The REAL Power in the USA, President Goldman Sachs has Spoken and if you expect Social Security, Get Real...
A report released today by Goldman Sachs says that if push comes to shove, the federal government will pay its lenders before it pays Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. Debt service “should be seen as the top claim on government resources in most cases,” says the Goldman analy...sis.
On one hand, the idea that lenders come first is blindingly obvious. Just look at what happened last summer, when the government tied itself in knots to make sure it didn’t default on bond payments. Of course lenders stand at the head of the line for taxpayers’ money. On the other hand, if things got really bad in the U.S.—as in Greek bad—the priority of payments could start to flip. At some point, as we have seen in Athens, citizens rise up against lenders and insist that the country protect its own ill and elderly before it pays faceless creditors at home and abroad.
Just a reminder, to those who haven't heard of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act:
Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
Again, just a reminder: your "benefits" can be cut
A report released today by Goldman Sachs says that if push comes to shove, the federal government will pay its lenders before it pays Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. Debt service “should be seen as the top claim on government resources in most cases,” says the Goldman analy...sis.
On one hand, the idea that lenders come first is blindingly obvious. Just look at what happened last summer, when the government tied itself in knots to make sure it didn’t default on bond payments. Of course lenders stand at the head of the line for taxpayers’ money. On the other hand, if things got really bad in the U.S.—as in Greek bad—the priority of payments could start to flip. At some point, as we have seen in Athens, citizens rise up against lenders and insist that the country protect its own ill and elderly before it pays faceless creditors at home and abroad.
Just a reminder, to those who haven't heard of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act:
Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
Again, just a reminder: your "benefits" can be cut
www.businessweek.com
No comments:
Post a Comment