If Americans of all ages ever recognize the degree to which they've been conned by the proponents of failed government programs such as Social Security, they will likely respond in a manner reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party. And it is not hard to imagine a few career politicians floating in the harbor alongside of King George's cargo.

Consider the caterwauling from Democrats in response to President Bush's efforts to reform Social Security. Originally promoted as merely a retirement supplement, Franklin Roosevelt's scheme initially involved a miniscule payroll tax. Once implemented however, the road was clear to incrementally grow the program in scope and cost, eventually burdening American workers with a thirteen percent confiscation from every dollar they earn.

Politicians in Washington quickly recognized that intake from taxpayers would, for a time, exceed expenditures. So, in a manner sufficient to earn any Enron executive a trip to the slammer, Congress soon began pillaging the fund, using the money to supplement its insatiable quest for pork. Worse yet, it then covered its actions with a lie of unfathomable proportions.

Ostensibly, such violation of public trust is assuaged by the substitution of IOU's, offered as a 'guarantee' of repayment. Consider the abject absurdity of this concept, and how it exemplifies the unbridled contempt with which these politicians regard the American people.

Not even worth the paper it is written on, any government issued 'IOU' simply concedes the fact that monies were indeed appropriated, and that sooner or later, somebody will be forced to repay them.

Since governments cannot create wealth, and only possess that which can be forcibly extorted from the citizens, those promissory notes hold no monetary value whatsoever. Instead, they are nothing more than confessions of the original theft. If they are to be repaid, it will be by the very same citizenry that was overtaxed to create the surplus in the first place.

Meanwhile, political operatives are having a field day dipping into the coffers, essentially robbing from one citizen in order to purchase the loyalty of another. It is perhaps the biggest deception of the twentieth century to portray Social Security surpluses as anything other than a supplemental income tax, further burdening the citizenry while enabling big—government liberal Democrats from both parties to perpetuate their 'business as usual.'

Thus, the phony outrage among liberals, intent on maintaining the system in its present form, offers proof of their real loyalties. And politicians who piously suggest another tax hike as some sort of corrective action are merely showing themselves to be willing to continue the theft, not only from this generation, but from future generations, until such time that the public wakes up to the sham.

Such underhanded tactics are the lifeblood of liberalism, which on the one hand publicly reviles the evils of capitalism while on the other hand, continually seeks to solidify its access to the lion's share of the fruits. Is it any wonder that liberals vehemently oppose revamping the system into a form that would allow average people some measure of independence, and would eventually force the system to become honest and accountable?

Perhaps the common citizens, particularly those who rely heavily on Social Security for their sustenance, can be forgiven for their anxiety. But those politicians echoing such alarmist rhetoric are either grossly incompetent of the fiscal reality, or shamefully disingenuous and willing to stoke the fears of their constituents in order to keep them in line.

Among the worst collaborators in this ruse is the American Association of Retired Persons, an organization with a fundamental necessity to maintain its symbiotic tie to the governmental status quo. The AARP thrives on the backs of frightened and dependent members, and therefore works to ensure they stay that way.

That is why it cannot sanction any Bush plan, no matter how favorable to future generations, or how thoroughly it protects present recipients from any adverse effects, if such a plan holds even the tiniest possibility of allowing them to disentangle themselves from the debilitating web of dependence on government.

Every pyramid scheme in existence requires the inclusion of a 'bottom tier' of people whose destiny it is to be robbed blind, in order to enrich those above them. Social Security is no different.

In the private sector, such schemes are considered criminal. How much more criminal is it for the government to continually subjugate present and future working Americans by fleecing them in this manner?