"Given his prior experience as a compromising GOP Governor with a Democratic state legislature, I think he will."
----------
Very little compromise was needed. For the most part, Texas Democrats are ideologically indistinguishable from Texas Republicans.
This is a legacy from the Reconstruction era when the name "Republican" became identified with the Carpetbagger occupiers from Yankeeland.
After the Reconstruction restrictions were lifted, Texas became ostensibly a one-party state. But in reality there were two parties within the Democratic Party--"liberal" and "conservative." The conservatives were always in majority, though sometimes they were populist-conservative. So the Democratic primary became the real election. The general election in November became inconsequential, a mere formality.
Now there are geographical distinctions between Republicans and Democrats--rural Texas remains Democrat and urban Texas is Republican because of immigration into the cities from other states in recent decades. One of those immigrants was George W. Bush's father. In Houston, for example, when the Republicans became a majority, most Democrat office holders flipped to the Republican Party and ran in the Repubican primary in the next election.
In Texas, the primaries - Democratic and Republican - remain far more important than the election in November.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Mbindnerdc@aol.com
Reply-To: social_ins@cog.kent.edu
To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
CC: social_ins@cog.kent.edu
Subject: SOCIAL_INS: Re: OWNERSHIP: FICA funds to ESOPs ???
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:06:44 -0400
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"
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.
>