Thread: SOCIAL SECURITY: AMERICANS ONLY - PLEASE

SOCIAL SECURITY: AMERICANS ONLY - PLEASE!
Phyllis Spivey
April 28, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Bewildering, isn’t it, that with the entire nation focused on the solvency of the Social Security system, the press continues to ignore a Bush Administration plan that by itself could break the bank? No, we’re not talking privatization; it’s the Mexicanization of Social Security that’s getting neither ink nor sound bites

Political opponents apparently intend to spare George Bush the embarrassment of having to explain why, while trying to edge Americans off Social Security, he’s putting Mexicans on it. Even the American Association of Retired Persons, so stridently opposed to private accounts, is mum on the plan to extend Social Security benefits to Mexicans who work, or have worked – even illegally – in the U.S.

News of the plan broke in December 2002, when articles began appearing in major newspapers. In September 2003, Congress conducted hearings on it, where projected costs for the plan went as high as $345 billion over ten years. The same month the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a study faulting the Social Security Administration (SSA) for its deeply flawed analysis of the proposal and describing costs as highly uncertain due to unknowns about the "size, work history, earnings, and dependents of the unauthorized (read that illegal) Mexican population."

But just when related news, e.g., President Bush proposing quasi amnesty for illegals and dire warnings about the financial condition of Social Security, should have shoved the social- security-for-Mexicans scheme into the headlines, the issue all but faded from view. Even the accelerating presidential campaign failed to restore media interest.

Then, on June 29, 2004, SSA Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart and her Mexican counterpart quietly signed the proposed agreement, committing U. S. taxpayers to a one-sided contract of which few Americans were aware and on which there had been no public debate, despite its huge ramifications for a retirement system already in trouble.

The Center for Immigration Studies put things in perspective with its September 2004 release of an eye-popping study, predicting the plan would:

permit partial payment of Social Security benefits to Mexicans who work in the U.S. as little as 18 months;

permit Mexicans to return to Mexico and collect benefits, including disability pensions and survivor benefits;

cover not just Mexican workers, but their families as well, even if they have never lived in the U.S;

eventually compel the U.S. to pay billions in benefits to Mexicans for credits acquired while using fraudulent Social Security numbers prior to obtaining legal status.

In September 2004, Rep. J. Hayworth, Arizona, proposed legislation to block benefit payments to Mexicans, but the House of Representatives quietly defeated it, 178-225, California Republican Congressmen Dreier, Issa, Lewis, and Thompson, voting "no." Throughout the presidential campaign, John Kerry remained silent, ignoring an issue that might well have made him president.

Today, a SSA web site still carries the June 29, 2004 press release announcing: "United States and Mexico Sign Social Security Agreement. Another site states, "... the President will submit the agreement to Congress where it must sit in review for 60 session days. If Congress takes no action during this time, the agreement can move forward."

Meanwhile, the SSA – its numbers thoroughly discredited by numerous public and private groups, including the Government Accounting Office – continues to minimize the financial impact of the agreement, passing it off as just another of the 20 plus "totalization" agreements the U.S. has been racking up since 1978. The totalization countries include Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, France, Portugal, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Greece, South Korea, Chile, Australia and most recently Japan (expected to take effect in late 2005).

The SSA describes totalization as "international social security agreements that coordinate the U.S. Social Security program with the comparable programs of other countries." Critics, however, say Mexico's retirement system is in no way comparable and that the actual goal is to force U.S. taxpayers to subsidize the corporate hiring of cheap foreign labor to replace American workers. Particularly galling is that foreigners are getting social security benefits on far better terms than U.S. citizens, even where there is no totalization agreement.

In July 2003, for example, author Phyllis Schlafly told of a report in The Economic Times of India. It indicated the Bush Administration had assured India that its citizens coming to the U.S. to work on H-1B visas would receive Social Security benefits in six years, instead of the ten required for Americans. It’s unlikely this policy applies only to India.

Despite a lack of publicity on the accord with Mexico, opposition is growing, and it’s led by Congressmen from the President’s own party. In February, Rep. Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Virginia, announced plans to introduce a resolution asking the President not to submit the agreement to Congress. If the President goes ahead, Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona, has promised to block it with another resolution.

