So, here is the fullest explanation that young Kean has offered on Social Security to date, a 
rather long-winded yet empty response full of campaign soundbites, a response that manages to sound thoughtful but that lacks any meaningful policy prescriptions. (Here is the response to a question on Social Security from the Hall Institute of Public Policy in New Jersey.)
If I’m reading this correctly, Kean Jr. is opposed to privatization, but for private accounts and does not say in this piece how he manages to gibe this inconsistency. Is he for creating a separate set of accounts that would be managed like a 401k and leaving traditional Social Security as is? He doesn’t address this, preferring instead to go on the attack.
His lack of specificity on this is all the more puzzling, given the Hall’s very specific, three-part question:
A. Do you believe that individuals should be allowed to direct part or all of the Social Security tax to private accounts? What would be the effect of such a proposal on lower income people, the disabled, and survivors’ benefits?
B. How would the nation deal with the transition costs to private accounts?
C. If the Social Security trust fund faces — in the long-term future — a shortfall between revenues and expenditures:
1. What should be the age for full benefits?
2. Should the Social Security tax be raised and to what levels?
3. Should the current array of benefits be cut for future retirees?
Menendez, also turns to the political cudgel, but his response ultimately is pretty 
straightforward. He opposes privatization and does not believe the system is in crisis:
We must take privatization completely off the table. Once that happens, I believe in working towards a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security over the long haul. This must be accomplished in a way that does not increase the deficit, hurt the middle class or slash guaranteed benefits.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 
http://www.hallnj.org/virtualdebate/flynn_response3.jspHow about, instead of tweedle dum TOM KEAN\’s privitization of something not specific, and tweedle dumber ROBERT MENENDEZ\’s \”what problem? there\’s a problem? where?\”, perhaps we could consider a libertarian solution? LEN FLYNN, in the \”other condidate\’s section\”, like sitting in the back of the election bus, (everyone not a D or an R has no chance, and everyone knows they\’re just nut jobs anyway), is the Libertarian candidate for Senate. His answer recognizes that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. He\’ll tackle it head on.It has long been recognized that Social Security is (a) not insurance, but a fraud on the working class; (b) a federal slush fund to hide the true costs; (d) a socialist\’s dream that puts everyone on the welfare dole; and (d) a political football to scare voters with.Chile, guided by a American educated free-market economist, \”unwound\” their social security system from a government joke into a free market engine of savings and investment. And, at the time, Chile was largely illiterate. That\’s doesn\’t make them stupid; by \”social security\” standards, they were a heck of lot smarter than we are.So, in sum, Flynn offers a real choice to solve social security. End the theft of a lifetime\’s work. Allow the poor not to pay a 100% death tax. Stop the wealth transfer from from poor minority men to rich white women! And, make us as smart as the average Chilean — get the gubamint out of the retirement business.Or, you can flip a coin and pick a big gubamint republicrat or the big government democan. Don\’t kid yourself, there\’s NO difference between the empty suits. I\’m voting for small government. Every time. No excuses.