Social Security

Re “Ex-Chief of Social Security Calls for Privatizing Fund,” Aug. 15: Why is it necessary to choose between a public or private Social Security program? This is typical of our Western either-or thinking. Why can’t Social Security be both public and private--rather, consist of partly public, partly private elements?

Furthermore, why does everybody have to enroll in the same program? Why could there not be several types, indeed, a whole range of options or different types, each tailored to different needs?

For example, I can see the Social Security Administration building or partially underwriting different sorts of retirement communities--you might even say “communes”--to which eligible beneficiaries could opt to go, in exchange for smaller cash pensions. Costs could be kept down by having the residents contribute to the upkeep, help grow the food, do the gardening, etc. They might even help with the initial construction. Community stores could buy in bulk, sell at wholesale prices. Once constructed, the physical plant could last for generations. The sites could be located on government land, in or near scenic national parks. There are thousands of wonderful possibilities. And it would be at least as affordable as the present system.

PHILIP WALKER

Santa Barbara