The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1475797
The Press-Dispatch Wednesday, August 10, 2022 D-5 Court Report Do my Canadian earnings count toward SS The point of no return Social Security Matters By Rusty Gloor Guest Column By Thomas Sowell CRIMINAL DOCKET Pike Circuit Court Lawrence Curtis Dent charged with domestic batter y by means of a deadly weapon, a level 5 felony and domestic batter y with bodily injur y person under 14, a level 5 felony. Willia J. Freeman charged with caus- ing serious bodily injur y when operat- ing a motor vehicle with an ACE of 0.08 percent more, level 5 felony; operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a class A misdemeanor and reck- less driving causes bodily injur y, a class A misdemeanor. Shayna M. Eck charged with residen- tial entr y break and enter dwelling, a lev- el 6 felony. INFRACTIONS Pike Circuit Court Cor y M. McDowell charged with speeding in a 30 zone.. Owen B. Edwards charged with speed- ing in a 55 zone. Yeni A. Hernandez charged with speeding in a 30 zone. Kimberlyl S. Mosby charged with speeding in a 55 zone. Pierre Guillet charged with violation of federal motor carrier safety regulation. Kennedy Cordell Har vey charged with driving while suspended. Alvaro Sierra Pino charged with failure to obey signs and markings while driv- ing. Clayton W. Tankersley charged with speeding in a 55 zone. Tyler J. Tuttle charged with seat belt violation. Katie D. Wood charged with expired plates. Jajuan M. Archat charged with speed- ing in a 70 zone. Michelle L. Carrie charged with speed- ing in a 55 zone. Pedro Luis Arias-Martinez charged with no valid drivers license. Haley L. Rueter charged with speeding in a 70 zone. Marius N. Wilson charged with speed- ing in a 70 zone. CIVIL DOCKET Pike Circuit Court Roger Conder sues Indianpolis Pow- er and Light Company dba AES Indiana with civil tort. Specialized Loan Ser vicing LLC sues Jathan Kinman, Neil A. Kinman and Tra- cial L. Kinman et al for mortgage foreclo- sure. Joseph A. Dickson sues Joe Biddle, Carrie and Brad Smith, Joanna McAtee et al for civil plenar y. In re: the marriage of Marcia Dixey and John Dixey. TRAFFIC AND MISDEMEANOR Pike Circuit Court Ronald Jean charged with operating a vehicle without ever receiving a license, a class C misdemeanor. Dear Rusty: I am a 62 year old Canadi- an holding a green card and I have lived in the US for nearly twenty-three years. For 19 years prior I contributed to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) which is the equivalent of US Social Security. I am contemplating retirement in the US and have been told that I can draw my old age pension from either the US, or from Can- ada, but I cannot draw from both. My 19 years of contributions to the Ca- nadian Pension Plan are not accounted for in the calculation of my U.S. SS ben- efits. Conversations with the U.S. Social Security office suggested that my contri- butions to the CPP would "probably" be applied to my U.S. pension upon applica- tion for benefits. However, the individual I spoke with was not sure how that would work. Do you know the process for hav- ing my Canadian earnings transferred to my U.S. SS account and how I might find out what my combined benefits will be? Signed: Retiring Canadian. Dear Retiring Canadian: Allow me to clarify how things work under the bi-lat- eral agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Although you worked and con- tributed to CPP while living in Canada, your earnings in Canada do not count when computing your U.S. Social Secu- rity benefits (nor do your U.S. earnings contribute to your CPP benefit entitle- ment). Although the bi-lateral US/Can- ada agreement permits earnings credits from both countries to be combined to gain eligibility for benefits, computation of benefit amounts in each countr y uses only dollars earned in-countr y. Thus, your U.S. entitlement is based only on your U.S. earnings. Because of your years contributing to the Ca- nadian program, you are also eligible to sepa- rately collect a CPP pen- sion, and you can apply for your CPP pension through your local U.S. Social Security office by submitting SSA form CDN-USA1. Your local SS office can pro- vide the correct form and needed guid- ance to apply for your CPP benefits. You should be aware, however, that collecting your CPP pension will impact the amount of your U.S. benefit because of a U.S. regulation known as the Wind- fall Elimination Provision (WEP). WEP reduces the U.S. Social Security benefit for anyone who has a pension earned separately without contributing to Social Security (that includes some U.S. state and local government employees, as well as those who have a pension from anoth- er countr y). Your U.S. benefit will be computed us- ing a special WEP formula which consid- ers the number of years you contributed to the U.S. program from "substantial earnings." Assuming you have 23 years of substantial U.S. earnings from which you contributed to the U.S. SS program, your U.S. benefit will be reduced by ap- proximately 35 percent. Your CPP pen- sion will cause WEP to apply, which will reduce your U.S. pension, but it cannot reduce it by more than 50 percent of your CPP benefit amount. FYI, WEP and international benefits are complex topics, and it's not especially unusu- al that SS representatives you first encounter (e.g., on the phone) aren't fully versed in how those benefits work. You may want to make an appoint- ment to apply for your CPP benefits in person at your local Social Security office and at the same time obtain more specific information on how WEP will affect your U.S. Social Security benefits. That may require speaking with a senior person who is well versed in WEP and interna- tional pensions. Finally, be aware that at age 62 your U.S. benefit will be further reduced be- cause you haven't yet reached your full retirement age (which is 66 years and 10 months). Be aware, too, that until you reach your full retirement age, you'll be subject to Social Security's earnings test, which limits how much you can earn be- fore some benefits are taken away. To submit a question, visit website (amacfoundation.or g/pr ograms/so- cial-security-advisor y) or email ssadvi- sor@amacfoundation.org. This is an election year. But the issues this year are not about Democrats and Republicans. The big issue is whether this nation has degenerated to a point of no return -- a point where we risk de- stroying ourselves, before our enemies can destroy us. If there is one moment that symbol- ized our degeneration, it was when an enraged mob gathered in front of the Supreme Court and a leader of the Unit- ed States Senate shouted threats against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying "You won't know what hit you!" There have always been irresponsible demagogues. But there was once a time when anyone who shouted threats to a Supreme Court Justice would see the end of his own political career, and could not show his face in decent society again. You either believe in laws or you believe in mob rule. