NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Separating the spin from the substance in the Social Security debate can be challenging. So, I went looking for an honest broker, someone who could give me the facts, figures and fundamentals without the thread of a political agenda running through it.

Who better than the nation's chief accountant, Dave Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisan agency that watches over how the Federal government spends taxpayers' money and how it administers programs including Social Security.

The first president Bush appointed him to be a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare systems in 1990. Then, in 1998, President Clinton appointed him to the position of Comptroller General, which he will hold until 2013.

"I'm an independent," Walker told me when I interviewed him recently at the GAO's offices in Washington.

Here's what he has to say about Social Security.

Q. Is the Social Security System in crisis?

A. I think we do have a problem with Social Security. There's no question about that.

In 1950, there were approximately 16 people paying into Social Security for every person drawing benefits. Today, it's about 3.3 persons, and in the next 20 to 25 years it's going to go down to two persons.

And people are retiring earlier, but living longer, and therefore, are receiving those benefits longer than ever was envisioned when Social Security was put into place in the mid-1930's.

We have about a $3.7 trillion unfunded obligation. It's growing everyday. It's not an immediate crisis. But it is a problem that we ought to solve and we ought to solve it sooner, rather than later.

Q. What about the surplus in the famous trust fund?

A. Every year taxpayers pay in payroll taxes, and the federal government doesn't have to pay out as much in benefits as it gets.

The government spends the surplus on other things and puts back an I.O.U. That I.O.U. is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. It has legal, political, and moral significance.

But it has no economic significance whatsoever.

In order to pay off those I.O.U.'s the federal government is either going to have to increase revenues, cut other spending, or borrow more from the public. One of those has to happen.

Q. Are younger workers in danger of getting to retirement and finding out that there's no money to pay their benefits?

A. There will be money in Social Security. The question is how much. Starting in 2018 there will be more money paid out then taken in.

Based upon the latest best estimates of the Social Security trustees, the trust fund will go to zero in 2042, which means if no changes are made, and if that date turns out to be an accurate prediction, then sometime during that year an individuals benefits will be cut by 27 percent all at once.

They'll go from getting a dollar for each dollar of promised benefits to 73 cents for each dollar of promised benefits.

But the program will never go bust.

Q. Let's look at some solutions, like increasing the amount of income subject to Social Security tax, currently capped at around $90,000.

A. Obviously that's something that can be considered. But we also have to keep in mind that there are other challenges. If you raise taxes to deal with Social Security, that's going to lessen your ability to use revenues to solve other problems, such as Medicare.

Q. So what kinds of proposals will have to be considered to fix Social Security?

A. We need to look at a range of reforms.

• You can look at whether or not you should have additional revenues.
• You can look at whether or not you should look at the normal retirement age, and possibly raise that.
• You can look at the indexing formula for how you determine the initial benefit.
• You can look at the replacement rates, in other words, whether or not middle and upper income people should get as high a replacement rate as they're getting right now.
• And yes you can look at individual accounts.

Q. Just how effective would individual accounts be?

A.There are pro's and con's to individual accounts. I believe they ought to be considered as part of a comprehensive reform package. But we also have to recognize that they won't get the problem solved by themselves. You have to make other changes in order to sustain the solvency, sustainability and security of Social Security for current and future generations.

Q. What about the worry that setting up the personal accounts will divert funds that we need to pay for people's benefits in the future?

A. It depends upon whether or not the personal accounts are funded with current payroll taxes or some new revenue source.

If you used current payroll taxes to fund the personal accounts, then that means that the Social Security deficits will happen quicker, and they'll be greater in the early years. In the long range, they could be less.

Until you have answers to funding, you really can't say definitively whether or not personal accounts would have an adverse effect or not.

Q. Critics say setting up personal accounts would ultimately undermine one of the bedrocks of the New Deal. The President says it would make Social Security part of his broader ownership society. How do you view it?

A. First I think we have to recognize that Social Security is the foundation of income security in retirement. And therefore I think it's important that Social Security be primarily a defined benefit program.

Something that people can count on.

I do think that individual accounts should be considered as a part of an overall reform package especially for younger people.

Q.There's so much focus on Social Security but one of your missions in life is to raise the alarms about Medicare.

A.The problem with Medicare is eight times than Social Security. It's much more complex. It's going to take a number of major reforms on an installment basis over many years to solve Medicare's problem.

And in fact we can't just look at Medicare. We have to look at the entire healthcare system.

If there's one thing that could bankrupt the nation - it's healthcare. We cannot, we must not, we will not allow that to happen.

Q. What makes you most angry about the Social Security debate that's going on right now?

A. As a former trustee of Social Security and as someone who believes it's one of the most successful programs the federal government has ever created, and also someone who believes that it does have problems, and the problems are growing day by day, I'm very frustrated that we're still debating whether or not there IS a problem.

And that the rhetoric has become very partisan and very ideological.

The fact of the matter is it is in the public interest to deal with this problem. And to deal with it sooner rather than later.

Anybody can deal with a problem when you have to deal with it. It's leadership that determines the difference as to whether you deal with it when you should deal with it.

_________________________________________

-- Kathleen Hays is economics correspondent for CNN and contributes to Lou Dobbs Tonight.