As we begin the unit on Public Policy development and you work on your projects- one thing will be consistent:
Forming Policy is a SLOW process with too many people involved.
In forming policy, Congressmen work with the bureaucratic agency who oversees the policy, state and local governments, desires of their constituents, legal restraints, financial costs, and personal desires.
The President deals with the exact same list of issues and the relationships with foreign heads of state when forming foreign policy.
In history we've seen many legislative/presidential programs that are now famous: Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy, FDR's New Deal, JFK's New Frontier, LBJ's Great Society, Reagan's Russia/Start Negotiations, Nixon's Vietnamization, etc.
Choose any one of the items on the list and do the following:
1. define the parameters and desires of the policy
2. What factors influenced shaping the policy
3. What was the outcome of the policy
4. Determine whether the public thought it was successful or not/ public attitude then and now! (make sure to look at then and now)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy
ReplyDelete"Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far."
1. Define the parameters and desires of the policy.
The goal with this policy or ideology was to, in a way, threaten others in order to prevent conflict.
Are you more intimidated by someone if they are laying down or standing up?
Roosevelt's goal was to cause other countries to hesitate in challenging the United States. The method was to present what the country was capable of without actually doing so.
2. What factors influenced shaping the policy?
This diplomacy was not only used in foreign relations, however. Roosevelt's goal was to ,of course, prevent violence with other countries, but also on the United States' own soil.
Roosevelt was very wise in his decisions on how to handle matters, and to achieve his goals in the most peaceful manner possible.
3. What was the outcome of the policy?
The policy seemed to be successful
http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/fdr/wait_for_fdr/33012301.gif
I believe this picture represents Uncle Sam speaking with Franklin D. Roosevelt about the Depression, and how to deal with it. FDR seems to be standing, and this tells me that perhaps, although he was a strong, yet stubborn, person, he still needed to take all of the help he could get. Of course, since Roosevelt had poliomyelitis (polio), it would be impossible for him to stand, and this is why this particular cartoon is ironic.
It would be impossible for him to stand on his own just the same as it would be impossible for him to face the Depression on his own. The Big Stick Policy, and being firm, is what would help him achieve victory.
4. Determine whether the public thought it was successful or not/ public attitude then and now! (make sure to look at then and now)
A person must not be too hard or soft. Instead, as stated, the person must be firm.
Americans are in favor of a gentle giant. Just because one can do harm does not mean they need to. The goal is to avoid war or conflict.
The balance between strong and weak must be found, and Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy is just that.
Because I've always viewed FDR's "New Deal" as the most supreme and extraordinary examples of policy making in the nation's history, I'll do that one :)
ReplyDelete1. FDR's "New Deal" was created to bring the nation out of the economic depression it had been in following the stock market crash on 1929, and restore it to the economic state it had been in prior. FDR was an advocate of helping the "common man" back on his feet. The depression, which left banks empty and people unemployed and homeless, was to be ended through a strong series of government programs to assist the common man get back into stability.
2. The policies of the New Deal were influenced by deteriorated state of the bank system and of businesses. Many policies were created to reform banking procedures and reopen as many banks as possible. Many programs were also created to create jobs and subsidize businesses. The working class was the overall influence for the policiies made because the programs were meant to bring the people back on their feet.
3.Several of the policies in the New Deal were effective in providing people with jobs and regulating the banks to prevent another crisis. Because the damage to the nation was so deep, the New Deal proved to be a good starting point, but the real recovery did not occur until the US entered the second world war and began war production in the country, giving the nation a much needed economic boost. Though not all of the policies lasted, most served their necessary purpose at the time while some exist still to this day.
4.At the time, the working class was supportive of the New Deal policies because it was meant directly to help them. Many republicans, upper class, and business owners opposed the New Deal for obvious reasons, and that they believed the federal government was overstepping its boundries by creating so much economic activity. While this belief is still held by some today, some merely believe that the New Deal did not even stratch the surface of what needed to be done. Most can agree that it was meant with good intentions to bring the nation out of a depression and that it was on the right track toward success. There was simply too many different programs to have one overall impact of "success."
JFK's New Frontier
ReplyDelete1. One of the desires of this policy was to promote American space exploration. Kennedy saw, early in and before his presidency, the Soviets put a dog and a human in space. By the end of the decade the program was introduced, Kennedy wanted a man on the moon.
Kennedy also promoted many domestic policies as well that seemed to extend liberal Democrat ideals similar to those of Roosevelt. He proposed environmental legislation to protect land, funding for elementary schools, and a Medicare plan
2. The main influence on the policy was the fact that America was falling farther behind in the space race. Being that it was so close to the communist scare, the fact that Soviet Russia was the country that was beating the US so dramatically was a driving force behind the push for new interest in space exploration.
