Will you choose freedom?

Imagine an I.V. going from one arm to the other, with some blood spilling out in between, and you have the basics of Social Security. Essentially, you pay taxes your entire life to the government in hopes that at the end of your career the government will give it back to you (or transfer blood from one arm to another). Unfortunately, as the government holds on to this massive amount of cash, we actually lose out on money because of inflation and missed opportunities to invest (blood spillage in between).\nI've often wondered about the motive behind creating such a program, or keeping it going long after its existence. Do politicians think we're too ignorant to handle hard-earned money ourselves? Or are government bureaucrats greedy for more power over our lives? Either way, the logic seems flawed to me. Hillary Clinton and President Bush don't know when I need my money most. Besides, history and economics shows us the government has a knack for being inefficient with funds.\nIn fact, Social Security is a model for inefficient agencies. By 2015, Social Security is projected to pay out more money than it brings in, and by 2037 it will be completely bankrupt. Perhaps, from the parable mentioned before, there isn't just some spillage as the blood travels from arm to the other. It seems more like blood isn't reaching the other arm at all. The government is, in effect, robbing us of retirement money instead of ensuring it.\nIn steps the president's bipartisan commission on Social Security. It aims to make the program solvent for future generations such as ours. Their general plan is almost as old as time: Let people invest some of their money on their own. It seems simple enough doesn't it? The stock and bond market can yield over 10 percent returns. Even a simple savings account would yield much greater returns than the current system does.\nIf someone didn't trust the market, or their local bank, then they could choose to let the government continue wasting it. The beauty of the plan is that we -- the ones who earned it -- get to decide. Moreover, people can use the interest to buy more goods, increase productivity, or give it to charity.\nLuckily this proposal has received support from some Democrats. Bush even balanced the Social Security commission with both Democrats and Republicans. Here's a sampling of the commission's wide-ranging members: Richard Parson, chief operating officer of AOL Time Warner; Robert Johnson, chairman and CEO of Black Entertainment Television; and former liberal New York Senator Patrick Moynihan.\nNot to be outdone, the socialist/communist wing of the Democratic party (a frighteningly large portion) proposed last Tuesday to "let the government take the risk" and invest the money for you. This is a clever way of sounding like they're taking the burden off you, but it really means, "let the government politicians control your money and redistribute wealth."\nFor anyone that needs proof of a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, they need only to look at the current debate surrounding Social Security. It serves as a microcosm of the political landscape and offers a glimpse into the true dichotomy between the two major parties.\nRepublicans believe in a small, limited government. Democrats believe in a larger (and hence, more inefficient) one. Republicans believe the best way to keep government size in check is to limit its food: tax dollars. Besides, they say, letting workers keep their own money just happens to work best economically.\nDemocratic politicians believe they know best how money should be allocated. Republicans believe the free market, which has proven the test of time, can best allocate goods and services. They believe charity should not be forced, but should come from within.\nThe never-ending grab at Social Security dollars reflects the larger political debate. Some readers will argue that I characterize the Democratic party as more socialist than it really is. But forcefully taking a large portion of someone's wealth, claiming you know best how to use it, and irresponsibly wasting it away is, in its most basic form, socialism. \nOnce the door to socialism opens a little, we may easily find ourselves on a slippery slope toward complete government control.\nWhich side of the ideological divide do you want to be on? Do you want a bureaucrat that buries your money, or a leader that trusts you to invest it yourself? The choice, at least for now, is yours.