(See the bottom of this post for details.)
The Social Security Administration (SSA) took aim at senior citizens who find it more convenient to find an advocate to handle their Social Security payments/obligations, than to sort through the confusing myriad of laws.
SSA (a federal agency) proposed that anyone who authorized an "advocate" to guide their fiduciary rights was obviously "mentally deficient", and therefore should not be "allowed" to possess a firearm, on the grounds that they are among the "Non Compos Mentis": ("
Why the SSA should make this leap of logic is unclear.Or is it?
Their mandate is to insure that workers who have contributed to FICA deductions from their paychecks (involuntary contribution to both Social Security and Medicare) for all of their working rights, should in post-retirement years be entitled to those benefits.
Why would they want to do that? Inquiring Federal Minds want to know, because it's not in their Best Interests
The Answer is: It's The Feds!
One guess is that, since SSA (and Medicare) payments have willy-nilly been entered into a "Slush Fund" status (from which various federal agencies have not been restricted from plundering at will to support other 'social benefits'), the Feds have recently realized that they have inadequate funds to pay the earned social obligations to the Baby Boomers who are now retiring in record numbers.
It stands to reason that the Feds are unwilling to search for the money which has been funded by these programs to repay the original investors.
Unfortunately, The Feds have been "robbing Peter to pay Paul" for so long, that Peter is beginning to wonder how the United States government intends to repay the stolen funds.
All of the Government Programs stem from the same source; the elected members of the U.S. Government, and their method of meeting the fiduciary obligations which they have arbitrarily forced upon us.
We're paying illegal aliens, people who refuse to work, and other neer-do-wells who will re-elect irresponsible politicians to office over and again just so they can be the happy recipients of a mutual admiration society;
"you pay us to vote for you, and in return we will not question how you manage the funds into which nobody expects us to contribute".Now that the Federal Government finds itself in a bind between tax-payers and tax-delinquents, they have some difficult decisions to make.
Shakespeare, in his famous soliloquy from Hamlet wonders:
To be, or not to be, that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,And by opposing end them: to die, to sleepNo more; and by a sleep, to say we endthe heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocksthat Flesh is heir to?Unfortunately, that is a question which the Ruling Democrats have for too long found themselves unwilling to face. They rely on the votes of those-who-get, rather than those-who-give.
That's about to change; we hope!
We Hope that Donald Trump knows more about Finances than Politics.
We Hope that a new administration will pay less attention to the 'needs' of "Those Who Will Not Work", and more intention to those who contribute to the welfare our our Country.
We Hope that Federal Funding will be directed more to creation of lesser-skill-level jobs (yes, computers are undermining our society, and we need to find a way to balance technology and society) or to training entry-level job applicants to a useful service industry\
(like that's going to happen, but hope springs eternal, etc.)
We don't expect that our hopes will be answered, which is probably why we keep electing the same losers to represent us in D.C.
THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST:
NRA and Republicans find unlikely ally on rollback of gun control rule: science | US news | The Guardian:
The Social Security Administration would ultimately receive more than 90,000 comments on its proposed rule for doing this – meaning that more people wrote in to protest against the measure than the number of people who would ultimately be affected. Supporters of the Obama rule said it focused on a relatively narrow group of extremely impaired people. “This rule only impacts people who have been determined to be so severely disabled through a mental disorder that they can do no sort of gainful activity. They can’t hold a job even part time. Their mental disability is so severe that the Social Security Administration has determined that funds cannot be paid directly to them,” said Lindsay Nichols, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.