Posted on 02/04/2005 4:59:24 AM PST by OXENinFLA
In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of recommending the basis of legislation.
I am gratified with the work of this Committee and of those who have helped it: The Technical Board on Economic Security drawn from various departments of the Government, the Advisory Council on Economic Security, consisting of informed and public - spirited private citizens and a number of other advisory groups, including a committee on actuarial consultants, a medical advisory board, a dental advisory committee, a hospital advisory committee, a public - health advisory committee, a child - welfare committee and an advisory committee on employment relief. All of those who participated in this notable task of planning this major legislative proposal are ready and willing, at any time, to consult with and assist in any way the appropriate Congressional committees and members, with respect to detailed aspects.
It is my best judgment that this legislation should be brought forward with a minimum of delay. Federal action is necessary to, and conditioned upon, the action of States. Forty - four legislatures are meeting or will meet soon. In order that the necessary State action may be taken promptly it is important that the Federal Government proceed speedily.
The detailed report of the Committee sets forth a series of proposals that will appeal to the sound sense of the American people. It has not attempted the impossible, nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors concerned: the national credit, the rights and responsibilities of States, the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts.
It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of Federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea - a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the world have already adopted it and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable project.
Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. First, the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general taxation. Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to the States subject to standards established by the Federal Government. Third, sound financial management of the funds and the reserves, and protection of the credit structure of the Nation should be assured by retaining Federal control over all funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.
At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:
1. Unemployment compensation.
2. Old-age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities.
3. Federal aid to dependent children through grants to States for the support of existing mothers' pension systems and for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.
4. Additional Federal aid to State and local public-health agencies and the strengthening of the Federal Public Health Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called "health insurance," although groups representing the medical profession are cooperating with the Federal Government in the further study of the subject and definite progress is being made.
With respect to unemployment compensation, I have concluded that the most practical proposal is the levy of a uniform Federal payroll tax, 90 percent of which should be allowed as an offset to employers contributing under a compulsory State unemployment compensation act. The purpose of this is to afford a requirement of a reasonably uniform character for all States cooperating with the Federal Government and to promote and encourage the passage of unemployment compensation laws in the States. The 10 percent not thus offset should be used to cover the costs of Federal and State administration of this broad system. Thus, States will largely administer unemployment compensation, assisted and guided by the Federal Government. An unemployment compensation system should be constructed in such a way as to afford every practicable aid and incentive toward the larger purpose of employment stabilization. This can be helped by the intelligent planning of both public and private employment. It also can be helped by correlating the system with public employment so that a person who has exhausted his benefits may be eligible for some form of public work as is recommended in this report. Moreover, in order to encourage the stabilization of private employment, Federal legislation should not foreclose the States from establishing means for inducing industries to afford an even greater stabilization of employment.
In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100,000,000.
The establishment of sound means toward a greater future economic security of the American people is dictated by a prudent consideration of the hazards involved in our national life. No one can guarantee this country against the dangers of future depressions but we can reduce these dangers. We can eliminate many of the factors that cause economic depressions, and we can provide the means of mitigating their results. This plan for economic security is at once a measure of prevention and a method of alleviation.
We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity - and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action to attain the objectives sought in this report.
Bill Bennett mentioned this last night and this morning, I just wanted to find the entire speech to post it in full and not just excerpt it
this must find it's way to DU, I'd love to see the moonbats go crazy realizing their idol FDR eventually wanted privatization that Bush is now calling for!
I heard it from Bill Bennett first, I just found the whole thing....
They'll react the same way when you point out to them that JFK pushed for tax cuts.
Question, should the reform go thru for retirees how does the reform affect the "dependent children" and "Disability" beneficiaries?
"LA-LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEARD YOU."
oops.......
Wondering if anyone knows the answer to this...
Was the social security "trust fund" immediately raided with interagency IOUs after SS was implemented, or did it take some time before Congress realized they could do that?
Could the war have had something to do with the first instance?
Its nearly irrelevant now, but it would be interesting to be able to point out which party decided it was a good idea to empty the "trust fund" that presumably would have existed if it had been left alone and not been replaced by paper. Whether that emptying was by design, or happened later, it would be a good way to deflect the Dem's assertion that the system is sound. Assuming, of course, that they were in power when those decisions were made ;)
And since he first had the idea, I think Pres. Bush ought to name this the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Social Security Reform Plan. That's better than calling it the Bill Clinton plan, since he also advocated privatization in 1998, before chickening out in the face of Dem socialist opposition. I would make sure that the Democrats and AARP have these quotes thrown in their faces in TV ads run to combat the ones that they will air to scare senior citizens.
They also give Bush grief for the Patriot act. FDR went a bit further in rounding up people perceived to be a potential threat.
Good find! Bookmarked
Thank you PBS, ya done good (for once)!
CAn you fax this to CBS from a Kinkos in Texas? That way we can be sure it makes their news.
The New Deal Democrats have become the No Deal Democrats.
Everyone should e-mail their Senators and Representative this information. (Think it will change HArkin's mind? LOL!)
Most excellent!
Michael Medved listener?
Wow, the other day they gathered around his statue for a photo op and tomorrow they will try to get the statue removed...
Thanks much! That's one link I'd missed.
The "New" Deal is now seventy years old.
THAT is the Line of the Day!!! If you don't mind, I would like to use it in my tagline for awhile.
Brit Hume mentioned this on his show last ight as well. How long before the dims deny FDR said this?
Big smile on my face.
I found some interesting stuff to answer my question. http://www.ssa.gov/history/law.html has a bunch of links. The original proposed bill: http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/fdrbill.pdf has the following text:
26 The term "wages" shall mean the total of every form of remuneration received by an employee from any employer, whether paid directly or indirectly by an employer, including salaries, commissions, bonuses, and the reasonable money value of rent, housing, lodging, board ... payments in kind, and similar advantages; but it shall not include any such remuneration received by a nonmanual worker who is employed at a monthly salary of more than $250 a month.
