Ms. Council suggests that because social security has provided a valuable benefit to elderly disabled americans for decades that it should be left alone. She even boldly states that "There is no emergency. The system will be solvent for another 38-48 years if we do nothing." Since she offers no empirical evidence of the soundness of social security, I take no great comfort in her claims.

The truth is that social security is not, and never has been, "guaranteed". The government could stop making payments to Americans tomorrow. Social security is not insurance that you buy with your "contributions". There is no trust fund. In truth, you could liken social security to one big ponzi scheme. Experts, such as Alan Greenspan, have said that there is an "urgency" to fixing social security, and private or personal accounts have a role in that fix in helping Americans become part of the ownership society. If a person doesn't want to participate in private accounts, they would not be required to do so.

In any event, if the drumbeat against fixing social security is successful, and Americans are allowed to stick their heads into the sand and ignore this problem, the bill will come due some day. Many of us won't be around when it does, but I have empathy for the young Americans who will be required to pay through the nose for the coming years, only to find as they approach retirement that it's just a huge ponzi scheme, and they have been victimized. Will they have fond feelings for those of us who went before that didn't have the courage to "fix" social security and not leave them holding a worthless I.O.U.? Fondness isn't the word for how they will feel.

Does anybody have a link to Andy Broad's article on SS in last Sunday's N&R? It was the most thoughtful, concise and insightful look at this issue I've read. Anybody who announces, "there is no trust fund," should read it. Anybody interested in having a solid foundation for discussion of the issue should read it.

Excuse me Roch 101, but I take exception to your inference that anyone who claims "there is no trust fund" is uninformed, just because they may not buy into one person's opinion, whether it be thoughtful, consise and insightful in your opinion.

Sure, there is technically a "trust fund" for social security, but it does not really qualify as a real trust fund. A trust fund is supposed to be "property, especially money or securities, held in trust". One could argue that the government bonds purchased by current social security surpluses qualify as property, but, in truth, the purchase of those bonds generates general revenue for the federal government and that money is spent on the operations of the federal government. This "trust fund" doesn't hold cash and never did, but rather a bunch of I.O.U.'s.

Starting in 2014, the situation will reverse. Social Security will no longer run a surplus, but instead will run a deficit. Social Security will begin spending more on benefits than it is taking in through taxes. To continue to pay those benefits, it will have to start redeeming the bonds in the trust fund. But, those bonds are not real economic assets. Rather, they are claims on the Treasury that will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.

None of the proposed "lockboxes" currently being debated will change this reality. There is no way to actually leave the Social Security surplus in Social Security. The surplus must be used to purchase bonds, the purchase of the bonds will generate revenue for the government, and that revenue must be spent.

Private accounts would be individually owned accounts that would truly represent a lockbox or a true trust fund that is safe from being raided by Congress invested in real financial assets, not government promises to raise future taxes.

Regardless of how you want to argue the reality of a true trust fund, the fact remains that there is an urgency to fixing social security. Waiting for 38-48 years as Ms. Council suggests is irresponsible. Social security has been invaluable to the aged and disabled for many decades, but the time is coming soon when it must be fixed. The sooner we do it, the better for everyone.

Teddy, those "IOUs" are government obligations.

If I had a trust fund stuffed with t-bills, I'd be pretty happy.

You are correct that SS needs a long-term fix. But the Bush admin decided to market its program on the rhetoric of imminent crisis, which is not only false, but deflects us into semantic conversations instead of productive ones.

The other mistake of the Bush admin has been to peddle the private accts that will add trillions in debt without fixing SS's existing funding problems.

I hope that we move past the overheated rhetoric and the private accts dead end (although I would like to see increased private accounts for long term savings discussed in another context) and actually address the needs of this popular and successful program.

Mr. Cone,

Thank you for helping me make my point. When you say "If I had a trust fund stuffed with t-bills, I'd be pretty happy", that is the point of the proposed private accounts in social security. You would actually have a trust fund that could be stuffed with t-bills. At the present, you have no such thing. You have no trust fund with your name on it; there is no "lockbox' labeled "Ed Cone Retirement Trust Fund". If you had a private account, you would really have a trust fund. A private account would meet the definition of a trust fund; property, including cash and securities held in trust. It would be in your name, and not a huge congressional slush fund.

