That’s how much Frank (not his real name) lost when the market took a dive earlier this year. Until then, his 401K plan had been doing quite well, out-performing the market in each of the last five years.

He had other investments, too – a hand-full of stocks that he had bought and sold with amazing discipline, based on a carefully crafted and apparently convincing investment "strategy" he had stumbled upon in a financial magazine a few years ago.

Luckily for Frank his loss was only on paper. Luckily for Frank he doesn’t plan on retiring for a while.

But, what if Frank wasn’t so lucky? What if Frank had retired the week before? And, what if Frank had "opted out" of social security and had only his investments to retire on?

These questions and more are likely to come up soon, as Congress deals with the over-riding question of how to "save" social security.

"Saving social security" became a theme for Republicans and Democrats alike during the recent elections. But what does "saving" social security mean exactly – and perhaps more importantly, what does "saving" social security mean to you?

Some political leaders and special interest groups are deliberately undermining support for the system—and pushing for individual investment accounts in place of Social Security’s guaranteed, defined benefits. While individual accounts are being sold as a free lunch, they really come at a high price.

What’s wrong with privatizing Social Security?

Privatization would cost a bundle—and the burden of paying for it would be devastating for working families. Initially, at least, we’d have to pay for two Social Security systems at the same time: today’s program for current beneficiaries and the privatized system. The added costs would require:

• Raising the retirement age to 70 or older.

• Deep cuts in guaranteed benefits.

• Cutting or eliminating cost-of-living adjustments.

• Or some mix of these bad choices.

Raising the retirement age to 70 or older would be especially hard on workers in physically demanding jobs and workers of color (many African American men, for example, wouldn’t live long enough to ever collect benefits because their life expectancy is 66.1 years). We could expect privatization to cost more than Social Security long after the transition period.

Social Security spends 1 percent of its money on administration. Administrative costs for private insurance range between 12 and 14 percent, according to the American Council of Life Insurance.

Under Chile’s privatized retirement system, investment companies are collecting fees of 15 to 20 percent. Privatization would replace guaranteed benefits with benefits dependent on workers’ luck or skill as investors and the ups and downs of the stock market.

While the stock market has performed well in recent years, stocks do fall. Since 1956, there have been nine major downturns in the stock market. Prices have tumbled by 20 percent or more for months and even years at a time. If Social Security is privatized, pray you don’t retire the day or year after a crash.

Privatization would mean millions in fees for banks, insurance companies and investment firms.

"This could be huge for us." - An executive at State Street Bank, who did not want to be identified.

Tap the federal budget surplus: We could take advantage of the nation’s unprecedented economic prosperity to set aside money to protect working families in the future. That’s a better deal than squandering the surplus on more tax cuts for the people who need them least, as some propose.

Tax earnings above the current cap of $68,400: Right now, high-income people contribute a much smaller percentage of their pay to Social Security than the average worker. Neither they nor their employers pay Social Security contributions on any money they earn over $68,400. That means someone earning $68,400 pays in the same amount as the average Fortune 500 CEO who earned $7.8 million last year, or 114 times as much. Raising or eliminating this cap could make a major contribution to Social Security’s funding.

Increase the tax rate slightly: Another possibility is to raise the payroll tax rate very slightly. Asking workers and employers each to pay another one-quarter of 1 percent—that’s $25 for every $10,000 you earn—would provide more than one-fifth of the projected amount Social Security will need to pay full benefits after 2032. But because the Social Security tax is applied to the first dollar of earnings, raising the payroll tax rate has the disadvantage of increasing taxes on all working families.

Change the trust funds’ investment mix: Right now, Social Security funds are exclusively in safe but low-yielding government bonds. One option some are advancing would change the funds’ investment mix to be more like the biggest, most successful pension funds by moving a portion of the money into stocks to generate a higher rate of return. This is a very different approach than individual investment accounts; it would retain Social Security’s promise of lifelong, defined benefits for retirement, disability and death. Having the overall fund invest in stocks would minimize risks for individuals.

Change the taxation of benefits: Another option is to change the way Social Security benefit payments are taxed so they receive the same treatment as pension benefits. Currently, only a part of the Social Security benefits exceeding what the worker paid into the system are included as taxable income. Some of the tax revenue raised this way goes to support the Social Security system. This change could be made in a way that helps the system’s financing but does not hurt the neediest Social Security recipients.