Either Bush is stupid or I am

Details are starting to unravel about his social security restructure plans. I am not sure if the problem and the solution has any relationship.

Here is the problem from here:

• In 2018, the government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than it takes in in revenue - and shortfalls then will grow larger with each passing year.
• By 2042, when workers in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt - unless we act now to save it.

And note that Bush is not taking about cutting benefits anywhere. If that is true, his proposal does not make sense.

Bush's solution:

• The President wants to see Social Security permanently strengthened for our children and grandchildren, without raising payroll taxes.
• The President favors voluntary personal accounts as part of a comprehensive solution to give younger workers the option to save some of these payroll taxes. Personal accounts give younger workers the opportunity to receive higher benefits than the current system can afford to pay, and provide ownership, choice, and the opportunity for workers to build a nest egg for their retirement and to pass it on to their spouse or their children.
• Those who do not choose to have a personal account would continue to draw benefits as Americans have long done from the Social Security program.
• Personal accounts will provide Americans who choose to participate with an opportunity to share in the benefits of economic growth by participating in markets through sound investments. Any proposal will include limitations on the risk of investments permitted in personal accounts and will include low-risk, low-cost options like broad index funds similar to those currently available to Federal employees.

Here are the things that I don't understand:

• Even though the returns on the stock market investments over any 10 year period shows good returns, it is volatile. If I retire during a recession, am I not going to be screwed? This is gamling with my retirement fund which I wouldn't do.
• I am not sure how it fixes the system w/o cutting the benefits. If benefits exceed the revenues, the total 1/3 of the revenues will not be sufficient to pay the total 1/3 of the benefits in the future unless we take a cut in benefits. Is he not telling the truth?
• His proposal also allows an option to use the existing system. So if everyone chooses to stick with the current system, aren't we back to square one? He is definitely not telling the whole truth here.
• If investing in low risk investments fixes the issue and gurantees higher returns and the government thinks it is a safe bet, why isn't the government doing it automatically w/o all the personal accounts bull shit?

Overall, I think he is very weak in reasoning and must have failed math in school. Or is it me?