SOCIAL_INS: Re: OWNERSHIP: FICA funds to ESOPs ???

[Mbindnerdc@aol.com]

It depends.  If what I am proposing increases wealth for workers and is more 
progressive than the current system - and if it mandates that workers have a 
serious voice in the management of the firm (including factional representation 
on the ESOP and corporate boards), and provided that deposits are insured, the 
proposal might have a chance.

In fact, what I am demanding may be useful to the retirement lobby as, if 
nothing else, a poison pill.  Some argue that the real motivations behind the 
privatization movement are to eliminate the progressive distribution of 
benefits and to enrich brokerage houses.  My proposals do neither of these 
things.  In the end, conservatives may oppose them as "galloping socialism."

How they play depends upon the results of the election and the political will 
of the President.  If he really wants some form of privatization to pass, and 
the Senate stays Democratic (and the House follows), he will have to compromise 
to do so.  Given his prior experience as a compromising GOP Governor with a 
Democratic state legislature, I think he will.

We will see in November.  

To continue this thread, please DO NOT RESPOND IN OWNERSHIP.

Join and switch to social_ins@cog.kent.edu

Michael Bindner
In a message dated Wed, 18 Sep 2002 2:13:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Ronald 
L. Ludwig" <RLLudwig@pacbell.net> writes:

>In light of the Enron, Lucent, WorldCom and similar debacles (and the coming 
> new legislative rules/limits on investing 401(k) funds in employer stock), 
>it's highly unlikely that any U.S. politician (even one who supports both 
>ESOPs and partial "privatization" of Social Security) would support the 
>Bindner proposal for diverting a portion of the FICA tax to ESOPs.  The 
>"retirement security" movement/lobby is far too strong these days to permit 
>that.
>