Domestically, Kennedy wanted to continue the type of policies that he thought would be beneficial to both the country as it was then and for the future of the country.
3.The outcome was a new found respect and interest in space exploration. Unfortunately, Kennedy did not live to see the first mission to the moon in 1969. However, the initiation of these ideas clearly came from the New Frontier policy.
Most of they other policies did not flourish until after Kennedy's assassination. For example, Medicare and federal support for education were both a part of LBJ's Great Society program.
4.The public, at the time, was more supportive of the space aspect of the policy than the domestic issues. Many conservatives did not want a continuation of the New Deal Program.
The ideas about the progression of space exploration are still recognized as significant, especially right now, at a time when NASA is nearing the end of its work.
FDR - "New Deal"
ReplyDelete1) The overall goal of the New Deal was to repair the united States economy. After the stock market crashed in 1929, America lost all of their money to the banks and everthing basically went down the toilet. Unemployment skyrocketed and depression set over the entire nation so the overall objective of FDRs plan was to get America and its citizens back on their feet.
2) Factors that caused the great depression was mainly the idea that Roaring 20's would never end. The bubble finally popped and Americans lost everything. People had to fight for jobs on a dialy basis. So a few main reasons why the New Deal was created was high unemployment and people lost everything they had with nothing to fall back on, they became homeless.
3) The New Deal created many programs in the midwest like constuction (railroads, mining etc) for example, which in return created jobs for men. Banks that fell apart were also attempted to be restored with certain policies. Howver when WWII begun, America began producing for others machinery which in return boosted our economy mainly out of the Great Depression.
4) When WWII started in the late 1930's, the united States had finally begun to recover. Even though the New Deal created many new jobs and policies to attempt recovery for the nation, the war was what mainly brought us out of the Depression. So imagine yourself back then, almost a decade in a depression, and you find your nation to be doing better at the actions of other countries. I'm sure people then were kind of p. o. ed at the fact that our own country couldn't save itself. However when we look back now at all the good it still created at a slow pace, the war brought us up quicker but no doubt that the New Deal was increasing or economy as well.
FRD's "New Deal":
ReplyDelete1. Was based upon three main objectives, the "Three R's": Relief, Recovery, Reform. Established in times of economic depression, it was a plan to alleviate some financial worry by placing jobs back into society that both aided the people and the government. Furthermore, it brought the nation to a head on progressive improvements in such areas such as environment, etc. Other policies were enacted under the New Deal to provide financially during burdened times in America. These policies included the Social Security Act, the WPA for workers and various other progrssive minded programs.
2. Following the Depression, the main factor to influence these programs was America's need for economic security and jobs. This caused for the government job created specifically for the unemployed. Another factor included the progressive movements that continued on since the Progressive Era.
3. The results of the New Deal, as well as the most important, thousands of jobs given out to provide for citizen's financially, it also added to progressive movements. New developments were made with social welfare, women's role, business reforms, and overall administrations added to the federal government.
4. At the time, the policy was highly acknowledged by working class due to its appreciation for work, and good work at that; however, many programs were deemed unconstitutional and provided controversy. While federal limits were tested and the government was argued to be pointing towards socialism, it lead to recovery, which was needed. Today people look with twenty-twenty vision upon the situation and realize the good that happened as a result, though many still find Roosevelt to hold a commmunist type stance in government involvement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLBJ's Great Society
ReplyDelete1.LBJ's Great Society took effect after the prosperity of post-World War 2 started to decline. Johnson intended to eliminate poverty and racial injustice by creating welfare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and supporting civil right actions such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2.The factors that influenced the policy was the declining prosperity after the post-World War 2 golden era and the Civil Right Movement during the 1960s also influenced the racial injustice part of LBJ's Great Society. Both were the core problems that LBJ's Great Society desired to end.
3.Even though it was JFK's idea to cut the top marginal rate by 20%, it was during Johnson's term that the bill passed, and in its first year Gross National Product (GNP) rose by 10%. Racial injustice was corrected when Johnson supported the Civil Right Acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968.
4.The public most probably thought that the LBJ's Great Society was successful when only considering the economic prosperity. However, the Civil Right Movement which was clearly supported by Johnson was controversial because there were protesters to this movement. Today in society, we see the effects of the Great Society as great, we see it as a prosperous time, where great movements were made to ensure that everyone is equal.
Vietnamization
ReplyDelete1. Parameters and Desire of Policy- The policy of “Vietnamization” plan was to withdraw all American troops from South Vietnam, and the sudden lack of American aide was to be covered by an increased military responsibility by the South Vietnamese. The desire was to turn the war over to Saigon.
