RE: Ms. Weaver's Discussion Questions

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

    Ridgeway ("Re Ms. Weaver's Discussion Questions") Misunderstands!

Oh, my!  I've been thoroughly misunderstood by Ridgeway and want
to clarify the nature of my questions before others waste time
running in the wrong direction.  The purpose of the two questions--which
I do hear all the time as a proponent of privatizing social
security--was to challenge you to think more deeply about the kinds
of questions policy makers are grappling with and, in the process,
hopefully think more deeply about your own views.  Some people who
support personal accounts find themselves supporting all sorts of
restrictions--in the name of "unsophisticated" or "unwary" investors,
unscrupulous financial institutions, or whatever--that undermine
the purpose and value of personal accounts.  Likewise, some people
who support personal accounts and are savvy about investing are
quick to have ideas about how the government could handle the
investment problem.  ("Any good businessman or woman can figure
that out," they say.)  A good debate and discussion should lead
all of us to think about the consistency of our views and the
strength of our arguments, not simply to repeat what we've known
all along.

The last thing my questions were intended to do was to lead you
into thinking that these were problems that I thought the government
needed to--or could or would--correct.

Ridgeway would do well to read what I write and spend less time
imputing motives (or grading people on who's the better libertarian!).
The two-tiered system he writes about is a proposal I supported in
the Final Report of the 1994-1996 Social Security Advisory Council.
It is not my plan; it is not what I would have recommended on my
own.  It is, however, a plan that garnered 5 votes, including mine.
The statement he mentions represents the views of those 5 people.
Quarrel with the details of the plan; quarrel with the size or
nature of the ongoing public system; quarrel with the way the
transition would be financed.  I've written elsewhere on my
reservations with the plan.  But also be aware of the facts.  The
plan would convert fully half of social security into personal
retirement accounts funded with 5% of the current payroll tax.
There is no plan around that has a better system of personal accounts
in terms of flexibility for workers to invest as they please,
withdraw their funds at retirement as they please, and bequeath
their assets to their heirs.  Further, the plan was embraced by
not just any 5 people--all had been appointed to the Advisory
Council by HHS Secretary Donna Shalala.  In other words, this was
not a group hand-picked to favor personal accounts.  The group
included people who ranged in age from 20-something to 70-something
and it included 3 out of 5 women and the only Hispanic on the panel.
The release of a public report containing a serious--if flawed--proposal
for personal retirement accounts was widely regarded (even by my
friends at the Cato Institute) as a major achievement for proponents
of personal retirement accounts.

I have not and do not, as Ridgeway asserts, ask you to "retain a
substaintal component of government involvement in what we see as
personal economic issues."

Carolyn Weaver