Oh, we've had plenty of bald statements and scare stories. Every politician promises to support and help the Social Security system. They all claim that they will protect seniors and make certain those already retired will continue to get their checks. Can you believe that? They are going to ensure that an organization turning a pure profit of $89 billion this year and $98.7 billion last year will stay in business. It's like claiming they will make certain the sun shines in the summer. Meaningless chatter.

But all the public seems to get are raises in the age of retirement, encouragement to work longer, and scare stories about how the baby-boomers will overwhelm the system, fewer workers will be contributing in the future; tax cuts might reduce benefits, disappearing surpluses, and so forth, most of which have no basis in fact and little reason for concern.

No other subject is surrounded by so many booga-booga stories and so little serious discussion. If there’s a real problem we don't hear much truth about it.

By now, everyone should realize that Social Security's problem, perhaps its only problem, is the government stealing its surplus and spending that retirement money elsewhere. And the immediate sensible solution is to stop the bleeding.

Since the Constitution provides the means for government to borrow almost overnight for whatever funds it needs in emergencies or in case of shortfalls, there is no reason for contingency or surplus taxation much less to steal retirement money.

No one, absolutely no one has asked how the Social Security Trust Funds became 21.4 percent of the national debt. No one digs into the smokescreens, falsehoods, outright lies and weapons of mass distraction politicians have thrown up all around the Social Security issue.

For instance, we've had years of talk about baby-boomers, what a threat they are to Social Security, how they will soon begin to disrupt the system, and how we need to preempt this problem. Although it was never said, Clinton's 1998 statement that "76 million baby-boomers" were on the horizon implies that these are births above normal that occurred in our country between 1946 and 1965 when 16,000 lusty servicemen returned from World War II, the child bearing years for these military people and their soul mates. Sounds plausible, doesn't it?

The trouble is that 76 million baby-boomers do not show up in the census figures, the only source for such information. At most, there might have been seven or eight million births above normal during that time period. Nothing that the actuaries in the Social Security Administration couldn't handle with their hands tied behind their backs.

When I point this out, and as far as I can see I'm the only person who has mentioned it, the entire subject seems to simply disappear and we're confronted with a new and different scare story. No retraction. No relief. And very little talk about Social Security being OK or not being in trouble. The focus of attention just goes in another scary direction. Trump up a different scare story.

We had years of debate about "lock-boxes" and bills that passed the House of Representatives by as much as a 220-to-2 vote only to die in the Senate. And there never was any need for these bills in the first place since real trust funds are, by their very nature, already lock-boxes.

We had years of talk about how the Social Security Trust Fund will sustain Social Security until 2032, 2036, 2038, and finally 2041 only to find out that there's nothing but debt in the trust. No money, no viable assets, just markers or demands on future taxes.

Shortly before the never-ending war on terrorism broke out, every economist in the country with a head on his or her shoulders was telling us that if the Social Security Administration must ever turn to its trust fund to meet its obligations the poor dears in Washington will be faced with the tough decision to either 1) raise taxes 2) borrow enormous sums in the publics name 3) cut benefits or any combination thereof. The normal everyday revenue raising and money management methods of government whether there's a trust fund or not.

Obviously, the trust fund turns out to be worthless to anyone but politicians who would have a ready excuse for raising taxes. Another myth goes down the drain.

And then the nation was hit with an avalanche of corporate malfeasance. Starting with Enron, but continuing with WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, Tyco, and almost daily reports of other companies "crooking the books." Thousands of Americans lost big chunks of their retirement and other investments as stocks plummeted.

Before the comparison between government and corporate cheating became obvious we found ourselves suddenly dealing with a possible first strike invasion of Iraq—war drums completely diverted attention.

You can draw what conclusions you want from this pattern of events, but I want to remind you of one thing further.

Way back before the government shutdowns of 1995, we were dealing with the call for a balanced budget. When Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole thought they had a mandate in their pockets, they used the national debt ceiling to force agreement to set a date for such a balance. At the time, we had reached the debt ceiling of $4.9 trillion.

After finally agreeing to agree on a date for a balanced budget we then had years of argument about whether it would take ten, seven, nine, or whatever years to achieve such a balance.

Finally, in November of 1997 the Balanced Budget Act was passed. The year 2002 was chosen as the date our government could finally live within its means. Isn't that a kick?

Well, here we are. Fiscal 2002 just closed on September thirtieth. In June, the government voted to raise the national debt limit from $5.95 trillion to $6.4 trillion because it was "the responsible thing to do." And it looks like we're going to need to raise it again by next February if not sooner.

During fiscal 2002, the national debt went up $421 billion and in the first month of the new 2003 fiscal year, October, the debt went up another $54.3 billion. You can't blame all that on a war in Afghanistan that even President Bush tells us cost a mere one billion a month.

What's missing in all of this is the role played by Social Security. Since 1983, Social Security has been producing a surplus. Through payroll tax overcharges, it has been producing more revenue than the Social Security Administration needs in order to meet all of its commitments to the currently retired and disabled. It's been producing a profit.

The margin of Social Security's profit grew to its highest level of $98.7 billion in fiscal 2001. And despite all the talk about "disappearing surpluses," and high unemployment resulting in fewer contributors, Social Security still managed to produce an $89 billion surplus in fiscal 2002. Does that look like surpluses have disappeared?

And it's not just Social Security which just happens to be the largest slush fund in the government’s arsenal. Eighteen other entitlements have been producing surpluses on a lesser scale, at least until this year.

This is the unstated reason that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 picked the year 2002 as the magic date for a balanced budget. So much money to steal would eliminate the need to borrow honestly.

In fiscal 2001, all twenty entitlements including Social Security produced an excess of $162 billion that the Beltway Bandits pilfered and spent elsewhere. In fiscal 2002, due to a failing economy and eleven smaller trusts drawing on their bogus holdings, that excess fell to $149 billion, but still a substantial surplus.

The Beltway Bandits are never going to give up these slush funds, this misappropriation of money, this criminal theft of our retirement and health care dollars. If they had an ounce of honesty in their characters they would have long ago and easily rescinded payroll taxes or put the surplus in real trust funds just like their own Thrift Savings Account.

Instead, we get stories about how they dare not broach the subject because it's the third rail of politics and to do so might cost them their jobs. George Bush tells us that he's not afraid of the third rail, so we get ridiculous and bogus plans for privatization like his personal accounts for entry level workers, a real disaster spawned by a committee co-chaired by the very man who, back in 1983, engineered the rip-off in the first place and later, in 1998, recommended that the payroll overcharges be rescinded. Two faced ex-senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. (Full speech to John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, March 16, 1998 titled "Social Security Saved.")