By now, it’s not news — was it ever? — that the Bush Administration is none-too-keen on the elderly being able to retire. If they insist on doing it, the millionaires who run our government say they should not be able to do so on a livable pension.

And it’s also no surprise that the Administration frequently uses hired journalists, including gay prostitutes masquerading as journalists, to promote their views and shadow groups to handle the seamier aspects of trash politics.

The question I’m pondering this morning, though, is the extent to which they’ve combined all the above elements to use our tax dollars — tax dollars primarily paid by middle- and lower-class voters, now that the rich have been guaranteed virtually unlimited tax cuts by the millionaires running our government — to attack one of the largest middle-class groups whose primary interest and demographic is the lower- and middle-class people the Bush Administration so deeply detests.

And let’s get real here, folks. AARP hates American soldiers and has a hidden agenda to promote homosexuality? I don’t think so.

On the other hand, neo-conservatives such as George Bush and his family continue to exploit the deaths of American soldiers to enrich their bank accounts. (Don’t believe me? Just last month, Bush’s uncle “earned” $450,000 from those deaths.) And homosexuals? In spite of the amazing number of Republican leaders whose offspring continue to come out of the closet, Republicans insist that merely saying gays and lesbians deserve decent lives like the rest of us is “promoting homosexuality.”

Both sides may have ulterior motives. Corporate-friendly Republicans stand to make billions of dollars from “management fees” if they can wrest our money away from the government and into “personal accounts.” And the AARP undoubtedly will continue to benefit if seniors have enough disposable income to pay AARP dues.

One side benefits if they eliminate the safety net for the elderly and force Americans to privatized Social Security and the other side stands to benefit if they successfully fight to ensure the elderly have enough money to voluntarily pay dues if they decide to join.

I wonder which side I should trust?

Wouldn’t it be something if the Bush Administration just chose to have a debate (sans hidden microphones), explaining why they think Social Security “reform” is necessary? Barring that, couldn’t we just argue the merits of the case, if there are any, without using character assassination to promote the Republican agenda?