Social Security Videos's blog

Mary Philips: I owed so much to so many people. I noticed that my depth perception was off, that I couldn't tell how close I was to the car in front of me, and if the signals - all of a sudden I was seeing doubles of everything; taillights, signals. And the lines on the road were crossing themselves, and it totally scared me. Frankly, I was scared to get out. I had heard stories about the SSDI process, the overwhelming denial rates, and the time it took to receive an award.

Choosing Allsup was the best thing I ever did. They took care of everything. I never had to talk to Social Security Administration directly. I knew I needed help, but I was concerned about the cost of representation. I was surprised to learn that the fee for representation is regulated by the federal government. The payment comes from the monies the government owes the clients. Allsup does not get paid until they obtain your award. Fortunately, Allsup is successfully 97% of the time. I owe so much to so many people, specially Allsup, they helped me when I needed it most.

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Don Esra.

Don Ezra: You know how sometimes you're asked two of the three people you'd most like to meet? Well, in my case, I've met one of them, and I've got to know them a little bit. Yes, you know who I'm talking about; Placido Domingo. No, no, I don't mean Placido Domingo, I don't actually want to meet him; he's very talented, very famous, but he's not the person. The reason I mentioned him is that is that the economic editor of London's Sunday Telegraph Newspaper has said, "Dr. José Piñera is the Placido Domingo of the pension world. Grab, beg, borrow or steal a ticket to hear him speak." Well, that's the treat you've got in store for you.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5q74h0aoaU

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9JIAu_ptAU

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlexnGn7hMc

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApTEX-pjjvg

Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgBKQ9PCn6g

Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfpNEXb3pBU

Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiP5M0JNoys

Dr. Piñera is the architect of the world's first privatized Social Security System in Chile while he was minister of labor and Social Security from 1978 to 1980. So why did we ask him to be our keynote speaker? Because we want the same thing in The States? No, we are neutral in that debate. Some years ago George Rustle and Mike Philips identified Social Security reform as potentially a huge change-agent as to how Americans think about retirement, how we think about investing. Just as the introduction of Social Security itself way back in the 1930s changed the perception of the nation and the actions of the nation. And as a player in the financial field, we want to understand the different possible directions that Social Security reform can go in, so we can prepare ourselves, in advance, for success in every scenario. Well, like it or not, one possible direction is the creation of individual accounts. Dr. Piñera has not only done this successfully 25 years ago, he's been asked for input, he's been asked for advice by scores, literally scores of governments all over the world. United States under President Clinton, United States under President Bush; both, the U.K. under Prime Minister Blair, Russia, where he held a 4 hour meeting with President Putin at his dacha outside Moscow. China, Poland, Sweden, Mexico, you name it, they've asked him for input and advice. We bring you the best, he is the best.

One of the ways that I've analyzed Social Security myself, is that depending on its design, it can made subject to basic forms of risk. One is market risk. What if the markets fall, when would you stop withdrawing money from individual accounts? That's a risk. The other risk is political risk. Given that the "pay as you go" arrangements by definition are greatly underfunded and, therefore, subject to amendments periodically by the political process, how are so called promises going to be changed in the future, as is inevitable.

Those of us making up this audience today live with market risk. We're familiar with it, we understand it, we cope with it, it doesn't terrify us. For us, political risk is probably much less manageable and much less predictable. But you know, there's another world. I was a delegate at a recent White House conference on aging and most of the delegates there worked directly with the elderly and the poor. Now what I learnt from them is they know nothing about markets. Markets terrify them. They fear losing everything, yes everything; a 100%. They fear losing it all to a force they don't understand and are forced they can't control. In contrast, they understand the political process very well. They know how to petition for what they want. They know what gives them mental comfort. For them, individual accounts are very worrisome things to contemplate. My point is, remember, we in this room are not a typical consumer of Social Security.

