AARP & COG

["Thomas Brandt" <tbrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov>]

At the risk of annoying everyone, I decided to post this once more and try once
again to get some response to it.  I'm puzzled as to why no one has had anything
to say about it, pro or con.  Is it so obviously lame to everyone but me that it
doesn't deserve comment?  Or is it so unconventional and so far "out of the box"
that no one knows what to think or say without further reflection first?  Again,
all comments are welcome--negative as well as positive.  Even "I need to think
about it more before responding" would be appreciated.

Mahalo and Aloha!

____________________Forward Header_____________________
Subject:    Nat'l v. Subnat efforts
Author: Thomas Brandt
Date:       4/5/00 5:41 PM

To Norm, John, and everyone else,

I just got done saying I would have to decrease my participation, but had some
additional thoughts I wanted to get out first on what COG may be able to do with
its limited human and financial resources on the national level.

For starters, maybe Norm could write a letter to David Broder in reference to
the interest David expressed in a column last year in Ackerman and Alstott's
Stakeholder Society.  While agreeing with the intent of the idea, Norm could
explain how it may be flawed (e.g. the point I made about how angry those who
reach 21 before the year the "stake" was started might be).  He could then
present his alternatives to Broder, and perhaps point out how the Capital
Homestead Act (and other alternatives proposed by COG) might better accomplish
Ackerman and Alstott's goal, while also providing possibly more "win-win"
alternatives to the various proposals to partially privatize Social Security.
Maybe Broder would be motivated to write another column about it.  And if Broder
wasn't interested, Norm could always write another letter to the Washington Post
which we could all copy or modify for submittal to our various local newspapers
and send to our respective congressional representatives.  This could be similar
the the letter Corey Rosen has posted on the COG website, but with more direct
references to Social Security reform.

COG might also consider contacting directly the members of Congress most
involved with Social Security reform to make them aware of our "third way"
alternatives.  Perhaps it would also be possible to approach AARP and present
them with COG ideas.  If AARP saw these as a way to achieve the goals of partial
privatization--to which AARP is opposed--but which would make it possible to
leave Social Security alone, I don't think you could find a more powerful
advocate for our ideas (even better than organized labor, I think).  They might
even take it on as a cause which could avoid the intergenerational warfare that
some have predicted will result as our population ages and fewer working people
are asked to support more retirees.  This also might appeal generally to the
social consciousness of current retirees (Tom Brokaw's "greatest"
generation--the WW II cohort) and future retirees (the baby boomers).