I looked in the mirror yesterday and realized that my hair is falling out. (Blame it on stress, I guess.)

"Nick, you're getting old," I told my image. "It's time to start thinking about Social Security."

Now whenever I think about Social Security, my personality usually splits into several identities. In this case, it divided into three distinct ones.

"You will have no worries in your Golden Years," Idealistic Nick said. "You're entitled to Social Security, Medicare and anything else you can get from the government."

Exactly right, I told the mirror. In 1991, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 47 percent of our homes got a government payoff -- everything from Social Security to student loans. So I want my share, my thirty pieces of silver for my vote.

"You're scum," roared Cynical Nick. "You're a leech on society, just like all those ancient relics you saw in Atlantic City last week. They're a bottomless pit sucking up all your tax dollars."

Exactly right, I admitted. A third of all government spending last year went into programs for the elderly, like Social Security. By the year 2000, it'll probably reach the one-half mark. There's absolutely no way to significantly reduce our $400 billion-a-year deficits when we throw away that much money.

"It's not a money matter," Idealistic Nick responded. "Many of those people can't survive without Social Security. What kind of nation allows its elderly to freeze to death in decrepit old houses? We need a touch of human decency."

"But why do human decency and human greed seem to go hand-in-hand?" asked Cynical Nick. "What about all those people who don't need the money who still collect their Social Security checks?"

He's got a point, I decided. The statistics are tricky, but 92 percent of the over-65 crowd collect Social Security, even though a third of them have a net worth of at least $100,000. Eight-three percent don't have mortgage payments on their homes, anymore. For them, it would appear, old age is one long government-subsidized vacation.

"Calm down, guys," said Laid-Back Nick, the third person in my head. "It's not worth the worry. Let somebody else deal with it and just enjoy life. After all, we could be burnt toast on the face of the planet any day now. So lighten up." (Laid-Back Nick laughed almost the whole way through Wayne's World.)

Sounds good, I decided. I can be oblivious. I'll just pop in Nirvana and breath in that teen spirit. Apathy is better than alcohol any day.

But then, Cynical Nick kicked me in a very sensitive part of the male anatomy. The pain was incredible, and it transformed me into a very angry young man.

"You stupid idiot," he ranted. "How are you going to enjoy life if half of your income gets sucked up by the government? That's exactly what will happen if fools like Bill Clinger keep running the show."

Our government is already seriously overextended -- remember that $400 billion-a-year deficit? -- but U.S. Representative Clinger and other politicians are bowing to pressure from the elderly vote and making it worse. They're working to abolish any form of earnings test for Social Security recipients.

"The earnings test must go and I'm going to do everything possible to see that this happens," Clinger was quoted as saying in his newsletter. "At the very least, the Congress should raise the levels of income that senior citizens can earn."

Christ, Bill, pull your brain out of your butt. We can't afford it. But hey, 70 percent of the elderly vote, while only 35 percent of us eighteen to twenty-four types stuff the ballot box.

"The bottom line is that a liberal democratic republic has to provide a safety net for those who need it," Idealistic Nick shouted down from his altar. "We can't just toss aside the elderly."

Of course not, I agreed. But when Social Security was established in 1935, the majority of the elderly were poor. That's no longer the case, but Social Security still rolls along partly because we don't like the idea of investing time and money to take care of our parents.

But we have to stop pretending that Social Security is a retirement program and start forcing people to plan ahead for their own financial security. Now, when we still have enough time and control of the system to make some reforms.

I don't have all the answers (and you have no idea how much that annoys me). But a time is approaching -- perhaps forty years from now -- when there will be less than two wage-earners for every person on Social Security. That's when the Social Security tax will swallow half of a paycheck. That's when things will fall apart, unless we make some changes.

My only suggestion is to put the people on Social Security to work. They could be the drill instructors at government-sponsered schools -- Basic Training for New Parents -- since most new parents know absolutely nothing about raising a child.

Then, Social Security would almost be an investment, instead of an inefficient waste of our increasingly limited resources.

Then, we could celebrate the return of self-reliance.