LATEST TOTALIZATION AGREEMENT THREATENS SOCIAL SECURITY

By Diane M. Grassi

One need not be an expert in fiscal spending nor have access to the inner circle of Capitol Hill to know that Social Security needs a boost in funding in order to sustain itself for more than the next two decades.
As President Bush has traveled throughout the country for over two months now, citing his plan to privatize Social Security, few of us have been informed about a misguided agreement signed between the United States and Mexico which potentially threatens Social Security’s long-term health.

On June 29, 2004 the Commissioner of Social Security and the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute signed a totalization agreement which would allow Mexican citizens working illegally in the United States to earn Social Security coverage credits. The execution of the agreement represented the first step towards its approval process in becoming legislation. It was then sent to the White House and the State Department for review. Ultimately President Bush decides whether or not to send it to the Congress for approval. The Congress then has 60 days in which either the House of Representatives or the Senate must write legislation to then approve or disapprove of the agreement.

At this juncture preliminary legislation has already been proposed by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and by Rep. Virgil Goode, Jr. (R-VA) in order to prevent the fruition of such legislation. Both of their proposals are currently in committee as Hayworth’s bill, H.R. 20, was submitted to the House Committee on Ways and Means on 1/04/05 and to the House Subcommittee on Social Security on 1/25/05. Likewise, Goode’s bill, H.R. 50, was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means on 2/09/05 and to the House Subcommittee on Social Security on 2/17/05.

Both Congressmen presently continue to rouse up support of their proposed legislation on Capitol Hill in order to be ready for when and if the White House submits the U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement to Congress for approval. They as well as anti-illegal immigration advocate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are gearing up for this all-important fight.

Rep. Hayworth sees the totalization agreement as an issue which regards the solvency of the Social Security fund as opposed to an issue of illegal immigration. But logic dictates that it would not be a Social Security issue if the U.S. did not have an illegal immigration crisis. Hayworth claims that under the agreement Mexican beneficiaries will have access to billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund. In addition many millions more could be grandfathered into the Social Security system should Congress enact the president’s guest-worker program.

In a report by the Government Accountability Office in September 2003 concerning the solvency of the Social Security trust fund, the figures at that time did not directly consider the estimated millions of unauthorized workers in the U.S. With the new totalization agreement, unauthorized illegal immigrants could qualify for Social Security benefits with as few as 6 coverage credits as opposed to the previously required 40, combined with earnings from Mexico. Additionally the illegal worker could qualify for partial benefits after only 18 months while the American worker would still have to work 10 years in order to vest. And further to benefits being paid out to just the worker, family members of Mexican workers would be entitled to benefits as dependents and survivors, even if not residing in the U.S.

The primary argument against the totalization agreement is that it rewards illegal acts and helps to bail out the economy of Mexico while shunning the American people. At such a time when Capitol Hill holds daily debates about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to drain up to $345 billion dollars from it over the next two decades, by rewarding illegal aliens and their families with such benefits. While U.S. citizens have contributed toward the Social Security system their entire working lives they have now been told by the president not to depend on it as a source of income when they reach retirement age if they are presently under the age of 50.

According to Rep. Tancredo, unlike the 20 other totalization agreements the U.S. has with other foreign countries mostly in Europe, the agreement with Mexico is not reciprocal with the primary burden on the U.S. Both Hayworth’s and Goode’s resolutions wrest their disapproval of the totalization agreement on the fact that the Social Security Administration simply avoided relevant figures and projections of the illegal Mexican population currently residing in the U.S., in addition to the continual arrival of thousands of illegal aliens crossing our southern border daily, when evaluating its fiscal health.

Had we not been bombarded by the powers-that-be in Washington on a daily basis with talk about retro-fitting and privatizing Social Security, since before the 2004 presidential election, many of us would have even less information about what is taking place behind the scenes. But the impact of illegal immigration is now being felt by the average American as it presently impacts many areas of the quality of life in the U.S. So it is astounding that our lawmakers, with the exception of a very few, as well as the White House believe they can just pass this legislation without retribution from their constituents.

The obligation of our elected representatives and the president is to protect the interests of the American people. Yet we as the electorate cannot support proposed plans to redefine Social Security as we know it with only partial information. And likewise, the White House and the Congress in good conscience should not approve of nor vote on legislation on behalf of the American people with half-baked information that merely sounds good, only to find out later that the law is flawed. And while a majority of the voting public has identified the big disconnect between Washington and the American people our obligation is keep informed as much as possible and remain strident in defending our rights as Americans. We must make it clear that America is not for sale; not to foreign countries and not to our sell-out lawmakers.