In Defense of Liberty: Social "Security" Going Down the Drain at a Faster Pace

Are you counting on "Social Security" in your retirement? Consider the biggest story no one is talking about -- not that there hasn't been a lot to talk about this week with the media apoplectic over Mitt Romney's response to the terror attacks on our embassies and busily ignoring Barry's feckless response to the same. But this week Social Security achieved an infamous milestone that puts the already-troubled program in even more jeopardy:

It was easy enough to miss the press release. Goodness knows there was a lot to pay attention to this week. If you missed it, the government announced its payouts to social security and disability payments had hit annual records, even though there was still a month left in the budget year.
Through the end of August, the federal government paid out more than $591 billion. That's $3 billion more in social security benefits and $129 billion more in disability benefits than last year.
There is more evidence of the growing claim of entitlements on our budget and while nobody begrudges retirees who've spent their lives paying into social security claiming their fair share, the numbers of Americans getting disability benefits is concerning.

Is it any wonder that Gerri Willis at Fox Business is the only one reporting on this?

"Social Security" has never been secure. From it's inception, "Social Security" has been one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the American people. People like Bernie Madoff get thrown in jail for life for schemes a million times less than "Social Security". Every time you bring this up, you will have some liberal screaming "liar" in your face: "Social Security" is the world's biggest ponzi scheme, promising fantastic returns on money that doesn't even exist. Consider this:

Most people have never heard of Ida May Fuller, the first "Social Security" recipient. The "Social Security" web site paints a sweet picture of Ida May and 'm sure she was a sweet lady. But the SSA history page on Ida May doesn't tell the whole story. The whole story is that Ida May Fuller paid $24.75 into the system and ended up collecting nearly $23,000 by the time she died in 1975 -- a thousand times more than she paid in. And so it still goes today.

Take a look at your FICA tax on your paycheck -- that's your contribution to the "Social Security trust fund", write that number down and compare it to the amount of monthly benefits the SSA claims you will be paid at retirement.
Now consider that hundreds of millions of Americans (and immigrants) are promised the same type of deal -- pay in far less that you receive at retirement.
Now consider that there is no "Social Security trust fund". Money from general revenues has been used to pay "Social Security". For over 40 years, politicians have been raiding the 'Social Security trust fund" and have replaced the money with IOUs. It is not being invested and producing high returns as it would have to be in order to fulfill the promises made on those "Social Security" statements. Social Security has been paid out of general revenues for decades. That means current workers are paying the benefits for current recipients. And the ratio of workers to recipients has been plummeting from 49 workers to one recipient in the 40s to less then three workers to one recipient today. It has been unsustainable since it's inception and its burden is increasing astronomically every year.

Social Security is considered the "third rail" of politics. Mess with it and you are dead politically which is the main reason why Democrats and Republicans alike don't want to do anything to deal with it. But as politicians put it off, the situation only gets worse. In 2009 the "Social Security" fund (not counting Medicare which is way worse, had $17.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities -- meaning the amount of money the Social Security tax takes in is $17.5 trillion less that what it will take to pay projected benefits. That one thousand seven hundred and fifty BILLION dollars. It is only a matter of time before the whole system collapses. Will it collapse before those of us in our 50s reach retirement? Perhaps. Will it collapse before people in their 40s reach retirement? That's more likely. Is there any chance that people in their 20s and 30s will see anything from the money they pay in to "Social Security"? At this rate there is virtually no way these folks will see ANY benefits.

The only way to save this program, like Medicare, is to phase it out, preserving it for Americans over a certain age and paying the money back to younger Americans to invest on their own. If we don't follow this path, we're headed for certain financial catastrophe.

Will politicians have the guts to take this on? It's not likely. The Democrat's socialist welfare programs have been entrenched for decades and are now virtually impossible to dislodge. But someone is going to have to take this on and soon because we are headed for a monumental collapse.