Ron Paul Calls For An End To America's Welfare State, Choice To Opt Out Of Social Security

Tyler Durden's picture

In addition to calling for the abolishing of America's insolvent "welfare state" regime (and not to mention the Fed), Ron Paul floats the idea of allowing Americans to opt out of payroll tax in exchange for never receiving Social Security benefits. As the SSA will be pretty much insolvent in a few years, and not provide any benefit to anyone soon thereafter, this seems like a reasonable trade off.

By Ron Paul

Reject the Welfare/Warfare State

Last
week’s midterm elections have been characterized as a victory for
grassroots Americans who are fed up with Washington and the political
status quo.  In particular, the elections are
being touted as a clear indicator that voters demand reductions in
federal spending, deficits, and debt.

If the new Congress hopes to live up to the expectations of Tea Party voters, however, it faces some daunting choices.  For
all the talk about pork and waste, the truth is that Congress cannot
fix the budget and get our national debt under control by trimming fat
and eliminating earmarks for “Bridges to Nowhere.” 

Real
reductions in federal spending can be achieved only by getting to the
meat of the federal budget, meaning expenditures in all areas.

The
annual budget soon will be $5 trillion unless Congress takes serious
steps to reduce spending for entitlements, military, and debt service.
Yet how many Tea Party candidates who campaigned on a platform of
spending cuts talked about Social Security, Medicare, foreign wars, or
bond debt?

With regard to entitlements, the 2010 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report tells it all.  It
paints a stark picture of two entitlement programs that cannot be
sustained under even the rosiest scenarios of economic growth.  No one, regardless of political stripe, can deny the fundamental problem of unfunded future liabilities in both programs.

We should understand that Social Security was intended primarily to prevent old widows from becoming destitute.  Life expectancy in 1935 was only about 65, when there were several workers for each Social Security recipient.  The
program was never intended to be a general transfer payment from young
workers to older retirees, regardless of those retirees’ financial need.  Yet today Social Security faces an unfunded liability of approximately $18 trillion. 

First,
Congress needs to stop using payroll taxes for purposes not related to
Social Security, which was a trick the Clinton administration used to
claim balanced budgets. Second, Congress should eliminate
unconstitutional spending -  including unnecessary
overseas commitments - and use the saved funds to help transition to a
Social Security system that is completely voluntary.  At
some point in the near future Congress must allow taxpayers to opt out
of federal payroll taxes in exchange for never receiving Social Security
benefits.

Medicare similarly faces a shortfall of $30.8 trillion in unfunded future benefits.  The Part D prescription drug benefit accounts for approximately $15.5 trillion, or half of the unfunded Medicare liability.  Congress should immediately repeal the disastrous drug benefit passed in 2003 by President Bush and a Republican Congress. 

Fiscal conservatives should not be afraid to attack entitlements philosophically.  We
should reject the phony narrative that entitlement programs are
inherently noble or required by “progressive” western values.  Why
exactly should Americans be required, by force of taxation, to fund
retirement or medical care for senior citizens, especially senior
citizens who are comfortable financially?  And if
taxpayers provide retirement and health care benefits to some older
Americans who are less well off, can’t we just call it welfare instead
of maintaining the charade about “insurance” and “trust funds”?

Military
spending and interest on the national debt similarly represent large
federal expenditures that Congress must address by rethinking our
foreign policy and exercising far greater oversight over the Federal
Reserve and the Treasury department. 

I have for a long time criticized our interventionist foreign policy and the Fed, and I will continue to do so.  It’s
time for Congress to face the fundamental problems that affect Social
Security and Medicare, and show the courage necessary to make real
changes to both programs by rejecting the welfare/warfare state.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
HelluvaEngineer's picture

Imagine if 15% of your salary went into gold and silver instead.

Sudden Debt's picture

actually, it's a bit higher then that for me this last year :)

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

There are so many things that have to come to an end, and so little time!  Social Security, the Fed, drawn out overseas military engagements,  hasn't it become abundantly clear this our 'video game moment':  "Game over, man"  if there ever was one.