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the law or agree with the mob on some particular issue. If threats of violence against judges -- and publishing where a judge's children go to school -- is the way to settle issues, then there is not much point in having elections or laws. There is also not much point in expecting to have freedom. Threats and violence were the way the Nazis came to power in Germany. Free- dom is not free. If you can't be bothered to vote against storm-trooper tactics -- re- gardless of who engages in them, or over what issue -- then you can forfeit your freedom. Worse yet, you can forfeit the freedom of generations not yet born. Some people seem to think that the Supreme Court has banned abortions. It has done nothing of the sort. The Su- preme Court has in fact done something ver y different, something long overdue and potentially historic. It has said that their own court had no business making policy decisions which nothing in the Con- stitution gave them the authority to make. Get out a copy of the Constitution -- and see if you can find anything in there that says the federal government is authorized to make laws about abor- tion. Check out the 10th Amendment, which says that the federal government is limited to the specific powers it was granted, with all other powers going to the states or to the people. Why do we elect legislators to do what the voters want done, if unelected judges are going to make up laws on their own, instead of applying the laws that elected officials passed? This is part of a ver y long struggle that has been going on for more than 100 years. Back in the early 20th centur y, Pro- gressives like President Woodrow Wil- son decided that the Constitution put too many limits on the powers they wanted to use. Claiming that it was nearly impos- sible to amend the Constitution, Progres- sives advocated that judges "interpret" the Constitutional limits out of the way. This was just the first in a long series of sophistries. In reality, the Constitution was amended four times in eight years -- from 1913 through 1920 -- during the heyday of the Progressive era. When the people wanted the Constitution amended, it was amended. When the elites wanted the Constitution amended, but the people did not, that is called democra- cy. Another great sophistr y was using the federal govern- ment's authority to regulate interstate commerce to call all sorts of other things interstate commerce. In 1995, elites were shocked when the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4,- that carr ying a gun near a school was not in- terstate commerce. States had a right to ban carr ying a gun near a school, and most of them did. But the federal government had no such authority. Nor did the Constitution give the federal government the right to make laws about abortion, one way or the oth- er. What both state and federal laws do have the right to stop is threats against judges and their families. This is not a partisan issue. The Republican governor of Virginia is providing protection to Supreme Court Justices who live in that state. But the Republican governor of Mar yland seems to think that harassing judges and their families is no big deal. Voters need to find out who is for or against mob rule, whether they are Dem- ocrats or Republicans. We are not going to be a free or decent society other wise. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www. tsowell.com. SECOND Continued from page 4 INFLATION Continued from page 4 firearms in public for self-de- fense. But, as many commen- tators long suspected, the high court's ruling does not immediately endanger the public carr y permitting laws required by other states, nor does it signal that all states must adopt a permitless car- r y approach. Second, the court's clear rejection of intermediate scrutiny and use of a "text, histor y, and tradition" stan- dard for analyzing Second Amendment cases sets a much-needed limit on low- er courts' future ability to undermine Supreme Court precedent with "means-end" and "interest-balancing" tests. Lower courts now have a much clearer road map for analysis, which means they will have less "wiggle room" to find any and ever y gun control law constitutional—a significant problem over the past decade. Third, as Justice Samuel Alito suggests in his con- curring opinion, residents in these six "good cause" states will finally be able to defend themselves more meaning- fully in public when the gov- ernment cannot—which is, sadly, most of the time. The Second Amendment always has been centered on the natural right to self-de- fense, and, Alito added: "To- day, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be vic- timized if they are unable to protect themselves. And to- day, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guaran- tees their right to do so." For far too long, New York and states with similar laws have implemented a govern- ment monopoly on armed self-defense in public, often while boasting about failed criminal justice policies that routinely place law-abiding citizens in grave danger. Six justices spoke Thursday for the tens of millions of Ameri- cans residing in those states: The right to bear arms ap- plies here, too. ment is big enough and pow- erful enough to demand any arbitrar y price it wants from rent-seeking companies. What it will do, as price fix- ing always does, is undercut innovation and investments, and create supply shortages and higher prices for ordi- nar y consumers. The Inflation Reduction Act features new taxes on natural gas and coal pro- duction. How could a sen- ator from West Virginia ever support a proposal that promises a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030? Achieving it would mean the economic destruc- tion of his state. Though, to be fair, those policies would mean economic destruction of the entire economy. Manchin -- who once said, "I don't think during a time of recession you mess with any of the taxes, or increase any taxes" -- always plays this game, making it difficult for Dems to create the impres- sion of moderation at home, and then basically giving in. And, in the end, nearly ever y reporter is going to allow Democrats to pretend that $430 billion is a pared- down bill, a mighty political sacrifice, because what they really wanted was a $3.5 tril- lion bill. They're going to allow Democrats to pretend that bill lives up to its name, when it does nothing of the sort. The Inflation Reduction Act is to inflation what the Affordable Care Act -- which doubled premium costs -- was to health care insurance. David Harsanyi is a se- nior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syn- dicated columnist and author of five books -- the most recent, "Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent."