EVER since Barry M. Goldwater campaigned against Social Security in 1964 and lost in a 44-state landslide, America's largest government income maintenance program has also been its most politically secure. The image of poverty-stricken, elderly pensioners--not to mention the political wrath of well-organized and politically active senior citizens--has stifled criticism from even the most conservative politicians.

During his 1988 presidential campaign, Sen. Paul Simon (D-III.) said, "Just as it took Nixon to go to China, it might take a liberal Democrat to change Social Security."

Since I consider myself a liberal Democrat, I suppose I am allowed to propose a modest change in the system: We should get rid of it.

THAT'S right, scrap the entire Social Security program. Even if you believe (as I certainly do) that the U.S. government should provide income security to the elderly and disabled, you could scarcely devise a more unfair and inefficient way to do it than the Social Security system.

What's so wrong with Social Security? Only that it systematically undercompensates the needy, systematically overcompensates the non-needy, discourages the elderly from working and forces much of the expense of the system onto poor workers who can least afford to pay.

Social Security currently pays benefits to everyone of retirement age who has contributed to the system for a minimum number of years, regardless of how much other income they receive. These benefits are financed by payroll taxes on workers currently in the work force. That is, retirees are not just getting back money that they have paid into a trust fund. Social Security is not a savings plan, but a massive intergenerational transfer of wealth.

The most obvious problem with Social Security is that elderly Rockefellers are just as entitled to benefits as poor widows. Even Ronald W. Reagan, who made a career of blasting free loaders on the dole, recently applied to get his $800 per month.

What's worse, the Rockefellers actually get higher benefits than poor retirees. This is in keeping with the fiction that Social Security benefits are just a repayment of the individual's contribution.

In reality, all current retirees get far more back in benefits than they paid in. The average Social Security recipient gets back his or her entire contribution, plus the employer's matching contribution, plus interest in less than four years.

In 1983, Congress took one limited step toward getting the wealthy off of the Social Security gravy train. Those recipients making more than $25,000 now must pay taxes on half of their Social Security benefits. But that isn't enough. Wealthy retirees should not be entitled to any government benefits at all.

Many liberals cry that limiting Social Security to those who need it will stigmatize poor recipients. But why should it? The elderly can never be considered "welfare free-loaders." They aren't expected to work for a living.

Liberals also insist that keeping the rich on the entitlement rolls is a political necessity. It is true that many wealthy senior citizens would not support the program if they did not benefit from it. But by bribing the rich for their support, liberals are hurting the very group they want to help--the elderly poor.

For someone with no other income, Social Security benefits are shamefully low. The maximum retirement benefit is only $6492 per year. And wealthy retirees are far more likely to receive this amount.

Elderly widows who have never worked fare even worse. They rely on Supplementary Security Income (SSI), which pays only about $4800 per year in many states.

SOME especially courageous politicians, such as former presidential candidate Bruce Babbitt, have suggested applying a "means test" to Social Security benefits. It's a good idea, but it isn't enough. Social Security's inefficient system of distributing benefits is not its worst flaw.

That honor goes to the regressive, unfair system of payroll taxes that pays for those benefits. All wage-earners in America are required to kick in 7.51 percent of their earnings (the FICA tax) to the Social Security system. Even those workers who are so poor that they are exempt from the federal income tax have to pay the full FICA tax--no exemptions or deductions.

The tax is regressive because it does not apply to earnings over $48,000 per year. Nor does it apply to "unearned" income such as interest on bonds. Thus, Social Security takes a huge bite out of a minimum-wage janitor's paycheck, while it costs next to nothing for a lawyer with a six-figure salary or a Donald Trump who makes his money by shuffling assets.

The FICA tax is unfair not only to workers, but to their employers as well. Every business must match the FICA contributions of the workers on their payrolls, whether or not it makes a profit. So when profits are down, the incentive is all the greater to lay off workers.

And entrepeneurs who own their own businesses are hit twice. They have to pay FICA taxes on the salary they pay themselves, and then match their own contribution.

Because so many people receive Social Security benefits, the FICA tax rate has soared in recent years. When the system began in 1937, the rate was one percent. Next year, it will be 7.65 percent.

We can expect the rate to increase further. Today, the ratio of people receiving benefits to workers paying for them is one to 3.3. By the time Social Security begins dipping into its imaginary trust fund in 2030, the ratio will be one to two. If benefits are not limited, the workers who foot the bill for our generation's retirees will suffer an unconscionable burden.

THE entire concept of our Social Security system is fundamentally flawed. What we need is a program to insure the elderly against financial need. If you're 65 or older and have financial need, the government sends you a check. Simple as that. This program should be paid for by increasing income taxes on the middle and upper classes and taxes on corporate profits.

For more than 50 years, Social Security has been the cornerstone of liberal efforts to fight poverty. And it has been effective. The rate of poverty among the elderly has fallen from about one in three to less than one in 20.

But we spend so much on rich senior citizens that we neglect far more pressing needs in society. Children, for instance, are six times as likely to be poor than the elderly. We should be giving poor children a fighting chance instead of subsidizing the Carribean cruises of greedy geezers.

We need an income maintenence policy that is more efficient, fair and compassionate. We need to scrap Social Security.