The Republicans had another debate last night; I didn't see it, of course, and basically all I know about it is what I've briefly read in the news. Frankly, I'm not paying just a whole lot of attention; there's not much I can do about the nomination, and anybody the Republicans nominate will be better than Obama. But I do have a comment or two based upon something that apparently came out of the debate last night.
From what I read, much of the heat was aimed at Rick Perry. That's not surprising, since he's the current front-runner. Mitt Romney again accused Mr. Perry of saying that Social Security is "unconstitutional" and a "Ponzi scheme." Mr. Perry has said the latter (and he's right), but, as far as I've been able to determine, has not said that SS is "unconstitutional." I wish he would. I wish SOMEBODY would, because it's the truth and it would be a very healthy debate in the United States.
Of course Social Security is unconstitutional. Any honest person who has read the Constitution and understands what it was intended to mean by the people who wrote it would have to admit that fact. I challenge anybody, anywhere, to show me, in the Constitution, where Congress has been given the right to FORCE--or even provide--some kind of retirement insurance for the American people. And don't say "But the Supreme Court..." blah blah blah. I'm sorry, I can read, and I can think for myself, and no amount of legal gymnastics or political fraud or chicanery can produce Social Security out of the Constitution of the United States.
But then, that could be said for about 99% of what Congress spends money on, other than the military, which it abuses, too.
Now, if the people of the United States want the government to provide retirement benefits, that's their right. That's not my gripe. My gripe is, don't call it constitutional. And don't call it "freedom" if a person who doesn't want it is forced to pay for it. Mr. Perry has made it plain that, though he doesn't like the program, he would not try to take away the benefits from those who are currently enjoying them or who are on the cusp of getting them. But he insists that changes must be implemented so that younger generations can be prepared for their retiring years, too. No Republican of any stature has ever talked about abolishing Social Security. But part of Democratic demogoguery is to convince as many people as possible that the Republicans want to do away with Social Security and Medicare and throw as many people out onto the streets to die as possible. Democrats are much bigger liars than Republicans, though politicians of both parties are good at it.
But here again, we see one reason for the hopelessness of America. Mitt Romney has a decent chance of being the next President of the United States, and appears to be the favorite of the Republican "establishment". But, by implying that Social Security is constitutional, he's either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest, and we already have a President in office like that. And as long as we keep electing such people, the country will continue on a direct, downward path to historical oblivion.
Incidentally, can anyone find for me, either in the Constitution of the United States, or the Holy Bible, where able-bodied people are supposed to "retire" from work? Especially at somebody else's expense....I have no objection to people retiring, of course, I hope to some day myself. But it's a privilege, an earned one, not a right, not an entitlement, and certainly not something to be provided by the government for people who can't afford it themselves. Because that way, not only will I pay for MY retirement, I'll be paying for somebody else's, too.
But that's "social justice," isn't it.