March 7, 1936 - Article - Social Security, Or De Levee Done Bust (part 1), by Frank Parker Stockbridge
On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. He used a series of pens for his signature. He gave each pen, after it had done its share, to one or another of the men and women who had taking part in shaping the new law and easing its way through Congress.
It was quite an impressive ceremony. After the measure had been made law by the President's signature, Mr. Roosevelt made a little speech to the assembled group. He said, in effect, that they were to be congratulated upon the successful outcome of their efforts. They had, he assured them, made history.
Mr. Roosevelt was perfectly correct. The passage and signing of the Social Security Act was a historic event; for it undertakes to establish, as a continuing policy of this country, fundamentally new concepts - new in our system of government, at least - of the relations between the Federal Government and the states, between the states and their citizens, and between all citizens of the Federal Government itself.
The Act sets up, for example, such innovations as these:
A Federal income tax that goes all the way down to the bottom of the economic scale, taking toll from every man and woman, boy or girl, who works for wages, no matter how low. Is that new in our national scheme of things or not?
The Social Security Act is not an "emergency" measure, but a permanent fixture. It will remain on the statute books of the United States in principle, though probably in amended form, from now on.
The Supreme Court may declare it unconstitutional. That is at least possible. Or the present or some succeeding Congress may repeal it. That is unlikely. No Congress elected by popular emotion will repeal the vital provisions of the Social Security Act - not if its members want to be re-elected. No political party or individual politician is likely to try and tamper with the Social Security Act, unless by way of expanding its scope and enlarging its benefits, for its principle is rooted in the widespread and growing belief that Uncle Sam is Santa Claus. (pg. 10)
This brings us down to the final item, a new kind of tax which reaches more citizens and cuts across lower levels of economic status than any direct tax ever levied in America. It is:
An income tax on all wage earners, levied directly on their pay envelopes, for old-age benefits. It is to be deducted by employers from all regular wage or salary payments every payday, and turned over to the federal Treasury. This tax runs at the same rates as the old-age benefit tax levied on employers; beginning on January 1, 1937, the rate is 1%. It applies, however, only to wages and salaries below $3000 a year. If your earn more than $250 a month, you don't have to pay this tax on the excess above that income. Every third year thereafter the rate goes up by ½%, until in 1949 it is running at 3% of every worker's pay.
Senators and representatives took few chances of laying themselves open to the charge of being unconcerned with the welfare of the indigent aged, the mothers and babies, the blind and the crippled and all the rest. Forced to choose between a blanket endorsement of the entire program, or risking being pilloried by the hustings - that is to say, the elections of 1936 - as enemies of the workers and the deaf to the appeal of motherhood and the prattle of innocent children, what did the gentlemen on Capitol Hill do?
What would you have done in their place?
Right; they voted for the bill, regardless of partisan affiliations. It passed the Senate by 76 votes to 6, and the House by 373 to 33. And, to paraphrase President Roosevelt's remarks when he signed the Social Security Act, they made history by their votes. (pg. 70)
Comments: This is the way the labor Cannibals operate to appeal to masses of people, but it needs to be kept in mind that there was no income tax on labor when the Social Security Act of 1935 was signed. The labor Cannibals use the same tactics today. They may also be described as the "invective," which means "vehement denunciation." If you dare buck the system and somehow manage to get to keep your wages free from taxation - even though the Constitution still guarantees the right to free labor - you will be branded as a "tax protestor." In a criminal tax trial, for example, the jury will tend to close their minds once the prosecution slaps this label on you. This is just applying human nature to the case. The jurors have been mentally conditioned since childhood to think that they have a legal obligation to file and pay income tax on their labor. In the minds of the jurors, they are thinking: I've filed and paid income tax all my life, what right do you have not to? Thus, the accused is found guilty in the minds of the jury in the very beginning of the trial. It should also be noted that the judge and government prosecutor will combine forces against you and select a jury that will suit their liking so that you're chances of getting a not guilty verdict are slim to none. Even though child support, when combined with taxation, takes 65% or more of a worker's labor in some cases, the odious label of "deadbeat" will be slapped on the person who resists this yoke. For example, if you dare to shun the obligation to support your own children after a divorce so that you can afford to survive yourself, you will be branded with infamy. Of course, nobody is told that taking 65% of a worker's labor brings the worker down into the same levels of slavery that the Nazis imposed upon the Jews in World War II; nobody's told that the status of slavery bastardizes marriages because all children are the fruit of the master - that is, the Government; nobody's told that it is the duty of masters to support the offspring of slaves. This gives you an idea of where labor Cannibalism has led. The Social Security Act of 1935 laid the foundation for it. It would be far more humane to sell many fathers into bondage than order them to pay child support. It is cruel to exploit someone's labor to the point where they can't even afford to live and to drive thousands to suicide every year. Adjusting for inflation since pre Civil War times, I would estimate that slaves today would sell for between $50,000 and $100,000 each. This should more than cover most child support orders, and the slave would be under the care of a physical master who would be obligated by law to care for the him in exchange for the use of his labor. If we're going to have slavery, then let's have it! The labor Cannibals, however, must maintain a righteous appearance in the public eye, so this remedy will never be applied. In addition, every thief knows that it's far cheaper to steal something than to buy it. This principle applies to property in the form of labor as well as other kinds of property. It should be noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Eisner v. Macomber (1920), ruled that the income tax "did not extend the taxing power to new subjects." The Constitution granted no power to the Federal Government to extend the income taxing powers to include the labor of working people. This is the truth that the invective will never admit. To see how Frankfurter logic works in Supreme Court decisions, let's look at the case of U.S. v. Lee (1982). Here is where the Federal Government forced Social Security on the Amish people. The court stated: "Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional and state may justify limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish overriding government interest." Frankfurter was dead by this time, but his spirit still lives in the courts - the spirit of labor Cannibalism. Basically, this case simply says that if the Government wants something bad enough, the courts will let them have it. After all, isn't that what FDR and his associates wanted? These types of rulings make perfect sense when the people are slaves, for slavery reduces human labor to a mere article of commerce. If something is commerce, then it can be taxed and regulated at the pleasure of Government.