To me it looks like FDR meant to exclude people who had salaries above $3,000 per year. That wasn't a cap on taxes - it was an exclusion point where it was figured you could take care of yourself.
Next, Report of the Committee on Economic Security & Professor Edwin Witte's Testimony - PART 1 http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/hr35report1.pdf page 24:
Outline of plan.-We recommend that the contributory annuity system include, on a compulsory basis, all manual workers and nonmanual workers earning less than $250 per month, except those of governmental units and those covered by the United States Railroad Retirement Act.
Lots more to read and I don't know whether I am the person to do it, but it looks like the original cap was intended to totally exclude people above a certain salary, not to merely provide a maximum for their taxes and payments.
You mean we had a gov't in the past that thought the people could "take care of themselves?"
Self bump!
SS was an off budget item until LBJ put SS into the general fund to disguise how large the deficeit was because of Vietnam.
I can not find anything on DU about FDR wanting private accounts. Someone with the ability to post other there needs to post it.
What, and get my computer dirty ??
"THAT is the Line of the Day!!! If you don't mind, I would like to use it in my tagline for awhile."
Actually I first heard it yesterday on the radio. I think Medved. My Father (a great American) was a Roosevelt Democrat so when I first heard the line I loved it. It is so true.
LETTER TO EDITOR I just sent the Seattle Times. I hope they print it. By the way, at age 46 I love being in the catagory of "younger taxpayer".
Long ago Democrats called themselves progressive, the party with new ideas to solve old problems, and they portrayed the Republicans as old fuddy-duddies, who were against change. Boy have things flip-flopped. The Republicans are saying if something is not done Social Security will be bankrupt when today’s children are old enough to collect it. The Democrats are saying leave it alone, it’s fine, it’s not broke, forgetting that Bill Clinton often spoke of the Social Security crises. A favorite speech line of his was, “save social security first”.
So how is it that, President Bush’s proposal of giving younger tax payers the option of investing a portion of their FICA taxes into stable annuities a radical idea?
When I saw the pictures of our top Democratic leaders posing for photos in front of the statue of Roosevelt saying they will stand and fight to save Roosevelt’s pension guarantee from being privatized, I could not help but wonder what FDR must be thinking. For it was he, who in 1935 said the proposed pension plan “ought ultimately be supported by self-supporting annuity plans.” That’s right; government would eventually step aside and it would become “privatized”.
k_ping
That's a brilliant idea, I hope they take it.
I heard Brit Hume mention it last night.
I really wish they would come up with SOME KIND OF COHERENT THOUGHT PROCESS. I fear a one party system, but the Rats offer nothing but obstructionism and the snuffling whiney supreriority of a dying old Europe.
Pingaling.
I'd be delighted to have a two-party system consisting of the Republicans and the Constitution/Libertarian parties.
outstanding, take that lefties PING
Keeping thread alive ping. Sunday morning freepers ping
Bump!
LBJ raided SS for the VN war and made it part of policy to shore up the General Revenues.
Three parts are mentioned above the bold type in FDR’s message:
1. Old-age pensions (money for people who were too old in 1934 to build up their own nest egg)
2. Compulsory contributory annuities – i.e. Social Security as we know it today.
3. Voluntary contributory annuities – akin to a 401k (or Thrift Plan if you are a Federal employee)
The portion in bold text (“…which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans”) clearly refers to Part #1 (old-age pension plan – called so by name in the text). This would not include Part #2 (Compulsory contributory annuities or Social Security as we know it today)
Sorry to disappoint but what FDR meant by self supporting annuity plans was automatic funding through the FICA tax. Social Security as FDR designed it was as a separate account apart from the general government fund. The funding would be automatic every year and not fluctuate as most government spending does from year to year. The first years of Social Security in 1935 were entirely payed for by federal and state governments rather than the self sustaining fund for the simple reason that the first generation to rely on it to retire in 1935 did not have time to build up the fund before they were 65. As time passed the fund would earn interest and grow through the FICA tax earmarked specifically for social security. Eventually Social Security would become self sustaining and not need funding from other sources. FDR did not mean individual self funded accounts. Read the whole speech next time. The additional money to supplement not replace social security FDR refers to are 401 k's and the like. FDR designed social security as a guarantee not a risk taking private venture.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/psources/ps_socsecspeech.html
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."-FDR
In the paragraph toward the end of the letter beginning "In the important field of security for our old people") FDR outlines three principles:
"First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance" (in 1935)
"Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system" {aka Social Security}
"Third, voluntary contibutory annuities"
The last sentence in the paragraph refers to "old-age pension plans," clearly referring to the first principle mentioned. It goes on to say that these "ought ultimately
to be supplanted by self-supported annuity plans," which is obviously the same terms he uses to describe the second principle, aka Social Security.
Yes, it is a bit convoluted, but privatizing Social Security is a valid opinion in its own right. Intellectual
honesty compels us not to distort FDR's words.
They have loaded the plan so heavily with COLAS and fringe benefits that it had no way of dealing with demographic realities which likely would have killed it in any case.
They repaired it by increasing the mandatory contributions until they put the phony books back into balance.
FDR never envisioned this, and government discovered a cash cow. Thus, they could not do anything to fix the problem without losing their only fund for vote buying.
The Democrats have the majority of the blame. They ignored reality in favor of the piggy bank that they robbed.
The repubs have been trying to get SS off budget for years, which would lift the blanket off the hidden boys, while they played with the money and themselves.
The Dems fought it tooth and nail, and here we are.
Social Security Activism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345432/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
