1: Social Security Retirement: Why is a "Pay-in" Called an Entitlement?

Almost 75 years ago, the Social Security Retirement system was created in the The Social Security Act of 1935 by then U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Congress. A part of the New Deal legislation, the "pay-in" or contributory retirement system arose from the Great Depression of the 1930s. The retirement system was established to prevent hardship due to loss of jobs and business closings for future working people, particularly older employees and those injured on the job.

Many plans were proposed to alleviate hardship in the 1930s, including a Hollywood "Ham and Eggs" plan to dole out $30 to each elderly person each Thursday. Dr. Frances Townsend proposed $200 per month to non-working elderly. "Kingfish" Huey Long, former governor and senator of Louisiana, promoted a "Share the Wealth" pension of $30 per month for those over 60 years old earning less than $1,000 per year and with no more than $10,000 in assets.

The first Social Security check was mailed to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont in 1940 at the end of the Depression. While the intention was prevention of future hardship due to unemployment during a later depression, the fund also created a source of revenue for the government.

Social Security Retirement actually is a tax, paid by both employee and employer, to the Federal government with each work paycheck. In 2000, the tax was 6.2% of salaries up to $76,200. Those who earn more than $76,200 are expected to establish private retirement accounts, individually or through their employers. Independent Contractor "employees" also are expected to provide for their own retirement

Social Security "pay-out" is described as an annuity type system. The government pays retired workers from the time of retirement until the worker-beneficiary and certain dependents are no longer living. The retirement age has been increased to extend the years of "pay-in" and lengthen the time to initial "pay-out" for workers who contribute to the retirement system. This of course makes work a necessity for older workers without other retirement savings.

Younger working contributors "pay-in" as older workers leave the workforce and get their "pay-out". Government statisticians note that originally 25 workers "paid in" for each retiree "pay-out", but by 2002 only 3.25 workers "paid-in" per retiree. This may be significant for the future of the fund. Could this reflect other trends in employment and retirement, increases in workers funding their retirements outside of the social security system or choosing not to contribute, for example, more independent contractor "employees", more early retired work-injury disabled, high unemployment and shifts to welfare from the workforce?

The ruckus over Social Security as a "burdensome entitlement" program is disturbing to older workers who have paid in and await their retirement, particularly with current higher unemployment rates. The seeds of this misunderstanding of the "pay-in" retirement fund as "entitlement" can be found in the language of the original act.

The expressed intention of the Act to provide for the "general welfare by establishing a system of old-age benefits, and by enabling the several states to make more adequate provision for aged," describes the retirement fund for aging workers. However, the 2009 revision extends the Social Security Act beyond contributory pension fund to include "blind persons, dependents and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue, and for other purposes".

This general welfare fund language extends the "pay-in" pension fund beyond its "pay-out" pension purpose. These are the "entitlement" issues which clearly overextend the fund into phenomenal amounts the fund could not possibly pay-out per worker pay in.

The worker who "pays in" is "entitled" to the pension fund "pay out". It is frightening to think Congress would attempt to base a enormous general welfare fund of non-contributory benefits on the per paycheck pension "pay ins" of workers participating in a retirement fund.

The Social Security Act no longer is easily accessible on government information online. The Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson "Thomas" legislative online search index did not include "Social Security Act of 1935", "Social Security Act", "Social Security Administration" as successful search terms as of July 31, 2010.

(The ad above by the Social Security Board, 1935, Library of Congress, and other historical facts, are found in JW Markham "Social Security Act of 1935" in Major Acts of Congress, Vol 3, BK Landsberg, Editor, Macmillan, NY, 2004.)

See http:monthlynotes.blogspot.com on www.google.com for this and other blogs by monthlynotesstaff.email mkrause381@gmail.com for a copy of this blog or to comment.

5: Race for the Funds? Commentary on What Are Not Civil Rights?

(This is the fifth mini-blog in the series of commentaries related to
1: Race for the Funds?

5: What Are Not Civil Rights?

Equally important in the discussion of what are civil rights is what is not.
Civil Rights are not mineral rights, water rights, rights which pertain to control over something, or someone.

There is a misperception among people from Third World and other countries with histories of socialist or communist dictatorships that civil rights of person A means "rights over" person B, that is, to control person B.

This attitude is common among people from not only the Middle East and Africa, but also among people from Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics. There are constant references to who is "in power", "regimes", reflecting experience with dictatorships rather politicians of political parties, leaders elected to serve time-limited terms in democratic countries like the USA. The use of the Russian term "czar" as in "drug czar" in American politics for the past few decades has not helped correct this misunderstanding.

The concept of rulers rather than leaders also is common in China, with histories of ruling dynasties, in the South Asian countries China influences, for example, North and South VietNam, North and South Korea. The concept of power of one group over another also is compelling in highly stratified ethnic societies like Japan and very obviously so in the "caste" structures of India.

It is difficult for people from these more authoritarian, stratified societies to understand the American pluralistic system of leadership determined by majority numbers of voters from two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats.

(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.comfor Blogs 1-5 of "Can Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?"

4: Race for the Funds? Commentary on Reverse Racism.

(This is the fourth in a mini-blog series on the issues raised in
1: Race for the Funds?)

(4) What is Reverse Racism?
Reverse racism is racism or discrimination against whites by people of color.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s white California farm workers complained of reverse racism. The farm workers were concerned because they were losing their jobs to another group of people of color, Hispanics.

At that time, many white Americans found it difficult to understand how a minority population could create a significant employment problem for white Americans. Apparently, even these relatively low paying agricultural seasonal jobs were not plentiful. Hispanic migrant farm workers grabbed the attention and sympathy of many white Americans as they organized unions to improve their job conditions.

How have people of color found so many lawyers and so much financial support for their causes? Many of the issues seem to be the usual workplace issues about working conditions, pay, and promotions.

Perhaps lawyers found it easier to win settlements, and the court found it harder to deny arguments when pointing to a client with such an obvious characteristic as race, black or brown skin color. Maybe racial profiling works for the client in these cases.

The whole issue of the winning color "race card" and "race-based" lawsuits and settlements seems preposterous to many Americans of European descent. There are lots of different and diverse white people in America. There are often tensions and prejudices against people from certain other countries, ethnic, religious, or cultural backgrounds. But people usually try to resolve it or find other opportunities or bring lawsuits on general law issues. Do you know of any lawsuits between opposing British, Irish, German, Italian, French, Polish, or other European Americans or against the US government by any of these groups on job, housing, financial, or other issues?

(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for Blogs 1-5 of "Can Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?")

3: Race for the Funds? Commentary on Racism

(This is the third in a new mini-blog series on the issues raised in
1: Race for the Funds?)

(2) Racism can be anti-white done by blacks as well as anti-black done by whites.

What has been termed "reverse racism" is anti-white discrimination done by blacks.

This is what Shirley Sherrod admitted to in her videotaped National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) speech. Ms. Sherrod said she could not give the "white farmer", who presented to her agricultural office for assistance in preventing his farm foreclosure, "the full force" of her assistance. Ms. Sherrod stated she became more concerned when the white farmer called again 6 months later complaining that he had received a foreclosure notice, that the attorney she referred him to, whom he had been paying for 6 months, had not helped prevent this.

Shirley Sherrod's comments were revealed by Internet Breibart TV, biggovernment.com, bloggers and news commentators in political forums debating racism within the NAACP and other issues. These commentators were labelled "right wing", to diminish the importance of the discussion of these issues.

Subsequently, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) accepted or requested Ms. Sherrod's resignation as a high profile State of Georgia Rural Development Director overseeing a $2.1 billion dollar budget.

The CNN team who interviewed Ms. Sherrod ignored the anti-white racist statements freely made by Ms. Sherrod, and did not ask Ms. Sherrod about these statements. CNN reversed the racial issue, depicted Ms. Sherrod as "martyred", and implied she was the victim of racial discrimination. Then a flurry of media activity ensued, chastising the "right wingers" and publicizing Ms. Sherrod's implied or explicit demands for apologies from the USDA, Obama Administration, and Breibart et.al.

CNN asked Ms. Sherrod if she planned a lawsuit, exacerbating the hypersensitivity around claims brought by blacks against whites and the U.S. government, courts, and financial settlements. As a news organization, CNN missed the opportunity to discuss the issue of reverse racism and discrimination against whites.

(Return to monthlynotes.blogspot.comfor Blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?")

2: Race for the Funds? Commentary on Civil Rights

(This is the second in a mini-blog series on the issues raised in
1: Race for the Funds?)

(1) Civil rights:
Civil rights applies equally to white as well as black Americans, and members of all other ethnic and racial groups legally in America.

Ms. Shirley Sherrod views herself as a long-time proponent of civil rights. However, Ms. Sherrod appears to believe that civil rights is only an issue for people of color.

Media attention given to black civil rights lawsuits, demonstrations, and issues may have created this misconception or obscured the true meaning of civil rights and equal opportunity under the law for all Americans without regard to race, country of origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, and other differences between Americans.

The meaning of civil rights, the right to vote for each legal, law-abiding American and equal protection under the law involving police and the courts has expanded into the economic sphere of private sector jobs, government funding, and other areas. Perhaps this obscures the meaning of civil rights as one person, one vote. It has created a forum for ethnic and special interest groups to lobby for special funding and other unrelated issues.

(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?"

1: Race for the Funds?

