Dividing the plunder | AspenTimes.com

Dividing the plunder

Dear Editor:”Free lunch is the deity in the religion called socialism,” hits the nail on the head. The Constitution affords no such taking of the property of a sovereign citizen. This taking of property or “income” was the very reason for the American Revolution to begin with.Social Security is socialism, not insurance, not a pension, nor a trust fund.I will try to convince you that you did not earn any Social Security benefits, and you did not deposit anything into a trust fund, you did not earn a pension, and you did not pay any insurance premium. In 1937 the Social Security Act was declared unconstitutional because, according to the federal appellate court, it was using public funds for private purposes, as a “trust fund” and as “insurance” (Davis v. Boston, 89 F2d 368). The court declared that as an excise tax, which it claimed to be, it could not be imposed on wages since an excise may be placed only on articles of consumption. A month later, the Supreme Court, in both Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937) and in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 US 548 (1937), both cases decided on the same day, declared the appellate court was wrong. Although they did not explain why the appellate court was wrong, they reversed the appellate court: “The proceeds of both taxes [Social security taxes on ’employers’ and ’employees’] are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way.”If the funds are not earmarked in any way, then they can’t be a trust fund or insurance. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court was wrong to claim that there is a trust fund or insurance. There is no trust fund and it is not insurance. The Supreme Court refused to face the question of whether Social Security was an excise tax. They declared: “We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open.” That’s right! There is no official explanation of why Social Security is constitutional. You are about to learn why, but you won’t like it. Nowhere is there a trust fund for old-age benefits. Nowhere does the Social Security Act have provisions for a trust fund. You can search it all you want, but you won’t find it. The Social Security Act has no provisions for a trust fund.In 1980, the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Nestor determined that Social Security remains constitutional because there has never been a promise to pay benefits. Again I repeat: Social Security remains constitutional because there is no trust fund and it is not insurance and there is no promise to pay benefits.Zechariah 14:1 (NIV): “A day of the Lord is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.”Rishi S. GrewalCarbondale


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.