Q: I have always admired your candor with respect to the politics of Social Security. Now that we're in the middle of a presidential race, Social Security is bound to come up as in issue. And frankly, I get confused every time I hear the subject being discussed. Can I have your thoughts on this please?

A: Your confusion is warranted because, frankly, both major political parties deserve a good bonk on the head for confounding the American public when it comes to Social Security.

The Republicans tend to paint too gloomy a picture of the future of Social Security and usually suggest radical reforms for privatizing the system. I mean, do you really want Lehman Bros. handling your Social Security funds?

On the other hand, Democrats tend to paint too rosy a picture of the future of Social Security and suggest that with a little tinker here and a little Scotch tape there, all our problems will be solved.

So what's the real story? Let's start with two basic facts.

1. There is no question that Social Security needs long-range reform. Why? Because of folks like me — aging baby boomers. In the next 20 years or so, the number of retirees will almost double. And we were not the greatest baby makers in history, so there aren't all that many young people coming along to support us. For years, Social Security has worked perfectly at a ratio of 3 taxpayers to 1 retiree. But we're heading for a 2-to-1 ratio by about 2030. Social Security can work at a 2-to-1 ratio, but only with changes to the system.

2. The sooner Congress passes and the president signs legislation enacting those changes, the more time there will be to phase in the reforms, giving people a chance to slowly adapt to them.

There are dozens of good proposals for Social Security reform. But people are going to have to accept this basic fact: When all is said and done, somebody's Social Security benefit is going to get cut, or somebody's Social Security tax is going to go up. Or more likely, there will be some combination of the two.

Just think about it. Social Security works like a pipeline. Taxpayers pump money into one end of the pipe and retirees take money out of the other end of the pipe. As the number of people siphoning money out of the pipe continues to swell, you've only got two choices: pump more money into the pipe (raise taxes) or reduce the money flowing out of the pipe (cut benefits).

I can't stress this enough because so many people seem to think there must be some easy and simple solution to Social Security's long-range problems where nobody has to feel any pain.

And then folks tend to blame Congress and the president for not taking any action to fix Social Security. But I blame us — the voters.

Why blame us? Because if somebody running for office dares to suggest some reasonable reforms to Social Security, such as a slight increase in the payroll tax or perhaps a small reduction in future benefits, guess what happens? First, his or her opponent runs attack ads featuring a gloom and doom voiceover saying, "And my opponent has a plan to raise your taxes AND cut grandma's Social Security check! We can't let this happen. Vote instead for Mike Milquetoast. He'll tell you what you want to hear!" And then guess what happens? Mike Milquetoast wins and nobody does anything about fixing Social Security!

In next week's column, I'll share a number of reasonable proposals for reforming Social Security.

To find out more about Tom Margenau and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.