Re: HOMESTEAD: COG and SocSec

["Thomas Brandt" <TBrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov>]

Deb,

This would obviously take more thought, but if developing promotional
strategy is to be part of the May mtg, that would be a good time to start
thinking about how to get COG ideas into the Soc Sec reform debate.

For example, last year I thought Norm Kurland's Capital Homestead Act (CHA)
could be promoted as part of a solution to the problems of Social Security,
and suggested he try to get the attention of the American Association of
Retired Persons (AARP), an organization which clearly will have a strong
influence on any SS reforms.    He declined for personal reasons, so I
drafted an article I was going to try to get published in the AARP magazine
(and in other pubs if possible).

In the article, I argued that CHA might be able to address the problems of
Soc Sec, but without putting SS$ at risk in the stock market.   (A copy of
the approx. 600-word article is attached.)   But I decided not to publish
it after Norm insisted that CHA would work only if combined with a flat
income tax and fixed interest rates.    I didn't think the latter were
necessarily bad ideas, but simply politically infeasible at present.
Nevertheless, I would consider pursuing it again if Norm could garner
support from some high-profile advocates and organizations which are also
pushing for a flat tax and fixed interest rates.

In the mean time, I think some or all COG proposals might have the
potential to be promoted individually or collectively as at least partial
solutions to the problems of Social Security.    I think this might also be
more politically fruitful than trying to convince Americans that wealth is
too concentrated (even though I agree that it is).   So it might be useful
to begin by comparing COG proposals to existing proposals for fixing SS.
I think Michael Harrington of the Milken Institute may have already begun
to do this.


(See attached file: SSSKurland.doc)



                                                                                
      
                    Deborah Groban                                              
      
                    Olson                     To:     homestead@cog.kent.edu    
      
                    <dgo@esoplaw.com>         cc:                               
      
                    Sent by:                  Subject:     Re: HOMESTEAD: COG 
and     
                    owner-homestead@co        SocSec                            
      
                    g.kent.edu                                                  
      
                                                                                
      
                                                                                
      
                    04/23/01 05:36 AM                                           
      
                    Please respond to                                           
      
                    homestead                                                   
      
                                                                                
      
                                                                                
      




OK Homesteaders, I'll try not to be close minded. Your comments rattle me
to my labor roots. So what do you propose?
Deb
At 10:17 PM 4/22/01 -0500, you wrote:
>At 08:08 PM 4/22/01 -0400, Deborah Groban Olson wrote:
>>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.
>
>SS, a currently constituted, does not appear to be a sustainable system.
It will be changed to something else, something quite different. One
possibility is to simply make it meaningless by, for example, constantly
raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, or (what is much the same
thing) monkey with the "inflation" rate so that effective benefits decline.
Another possibility is to "privatize" it (i.e., disavow it). In either
case, it will be changed into something else, and the process has already
started. What we have is a third way, and a viable one. Actually, we have a
variety of viable third ways. You and Mr. Brandt are quite correct that we
cannot simply abandon the system. But there is no reason not to present the
alternatives that policy makers are seeking, and by doing so, advance one
of the best reasons for spreading ownership.
>
>Rather then support for privatization, we do need to look at the
alternatives being proposed and explain why our way is the best. The will
be vast amount of funds expended in some sort of transition. I certainly
do not think the issue is one of supporting the Pres. Shrub's privatization
plan, but rather of presenting something that would actually work.
>
>
>John C. Médaille
>
>"A dead thing can go with the stream...
>but only a living thing can go against it."
>        -G. K. Chesterton
>http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm
>john@medaille.com
>

Attachment: =?iso-8859-1?Q?SSSKurland.doc?=
Description: MS-Word document