2. Factors that Influenced Shaping the Policy- America had been in the Vietnam Conflict for quite a while, and it had become known as the “quagmire in Vietnam”. Americans wanted it to end, and that was a large part of the motivation for the policy. Nixon’s advisor Henry Kissinger and the new Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird both pushed for the withdrawal from Vietnam; Laird visited Saigon on March 5, 1969 and reported that he was satisfied by the progress made in the war effort and the development of the South Vietnamese armed forces. Kissinger persistently advised Nixon to turn the war over to the South Vietnamese, and (with the approval of the president) directed Laird to begin making plans and timetables for doing so.
3. Outcome of the Policy- American troops were withdrawn throughout 1971 and 1972, and they were phased out in such a manner that they functioned as residual support in 1971. Heavy combat continued in Vietnam; the operations into Cambodia and Laos were not particularly successful, and the North Vietnamese fought back in early 1972 with the “Easter” offensive into South Vietnam. Nonetheless, American troop withdrawal continued, and the South Vietnamese military assumed greater responsibility for the war. The policy was ended by a much-welcomed (at least by Americans) ceasefire agreement made on January 23, 1973, between South Vietnam and North Vietnam. The agreement stated that American Prisoners of War were to be returned, and infiltration of the South was to cease, and in return, all American troops (combat units and advisors) were to completely withdraw from South Vietnam. The ceasefire was violated later in 1973 by the North Vietnamese, and the situation deteriorated rapidly from there. South Vietnam tried to negotiate for its freedom and peace with North Vietnam, but instead South Vietnam was forced to surrender and ceased to exist as a free nation. All American troops were evacuated by 5:00 AM on April 30, 1975, and South Vietnam gave in to the Communists five hours later.
4. Public Opinion: Then and Now- The American public liked the idea of pulling out of Vietnam. The enthusiasm for “containing communism” that helped start America’s involvement in the war waned quickly as the death toll went up and the political strength in South Vietnam went down. Nowadays, it is a bit hard to tell what the public opinion is- most people who are not veterans (and mainly our age) have a hard time having an opinion because they don’t know very much about it. Veterans are generally angry that the war ever started, and that they were there to witness its horrors; presumably they approve of the decision to pull out.
@Jared- I like your metaphor about intimidation… I also like how you included a related picture- great thinking!
ReplyDeleteI think public opinion of this policy is somewhat split down the middle, because some people want to show that the United States is mighty and intimidate other countries into compliance, while other people want other countries to view the United States as an equal or a protector…. I think the public can’t agree about what it wants.
@Sam- Great post- you were very thorough!!
@Alison- Your post was very informative! I had entirely forgotten what the New Frontier was.
@Eric- Interesting point about how WWII helped fix the economy….
@Alana- I like how you presented both views of the policy and of Roosevelt- great job!
@Vaibhav- You did a great job providing examples to support your answers!
1. “Speak softly, and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” This was part of Roosevelt’s annual address to Congress in 1904. Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy was a theory that the best way to prevent war was to threaten other nations with force (rather than use force itself). Basically he believed that the US was justified in using national police power where we saw fit. It means that while negotiating peacefully...you are also threatening at the same time. Since this “Roosevelt Corollary” was supposed to be an addition to the Monroe Doctrine (which states that European countries should stay out of Latin America), it actually in turn is somewhat of an amendment or twist to the doctine. The desire of this policy is that the US can use force in order to keep European countries out of Latin America.
ReplyDelete2. The factors that influenced the shaping of this policy was the attempt of European nations to threaten Latin America because they didn't “pay their bills” back to Europe. If the US had gone with the Monroe doctrine and stayed out of the affairs between Europe and Latin America, Europe would have become a permanent presence in the Caribbean. Therefore, this encouraged the US to help Venezuela and other countries to pay off the debts so that the small countries would not be intimidated any longer by the East.
3. The outcome of this policy was that the US remained the imperial and dominant country in the west, and showed Europe that it was willing to use “international police force” to prevent intimidation and “wrongdoing.”
4. The public viewed this as negative and positive. The positive was that the European nations could no longer ignore the fact that the US was becoming a very dominant and powerful nation. The negative is that the government used this Roosevelt Corollary as an excuse for intervention in foreign affairs – whether it was deemed appropriate or not. Because of this increase in foreign involvement, relations were strained with Latin America and other world powers because of this “cowboy diplomacy” that Roosevelt practiced.
@ Erin- thank you! You as well!
ReplyDelete@ Eric- I like what you said about the war being the real cause of what's brought us out of the depression. I think its ironic that we're in the worst economic state since that time and its war spending that keeps digging the hole deeper. I'm pretty sure I just heard that even more defense spending was approved...while they're allowing for pell grants to be diminished and are starting to not cover transplants on insurance for sick patients. Granted, we were in this war before the economy tanked so it'd be stupid to think it could bring us out of this mess.
@ Alana- What you said about people looking at FDR as almost a communist I think is relevent with today's society calling Obama a socialist. It just seems that when you try to aid those in need in this country, it causes an uproar over political ideologies.
FDR’s New Deal:
ReplyDelete1. President Roosevelt came up with the New Deal to help Americans and their families recover from the Great Depression and referred to the 3 Rs: Relief, recovery and reform. FDR planned to provide relief for many families by helping them recover from the difficult times of the Great Depression. He also planned to reform the financial system s that something like the Great Depression will never take place again. Jobs would be created to help families recover from the depression which in turn would help the economy recover as well.
2. There are several factors that led to the creation of the New Deal. The main reason was that the United States was in the middle of the Great Depression and many Americans and their families needed help to recover from the Depression. The Depression came around because of the crash of the stock market on Black Tuesday. A lot of families were losing money and many Americans did not have jobs. FDR felt that it was his turn to do something about the stock market by helping Americans come up with more money and provide more jobs.
3. The outcome of FDR’s New Deal is fairly significant. The programs that FDR came up with provided jobs for thousands of Americans across the United States. Some of them even helped protect the money that Americans put into the banks. Many families were provided with social security and welfare to help protect them and help them recover from the depression.
4. Many people think that President Roosevelt’s New Deal program was successful as it helped the country recover from the Great Depression. Many people were provided with jobs and protection in ways such as social security which they did not have before the depression. There has not been a depression as bad as the depression within the 1930s because of the programs that FDR came up with. People still feel this way today as social security still exists. A lot of people may also feel, however that the New Deal barely helped us recover. When WWII started many jobs opened up and many people were provided with jobs. A lot of people think that it was the war that helped the United States recover from the Great Depression.
Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy
ReplyDelete1. Basically, Roosevelt wanted to find a way to be threatening without actually having to act on his threats. He wanted the U.S to seem like the "big, bad country", so that they could intimidate other countries, halting violence from taking place. Roosevelt, though, was capable of backing up on his threats but figured by merely showing his force other countries would be hesitant to go into a fight with them.
2. Fighting was the essential factor that shaped and influenced the Big Stick. He felt that being protected was the most important thing for the U.S. For example in 1902, Germany put a blockade up against Venezuela in order to force them to pay off a debt they had to them. Roosevelt was outraged by Germany's actions and threatened to attack the ships if the blockade continued. So soon after, Germany and Venezuela reached a negotiation.
3. I believe the policy was successful. As a whole I believe the Big Stick was a success, but one point of it jumped out at me. In 1905, Japan and Russia were having conflicts and Roosevelt offered to attempt to mediate the problems. The delegates met with Roosevelt several times, and for his mediation efforts, he became the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize. That is a major accomplishment for an individual, so for Roosevelt to receive it due to his belief in the Big Stick policy, I consider the Policy to be a success.
4. It's hard to say because in both his time and now, I'm sure everyone has their own belief on whether or not being "peaceful" is better than being "aggressive". Personally though, I think Roosevelt's policy was a happy median. It was aggressive, yet shot for a peaceful resolution. For that reason I believe most people would say they agreed with Roosevelt's Big Stick policy.
@Jared
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your points on Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy. The piece I enjoyed most was your answer to question 3 where you used a picture as an example. After looking at the picture I thought of many of te things that you did, but I will be honest in saying that it slipped my mind that Roosevelt had polio, so after putting that in mind I thought your point on the irony of him standing was very clever.
@Eric
I liked your point about how war helped us out of depression. While it may sound ironic, it does make sense. When jobs are needed a war is an easy way to bring about jobs. Last thing to think about, while war is something we don't hope for, would another war help boost job amounts in the U.S?
Alison, I did not know that a dog was sent into space too...very interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think it is peculiar too how during that time we were very interested in space exploration, and not 50 years later we have changed our priorities.
Nixon's Vietnamization
ReplyDelete1. This policy basically was designed to gradually remove U.S. troops from vietnam and give the South a more sizeable role in the defense.
2. The U.S. couldnt win the war so we knew we had to transfer power to the South. So Nixon had to find a way to properly do this without letting the North take over. Also, the poplularity of the war was a factor. It was very unpopular and the government knew that they had to develop a policy that helped them remove themselves from Vietnam to regain support.
