But it has a mote in its eye!!!

I was at a Christmas gathering Friday night, surrounded by other Libertarians, and the topic of Social Security reform came up. At once, as usually happens among Libertarians, the very term reform was in dispute, because my fellow conversationalist was of the opinion that the choices of funds proposed as investment vehicles by the Bush Administration's reform plan were not sufficiently broad, thus rendering the proposal little more than a huge transfer of wealth from the little guy to those who already have ample access to capital.

We went back and forth about that, as I took the standpoint that any expansion of stock ownership among the American population would improve their lot and encourage them to change their political tastes towards capitalism and away from Great Society-style programs.

My point is not to reproduce or continue the conversation here but to make some observations.

First, Libertarians are being triangulated and we'll have to deal with it. Social Security privatization or reform or what you choose to call it, is our idea. The GOP is taking it. I'd rather be pleased that it has a better than snowball's chance of being implemented, than despair that it was taken from us. And I'd rather participate and try to influence the direction of it than criticize from the shadows. We'll be triangulated many more times unless we elect some people to state legislatures and the Congress and can present these ideas with our brand on them. The branding is important, any marketer will tell you.

Second, privatization could be implemented in stages, gradually broadening the number and types of investment vehicles to receive the privatized funds. It might be a worthwhile concession to go forward with the limited range of vehicles now, until voter, consumer, and retiree confidence rises, and sponsor legislation to broaden it later. I'm 44, and I'll probably be excluded from privatization as it's being marketed today. But I'm hopeful for future rounds, even if I'll be means-tested out.

Third, there is literally no way we can enforce legislation that programs that broadening in out-years. Legislation passed today cannot be meaningfully enforced on legislators in the future. At best and as usual, the future legislators will ignore it. If they are compelled to recognize the past legislation, they can repeal it or amend it.

Should there be made a way to enforce out-year legislation on a future Congress? I don't think so without a Constitutional amendment, but that's a discussion I'd like to start,if only to articulate why it shouldn't be attempted.

This is a two-edged sword that can cut our way---if SS privatization passes, warts and all, we can go back in for a future round to broaden the range of funds, allow more people to privatize, and so forth. Incrementalism is how we got into this mess, New Deal included. Incrementalism, with discipline, courage, and tact (translate that to marketing), can get us out.