So, because we in the States have never been exposed to individual accounts in Social Security, we've known 70 years of defying benefits. We haven't been exposed to individual accounts, so we bring you in person, the person who can explain how it all works better than anybody else: Dr. José Piñera.

José Piñera: Thank you very much, that was a very generous introduction and I feel very honored to be able to speak at the … summit and have all of you as my audience. It is true I come from Chile, a very long and very narrow country at the end of South America. But please, I do not want to tell anybody a lesson. I do believe that globalization also means the exchange of ideas. I do believe that there are universal ideas. I do believe in the power of ideas. And that's why let me tell you what we did in Chile 25 years ago, and you will be able to decide whether it's useful for your country.

I studied economics in the University of Chile that at that time was almost a fully owned subsidiary of Chicago Economics. So I had very good free market economics. And I leant how free markets, private enterprise, individual responsibility can create prosperity and democracy. At that time, I remember that during my years there, I was always worried about the problem of poverty. We were, of course, a very poor country. But more than poverty in young age, when even a poor person can work hard and maybe get a better wage if he is a good worker … I was terribly worried about the problem of poverty in old age. A person who is 75, 85 years old, especially if she is a woman who live much longer than men, they do not have the ability to work. The physically, the psychological possibility of earning another income. So they depend completely on Social Security. And I was amazed that after a lifetime of paying, in Chile or in other countries, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, in some countries even 35% of their income, to some sort of Social Security system, they will end up in old age living in quiet desperation.

So I decided to study this problem in depth, and then I went and had my master's degree in economics at Harvard University and I spent a lot of my time precisely thinking about the problem of poverty in old age. And my conclusion was that there was an enormous mistake in the essence of an unfunded defined benefit, pay as you go, Social Security System. I thought that that system … is not a Chilean or an American idea. You may know that that idea comes from Chancellor Bismarck in Prussia. That is why I always say nowadays Marx is dead but Bismarck is still very alive all over the world. Chancellor Bismarck created the first pay-as-you-go system. Now he was a very good politician and therefore in an age in which the average expectance of living of a Prussian was 45 years old, he set the retirement age at 65. That is, he promised great benefits, but with the hope that nobody will receive it. But a great Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek, spoke about the law of unintended consequences. Sometimes politicians, leaders do an action - they say, "We'll create this little government program", and they do not know how that program can eventually become a huge problem for the country. So Bismarckian idea spread around Europe, came to the U.S and then President Roosevelt, of course, in very difficult time with the great depression, capital markets were not working. So nobody could criticize President Roosevelt for not having begun a different sort of system at that time.

And, of course, it came also to my country, incidentally, ten years before the U.S. We began in 1925. So by 1980 our system was going bankrupt. A defined benefit, especially at a national level, has what I call a "fatal flow" in destroying the link between contributions and benefits. Benefits are defined by different laws than contributions, and the contributions ...

Ken "Wasko" Waszkiewicz, the independent candidate running for U.S. Congress in the 4th district of Colorado, offers an interesting solution for Social Security:

Ken Waszkiewicz: My name is Ken "Wasko" Waszkiewicz, and I am the independent candidate running for US Congress in the Fourth District of Colorado. And I want to discuss with you Social Security. And that system may have been a good idea when it first came out in 1935 to assist the elderly, or to assist the poor, to assist the widows that resulted after the war. But in 2010, that system is broken. It is 14.5 trillion dollars of unfunded liability. It's the biggest ponzi scheme of all time. And our government is in charge of it. It went from being a retirement fund to a giant piggy bank for Congress to use to fund wars and pork projects. And whether you believe it will go belly up in five years or 50 years, the fact is it's not a sustainable system. It will break. It is yet another government program that infringes on our freedoms, by making this mandatory contributions.

But what do you do? How do you end this program? You've got people who are just paying into the system. And you've got people who paid into the system their whole lives. And they're about to retire or are retired. What do you do?