So clearly, what is needed is a complete reset.  Back to basics.  Back to the Constitution, and we work our way from there.  Tax and legal system are both ridiculously overcomplex.

http://psychonews.site90.net

Sudden Debt's picture

there are 2 ways to reset it all:

1. just press the right top button for 3 seconds and then slide the red bar to the right.

wait 10 seconds and press the right top button again for 3 seconds.

2. slide on top where the clock is located from right to left to right to left.

a small menu will appear and then you press: "respring"

 

or you can just wait untill the batteries run dry. That would be the third option...

knukles's picture

Or call the dude in India that got your information technology job when it got outsourced.

i-dog's picture

a) The dude in India needs to eat too! You want to sell him computers and aircraft, why can't he sell you his labour to help pay for them?

b) You also need to address the causes of the outsourcing (high taxes, excessive benefits, excessive regulation, job underperformance, inability to fill certain positions).

Rasna's picture

Herd:

FYI

What distinguishes Nazism from generic fascism is its obsession with racial theories of superiority, and some would say, its roots in the socialist theory of proletarian revolution.

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

It is vitally important to understand that fascism and Nazism are not biologically or culturally determinant. Fascism does not attach to the gene structure of any specific group or nationality. Nazism was not the ultimate expression of the German people. Fascism did not end with World War II.

 

Source (somewhat dated): http://www.remember.org/hist.root.what.html

ZakuKommander's picture

I presume you don't mean the original Constitution that permitted slavery and didn't permit women to vote.  Or should we treat it like the Bible, and select only those parts that agree with one's personal opinions.

goldsaver's picture

You do know that the Constitution includes the amendments that were voted for and ratified right?

Of course, you may prefer the "Living Constitution" that means whatever you might feel it means when you get up in the morning.

ZakuKommander's picture

See my use of the word "original."  

The Constitution means more than the document, and amendments. For example, it means Supreme Court decisions interpreting it as well.  Which change over time, as American has changed from a largely agrarian to a largely industrial to a largely service-oriented and financial country.  It also means Realpolitik, which is "what happens in real life."  

Both left and right play with Constitutional interpretation like Christians play with the Bible.  Talking about the "sacredness" or "correctness" of one's own vision of a limited amount of words is naive.

I trust you realize that.

goldsaver's picture

The Constitution means more than the document, and amendments. For example, it means Supreme Court decisions interpreting it as well.

No, it doesn't. The Constitution is a contract between the states. A contract that has a stated modification clause (amendments). That would be like your bank saying that your mortgage means whatever they interpret it to mean as they wish.

Which change over time, as American has changed from a largely agrarian to a largely industrial to a largely service-oriented and financial country.  It also means Realpolitik, which is "what happens in real life."

If it did, it would be meaningless. It would be like a police officer stopping you and saying, "Yes I know the sign says 45 MPH but in my opinion based on the demographics of this area, you should have been going 25MPH so here is a $100 dollar fine". Nowhere in the Constitution is anyone given the authority to re-write it on the fly based on Realpolitik.

Both left and right play with Constitutional interpretation like Christians play with the Bible.  

as you are doing now. Billy did it too does not make an argument.

Talking about the "sacredness" or "correctness" of one's own vision of a limited amount of words is naive.

Don't call yourself naive man, misinformed maybe, but not naive. Or are you claiming that you are not using your own vision of the correctness of the limited amount of words in the Constitution to make your point.

A contract that can be modified at will without the consent of the parties involved and outside of the clauses of the contract is not a contract, is toilet paper. The same contract that created these United States also defines the functions and limits of the powers given to them. Saying that it must adapt to Realpolitik and interpretation on the fly is idiotic in the extreme. Lets say that the wicked witch of the west, Speaker Pelosi, decided that Realpolitik dictates that she remains speaker forever because the Constitution must reflect our changing environment. Or if shrub would have decided to order a draft by executive order, bypassing congress, for the good of the current common defense, would you have been so amenable to a living constitution? How is that different than the federal government writing a health care bill mandating individuals to purchase a product outside of the powers given to them by the Constitution?

