WASHINGTON - President Bush's State of the Union call Wednesday to overhaul the retirement system amounts to "Social Security roulette," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid contended.
Reid's view was general among Nevada Democrats, while some Republicans praised the president's plan to replace some benefits with private investment accounts.
"Anyone that looks at the numbers with any objectivity will see that there is a serious problem coming," Republican Sen. John Ensign said. "Doing nothing is much riskier than doing very safe investments over a long period of time and getting a better return than the current system."
The growing population of retirees in Nevada means Bush's proposal is particularly relevant to the state.
The president has made changing Social Security the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, and used the first State of the Union speech since his re-election to sketch out some details.
Bush said the plan wouldn't affect people 55 and older but younger workers would get to divert up to 4 percent of their payroll taxes into private accounts they could invest in the stock market and pass on to their children.
Bush said the change is necessary because Social Security will go into deficit in 2018 and will be depleted in 2042.
The Congressional Budget Office has different estimates - 2020 and 2052 - but in either case, Democrats contend Social Security's situation is not as precarious as the president claims.
Reid and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said Bush's plan would result in benefit cuts of 40 percent or more.
Relying on the stock market for Social Security benefits "is inherently risky," Berkley said.
"The idea behind Social Security was the security part," she added. "You're not supposed to get rich with Social Security, but you're supposed to be able to afford a roof over your head and food on your table and clothes on your back in your golden years."
Democrats also criticized Bush for failing to explain how much benefits will be cut - or even mentioning the fact that there will be smaller benefits for younger workers.
Even some Republicans have reacted cautiously to changing a benefit that many Americans have been paying for their entire careers and see as their due.
While praising Bush for embarking on needed change, Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said he would not support a decrease in benefits.
"I think we have to make sure that benefits are not reduced, and I think there are a lot of ways to make sure they're protected and those are yet to come," he said.
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., applauded Bush's plan.
"We want to make sure that it's left unchanged for those of us who are entering Social Security or are in it, but yet will provide a better opportunity for the younger worker," Gibbons said.
"If we stand by when we had the opportunity to do something, to make small changes that make a big difference down the road, then our children and our grandchildren will hold us in the annals of history at fault for doing nothing," he said.