CHAPTER TWO
Some of my earliest memories from childhood are of my grandparents, and elderly neighbors, being excited about the new government program that many called “old-age pensions.” It gave them a new safeguard against the uncertainties of growing old. Praise for Social Security was the only viewpoint I heard until I entered college. To the people I knew, Social Security was so popular that I didn’t see how anyone could possibly be opposed to it.
But Social Security had harsh critics from the very beginning. The people who oppose Social Security do so, not because the program doesn’t work, or because it is unpopular among the general public. On the contrary, Social Security is one of the most successful and popular programs ever created by the government.
Most opponents of Social Security are against it for ideological or political reasons. They don’t believe the government should be trying to provide financial security to the elderly or to anyone else. They believe that the government should provide only for national defense, police protection and a few other things. These are the enemies of Social Security. These are the ones who have wanted to destroy the program ever since it was created in 1935. And they are closer to reaching their goal today than ever before.
Alf Landon, the Republican nominee for president in 1936, made the repeal of Social Security the main issue of his campaign. Landon said,
“This is the largest tax bill in history. And to call it social security is a fraud on the workingman…I am not exaggerating the folly of this legislation. The Saving it forces on our workers is a cruel hoax.”
Among other things, the 1936 election was a referendum on whether the American people wanted to keep or repeal Social Security. It was a massive victory for Roosevelt, who won the greatest electoral landslide since the beginning of the two-party system. He carried every state except Maine and Vermont. By winning 523 electoral votes, Roosevelt received more than 98 percent of the electoral vote. At the time, the election results seemed to settle the issue about the popularity of Social Security with the American people.
The enemies of Social Security did not go away, but they were almost invisible for decades. Over a period of many years, Social Security was known as the “third rail of politics,” and most politicians were afraid to touch it. But that is no longer the case. A highly organized, and heavily funded, coalition of Social Security opponents has been working hard for the past 30 years to find a way to bring Social Security down. Dismantling Social Security is one of the highest priorities of conservatives.
Today, 78 years after Social Security was enacted in America, a lot of Social Security recipients tend to think of Social Security as an absolute American right that cannot be taken away, no matter what. And it should be. They pay into Social Security through the payroll tax and then, when they reach retirement age, the government will pay Social Security benefits to them for the rest of their lives. At least that is what most people who are currently drawing benefits seem to think. Nobody knows how long they will live, but Social Security recipients have always had confidence that their benefits would never be cut or taken away. For those who die before retirement age benefits may be paid to eligible dependents. And those who become disabled before retirement age can apply for disability benefits. Throughout its 78-year history, the program has been popular, and most people have had great confidence in what they thought was the permanent and unchanging status of the program.
Did the action taken in 1983 make Social Security benefits a guaranteed right for all time? No. Social Security was created by Congress, and Congress has the authority to modify it, or even to end it. Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act, specifically states, "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."
Section 1104 of the Social Security Act was not taken very seriously at first. It just didn’t seem reasonable that the provision could be Constitutional. Americans were paying payroll taxes, which were dedicated exclusively to Social Security. So it didn’t seem fair that Congress should have the authority to change or end the program. Most individuals, who were contributing to Social Security, seemed to believe that they would have an earned right to Social Security benefits, which could not be taken from them. But they were wrong.
In 1960, in the case of “Fleming v. Nestor,” the United States Supreme Court, ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. Specifically, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of benefits to Nestor, even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits “is not a contractual right.”
This Court ruling was specific and without conditions. It made it legal for the government to deny benefits to people, no matter how much money they had contributed to the program. As long as Social Security was financially strong, and there was no organized movement to destroy it, the “Fleming v. Nestor” ruling was not very relevant. But the Court’s decision is extremely relevant today. There is now a strong movement, by conservatives, to destroy Social Security, as we know it.
Social Security continues to be very popular with the American public. A CNN poll found that 80 percent of Americans think Social Security has been good for the country. With regard to age groups, it’s not surprising that 90 percent of senior citizens believe Social Security has been good for the country, but it is a bit surprising that 70 percent of young adults feel the same way.
