For decades the Democratic Party has assumed the self-proclaimed mantle of chief protectors of Social Security. Anytime the issue of reforming this program arises, Democrats can be counted on to scream bloody murder.

Election after election this strategy worked pretty well. The Democratic standard barer would accuse his Republican opponent of trying to gut the program, while he conversely could be counted on to keep the checks coming.

Meanwhile Social Security, which was constructed on the premise that life expectancies would remain stagnant and that each generation would have enough children to replace themselves, began to tremble under the weight of its promises as life expectancies increased and birth rates declined.

The 77 million baby boomers will soon begin retiring. By 2018, Social Security will have to spend $16-billion more on benefit checks than it collects in payroll taxes. The shortfall will grow by leaps and bounds, hitting $255 billion in 2030, $430 billion in 2050 and $670 billion in 2070. In all, the government needs about $11-trillion invested in the bank today, earning interest, to keep the program solvent forever. Needless to say we don't have it.

There are few choices to close this deficit, and none are small or easy. Among the most widely discussed:

  Gradually raising taxes, eventually nabbing one of every five dollars workers earn.

  Cutting benefits, eventually slashing benefits by a third.

  Increasing the national debt by tens of trillions of dollars and dramatically increasing debt service payments.

  Generating new revenue using existing resources.

The first three options offer short-run "solutions," but they place the burden on the backs of our children.

President Bush proposes a fourth option: allow younger workers to divert some of the payroll taxes they already pay to create personal retirement accounts. This would offset some of what the government would otherwise pay them at retirement, reducing the government's obligations and the debt without reducing worker's net benefit. Workers could choose among a few safe funds, similar to the federal thrift savings plan for federal workers.

President Bush formed a commission to develop ways to structure and integrate a personal investment component into Social Security.

According to an analysis of the plan by actuaries at the Social Security Administration, it would require an initial infusion of $3 trillion over the next several decades, but overall would save about $11 trillion and set the program on a path to fiscal sustainability.

Since the commission finished its work, critics have been busy. They worry about how low-income workers and inexperienced investors will fare. They worry about administrative costs and invoke names like Enron and WorldCom. Proponents of personal accounts share these concerns. But there are responsible ways to structure the personal accounts that will guard against potential pitfalls.

The Social Security Administration, the General Accounting Office and others have developed ways to structure the accounts that will maximize returns and protect investors.

Administrative fees could be kept low by limiting options and structuring personal retirement accounts carefully. Inexperienced investors could be protected by offering three to five government-approved index funds. Low-income workers could be aided by matching grants or refundable tax credits.

President Bush says Social Security reform will be a central domestic policy issue in his second term. Sen. John Kerry, by contrast, has said relatively little. When he does address the issue, Kerry has said what he won't do: He won't consider personal investment accounts, raising the retirement age or cutting benefits.

Fine, but what will he do? So far his answer is to talk about the need for economic growth. In other words, ignore it and hope the problem will go away.

On the question of who offers the best hope for saving Social Security? It's easy - a good plan beats no plan any day.

Matt Moore is a senior policy analyst at the National Center for Policy Analysis (www.ncpa.org