This is a blog on a new, controversial topic currently in the news:
Shirley Sherrod, race, racism, and funding in the United States Department of Agriculture.
(Blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?" are available on the first page of this blog.)

Shirley Sherrod, a black woman, serving as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) State Director of Rural Development in Georgia appeared on videotape at a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) meeting on April 29, 2010. In the now controversial videotape, Ms. Sherrod freely confessed to anti-white racist bias so strong that it prevented her from providing "the full force" of assistance to a white farmer, that is, prevented her from doing her job at a Georgia non-profit agricultural agency with ties to the Georgia State and Federal Agriculture Departments.

Ms. Sherrod stated that she could not listen to the farmer's explanation of his problem easily, interpreting it as "taking up my time...(sic, acting) superior to me". Ms. Sherrod also admits she referred the farmer to "one of his own", a white attorney who charged fees for 6 months without providing foreclosure prevention assistance.

Ms. Sherrod presented this episode as a personal growth experience, later seeing the issue as one of "those who have vs. those who don't" rather than of race. At another point in the tape Ms Sherrod stated that she made that "commitment (sic, working at the agriculture agencies) to black people and to black people only".

Questions arose while viewing this videotaped speech. Why was Ms. Sherrod relating this story? Was Ms. Sherrod undergoing a performance review, being investigated on similar or other issues or complaints, now as a Federal agricultural employee?
Was Ms. Sherrod seeking the support of other colored people and the NAACP in anticipation of a problem soon to be made public?

CNN picked up the story from BreitbartTV and biggovernment.com. CNN reversed the racial issue with Ms. Sherrod's discussion of whether she resigned or was asked or forced to resign by the USDA and the Obama administration.

CNN started a flurry of negative media attention against supposed "right wing" .coms and news commentators. CNN asked Ms. Sherrod if she planned lawsuits against Breibart and biggovernment.com, and publicized Ms. Sherrod's demand for apologies from USDA, Obama adminsitration, and BreitbartTV.

What CNN should have asked about and what may be in the media news soon is the USDA Pigford Farm Settlement, a $1.15 billion payout to black farmers. $13 million of the settlement is earmarked for New Communities, Inc., Ms. Sherrod's farm commune, $150,000 for Ms. Sherrod personally and $150,000 for her husband Charles Sherrod, a member of a black community organizing group.

Steve King, (R-Iowa) on the Ben Shapiro Show, said that settlement is under investigation for providing funds to more black farmers than are known to exist. 75%-99% of the $1.15 bilion class action suit claims may be fraudulent.

(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com first page for Blogs 1-5 "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?")

5: Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry? Blog 5

(This is the fifth in a series of blogs about the credit and credit reporting industry in the United States.
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)

What is the Alternative for the Subprime Credit Consumer?

What is the alternative for the subprime credit consumer? Take the more expensive money or opt out of the credit market and whatever it is the consumer seeks: apartment, home, car, business equipment or expense monies.

At this point, the concept of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" comes into play. The credit reporting errors and inaccuracies, never corrected, annotated, or deleted continue to increase the cost of the subprime consumer's credit. The subprime customer must pay higher finance charges or annual percentage rates (APRs) above the "best" credit customer rate to obtain credit.

Obviously, it is more difficult for the subprime customer to make larger and larger payments to pay the full balance on the credit card, mortgage, or other loan. It becomes more likely that the subprime consumer will at some point no longer be able to make payments. But the subprime consumer undoubtedly will continue to be billed with increasing finance charges and listed as an "asset" or "projected income" by a "bad paper" credit reporting based financial services company.

It would be more difficult for the "best" customer to pay the higher subprime interest and finance charges too. These larger finance charges likely would jeopardize the "best" customer's budget, lower the "best" customer's credit rating, and increase the "best" customer's interest and finance charges.

The subprime credit consumer has become the Subprime Investment Vehicle (SIV) of the consumer credit market. The subprime consumer actually finances the bank or lender by paying 5%, 10%, or whatever percentage above the "best" customer (APR). The subprime consumer takes less principal and pays more in interest and finance charges to make more money available to the lender to lend, particularly to the "best" consumer who receives more principal and pays less in interest and finance charges.

Despite the enormous contribution to the lending industry while still able to pay, the subprime customer is blamed for all the financial woes of the economy. This is particularly unfair to the subprime consumer in an economy sustaining itself with credit transactions in much weaker than hoped for financial and industrial sectors, in a significantly de-industrialized and increasingly "minimum-wage" retail and service based economy.

Of course like all financial vehicles, the subprime credit consumer can be grouped, combined, separated, re-grouped, bought, sold and traded. The subprime consumer becomes an item in yet another credit reporting related, credit-default, or other business at great cost to the financial present and future of the subprime credit consumer.

(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com/ on www.google.com for other blogs by the monthlynotesstaff.) Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.W