I think it's wonderful that you went all the way out to Colorado to talk to a bunch of "utes" and some old timers about social security. Personally, I find traveling to be a real drag and do it only under duress. When I do go. I only drive. That way at least I get to see somthing of the country, and, you can stop and see things of interest.
Speaking of "utes". Whenever I talk with young workers, and, I hate that term young workers. ( It's sort of like saying the kid is going to be sentenced to work night turn in a convenience store or reform school a/k/a boot camp for life.) Anyway, I'm yet to be told that privitizing social security is a good idea by any "utes". This I have noticed regardless of the "utes" educational attainment or aspirations. This maybe because of our privitization=bad ; way of expressing the issue. Of course union men tend to come across like Rowdy Roddy Piper. Being big and ugly does have its advantages.
Getting back to this "workers" rhetoric. One of my pals loves to use this "workers" rhetoric when he campaigns for union office. I mean he really gets into it. One day some years ago we were up at the blast furnace gate campaining and I was introducing him to people coming in and out of the gate. My pal was all cranked up and talking about how he was going to do this and that for the workers. One of my friends from the BOP shop on his way into work, stops and chats. He says to my pal, "... I dunno about all this worker stuff , how about us loafers."
Here in Ohio, Republican senatorial candidate George Voinovich is talking about removing social security from the general budget. I know you have written about this,and, although you and I disagree on the names the substance of the arguement seems to be the same. Did you hear any of this in Colorado?
For press coverage did you consider wearing a cowboy hat and fringed jacket. I sure you could come up with some creative way to put it on your expense account.
Sincerely, Thomas Lehman
Max Sawicky wrote:
> Some notes on my trip of possible interest . . .
>
> Since my destination was located in Colorado
> springs, I assumed the college was a nest of
> Christian fundamentalists. Colorado Springs
> is the headquarters of James Dobson's "Focus
> on the Family," a movement perhaps the equal
> of the Christian Coalition, and in some ways
> scarier in terms of fascist potential. Their
> guy in Washington is Gary Bauer. CS is also
> home to the Air Force Academy.
>
> Turns out that Colorado College is a little
> bastion of liberalism amidst this sea of
> piety. The Air Force folks in their own
> way are probably more cosmopolitan in this
> sense as well. My audiences turned out to
> be upscale students and retirees. The
> students, as it happens, are not quite as
> liberal as they think they are, except by
> local standards.
>
> In general my news is not good. Social
> Security privatization has a very strong
> hold on the students. They feel they will
> do better with their own little accounts
> than the "Ponzi game" program. The political
> dilemma is that in many cases, this could
> turn out to be true, and there is no way to
> persuade an upper-middle class college kid
> their life may not turn out to be peaches
> and cream.
>
> One unhelpful feeling they have is that
> the Boomers are going to coast into
> retirement and then hand them the bill.
> In fact, most Boomers have a good number
> of years of payroll taxes ahead of them.
> Second, under mediocre economic projections,
> the "Gen X" people will have higher living
> standards on average in any case.
>
> The old folks were more realistic about
> the need for social insurance, though in
> the present debate they are being relegated
> to spectator status. The right is promising
> up and down not to touch the benefits of
> current retirees. (The CPI gambit has not
> been that well exposed as yet.) The only
> shreds of hope in this corner is that the
> Right may overreach and try to nail current
> beneficiaries, or that the staff of the AARP
> may push the organization into a more far-
> sighted posture. Not a lot to cling to
> there.
>
> One line that seemed to work well went to
> the absurdity of basing radical policy
> changes on 40-year predictions. In this
> case, the conservative rhetoric about the
> incompetence of government has a boomerang
> effect.
>
> Another point which resonated and also pressed
> all the buttons of my adversary, the aforementioned
> Bill Niskanen, was the extent of money supporting
> privatization propaganda. You don't have to attack
> the conservative ideologues (and implicitly, the
> audience) to make the point that the donors to
> this campaign are probably not acting out of
> public spirit.
>
> On the bright side, there was zero sentiment
> for absolutely shrinking the size of government
> in general, almost none for expanding defense,
> and a good bit for expanding the public sector.
> There was also agreement for preserving part
> of Soc Sec as a "safety net," rather than
> scrapping it altogether. If we can only
> sell the notion that the whole program is
> the safety net, we'll have gotten somewhere.
>
> The most eloquent point may have been made the
> following day in the extensive local newspaper
> coverage. I was one of two keynoters at the
> meetings. The paper had a front page article
> which said something like "all experts agree
> Social Security in heap big trouble."
> Inside they ran long statements by "the
> three keynoters." My name and statement
> were nowhere to be found. I had to pinch
> myself on the plane to reassure that
> I had indeed been there.
>
> As a sidenote, some may recall a little
> conversation we had about corporate limited
> liability as government intervention in the
> market. I asked Niskanen his position on
> the matter, and he kept going to the premise
> that the firm and its investors/lenders ought
> to be able to make any agreement they liked,
> as long as it was voluntary. I couldn't make
> him understand that it was the consumer or
> other possible aggrieved third parties who
> were in question. He wasn't being evasive
> (he seldom is); he was just particularly
> dense on this point.
>
> MBS