The debate on social security reform had a different tenor during President Clinton’s second term than during President Bush’s present second term. Instead of today’s crisis of astounding deficits, we were facing the looming crisis of our economic success. The most brilliant symbol of our national prosperity was not the soaring stock market index but was rather the expectation of a series of budget surpluses running far into the future, beginning with an estimated $40 billion surplus in 1998.

President Clinton rightfully wanted to apply a goodly portion of the projected surplus to secure social security, thus relieving the great majority of hard workers from the fear of insecurity in their mature years. The people had obviously done a good job – America was prosperous - so it seemed entirely just and reasonable that a portion of the benefits accrued be distributed to them in the future.

It seemed strange at that time to call good times a "crisis." Mature experience provided many of us with good cause to have a nagging feeling that something was seriously wrong with the numerical magnitudes of that period of economic expansion, and our anxiety grew with the rise of the indexes.  Traditional conservatives are wont to conserve funds during good times, for good times have invariably been followed by hard times. Experienced people said we had become too greedy. A number of conservatives suspected our own President of selling out the American people to personal friends, big corporations and foreign countries – to China for example.

Well, I thought at the time, we might at least get our money’s worth out of China by taking up the study of the Chinese Book of Changes (I Ching), particularly the chapter "After Completion" (Chi-Chi), which advises the wise to take thought of misfortune during times of success and to adequately prepare for it. The image provided by the oracle is a kettle of water over a fire. If we allow the water to boil over, the fire will be extinguished; even if we prevent the water from boiling over, the fire may still be so hot that it evaporates the water. Therefore we are advised to tend our fires so that everyone is provided for. That is what social security is all about.

No matter what political party is in power, interested business leaders and their supporting intelligentsia often assure us that we should turn over our social security to Business and “allow the market to decide" who gets rich. They claim Government is too incompetent and untrustworthy to manage the general affairs, and that competing interests will automatically give us better returns.

Almost everyone has personal experience with Business; we appreciate its merits but we also have good reasons for doubt, especially when we hear business pots calling political kettles black. Business almost has a stranglehold on Government as it is; we prefer to loosen that grip, not tighten it. At least where social subsistence is concerned, we do not want the public funds to be subject to the vagaries of the private sector. We want our funds in the safest place. Once our basic needs are insured, we can feel free to speculate with the balance. So what we must do is make our government trustworthy by exercising some self-discipline.

It was to that end that I proposed (June of 1998) to the White House and to numerous members of Congress that an Inalienable Sinking Fund be created to help satisfy the mutual obligation of social security, and, when that goal is achieved, to reduce the National Debt. Existing government securities would be purchased with budget surpluses and placed in the Inalienable Sinking Fund where they would remain "alive" at compound interest – the fund would enjoy phenomenal growth by virtue of the “magic” of compound interest.  A Board of Trustees consisting of responsible persons from the public and private sectors would administer the Sinking Fund, making absolutely sure it was not alienated.

Now the reader might object that such a scheme is not very different than the one in place, except for augmentation of funding from expected surpluses and the reliance in part on compound interest, which the people would have to pay one way or another. Therefore, he might conclude that the papier maché piggy bank, even when extended to cosmic size by the magic of compound interest, is still made out of paper, which might not be exchangeable for the cosmos when the time comes to convert it into real goods and services - the special bonds are actually kept in an off-white file cabinet in West Virginia.

The reader would certainly have made a good point. And we should beware of schemes. Yet money itself is, after all, a sort of scheme, one that we have full faith and confidence in, otherwise our currency or Federal Reserves notes, a form of debt, would be worthless. What is wanted is some sort of scheme for social security that people will believe in hence causes them to act accordingly. No scheme would be needed if people were charitable members of a real religion of love and were therefore willing to voluntarily support everyone in need.

Wherefore I set forth a scheme that corresponded to the circumstances of the day. As it turned out, President Clinton’s scheme was similar in every basic detail to the one I had sent along to Washington; apparently many brilliant albeit naïve minds were on the same wavelength, oblivious to the huge deficit looming ahead.

In my 1998 plan, presented under the dull rubric, ‘The Inalienable Sinking Fund’, I explained that a "sinking fund" is created by setting aside out of revenue at stated intervals moneys sufficient for the payment of a long-term obligation.
I proposed that we would use the $40 billion surplus expected in the first year of the plan, plus another $40 billion each year thereafter, together with surpluses in excess of that $40 billion each year, to purchase existing government securities, thereby returning cash to the private sector for investment.