And, according to the Washington Times, the Seniors Coalition, a seniors advocacy group, has joined the opposition with 387,000 petitions from angry members. "It’s a double cross that they do not understand ..." a spokesman asserted in the February Times report

Did they say "double cross?" Consider this: The U.S. already has an active agreement with Canada; the deal with Mexico would give the U.S. totalization deals with both of its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) "partners." But now the Bush Administration is pushing congressional action on another open border trade pact --the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which includes the countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.

Once CAFTA is approved, how could the U.S. possibly deny social security benefits to CAFTA countries, having already put Third World Mexico on the social security take?



Preposterous, yes. But the facts suggest that social security is not just being Mexicanized; it’s being internationalized. Only Congress can stop it. Contact your Congressman at 1(877)762-8762 (toll free). Demand that he (or she) oppose the social security agreement with Mexico and support Congressman Ron Paul’s H.R.858, which would reserve America’s social security system for Americans – Americans only! What a novel idea.

© 2005 Phyllis Spivey - All Rights Reserved

Contact your Congressman at 1(877)762-8762 (toll free). Demand that he (or she) oppose the social security agreement with Mexico and support Congressman Ron Paul’s H.R.858, which would reserve America’s social security system for Americans – Americans only! What a novel idea.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Contact your Congressman at 1(877)762-8762 (toll free). Demand that he (or she) oppose the social security agreement with Mexico and support Congressman Ron Paul’s H.R.858, which would reserve America’s social security system for Americans – Americans only! What a novel idea.

I'm going to fire off some emails to mine in the morning. OK good12me time to get to work.

My fellow Vietnam veterans must do with out medical treatment while illegal invaders are treated for free. Who represents us ? Not Bush, Not McCain, Not Kerry, Not Kennedy, Not Vicente Fox, Not Clinton(s).

that's what really bugs the crap out of me! but you don't see the ACLU out defending a war veteran, they can live in a cardboard box and suffer from post traumatic stress

Originally Posted by Mamie

My fellow Vietnam veterans must do with out medical treatment while illegal invaders are treated for free. Who represents us ? Not Bush, Not McCain, Not Kerry, Not Kennedy, Not Vicente Fox, Not Clinton(s).

that's what really bugs the crap out of me! but you don't see the ACLU out defending a war veteran, they can live in a cardboard box and suffer from post traumatic stress

Don't get me started on that one. You can give your health, a limb your life for this country. It will kick you in the gut and you still love and defend it.

But on a lighter side isn't it strange how Mark Twain and Will Rogers were a lot a like.

On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.
Will Rogers

Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U.S. Senators.
Will Rogers

Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U.S. Senators.
Will Rogers

wonder if he would be surprised to include "illegal invaders"

If he could see what is happening he would probable roll over in his grave.


There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
Will Rogers

Did you all see the President tonight talking about making the SS fund work better for "lower wage" recipients? Man this guy is all but telling us are wages are not only going to continue to plummet, but that he also intends to give our resources to illegal "guest workers." This man is working for Mexico, not us.

This guy needs to be impeached.

Originally Posted by BobC

Did you all see the President tonight talking about making the SS fund work better for "lower wage" recipients? Man this guy is all but telling us are wages are not only going to continue to plummet, but that he also intends to give our resources to illegal "guest workers." This man is working for Mexico, not us.

I couldn't stomach listening to him. This is not the man I voted for twice. Something has come over him ..he's different. I can't quite explain it or put my finger on it.

Maybe it's the Fox mind-meld.

Originally Posted by watchman

Originally Posted by BobC

Did you all see the President tonight talking about making the SS fund work better for "lower wage" recipients? Man this guy is all but telling us are wages are not only going to continue to plummet, but that he also intends to give our resources to illegal "guest workers." This man is working for Mexico, not us.

I couldn't stomach listening to him. This is not the man I voted for twice. Something has come over him ..he's different. I can't quite explain it or put my finger on it.

Maybe it's the Fox mind-meld.

watchman, I agree with you. I voted twice for him now would vote to impeach and replace him with LOU DOBBS YEA GO TEAM