By Lou Glasse

Have national values changed so much that the United States will abandon its commitment to Social Security income for retired workers and their families? Do we want to return to the days when children of deceased or disabled workers depended on charity or welfare? Will young families preparing for their children's college education need to divert savings to support older parents and grandparents?

I believe the answer to these questions is ''no.'' Enacted out of the Great Depression, Social Security is insurance to protect workers and their families against life's adversities. Benefits are earned — a matter of right, not charity.

Millions of retirees and persons with permanent disabilities and their families have escaped poverty because of Social Security. In 1999, poverty among older recipients was just 8 percent. Without Social Security income, almost half in this group would have been impoverished.

Social Security is a largely pay-as-you-go system, with today's workers paying taxes to provide funds for current beneficiaries. In 2003, about 155 million Americans paid Social Security taxes and 46.7 million people collected benefits. Social Security is the major source of income for most people 65 and over. For more than two-thirds of beneficiaries, the program provides 50 percent or more of income. One out of five beneficiaries only has Social Security income.

Many lack savings
Only about 55 percent of the American work force has any private pension or 401(k) coverage, but Social Security is virtually universal. Although the system isn't perfect, checks do flow every month from the Treasury to millions of retirees. Many beneficiaries depend on this return of their Social Security contribution to meet basic needs. Because Social Security has been the most successful anti-poverty program, it should be maintained for future generations of workers.

Baby boomers will begin to reach age 65 around 2013. Persons over 65 will number 70 million by 2030, compared to the current 35 million. This looming retirement of baby boomers has caused uncertainty about the sufficiency of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Some proposals have been made to partially ''privatize'' Social Security, allowing workers to keep a portion of their Social Security taxes and to invest these funds in individual accounts of stocks and bonds. The amount of money they would receive at retirement would depend on the success or failure of their individual investment accounts.

The investment failure risk would become an individual one. The amount a person could collect under these accounts would be linked to the volatility of the securities markets, stability of a private industry, and to skill in investing.

Many would drop back into poverty; look at the devastation of privately invested pension accounts during the recent economic downturn. A staggering $5 trillion in invested value was lost.

Social Security would radically change from a national insurance program with shared risk to an investment with individual risk. The individual accounts proposal would create greater financial strains on the Social Security system.

If revenues are diverted into individual accounts instead of paying current benefits, this money must be replaced so current beneficiaries can be paid — at an estimated cost of more than $1 trillion.

Political leaders disagree on how to address the Social Security Trust Fund shortfall. However, experts have proposed several options worth considering. The political debate should help voters weigh those options.