LINDSEY GRAHAM has a plan to rescue Social Security. This is not novel; in Washington, such plans are as numerous as parking meters.

While the features of Sen. Graham’s plan are interesting, what I find most praiseworthy is his approach. He takes two steps that show he realizes the huge scale of the problem and is serious about building support for a passable bill.

First, he is not marketing a painless approach. The transition to a financially stable plan in which Americans can put a portion of their Social Security taxes into an investment account would cost $1 trillion or more, he estimates. Given the budget problems, that debt cannot just be pushed down onto the grandchildren.

But in his view, the budgetary problems of Social Security cannot be faced without some pain. “There’s no way to get around this problem without sacrificing a little bit,” Sen. Graham said.

Given the spending habits of Congress, I’m always pleased to hear someone bringing up the idea of paying for legislation now, instead of borrowing. I’ll be even more excited the next time I see it actually occur — whenever that rolls around.

Second, he believes that the legislation must be bipartisan, and is crafting it to that end. That’s a step further than many will go. Everyone says they want bipartisan support; what they mean is that they want members of the other party to vote for their bill exactly as they draft it, so they sacrifice nothing.

Of course, the balance of power in the Senate makes bipartisanship necessary. There are 44 Democrats and one independent in the new Senate, and several moderate Republicans also will need to be wooed to any plan that includes privatization. Social Security is a legacy of FDR, so it’s an issue around which Democrats could unite to stymie the president’s second-term agenda.

Such a drive for bipartisanship has a more important benefit for all Americans: It frequently results in better legislation. As the sides negotiate, the best ideas from both sides should move into the final bill, if the legislative process works as it should.

What Sen. Graham has sketched out so far has spoonfuls of sugar and medicine for both sides — often, one side’s sugar is the other side’s medicine.

His plan includes:

• Cutting the tax rate for Social Security from 12.4 percent to 11.4 percent. A little tax-cut sugar for his conservative peers in the Republican caucus.

• Allowing people to take 4 percentage points’ worth of their payment, up to $1,300, and put it into funds that invest in stocks and bonds. Those who wished would be able to stay under the current plan. Republicans pushing for the market option say that the higher average rate of return in such investments is necessary to pay Social Security’s rising costs without cutting benefits.

• Continuing Social Security’s current payments for things besides retirement, such as disabilities.

• Raising the top level of income on which Social Security taxes are paid. In 2003, income up to $87,900 is taxed for Social Security. He would raise that level to $150,000 for 12 years to 15 years to keep the system solvent during the transition to private accounts.

Right there is where the medicine gets tougher for many Republicans, including the president, to swallow.

President Bush has called Social Security’s rescue with a privatization option a key goal of his second term, but he has not offered a specific plan. Instead, he has outlined a few goals he would like the plan that reaches his desk to meet. One of those goals: no higher payroll taxes.

Won’t Sen. Graham’s increase in the top level of taxed income be called a tax increase by some? Yes. “I’m going to get push-back from the right,” he says.

The alternative is borrowing more money, and pushing that kind of government burden onto future generations can’t continue forever.

“We can’t just run this credit card through the roof,” he says. “There’s no way to get around this problem without sacrificing a little bit.”

While I’m glad to hear Sen. Graham say that, I’m still waiting to hear such a view from the White House.

The debate over all these Social Security plans will rattle around the halls of Congress when the new session begins. But at some key point, the White House will have to speak up. To get a Social Security rescue that includes privatization to his desk, the president is going to have to accept some measure that pays part of the cost now, instead of dumping the full weight onto future taxpayers currently in diapers.

This White House might not believe deficits matter, but the president won re-election in spite of his zeal for irresponsible tax cuts and deficit spending, not because of it. Many overseas investors share that dim view of U.S. spending, which is a major reason that the dollar is sliding on currency markets.

There’s not a majority in the Senate for $1 trillion or more in new debt — and after more than four years of fiscal recklessness, that’s a positive development.

If the president wants to sign a painless Social Security bill, he will sit in the Rose Garden a long time waiting.

Reach Mr. Fitts at mfitts@thestate.com.