| Ron Paul's Hysterical Attacks
On January 6, 2003, his "Texas Straight Talk" column published on his House website was titled "The Great Global Social Security Giveaway?" It began with a dire warning, which set a menacing tone, so that factually accurate statements that followed it seemed much more menacing than was warranted by the actual facts: But he just couldn't help himself, and also slipped in an outright lie or two as well:
As we ring in the new year, dark clouds are gathering over our already dangerously fragile Social Security system. In December, the press reported on a looming deal between the administration and the government of Mexico which would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The centerpiece of the agreement would be a so-called "totalization," which would mean that 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.
Worse still, thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. Under "totalization," a foreigner who came to the United States illegally could work fewer than the required number of years, return to Mexico for the rest of his working years, and 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.
First, Ron Paul simply repeats the baseless rightwing claim-which has become Versailles conventional wisdom-that Social Security is "already dangerously fragile." This, of course, is utter foolishness. Our carbon-intensive economy may be "dangerously fragile," and if we fail to make the necessary changes to avoid catastrophic global warming, then its failure could in turn deeply damage Social Security. But aside from this sort of massive problem for our economy as a whole, Social Security is in very good shape, thank you, loaning hundreds of billions of dollars a year to make Bush's massive budget deficits look not quite so massive. There are projected shortfalls for the 2040s-based on projections of extremely slow productivity growth that have no precedent in our history. But even if those gloomy projections held true, the benefits available then would still be higher than they are today. So, in short, it's a flat-out lie that Social Security is "already dangerously fragile."
Second, Ron Paul makes no mention of the primary rationale of totalization agreements-the elimination of double-taxation-which he otherwise would be screaming about from the rooftops.
Third, Ron Paul says that someone can "work [illegally] fewer than the required number of years" and yet "collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico" in retirement. This is simply a lie. Those who work 18 months or more, but less than 10 years receive pro-rata retirement payments that are proportionally less than full payments, according to the amount of time they paid into the program. The "Social Security Protection Act of 2004" had not been passed at this time, so it was true that undocumented workers could receive payments if they retired in Mexico, had the proposal been approved under then-existing law. But even fully legal workers who worked less than the minimum 10 years would not receive full benefits-and that remains the case today.
A fact sheet [PDF] prepared in September 2004 by Social Security Subcommittee Chair Clay Shaw, Jr., and Ranking Member Robert T. Matsui dispelled a number of myths of the sort promulgated by Ron Paul First, it set out some basic facts:
Facts about an agreement with Mexico- Currently, without an agreement, 3,000 U.S. workers and their employers will pay about $140 million in Mexican social security taxes over the next 5 years in addition to U.S. Social Security taxes.
- Currently, without an agreement, U.S. workers who have worked in both countries, but not long enough in either country to qualify for benefits, face a gap in benefit protection.
- A totalization agreement with Mexico would have a negligible long-range effect on the Social Security Trust Funds (less than .005%). Costs to the U.S. Social Security system are estimated to average about $105 million per year over the first five years, according to Social Security's actuaries.
- Mexico is the second largest trading partner with the U.S. With Mexico, the U.S. now has signed agreements with eight of its top ten trading partners. Many of these agreements have been in effect for nearly two decades. The two exceptions are China and Taiwan. By law, the U.S. could not enter into agreements with these two countries because they do not have generally applicable Social Security systems that pay periodic benefits or the actuarial equivalent. Mexico has such a system.
Then it proceeded to address specific myths. Two of the myths it addressed were as follows:
Myth: The U.S will begin to pay benefits to undocumented aliens under an agreement.- Fact: A totalization agreement does not alter existing law relative to undocumented workers. An agreement with Mexico would be no different than the 20 agreements in effect with respect to illegal aliens. It would have no effect on the prohibition against payment of benefits to illegal aliens in the U.S. Similarly, under the recently enacted Social Security Protection Act of 2004, (P.L. 108-203) non-citizens generally will qualify to receive benefits only if they have been issued a work-authorized Social Security number. A totalization agreement does not change that law.
...
Myth:Aliens who work a very short time in the U.S. would receive full U.S. Social Security benefits under an agreement.- Fact: Totalization agreements provide that the United States will pay pro-rated benefits to those workers who have: (1) between 6 and 39 quarters of coverage with the U.S. system; and (2) a combined work record of at least 10 years in the United States and a partner country. Again, to emphasize, the benefits are paid on a pro-rated basis -- approximately 1/35th of a theoretical fullcareer retirement benefit for each year of covered earnings under the U.S. Social Security system.
