It simply says that a portion of what you now pay into SS will go to a private retirement investment fund, that you control, is in your name, and will belong to your estate if you die, not the government coffers. My father for instance, died at age 58. Of all the money he paid into SS over his lifetime, only $255 was given to the family as a death benefit. The government kept the rest.
Privatizing the portion of SS above the safety-net portion would have the effect of involving more people from the lower end of the income scale in planning for their own future as opposed to relying on the nanny state (i.e. Democrat Party) for their future.
That is what Cain is advocating.
Okay, "partial" privatization. That brings out a few questions from the class:
* Is there a downside to "total", as opposed to "partial" privatization?
* If the natural Leftist goal is to keep as much cash in SS as possible, then where is the issue of SS being drained dry? If there's so much retention of cash by recipients dying off, is there that much of a shortfall?
* How is the "safety-net portion" determined? Is there a means test, or income, or some other yardstick?