With so much public support, why wouldn’t the government do whatever it has to do to keep Social Security safe and sound? In the 1950s, during the Eisenhower presidency, when the Republican party still put the interests of the nation above partisan politics, Social Security was not threatened. But the Republican Party has been increasingly taken over by a right-wing conservative movement, culminating in the formation of the Tea Party. These extreme conservatives want to create a very different America than we now have. They are on a mission to exterminate as many “New Deal” programs as possible, and Social Security is near the top of their list. They don’t believe in such government programs, and they want to radically reduce taxes and the size of government.
Of all the possible threats to Social Security, the greatest threat is that enough of the anti-Social Security conservatives might gain enough political power to alter, or terminate the program. If Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan had been elected President and Vice President, and the Republicans had gained control of the Senate, as well as the House, Social Security, as we now know it, would already be doomed. Privatization or other major structural changes to the program would be almost a certainty. The fact that the vast majority of Americans want to see Social Security continue in its present form would not have deterred Romney and Ryan from going after the program. The Koch brothers, and other wealthy conservative donors, would have succeeded in their dream of exterminating Social Security as if it were a poisonous snake.
Most Americans would have been shocked if the above scenario had actually taken place. Social Security had been only a minor issue in the campaign, and none of the candidates had publicly proposed exterminating it. But one of the most avid believers in getting rid of programs like Social Security (Paul Ryan) would have been just a heartbeat from becoming President of the United States, if the Republicans had won the election.
Ayn Rand, who was born and educated in Russia, before coming to the United States when she was 21years old, was the founder of a radical philosophy known as Objectivism, or Randianism. She was an avowed atheist, whose beliefs were almost the exact opposite of traditional Judeo-Christian values. She argued that, “We are not our brothers’ keepers.” Instead, she believed that “Man’s highest moral purpose in life is achievement of his own happiness.” She said, “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject. “
During an interview with Mike Wallace in 1959, Rand denounced government programs of all kinds. She said,
“I feel that it is terrible that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until and unless all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected…I am opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute, laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy.”
Through her two famous novels, “Fountainhead” (1943) and “Atlas Shrugged” (1957), and her nonfiction book, “The Virtue of Selfishness” (1964), she has captured the hearts and minds of millions of Americans, including many in high places. Her best-known disciple, Alan Greenspan, was one of her associates for twenty years. Greenspan was so close to Rand that he invited her to stand beside him in the White House during his swearing-in ceremony to become President Ford’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in 1974.
Actually, it was through a fellow associate of Ayn Rand that Greenspan got his first government job. Martin Anderson, also an associate of Ayn Rand, left the movement to join Nixon’s first campaign. When Nixon won, he became Special Consultant to the President for Systems Analysis. It was through Anderson’s recommendation that Alan Greenspan began his career in government. So, it was through Ayn Rand that Greenspan’s many years of government service became a reality.
In his 2008 book, “The Age of Turbulence”, Greenspan acknowledges just how much his thinking was influenced by Ayn Rand:
“ Ayn Rand became a stabilizing force in my life. It hadn’t taken long for us to have a meeting of the minds—mostly my mind meeting hers—and in the fifties and early sixties I became a regular at the weekly gatherings at her apartment. She was a wholly original thinker, sharply analytical, strong-willed and highly principled…Exploring ideas with her was a remarkable course in logic and epistemology
…Rand’s collective became my first social circle outside the university and the economics profession. I engaged in the all-night debates and wrote spirited commentary for her newsletter with the fervor of a young acolyte drawn to a whole new set of ideas…Ayn Rand and I remained close until she died in 1982, and I’m grateful for the influence she had on my life. I was intellectually limited until I met her…”
Greenspan agrees that his 20-year association with Ayn Rand had an important influence on his thinking. He has said that Rand helped to wean him from an earlier liberalism and other “mistaken policies.” If taken literally, his statement that he was intellectually limited before he met Ayn Rand, it appears that Greenspan believed that Rand had made him intellectually unlimited.
