Values: Openness and honesty

[Reed Davis <rdavis2@ix.netcom.com>]

Ken Diamond wrote:
>
> Mr. Davis' analysis is in remarkable agreement with my own. Are there
> others holding similar views? I don't see how it is possible to talk of
> saving Social Security without accurately describing what it is. And since
> it is actually many different things that can't really be understood as a
> whole, dissecting it into its various elements by their characteristics is
> a way to make the program comprehensible and subject to rational value
> judgements. I support Mr. Davis' call for openness and honesty. (He
> provides a link to writings of Eugene Stuerle, who has also called for more
> transparency.)
>
It's nice to run into someone who holds the same view.  I haven't run
into anyone who openly opposes subjecting Social Security to more public
scrutiny but it's surprising how few people openly support it.  Also,
thanks for referencing my message as I didn't give it a very descriptive
subject.

Concerning Eugene Steuerle, he has done some of the best analysis of
Social Security that I have come across.  I recently ran across his
statement before the Committee on Finance on February 9, 1999 which I
found interesting.  In it, he states:
>
> It is ironic that the legacy that baby boomers would now bequeath is
> one in which almost the sole purpose of the federal government would
> be to care for their own consumption needs in retirement.
>
> I do not believe this legacy is intended. Yet it would come about
> under current law, under the President's proposals, and under many of
> the Republican and Democratic budget alternatives now being considered
> in Congress.
>
His full statement can be found at:

http://www.urban.org/TESTIMON/steuele2-9-99.html

Reed Davis