By Paul Jacob

Those of us advocating private accounts for Social Security have argued that the system is not solvent. Now, workers pay more than enough payroll taxes to cover the benefits paid out to current retirees. In fact, there's a surplus that Congress borrows and spends each year.

But that will change, soon, when more money will have to be paid to retirees than is being paid in by workers. Where will the government get the money to pay these obligations?

Enter Robert Samuelson, a Washington Post columnist, who argues that the government has no Social Security obligations at all. Workers paying into Social Security are actually owed ... zilch. Thus, there is no solvency problem.

Extraordinary . . . but true.

You see, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor that the generational contract we know as Social Security is not a contract. Regardless of what a worker has paid in to Social Security, the benefits are whatever Congress decides at any given time.

So, Samuelson is correct. When the system runs short of cash -- and payments to retirees consume all the payroll taxes plus about half of the remaining federal budget -- Social Security can easily handle the problem by slashing your benefits to pennies on the dollar. Or Congress can sock workers by raising payroll taxes through the roof. In other words, the government really doesn't have a Social Security problem.

. . but you and I do.

Feel more secure? Want a private account -- or trust Congress to take care of your money for you?

This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.

Common Sense is published by Americans for Limited Government. Their website can be visited at www.limitedgov.org.