I need fact checkers, editors, proof readers, etc. for a magazine article I wrote on RP

[freedom-maniac]

Below is a draft on an article I wrote for the upcoming grassroots magazine "In Liberty". The intended audience will be GOP primary voters, not the whole libertarian/paleo-conservative/anarchist field, or just people who already support Ron Paul, so keep that in mind. Also, I'm quoting from "The Revolution: A Manefesto", so if my facts are outdated, let me know:


How To Really "Fix" Social Security

One of the issues of recent campaigns that will directly affect all voters is Social Security. While issues like abortion or gay marriage are considered “hot-button” and still up a great deal of emotion, Social Security is something that strikes close to home, concerning the well-being of many Americans during ominous economic times.

Confusion about what exactly the problem with Social Security abounds. Politicians often talk of “fixing” Social Security, but what is it that exactly needs to be fixed? Vulgar beliefs and urban legends blame the crisis on the baby boomer generations, but that is not the case. Social Security is out of funds not because of the baby boomers, but because the federal government has already spent the all of the money in the Social Security fund.

As Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) explains, while people believe that the “money for Social Security recipients comes…from some ‘trust fund’ into which people have paid over the course of their working lives”, the truth is something else completely. Ron Paul continues, that “the fact is, there is no money in any trust fund. The government spent it on other things. The money that retirees receive comes directly from current workers.”

Supporters of big-government claim that Social Security is necessary because the government needs to protect people by planning their retirement for them because the free-market couldn’t possibly be a better alternative. This is, of course, laughable. Many people have private, market, investments saved up for their retirement in addition to Social Security. The idea that the government should be trusted with our retirement is demonstrably false, because the government has already spent the money that was intended to be saved for retirement.

Congressman Paul has become well-known for his small government views; however his plan to phase out Social Security has come under scrutiny lately. But how exactly would Dr. Paul “fix” Social Security? Paul explains that he has “long favored giving young people the right to opt out of Social Security”. This is certainly a position that will find favor among younger voters. A poll conducted a few years ago showed that many young adults believe that they are more likely to see a UFO in their lives than their first Social Security check. Many have wondered why they should be forced to pay into Social Security when they would rather plan their retirement themselves, especially when the money they are allegedly “investing” is actually being spent by the government on other things.

But what, critics cry, will be done to support those who already depend on Social Security for their livelihood? Well if Ron Paul were president, there would be no need to worry. Yes, Ron Paul would like to privatize Social Security – and rightfully so, considering how historically capitalism has always beat socialism - but he does not want to end payments to current recipients. Rather, Dr. Paul believes that “the transition period should be funded by curtailing our overseas expenditures.” One of the benefits of small government is that it frees up money that can be spent on other things, such as taking care of people here at home, not dealing with the affairs of another country.

Finally, if Ron Paul were president, Social Security recipients would find that the amount they receive from each payment would increase, for Paul would end the current taxes placed on Social Security benefits – something that certainly can’t be argued with.

While politicians may talk of convoluted plans to tweak Social Security, and never actually accomplish anything, Ron Paul provides the only sensible policy for addressing the crisis.

[ForLibertyFight]

I revised it but I didn't add any more information except for making minor corrections. Read it again and see if it sounds better.
You should include more information about how SS is going to be a major crisis. Include numbers, charts, statistics about insolvent SS is.

One issue in the upcoming election that will directly affect all voters is Social Security. While issues like abortion or gay marriage are considered “hot-button” and incite a great deal of emotion, Social Security is something that strikes close to home, concerning the well-being of many Americans during ominous economic times.

Confusion about what exactly the problem with Social Security linger. Politicians often talk of “fixing” Social Security, but what is it that exactly needs to be fixed? Vulgar beliefs and urban legends blame the crisis on the baby boomer generations, but this is not the case. Social Security is out of funds not because of the baby boomers, but because the federal government has already spent all of the money in the Social Security fund.

INCLUDE CHART SHOWING HOW MUCH MONEY WAS PUT IN AND HOW MUCH HAVE BEEN SPENT.

As Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) explains, while people believe that the “money for Social Security recipients comes…from some ‘trust fund’ into which people have paid over the course of their working lives”, but the truth is something else completely. Ron Paul continues, that “the fact is, there is no money in any trust fund. The government spent it on other things. The money that retirees receive comes directly from current workers.”

Supporters of big-government claim that Social Security is necessary because the government needs to protect people by planning their retirement for them because the free-market couldn’t possibly be a better alternative. This is, of course, laughable. Many people have private, market investments saved up for their retirement in addition to Social Security. The idea that the government should be trusted with our retirement is demonstrably false, because the government has already spent the money that was intended to be saved for retirement.

Congressman Paul has become well-known for his small government views; however his plan to phase out Social Security has come under scrutiny lately.

So how exactly would Dr. Paul “fix” Social Security? Paul explains that he has “long favored giving young people the right to opt out of Social Security”. This is certainly a position that will find favor among younger voters.

A poll conducted a few years ago showed that many young adults believe that they are more likely to see a UFO in their lives than their first Social Security check.

Many have wondered why they should be forced to pay into Social Security when they could plan their retirement themselves, especially when the money they are allegedly “investing” is actually being spent by the government on other things.

The critics cry, “What will be done to support those who already depend on Social Security for their livelihood?”

