Scare tactics obscure Social Security debate

I haven't made up my mind on the subject of private accounts for Social Security. Unlike the Bush administration, I prefer to study the facts before leaping to conclusions. (For contrast, see the war in Iraq.)

But one thing is already clear to me: The Social Security debate has two distinct strands that really have very little to do with each other. The first strand is mathematical and revolves around such questions as: How big is the Social Security shortfall? What will it take to fill it? Will private accounts provide future seniors with less money or more money in their retirement years? How much risk will private accounts entail? Reasonable people can disagree about the assumptions and the answers, but there is the potential, at least, to reach some common ground on the numbers.

The second strand is philosophical and on this point, I'm afraid, the chances for a meeting of the minds are slim. To borrow a phrase that got a lot of attention after the presidential campaign, the divide is about values -- in this case, the value of a government promise.

Fans of privatization have strong feelings on the matter. Consider: When President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security issued a report endorsing private accounts in 2001, it said that such accounts would provide ''participants with assets that they own . . . rather than providing only claims to benefits that remain subject to political negotiation."

Edward Crane, president of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank that has long supported private accounts, made the point more bluntly in a recent opinion piece. ''Under the current system what you get back at retirement is entirely up to 535 politicians."

The implication is pretty clear: If a government commitment isn't completely worthless, it is pretty close to worthless. ''What they are saying is: Social Security benefits come from Congress and Congress could stop them tomorrow," said Peter Diamond, an MIT economics professor and the author of ''Saving Social Security."

But is Congress really likely to shut off the spigot? Social Security has been around since 1935. Even without change, the system will still be writing checks to seniors in 2035.

Those checks will be mailed, even though there are no ''real assets" backing up Social Security.

But then again, there are no real assets backing up anything the government pays for -- from the war in Iraq, to maintaining the national highway system, to the hip replacements done through the Medicare program. Yet in all these cases, we assume the government will honor its commitments because when it comes to high-priority programs, the government nearly always honors its obligations. I am not aware that Uncle Sam has a long history of bouncing checks.

The point here is not to say that Social Security benefits won't be trimmed. They will be. The mathematics of an aging population demand it. But Washington isn't going to walk away from Social Security, and to imply that it will is intellectually dishonest.

On the flip side, the advocates of privatization seem to be saying that any investments we make on our own are rock solid. Maybe they'd like a peek at my 401(k) returns for the last five years or the diminishing value of the company stock I hold. Private investments are a mixed bag. They offer the possibility of increased returns coupled with increased risk. Like government benefits, they are not a free lunch.

I am looking forward to the Social Security debate. I am planning to focus heavily on the numbers. If someone can convince me that a system that includes private accounts can preserve the safety net and still offer most seniors a good chance of retiring with greater benefits, then I am willing to give the idea serious consideration.

What will not impress me is anti-government rhetoric (''Social Security is a Ponzi scheme," ''young people will never see a dime from Social Security") based on equal parts right-wing ideology and outright falsehoods. I'm not buying into the philosophy and my guess is neither will most of the American public.

Charles Stein is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at stein@globe.com.