Well, this is my solution. For the people 50 and over, you have two options.

a) You can continue to pay into the system and receive any benefits that you get when you retire. Or

b) stop paying into the system. And when you retire, only receive the benefits that you paid into it up to that point when you got out.

For the people 30-50, that's my age group, you have two options:

a) continue to pay into the system, have it taken out of your paycheck and receive any type of benefit when you retire that you might get when you retire.

b) get out of the system. Stop paying into it. And forfeit all the money that they've taken from you to that point. I would gladly do that. Get me out of the system. You can keep all the money that you've taken from me. And you can use it to invest in the people 50 and over, who are about to retire or are retired.

For the people 30 and under, you only have one option. And that's to get out of the system. Stop paying into it. And forfeit all the money that the government has taken from you to that point. You weren't going to get anything when you retired anyway. So you might as well end this system now.

And if you go back to my flat tax idea, I have a video on kenwasko.com that discusses my flat tax. And in there, there's a 30 percent that I allocated for the people to invest in their future. This is a great place for you to invest in your retirement, which could be in a retirement fund that you want to invest in. You may want to invest in your community, because that's how you see your retirement being or going. You might want to invest in your child's future, your child's schooling and stuff like that to... That might be your retirement plan.

The point is that you, the people, get to decide where your money goes and what your future is going to hold. Not some government agency over there 2,000 miles away in Washington. Nobody will take care of you better than yourself. Because it's your life at stake, not theirs.

Lastly, the Social Security number. What do you do with this identification number that we've had. First of all, it's 2010. And a nine digit number is not very secure. We need to look at a universal ID system. Something that uses your fingerprint, or your retina to identify you. Something that you can use to go to the grocery store, go to a DMV, or go anywhere that you need to make a payment. Or identify yourself using this. Not some nine digit number.

My name is Ken "Wasko" Waszkiewicz, and I am the independent candidate running for US Congress in the Fourth District of Colorado. And this is my solution for Social Security.

In this classic YouTube video, Shane Killian explains how Social Security really works and why so many people believe in it anyway.

Shane Killian: I've been making a lot of science videos because I've seen a great need for people to have a greater understanding of science. Once again, like every election year, I start seeing a similar dearth of knowledge with political policy. It's amazing how many otherwise skeptical people just "turn it off" when they enter the political arena and completely trust what the government tells them. No, there's no conspiracy mongering here. I don't put up with that. I just want to tell the objective truth about how government policies work. This first video will cover Social Security.

Charles Ponzi was one of the greatest swindlers this country has ever seen. No, he's of no relation to Chris Pirillo's wife. I just want to make that clear. In 1918, soon after being released from jail for smuggling and other offenses, he began running an investment scam. He would take money from investors and just spend it, living the good life. When it came time to pay off the investors, he would get money from new investors, use some of it to pay the old investors and use the rest for himself. And so on. This is a type of scam known as the "Ponzi" scheme. Many other Ponzi schemes have followed, including one from the Church of Scientology. Both prosecutors and psychologists have noted the effects of the Ponzi scheme on its victims. Few of them even want to admit that it's been a scam, and often speak out in court in favor of the person who ripped them off.

What does this have to do with Social Security? Well, Social Security works the exact same way. Government gets the Social Security tax, uses part of it to pay off current beneficiaries, and just spends the rest however they want. This was the reason for the so-called "surplus" of the Clinton years. In reality, the budget deficit never got lower than $80 billion. It was just the extra funds from Social Security which covered it up. Every year, the Social Security account is run dry. And new money coming in from taxes is needed to replenish it. Beneficiaries are paid, and the government just spends the rest. And the next year, it starts all over again.

The official government response to this argument is thus: "As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme." But then, why have they constantly had to increase the Social Security tax rate? Why have they constantly had to increase the retirement age and decrease benefits? Why does the Government Accountability Office say it's unsustainable? Social Security is very much a Ponzi scheme. Let's look in detail at how it works.

