President Bush's "Social Security Skulduggery: Provoking Privatization" tour will stop in Colorado today, joined by Congressman Beauprez and hundreds of cheering supporters. Of course, in an administration that guarantees unadulterated message delivery via generous cash payments to columnists and in-house production of bogus news stories for local TV stations, these supporters are all hand-selected Republican donors and voters. Footage of privatization enthusiasts attending the event notwithstanding, 59% of Americans oppose privatizing Social Security, according to a recent Newsweek poll. I haven't seen any Colorado-specific numbers, but I imagine they're no different. We aren't buying it. Noted Wall Street Journal columnist Jeff D. Opdyke isn't necessarily buying it, either. In yesterday's "Privatizing Social Security: A Mom's Tale," he details the plight of his own mother. Despite numerous attempts to offer financial coaching, she doesn't really understand money and investing. His mom had a 401(k) at one point. But after tapping into it for various "necessary" expenses, coupled with the interest and penalties incurred for early account withdrawal, it's completely gone. A back injury has prevented her from working for several years, during which she has received a monthly disability payment. Ignoring her son's advice, she recently accepted a lump sum distribution of $65,000 in lieu of monthly payments. Backlogged medical bills, a dental procedure, a charitable gift and a vacation later, she is broke again. So Social Security is the only thing that's going to keep his mom afloat. And here's the thing. Despite the fact that it's all she has left, she admits that if she had a Social Security private account, she might try to access it to pay off bills. It's not necessarily that people like Opdyke's mother aren't smart. But when competing with immediate pressures like jobs, children, housework, extended family obligations, existing bills, volunteer work and everything else, long-term financial planning is pushed to the back burner. Especially when lacking the necessary skills and experience. Hey, if people want to save money for retirement, more power to them. In fact, I think it's a great idea. My husband and I have modest investments for that purpose. Between his pension and our investments, we hope to be able to maintain a similar middle-income lifestyle after we retire. But Social Security is different. It's the safety net that provides the most basic of food and shelter to the elderly--it's what prevents them from destitution. Opdyke's recommendation? "...Ironclad safeguards to protect the untutored and undisciplined from ruining their retirement years...prevent people from accessing their Social Security money until retirement, despite the fact that it will be legally in their name." My recommendation? Find a solution that puts the "security" back into Social Security. This is not about making great profits, but about providing a basic level of dignity to Americans in their twilight years. So don't think those Bush-idolizing sign-wavers you might see on the news tonight represent most of us. Because this time, they're not going to succeed at selling fiction as truth. We're opposed to Social Security privatization, and no cheesy PR offensive is going to change our minds.