Social Security reform has been identified by President George W. Bush as one of the primary goals in his second term. Though details have not yet been revealed, Bush is promoting some form of partial privatization to help increase the rate of return on Social Security tax revenues and to help fund the shortfall that will be experienced once most baby boomers have retired.

Debate over Social Security reform has been heating up in recent weeks, generally falling along party lines, with Republicans favoring change and Democrats mostly opposing it.

Debate is helpful, but scare tactics and political rhetoric are not. So far, unfortunately, not a lot of honest discussion is being heard. Instead, Bush's opponents declare he is trying to dismantle and destroy Social Security, leaving older Americans destitute. Such heated, partisan rhetoric is not helpful.

Before deciding what should be done with Social Security, if anything, there should be a clear understanding of the facts.

It cannot be denied that the pay-as-you-go program will be in trouble once the baby boom generation has moved into its retirement years. Yet some of Bush's critics argue there is no crisis.

To a certain extent, they are correct. The current Social Security surplus (more taxes coming in than payments going out) will not turn to deficit for 20 years or more. After that, supporters say income will be enough to pay about 75 percent of promised benefits.

But the massive size of the financial shortfall, even if it will not occur for two or three decades, suggests that sooner is better than later, when it comes to making changes to the program. One journalist posed a valid question to a Democrat who argued there is no crisis now - "When do you suggest something be done? In three years? In five years? In 10 or 20 years?"

Demographics is one of the more obvious reasons for facing reform now. When Social Security was created in 1935, there were nearly 40 workers paying taxes to support every retiree. By 1960, taxes from 16 workers supported each retiree. Today, taxes from 3.3 workers pay benefits to each retiree. When today's young people turn 65, taxes from just two workers will pay the benefits of each retiree. The math of the demographics is stark.

The solutions are debatable, but not these facts.

Adding to the problem of fewer workers supporting more retirees is the fact that life expectancy is significantly higher today than in 1940 or 1950, yet only modest moves have been made to increase the retirement age for Social Security eligibility.

There were 9 million Americans older than 65 in 1940. In 2000, there were 35 million Americans older than 65. There are more people, living longer and expecting to receive payments from a program in which the number of contributors is growing slower than the number of recipients. Again, the numbers support some sort of reform.

As columnist George Will noted recently, a good starting point, given these facts, is to ask what kind of a system would be created today. Would a national retirement and disability insurance program designed today look exactly like the one created in 1935 and only slightly modified since then?

America is not alone in facing this problem. Several European countries, most notably Germany, are facing an even worse crisis in their social security systems. Some countries in Europe and South America have already addressed reform, with Chile being notable in opting for partial privatization in 1981. Different versions of partial privatization are found in most of the reform efforts in other countries.

Just because other countries have looked to private markets to improve the performance of their social security systems does not mean the United States should mimic their programs. But it does mean that partial privatization should not be rejected out of hand, or that scare tactics of Bush's critics should prevent exploration of partial privatization options.

Instead, Americans should invest some time and energy into learning about the experiences in other countries, finding out what those reform efforts have looked like in terms of the privatization aspect and how transition costs have been handled. Other issues to consider are means testing and possible government investment of surplus funds, as is done in Canada.

The probability of higher rates of return and an "ownership" component to Social Security are appealing. But they must be balanced with the downsides or challenges of financing the transition costs, minimizing market risk and assuring that partial privatization does not turn into a windfall for Wall Street.

The objective over the next several months should be honest education and thoughtful discussion of alternatives - not scare tactics and political rhetoric

Despite the fact that this issue is critically important to many millions of Americans and to the country's economic future, it's not clear that the national media and our political leaders are capable of leading such a level-headed, nonpartisan approach.