RE: Social Security Roundtable

[Ed Von Ruden <ed_itor@desertlinc.com>]

Mr. Rother has proven again his insights and instincts toward possible 
reform are on target.  May 3d he wrote, in the face of substantial 
pessimism, that reform was possible.  Now at least Mr. Archer and Mr. 
Hassert are willing to hold out some hope for action.  The good news is 
there may be action; the bad news is it not likely to be effective 
management by the Congress.  This is because they are outsiders looking 
in, and are interested in political credits first, solutions "if" they 
end up working.  I can think of very few governmental solutions in any 
area of public concern that have worked, and the regulatory machinery put 
in place is most often inconsequential because no one is available to 
take even constructive criticism, let alone blame, when the failures 
mount.  The President answers only to 4 or 8 year blocks of time. The 
Supreme Court picks and chooses its battles.  Only the Congress rises 
above this rabble and ensures their incumbency into years well past their 
prime.  The Honorable Strom Thurmond is a classic example, with many 
others not far behind.  He should be King of the Senate for accomplishing 
what all Senators and Representatives can only dream of doing -- passing 
laws into eternity.  With that cynicism out of the way  -- after all they 
comprise only about 635 taxpayer subsidized rulers, we have to deal with 
the millions (classified info) of Federal minions who are no part of 
Social Security other than whatever benefits they accrued before going 
private.  How is their "plan" working.  If it is a success, we have the 
working model in place and must convert the present Trust fund 
immediately to that successful model.  Surely the actuarial figures are 
available to provide the cost effectiveness of private federal retirement 
plans vis-a-vis Social Security.  We can also use the famous credit union 
model, which started out by supplying financial services to specialized 
groups of employees and graduated to the point of accepting even state 
and federal prisoners into their ranks.  Economy of scale or some such 
rot.  The point is, is it fair, equitable and as free from political 
influence as can possibly be attained.  That should not be a concept too 
difficult for an experienced legislature, a "public servant", to work 
toward.  I agree with Mr. Rother that perfection is not the goal.  As 
aforementioned, it's much easier:  Fairness & Equity.  Worst case 
scenario is the government could lose disgruntled employees dispossessed 
of their private retirement system, and we could all be worker ants for a 
change. How I wish I had the stature and wherewithall to tell every MOC 
this face-to-face.
--