FINAL SUMMARY May 4 - May 17, 1999

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>
Subject: FINAL SUMMARY May 4 - May 17, 1999
Contributor: SUMMARY: Barbara Brandon

FINAL SUMMARY OF THE WHY REFORM NOW DIALOGUE
MAY 4^th-May 17^th, 1999

This summary covers the on-topic material in the Why Reform Now Dialogue from May 4^th to its conclusion today; other material in these postings has been[*] and will be summarized in the Values Dialogue. As we stated in the first summary in this forum on April 28^th, most of the participants view now as the time for reform. This consensus and the views supporting it did not change over time. Indeed, many contributors worried about congressional gridlock postponing the reform effort.

The Anti- Reform Viewpoint- Those participants, who reacted negatively to the question of why reform now, see the present effort as driven by Wall Street interests seeking to profit from privatization; these contributors sum up by arguing that the system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.[see e.g. Kavoussi-5/14] In two intentionally provocative posts that sparked a lively debate, J.P. attacked the privatizers for narrowly focussing on the interests of the upper middle class, money managers and the rich. In contrast, he identified broadening the safety net and reducing the influence of corporations as the appropriate goals for reform. [J.P. 5/6] Not unexpectedly, the privatizers strongly dissented from this anti-reform viewpoint.see e.g. Arsinow-5/14.

The Privatization or Bust Viewpoint- Some privatizers strongly disagreed with a question posed by our guest moderator, Carolyn Lukensmeyer. She asked the congressional panelists to respond to a citizen's question on why reform couldn't proceed by melding a compromise between the Archer/Shaw proposal and President Clinton's plan. This group objected strongly to the premise behind the question. They want Representative Porter's plan to be the starting point for reform and they want full privatization or no reform. [Arsinow -5/4, Jimenez - 5/5 and Arnold-5/5] Many others, who support private investment account reforms, did not share this "privatization or bust" viewpoint.

Miscellaneous Views on this Topic:

One thoughtful contributor condemned the congressional gridlock that leads both sides to talk past each other and not search for common ground. This writer advocates both governmental investment of a portion of the surplus in the market and the creation of private accounts. [Johnson-4/29]

Another contributor thought that in the absence of a political consensus to push reform now, any effort should wait until 2001. However this participant did think that Congress should adopt the President's position on saving the budget surplus in the trust funds during this session.[Reilly - Values-5/4]

Another participant asked Chairman Archer if all the various reform plans could be subject to an analysis that focused on the benefits and burdens that each plan would impose on each generation.

* See the Summary for May 5th-10^th in the Values Forum