Porter Goss, President Bush's new Director of Central Intelligence was testifying under oath that it's a matter of "when" not "if" terrorists will attack us again. In the face of this impending National Security crisis, Bush traveled the nation trumping up another crisis - a fake crisis in Social Security. He did this to push "reform" that doesn't even address the fiscal status of Social Security.

All experts - even Bush's appointees and the Congressional Budget Office - agree Social Security will remain solid for several decades. Why the urgency and trumped up crisis now? Why not focus on the impending terrorist threat Goss warned about? Isn't that more important? Does Bush consider Social Security a bigger priority than National Security? And if so, why isn't he telling us the truth about it? And if not, why is he pushing unnecessary - even counterproductive "reform" so intently?

The American Association of Retired Persons - the leading retirees advocacy group and Bush's allies on measures like Medicaid "reform" - stood up to their friends in the White House to oppose Bush's privatization plans. USA Today quoted AARP Chief Executive Officer William Novelli who declared "We are dead set against carving private accounts out of Social Security taxes." Novelli explained: "We can fix Social Security without dismantling it, which is what private accounts carved out of Social Security do."

If Bush's approach really would strengthen Social Security - rather than destroy it - why is the AARP "dead set" against it? Aware of the public relations problem, the White House struck back at the AARP by unleashing the same liars behind the "Swift Boat" smear campaign that crippled John Kerry's presidential campaign. Bush is not defending the merits of his plans or trying to win over the AARP. He's resorting to political dirty tricks. None of this inspires confidence in Bush's plans.

Reuter's financial news service reports the consultants behind the Swift Boat ads "signed up with the conservative USA Next group" who launched their effort with an attack ad "linking the AARP to support for homosexual marriage." The advocacy website www.ThereIsNoCrisis.com - a BlogPAC project - examined public tax records and discovered "USA Next" is a pro-privatization front group - and personal cash cow - created by right wing junk mail guru Richard Viguerie.

According to its sworn statements, "USA Next" spends most of its money making more money. It "raised millions in its first year of operation, only to plow that money back into Viguerie's direct mail operations, renting mailing lists, paying 'letter writers, printers, mailers and other subcontractors, always including Mr. Viguerie himself.' Paying for direct mail was literally United Seniors' charitable purpose."

What did charitable contributors to "USA Next" get for their money? The public records confirm that "In 1993, United Seniors would receive $5.3 million in donations, only to plow more than $4.2 million back into fund raising mail." What does this group stand for? "In 1995, United Seniors endorsed 'privatizing' Medicare" and "worked closely with the House Republican Leadership to support the Contract with America, defund the Legal Services Corporation, and provide a 'conservative alternative' to the AARP." But this AARP "alternative" had to pay massive fines for defrauding its contributors!

Who benefits from "USA Next?" Again according to public records, its junk mail campaigns raise "donations, 50 percent of which contractually went straight to Viguerie." Reuter's quotes Charlie Jarvis, president of "USA Next" saying, "We intend to make sure that the AARP fails miserably." And if that makes Social Security fail miserably as well, all the better for "USA Next." All this should alarm people who expect to get back any of the money they've paid into Social Security, and even young people for whom retirement is still a lifetime away.

Estimates suggesting Social Security will fall short of funds in 40 to 50 years assume 1.8% GDP growth. If that's accurate, then the "private accounts" Bush wants will perform worse than Social Security, leaving retirees worse off. If growth is higher, Social Security will remain solvent longer even without any changes. Adding to Bush's perplexing priorities, any conversion to private or partially private "accounts" will cost taxpayers $trillions and increase overhead costs. In short, Bush's "reform" plan would make things worse.

The real threat to Social Security is doing the wrong thing. The Bush scheme is so costly and counterproductive, many people think this is just one more way to take money away from the American People to give it to an elite special interest - in this case Wall Street trading firms which contribute heavily to Republican campaigns. Since Bush's plans won't help retirees or young people, or strengthen Social Security, why all the sound and fury about radical "reform" that would make matters worse? Is this just a political payoff?

Bush's statements and support from "USA Next," the CATO Institute and other right wing partisans reveal that this is not a legitimate attempt to address concerns about Social Security. This is an effort to loot the Trust Fund - if not destroy Social Security outright. The same thinking - and even some of the same people - who brought us all time record deficits and the Enron, Arthur Anderson and S&L debacles tell us we have to trust them to perform radical surgery on Social Security. Their record for big failures and falsehoods gives us no reason to trust their ability or even their honesty.