RE: Privatization premise

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

In answer to the first question, my response is "no". To my knowledge, none
of us, not even Ivy League economists are prophets. Nonetheless, any time
more money in the form of loans, income or assets are made available to the
private sector, there is more opportunity to strengthen it, to enlarge the
economic pie. Whether or not that occurs depends on societal moves, our
community and national leaders and the role of multi-national corporations
in the global market place and their access to various governmental
chambers.

As I suggested in my original statement, increasing the assets of
minorities and women will not make a Garden of Eden. However, it will
provide us with more and larger weapons to fight the consequences of
bigotry by increasing the self-sufficiency and financial security. A
reformed system can not only increase the wealth of women and minorities
but opportunities for us to be better citizens.

Social Security has never been based on the premise of gradual conversion
to privatization. It was and is to complement individual financial
resources. It was and is based on giving citizens the ability to withstand
the reduced quality of life typically  brought on by aging, disability or
loss of family breadwinners. While a reformed system should offer specific
incentives to save, the safety net must remain. It is the assurance of that
net that has and will keep Social Security sacrosanct.


John Banks-Brooks