The commission says the coming hordes of retiring baby-boomers will put an impossible strain on the system by 2016 - and that plans need to be undertaken now to avert a funding or benefit breakdown then.

The commission, co-chaired by Democratic icon and former U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is right. The Left is wrong, but to support the phony reassuring position, commission critics claim the Social Security trust fund will have reserves in excess of $5 trillion by 2016 - plenty to handle the baby-boomers.

This is utter nonsense. As U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., so frequently points out, the so-called Social Security trust fund contains no assets, just IOUs. And despite all the talk about a ''lock box,'' the trust fund's money has been - and will likely continue to be - spent on other federal programs.

In reality, Social Security is an inter-generational pyramid scheme, transferring funds from the younger working population to the older, retired population.

By 2016, says the commission's report, the 12.4 percent payroll tax that finances Social Security will no longer be sufficient to fuel the current level of retiree benefits.

Even the Clinton administration owned up to this inescapable truth, declaring that trust fund balances are actually ''claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public (i.e., deficit spending) or reducing benefits ...''

The commission's mission is to find ways to keep Social Security fiscally secure throughout the 21st century without having to make those painful choices. One idea the panel is looking at is to allow the working population to invest a portion of their payroll withholdings into interest-enhanced personal savings accounts.

Maybe that's not a good idea and perhaps there are better ways to maintain the revenue stream to retired baby-boomers. Then let's hear about them. There can be no rational discussion about Social Security until all sides admit there's a problem.

So far, the commission's critics are in denial, ducking the debate by denying the truth.