Now, 70 years later with 96 percent of all Americans participating, the wisdom behind the Social Security system still holds true. On the one hand, it provides modest but dependable income to the elderly, the disabled, their survivors and dependents. Social Security is a foundation. It's the one thing seniors can count on if life takes wrong turns for them. In 2004 it was equivalent to having a $400,000 life insurance policy.

On the other hand, it is a funding mechanism, a 12.4 percent flat tax on wages, up to $90,000 per year, that has been used to build up a trust fund of U.S. Treasury bonds. Over the years, these bonds have helped to catapult our U.S. economy into the stratosphere, the likes of which the world has never seen before.

There is now a serious attempt by President Bush to dismantle Social Security as we know it today. While I am not opposed to amendments to the Social Security Act, which have been necessary from time to time over the years, the administration's plan to essentially privatize the system is chilling. It is a campaign that has offered us a number of myths about Social Security that need to be debunked, and it has diverted our attention away from the administration's most serious financial disasters — Medicaid and the federal deficit.

The most popular misconception is that Social Security will be in trouble as early as 2018. That is false. According to the most recent projections of the Social Security trustees, the cost of Social Security benefits under the current law will begin to exceed Social Security tax revenues in 2017. However, the Social Security trust fund held an estimated $1.4 trillion at the end of calendar year 2002, it is probably close to $2 trillion today, and these securities represent a standing legal claim on the U.S. Treasury to pay Social Security benefits well into the future.

As such, the Social Security trust fund may begin to run an annual deficit starting in 2027, with the cost of the benefits exceeding both Social Security revenues and interest earned on the bonds in trust. If this scenario is played out, the trust fund will become exhausted in 2041 and the trust fund will be insolvent.

Another misconception, one that our president talks about all the time, is that Social Security reserves are only on paper. True, these bonds are unlike standard Treasury bonds as they do not fluctuate in value and they cannot be traded on the open market. But these bonds have earned a combined interest rate of about 6 percent annually and are indeed a cornerstone of our economic structure.

The most alarming myth is that the 77 million baby boomers entering retirement age will break the system. These doomsayers claim that by 2040, there will be only two workers for every retiree. This is not as dire as it sounds. The situation today is not so different, with only three workers for every retiree. More importantly, it is anticipated that workers in the future, following past historical trends, will become increasingly more productive and earn increasingly higher salaries, a fact not built into the equation.

Advocates for privatization say that private accounts will give individuals more control. The fact is that people already have control over their money when they invest in private pensions, IRA's and 401k plans. When combined with the solid foundation that Social Security provides, this creates a very comfortable retirement income for those who have contributed into the system in good faith throughout their entire working years.

It is a myth that private accounts will reap higher returns, that surely individuals can invest better than the government can. As David Certner, AARP's director of federal affairs, points out: "Under privatization, current workers will have to pay three times. Once to ensure the benefits for those currently at or near retirement, once for themselves, and once more for those whose investments didn't pan out."

A final note about private accounts. The transition costs alone would be crushing, as high as $2 trillion to $3 trillion. The additional debt generated would eat into any potential returns that we might actually get out of privatizing the system.

The Advertiser's May 5 editorial, "More reality needed in Social Security debate," calls for the Democrats to offer their own alternatives. Here are some suggestions:

President Bush gave tax cuts for the richest among us, those earning more than $350,000 per year. If we allowed these tax cuts to be phased out over time instead of being made permanent as demanded by the president, the government could cover all or most of the long-term Social Security shortfall. I question the president's sincerity on Social Security reform when he steadfastly refuses to put his tax cuts on the table for discussion.

The 12.4 percent Social Security tax is on wages up to $90,000. If we increased the wages figure to $140,000, that would also help to alleviate the shortfall and would require contributions from those who are financially able to pay.

I believe that Social Security is not a broken system. We have a problem. But it's not a huge problem.

There are other ways to shore up private retirement investment and savings, and decrease the burden on Social Security, but it should never be done by taking away our country's retirement safety net. We can fix Social Security without completely dismantling this landmark system.

The president's suggested solution is not so much a plan as a bunch of suggestions loosely tied together. Even members of Congress from his own party are not comfortable with this approach.

Which leads me to wonder whether the president is actually using Social Security as a red herring. What is broken are our nearly bankrupt Medicaid system, and the appalling and uncontrolled growth of the federal deficit. While the president packages and re-packages his Social Security proposals, let's not allow ourselves to be diverted from these two looming crises that urgently need solutions now.