Every year, the government has a certain amount of dollars for Social Security. Only a fraction of that gets sent to beneficiaries. The rest, according to government, is invested. But it's "invested" in government bonds. So, really, the government goes in debt to itself. The money goes from the Social Security budget into the general treasury, where it can be spent however Congress or the president want to spend it. What's left in the Social Security fund is the bonds.

The next year, the government takes in so much in Social Security taxes. But it also has to pay the interest on these bonds, as well as the principle on any bonds that have matured. Since that money has already been spent, other money taken in taxes, from income tax, excises, and so forth, must be taken from the general budget and paid into the Social Security fund. Then, whatever surplus remains after paying beneficiaries, is used to buy more bonds. The money goes back into the Treasury, the politicians spend it however they want and it starts all over again.

This is sustained by nothing more than the government's power to tax the bejesus out of us. The government invests this money in itself, puts it to no productive use and, therefore, must tax people even more to pay it back. Also, it can just grab the surplus for itself again. As the interest and obligations rise, the government's power to sustain the scheme dwindles. According to the Government Accountability Office, Social Security will cease running surpluses by 2017. And by 2041, there will be no way to raise Social Security money to do anything other than pay off the Treasury obligations.

There is one place in the country where you can go to, in order to get out of this scam. In 1981, Galveston County, Texas, took advantage of a loophole allowing it to run its own pension plan, instead of participating in Social Security. Congress quickly closed the loophole so that no one else could do it. But, to this day, Galveston County runs its own pension plan and its citizens are not subject to the Social Security Ponzi scheme. After 27 years, we can easily look at the long term results of their plan versus Social Security. This plan uses a banking model. Workers in Galveston County drawing from the pension get anywhere from 150 percent to 400 percent what they would have made through Social Security. Their benefits are better, too. Disability, for example, is 60 percent of salary, much better than Social Security, despite the unions warning that only Social Security can securely provide disability funds. Workers can also make hardship withdrawals if they need to, an option that just doesn't exist with Social Security.

When you look at it in detail, a rational person can only come to the conclusion that the name "Social Security" is just Orwellian newspeak. It isn't social. In fact, its fraudulent nature makes it quite anti-social. And it isn't secure at all. It has been sustained only by increased forceful taxation, both with the Social Security tax and of general taxes and of reducing, or even denying, benefits whenever possible. And in case you're wondering if Medicare and Medicaid are any better, practically every explanation and argument given here about Social Security applies equally well to them. Far from helping us in our retirement, this Antisocial Insecurity actually robs us of much of our wealth, while the politicians and politically connected corporations and industries profit, at the expense of the poor and the middle-class. They keep us satisfied by throwing us a few crumbs in return, making people fearful of what would happen if their Social Security checks were taken away, proving the psychology of the Ponzi scheme once again.

This is a clear example of what Harry Browne was referring to when he said: "Government breaks your leg, hands you a crutch and says: 'See? Without us, you couldn't walk.'"

More information on Galveston County's benefits system

Good afternoon, friends. I want to thank god for Representative Boehner who is willing to speak the truth even if it's unpopular. You know, we all know that Social Security is unsustainable. But there are a whole bunch of people during this campaign that are marching in under the guise of being Republicans, but really have a Libertarian philosophy, and they believe in ending Social Security because it's not Constitutional. That, of course, as you know, would be a disaster because you'd have poor people wandering the streets trying to get their daily sustenance and not able to get pills, medicine and any health care because they don't have any money and are not able to work because they're old - as well as the disabled. Representative Boehner has just announced the answer to Social Security that no one is willing to talk about. And, of course, Representative Boehner himself could be taking a big political risk by making this comment if the Democrats are to try to use it to exploit him. He needs to find some Democrats that think like he does and all together all for a bill to start to help Social Security. So let me tell you what it is about. Representative Boehner said he favored increasing Social Security retirement till age 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement. Tying the Cost of Living Increases to the Consumer Price Index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them. Asked about funding the war in Afghanistan given this dire view of the government's financial system, he replied, "How could we afford not to. The No.1 responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the security of the American people as difficult as it is and as expensive as it is, we don't have a choice. But we need to look at the American people and explain to them that we are broke." Boehner said, "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you retire, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just need to be honest with the people." Thank you, Representative Boehner for speaking the truth in Washington. The facts of the matter are that if you are supposed to get $20,000 a year in Social Security, and you have $20,000 worth of income somewhere else, they should not pay you Social Security. I'm sorry but this has to become another social welfare program in order to save it.