The public debt instruments so purchased would not be "retired"; rather, they would be deposited into the Sinking Fund, where they will remain "alive"; that is: interest would continue to accrue and it would be used to purchase even more existing government securities. Although the surpluses were expected to grow to $150 billion per annum by 2002 [sweet dreams], I assumed for the purpose of illustration that we would place only $40 billion per annum in the Sinking Fund, at 6 percent compound interest for 35 years. That operation would provide a future value of about $4.7 trillion.

Of course the virtue of compound returns applauded by certain Congressmen in reference to Business Stocks also applies to Government Bonds, although the return on Government Bonds would probably be less than that realized on stocks in the long run.  Higher returns are associated with higher risk: reputable brokers tell us that Government Bonds are a safer investment than stocks. In any event, $4.5 trillion is a sizable chunk of change that would come available at about the time when our present "trust fund" is depleted.

Obviously, the crucial factor for the preservation of any fund is its inalienability: we must not rob our piggy bank; we must keep our promise. Unfortunately, all past efforts to preserve public funds have failed over the long run; our modern trustees are practically given a running license to steal; we are, in fact, robbing ourselves and have been doing so for centuries.

As for the Inalienable Sinking Fund, we might wonder whether or not the expected surpluses to fund the fund will actually become available. Assume, then, that a surplus does not come available, because of some short-term fluctuation in the business cycle or because of some unforeseen accidental cause, say, the U.S. War on Iraq.  No doubt a financial wizard could demonstrate how we might safely borrow funds to keep up our payments to the Sinking Fund. That is, sell new securities and apply the proceeds to the purchase of existing securities to be kept alive in our Sinking Fund at compound interest. If the national deficit happened to be accompanied by higher interest rates, we would be buying the old debt at discount to its face value although we would still collect full value at maturity. Since interest accruing to the fund is reinvested, the compound interest income to the fund would outrun the simple interest expense paid out on the borrowed funds, and the Sinking Fund by this device would still be allowed the tremendous growth of its later years of compounding.

The idea of using a Sinking Fund to pay down a national obligation and to restore credibility in Government was not some scheme I had plucked out of thin air – I actually found references to the scheme at the Hamilton Library at the University of Hawaii in Manoa Valley. The method itself was conceived and implemented with some success in Great Britain prior to the American Revolution. John Holland Rose gives us an account of the scheme in his Life of William Pitt:

"Walpole (Sir Robert, 1st Earl of Oxford, 1676-1745; British statesman: prime minister 1715-1717; 1721-1742) early in his career, had started a scheme whereby a certain sum was annually set apart for forming a fund which would accumulate by compound interest and finally be available for the extinction of the National Debt. This plan came to grief, because in 1732 Walpole began to draw on his own fund rather than increase the Land Tax and annoy country gentlemen. This, we may note, is one of the perils of a Sinking Fund that, guard it as its founders may, some thriftless Chancellor of the Exchequer will insist on filching it."

Such alienation was warmly opposed in the House of Lords by Lord Carteret, Lord Bathurst, and others, who insisted that applying the Sinking Fund to another purpose than that for which it was conceived is robbery. Today we think nothing of alienating funds collected for social security: surplus credits are exchanged for special bonds (IOUs), which are put into the file cabinet, and the credits or "funds" are transferred to the general account and used for other purposes including war. But we do not say we are "alienating" the funds - we are  "borrowing" them from ourselves, so to speak.

The attraction of the "lockbox" concept is that specially allocated public funds would be kept secure in bank and investment accounts and the like, and distributed only for the purposes specified. But politicians find it more convenient to lay their hands on funds allocated for one purpose in order to expend it on another; otherwise they would have to publicly tax their constituents for the funds needed, instead of quietly shifting funds around behind the scenes. We this old explanation in The History and Proceedings of the House of Lords:

"When any additional tax is imposed, the public feel the weight of the annual expence. This puts them upon enquiring into the necessity of that expence; and when they see no necessity for it, they murmur, and those murmurs become dangerous to the ministers. Whereas no man feels what is taken from the Sinking Fund, therefore no man enquires into the necessity of that expence, which occasions it being plundered, and for this reason it will always be looked upon by the ministers as a fund they can squander with safety."