Heedless of the totalization agreement's main purpose-removing unfair taxation-and heedless of the nuances described above, Ron Paul's January 6, 2003 column continued [emphasis added]:
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.
The first sentence of this paragraph is an outright lie. The totalization agreement was quite a bit more than "a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws." In fact, rewarding undocumented workers was simply an unintended side-effect, which would eventually be remedied by another piece of legislation altogether, with no appreciable impact on the totalization agreement.
When Ron Paul asks, "Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea?" he is being deliberately deceitful, since Social Security benefits are paid out to those who pay in-including non-citizens. Foreign nationals living in the United States have routinely paid Social Security taxes for decades on end without a peep from the likes of Ron Paul. He is simply trying to drum up nativist resentment of foreigners, and citizen hostility to their own government. Peddling suspicion, resentment and hatred are Ron Paul's stock in trade. Peddling facts, not so much.
He ends this paragraph with another outright lie: "The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states." As already noted, there was nothing new or unusual about this totalization agreement. Arranging for non-citizens who have paid Social Security taxes to receive Social Security benefits is not giving foreign aid to individual citizens. It was not foreign aid when we signed our totalization agreement with Italy in 1978, or when we signed our totalization agreement with Germany in 1979, or when we signed our totalization agreement with Canada in 1984, or or when we signed our totalization agreement with Great Britain 1985. And it certainly wasn't a precedent when we signed the agreement with Mexico in 2004-which, by the way, has yet to go into force because of anti-immigrant propagandists like Ron Paul.
Ron Paul continues his rant:
Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government would cost top one billion dollars per year. 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.
The Social Security cost estimates are roughly an order of magnitude below the $1 billion figure Ron Paul cites. So where does his figure come from? He doesn't say. Is this a lie? No, of course not. Someone, somewhere must have floated that figure. If nothing else, Ron Paul could get one of his groupies to attest to it. But it's as good as a lie, since it carries no truthful information whatsoever.
But even if it were true, look what it does to his earlier claim, that of "dark clouds [that] are gathering over our already dangerously fragile Social Security system." Another $1 billion in costs certainly sounds dire... until you realize that Social Security taxes last year totaled more than $837 billion. Surely, $1 billion is nothing to sneeze at. But if we're talking about threatening to destroy a system, then a penny out of more than eight dollars really doesn't cut it. This isn't straight-talk. It's scare-mongering.
And, of course, it is racist and nativist when he uses his scaremongering to stir up anger at foreigners. This is precisely what Ron Paul is doing with the last sentence of the passage above-creating a dichotomy-"those Americans who have paid in for decades" vs. "foreigners who have not," when the reality is a continuum of people paying into two different systems and suffering double-taxation under existing law.
Ron Paul went on to say:
It is uncertain whether the administration will seek Congressional approval for this agreement. Let's hope that such a substantive move- with such serious financial and legal implications- will not be made by Executive Order.
Once again, he is being deeply disingenuous. Why? Because totalization agreements are subject to their own special process. Once an agreement is certfified, either House of Congress has 60 says to pass a resolution opposing it. That means that Congress automatically has a voice, if it chooses to intervene.
Paul concluded by announcing his intention to undo all totalization agreements, strip all non-citizens of their Social Security benefits, and thereby saddle hundreds of thussands of taxpayers and companies with double tax burdens:
In the 107th Congress, I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which would ensure that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. As Congress continues to demonstrate an inability to control spending that threatens the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. That is why I intend to re-introduce this legislation in the 108th Congress, which opens this month. Social Security should be limited to United States citizens and nationals who have paid into the system. It should not be a global giveaway.
Ron Paul To The Rescue! Saving Social Social Security From The Bavarian Illuminati!
And so it was that on January 30, 2003, Ron Paul spoke in the House of Representatives, giving a little speech he called, "Social Security for American Citizens Only"
He began:
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 non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of year's an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual's eligibility for social security benefits!
As can be seen by looking back at the example presented from the US/Italy Totalization Agreement, that's not really what totalization is about. That's one aspect of what such agreements do for certain people. But the over-arching thing they do-as I explained at the outset--is (1) arrange things between two governments so that people and businesses don't suffer from double taxation, and (2) arrange things between two government so that if people pay into two different social security systems, they can get credit for paying into both.
Because these agreements are so little-known, that gives a demagogue like Ron Paul all the opportunity he needs to paint a lurid picture of liberal evil-doers run amok:
Hard as it may be to believe, the Untied 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!
