Usually the words “scam “or “fraud” are used to identify any unacceptable business practice which are normally subjected to prosecution.
In other words, the law intervenes and proceeds with arrests, followed by charges leading to trials; however these days that seems to happen only to small businesses with limited financial resources, more often than not accused of something they didn’t do; when in reality the charges mainly serve the purpose of eliminating from the market some “competition” which upsets bigger financial interests.
So what happens when the scam is perpetuated by the Federal Government? Anything at all?
Let’s examine the Social Security/Medicare case. Many years ago the law makers decided that adult citizens are not sufficiently competent to plan for their old age needs, so the Government decided to assume such responsibility and directly remove from its citizens’ compensation a certain percentage of their earnings, before the workers even saw their paychecks, and set that money aside for their future welfare, with their best interests in mind of course.
However, after the set aside funds reached such a large amount to blind even some of the most resistant eyes, said capital was diverted to other uses, with the intention of being eventually replaced and multiplied by interest. The reimbursement of the borrowed capital never occurred, and as the major contributors to that fund, the so called baby-boomers, started to retire and claim the benefits earned, the shortages became more and more evident.
As a result, new legislation was proposed to reduce the retirement befits, in order to effectively cover up the illegal appropriations carried out by politicians over the years; all of which of course proves that the Government is not better qualified to protect the interests of its citizens, more so than each concerned individual could have and would have been.
The question is: are we going to let this happen without a fight?
Are we instead going to make our elected officials, past and present, accountable for their misconduct?
I think we should.
Antonella Carpenter, PhD.