Summary of comments: May 24-25

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

		WOMEN AND MINORITIES ROUNDTABLE

Note: Following are short synopses of selected comments made by
public participants in the discussion. Please refer to the discussion
Website for the full text from all contributors.


-Dermant suggested a reference on dealing with the issue of Women
and Social Security:  http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp12.html

-Janson asked why, after a 33 year marriage, she is not entitled
to her deceased husband's Social Security after remarrying.  Jimenez
replied that, under a privatized system, a worker's contributions
belong to the worker and the heirs.

-Hart commented on panelist Kijakazi's position paper: The amount
of payroll taxes directed towards benefits payable to younger
families is minimal, and most privatizers don't suggest that these
types of non-retirement benefits be discontinued.  Survivors'
benefits can be secured by recognizing contributions to privatized
personal accounts as being community property. Most privatizers
are focusing on privatizing Old Age & Survivors' Insurance not
Disability Insurance. The real money in OASI goes to the elderly
not to younger families.

-Arsinow stated that the following quote, taken from a 1936 booklet
which described Social Security to employees, was no longer true:
"What you get from the Government plan will always be more than
you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself
by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other
way."

-Hart stated that Social Security is: detrimental to our nation's
economic growth and prosperity, an immoral tax, a destroyer of
class mobility, unfair to current workers, anti-family and
anti-parenting.

-Jones asked how much you are willing to pay for a system that will
offer a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted floor level of income.

Panelist Hartmann replied to Jones: that the system has "matured"
as its founders envisioned - they envisioned that general revenues
would be used to support the system and not just the payroll tax;
that various proposals to use the budget surplus to "save" Social
Security do that; and that to change the system from pay-as-you-go
to savings costs an enormous amount.  She asked if it would be
worthwhile for today's workers to have to pay for two systems.

-One participant asked if we should discard or outlaw any program
which treats one racial group better than another group, rather
than looking for fair treatment of individuals.

-Noble stated that women have been denied employment opportunities,
draw benefits without ever having worked--but use their husband's
and drain the funds. Disability benefits are based on the same
parameters and men with the same disability have a superior living
standard. She asked what plans are being considered which change
this.

-Jabbour stated that the individual who is the smallest minority
is not being addressed in this discussion. Why are his personal
concerns not being addressed?

Laurie Maak