So here goes . . . Social Security has a long-term problem. By 2030 or so, when most of my generation is retired and cranky, we will be taking more out of the national retirement system than the workers of that time will be putting in. You can argue, along with the conservatives, that Social Security represents an overgrown, inefficient, welfare-state program and a drag on the economy. Or you can believe, with the liberals, that it is an essential safety net and source of societal cohesion and equality.
Demographics demand it.
Revenues will have to rise, payouts will have to fall, or the system will collapse. Any plan that suggests otherwise is based on free-lunch economics, and there ain't no free lunch. Further, adjustments to the program will be less painful if made early than if we wait until a crisis looms. That's why it is a good thing, no matter who wins next month, that the issue has been actively taken up this year by George W. Bush and Al Gore. Bush, in particular, deserves credit for breaking the traditional political taboo on reforming Social Security.