There was much ballyhoo yesterday when Ron Paul, towards the end of what was largely an excellent interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", admitted that he takes a Social Security check every month despite the fact that he feels the program is unconstitutional.  The question was asked by The Huffington Post political reporter Sam Stein, a guest panelist on the show.  Stein quickly ran over to his Mac Mini and published a short piece entitled "Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitutional".  The horror! The implication, of course, is that Ron Paul is a hypocrite, wagging his finger at government spending with one hand while gladly taking a check from that very same government with the other.On the surface, this certainly may appear to be hypocritical.  But this idea portrays both a misunderstanding of Paul's position on Social Security as well as the Social Security program itself.There is a big myth out there that, since Ron Paul finds programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid unconstitutional, that his plan is to slash those programs entirely and throw everyone relying on those programs out on the street.  The truth couldn't be more opposite.  While Paul is opposed to Social Security and other government programs not specifically allowed by the Constitution, his "Plan to Restore America" includes no cuts to Social Security or Medicare whatsoever.  In fact, Paul's plan is the only one that cuts enough from other areas in order to ensure that those programs are solvent.  While opposed to the programs, he understands that people paid into them their whole lives and now rely on them at an age where many would have no other source of income if suddenly cut off from them.  Instead, Paul calls for massive cuts to overseas military spending and government departments whose primary function is to hand out taxpayer money to corporations.The fact is, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme by definition in that it is a "fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors".  Social Security has long been bankrupt, as the government spent Social Security money over the years and replaced the "funds" that were supposed to be saved for retirees with government bonds.  How does it buy back those bonds in order to pay current retirees? By using tax revenue generated by current workers.  The fact is that Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate (yes, he is still a candidate) with a plan to balance the budget in three years, all while not cutting a dime from people who currently rely on the program.  One would think Ron Paul would be a hero to those that champion these programs.It is true that Ron Paul would like to let young people opt of Social Security and Medicare and allow them to - *gasp* - actually make their own decisions on what to do with their retirement money. They could use it to open IRA's, to buy gold, or if they were totally crazy, they could even choose to buy government bonds just like the government now does with their social security money!  The point being, Ron Paul isn't asking anyone that has paid in to the program to not get what they have been forced to pay in.Whether a display of modesty or simply not being prepared for the "gotcha" question, Paul failed to mention the fact that he refuses to participate in the very lucrative Congressional pension plan or the Congressional health care plan.  These are clearly cases where taxpayer money is taken from the people and doled out to Congressmen. This is pure welfare for the rich.  Social Security on the other hand, is something that Ron Paul was forced to pay into his entire working life, just like everyone else.This is like saying that, because I am opposed to federal income taxes, that I shouldn't apply for or accept my tax return every year.  I am opposed to these taxes yet I comply because I am forced, through threat of violence, to pay them.  In no way does that mean it is illegitimate for me to decry these taxes in the first place or to accept whatever amount of them I am able to get back from the government.  I pay my accountant to make sure I get as much back as possible, and on top of that my accountant pays taxes on the money I pay him! Am I wrong for going along with the system? Is my accountant? Or should we put the blame where it rightfully lay, with the fraudulent coercive tax system?Let's suppose you are walking along the street and get mugged at knife point. You give the mugger all of your money. Every last dime, because you'd rather lose all of your money rather than have a knife shoved into your gut.  You then take to your blog and decry the actions of the mugger.  You organize a neighborhood watch and attempt to stop this activity from happening in the future.  And then, one day, you receive a letter in the mail. It is from the mugger! It turns out he didn't need all of your money, and for whatever reason, decided to send you a check for the remainder.  I think we would all agree that it is perfectly moral and reasonable for you to accept the check from the mugger, while at the same time continuing to decry the mugger's actions and work to prevent future mugging in the neighborhood.It's legitimate to question Ron Paul's positions on Social Security and other government programs.  One may think his ideas of reducing government and not spending more than we take in are completely insane and wacky.  Fair enough.  But hypocritical? Me thinks not.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!