The dual purpose of Social Security and its impact

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

Thank you for  taking a look at the Kolbe bill. We will stay close
to real bills because that is where your ideas and comments will
have the most direct effect.  But let's also dig a bit more into
the dual purpose of Social Security and its impact on our planning.

Do we all agree that Social Security has two main purposes: 1) to
provide insurance against disability and the early death of a
breadwinner, and 2) retirement income?  Some of you have suggested
that the two basic goals ought to be pursued through two separate
programs, paid for in their own ways.  Either side of the program
could, according to some of you, be partially or fully privatized.
Richard Arsinow put it this way:

    <<<<If (a young man) had the freedom to do so, could he not
    take a small portion of the 10.4% of his pay to purchase a
    $300,000 term life insurance policy on the open market for
    around $200 per year, or even less (and he could) supplement
    this with a disability income replacement policy using another
    small portion. Finally, the remainder of the 10.4% could be
    invested tax-deferred for retirement, where he and his family
    could watch it grow. I submit to you that this young man would
    be much better covered both by insurance and for retirement
    than he is under Social Security. Why don't you want to let
    him have that choice?>>

If we were starting the program up fresh, with no retired people
expecting a check today, would we let Richard have his way?  Under
those ideal circumstances, are there fundamental problems with this
vision, expecially as it impacts women and minorities, or not?

-- Maureen West