Response to moderator's question

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

Although Ms. West's statement is technically correct, from an
historical perspective, it is perhaps more accurate to note that
Social Security was given 3 major purposes as we developed as a
society. In 1935 the Trust Fund was to serve the need of seniors.
In 1939 it was expanded to cover dependents and survivors. In 1956
a disability insurance component was added. Presumably, congress
was reacting to a growing awareness of the value of expanding the
safety net to cover those most in need. If citizens were, in the
main, unable to meet those needs then can they now?

As the moderator properly infers, Mr. Arsinow's young man lives in
"ideal circumstances." Mr. Arsinow's wording of the hypothetical
reflects this:  "If a young man had the freedom..." I read that
statement as stating "If a young man had the financial freedom to
do so...".  The statement also presumes that all goes well with
him and his family so they live happily ever after -- no divorce,
no catastrophic illness, no job loss. That's not my story or the
story of my family and friends.

More specifically, too many minorities and women do not have the
financial freedom or assurance of untroubled times to take on such
an obligation voluntarily. Social Security must remain a safety
net; it must mandate certain financial obligations. Mr. Arsinow's
approach is too close to a fully privatized system to be a practical
choice for many women and minorities.

John Banks-Brooks