Re: HOMESTEAD: COG and SocSec

[Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>]

Dear Thomas:

        I agree with you that we may want to use the SS privatization debate to 
make our ideas look less "far out". But I personally do not want to lend any 
support to the idea of privatizing Social Security.
Deb
At 05:17 PM 4/20/01 -1000, you wrote:

>Deb,
>
>Thanks for your quick response, and sorry for sending so many copies of the
>same email.   My suggested inclusion of USOP and free market socialism
>proposals in your Homestead summary was motivated more by a sense of
>intellectual or academic thoroughness than by a belief these should get
>more consideration as ideas COG should promote at present.    I also won't
>have time to write a summary of these for the long version of your
>Homestead paper by next Monday, but I will give some thought to doing so
>for handout at the meeting in May.    However, since my email suggesting
>these additions will be archived by COG, that may suffice to satisfy my
>need for thoroughness (especially bearing in mind our limited time and
>resources constraints).
>
>While I agree with Rodney and John (as well as yourself and probably most
>COG participants) that widespread capital ownership could eventually reduce
>or eliminate the need for Social Security (and perhaps collective
>bargaining as well), I agree with you that we are still a long way from
>that goal, so maintaining the viability of Soc Sec and collective
>bargaining is still important.   But I also think that it may be feasible
>and desirable to promote some COG alternatives as viable ways to supplement
>Social Security, and that the ongoing Soc Sec reform debate may present a
>window of opportunity for COG to get some of its proposals on the political
>radar screen.    The various existing proposals to partially privatize
>and/or invest some SS funds in the stock market in various ways--whether
>you or I like them or not--may help to make COG proposals seem less "far
>out".
>
>Aloha!
>
>
>
>
>                                                                               
>       
>                    Deborah Groban                                             
>       
>                    Olson                     To:     "Thomas Brandt"          
>       
>                    <dgo@esoplaw.com>         <TBrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov>       
>       
>                    Sent by:                  cc:     Homestead                
>       
>                    owner-homestead@co        <Homestead@cog.kent.edu>         
>       
>                    g.kent.edu                Subject:     Re: HOMESTEAD: New 
>ideas   
>                                              and balloting                    
>       
>                                                                               
>       
>                    04/20/01 12:00 PM                                          
>       
>                    Please respond to                                          
>       
>                    homestead                                                  
>       
>                                                                               
>       
>                                                                               
>       
>
>
>
>
>Dear Thomas:
>
>        Thank you for your thoughtful reply to the Homestead summary. I
>have run out of time to make significant changes in the Summary that will
>add any length. If you have corrections to the existing copy, I can try to
>get them in.  As an alternative, I would be happy to put additional
>information in the long version of the Homestead paper, if I have it by
>Monday April 23. If that deadline does not work, feel free to write a short
>piece that we can use as a separate handout at the May 6-8 conference.
>Those packets will be created during the week of May 1-4.
>
>        One outcome of the May 6-8 meeting will be a balloting process
>allowing all COG participants to evaluate all proposals on their likelihood
>to solve problems and their likelihood of implementation. We hope to use
>this process to help create additional, more highly focused discussion
>groups around specific proposals. We are trying to create groups of
>like-minded folks who want to work together to develop implementation
>strategies for ideas they think are worth the effort. So, even if the USOP
>idea does not make it into the HOmestead summary or paper, you will be able
>to post it for further discussion in Homestead and for balloting. We are
>still working on the logistics of the balloting process, so don't ask me
>for specifics yet. We don't have the time to deal with it until after the
>May conference.
>Deb
>At 08:21 PM 4/19/01 -1000, you wrote:
>
>>Deb,
>>
>>I think this is a very concise, yet quite comprehensive summary of the
>>currently most viable alternatives (at least relative to those I mention
>>below) discussed by COG so far.    The main alternatives I think are not
>>included are the various and perhaps somewhat more grandiose proposals
>>submitted to Stuart Speiser's USOP (Universal Stock Ownership Plan) essay
>>contests in the 1980s.   (BTW, Terry Mollner's "trusteeship trust"
>proposal
>>was included in the books of essays published by Speiser and was distinct
>>from most of the others in its non-governmental "bottom-up" approach).
>>
>>I remember mentioning the USOP essays early on in COG discussions, but I
>>don't think these were ever thoroughly discussed because I think they were
>>perceived as too difficult to implement or too socialistic and/or because
>>none of the Speiser contestants was participating in COG discussions.
>>Even though the USOP proposals may not be politically feasible at present,
>>I think they are no less so than Norm Kurland's Capital Homesteading
>>proposal, which is equally far-reaching in scope, and which you do mention
>>in your summary.   Your summary also leaves out existing ideas for free
>>market socialism proposed by various scholars working more in the
>tradition
>>of Oskar Lange rather than Louis Kelso.
>>
>>Even though I think the Kelsonian and other alternatives you mention are
>>relatively more feasible in the current political climate, I think
>existing
>>USOP and market socialist proposals might enrich the COG Homestead
>>discussion or at least deserve mention in your summary (if only because
>>they might make COG's Homestead proposals seem more feasible and desirable
>>by comparison).   On the other hand, introducing these lines of thought
>>might just create another unproductive distraction (or taint COG's primary
>>proposals), and discussion by COG of proposals for free market socialism
>>might get no further than discussion of USOPs for the same reasons.
>>
>>So bearing in mind your and COG's time and resource constraints, I think
>>the following addition to your summary would be useful even if you are not
>>inclined to include any of my other suggestions above.    A brief
>>description of Clinton's Universal Savings Account (USA) proposal--which I
>>believe is not the same as that proposed by Michael Sherraden--and/or
>other
>>existing proposals for partially privatizing Social Security by investing
>>in the stock market might deserve a mention to show readers unfamiliar
>with
>>any of these ideas that, by comparison, what COG proposes isn't really
>that
>>far beyond the realm of possibility and might address possible SocSec
>>shortfalls, as well as the problem of concentrated wealth, more
>>effectively.
>>
>>Mahalo and Aloha!