Most Democrats in Congress agree with Republicans that Social Security must be changed to survive. But they vehemently disagree with the GOP’s favored fix: private accounts.

In theory, such accounts would grow larger nest eggs for Social Security recipients by allowing them to invest in stocks and bonds part of what they now pay into the Social Security system.

But U.S. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, calls private accounts a wrongheaded proposition.

His reasons:

• Transitioning to private accounts will siphon away from Social Security at least $1 trillion, money that now goes to the federal treasury. Running a $413 billion deficit, the federal government cannot afford such a reduction.

• A prolonged downturn in the financial market could wreak havoc with private accounts and wipe out retirees’ savings.

• About 40 percent of what is paid out under Social Security does not go to retirees. Instead, it goes to their survivors and those with disabilities. Social Security is an insurance plan for these people, and privatization plans do not account for them. Diverting money into private accounts would make it difficult — if not impossible — to maintain the same level of benefits for these recipients.

• Though the system needs fixing, minor adjustments over time can amount to big changes. In 1983, for example, Congress decided to raise slowly the age at which Social Security could be collected, from 65 to 67. “We don’t need to do something rash and radical,” Spratt said.