The view that it is immoral to divert funds from their original purpose, or the ideal of inalienability, is an old concept rooted in Roman Law and was eventually applied as well to the sacred dignity of human beings who are endowed with "unalienable rights."

Although Walpole's fund had been plundered, the ideal of a truly inalienable Sinking Fund was not abandoned. It had its greatest advocate in the person of Richard Price (1723-1791), who convinced William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806) of its virtues in respect to the National Debt, which had been made onerous by war with the Colonies, a debt Dr. Price called "the Grand National Evil... mortgaging prosperity." William Pitt was a great financial reformer; by his efforts fiscal matters had so greatly improved that he was faced with a surplus. In 1785, he wrote enthusiastically about the scheme suggested to him by Price: "The produce of our revenues is glorious, and I am half mad with a project which will give our supplies (tax income) the effect almost of magic in the reduction of debt."

In a speech to Parliament on March 29, 1786, Pitt declared: "I am very far from ascribing any merit to myself in suggesting this scheme....I am proud to flatter myself that my name may be inscribed on that firm column now about to be raised to national faith and national prosperity....I shall now move, Sir, 'That a sum of one million annually granted to certain commissioners to be by them applied to the purchases of stocks (government securities; i.e., Consols) towards discharging the public debt of this country, which money shall arise out of the surpluses, excesses, and overplus monies, composing the fund called the sinking fund."

Pitt’s Motion was agreed upon without opposition. Of course, there had been arguments against the proposed legislation including the argument that the funds would be needed for a more important cause, namely war; and there was the usual, vehemently presented argument presented by the vigorously gesticulating Earl Stanhope, that the fund should be made even more inalienable than the one offered.

Between 1784 and 1792, nearly eleven millions of the National Debt were virtually written off by means of buying and placing securities in the Sinking Fund. The public felt no inconvenience until funds began to be borrowed at high rates to make the deposits into the fund. We think that Pitt never intended to borrow to fund the fund, that he intended to use the surpluses as his Motion stated, and that the eventual borrowing was resorted to as a temporary expedient. The war with France was the fly in Pitt's snake oil, just as the U.S. War on Iraq would now be the fly in the ointment if my scheme had been legislated during Clinton's tenure: the financial cost of the second Bush War on Iraq, at around $290 billion since 9/11/2001, has already exceeded the cost of the Great War, and now approaches the cost of President Truman's "police action", the Korean War. The Bush tax cuts carried forward will add another half-trillion dollars to the nation's debt between 2005 and 2014; the president would borrow a couple of trillion more to fund social security privatization; deficits over the next few years could average a half-trillion dollars per annum and much more if wars against Iran, Syria, and North Korea are waged.

We should not discount William Pitt's virtues simply because his inalienable sinking fund scheme was only partially successful - or rather, was a failure in the long run. He was not a moron or fool: he was one of the greatest creative financial administrators of his time; his work has had an enormous influence on our modern administrative systems. He labored arduously to rehabilitate the finances of his country for nearly twenty years. What he did not anticipate was a war that would last for twenty-two years - just at the time his sinking fund should be yielding its maximum. He remained faithful during his administration to the obligation to make the sinking fund deposits, and so did his successors for some time, despite the war.

Although the burden on the British taxpayers of funding Pitt's fund was onerous indeed, the government continued the fund because it made Government and its securities appear to be credible and sound in the public eye. Credibility is of vital importance to our social life. Our entire civilization along with its financial and economic systems is founded upon faith in the future. Our relations are mediated by intangibles, and if the flimsy paper and fleeting electronic forms of communications perished, we would be brought into the harsh glare of present reality in very short order. If the beliefs underlying those forms evaporate with them, the reality would be brutally primitive. Perhaps some little comfort might remain in knowing that there exists a similarity between the "savage", who would trade his wives for trinkets, the disciple, who would exchange his master for precious metal, the modern man, who would pawn his soul for an automobile, and the postmodern man, who would sell it for digital tokens. Nonetheless, there is not enough room in a "primitive" world for our population. The faith of an "advanced" civilization must have a more "scientific" character.

