Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2017)
Internet Articles (2016)
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5


The Social Security Well will completely dry up
sometime around 2029 unless two things happen.
One of the economic tragedies does not bode well for young workers seeking a job, the other is a kiss of death for seniors. Let's start with the least cataclysmic event—young workers, falling wages, and no jobs. First, let's talk about who's to blame for this crisis. It's important to know who is to blame for the problem because you can't solve a problem if you're blaming the wrong people. This problem was started by the same social progressive who created Social Security—Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Social Security became every government's Ponzi Scheme in Jan. 23, 1973 when the second part of the Social Security disaaster was legalized by the US Supreme Court—the legalization of prenatal euthanization. The social progressives called it "choice." God calls it murder. And the people who are about to experience the horrific consequences of it will likely blame Republicans. Not because any of it was the fault of Republicans, who were the minority party when all of these decisions were made by Democratic presidents to rubber stamp the decisions of Democratic Congresses. Blame the liberal media for blaming conservatives for things so adroitly accomplished by Democrats.

The mainstream media has been controlled with an iron fist by the Jacobin princes of industry and barons of banking and business who have controlled what "news that's fit to print" since 1906. The same princes of industry, from 1856 to 1896, have controlled the results of every vote in Congress. Only when the voice of the people drown out the voice of the media did the People win. Those votes over the last century have been few and can be counted on two hands and perhaps half a foot.

In 1900 the money barons were quietly shifting their support from the Republican Party to the newly formed Populist Party which hoped to pull enough votes from William McKinley, who was seeking re-election, to elect populist William Jennings Bryan (who, logically, should have been the candidate of the Populist Party since he was the most popular Populist in the nation at the time). The money mafia, from 1861 to the successful pasage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (one of those "finger-and-toe count" pieces of legislation in 1896) that was specifically directed at the princes of industry like oil baron John D. Rockefeller and banker JP Morgan (who was currently crushing any competition to the Bell Telephone Company transcontinental monopoly) were now among the most hated men in America. Politicians associated with the Money Mafia—usually Republicans— found it tough getting elected. (NOTE: It's interesting that revisionsists in Wikipedia claimed McKinley's "...presidency marked the beginning of a period of dominance by the Republican Party that lasted more than a third of a century." )

As the 25th President of the United States, McKinley assumed office on March 4, 1897 and served until his assassination on Sept. 14, 1901. He was suceeded by his Vice President, social progressive Theodore Roosevelt who finished the last three and a half years of McKinley's second term and one of his own. Roosevelt was the first President to consider running for a third term. But he could not get the support he needed from the princes of industry who didn't particularly like Roosevelt's arrogance. They wanted Taft who seemed to have no particular objection to creating a new central bank in the United States. They misread his indifference as a willingness to push Congress to make it happen.

JP Morgan, who financed Taft's presidential run in 1908, called in his chit early and pushed Taft (through Sen. Nelson Aldrich [R-RI], John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s father-in-law) to force Taft to offer a "presidential opinion" in the Congressional Record on June 15, 1909, which Taft did. Interestingly, in his statement, Taft proposed a graduated inheritance tax, not a graduated income tax. Taft noted that the Supreme Court in Pollack v Farmer's Loan and Trust Company (157 US 429) deprived the national government of the power to impose a tax on the earnings or property of American citizens because such taxation is a "direct tax," which was not in the power of the federal government to impose unless that tax was apportioned among the States. Which means, the taxes levied must be distributed equally among the states based on the percentage of representatives each state has. In other words, what fractured the nation and caused the Civil War was that the Northern Jacobin States controlled both Houses of Congress, and the ability to tax and the voting power to exempt from taxation. Most of the tariffs imposed on exports were imposed on the South. The States with the fewest delegates in Congress paid the highest taxes, which were used almost exclusively to build the economic infrastructure of the more densely populated Northern States. This is what led to the secession of South Carolina within weeks of the Jacobin Abraham Lincoln's election. And, that's why today, our tax dollars are not fairly distributed based on the apportionment of representatives in Congress. Distribution of our tax dollars today are computed largely on which prince of industry or which banker or baron of business gave the most to which Senatorial or Congressional candidate and was repaid with monetary quid pro quos that enriched the donor wherever the quid pro quo was used by the donor. A Montana Congressman or a Delaware Senator could have received a handsome donation from a New York banker to get a bill through Congress that would benefit a heavily populated State. Or a New York Senator or California Congressman sitting on the right Committee could make it profitable for another donor to build a new factory in union-free Montana or Utah. "Apportionment" today has a new meaning. It no longer means equality of distribution. Today it means campaign contributions from the 10th to the 100th power.

That's why the princes of industry or barons of banking or business can rely on receiving a healthy slice of the "earmark pie" over the next two years. That's why John Murtha, the former Democratic majority leader under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (before his death), was able to build his own personal, taxpayer-funded airport in Johnstown, PA so he could be home for dinner every night and back to work on Capitol Hill the next morning. The initial earnark he appropriated authorized $39 million to build the Johnstown-Cambria County Airport. Before you say, "Ah, that's not much," dig below the top layer of graft and you find over $150 million more in taxpayer funds have poured into this albatross including an additional $800 thousand to build an alternate runway just in case the airport gets more than two flights a day. (When the airport was built, Johnstown had a population of less than 3,000 people) How many towns in America with populations of that size have airports that will accommodate a good-sized pasenger jet? Try zip, zilch, nada, none

While Taft complied with the Morgan-Aldrich request to shake the 16th Amendment resolution loose and get it through Congress, he did not favor its ratification although he knew that process was out of the hands of the federal government. The States alone decided that question. The 16th Amendment was explained to Taft by Aldrich thusly: "The tax liability of any American would be based solely on the amount of the previous year's income remained in the possession of the taxpayer on Dec. 31 each year. If all of that taxpayer's previous year's income was spent, he had no tax liability. Of couse, when legislation to impose such a tax went through Congress, there was an addendum added to th definition of what taxable income was: The tax basis, as well as the tax rates, could be changed at any time. And, of course, by the time the first tax assessment was levied, the law had been changed dramatically. The tax was based on what you earned, not what you had left. And, like today, when you got through paying Uncle Sam, if there was anything left before April 15, the politicians made sure there wasn't on April 16.


Just Say No
Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved