DAILY SUMMARY April 19-20

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

		DAILY SUMMARIES FOR APRIL 19-20th


Our national dialogue on social security reform started on April
19th and as of 3:00PM EDT  on the 20th, we have received comments
from 15 participants offering a wide spectrum of views.   We hope
you will add your comments today and offer us your views on the
values questions raised by our guest moderator, Carol Lukensmeyer,
in her two postings on the 19th.

In responding to the guest moderator’s questions, the participants
focused on what types of values should be reflected in the reform
proposals. Some participants mainly focused on the safety net
features of the current system while others commented on the value
issues underlying reform of the pension system.  Additional concerns
were voiced about what process values should be important to the
reform process.

One of our consulting experts, Bob Myers, sees the system as a
reflection of our Judeo-Christian ethic of concern for the less
fortunate, a view that was broadly shared by the participants.  In
addition he points out that the system has efficiently operated in
the past to provide a broad based minimum level of economic protection
to the nation’s retirees. Many participants concurred that the
system serves as a critical device in meeting the social welfare
needs of both the elderly and society in general

The second big set of value issues that the participants flagged
has to do with intergenerational equity concerns. One participant
focused on the fact that the poverty rate for children is far higher
than for the elderly and that reform proposals should not exacerbate
this situation by increasing the payroll taxes for young families
with low incomes. Others focused on fairness to the baby boom
generation, which has paid into the system and is counting on social
security to fund their retirement. One commenter suggested means
testing in order to minimize the problem of the low income worker
subsidizing the lifestyle of the wealthy elderly.

The libertarian viewpoint is also heard from with a single participant
arguing for privatization; he views the government’s role as
illegitimate and thinks he should control how his social security
taxes are invested through a private account.

As the participants discussed the values they found important,
various reform proposals were mentioned.  For instance, in focusing
on the regressivity of the current payroll tax, several participants
suggested that the revenue stream supporting social security be
broadened either by funding it through a progressive income tax or
by raising the current income ceiling on withholding.  The desirability
of folding in all state and federal workers was raised to reinforce
the principle that the system is universal which prompted another
participant to respond by detailing the complexities of melding
such workers into the system. Another participant focused on
improvements to encourage the disabled to work without destroying
the safety net features that disabled person may need in the future.

Many of the participants emphasized process values.  The Congress’
practice of diverting payroll taxes away from the trust funds to
cover the federal budget deficit prompted many to argue for no more
budgetary smoke and mirrors.  The need for clarity and transparency
was repeatedly emphasized. One participant also pointed out that
a drive for consensus and bipartisanship should engender a greater
sense of shared sacrifice.

Several comments on fiscal and budgetary matters will be relevant
to issues that will come up later during the roundtables.