In the September 14, 1974 issue of “The New Republic,” journalist Richard Strout reviews Greenspan’s qualifications and background. Stroud begins the article with the following words. “I confess that Alan Greenspan startles me.” He then goes on to explain why Greenspan startles him:
“What are his views? That is what is extraordinary. He opposes the antitrust law. He opposes the progressive income tax. He opposes consumer legislation as an interference with the free economy. He subscribes to a form of laissez-faire capitalism that has been elevated into a cult called objectivism. Its leader is controversial author philosopher, Ayn Rand, with a dogma that she terms “rational selfishness” (and that sounds like economic Darwinism.)”
To make his point, Stroud quotes from some of Greenspan’s earlier writings in Ayn Rand’s periodical, The Objectivist. Stroud reports that Greenspan wrote the following words in an article in July 1966:
“The welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of productive members of society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.”
According to Stroud, Greenspan defended the fact that Standard Oil controlled 80 percent of the oil refining capacity at the turn of the century, and argued that government should not have intervened. His justification of Standard Oil’s monopoly power was explained as follows:
“Why not, he asked? Competition takes care of trusts if you leave them alone; this happens by a natural process for laissez-faire is the most efficient and productive of all possible economic systems.”
Obviously, Greenspan’s views were not consistent with the views of mainstream economists. If these views had become known prior to his Senate confirmation hearings, it seems highly unlikely that he would have been confirmed. As an economic adviser to President Ford, Greenspan gave bad advice. As Chairman of the Commission on Social Security Reform, Greenspan helped President Reagan push through an unwarranted payroll tax hike that ultimately led to $2.7 trillion of Social Security money being embezzled and spent for wars and other government programs. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Greenspan played a major role in the 2008 financial meltdown and the Great Recession. Imagine how different things might have been if Mr. Greenspan had not gone to Washington.
As Rand stood beside Greenspan, during that swearing-in ceremony, she must have taken great satisfaction that her ideas and influence had finally made it all the way to the White House in the person of Alan Greenspan.
Greenspan was only one of many prominent Republicans who became fans of Ayn Rand and her writings. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has such high regard for Rand’s philosophy that each year he has his new law clerks come to his home and watch the 1949 film version of Ayn Rand’s novel, Fountainhead. Rand’s writings apparently played a key role in Clarence Thomas’s conversion from left-wing radicalism to conservatism. In his book, My Grandfather’s Son, Clarence Thomas writes:
“Rand preached a philosophy of radical individualism that she called Objectivism. While I didn’t fully accept its tenets, her vision of the world made more sense to me than that of my left-wing friends…What I wanted was for everyone—the government, the racists, the activists, the students, even Daddy—to leave me alone so that I could finally start thinking for myself.”
The 2012 Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, is such a strong admirer of Ayn Rand that he makes “Atlas Shrugged” required reading for all his interns and staff and has given out copies of the book as Christmas presents.
In a 2005 speech that Paul Ryan gave to the Atlas Society, a group of Ayn Rand devotees: Ryan revealed a great deal about his thinking and how he wants to change Social Security, Ryan said:
“I grew up reading Ayn Rand, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.
In almost every fight we are involved in here, it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism…That is why there is no more fight that is more obvious between the differences of these two conflicts than Social Security. Social Security right now is a collectivist system, it’s a welfare transfer system.
If we do not succeed in switching these programs, in reforming these programs from what some people call a defined benefit system, to a defined contribution system– from switching these programs—and this is where I’m talking about health care, as well -- from a third party or socialist based system to an individually owned, individually pre-funded, individually directed system.”
Other prominent people who have expressed admiration for Ayan Rand and her ideas include: Ronald Reagan, John Boehner, Senator Ron Johnson, Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and many others.
Ayn Rand died in 1982, but the movement, based on her philosophy, is even stronger today than when she was alive, and it is picking up steam. Ayn Rand’s 1964 book entitled, “The Virtue of Selfishness,” sold 400,000 copies during the first four months after publication. Half a century later, in 2013, it is still selling at a hefty pace. In 2011, “Atlas Shrugged” sold 445,000 copies, the second strongest sales year in the novel’s 54-year history.
I believe this movement to radically change the face of America is a great threat to Social Security as we now know it. The followers of Rand are not opposed to Social Security because it doesn’t work, or isn’t popular with the public. In their eyes, the very existence of Social Security is an evil that must be exterminated like a poisonous snake. They see it as a cancer on the face of America that must be eradicated in order to make America whole.
