DAILY SUMMARY April 21

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

		DAILY SUMMARY FOR APRIL 21, 1999

In our third day of the dialogue the discussion primarily focused
on fairness issues, but a secondary thread radically challenged
the values of the existing system.  And again process values were
of concern.

Several different fairness issues were debated.  After one participant
had advocated that the system should pay out benefits in the same
ratio as the lifetime contributions paid into the system plus
inflation, others responded that the system was not set up on a
rights based model. Because Congress can alter the benefit structure
or the retirement age without violating  the non-retired's rights,
the system is not like a traditional  private pension plan. Indeed,
as several people pointed out, many of today's elderly would have
exhausted their contributions if the system operated on this model.

Means testing was also debated.  In response to a participant who
questioned the fairness of means testing the disabled's benefits
another commentator stated that adopting such a measure to ensure
the system's solvency would inevitably leave some people feeling
shortchanged. Another commenter pointed out that the regressivity
of the existing payroll taxes made it difficult for young workers
to achieve the American dream.

Raising the retirement age was also posed as a solution, because
life expectancies have increased and the elderly are now healthier
at 65 than during the thirties.  But several people pointed out
that the present job marketplace is not friendly to the middle aged
let alone the elderly.  Another participant suggested that before
raising the retirement age, job training needed to be provided to
the elderly and corporate America needed to readjust its hiring
attitudes. In addition, the problem of the medically uninsured was
raised.

Several provocative values questions were also propounded to expand
the discussion beyond a focus on elderly poverty.  A congressional
staffer suggested we should ask what happens to family ties in a
society that relies on the government to take care of the elderly
rather than imposing some or the entire caretaking obligation on
families. In addition he raised the Generation X concern that he
did not think that the current system could be reformed in any
manner that would help provide for his own retirement.  Finally,
he questioned the value of a universal system.

Two other participants argued in two detailed postings that
privatization proposals would better address many other important
societal values such as wealth creation and distribution. Both
emphasized that their reforms would protect the safety net but
argued for a privatized system that would maximize the return to
future retirees and empower people to accumulate wealth which they
would own.

Three process concerns were raised.  Several people pointed out
that there should be no sacred cows when examining the system. In
other words the assumptions of the present system should be debated
and the social contract modified where necessary.  Secondly, a
concern was voiced as to whether or not bipartisanship was essential
to reform or whether any legislative solution would be too watered
down to be effective.  The final point was that fairness as a value
is often in the eye of the beholder.