You are correct that the Constitution must adapt to changes in the country. Even Jefferson spoke of the need to change laws as needed. But, there is a specific modification clause in the contract. It is the amendment process. It is specifically intended to be difficult to do in order to refrain the power of the federal government from precisely what you advocate, unchecked power.

GoldSilverDoc's picture

Strange.

I don't remember signing any "constitution contract".

In fact, I don't remember signing any contract at all.   So, I guess it doesn't apply to me. Come to think of it, all the guys that agreed to it in the first place are dead.  So I guess it doesn't apply, really, to anybody.

 

 

goldsaver's picture

I never said you signed it. The constitution is a contract between the States, not between individuals. The individuals are represented in this contract by the State delegates that are either elected or appointed (the Constitution is silent as to the method) at the state level.

nmewn's picture

"Both left and right play with Constitutional interpretation like Muslims play with the Quran."

There...fixed it for you...no charge this time.

 

A Nanny Moose's picture

The Constitution is a check on the nature of humans in positions of power, not just a set of rules of governance. It matters not, how primitive or modern a society is. The power structures willl never change.

We might still be agragrian if we weren't so busy building a better mouse trap with which to destroy ourselves every 70 years, or so.

i-dog's picture

"You do know that the Constitution includes the amendments that were voted for and ratified right?"

OK. So your plan is to wind the clock back to May 7th, 1992 (date of ratification of 27th Amendment) and take a mulligan from there?

Sounds like a great plan ... what could possibly go wrong?!!

trav7777's picture

why should women vote?  They can't pick out what to fuckin wear or what type of food they'd prefer you bought them tonight, so why should I trust their voting?

we don't need more irrational voters.

ZakuKommander's picture

But we can't pick out women, so there.

Best Courtroom toilet graffiti evah:

"Next time I'll just find a woman who hates me and buy her a house."

66Sexy's picture

ring ring.

Ben Bernake's aide picks up phone. "just a minute..."

Bernake: "yeah ill take it." ... "Hello?"

conference call: bla bla bla from various institutional bankers, rambling about how the world is flocking to gold and the NWO is in jepoardy....

Bernake: "Dont worry. we'll get the price down. we just transferred each of you 10,000,000,000 in brand spankin' new QE funds to start entering those short positions and ETF's. buy 'em from the offshore accounts... and keep it QUIET..."

to be continued...

BigJim's picture

Yes, I've wondered how much QE has been quietly diverted to cover the short positions of the bullion banks so they can carry on.

I think only a physical squeeze will end this manipulation.

SheepDog-One's picture

Oh I have NO doubt tons of QE is going right to PM puts, no question about it!

unwashedmass's picture

\yeah... but... yeah but....who will pay for the wars then?

if we don't steal the funding from the SS fund, who will pay for the empire?

doolittlegeorge's picture

right now "it appears to be Greece, Ireland and Portugal."  That's interesting.  "They happen to be really small, too."

flaunt's picture

I'm tired of begging for the mafia to let me live my life in piece and to stop taking my property against my will.  I just want them to all go away.

 

 

hedgeless_horseman's picture

Where's the option to opt out of Ron Paul?

He is in India spending more money that we don't have, some of which he has already promised those poor souls in Haiti, but has yet to deliver.  However, I am sure he will get around to it.  Something about the teleprompters not working on generator power, etc.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

All those things will happen in time.  But first, we get out of Af/Pak, and stop the ponzi.

Ragnarok's picture

Are you paid to sit around and post this absolute drivel?  Agitator?

Crummy's picture

How does it help the poor and unfortunate to hide the cost of their care off of the books in some sham trust fund?

How does it help the poor and unfortunate to print money until the value drops to the point that what little they have buys that much less?

How does it help the poor and unfortunate to create giant pools of cash that not only rob consumers of their bargaining power but drive up prices on the very thing they were intended to offset the cost of?

How does it help the poor and unfortunate to be such an obvious troll...

 

SheepDog-One's picture

Sittin on my GOLD, and bullets and beans....Obama pig!

traderjoe's picture

I don't usually feed trolls, but...