If Ron Paul were president, there would be no need to worry. Yes, Ron Paul believes in privatizing Social Security – and rightfully so, considering how historically capitalism has always beat socialism - but he does not want to end payments to current recipients. Instead, Dr. Paul believes that “the transition period should be funded by curtailing our overseas expenditures.” One of the benefits of small government is that it frees up money that can be spent on other things, such as taking care of people here at home, not dealing with the affairs of another country.

If Ron Paul were president, Social Security recipients would find that the amount they receive from each payment would increase, as President Paul would end the current taxes placed on Social Security benefits – something that certainly can’t be argued with.

While politicians may talk of convoluted plans to tweak Social Security, they never actually accomplish anything while Ron Paul provides the only sensible policy for addressing the Social Security crisis.

[dannno]

bump - I skimmed through and didn't see anything that stood out too much, but could probably use a couple minor adjustments if someone can help.

[Suzu]

Both the OP and the 2nd post say "baby boomer generations" (in paragraph 2). I am not sure there was more than one baby boomer generation....

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Supporters of big-government claim that Social Security is necessary because the government needs to protect people by planning their retirement for them because the free-market couldn’t possibly be a better alternative.

The argument I've always heard is:

Supporters of big gov't say it's necessary because people cannot be trusted to save enough themselves for retirement. The gov't has to save for them or else they won't save.

[UtahApocalypse]

Thank You!! First article ready for review :D

Looks good to me. If there are any graphics, or charts that can accompany this let me know so I can figure spacing.

[notsure]

Maybe you could mention how Ron Paul has proposed at least 4 Bills to restore Social Security.

From Ron Paul's Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property(2008)
Available for free here: http://mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf


Reforming Social Security
Everyone concedes that Social Security needs to be reformed or it will
soon be insolvent. However, what analysts often omit is that the so-called
“trust fund” consists of IOUs from the government. Right now when the
federal government takes in more money from Social Security withholding
than it pays out to current beneficiaries, it still spends the difference,
and “sells” a government bond into the Social Security trust fund. All
this smoke-and-mirrors doesn’t evade the fact that the government has
made trillions of dollars of promises that it can’t keep. In this section I
outline some of my proposals to restore sanity to Social Security.

(page 71)




Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work
Act of 1999
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
March 1, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior Citizens’
Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social
Security “earnings limitations.” During a time when an increasing
number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well
past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced
workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working.
Yet the federal government does just that by deducting a portion
of seniors’ monthly Social Security check should they continue to
work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set level.

When the government takes money every month from people’s
paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees
that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government
should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply
because a senior chooses to work.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to
remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the
American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to
continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing
part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government
should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive
employment.

The underlying issue of the earnings limitation goes back to the
fact that money from the trust fund is routinely spent for things
other than paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first
bill I introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security
Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which forbids Congress from spending
Social Security funds on anything other than paying Social
Security pensions.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong support
for the Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act. Repealing the
“earnings limitation” will help ensure that America’s seniors can
continue to enjoy fulfilling and productive lives in their “golden
years.” I also urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the
Social Security Trust Fund by cosponsoring the Social Security
Preservation Act (H.R. 219).



Social Security Tax Relief Act
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
September 6, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security
Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase
on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step
toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors:
the tax on Social Security benefits.

Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been
one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal
this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on
this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for
increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now,
President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most
members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s
own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.

Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars,
taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.”
Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an
accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress
to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue
using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other
government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with
our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a
long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government
on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will
not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal
all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation
to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.

Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation
Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security
Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government
takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises
the American people that the money will be there for them when
they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free
senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social
Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues
to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security
benefits and ensuring that monies from the Social Security trust
fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous
government programs.



Social Security Preservation Act
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
January 8, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security
trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The
Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states
that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be
spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in
interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social
Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs,
as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in
interest-bearing instruments.

The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government
will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected
for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When
the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises
the American people that the money will be there for them
when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that
promise.

The return of massive federal deficits, and the accompanying
pressure for massive new raids on the trust fund, make it more
important than ever that Congress protect the trust fund from big
spending, pork-barrel politics. I call upon all my colleagues,
regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform
they support, to stand up for America’s seniors by cosponsoring
the Social Security Preservation Act.



Social Security for American Citizens Only!
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
January 30, 2003

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American
Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from
providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens. It also ends the
practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security
Administration takes into account the number of years an individual
worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in
determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits!

Hard as it may be to believe, the United States government
already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other
countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered
by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security
benefits than public school teachers or policemen!

Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile
Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. Just
before Christmas, the press reported on a pending deal between
the United States and the government of Mexico, which would
make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S.
Social Security benefits. Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal,
so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United
States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of
years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and
thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the
United States.

Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners
who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually
came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s
right: The federal government may actually allow someone who
came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required
number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned
to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social
Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the
millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the
system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left
when it is their turn to retire.

The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial
reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our
own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration!
How many more would break the law to come to this
country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating
a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a
good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent
of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.

Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government
would cost top one billion dollars per year. Supporters of the
Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect
the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder
than words: According to several press reports, the State Department
and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating
to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected
rush of applicants for this new program!

As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be
drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to
expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was
designed to provide support for retired American citizens who
worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system
for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding
it to cover foreigners who have not.

It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist
bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I
therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security
trust fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring
the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act.