President Bush's plan to create personal accounts in Social Security will have a direct impact on entrepreneurs and business. There are good reasons to like the proposal and good reasons to dislike it. Unfortunately, those reasons are not the arguments you hear most often.

It is the hidden agenda that needs more attention.

Perhaps the most revealing clue to the hidden agenda is the proposal to raise the salary cap on which Social Security is paid. The cap affects only about 20 percent of workers. If 20 percent of the people in your company paid more into their 401(k), how would that solve a funding problem for the other 80 percent?

It won't - unless the plan takes money from the 20 percent and gives it to the 80 percent.

That is the hidden agenda. Currently, higher-paid workers receive less from each dollar paid into Social Security than lower-paid workers. Because Social Security money goes into a common pot, the government can decide who gets how much. If it went into personal accounts, the government cannot take money from some and give to others. The loss of that ability is the hidden agenda of many opponents of personal accounts.

The plan allows younger workers to voluntarily put part of their Social Security contributions into private accounts investing in well-diversified stocks and bonds. Since it is voluntary, one would naturally assume that it is a good thing.

But that isn't necessarily the case. The Bush proposal cuts benefits on the involuntary part. The portion not in personal accounts will only grow at the rate of inflation, not the rate of wages, as Social Security does currently. Wages have historically grown faster than inflation. This is a legitimate reason not to like the plan. Of course, if the money in the personal accounts grows fast enough (estimated at 3 percent above inflation), it will make up for the cuts. But it still cuts benefits on the approximately two-thirds that cannot go into personal accounts.

One red-herring argument against the plan is that it is risky. Ask those same politicians who claim that it is risky about their personal accounts in their government retirement program. Current government employees have a plan similar to the proposed personal accounts. Are these politicians putting money into stocks and bonds rather than government IOUs? They almost all do. If it is so risky, why do they do it, and why do they not want to allow individuals to do what they do? Again, the answer is the hidden agenda.

Another red-herring argument is that it forces the government to borrow more. The portion of Social Security not passed on to current retirees is spent on other government programs, and the government owes this amount to future retirees. Under the proposed personal accounts, money would be needed to buy stocks and bonds and would not be available to spend on other programs. If the government does not cut spending then it must borrow that much money in the form of Treasury securities. Rather than owing the money to future retirees, the government would owe that money to whoever purchases those Treasury securities. But the government no longer owes the money to retirees because the stocks and bonds meet the government's obligation to them. The amount the government owes is the same.

If your current employer took money from your paycheck for your retirement, spent it on business purposes and said that he will pay you in the future, would you feel more or less secure than if he took the money and put it into a diversified mutual fund? Most employers are forced to "fund" their retirement programs by putting the money into stocks and bonds rather than spending it on other business purposes. If it is so important for businesses to fund their retirement programs, then why is it bad for government to fund its retirement program?

There are things to like and things to dislike about President Bush's proposal. However, at the moment, it is the only plan on the table. Any alternative would likely have to raise contributions or cut benefits. Opponents should make a counterproposal.

But don't use red-herring arguments to hide the agenda.