It's true that some public employees have pension programs separate from Social Security, and although most of them are career employees who retire with full pensions, it would certainly be a good idea to consider totalizing agreements for their systems and Social Security as well. But that's hardly a reason for going back to double taxation on Americans working overseas-which is precisely what would happen if we were to walk out on our side of the totalization agreements we've signed over the past 30 years.
Ron Paul continues through several more paragraphs regurgitating the same set of lies and half-truths we've seen above. The "fragile Social Security system." The "looming" threat. (His speechwriters really ought to read more James Joyce, and less H.P. Lovecraft. I mean, really) The workers in the US illegally who "worked less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security," only to go back to Mexico and "collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico." The "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 "one billion dollars per year." The "global welfare system."
He's just like Cheney with Saddam's WMDs. The lies just won't die. Is it wack-a-mole? Or Night of the Living Dead?
Finally, he concludes:
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.
Yes, that's right. The same Ron Paul who wants to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act (second try), and make it much easier to decertify labor unionsm and who opposes the minimum wage , and prevailing wage laws for employees of federal contractors (second try) is now the champion of the American worker!
Not only that, but the same Ron Paul who wanted to severely weaken Social Security with his own H.R.2030--A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to make social security coverage completely optional for both present and future workers, to freeze benefit levels, to provide for the partial financing of future benefits from general revenues subject to specified conditions, etc.-and his own H.R.4604--A bill to repeal the recently enacted requirement of mandatory social security coverage for employees of nonprofit organizations-is now the great protector of Social Security!
The mind reels.
But there's still one more reel to our story!
One Last Paroxysm
In December 9, 2003, the "Social Security Protection Act of 2004" passed the Senate. At this point it was a mere formality for it to become law. The loophole allowing undocumented workers to receive Social Security benefits for taxes they had paid if a totalization agreement were signed and if they retired to Mexico, had been all but finally closed. It would be closed on March 4, when Bush signed the bill into law.
But Ron Paul was not about to let this one get away without one last act of demagogery. And so his January 5, 2004 "Texas Straight Talk" column (don't... oh no! Not all over the keyboard and the monitor!) was titled "Return of the Great Social Security Giveaway":
Last year around this time I wrote about a serious threat to Social Security that was moving ever-closer--a threat so great that it could truly break the bank of our already dangerously fragile Social Security system. The threat is the ongoing "totalization" negotiations between the US and Mexican governments. An agreement on "totalization" would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for American Social Security. Press reports just last month reminded us that these talks are continuing and will likely be completed this year.
As I wrote last year, under such a "totalization" agreement, 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. To qualify for American Social Security, a Mexican citizen would need to work in the US as short as just 18 months!
Yadda, yadda, yadda:
Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the US could reach one billion dollars by 2050, [Oh, so that's where he got the $1 billion dollar figure-from 43 years in the future!] when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.
Now, wait a second. A)Ron Paul is Congressman, right?
(B) And Congress just passed the "Social Security Protection Act of 2004" on December 9, 2003, less than one month before.
(C) And that act eliminates eligibility for non-citizens "unless (1) the noncitizen had ever been issued an SSN indicating authorization to work in the United States, or (2) the noncitizen, at the time any quarters of coverage are earned, was admitted to the United States under a B1 visa (for business purposes) or D visa (crew member--e.g., for an airline)."
(D) So instead of paying attention to what Congress itself is doing, Ron Paul is relying on unidentified "press reports"?
Do you see start to see why maybe Ron Paul is about as much of a straight-shooter as George Bush or John McCain?
Conclusion
Does Ron Paul really care about getting rid of unfair tax burdens? Well, if you're a red state Republican who'd never dream of working overseas, then I'm pretty darned sure he does. But if you're the kind of person who would take a job overseas, then you're just going to have to tough it out, along with all the Messicans and your Jewish banker Illuminati friends. Because when push comes to shove, all Ron Paul really cares about is dismantling the United States of America, and making the right people rich.. And if getting rid of double tax burdens doesn't help do either of those things, then fuhgedaboudit!
In short, it should be obvious that Ron Paul is not to be taken seriously at face value-and is certainly not someone that progressives should support. I'm going to be taking several more whacks at him this weekend, and then I'm going to turn around and take a whack at Barack Obama-for failing to do any of the things right for our side that Ron Paul does for his. And, no, I don't mean lying. But I do mean pushing a coherent agenda, and refraining from attacking his friends. |
