WEEKLY SUMMARY May 19 - 27

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

               WEEKLY SUMMARY OF THE VALUES DISCUSSION
     		      MAY 19TH - MAY 27, 1999


INTRODUCTORY NOTE: This summary contains three parts. The first
summarizes two threads in the dialogue and the second enumerates
the views expressed in the postings.  The last part summarizes
statements that were posted to the Current Legislative Proposals
Roundtable.  Because these posts were rhetorical statements and
not true questions, the Moderator moved them to this part of the
dialogue.

THREADS:
--Consensus-building Thread - Jeremy Kidd commented on May 18th,
that every post seems to prompt a line by line critique of the
other side's arguments and this gets in the way of achieving a
consensus. He recommends that participants examine each other's
proposals to determine what is a worthwhile concept and what in
the proposal could be merged with other ideas. James responded that
the purpose of a debate is to examine all sides of an issue and
that those who advocate reform of the present system should anticipate
that their proposals would be critically analyzed. He observed that
those most interested in a free market alternative are the least
willing to discuss the shortcomings of their own plans. He further
noted that reform couldn't just be a bunch of  "worthwhile concepts"
that are strung together. Jeremy responded that he is not arguing
for a "can't we all should just get along ideal" but is instead
proposing that given the complexities of the problem the participants
have to search for consensus and compromise if reform is too occur.
James agreed with this thought in principle. Pat Kelly agreed with
Jeremy and Bill Larsen responded that there are too few people who
are able to understand the dimensions of the problem and the
mathematics of the benefit formulas.

--Hart - Rohrs dialogue - Walter Hart responded to an earlier post
from M.Rohrs that stated that part of the financing crisis had
arisen from the failure of the younger generations to have enough
children. Mr. Rohrs speculated that many made this choice because
they chose to have careers or to fund life's luxuries. Mr. Hart
pointed out that regressive payroll taxes and the need for two
incomes prevent many couples from having larger families. He could
not afford health insurance from 1992-98 but his payroll taxes paid
for Medicare benefits for wealthy retirees. M Rohrs responded that
he was sympathetic to Walter Hart's circumstances which were not
unlike his own but reasserted that each boomer should have replaced
him or herself. When Mr. Hart responded that social security was
really anti-family, M. Rohrs concurred and suggested that perhaps
being childless should figure in the calculation of retirement
benefits. Javier Jimenez also attacked Mr. Rohrs, stating that he
would make his own judgements on how many children to have and that
it was the older generation that foolishly fell for the Ponzi scheme
of Social Security.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES:

--Jerry Bower thinks that Social Security needs to provide both
the retired and the disabled with a minimum monthly income to
provide food, clothing, shelter, Medicare deductibles, prescriptions
and over-the-counter medications. The retired should be able to
get by without resort to Medicaid, their relatives or charity.
Michael Jones and Robert Fisher responded that what Jerry advocates
makes sense as welfare but not as a retirement program that you
make forced contributions to.

--Jay Broad thinks many participants completely misunderstand that
Social Security is an insurance program. He points out that separating
out the insurance benefits and paying for them privately would be
far more costly.

--Karen O'Connor and her group of 15 other Michigan seniors think
that reform should be fully thought through and undertaken gradually.
They point out that reform could include new legislative proposals
designed to encourage greater private retirement savings as outlined
in a Jane Bryant Quinn column dated April 23,1999 in the Washington
Post. They also think that Congress should discontinue borrowing
against the trust funds.

--Opting out entirely - Robert Fisher shares the libertarian slant
on reform and does not want the government to force him to participate
in Social Security. McIntosh is a generation Xer who does not think
he should be forced to stay in the system; he wants it abolished
and thinks he has no obligation to support the retired who believed
in this Ponzi scheme. The Bonz66 and Edward Crissey agree with this
view.

--Richard Arsinow posted his own survey on May 26th to outline what
questions he thinks should be addressed in the reform effort. As
a privatizer, he suggests the appropriate answers to the questions
he poses.

--William Potter objects to the present earnings limitations for
those who work past ages 62 or 65; he views them as a disincentive
to working.  He also thinks that the present income parameters for
taxing of social security benefits  should be raised. M. Rohrs
concurs with this post and points out that their generation is
being asked by many participants to sacrifice more to sustain the
system and that this is unfair.

--Judy views social security as a very bad deal for her generation
in comparison with her in-laws, who both have pensions and social
security.  She and her husband hold jobs that do not provide pensions
and pay far more in payroll taxes than older generations have.
She views the system as not able to pay for her when she retires.
Thus she thus thinks the system should only be retained for the
"poorest of the poor."