The reason is, when Social Security was started, there were 7 people paying for every person that was retired. And it's just a transfer of payments; instead of using the money and putting it in money markets like a life-insurance company does, they just keep the money in a federal government and pay out so much and keep the rest. And they have stolen the surpluses time and time again and all we have is a bunch of IOUs from the government. So if you make $20,000 and you're supposed to get $20,000, you shouldn't get anything. If you make $17,000 and you're supposed to get $20,000, I think Social Security should pay you the other $3,000. And because you got to understand something: Social Security was made so that people could retire with some dignity and be able to have some semblance of a life after retirement age. As I said before, there were 7 people working for every person not working when Social Security was formed. It is now down to 2:1, 2 workers for every person drawing. And soon with the baby boomers retiring, it is going to be 1:1 for quite a few years. And so we need to help Social Security. My suggestion to Representative Boehner is to get many Democrats onboard with his plan so that he could submit it.

Thank you, God bless you, and good day.

Anchor: So this is John Boehner and he's going to tell you what he really thanks you should do; which is not retire. And he's going to be very honest about what he wants to spend the money on instead. So you want to see Republican priorities? This is their leader in the House, the No. 1 guy in the House for the Republicans.

John Boehner: Social Security – we're all living a lot longer than anybody ever expected. I think raising the retirement age without affecting anyone who's 20 years or closer to retirement and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken. I think, secondly, instead of using the wage inflator, lets increases in Social Security not be based on the Consumer Price Index. I think it's a more accurate reflection. Over time, it will have a significant impact on the actuarial And, thirdly, I think we need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're broke and that if you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke. I just think we need to be honest.

Anchor: Alright, why are we paying you? Well, because we paid in to the system. You're not doing me a favor; we have all being paying into Social Security our whole lives. It's our money. You see, they make fun of the word 'entitlement'. You know why that word exists? It's because we are entitled to that money because we paid that money. It's just coming back to us. You don't just get to take it. Of course, this is exactly what they want to do: for more tax cuts for the rich and, as he said later in that speech or that interview, I should say, for more wars. He said, "How are we going to pay for Afghanistan war and the Iraq war if we can't get raid Social Security." And what he's not telling you is people have already been raiding Social Security for decades. Do you know – which the mainstream press almost never tells you- that Social Security has a gigantic surplus. They're always talking about, "Oh, it's going broke, going broke." Well, that's not true. It has a gigantic surplus. It's just that they took that surplus and they spent it already. They spent it as part of the regular budget for all these years. And then when you ask the guy on the Deficit Commission, like Alan Simpson, he says, "Well, it's just a bunch of IOUs." So, I mean, if it's an IOU to China or to Japan or to Saudi Arabia, well pay it. But if it's an IOU to the average American who alright paid into it and we already robbed them of their surplus in the Social Security, well that's a sad day for you. John Boehner has got a great idea: let's make you wait and work 5 years more. Eh, it's just five years of your life. What difference does it make to John Boehner or Alan Simpson or any of these other guys.

