It is amazing to me that the Republicans have been able to perpetuate the myth that they are the party of small government. Granted, there are some factions in the party that would prefer to fend for themselves in the hinterlands rather than pay any tax or deal with any government at all.

But, be that as it may, the party as a whole has continued to embrace policies that give government greater control over the personal lives of all Americans. With an expanded Patriot Act, Republicans seek to give the government the ability to pry more freely into our private matters. Republicans are trying to amend our Constitution so that government can control who we can and cannot marry. Republican fiscal policy has created huge deficits that ensure future generations will be burdened by decisions our government has made today.

And now, President Bush has proposed that the federal government should be given the responsibility of investing for our retirements. This hardly jives with the Republican rhetoric that "government is the problem."

But, the irony of the idea that personal investment accounts are a good way to save Social Security goes beyond a mere contradiction in political rhetoric.

In 1929, the stock market crashed. Millions of Americans became broke overnight.

So, citizens looked to their government. Government had always been counted on for physical security. Now citizens wanted financial security.

So, the system known as Social Security was devised. This provided Americans with security no matter what.

Now, the President wishes to provide that security by forcing Americans to invest in the very institution they originally sought protection from - the stock market.

Even recent history reminds us of the fallacy in this concept. Many state and local government employees in New York rely on a pension fund tied to investments in the stock market. When the stock market took a dive, the state pension fund went broke. As a result, local governments were asked to pay for the difference. This is the very reason City Council was forced to raise our property taxes last year and why they will likely do so again this year.

Now, picture that chain of events. But, instead of the pension fund that provides for certain retired public employees, think of the Social Security fund that provides for all retired Americans. Yes, that fund will go broke eventually if we don't tweak the way benefits are paid out now.

But, if that fund depended on the volatility of the stock market, one down cycle could bankrupt the system virtually overnight. Don't think this will mean seniors won't receive benefits. They will. But, our tax bills will need to increase to pay for it.

Dan Schuster's column appears Mondays in The Citizen. He can be reached at yetti539@hotmail.com