Many voters, especially baby boomers on the brink of their golden years, are familiar with the numbers on Social Security.

	This is one in an occasional series of articles leading up to November's election about economic issues being put forth by President Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry.

By 2018, annual payments to retirees will be greater than the payroll deductions from workers' paychecks that finance the retirement program. By 2042, surpluses in the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted, and payroll deductions will only be able to fund 73 percent of benefits.

The question is: What will President Bush or Democratic challenger John Kerry do about the problem come Jan. 20, when one of them will be in the White House? Voters also want to know what the presidential contenders will do about other retirement issues, including the multibillion-dollar deficit facing the government's pension insurance program.

Social Security has been a hot-button issue in the home stretch of the campaign. Kerry charges Bush is planning a "January surprise" for privatizing Social Security, sparking White House countercharges that the liberal Democrat is trying to scare seniors into voting for him.

At issue is Bush's vaguely defined proposal for partially privatizing Social Security. He raised the idea during his 2000 campaign, then appointed a commission to advance the idea after he was elected. This year, Bush is recirculating the idea, saying personal retirement accounts should be the centerpiece of efforts to strengthen the system.

Under his proposal, younger workers would have the option of channeling a portion of their Social Security payroll deduction into private accounts. Those who do would receive reduced Social Security benefits and shoulder responsibility for investing the money wisely.

Proponents say personal accounts will give retirees more money for a number of reasons. According to the Republican party platform, the investment options include some that guarantee a higher rate of return than Social Security "with no risk to the investor." Moreover, money in the accounts would go to family members once a retiree dies, a cushion Social Security doesn't provide.

"Even if you bought (U.S.) Savings Bonds, you'd be left with a larger amount," says Michael New, a University of Alabama political science professor and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

Opponents say privatizing proposals miss the boat because they ignore why Social Security was established: to guarantee everyone has a minimum level of retirement income.

"Allowing people to invest in risky assets defeats that purpose," says Zvi Bodie, a Boston University finance professor. "People want to hear you can earn higher rates of return in the stock market and the risk goes away automatically. That's nonsense and it always was nonsense."

Not wishing to commit political suicide, neither candidate is backing some obvious ways to fix Social Security: raising the retirement age, reducing benefits or increasing payroll deductions. The most Kerry will say is that he opposes privatizing Social Security and raising the retirement age.

"Kerry hasn't laid out any ambitious plan," New says. "He wants to grow the economy, which isn't a real plan."

Nor will voters hear a discussion of the costs of privatization. Providing Social Security benefits to those who remain in the system without the payroll deductions of those who opt for personal accounts could cost as much as $1 trillion, according to some estimates.

"That is one of the real stumbling blocks to reform," New says. "Transition costs are in fact real and need to be taken seriously."

When it comes to campaign sound bites, Social Security is much more fertile ground than the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the government agency that insured pension benefits for about 44 million Americans.

Burdened with billions of pension liabilities from bankrupt steel producers and facing more of the same from US Airways and other carriers, the PBGC could run out of money by 2020, according to the Center on Federal Financial Institutions, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

"The PBGC has the potential to become another savings and loan crisis unless action is taken and neither political party wants to take action," Bodie says.

He believes many poorly funded corporate pension plans would be in better shape today if they had matched their benefit obligations with bonds that would have produced enough income to meet those liabilities. But debating investment theory, actuarial assumptions and other pensions issues won't win Bush or Kerry many votes.

"Most people hear this and their eyes glaze over," Bodie says.