And let's talk about the consumer price index. What he is saying is that the actuarial tables would be much better, that means they'll pay you less. You understand? So, enjoy. Well, I told you they were going to come after the last piggy bank, which is Social Security. They're coming for your money. You're the suckers at the table. They already funneled trillions to the bankers. You know, (?) goes nuts about callbacks every day, why don't we get some of that money back from those guys, for all the free money we give them? TARP was only 10%. TARP, that gigantic TARP that everybody cried about was only 10% of the money we gave the bankers. Why don't we get that back? Oh, oh, no, no no, we can't, they're bankers, they're absolutely essential, we can't do that. No, we're going to make you work another 5 years and we're going to pay you less at retirement." And you know what, even though you put money into it, John Boehner says,"Why are we paying you? Ha, maybe we won't." That's the Republican philosophy. And you know that there was a time in this country when that was considered crazy. Eisenhower said there are only a couple of Texas oil billionaires who want to get rid of Social Security and they're lunatics. He was a Republican President. Now it's just thrown around like, "Oh, no big deal. Well, of course, obviously we're going to raid Social Security to pay the bankers again." Obviously, right?

In this consumer related video HaroldSays responds to a consumer's question as to why their disability claim was denied. He also share why consumers do not get answers to their questions or solutions for their consumer related issues or concerns from other government agencies or companies.

Harold: Well, greetings YouTube subscribers, followers and friends. Harold Cameron here, chief of helping people and consumer advocate with HaroldSays. I want to answer a question that I get asked a lot. And here's the question: Mr. Harold, why was my Social Security disability application denied? Or: why were my benefits denied? I applied for some type of government benefits, and I was denied. Or: I have a legitimate claim with a company, or an issue, and why didn't I get an appropriate response and get the help that I needed and deserved.

Well, with the issue of Social Security disability, I want to read a copy of a denial letter that was sent to someone who had applied for disability:

"We're writing about your claim for Social Security disability benefits. Based on a review of your health problems, you do not qualify for benefits on this claim. This is because you are not disabled under our rules."

They took into consideration the person's medical information that was provided. Then they state,

"Under the law, the applicant is responsible for furnishing evidence to support the claim. Although you have been requested to furnish additional evidence, you have not done so. Therefore, determination has been made, based on the evidence on file. The evidence does not show that you are disabled."

And then the individual stated why they thought they were disabled and unable to work; they listed the medical conditions.

"The medical evidence was insufficient to fully evaluate the severity of your combined conditions. We requested additional information from you, which you did not provide. A decision was made, based on the information available to us, which found your condition to be not disabling. If your condition gets worse and keeps you from working, write, call or visit any Social Security office about filing another application".

Here's the condition and terms for getting Social Security disability, SSI, which is a needs-based program, or SSDI, which is Social Security Disability based on what you paid in. You must be legally disabled, and disabled according to their policies and to what they determine and have established are terms of disability. And they have guidelines that they follow. So you must be disabled, you need doctors, evidence, written evidence, doctor's statements, as well as medical data, medical information to corroborate your claim that you are disabled, okay? That you are unable to work, that your condition will last for one year or longer, or that your condition will result in your death.

So you need...

1. medical information, medical validation.
2. you need to be able to prove that your disability will last for a year or longer.
3. that it will result in your death if not just being a disabling condition, but it's a terminal condition.
4. as a result of your disability, you cannot work.

You need to provide all necessary documentation. They will send you forms, as many government agencies do. Complete all those forms in a proper and timely manner, and return them.

But what if you don't understand some of the questions? Ask for help; call and politely ask someone. If you have a caseworker or an adjuster, someone you're working with, call them and ask them for help. You should get the help you need. Be polite, be corteous.

If you find that you're not getting the help you need, the answers that you need, then politely ask to speak with a supervisor. But don’t hower and don't be mean and nasty to these people that work in these government agencies, these are dedicated civil servants. Some people have said to me, "Well, they get paid to do that, that's their job." Their job is to serve you as a citizen or as a consumer. But their job is not to be abused or to be maligned, or howled at or screamed at or sworn at by you as a consumer or citizen. You may be mad or frustrated, and that's understandable. But remember, you get back what you put out. If you're mean and nasty and negative, that's what you're probably going to get back. So be polite, corteous and positive, get people's names, get their information, and make sure that you complete all the required paperwork and you go through all the processes required to get whatever it is you're looking for, whatever issue resolved your disability claim determined and settled.

