Forgive me, but I enjoy watching the aggressively mediocre Republican congressional leadership flail about over President Bush's assault on Social Security.

Feckless Bill Frist, the Republican Senate leader, is a special delight. He and his House counterparts are completely intimidated by Bush and his privatization road show.

It's the end of the week, so the president will turn up before the cameras with another carefully vetted group of props. If those pesky polls are right, support for his plan will continue to fall.

Yes, of course, Democrats have to be part of an eventual solution for real, not desperate, solvency issues. For now, they can watch Republicans squirm, but they are not off the hook. I listened to 1st District Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, take pointed questions for two hours Saturday in Mill Creek. Voters are paying attention.

Politically doable fixes exist, but the key is not to trash a successful program that has fostered independence, self-sufficiency and dignity for 70 years.

Social Security is a compact with wage-earners who will have something waiting for them at the end of their working lives. Voluntary programs that encourage savings — including Individual Retirement Accounts and 401(k) plans — are highly desirable, but are wholly different than Social Security.

As traditional pensions disappear from the workplace, and major employers try to unload their pension plans on the federal government, Social Security remains steadfast and predictable.

Does the system return less than those fanciful averages of the stock market? Yes, just the way an AAA bond pays less interest for lower risk than a junk debt.

President Bush has two burdens as he peddles privatization. One is the squeam-ishness of his own party. It has good reason — how to say this gently — to be wary of him.

He sandbagged them on the war, he low-balled the cost of Medicare revisions, he is playing expensive games with budgeting, he is running up massive deficits and he has offered few details of his Social Security plan, except that it requires epic borrowing.

Republicans won control of Congress by tormenting spendthrift Democrats and endlessly promoting a balanced-budget amendment. The GOP's frugal instincts have been mugged by the head of the party. Most embarrassingly, some conservatives strain to argue trillions in new debt wouldn't be that bad.

This change is symbolic of a disconnect from the lives of ordinary people, who see the program as an earned benefit, not a handout or entitlement.

For legions of conservatives, Social Security is a philosophical insult, an ideological affront. They loathe the concept and its galling success. James K. Glassman, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, writes in Reason magazine that Social Security is a blight on liberty that creates a vast moral hazard.

Oh, brother. Try that pompous blather on someone who receives one of the 47 million checks a month. Ask the landlords, grocers and pharmacists who see it turned back into the economy.

The president's alarmist language about a crisis has fallen flat; not even pliant Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agrees. He said the president's partial privatization would incur enormous debt, and would do nothing to make the basic plan solvent.

Here is how the numbers get parsed: The system will still take in more than it pays out until 2018. With no adjustments, the fund covers 100 percent of its obligations from 2018 to 2042 or 2052, depending on the estimating source. After 2042, the system covers 70-plus percent of benefits without a correction.

Potential adjustments include tinkering with the retirement age, but it already goes to 67 in 2027. A modest 1.83 percent increase in payroll taxes works wonders. Raise the cap on income exposed to the tax. Early retirement formulas could be examined. Inslee suggests a statutory increase of the rate of return paid to the fund.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal offered hard-earned lessons from around the globe about expensive and bungled transitions to private accounts.

Bush's attempt to start an intergenerational fight is another disconnect with reality.

Recently, a 20-something friend was sharing age-appropriate skepticism about Social Security surviving another 40 years. (Can he imagine his two young kids eventually driving?) He went on to say he was 15 when his father died. Monthly Social Security survivors' checks sustained the family. The checks, he noted, were a lot more dependable than his dad's monthly support payments and about twice the size.

Social Security works. That is not a cliché, but a fact of life. Mend it, fix it, but don't be dumb enough to privatize it.

Lance Dickie's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is ldickie@seattletimes.com