Richard Price, who masterminded Pitt's fund, certainly understood the value of credibility and faith; he was a Dissenting minister. The Dissenters left the Church of England rather than conform to doctrines that seemed unreasonable. They founded little freethinking schools, where they studied religion, the classics, science, politics, and business. Dr. Price taught physics, probability, and moral philosophy. He frequently attended meetings of the Royal Society on subjects such as physics, mathematics, biology and economics. He saw mathematics as a social geometry, a technique of calculation upon which everyone could agree and therefore accept as a reasonable discipline. He was the leading authority on statistics, the "political arithmetic" that would prove so handy to governments. As a Newtonian, he viewed the universe as an example of divine planning according to mathematical principles, and applied the mathematics of probability to life expectancies.

Richard Price's ultimate financial goal was to link sound household management to national financial management. His work with mutual societies led him to conceive of a national pension plan; the idea of a Sinking Fund, where a group forgoes current consumption in order to meet future needs by investing a portion of income at compound interest is applicable to personal retirement needs as well as to the retirement of national debt. Once it is determined how much is needed and when, compound interest applied to the savings allows them to grow at a rate sufficient to meet the expected needs. Compounding was referred to as "magic" during his day, but Dr. Price perceived it as a divine principle apparent in nature. In his An Appeal to the Public on the Subject of the National Debt, he stated the principle as follows:

"In other words, a Sinking Fund is...if I may be allowed the comparison, like a grain of corn sown which, by having its produce sown and the produce of that produce and so on, is capable of an increase that will soon stock a province or support a kingdom."

Since compound interest grows at a much faster rate in the long run than simple interest, it is theoretically possible to invest money borrowed at simple interest in a project at compound interest for a profit:

"A state may, without difficulty, redeem all its debts borrowing money for that purpose, at an equal or even higher interest than the debts bear; and without providing any other funds than such small ones, as shall from year to year become necessary to pay the interest of the sums borrowed."

John Holland Rose, examining the scheme, declared that "Every sciolist in finance can now see the folly of borrowing money at a high rate of interest in order to provide the fund with its...supply." Nevertheless, Arithmetic is irrefutably in favor of compound interest over simple interest. Dr. Price gives this example in his Appeal:

"ONE PENNY, put out at our Saviour's birth to 5 per cent compound interest would, before this time, have increased to a greater sum that would be contained in A HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLIONS OF EARTHS, all solid gold. But if put out to simple interest, it would in the same time have amounted to no more than seven shillings and four pence half-penny."

Now then, we might think that every sciolist knows very well that a HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION SOLID GOLD EARTHS are nowhere to be found in the immediate universe. Merely compounding numbers does not create wealth, or everyone capable of calculating would be enormously rich by now. Number has its humble origin in the counting of actual things. Dr. Price, an expert in calculating probable life spans, was no doubt familiar with the natural limits of actual progress. Natural growth looks like an "S"-shaped curve: the growth is slow at first, accelerates up the back of the curve, then slows down at the top, when the crop runs out of nourishment in its field. Nevertheless, many people still believe that the stock market can sustain its remarkable rate of growth since the 80s indefinitely, despite setbacks here and there, insisting that the fundamentals are sound while conveniently changing the future value of those fundamentals every day. At the height of the recent dot.com craze, pundits declared inflation dead while inflation stared them in the face in the form of a stock quotes.

Forsooth, crazed dot.com investors were desperately building a classical wall of worry: the wall was obliged to come crashing down about their heads for lack of prudent restraint. Throughout the ages prophets have warned us of the danger of inordinate wealth regardless of its uneven distribution. There is never enough of it to assuage the infinite dread supporting our increasingly chaotic activities. In our fear of poverty, nothingness, and death, we clutch feverishly at the counting signs or units of exchange themselves, having unwisely abandoned the natural world as well as the divine sphere.

We find small consolation in knowing that we are not as desperate as those countries with higher savings rates than ours: Japanese housewives were recently so afraid of spending their money that they sat on an average nest egg of $100,000; Chile has been held up as a glowing example of why we should privatize our social security because the savings rate there is 25 percent, but a United Nations survey reports that 78 percent of Chileans expect to be robbed by government officials and private thieves. People stuff their mattresses with money and then hide gold in walls for a reason: the feeling of economic insecurity - I call it econophobia.

