Re: AARP & COG

["Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>]

Dear Thomas,

Sorry for not getting back to you.  I like your idea, but don't have the time to
compose a good letter to Broder.  Why don't you send him one making reference 
to the
Capital Homestead Act and suggesting that Broder log on to the CESJ web site by
clicking on http://www.cesj.org.  He can read the full text of the CHA by going 
to
the site map.  Again, please take the iniyiative on this.

All the best,

Norm Kurland

Thomas Brandt wrote:

> At the risk of annoying everyone, I decided to post this once more and try 
>once
> again to get some response to it.  I'm puzzled as to why no one has had 
>anything
> to say about it, pro or con.  Is it so obviously lame to everyone but me that 
>it
> doesn't deserve comment?  Or is it so unconventional and so far "out of the 
>box"
> that no one knows what to think or say without further reflection first?  
>Again,
> all comments are welcome--negative as well as positive.  Even "I need to think
> about it more before responding" would be appreciated.
>
> Mahalo and Aloha!
>
> ____________________Forward Header_____________________
> Subject:    Nat'l v. Subnat efforts
> Author: Thomas Brandt
> Date:       4/5/00 5:41 PM
>
> To Norm, John, and everyone else,
>
> I just got done saying I would have to decrease my participation, but had some
> additional thoughts I wanted to get out first on what COG may be able to do 
>with
> its limited human and financial resources on the national level.
>
> For starters, maybe Norm could write a letter to David Broder in reference to
> the interest David expressed in a column last year in Ackerman and Alstott's
> Stakeholder Society.  While agreeing with the intent of the idea, Norm could
> explain how it may be flawed (e.g. the point I made about how angry those who
> reach 21 before the year the "stake" was started might be).  He could then
> present his alternatives to Broder, and perhaps point out how the Capital
> Homestead Act (and other alternatives proposed by COG) might better accomplish
> Ackerman and Alstott's goal, while also providing possibly more "win-win"
> alternatives to the various proposals to partially privatize Social Security.
> Maybe Broder would be motivated to write another column about it.  And if 
>Broder
> wasn't interested, Norm could always write another letter to the Washington 
>Post
> which we could all copy or modify for submittal to our various local 
>newspapers
> and send to our respective congressional representatives.  This could be 
>similar
> the the letter Corey Rosen has posted on the COG website, but with more direct
> references to Social Security reform.
>
> COG might also consider contacting directly the members of Congress most
> involved with Social Security reform to make them aware of our "third way"
> alternatives.  Perhaps it would also be possible to approach AARP and present
> them with COG ideas.  If AARP saw these as a way to achieve the goals of 
>partial
> privatization--to which AARP is opposed--but which would make it possible to
> leave Social Security alone, I don't think you could find a more powerful
> advocate for our ideas (even better than organized labor, I think).  They 
>might
> even take it on as a cause which could avoid the intergenerational warfare 
>that
> some have predicted will result as our population ages and fewer working 
>people
> are asked to support more retirees.  This also might appeal generally to the
> social consciousness of current retirees (Tom Brokaw's "greatest"
> generation--the WW II cohort) and future retirees (the baby boomers).
>
>