President Bush has proposed a plan to "save" Social Security, much to the chagrin of Congressional Democrats, who, save for a few moderates, have expressed fierce opposition to Bush's proposal. In all likelihood, this will be the first major political battle of Bush's second term, and quite possibly the dirtiest.

            First, we should examine the plan itself, to see if it is really so terrible. Under Bush's plan, Social Security would not change for people over 55. Younger people would get more choices in the program, though. They would be given the option of taking out a small amount of what they pay in, and invest it in private accounts. The amount we could invest would certainly be limited, but it would, at least, give some choice in what we can do with our own money.

            While these are clear advantages to Bush's proposal, they do not go nearly far enough toward addressing even the President's stated reason for the private accounts: giving citizens more choices. Most would agree that maximizing personal choice maximizes freedom. While Bush's plan certainly increases personal choice, it does not come anywhere close to maximizing it.

            In order to understand the Social Security system, we should ask ourselves: who does the money being paid in belong to: to us or to the government? Obviously, the answer is to us. It is we who earn it, not the government. Why, then, does the government have the right to take our money (for our "own good")? Do our elected leaders feel that we are too incompetent to plan for our own retirements?

            Let's assume that you decide you no longer want to pay into the system. "It's my money," you say, "I should be able to do with it whatever I like." That should be a choice you should be allowed to make, if we truly believe in maximizing personal freedom. Sadly, it isn't. Failure to pay into the system could result in incarceration. What kind of liberty is this? This problem will not be addressed by the new system.

            Try another hypothetical. Let's say that, at the age of 60, you are diagnosed with a terminal illness. You have paid into Social Security for the past 40 years. You do not wish to simply lose all that money; you want to leave it to your children. Again, it is your money that you were forced to pay in. In the result of death, it should go to your next of kin, right? Wrong. Your children will never see a cent of it. Under Bush's proposed system, they would get a fraction of it.

            Social Security was never intended to support the elderly, it was only meant to provide them with a subsidy. It was a safety net. Also, when originally set up during the 1930s, the average lifespan was considerably shorter than it is today. Now people are living for 20 years after they retire. How many 70-year-old systems still function flawlessly today?

            The Social Security system was far from perfect to begin with. When implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt, it obviously was a restriction on liberty. It was also badly set up. They money paid in by you does not go to you in the future; it goes to a retired person today. The money you draw after retirement will similarly come from someone working at that time. If a private business tried this, the company's CEO would be arrested quicker than you can say Ken Lay. Yet, the government has a knack for breaking it's own laws. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that such a system works when there are a huge number of working Americans to a small number of retired Americans, but problems will come when this ratio reverses.

            Over the years, Social Security became less like a safety net and more like a hammock. More and more retired people became dependent on their monthly check from the government. Politicians seized on this, and essentially bought their votes. Every election cycle, we learn of some new, vile plan to abolish Social Security. Historically, Democrats have been most notorious for this, but in recent years Republicans have gotten in on the act as well. It’s a real shame, because this is not breeding liberty, it is breeding dependence. How can one be free if he or she depends on the government for his or her most basic needs?

John Brown (www.johnnorrisbrown.com) is a senior in political science and history at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com. This column originally appeared in the February 15, 2005 edition of The Daily Beacon entitled "Social Security denies liberty," available here.