Americans are notorious for their profligate spending and low savings rate because many Americans, particularly those who have not suffered the hard times of world war and great economic depression, are not very afraid for their future. One reason people are relatively fearless is the social safety net. Contrary to the opinion of the neoconservative camp, social welfare makes people more productive, more willing to take risks, more willing to produce and consume.  However, despite one scandal after another associated with the corrupt nature of the system based on human corruption, they depend too much on the competence of post-modern financial and political wizards for their financial security. Those wizards may not even know what the term 'sciolist' means, let alone know what every sciolist should know about reliance on such things as the magic of compound interest, now called the "power" of compound interest.

For example, the former CEO of Alcoa and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who was fired by President Bush, Jr., over policy differences, has come up with a scheme that he thinks will make everybody a millionaire at retirement in 65 years. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Kent Conrad, loves the scheme: "I like the concept a lot, because it takes the power of compounding and gets you a longer run at it."

Here's the Everybody a Millionaire Scheme: Upon each child's birth, the government opens an investment savings account in his or her name and puts $2,000 in it that year and each year thereafter for 18 years; said funds to be invested in conservative stock and bond indexes. The money will be left in the account, to grow at an expected 6 percent per annum compounded, until the individual reaches 65 years of age. Thus over 18 years will a total amount of $36,000 be invested for each individual. At the end of 65 years, principal and accrued interest at 6 percent compounded will total $1,013, 326. That small fortune would be adequate to fund a 20-year annuity of around $82,000 per year, in current dollars - no purchasing power would be lost. Since about 4,000,000 babies are born each year, the total funding cost for each year crop of babies over the period of 18 years would be $144 billion. That sounds like a good deal because millionaires would not need Social Security and Medicare; right now Social Security and Medicare cost altogether $815 billion.

Such is the magic of compound interest. Indeed, a parent would be wise to set up a trust on the same basis, making sure the child cannot touch it for 65 years. Good luck with that voluntary plan. But what would be the effect if the entire nation were involuntarily funded in such a way that everyone would retire a millionaire? That certainly would be, as Mr. O'Neill declared, "a hell of a lot more equitable system." In fact, it would turn upside down the conservative notion that the natural organization of human society is hierarchical, from the bottom on up to God, and that any attempt to equalize individuals in fact would require absolute tyranny and the destruction of human civilization.

Imagine again the gain afforded by the magic of compound interest: put in $36,000 in a fund at 6 percent, and be a millionaire in 65 years. Multiply that by 4 million individuals born each year. Well, if we take 4 million times $ 1 million, we come up with $4 trillion for one year’s worth of individuals. We see that the lion's share of the gain is accrued interest, because only $144 billion was invested in principal. What will the accrued interest buy? We really don't know what it will be worth in terms of bread and butter, but we suspect that we might be making fools of ourselves with such a grandiose scheme. Yet many financial and political experts say not, no matter what some sciolist might think, for what does a sciolist know about the Idols of High Finance?

If we disengage ourselves from scheming long enough to reflect on the absurdities of our various schemes, it is obvious that we should rely less on schemes and take a more sober approach to social security. Reality is pushing President Bush in the direction of a truly conservative social security plan. Under the truly conservative plan I recently put forward social security would be available as social welfare to the poor, to keep them above the poverty level. And anyone would be truly free to voluntarily invest a portion of his or her income in whatever tax-free retirement plans legislation might provide for.  Since well off people would not be entitled to social security, the insurance costs would drop drastically.

Although I advocated the Inalienable Sinking Fund to President Clinton, I did not expect the fund itself to provide everyone with fabulous retirement returns. I thought of it as a self-disciplinary device by which we might provide for a reasonably safe rate of savings for a definite purpose and for a definite duration. In retrospect, given the facts of the future instead of our dreams for the future, the compound interest schemes seem rather silly now. I had to laugh when I realized that my scheme would wind up papering the Universe with fiat money.

The fact is that we as a society would have to pay all of the payments and the accumulating interest thereon.  We want to provide the means for our retirement in advance and we must expect to match the increasing money with a related increase in the production of the goods we will require. In a sense, we are not really producing those goods in advance and storing them in a vault. All things perish eventually; we can make some forms more durable than others, but hardly anyone besides myself and other members of the underground would want to retire on a stainless steel bed in a salt mine after eating reconstituted and hydroponically grown food served by robots. Besides that alternative, we should provide for a decent minimum standard of living at retirement, an expectation signified by a real rate of return over and above inflation and the natural wasting of assets.