It is true that there isn't currently an "emergency" or "imminent crisis", but the truth is there needs to be some urgency created in the minds of all Americans about social security. Alan Greenspan made that point very clearly. This is such a sacred cow that no politician dare put it on the table for review. Any discussion about making it viable for the future is met with a firestorm. President Bush has shown courage in being willing to have that discussion. He may have originally overstated the case that it was an emergency, but then if he hadn't, everyone would have run in different directions to avoid it. President Clinton expressed those same concerns six years ago and nothing of substance happened at that time.

As Americans, let's have a civil discussion on this subject. Social security is essential to the fabric of America and provides the bedrock for retirement of all Americans, so let's stop sticking our heads in the sand and saying "it aint broke". It aint broke right now, but if some timely preventive maintenance isn't done soon, it will be.

Mr. Ballgame,

I think we all grasp why a personal trust fund would be nice to own. The point I was making was that your dismissal of SS's funding an "IOU" trivializes the value of US govt obligations.

The problem with the private accounts plan is that it costs a ton without fixing the funding problems of the guaranteed benefits program known as Social Security.

As noted, I would like to see more investment account options available to us, but I don't want to gut SS to create them.

And I would disagree that the language of hype and crisis is acceptable if it gets us focused on the problem. In addition to being dishonest and condescending to the American people, it has the opposite effect -- it actually diverts attention from the longterm problems, because people are able to say quite convincingly that the wolf is not at the door, and so they ignore the very real wolf in the distance.

Mr. Cone,

Reasonable people can disagree whether the wolf is at the door right now or not, or maybe it's out by the front gate. But, that discussion doesn't have an impact upon the fact that the real wolf has been in the distance for years, and everyone thinks that if we don't acknowledge it and look at it, it'll go away. We both know that denying the existence of the distant wolf can and will be hazardous to our financial health some day.

I differ with you in that if our leaders are allowed to ignore this issue and simply talk a good game, while actually doing nothing, is asking for heartbreak some day. If President Bush is overhyping the issue to get attention to it, then what is his opponents' plans and answers? We've known about this problem for many years, but no one has had the courage to actually face up to it. A leader must actually lead and prompt action in areas that are not comfortable for others, but that is what leaders do.

I am not at all in favor of doing nothing. I agree that we need to address the issues facing SS, and wrote a column in January that praised Bush for taking them on.

But the devil is in the details, and the private accounts plan Bush has floated doesn't do what needs to be done.

Your question on alternative plans is a good one, and one that needs to be addressed not only to Democrats, but to Republicans, too, and in fact to all Americans in a non-partisan manner: a majority of you seem to favor maintaining SS as a defined benefit plan -- how much will you pay to do so, what changes in benefits will you support to do so?

If nothing is done Social Security will have to start paying benefits at a %72 - %80 rate in 2042 to 2052 (or so nobody really knows). Private accounts will not change this (even the administration has admitted this) and buying into private accounts will cost a huge amount of money (once again the figures are all over the board but it's alot).

We hear buzzwords like "the ownership society" but very little about protecting the solvency of the system. The solution is simple but unpleasant: either more money in or less money out or some combination of both. Our leaders of both parties know this, but they need to make some hard choices and then go out and show some leadership and sell them (bipartisan leadership would be nice on this issue. (Sorry I was daydreaming)).

This is a long term problem. There should be debate, analysis and a cooling off period. This is a decision that all of us will have to live with for the rest of our lives and should be treated as such.

I don't think I cunderstood this correctly. Someone thinks that with a couple trillion $ deficit that a government will pay its "obligations" to the people. And just where will that money come from - the raised taxes? This is ridiculous. I have an idea. Those that want to keep paying into SS go ahead. Those who don't shouldn't have to. It is my money. I work for it. I should be able to use it as I see fit. Sure - leave it in and tax it and let me invest it. Why should the government have any say whatsoever in how my hard earned money is divied out. My name is on that check - nobody elses. Is my head in the sand?