Whether you are at work, with your friends, family, or perhaps even your church, chances are you’ve got one whiner near you.

You know the guy or gal I’m talking about — the one who just loves to complain about any situation, decision, or goal without offering any meaningful idea or alternative.

Though I never do, I want to grab these people by the ear and ask, “so what is your solution, genius?”

If I ever did, chances are they would simply look at me with a dumbfounded expression on their face. That’s what some members of Congress look like right now in response to the White House’s ambitious agenda for the next four years.

Specifically, Republicans and Democrats alike are afraid to touch the Social Security issue.

For the Republicans opposed, I can only assume it is their own fear of touching the “third rail” of American politics. They are so timid that they put their own re-election before the best interests of the people.

The worst comment in opposition to the president’s plan came from Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn.). “Why stir up a political hornet’s nest . . . when there is no urgency?” he said. “When does the program go belly-up? 2042. I will be dead by then.”

Well now, there’s a real hero for you. Simmons, who represents a competitive district, is more worried about his political skin than our children and grandchildren.

To allow cowardice to influence your decisions is even worse than the Democrats’ reason for opposing changes to Social Security, which is simply because Bush supports it.

Take Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., for example. In 1999, he said “(M)ost of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector.”

But after Bush unveiled his plans for Social Security, Reid said “[Republicans] are trying to destroy Social Security by giving this money to the fat cats on Wall Street.” A groundless claim considering there is only an estimated 0.3 percent cost for handling the funds, but it illustrates the fact that it is OK to privatize a portion of Social Security so long as Bush does not get the credit.

In fact, the Democratic leadership has even gone so far as to threaten retribution for any party members who support the White House. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said at a recent news conference that he had favorable responses from Democratic colleagues concerning his plans for the rescue of Social Security.

But, he continued, his supporters claimed they were under intense pressure from their leadership not to work with Republicans. Ryan goes so far as to claim that the punishment threatened toward his colleagues is the most intense they have ever faced.

Since they won’t consider my solution (completely dismantle the retirement provision of the program for anybody under the age of 40 or so and let them take care of themselves) let’s hear some constructive solutions from both sides rather than simply fighting for fighting’s sake.

Or, at least, some effective arguments in opposition to what plans are currently proposed rather than senseless blather.

Since Bush’s plan calls for no change to those age 55 or older, the privatization portion of the president’s plan is good common sense (of course, that is most likely the reason many politicians are opposed to it).

Think about it this way. You go to a bank to open a savings account in your name on behalf of your child. You want it in your name because, until your child is old enough, you want to be in charge of the account and not risk his buying candy or toys with it.

And, being the thrifty and sharp depositor that you are, you check out a couple of options to make sure your child will get the best return on the money.

Bank A (which stands for “absurd”) tells you that you’ll get a 1.23 percent rate of return. Not much, but they tell you your money is completely safe. Bank A also tells you that the money you invest can only be withdrawn once per month in set amounts — and the bank determines those set amounts.

That’s also safe — if the people you’re letting do your thinking for you are trustworthy. Finally, Bank A tells you that if you die before age 65, they get to keep all your money. This is also safe; but only for the bank, not you. This is how Social Security works.

Bank B (which stands for “better”) tells you that you can expect a return, based on historical averages, of about 8 percent. Granted, it’s not completely safe, but you’ve got more than 80 years of stock market history on your side.

Bank B allows you to choose when and how to withdraw and, best of all, if you die before age 65, the money goes to your child. This is how a portion of Social Security could work, if Congress does not get in the way.

In case the above does not convince you, according to the Heritage Foundation, in 1997 a 41-year-old low-income single-earner, married, with children can expect to receive about $202,000 in Social Security benefits.

Those 31- and 21-years-old in 1997 can expect to receive around $215,400 and $240,200, respectively. But if these same people invested their tax dollars in a portfolio made up of 50 percent U.S. Treasury bills and 50 percent blue-chip equities, they could accumulate an estimated $230,200, $241,000, and $249,000 in 1997 dollars, respectively.

As you can see, staying in the Social Security program means that low-income married couples will actually bear a cost of about $28,200, $25,600, and $8,800 for wage earners who were born in 1956, 1966, and 1976.

Of course, the higher your income, the greater the cost to you in lost capital for staying in the Social Security program in lieu of your own private accounts. The point — private accounts help everybody, be they low-income or high-income earners.

Since our government’s self-appointed task (I don’t remember seeing anything about retirement plans in the Constitution) is to help everybody through their senior years — and not simply special-interest groups like the AARP — our Congressmen must privatize Social Security.

Unless, of course, they care to come up with a better alternative to the president’s plan. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Jeff O’Bryant is an amateur historian and holds two degrees, a bachelor’s in education and a bachelor’s with honors in history. He is a columnist and staff writer for The Catoosa County News and can be contacted at jeffobryant@catt.com.