In fine, the sums of money saved are claims to future production, not a stockpile of rations already produced. The money form is, in a word: debt. It is a promise to ourselves. Even cash under the mattress is debt, as we soon discover during those devastating times when people default by refusing to provide goods and services in exchange for our cash.

Well, then, you might ask, why do we want to bother with a sinking fund scheme or any other gimmick? We are going to distribute what we produce amongst ourselves anyway. Why don't we just pay as we go along?

Excellent question! That is, in fact, what we are presently doing. We have a "pay as we go" system in place. The problem is that we have been led to think of social security as an investment fund instead of an insurance system to protect the aged from dire poverty. Insurance "premiums" - which are really taxes  - would fluctuate according to the demographics of the population, factors such as its size, wealth, and distribution of wealth. If we perceived social security as a social welfare provision, we would have no more reason to withhold definite amounts from paychecks than we would have to withhold a certain portion of each paycheck for military expenditures and government wages and salaries and so on. But when we look at the program as an investment, the numbers being recorded indicate that the young will have to pay more as we go because we are not getting any younger! But, as we have seen, the same thing would happen with the Sinking Fund: the public would somehow have to pay more interest as the fund matures. Further, with a Sinking Fund scheme, we have a sacred promise to keep the fund in hands secure from the temptations of selfish interests. In a "lockbox" so to speak - an idea that makes my 88-year old father laugh out loud because he thinks of it as a cigar box. We would supposedly mitigate the tendency of untrustworthy Government trustees to squander public funds, by having trustees from the trusted "selfish" sector keep their eyes on the untrustworthy trustees of the public sector, while publishing in the daily newspapers a periodic accounting of the fund simple enough for most of us to understand.

Life is always to some extent a gamble. When we do not know what is going to happen, we are willing to make agreements to spread the risks so that we all win. When our fortune is already assured, we are reluctant to enter into such agreements unless we are charitably disposed. True social security agreements spread the risks. Collectively speaking, there is no difference between a public retirement account and the sum of private retirement accounts. If social security is privatized, all investment returns will also be paid by none other than us; but they will be unevenly distributed. That is one of the risks we want to insure against where our subsistence is concerned. Again, we might think we need a lockbox in which we deposit our Inalienable Sinking Fund that we may someday enjoy the magical benefits of compound growth.

Some concerned taxpayers feel that we cannot afford to keep old promises now that economists tell us that it will require more taxes. The people simply will not have enough money to provide everyone with a decent standard of living not to mention our relatively high poverty level. We see the fallacy of that sort of thinking if we meditate on what we are really doing, how we are using our time, and what our work is producing. Our meditations make apparent the huge commercial bureaucracy of make-work that is being built up around intangible objects. It is plain to the speculator that people are not fully devoted to their work on a full-time basis. Even so, they manage to produce what appears to conservative minds as mountains of garbage, trash and junk in their desperate struggle to avoid the ultimate fact of life. There is much time to spare or allocate to more humane or altruistic endeavors. We discover that a growing population of the young is so dissatisfied with their stunting jobs and job-stunted families that they invest 60 hours per week working for nothing on the Internet. The point is this: convincing arguments can be made, even by economists freed from traditional compulsions, that society can lower the retirement age and even provide everyone a guaranteed minimum income as a means of creating an alternate economy of real freedom of work, and be more prosperous in the process.

The issue is much broader than the question of how to dispose of old people in a civilized manner instead of leaving them in the bush or stoning them as in primitive times. But even on those narrow terms, of how to rid the population of its "unproductive" aged members, the knife cuts both ways. Child labor is prohibited; parents no longer expect children to work to support the family. Enormous investments are made raising children so they can earn their own keep; they are not required to provide a return on that investment. And now some of the young complain about the prospect of higher social security taxes, about a debt someone forgot to tell them about! Well, then, perhaps we should go back to the "noble savage" days: since the young would leave the old in the bush to die, the adults would have the right to dispose of children that might be a burden to them.

What we must dispose of is not our aged population but our deceptive ways of thinking. What must be clear to us is the importance of the role of creative faith in sustaining our society. We must know that schemes are schemes and learn to see through the wizardry to the reality that must be responsibly dealt with if we are to profit from it. We must be aware that we have rapidly growing means to expand the circles of love and charity into mutually beneficial coalescence.

Miami, May 2005

A Truly Conservative Social Security Plan


http://authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?AuthorID=23453&id=10285