• First of a series

The upcoming battle over Social Security reform looms as the main legislative event of President Bush's second term. The president believes that Social Security faces bankruptcy and that reform demands emergency action. In this and subsequent editorials, we will show why this characterization is wrong. Yes, there is a problem -- but not a crisis. Social Security can be fixed, but a drastic overhaul isn't needed. Moreover, the president's call for private accounts does nothing to solve the problem.

Reasonable people can disagree on the merits, but there should be no argument about the importance of the debate itself. Every American has a huge stake in making sure that Congress and the president get this right.

Social Security matters because it is a guaranteed pension -- a so-called defined benefit -- that remains a vitally important part of our way of life. Do we want to take the ''defined'' out of the benefit? Is the safety net no longer needed? Only a dire emergency should justify changing Social Security's promise. And, yes, America still needs a safety net.

At the end of 2003, 47 million people were receiving benefits, according to the annual report of the Social Security trustees. For many, these benefits don't amount to a satisfactory retirement income, but for seven million retirees, Social Security is all they have. It also sustains 15 million survivors of deceased workers, disabled workers and their dependents -- none of whom are taken into account by the president's assessment of the problem.

Social Security matters, as well, because it has been one of the most successful programs that the government has ever undertaken, and one of the most efficient pension programs anywhere. Some 48 percent of today's elderly beneficiaries would have been below the poverty line without their monthly Social Security check.

It matters because the Social Security trust fund now holds about $1.5 trillion -- the mother of all piggy banks. This fund will keep growing for years, making it an irresistible target.

Finally, it can be argued that it matters more than ever because when the program began in the 1930s, the proportion of Americans over 65 was 5.4 percent of the population, but by 1990 had reached 12.49 percent -- and will keep rising. Social Security affects more and more of us every day.

Therein lies the demographic problem, however -- such as it is. In 2003, there were about 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. The baby-boom generation will have largely retired by 2030, and the projected ratio of workers to beneficiaries will be only 2.2 at that time. Thereafter, the number of workers per beneficiary will slowly decline. This makes clear why Social Security isn't very popular among many younger people. They don't like those shrinking ratios, and they don't believe the system can be sustained under those conditions. They are thus predisposed to believe there is a crisis requiring a radical solution.

But is there? The system continues to take in more than it pays out. When that ceases to be the case in about 13 years, it will be able to draw on the aforementioned $1.5 trillion (which will have grown by then) and the IOUs it holds from the U.S. Treasury in order to keep paying full benefits until around 2040 or perhaps even afterwards.

A case can also be made that Medicare, with its soaring, unpredictable costs, is in greater need of immediate attention than Social Security. So is the deficit, which threatens to become a permanent feature of an increasingly crippled economy. As for Social Security, a moderate fix may be in order, but it makes no sense to suggest that it faces impending doom.

• Tomorrow: Younger people and Social Security.