Some interesting facts/links onthe FDR addon accts(Title 7)that GOP killed

A now almost-forgotten part of the Economic Security Act, Title V, proposed voluntary old-age annuities to supplement compulsory old-age insurance. All workers, including those excluded from the compulsory system, would have been allowed to make periodic voluntary deposits—in effect, loans—to the old-age fund. Workers who participated would hold certificates representing amounts they had deposited. At 65, workers would trade in their certificates for annuities, paying up to a maximum of $100 per annuitant per month, based on their total deposits plus interest. Title V would have helped workers save for retirement, and would have helped the government raise revenue for the payment of old-age benefits.<70>It turned out that the key to keeping old-age insurance in the bill was the sacrifice of Title V—the proposal to allow workers to voluntarily purchase certificates and trade them in later for supplemental retirement annuities. Not surprisingly, the politically powerful insurance industry had furiously opposed Title V because it would have put the U.S. government in direct competition with insurance companies in the sale of annuities. It turned out to be the leverage that the leaders of Ways and Means used to persuade their recalcitrant colleagues. In exchange for votes in favor of old-age insurance, the committee leaders agreed to drop Title V from the bill.<91> In retrospect, they struck a good deal. The voluntary-annuities provision was neither social insurance nor public assistance, and it was likely to be objectionable to the Supreme Court.

FDR believed, and time has proven him correct, that workers who contributed to a social insurance program—one that utilized no general revenues—established a moral right to their future benefits; a right that future Congresses would be reluctant to tamper with.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Message to Congress Reviewing the Broad Objectives and Accomplishments of the Administration,” FDR’s Statements on Social Security, 8 June 1934, <http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts> (13 February 2002), 4.
is a . And all their assumptions follow from this. The Progressive frame for Social Security by contrast begins with this metaphor: is a . From there I introduced a second level metaphor: is a . This in turn provided the broad logic inside of which I could generate all the individual statements about how Social Security worked, how it helped the country, seniors, young people, and so forth.

The famous speech that Brit Hume lied about as to content - and indeed called it a letter - is here:
http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1935b.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#signing

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#message2

Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Fireside Chat,” FDR’s Statements on Social Security, 28 June 1934, <http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#fireside1>(13 February 2002), 7.

Committee on Economic Security, “Old-Age Security Staff Report,” January 1935, <http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/ces/ces2armstaff.html> (5 February 2002), 1-36.

Thomas H. Eliot, “The Social Security Bill: 25 Years After,” 1960, <http://www.ssa.gov/history/tomeliotart.html> (19 March 2002), 2.

Social Security Administration, Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian’s Office: Townsend Plan’s Pension Scheme, December 2001 <http://www.ssa.gov/history/townsendproblems.html> (28 January 2002), 1.

Among the scoffers was Edwin Witte, executive director of the CES. Witte called the plan impossible. “Why the Townsend Old Age Revolving Pension is Impossible,” (Unpublished studies of the Committee on Economic Security), 1935, <http://www.ssa.gov/history/ces/ces2witte6.html> (5 February 2002), 1.

Opposition to the Clark Amendment was rooted in the fundamental differences between pensions and social insurance programs. For a complete set of the arguments against the Clark Amendment, see Social Security Administration, Research & Special Studies by the Historian’s Office: The Clark Amendment to the 1935 Social Security Act, August 2001, <http://www.ssa.gov/history/clarkamend.html> (29 March 2002), 1-4.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), <http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html> (16 April 2002), 3-5. Justice Cardozo cited the Court’s opinion in Steward Machine v. Davis, which he had also written, as a precedent. The full text of the decision in Steward Machine v. Davis is at <http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme2.html>. See also Altmeyer, 56. Later, after Congress increased pensions for retired Supreme Court justices, and several retired, Roosevelt appointed more liberal justices and abandoned his court-packing proposal. Kennedy, 325-336.

Social Security Administration, Research & Special Studies by the Historian’s Office: Details of Ida May Fuller’s Payroll Tax Contributions, n.d., <http://www.ssa.gov/history/idapayroll.html> (19 March 2002).