As I write these words, it seems like a bad nightmare that will be gone when I awaken. But it won’t be gone for a very long time, because the movement is becoming stronger and stronger. The fact that one of the most dedicated followers of Ayn Rand’s radical philosophy served as chairman of the Federal Reserve System for nearly two decades, is frightening. But, even more scary, is the fact that a person with these radical beliefs (Paul Ryan) almost came within a heartbeat of becoming President of the United States.
This movement has become very strong at a time when most Americans don’t have a clue as to what the beliefs and goals of these conservatives are. They were key players in the irresponsible behavior that led to the first downgrade in America’s credit rating in history. They are responsible for the current gridlock in Congress. They believe that obstructing progress is more important than compromising their beliefs.
The fact that Ayn Rand is an atheist, who was born and educated in Russia, does not bother me nearly as much as the radical ideas and philosophy of her movement. Her followers are trying to turn America into a very different country than it has ever been before. They are engaging in class warfare against the middle and lower classes in an effort to give still more power and wealth to the very rich. Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. The vision that the Randians have in mind for this country is not at all what they are portraying to the public, and it is certainly not what our founding fathers had in mind.
A small hint of the thinking of today’s conservatives slipped out when Romney categorized “47 percent.” of Americans as “different” from the rest of the population.” Paul Ryan calls these people “takers” who take from the people who are “makers.” And Ayn Rand calls the “inferior” people “moochers,” “looters,” and “parasites” who take from the “producers.”
Ayn Rand goes even farther. She holds nothing but disdain for people who try to serve others. She said:
“The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality – the man who lives to serve others – is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit. The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man, and he degrades the conception of love. But that is the essence of altruism. ”
Take note. The extremist in the Republican party have great admiration for Ayn Rand and her notion that selfishness is a virtue and helping others is a vice to be avoided. I don’t believe that any of our founding fathers would have endorsed such a philosophy. This is not Americanism. This is the antitheses of Americanism.
It is the relentless organized political movement to get rid of Social Security, as we now know it, that is the greatest threat to Social Security. America dodged a bullet in the 2012 election, but we might not be so lucky in 2016. Almost certainly Ayn Rand disciple, Paul Ryan, will run for president in 2016. If he doesn’t get the Republican nomination, it will go to someone who is even more extreme in their determination to privatize Social Security. Make no mistake about it. The conservative wing of the Republican party has declared war on Social Security.
The assumptions underlying Objectivism are severely flawed and unworkable. It is based on what they call totally free, uncontrolled Laissez-faire capitalism. There is no such thing, except in the distorted minds of those who advocate it. The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means “let do” or “let it be.” Proponents of such a system advocate getting rid of all government regulations, radically reducing taxes and allowing big business to do whatever it wants to do. (We saw what happened when Wall Street was deregulated.)
Such an economic system has never existed and would certainly not be workable in today’s world. Almost all major economies in the world are mixed economies in that both markets and some government participation are involved in making basic economic decisions. The United States economy is predominantly a market economy with most economic decisions being made by a system of free markets. Those who allege that the United States is moving toward socialism don’t know what socialism, as an economic system, really is.
Socialism is usually defined as an economic system under which the government owns and operates the means of production. Capitalism is usually defined as an economic system based on private ownership and operation of the means of production for profit.
It is important to recognize that socialism and capitalism are economic systems—not political systems. Communist countries like China and Cuba combine the economic system of socialism with the political system of Communism. However, Sweden and numerous other countries, combine socialism with democracy.
Sweden is a very successful nation. Like the United Kingdom, it is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy form of government. Sweden has the world’s eighth highest per capita income. In 2010, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the second most competitive country in the world, after Switzerland.
Conservatives who claim that the United States is headed toward ruin because it has a few government social programs never point to Sweden as an example of socialism. They make comparisons with Communist countries like Cuba who combine the economic system of socialism with the communist political system. Socialism is the economic system favored by the majority of voters in Sweden, and it works well for them, just as capitalism works well for the United States of America.
The United States is in no way a socialist economy. It never has been, and it probably never will be. The United States is a market economy with private ownership of most of the means of production. However, even in a market economy, there is a need for the government to make sure that people play by the rules, and there are some things, which the government can do more efficiently than private enterprise. I believe that Social Security is one of those things that the government can do for the people better than private enterprise.
Abraham Lincoln said: “The government should do for the people only those things which the people cannot do for themselves, or cannot do as well for themselves.” That is the exact criteria that I subscribe to. For example, President Kennedy believed, and Congress agreed, that the United States should set a goal of sending man to the moon and bringing him back safely within a decade. There were various reasons for doing so, including national security concerns and America’s status in the fields of science and technology, as viewed by the rest of the world.
Why didn’t the private sector fulfil this need? The private sector would not have found the moon launch profitable. The major goal of private enterprise, as it should be, is to earn a profit. If the costs of an undertaking will be greater than the revenue earned, it doesn’t make sense for private enterprise to do it. The only way that man would be sent to the moon and returned to earth safely was for the government to do it. Therefore, the race to the moon was a proper role for the government. National defense and police protection are other areas where government needs to be involved.
Early in American history, there was a dire need for a national postal system, but private investors would not have been able or willing to build such a system. So, the government had to do it. Today, FedEx, UPS, and a number of other private carriers are competing very successfully with the United States Post Office.
Adam Smith in his monumental book, “The Wealth of Nations,” published in 1776, described a hypothetical economy, different from any economy that has ever existed. He specified the circumstances that would have to exist, such as no monopoly power, enough competition to prevent any party from taking advantage of another party, no patents, no labor unions and numerous other conditions, that would have to exist for a totally free-market economy to work. He then explains that, in such a hypothetical economy, unregulated capitalism might work in such a way that when individuals sought their own self interest the common good would prevail.
Adam Smith was describing a hypothetical economy that was very different from any economic system that has ever existed anywhere in the world. The American economy is very different from Adam Smith’s hypothetical economy. Some sectors of the American economy come close to working the way Adam Smith’s hypothetical economy was supposed to work. But, other sectors are very different from the economy Smith described.
For example, the fast food industry has so much competition that they must provide a good product at a fair price in order to keep their customers. In many communities, there will be a McDonald’s, a Burger King, a Wendy’s, and possibly several other fast food outlets all within a few blocks of each other. If any of the restaurants charge more that the average price for the community, their sales will plummet. Similarly, if the quality of the product of any given restaurant should deteriorate, consumers will abandon that restaurant and take their business to competitors. Thus, in the case of the fast food industry, competition is sufficient to prevent buyers and sellers from taking advantage of each other.
If the entire economy were organized like the fast food industry, there would be no need for the government to intervene. But most of the major industries are oligopolies or monopolies. By gaining control of raw materials, or having patent protection on a product, companies can avoid competition and take advantage of customers through excessive prices or poor quality of the product.
The pharmaceutical industry is a good example of why the government has to partially regulate some industries. Suppose one of the major pharmaceutical companies were to develop a new drug, which millions of people must have in order to stay alive. The patent laws would allow the company to avoid competition for many years. The company would be looking out for its best interests by charging the highest possible price for the drug. Rich people could buy the drug, but many poor people would not have access to the life sustaining drug. Such a situation might be good for the self-interest of the company, but is would certainly not be good for the population as a whole.
This is a case where the government might require the owner of the patent to sell production rights to other companies so the drug could be mass-produced and sold at a price that most people could afford. This is an example of why the economy cannot be allowed to operate freely without any government regulations.
The question that needs to be answered is, “How much regulation? Not whether or not there should be any government regulation. Private enterprise is alive and well in the United States of America. Paul Ryan and other right-wing politicians know this fact well. But they are willing to lie to the American people, and use scare tactics, as part of their drive to destroy Social Security. Social Security has existed and flourished since 1935. It remained strong during the McCarthy era of the of the early 1950s, when crazy men were calling almost everyone, including President Eisenhower, Communists.
Why should America today allow a bunch of liars, to destroy Social Security, just because Ayn Rand didn’t like it? The right-wing politicians hate Social Security, Medicare, and other similar programs. They show no respect for the millions of Americans who like Social Security and have always counted on it to be there. How dare Paul Ryan lead a movement to destroy Social Security when he is one of very few of the younger members of Congress who has actually received and spent Social Security benefit money?
