Social Security is one of America's most ubiquitous institutions. Like the post office, the utility company, or Ma Bell, Social Security reaches out and touches almost everyone. Everyone has a Social Security number, almost everyone pays Social Security taxes, and almost everybody is covered by Social Security's old age, survivors, and disability insurance programs. What separates Social Security from the post office, the power company, and the phone company, however, is its relationship to its participants. A person who mails a letter, turns on a light, or places a phone call is merely a customer, making a simple customer purchase decision. Millions of these occur every day. Social Security, on the other hand, is essentially a membership organization. Though it covers tens of millions of employees and beneficiaries, what ties Social Security together is a single set of rules that defines its responsibility to all its members.

Now, with Social Security's future hanging in the balance, we find ourselves once again drawn into the participatory implications of our latest Social Security crisis. Trillions of dollars at stake and millions of seats at the table, but only one set of rules, and only one decision to be made, which, in the final analysis, all of us must make jointly. Small wonder that Congress has gotten so stalemated on Social Security reform. Joint decisions are so much harder than individual customer purchase decisions.

Yet the political stalemate on Social Security reform, though understandable, is both dangerous and expensive. It cannot be allowed to continue. An effective strategy for saving Social Security must somehow be pieced together. How can this be done?

Let's begin with three cards dealt face up.

1. This stalemate has many fathers. Political partisanship is, of course, at the heart of the stalemate. The quest for partisan advantage on Social Security decreases the likelihood of a rational compromise. In addition, the scale of the problem is vast, and most of its proposed solutions head toward uncharted territory. With a long-run financing gap that rises ultimately to 2.3% of GDP, Social Security's long-run capital requirement could be equal in value to 50% or even 90% of GDP. Who has any experience with figures of such magnitude? Congress is stalled partly because the American people don't know yet what kind of solution they want.

2. Being stalemated is costly. Over the long run, saving and investing is the least expensive solution for Social Security. In any solution fueled by compound interest, though, a long lead-time is crucial. The more compounding cycles, the better. The twenty-thirty rule applies. A twenty percent delay in getting started reduces by at least thirty percent the ultimate value of a savings strategy. Time IS money. The price of delay is high and it will be extracted from tomorrow's retirees.