Social Security is a pyramid scheme in which the government takes money from people currently working to pay off their promises to retirees. When the system was set up, the average lifespan was lower than the retirement age, so it seemed a safe bet that most people wouldn't collect for long, if at all. Times change, however. People are living longer than they used to, and like all pyramid schemes, the system is going to break down. It's only a matter of time.

Within the next decade or so, the Social Security program will begin paying out more money than it takes in. Even the Obstructo-crats in the Democratic party agree on this -- you can't hide from mathematics. From that point forward, the government will be forced to reduce benefits, raise taxes, and borrow money in order to make up the shortfall, which will continue to grow every year. Some forty to fifty years after that, the system will be entirely bankrupt if left alone. Sixty years is not that long a time -- if you have a baby this year, Social Security will be dead just about the time he or she begins to draw benefits. Now, the idea of raising taxes on working people to pay out on promises made to a growing group of retirees is just fine with Democrats. It will guarantee an ever-expanding pool of citizens dependent on the government for sustenance. Such a voting block can always be counted on to vote for the party that promises to raise taxes even further and pass the money on to them.

The problem is that the higher taxes are raised, the less money working people have left over to put into the economy, and the less money businesses have with which to expand and hire more workers. The only industry that benefits from higher taxes is government bureaucracy, already bloated to the point of immobility.

Many Democrats certainly said that they wanted to fix Social Security in the past. Yet when they were in power, they did absolutely nothing about it but talk. In 1998, President Clinton said when submitting his 1999 budget, "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system." Unfortunately, no such action was taken. Clinton also said, "You can see that in 1960, which wasn't so long ago, there were over five people working for every person drawing Social Security. In 1997, last year, there were over three people -- 3.3 people -- working for every person drawing. But by 2030, because of the increasing average age, if present birthrates and immigration rates and retirement rates continue, there will be only two people working for every person drawing Social Security." So what has changed between 1998 and 2005? Only the party affiliation of the President.

President Bush recently held a prime-time press conference to discuss Social Security. Echoing the same argument Clinton made, Bush said, "In 1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. Soon there will be two workers for every beneficiary." He even proposed an idea that should be dear to the hearts of Democrats -- making the payout system progressive, in which "benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." Perhaps most telling, Bush said, "I'm willing to listen to any good idea from either party." The problem is that no good ideas are forthcoming, from either party -- not even any bad ones. Just a lot of complaints about "fearmongering" from the exact same people who warned of the exact same crisis only a few years ago. Does that make sense to you?

The longer we wait to do something about Social Security, the more expensive it will be. The effects will hit the retirees dependent on it harder, and aggressive tax hikes on the workers will hurt more. That may not bother the politicians, who are exempt from the Social Security system, but anyone who pays taxes or expects to collect Social Security should want a little preventive maintenance at the very least.