Because of the early death of his father, Ryan drew Social Security survivors’ benefits from age 16 to age 18, which enabled him to build up a nest egg fund to help him pay for college. No one should begrudge Ryan for accepting benefits, which he was entitled to. But how could he be so callous as to try to drastically cut Social Security benefits so that future, equally-deserving Social Security beneficiaries would be unable to finance a college education from the same source that had benefited him so much?
Ayn Rand and her followers ignore American history with regard to what happens without government regulation. The following paragraph from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) describes the state of the economy before enactment of the anti-trust laws.
“Once upon a time, way back in the 1800s, there were several giant businesses known as “trusts.” They controlled whole sections of the economy, like railroads, oil, steel, and sugar. Two of the most famous trusts were U.S. Steel and Standard Oil; they were monopolies that controlled the supply of their product—as well as the price. With one company controlling an entire industry, there was no competition, and smaller businesses and people had no choices about from whom to buy. Prices went through the roof, and quality didn’t have to be a priority. This caused hardship and threatened the new American prosperity.”
John D. Rockefeller was one of the most notorious and ruthless titans who refused to play by any set of ethical rules and took advantage of his competitors. His company, Standard Oil, owned 20,000 domestic wells, 4,000 miles of pipeline, 5,000 tank cars, and had over 100,000 employees. Standard Oil’s share of world oil refining topped out above 90 percent. Rockefeller had a bag of dirty tricks which destroyed his competitors. He bought out most smaller oil companies at bargain basement prices. Those who refused to bend were broken to bits like tiny twigs before he took them over. Rockefeller bought up railroads and pipelines that transported oil from the wells to the market. Once he controlled the supply lines, he refused to transport the oil of the hold-out companies, forcing them into bankruptcy where he could buy them for pennies on the dollar of their original value.
That is an example of what happens with unrestrained free market capitalism. Ayn Rand apparently never studied basic economics. Because, if she had, she would have recognized the importance of competition in a market economy. Free market capitalism cannot work without strong competition, and some central authority to make sure the market remains competitive. That is why the antitrust laws were enacted, and why the antitrust division of the Justice Department was created.
When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, one of his favorite statements was “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.” He pushed for rolling back regulations that had been in effect for decades. That policy was continued for four more years under George H.W. Bush, and eight more years under George W. Bush, and it ultimately culminated with the 2008 Financial Meltdown and the Great Recession. For 20 of the 28 years, between 1981 and 2008, conservative Republican policies, like the ones advocated by Ayn Rand and her disciples, were in effect and they led to the greatest calamity to our economy since the Great Depression.
Still Paul Ryan and his fellow Tea Party members are trying to force the country into returning to those tragic days and ending, or privatizing, Social Security is one of their first goals. If enough Republicans get elected to turn this goal into reality, Social Security is doomed.
As pointed out earlier in this chapter, Congress and the President have the legal authority to change, or even terminate, Social Security. And the 1960 United States Supreme Court decision, “Fleming v. Nestor,” leaves beneficiaries with no legal recourse.
Social Security could easily be put back on a sustainable track, if the government would make arrangements for gradually repaying the $2.7 trillion that it has stolen from the Social Security fund.
The money could be repaid in installments over a period of years as more and more of the baby boomers retire. But politicians will do so only if there is an unprecedented effort to pressure members of Congress to repay the money. If the majority of the baby boomers joined in a national public outcry, demanding that the stolen Social Security be repaid, I think it would be repaid. The bottom line is that the future of Social Security is really in the hands of the American public.
HOW YOU CAN HELP SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY
As a Social Security scholar, who has been waging a relentless campaign to expose the Social Security fraud for the past 13 years, I urge everyone who is concerned about the future of the program, to visit my website at www.thebiglie.net where you can download a free e-book edition of the popular book, “The Looting of Social Security.” The paperback edition sells on Amazon.com for $13. In an effort to get as many copies of the book in circulation as possible, I am offering the free, downloadable e-book to everyone. Please download your copy, and then tell everyone you know about the free book.
Allen W. Smith, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, Emeritus
Eastern Illinois University
Please feel free to email me at ironwoodas.aol.com