You know, whether you're working with the IRS, the SEC, the FTC, you know, any government agency, cash-assistance officers, make sure that you do what you're asked to do within the time frame that you're asked to do it in. And if you cannot, or if you don't understand what you're being asked to do, then ask for help.

Now, if you're denied, appeal. Go through the proper appeal process; whether it's asking for a review or reconsideration or appealing. But always get the names and information of the people you're speaking with. And when you get positive results, you get help from that person, that dedicated civil servant in a government agency or a company, write, fax or email a letter appraised to them and to their superiors, to their manager, boss, as well as to the president or CEO of the company or the director of the agency.

Listen, you were really assertive and aggressive in going after your claim to get what you thought you were entitled to. I mean you called, you faxed, you wrote, you did it all. Well, if you get the help and you're treated politely, professionally, and courteously, then you should be as aggressive in letting people know how well you were treated.

If you have any questions or concerns or issue with a government agency or a company, and you don't know where to turn, you don't know what to do, you need help, Google search me at HaroldSays and you'll see all about me on Google. Or email me at harold at haroldsays.com, or go to my blog at www.haroldsays.typepad.com. Reach out to me and I'll respond to you and help you. And if you have a legitimate claim, a legitimate issue or concern with a government agency or a company or corporation, I will help you. We'll work together till we get the appropriate resolution.

I'm here to help you; I love you. I want you to be successful. So if you are entitled to any kind of government benefits or any kind of help from a company, and your complaint is justified and you're not getting where you want to get to and the results you desire, reach out to me and I'll help you. I don't charge, I don't ask consumers for anything, I don't rent, trade or sale or give out any private information. All information you give me is only used to the purpose to which you've given me approval to use it. And that's it.

So, reach out to me, I'll be delighted to help you if I can. Three things I want you to know in closing. 1) God is love. 2) Love always wins, and 3) I love and care about you.

Alright, I look forward to hearing from you, and I hope you're having a great day today.

44 million Americans are carrying in their wallet or purse something that makes them more vulnerable to identity theft: their Medicare card. Apart from the Social Security card itself, the Medicare card is the most frequently issued government document containing a person's Social Security number and displaying such information on Medicare cards unnecessarily places millions of individuals at-risk for identity theft.

In 2008, the House of Representatives passed without objection Rep. Lloyd Doggett's bill, the Medicare Identity Theft Prevention Act, which requires Medicare to take steps that private companies and other government agencies have already taken to protect the identities of seniors by removing the display of Social Security numbers on Medicare cards. Unfortunately, this important step to protect America's seniors has not been taken.

Steve Pearce: We absolutely must protect Social Security. Now we've known for about 40 years that the problems were coming. Both parties spent the money out of the lock box, there's no money in it. We've had surpluses for all that time. The problem with Social Security is that it began with 17 workers working for every single retiree. That number has decreased down today to where it's under 5. It's probably about 2.5 workers for every single retiree. So the question comes back to my original statement, that almost every solution that you look for today requires growing the economy and creating jobs. Nothing else will work. You cannot raise taxes high enough when you have 1 worker for 1 retiree, and that's where we're headed to. You can't raise taxes high enough on one person to pay for a retiree. We absolutely need to get our workforce going back out there. So it's essential that we create that investment in our future. Now that again only comes from cutting taxes. You cannot stimulate - the reason that stimulation doesn't work. If you look at the Rio Grande of a river and say that there is not enough water in the river, you go and you take a bucket and you pick it up and you go downstream and you pour the water back in. You know that that does not create more water in the river. But that's what we're doing in stimulation funding. We're taking taxes away from people, putting them in a bucket, and then we're pouring the bucket out. That's the reason the stimulus doesn't work. Job creation will fix Social Security. You can't tax them, you can't cut benefits enough. We were supposed to run out of money in 2018, we've known that for 40 years. We actually ran out last year, so we're 9 years ahead of schedule. The problem is laughing us in the face, there is one cure, and that is create jobs and grow the economy.