--Marian Conning thinks that greater immigration will help expand
the pool of worker supporting the system and this could help
alleviate the funding problems.

--Mark A. Wallace has objected to Congress' practice of stealing
from the Social Security Trust Funds and supports adoption of a
lockbox mechanism to prohibit this practice.

--Currie Morrison thinks that social security needs to be preserved
but put on a firm financial footing.

--Mary Lina objects to many inequities in the system such as fraud
by the disabled, an orphan's benefit that is not need -based and
the earnings limitations imposed on the self- employed retired.

--Bob Carroll objects to the fact that payroll taxes are being
collected at a greater rate than needed to fund the present demands
on the system and that Congress has recklessly borrowed these sums
to hide the size of the budget deficit.

--Don A has a different take on the financing issues.  Aside from
suggesting that 65 is too young to retire, he thinks the unfortunate
progressivity of the income tax is counterbalanced by the regressivity
of the payroll taxes and that this leveling effect is good.  He
also thinks social security benefits are 50% too high. Gerald Flynn
disagrees and again suggests adoption of his wealth tax.

--John Toner thinks that 401(k)s are not a practical alternative
to fund retirement savings for low-income workers whom often need
these savings just to get by.

--R. Gregg Myers thinks that the privatizers' stock market proposals
are pie in the sky; he also does not think the surpluses should be
invested by the government in the market. Instead he advocates
trimming needless add-ons to the program. Al Abbott responded that
continuing to rely on Social Security was the risky investment
because the present system cannot be sustained in coming years as
fewer and fewer workers support more of the retired.

--Dale Coberly advises us not to panic; he views most of the reform
now rhetoric as designed to create a false sense of crisis. He
thinks its hard to predict what the world will look thirty years
from now, and he argues that increased productivity gains may well
allow fewer workers to support more retired.

--Frank Green argues that the funding for Social Security is too
regressive and that the wealthy and corporations should help pick
up the load.  He also thinks benefits and the COLA should be
increased. He accuses the right of wanting the program to wither
on the vine.

--William Grazier rejects, as a right-wing scare tactic, the claim
that the system is in crisis. He finds the regressivity of the
payroll tax objectionable and advocates using more general revenues
to fund retirement benefits. He thinks that progressive taxes
targeted at the wealthier are the way to go.

--Steve Johnson responds to those criticizing social security as
a Ponzi scheme by pointing out that many forms of intergenerational
financing of benefits exist in society and that the social security
system can not fairly be categorized as a swindle.  He next points
out that if the privatizers are so worried about Ponzi schemes,
they should look at the current stock market.  He points out that
corporate earnings can't grow faster than GDP and that the current
runup in market values cannot be sustained given this constraint.

--Gerald McQuilliams wants the country to rely more on families
and private charities and less on the government.

--Marwan Jabbour challenges the premise, which would give women or
minorities special benefits under Social Security. He asserts that
every individual in society has needs and under the American system
it should be that individual's responsibility to satisfy his own
needs.

--Max Six argues that solving the Ponzi scheme should be deferred
until Congress fixes the IRS.


STATEMENTS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE ROUNDTABLE:

--Tom Matzzie objects to Senator Santorum joining our second
Roundtable on Legislation because he has not introduced a bill in
this area. The Senator responded that he is Co-Chair of the Senate
Republican Task Force on Social Security and that he is developing
a reform plan just like the President and Congressmen Archer and
Shaw have. He notes that a copy of his plan is posted for comment
on this site.

--Craig Knight thinks that Congress should take greater steps to
simplify reform. He thinks that those who work at poverty wages
are entitled to a fully funded welfare based pension that allows
a person to feed, clothe and shelter himself.

--Javier Jimenez disagrees with three statements made by Representative
Kolbe in our Legislation roundtable. He thinks that privatization
on the Chilean model is the way to go and dislikes Representative
Kolbe's proposal for failing to embody such an approach. In a third
post he disagrees with Representative Kolbe' s refusal to allow
workers to opt-out of Social Security. He also disagrees with
Representative Nadler's plan to provide for centralized investment
of the social security surplus by the government and with his view
that the present system is workable.

--Michael Jones and Bill Larsen strongly objects to Representative
Nadler's plan and thinks that trying to fix the present system will
only lead to greater problems down the road.

--Prozea thinks that the congressmen in the new Roundtable are not
in the Social Security system and don't really care about fixing
it.

--Off-topic objections to Congressional practices-Three participants
object to Congress' practice of loading up legislation with
pork.[Arnold-5/26; Jimenez-5/26; Jim Morgan].


Barbara Brandon