1. How do all of the bank bailouts under Bush AND Obama reduce the pay gap? Don't the bank bailouts favor the rich bondholders at the cost of the ordinary taxpayer? Why are the banks being allowed to make such huge bonuses? Where's your dear leader on that?

2. How does the increased presence in the Afghanistan help the oil from ruining the earth? How about the obvious complicity between the dear leader and BP in the Gulf spill cover-up?

3. How does the FDA food safety bill help smaller farmers in their attempt to compete against the mega-corporate farmers?

4. How does a system that is based upon constant inflation help the marginal over time? How can they store the value of their labor? Oh, it forces them to deal with the 'money-changers' and chase returns to beat inflation.

A properly structured hard-money currency can actually feature stable or declining prices over time - which REWARDS savers, middle-class, and labors to be able to save and maintain purchasing power over time. It also <could> move us away from a culture of commercialism and consumption, which is clearly impacting the Earth and depleting resources. 

None of your arguments hold the slightest bit of water, and are essentially strawman/trolling for a reaction. I repeat my question from another thread - are you getting paid by the post?

i-dog's picture

"How about the obvious complicity between the dear leader and BP in the Gulf spill cover-up?"

I'm curious, tm ... in another thread you said you can't accept the truth about a 9-11 cover-up because there is no "absolute proof" the government was involved, yet here you throw out a belief in a conspiracy between Obama and BP of "the Gulf spill cover-up" without referring to any absolute proof! Do you have "proof" of a conspiracy between Obama and BP? Help me here!

traderjoe's picture

i-dog - I think you might have me confused with someone else. I do believe the goobermint was involved in 9.11. The videos of WTC 7 are enough for me - www.buildingwhat.org. 

With BP, the initial flow estimates were deeply flawed, just for example. The 100 yard (or whatever) line for reporters, the EPA allowing Corexit, hiding its impacts, etc., etc. 

i-dog's picture

Oooops ... really sorry about that!! It was intended for 'tmosely'. I obviously wasn't concentrating when I read your name. Humble apologies!

I also agree with you on the GOM spill ... though I'm not in the camp (yet) of those who believe it was a deliberate spill to poison food/people -- whereas it's obvious to any who look that 9-11 was a very deliberate inside job.

traderjoe's picture

No worries at all. I knew the conversation you were referring to...

Agreed on your second part.

Cheers! 

Astute Investor's picture

I did not recognize this poster so I clicked on the name.  I received the cryptic message: YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCESS THIS PAGE.

Is Obama2012 really Obama?  Maybe an operative of the military-industrial complex? Or simply a bot?

Astute Investor's picture

A sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste....

Marla And Me's picture

He's already been banned?  Wow, that didn't take very long...  on for less than two weeks and the paid for shill is out?  That or Tyler willingly accepts and nurtures paid trolls...  Velobabe and Chumbawumba were similarly capped, although Kathy Chamberlain is still with us...  There is definitely some weird stuff that goes on with the comments section that Tyler never addresses...

Hulk's picture

Only the shadow really knows...

goldsaver's picture

Um.. vote libertarian ... There, I fixed it for you

homersimpson's picture

Well - he asked how to opt out of Ron Paul.. Therefore, vote liberal.

doolittlegeorge's picture

no shit.  From "end the Fed" to "end Social Security."  Say WHAT?  Talk about "co-opted."  "I hate it--but i still need money for my consituents!"  So now "Bennie's your best friend"?  And what's that story about your son having girls "bow before the mighty Megatron" or something.  Is that some 'economic thing'?

SheepDog-One's picture

Well to be fair Doolittlegeorge, Ron Paul did his 'END THE FED' speech already just this morning on CNBC! Review earlier ZH story with video. Actually what he said is the FED will just implode soon. End the FED, end SS, end ALL this BS!

hedgeless_horseman's picture

A new killer product; we're all saved!  Something totally unnecessary, that just recently was free, now costs hundreds of dollars! 

Borrow and spend, bitches!!!

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/08/making-3-d-glasses-fashionable/