- ‘Game of Thrones’ earns a leading 19 Emmy nods
- Ann Coulter: Chris McDaniel should concede, live to fight another day
- Chelsea Clinton nabs $75K in speaking fees — same as Dick Cheney
- ‘Year of action’ not over: Obama has worked around Congress more than 40 times
- Rick Perry: Obama showed up after Hurricane Sandy, why not the Texas border?
- Alec Baldwin in talks to play Rob Ford-like mayor in new NBC drama
- Chinese hackers sought data on federal employees: report
- League City, Texas, votes 6-2 to ban processing of illegal kids
- Iraq tells U.N. that ‘terrorist groups’ have seized nuclear materials
- Houston dad suspected of shooting his 4 kids surrenders to police
NAPOLITANO: Rick Perry was correct
Social Security ‘trust fund’ is Ponzi scheme
Question of the Day
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry, then in the early stages of his short-lived quest for the Republican presidential nomination, referred to Social Security as "a Ponzi scheme," he was excoriated by the press, left and right, and by his fellow Republicans as well. This week, government actuaries revealed that Mr. Perry was correct.
That revelation, which was greeted with a ho-hum by the media, basically announced that by 2033, just 21 years from now, the Social Security "trust fund" will be empty. The only reason this was even announced is because we are approaching a presidential election, and in response to Mr. Perry's much-derided claim, the government's actuaries, who originally told the Obama administration and the public that the fund would be solvent until 2036, re-examined their numbers and concluded that it would be in the red three years earlier than they thought.
This revelation should come as no surprise to those who monitor the government and its deceptive ways. When he first introduced Social Security, President Franklin D. Roosevelt argued that under Social Security, the federal government would be holding your money for you. He deceptively fostered the idea that Social Security would be a savings account into which employees and employers would make contributions and out of which guaranteed money would be paid to those who reached the age of 65. He essentially claimed that you'd get your money back.
The politicians believed him, but the actuaries and the judiciary understood that the government would never hold anyone's money for him - as if it were the custodian of a bank account. In the first of several challenges to the constitutionality of Social Security, the Supreme Court found that the Social Security fund did not consist of your money. It was merely tax revenue.
Did you know that?
It also held that since Congress' lawmaking authority is limited to the 16 discrete delegated powers granted to it in the Constitution (a truism few in Congress accept as binding) but its spending authority is open-ended (a conclusion that must torment James Madison's ghost), Congress could collect funds, claim it was holding the funds in a savings account and then spend those funds as it saw fit - for those in need after age 65 or for any other purpose.
Did you know that?
And, in a curious yet revealing one-liner in the Supreme Court opinion upholding the constitutionality of Social Security, even the court recognized that there would be no trust fund in the traditional sense when it found that the tax dollars collected and supposedly designated for Social Security were "not earmarked in any way."
Did you know that?
The government would acknowledge eventually that what it first called a savings account and then called old-age insurance and then said would be fortified by a trust fund did not even establish a contractual obligation to those who have paid the Social Security tax - which would be all of us. Thus, the feds have conceded and the courts have agreed that the money you have involuntarily contributed to the "trust fund" is not yours and can be spent by the government as it pleases, just like any other revenue that the feds collect.
Did you know that?
The trust fund is not money that the government "holds" for you, as FDR promised. It is not money to which you have a lawful claim, as he claimed. It is not a guarantee for you, as he led the public to believe. The trust fund is merely the difference between what is collected and what is paid out. And the feds just acknowledged that in 21 years, they are likely to pay out more than they will collect.
Mr. Perry did not succeed this time in his quest for the Republican nomination. But he did succeed in articulating a hard truth: The same federal government that prosecutes people like Bernie Madoff for promising to pay out more than they collect does the very same thing under the color of law.
Is a Ponzi scheme, which is basically theft by deception, lawful just because the government runs it? The Supreme Court has said yes. Mr. Perry has said no.
Mr. Perry is correct.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst on the Fox News Channel. He is author of "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom" (Thomas Nelson, 2011).
TWT Video Picks
By Ted Cruz
Banning speech with a constitutional amendment is playing with fire
Get Breaking Alerts
- GOP: Lerner warned IRS employees to hide information from Congress
- White House plans for bowling alley upgrades abruptly canceled
- ISTOOK: Flying illegals home would be 99.5 percent cheaper than Obamas plan
- Islamic militants aim to take Baghdad airport
- EDITORIAL: Whats Obama hiding at illegal-alien 'refugee' camps?
- Harry Reid lambasted by black conservatives after calling Justice Thomas white
- HUSAR: Mexicos Pena Nieto passes the immigration bucket
- Obama requests $3.7 billion to fight surge of illegals
- A series of missteps steers Obama's trip off course
- CURL: Obama turning millennials into Republicans