DAILY SUMMARY April 22

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

		DAILY SUMMARY FOR APRIL 22,1999


In the fourth day the volume of responses increased greatly.
Equally noteworthy were the many thoughtful exchanges between
participants with opposing viewpoints. Broadly speaking the debate
has become bipolar with those who believe in social insurance
squaring off against the privatizers.  But of course such a
broad-brush characterization does not do justice to the nuanced
thinking of many of the participants nor does it include those who
are not firmly in one camp or the other.

The privatizers again emphasized the societal value of taking care
of oneself and one's family.  Several stated that because the
current pay as you go model is unsustainable that society would
benefit both economically and socially in a transition away from
a broad based entitlement program.

Those that endorse the present approach point out that a system of
social insurance serves important societal goals that a privatized
system neglects. They point out that those who have worked 30 to
50 years at lower wage jobs have a legitimate expectation that
their retirement incomes will be greater than a safety net floor.
As several stated it is difficult for many in our society to save
when they live from paycheck to paycheck.

On a different note, a registrant emphasized that tough tradeoffs
need to be made if this reform effort was to rise above a temporary
patch job. To ensure long-term solvency, he stated that either
benefits should be cut or the pool of accumulated savings increased.

Several themes from yesterday were sounded again.  When some
suggested raising the retirement age, others countered that age
discrimination is real and that it may pose a real hardship to some
elderly to continue working.

The current benefit scheme and payroll tax system also were
criticized. One participant argued that the payroll tax should be
dropped and that all income should be taxed to fund social security.
Another participant objected to taxing benefits or lowering COLAs
because this had the effect of making wealthier retirees subsidize
the retirement incomes of poorer seniors.

Finally I have been impressed with many thoughtful comments on the
various reform proposals.  I hope that these participants will
repost these ideas later during the roundtable discussions.