Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Social Security

Issue Position

Location: Unknown


The President spends more for one new suit than many of us receive monthly from Social Security. I will repeat that government employees and officers should not have a better benefit package than those, who pay for the government programs. Social Security, along with National Health Care, will normally be described or considered as being to the left, liberal or having a socialistic nature. I like to think of them as having a human-interest nature. If the federal government can provide the safety and security of ports and borders, a sound national defense, a guaranteed basic health care system and a program, which secures a person's social being, then, I believe that it has done its basic job. If the states provide, through effective systems, assistance in food, housing and education, then I feel that all have received the basic minimum for decent existence. The above philosophy is based upon each and every person's making a contribution to the best degree, according to his capabilities. Nothing is free. I do not believe that providing a wherewithal for each citizen to pursue success and achievement in any way endangers capitalism, without which minimum social programs would not be possible. As I see neither capitalism nor socialism perfect in their purest forms, a blend of the best features of each is necessary to satisfy all conditions and situations.

First and foremost, the current social security program must be funded in a manor, which will insure the benefit for which it was originally intended. Though there are flaws in the current system, it must be preserved for those, who have earned and are entitled to this benefit. The government never contributed to social security, but instead took from it. Social Security became just like any typical bill that was concocted. It became riddled with educational provisions, survivor's benefits and more until it was no longer a retirement program for the person, who paid into the plan. The government totally mismanaged this trust and abused it in every way imaginable. Now, along comes that proverbial piper once more. We already paid once. Now, it seems that we must pay again, just to get back what we already paid. Once again, those, who we pay handsomely for supposed civil service, have fumbled the dollar badly.

This program must be shored-up at the earliest possible moment and in a right manner. It must necessarily be funded by my proposed One Tax, but it must be done in a manner, which prohibits further pillage, rape and burning by the government. We have to come to grips with this issue and do it soon. It is not going to go away. It needs to be faced.

If a person retires at age 62 years, he receives only 75% of the level of dollars, projected for a full retirement at age 66 years. This penalty is paid because the government does not want one to retire early. Further evidence of this is that one is not eligible for medicare until he or she is 65 years old, so he or she must work in order to obtain and maintain health insurance at reasonable group rates and to supplement the diminished social security income. The next kick in the hiney is that one's earned income may not exceed $12,600.00 per calendar year. If income exceeds this level, one must then begin to return his social security dollars. Finally, to add insult to injury, if one dies and has no dependents, his hard-earned money goes into the "Black Hole". That is correct. All of the money, which a person has contributed into social security over maybe 40 years, plus all of the money, which employers paid in, matching your contributions, will be totally lost to you and yours. Does your hard-earned social security fund get passed on to your estate, once you die? Hell no! Where does it go exactly? Does anyone know?

Where will the money originate, which will be necessary to solve the social security shortfall? Part will be realized by the virtual elimination of the I.R.S. Major cuts in frivolous grants, subsidies and loan programs must be considered. Why should a man, named Brian Lesco, be able to earn millions of dollars, marketing a book, which merely outlines and consolidates thousands of federal grants, subsidies, loans and various other give-away programs? This to me is preposterous! I vow that the government should not be a bank. The government should only receive the dollars necessary to adequately perform its duties. The government is neither designed to nor meant to receive discretionary money. To me, discretionary means discriminatory. There are nearly limitless avenues of expense-cutting in the federal government alone, not to mention state and local cuts. We need to draw back and soon bring to an end our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not accomplished our mission and will not, regardless of how long we stay. We may easily cut the ludicrous benefit packages of government officers and employees without placing a severe hurt on them. And, can anyone tell me why we have over 6,000 generals in our military? We CAN and MUST fund social security.

I will consider a different social security program for new-bornes, in lieu of the current system. I propose that $1,000.00 be placed in an insurance or savings plan for every new-born, not in the government coffers. This fund would be in the individual new-borne's own name. This fund may not be accessed for any reason accept in death or retirement (minimum age to be established). This $1,000.00 will draw interest for a year. On the child's first birthday, another $1,000.00 will be deposited into the account, and again, it will draw interest. I believe that an American citizen should not have security in society only when he or she begins to have gainful employment, but from the time he or she is born.

In a program such as this, beneficiaries will be designated for purposes of distribution in the event that the individual dies prior to retirement. The government does NOT get the money either by borrowing or just plain pilferage. For example, if the person were to die at 15 years of age, his parents might receive the fund. If the person were to die at the age of 30 years, the spouse and/or children might receive the benefit.

This program will be funded by the One Tax. A part of what one pays in taxes will go toward the social security of one's own child. I would favor a provision, which would enable a parent to equal or match the $1,000.00 deposit made from the One Tax with an additional optional $1,000.00. No matching funds would come from one's employer. Since employers will no longer be encumbered by matching an employee's social security, they may place more money into the hands of the employee, not into the hands of the government. This will make the level of the One Tax more palatable.

If we assume an interest rate of just 3% and annual compounding only, a person's account would be worth about $19,156.87 at age 15 years. At 25 years of age, the account would be worth about $37,553.03. At the age of 50 years, the account will be worth about $116,180.76. If one retired at age 69 years, the account would be valued at about $229,594.02. If the person's parents, then the person himself in time, matched the $1,000.00 annual deposits, the total value would be about $459,188.04. Now, if the interest rate exceeded 3% and if the interest were compounded quarterly instead of annually, the value at each and every age would be substantially higher. If said person were to die at age 55 years, his beneficiaries would receive about $140,153.75. The money stays in the family. Not only is the person socially secured, but so is the entire family. This is what it should be all about. The government's only involvement should be to provide some regulation in the areas of fairness, balance, rates and availability. The government would collect the money from the One Tax and immediately remit to the banks and or insurance companies.

This is only a sample of what can be done for the children, so they do not encounter the same dilemmas that we adults now face. The above form is not perfect. Again, this social security possibility and the current system are intertwined with other issues. I desire only that you consider the above as what we can do if we put our minds to it. It requires much more refinement and detail, but with the aid of a professional panel, I do not doubt that a package may be formulated correctly the first time. We can not just snap our fingers and make it happen. Like universal health care and the One Tax itself, it will take nibbles before bites.

Please do not surround me with partisan politicians if you see merit in my programs. It will take hard-working (not 2 or 3 days per week) independent thinkers in congress also. The President alone can initiate and propose until he is blue in the face, but it will require a total team effort to revitalize the government, the country and the key programs. This is not nuclear physics, ladies and gentlemen. It simply takes, dedication, devotion and diligence. I will defend every dollar that you invest in me and my candidacy, and I will defend every dollar that you pay into the One Tax.

Remember that the premise of my programs is to provide a secure and comfortable environment, which is conducive to your success and prosperity, while minimizing the size and cost of government. Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams did not attend the Constitutional Convention of May 25, 1787 because they opposed the creation of too strong a central government. Thank you very much, Citizens.

Skip to top

Help us stay free for all your Fellow Americans

Just $5 from everyone reading this would do it.

Thank You!

You are about to be redirected to a secure checkout page.

Please note:

The total order amount will read $0.00 but know that a recurring donation of the amount and frequency that you selected will be processed and initiated tomorrow. You may see a charge of $0.00 on your statement.

Continue to secure page »

Back to top