Social Security. For years, this has been the third rail of American politics, and if any politician dares to mention reforming the system, they would be committing political suicide — just ask President Bush.

The problem is that the longer we put off fixing the current system, the deeper the hole into which we dig ourselves. If we do not act, we will soon reach a point at which it will be impossible — politically and economically — to fix the system. As it stands now, the only way to save Social Security is to start again from scratch.

This idea is not my own. It is actually a solution suggested to me by UW history professor John Sharpless during a conversation last week. His solution is one that would work, but does anyone have the political will to try it?

Let's start with a very simple truth: Social Security must be fixed. On that, everyone agrees. Now, how do we do such a thing? First, we can no longer afford to view Social Security as an entitlement, because we simply cannot continue on that path without massive tax increases or cuts in benefits. Instead, we must look at it as an insurance plan for our retirement, something that the government kicks in to supplement our own retirement savings if they fall short of our expectations. Social Security would then be based on need and what the individual requires for his retirement.

Currently, we pay between 12 and 14 percent for Social Security taxes. Half that amount is paid by us and the other half by our employers. Would it not be better to pay less in taxes and actually have some real security?

Under the "Sharpless Plan" for Social Security, each person in the United States would be required to "purchase" a minimum amount of retirement insurance from the government — something in the range of 1 or 2 percent. However, if people want a greater amount for their retirement, they can selectively pay more based upon their needs.

For example, if they want to have a guaranteed $35,000 a year for their retirement, they would let their employer know, and they would be taxed accordingly — which would work out to around 3 or 4 percent. When they retire, whatever they have saved privately would be taken into account, and if it is less than $35,000, then the government would make up the difference. Therefore, the plan is a supplement to private accounts. This supplement would not, however, be unlimited and most likely be capped around the median income for the United States or the state in which a person resides.

Some people are undoubtedly thinking this is crazy or that this would be nothing more than a gigantic government pension plan. Not exactly. Changing from Social Security to the "Sharpless Plan" is not simply switching from the current system to an insurance-style program. Fundamental to its success is encouraging citizens to save for retirement, and to do this, the government must end taxes on interest for all IRAs, 401K plans, high-yield savings accounts and mutual funds. If the penalties on withdrawing funds from retirement accounts are lifted, it would add an extra incentive for people to save. Notice, too, that the tax rates would be around 10 percent less under the new plan than they are currently. That money could be better spent on either higher wages for employees or employer contributions to individual retirement accounts.

My generation has no hope whatsoever of benefiting from Social Security, unless it is completely overhauled. My parents' generation might see it if they are very lucky. The short version is that we need to fix Social Security, and it cannot be a minor tweak here or a slight adjustment there.

I realize current seniors and those about to start collecting Social Security would demand their benefits be left untouched. Fine. There must be a transition period where those over a certain age are guaranteed their benefits under the current system.

However, the most important thing is that there must be a change. Burying our heads in the sand will not make this problem go away. Nor can we afford to take the position that Social Security is solvent for another 30 or so years and hope to fix it then. We need real action, and we need it now.

Mike Hahn ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and political science.