Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitutional
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) may rail against Social Security insolvency in the public eye, but that hasn't stopped him from accepting the government checks.
The libertarian-leaning Republican and former presidential candidate admitted Wednesday that he accepts Social Security checks just minutes after he called for younger generations to wean themselves off the program, in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn't to cut," he said.
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein then asked Paul, "A bit of a personal question -- Are you on Social Security? Do you get social security checks?"
Paul admitted he does, stating, "[It's] just as I use the post office, I use government highways, I use the banks, I use the federal reserve system. But that doesn't mean that you can't work to remove this in the same way on Social Security."
It is unconstitutional. Please show me in the constitution where is states that the government is responsible for our retirement?
But after paying into the system my whole life, I expect to get my gobberment check too.
The least I can do for myself is try to recoup some of the money they stole from me- try to get a little of it back.
Of course if I had been able to keep my money in the first place and invest it in my retirement account, I'd be much further ahead- much better off.
But somehow the government knows better than me - so by force of tax code- they take it out of every pay check.
A better way to go- is the Ron Paul plan- which is a transition away from Social Security and into a private acount - where individuals are able to invest for their own retirement.
The whole system needs to be privatized before it collapses and leaves us all high and dry.
SS is not unconstitutional.That said it is a lame gothca question. ted kennedy supported higher taxes on the 1% but took advantage of all legal tax loopholes.
Obama does not believe in Super Pacs but accepts their support.
It seems more hypocritical when the rich and privileged take advantage of the perks of their position. IMHO Ron Paul did nothing wrong. He paid in, just like medicare and after 65 you are not allowed to buy private health insurance except supplemental plans.
That Supreme Court decision has a very interesting history, and back then things were similar to today, where the Court was generally locked 5-4 towards the more conservative side.
President Roosevelt came up with an interesting solution, where he would appoint 6 new Supreme Court "justices" and stack the court in his favor. An unintentional result of this (or was it intentional?) was that one of the more moderate judges suddenly flipped his votes...
President Roosevelt's response to all of this was stunning and unexpected. On February 5, 1937 he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire. Couching his argument as a reform to help relieve the workload burden on the courts, President Roosevelt's unusually blunt language made it clear what he really had in mind: "A part of the problem of obtaining a sufficient number of judges to dispose of cases is the capacity of the judges themselves. This brings forward the question of aged or infirm judges--a subject of delicacy and yet one which requires frank discussion. In exceptional cases, of course, judges, like other men, retain to an advanced age full mental and physical vigor. Those not so fortunate are often unable to perceive their own infirmities. . . A lower mental or physical vigor leads men to avoid an examination of complicated and changed conditions. Little by little, new facts become blurred through old glasses fitted, as it were, for the needs of another generation; older men, assuming that the scene is the same as it was in the past, cease to explore or inquire into the present or the future." 3
The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts) thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal was heated, widespread and over in six months. The President would be decisively rebuffed, his reputation in history tarnished for all time. But the Court, it seemed, got the message and suddenly shifted its course. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases) the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation, producing a "constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt."
And the vote flipped...
Despite the intense controversy the court-packing plan provoked, and the divided loyalties it produced even among the President's supporters, the legislation appeared headed for passage, when the Court itself made a sudden shift that took the wind out of the President's sails. In March 1937, in a pivotal case, Justice Roberts unexpectedly changed his allegiance from the conservatives to the liberals, shifting the balance on the Court from 5-4 against to 5-4 in favor of most New Deal legislation. In the March case Justice Roberts voted to uphold a minimum wage law in Washington state just like the one he had earlier found to be unconstitutional in New York state. Two weeks later he voted to uphold the National Labor Relations Act, and in May he voted to uphold the Social Security Act. This sudden change in the Court's center of gravity meant that the pressure on the New Deal's supporters lessened and they felt free to oppose the President's plan. This sudden switch by Justice Roberts was forever after referred to as "the switch in time that saved nine."
I wonder how liberals would respond today if President Obama came up with such a unique solution?
