Question: If the black-white (and presumably the Hispanic and female) income gap is shrinking why do members of the first group continue to be significantly worse off in so many measures of educational attainment and financial security? (See the March 19, 1999 edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education) Yale Sociologist Dalton Conley may have found the answer: it is less a matter of income level than opportunities for wealth accumulation and maintenance. If Dr. Conley's answer is correct and I believe it is, then the solution is obvious -- create and sustain wealth.

The Yale professor's exhaustive research shows an undeniable correlation between educational and career patterns with the size of a family's asset base. What I want to suggest is that a specific but immense opportunity for wealth creation can be accomplished by preserving the Social Security system. That is, preserving it's fundamental purpose by making the program responsive to today's realities – a diverse polity, longer life spans, aging Baby Boomers, virtual corporations and a global economy.

A quick review of the facts is in order. Social Security has been an income redistribution or pay-as-you-go system since its inception in 1935; no one has an individual Social Security account. At the moment, the Trust Fund collects more money than it sends out. Despite words to the contrary, those additional funds are not invested but are used as general revenues to take care of the ordinary expenses of government, from building better weapons to keeping adequate supplies of copier paper. However, Uncle Sam does throw in IOUs to acknowledge his debt to the Trust Fund. When he decides to repay the debt he must slice benefits, compete against the private sector for funds by borrowing or take more money from our purses by raising taxes.

Being able to make good on those IOUs is important. At current rates, in or about 2012, the Social Security Trust Fund must start spitting out more bucks that it takes in. At present there are three workers for every retiree. Within thirty years that ratio will fall to two to one. That's why we're here. What should we do about it? Some suggest means testing or reviewing retirement age and/or income eligibility requirements. Others cling to more quick fix recommendations like increasing FICA taxes, reducing benefits or simply ignoring the coming dilemma it in the rosy belief that, as a technologically advanced nation, we will simply outgrow of the problem.

However, few preliminary solutions of any stripe have addressed the undeniable fact that many of us who are traditionally most dependent on Social Security -- minorities and women -- have been cut out of the economic promises of America. And since we are not full participants in the American Dream, we do not have large stake in the economic pie; our (lack of) assets increases our dependence on job income or government assistance just to meet the routine obligations of our families not to mention those unexpected financial setbacks.

Conley remarks, "Although the median income for black families is more than half that of white families, the median white family holds assets worth seven times that of the median black family. Even compared with black families of the same income level, white families have far more wealth." He goes on to note that it is wealth rather than income inequality that explains the continuing gap with respect to educational attainment and unemployment rates. It becomes an even more compelling thesis when we remember that one-third of all income comes from return on assets.

The undeniable conclusion is that further opportunities to create wealth rather than spend income would have amount to more than a mere economic ripple. The greater the assets held by women and minorities the greater the opportunities for us and our heirs to fulfill our role as citizens and the greater the opportunity for us to engage in the successful pursuit of happiness.

Simple demographics and the previously mentioned changes in our social fabric require that Social Security's splendid mission be expanded from a mere income redistribution system to one that also provides for wealth creation. This is not an argument for privatizing Social Security but rather a proposal for the further empowerment of women and minorities by giving us chance to create wealth that we can pass on to our heirs should we choose.

I advocate a "Two Tier" approach. The first tier would commit the Trust Fund to maintaining sufficient resources to ensure that the program continues to act as a safety net. The second tier recognizes that continuation of the present pay-as-you- go system at present levels in the face of our fast aging Baby Boomer population is not only impractical but impossible. Consequently, it would stipulate that around 4% of payroll or $500, whichever is greater, be placed be placed in a worker's personal investment account. Depending on one's retirement needs, these "wealth- creation" accounts could be used either to purchase an annuity or as a vehicle which allows ample funds for retirement and the ability to pass on remaining assets to heirs.

Have I created a new Garden of Eden? Will my plan, actually the Economic Security 2000 plan, narrow SAT scores, create streets of gold, foster peace and love among human kind? Hardly. Racism and sexism will continue, some students will be more academically inclined than others, some workers more ambitious, some more willing to take financial risks. But by placing, no, keeping Social Security on track by conforming it to the realities of the new millennium it gives every minority member, every women better weapons to counter intolerance and greater tools to achieve our aspirations. As Professor Conley states, "People who have a stake in the American dream are better citizens."