protection principles. For example, drunk drivers do constitute
a hazard on the roads. But to address the problem caused by drunk
drivers, a legislative body could not adopt of law affecting 100%
of the driving public, inclusive of people who are not causing
the problem, because to do so would violate equal protection.
of equal protection are concerned with legislative classifications.
If a legislature detects a problem and adopts of law that affects
only a segment of those causing the problem, the legislature has
created an “underinclusive” class. If it adopts of law that affects
a far broader class than those causing the problem, it has created
an “overinclusive” class. See Alvarez v. Chavez, 118
N.M. 732, 886 P.2d 461 (1994) (license restriction for bondsmen
was overinclusive); Beach Communications, Inc. v. Federal
Communications Comm., 965 F.2d 1103, 1105 (D.C.Cir. 1992)
(distinction in Cable Act between “external, quasi-private” and
“wholly private” cable systems was “overinclusive * * * in that
this burden does not serve the Act's purpose”); Shriners Hospital
for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64, 69 (Fla.
1990) (“Equal protection analysis requires that classifications
be neither too narrow nor too broad to achieve the desired end.
underinclusive or overinclusive classifications fail to meet even
the minimal standards of the rational basis test”); French
v. Amalgamated Local Union 376, 203 Conn. 624, 526 A.2d 861
(1987) (ban on residential picketing except for unions was overinclusive);
Treants Enterprises, Inc. v. Onslow County, 83 N.C. App.
345, 350 S.E.2d 365 (1986); District of Columbia v. E.M., 467
A.2d 457, 466 (D.C.App.1983) (welfare statute of limitations was
void because classes were both “underinclusive and overinclusive”);
Isakson v. Rickey, 550 P.2d 359 (Alaska 1976) (using
the rational basis test, the Court determined that a commercial
fisherman limitation was unconstitutional because the act's classifications
were both overbroad and underinclusive); Erznoznik v. City
of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 214, 95 S.Ct. 2268 (1975)
(“the legislative classification is strikingly underinclusive”);
Laakonen v. Eighth Judicial District Court for County of Clark,
91 Nev. 506, 538 P.2d 574 (1975)(guest statute violated equal
protection); Sturrup v. Mahan, 261 Ind. 463, 305 N.E.2d
877, 881 (1974) (“This is precisely where the rules sweep too
broadly, they create an over-inclusive class”); Boraas v.
Village of Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806, 815 fn. 8 (2nd Cir.
1973) (“grossly overinclusive or underinclusive classifications
should not be readily tolerated”); Brown v. Merlo, 8
Cal.3d 855, 506 P.2d 212, 227 (1973) (California guest statute
was overinclusive, had many exceptions and it “‘imposes a burden
upon a wider range of individuals than are included in the class
of those tainted with the mischief at which the law aims’”); and
Patton v. State of North Carolina, 381 F.2d 636, 643
(4th Cir. 1967).
does Obamacare violate equal protection? Those who have insurance
will have their medical services and treatments curtailed and
controlled, even though they are not a part of the problem, which
is caused by the uninsured. Encompassing 100% of the public to
address a problem created by 20% of the public creates an overinclusive
class, which violates equal protection. But then again, Nancy
Pelosi and Harry Reid already solved the problem caused by the
uninsured by taxing them in an amount that approximates insurance
premiums. Obamacare is not only unconstitutional, it is insanely
I see future lawsuits under equal protection? Yes, and count me
Administration Reportedly Makes Stunning Obamacare Admission for
the Very First Time
McCarthy Obama’s massive fraud (former U.S. Attorney)
York: 'Sympathetic Journalists All Knew Cancellations Coming'