Certified Financial Planner (CPF) Alan Leitson talks about the history of Social Security and Pension Plans.

On Social Security

"Alan Leitson, certified financial planner, helping you by putting the odds in your favor.

Social Security is a program that was developed originally for people to receive some sort of payout when they stop working. And when our great grandparents and grandparents and some of these folks initially started with the program - this sounds sort of ghoulish - but when they started in the program, generally speaking, work was tough, it was a lot more physical and the benefits for Social Security typically started at age 65.

(continued below)

(continued)

Life expectancies were not going to go much beyond that. Now, I don't want to say you work, you work, you work and then one day you die and hopefully you've gained some benefit. But in theory, average life expectancies might have been in the range of 75 years old when the programs were first running. So, again, no problem. In a 10 year payout you'd receive the benefits of getting a check when you weren’t working. And in theory you contributed to make all this work during the working years that you did.

Now, Social Security has gotten a lot more complicated in the subsequent years. There are a lot of benefits and programs that have been built on to Social Security. One very, very important program is Medicare. And Medicare is part of your paycheck too. If you ever look at it, there is a section that goes out for Medicare. And what it is for is healthcare after you're 65. In addition to the government realizing that they needed a program that had some income coming in to people once they stopped working, there was also the feeling in roughly 1964-1965, in the mid 1960s, they came up with the idea that in addition to Social Security, they needed this healthcare coverage. That is a quick definition of Medicare. So there is a program in pace for where you receive healthcare that's covered, not just sending you, per se, a check, but when you go to a doctor after you're 65, in a sense, it's a government provided program. So that's Social Security and Medicare in a very, very short picture."

Understanding Pension Plans

"Alan Leitson, certified financial planner, helping you by putting the odds in your favor. You know, today I'm talking about pensions. Pensions are an amazing thing. They were come up with the same concept as Social Security way back when in the industrial era, back in the 1930s and 1940s, it was recognized that if people stopped working they still needed to receive some sort of income. So pensions were developed as a way for the average person. Companies would, if you worked for the employer, they would put money aside each year, and it would be set up in your account, one specifically designated for you. And it would be there and it would grow over time and it would pay you a certain amount.

The great thing about pensions, in addition to the fact that they just pay you money when you are not working and retired, is that most of them were called traditional pension plans, and basically all the risk was on the plan. It's not like investing in the stock market or doing other things. It was going to pay you a set amount when you retired; no risk. And this was what you were going to get paid.

Well, in fact, they worked exactly like they were supposed to. Many people in large corporations through the many 50 years looking back, and through public sectors such as school teachers and public employees, they get pensions; a set amount every month when they've stopped working.

Well, the problem is that - I say problem because somewhere in the realm of 40% of the people in America receive some type of pension benefit. They get a check every month while they're not working, relatively no risk in that process, and it's great they have these well protected benefits."

What's the problem? Well, it's back to the bucket example. The pensions that were projected, even though you have a specific account for you, if they didn't put in enough money to pay that and it ran short, that could be one issue. Now in most cases pensions were properly funded and they will pay out. But somewhere along the way in the 1990s and in the 2000s pensions became very expensive because of funding and other issues. And private companies quietly, and for various reasons, maybe good business reasons, discontinued them.

What does that mean to you? Well, if they discontinued them, you may not have that out there, you are not going to have the benefit that, say, 40% of people have today who are retired. So when you get to be 60 or 65 and you want to retire, if you don't have this predictable income stream coming to you, what does that mean for you today? It means that you need to save more and more diligently, because if you can't count on that item that was a benefit to your grandparents and parents, then you're going to have to basically create your own pension.