Today's NY Times (National Edition) has some fascinating articles on the subject at hand.
In one entitled, "Social Security Still on Agenda of Republicans, Speaker Says" (Stevenson, 4/24), the following appears:
"Republicans who had spoken with the party's leadership said they had been told in recent polls, many more of those who felt strongly about Social Security viewed the Republican approach skeptically than favorably. The Republican approach is built around private investment accounts.
The Republicans said they had also been told there was little point in taking the political risk of voting for changes in a plan that Democrats have long used to their political advantage.
... But the Republican leadership and Pres. Clinton now appear to agree that it is counterproductive to put forward competing, detailed partisan plans, and that only through some sort of bipartisan negotiation, perhaps out of public sight, is there ay chance of reaching a deal."
Questions for this discussion group:
In evalutating values, how does this idea of a "behind closed doors" negotiation seem to fit with the lip service given to forums such as this one?
Interestingly, this group seems to be very vocal about privatization. Yet, the Times article postulates that most who feel "strongly" about the issue distrust privatization. Should our values behind reform emphasize the ideas of the majority (against privatization)over those of the minority (for privatization - albeit a vocal minority)? Is this "democracy"?