3. The policy failed. As soon as we began to withdraw the North attacked again and led to the South surrendering.
4.Public opinion then of Vietnam was pretty bad. So there was alot of support for vietnamization. Parents children could come home and money spent elsewhere. Vietnamization isnt as relevant as it was back then during the war but im sure there is mixed opinion on the isssue. But the way i personally look at the vietnam war was that it was a huge waste of time. Imagine how families felt after they find out that the North took over the South; Just knowing that your child died for nothing. The American people must have felt that was a huge waste of time, life and money.
Eric, I agree that people do not think ahead and at times get carried away. The fact that the country was taking advantage of good times and not planning for the future seems to be something that not only happened 80-90 years ago but within the last few years too. Everyone was spending all of their money (which is good for the economy), but the problem is they were overspending and not investing or saving for the future.
ReplyDelete"We stand on the edge of a New Frontier—the frontier of unfulfilled hopes and dreams, a frontier of unknown opportunities and beliefs in peril." -Kennedy
ReplyDeleteNew Frontier sounded pretty cool, so I went with that one.
1. New Frontier was basically the name used to encompass all of Kennedy's hopes for America- policies that would help to both encourage space exploration and end poverty. Improvements to unemployment benefits were particularly stressed.
2. The policy was designed around the rapid increase in poverty that was sweeping over America. A largely supportive Congress swept in large amounts of legislation.
3.Most of the legislation proposed was put into action, with Social Security benefits becoming more expansive and inclusive, food stamps being reinstated, additional funding being offered to environmental issues and agricultural and infrastructural improvements.
4. People of the time, after a few years, saw the programs as largely effective, as many of the programs seemed to improve the economy to some extent as well as improving the life and health of many poverty-stricken Americans. In current times, certain aspects of it are still seen as successful, like the relief programs designed for children especially, but some of the other programs, like increases to Social Security are no longer viable, and in some ways may be a catalyst to Social Security's impending crash.
@ Sam
ReplyDeleteWWII and the current war going on oversees are two different scenarios. Our economy increased rapidly becasue our involvment in WWII did not start until 1944 in Europe. The war in Europe started in the late 30's so the United States was given about five critical years to sell all kinds of supplies to both sides of the war in Europe. The current war oversees is different because we have been involved since the beginning. We've only produced for our country and maybe a little for other allies but either way it's not enough to run our economy out of its recession.
@ Another war could boost our economy out of this recession but it would depend on what type of war. If we supplied countries with tons of supplies (bombs, food, shelter, natural resources etc), then it would offer a few jobs and decrease a portion of the unemployment rate. Although if it's a nuclear arms race then that won't create any jobs for Americans for two main reasons. 1) We have to be smart enough to build nuclear bombs considering people will just get them from China and 2) everyone except a few small african villigaes have nuclear bombs. The type of war we support would be the deciding factor about whether it will approve our economy.
@Ryan
I agree with your opinion especially about the waste of money and time but currently and historically speaking, the would turns to the United States when there is a problem. Even though America itself burned during vietnamization, the world was glad that we stepped up to the plate. America has a reputation for being the worlds aid for approximately the last century in my opinion. Even though it was indeed a huge waste of our time, imagine the anarchy that would have errupted if we didn't get involved, especially the affects that would of occured with our foreign relations.
The second '@' was to Chris
ReplyDelete@Ryan: To say that the war was a complete waste is a bit extreme, but that is probably how most people viewed it, even today. The saddest part is not the policy failing, but the need for the policy to be enacted. Had the war gone better and people been happy with the war's goal, it would not have been needed. Sadly this was not the case, and the loss of lives resulting from it is still one of the low points of American History.
ReplyDelete@Sam: People finding aid for those in need causing an uproar always being an issue is such a true statement. Socialism is always the quick answer out and the one to envoke the most fear of a policy as all socialist nations so far have been a corrupt usage of government. The bad reputation scares people and makes them immediately take a good thing and turn it into a bad one without any extra thought on the possible advantages.
@ Alana:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that generalizing war as a complete waste is kind of extreme, but we must ask ourselves what we could have done differently to evade war.
- Concerning socialism:
I can understand why people must fear socialism, but to fear to such a capacity as to destroy any country that supports the ideal is just inhumane. The Cold War was the perfect example of how the U.S. reacted to communism, an extreme form of socialism. We can learn from this and realize that we must understand where the people who do not agree with American belief come from.
@Rick-
ReplyDeleteThe New Frontier may have been good for its time, people were really in need to food stamps, unemployment benefits, social security, etc., but I think the time has come where people need to be independent and stand on their own two feet. Yes, we should help out the needy, but I think there needs to be a compromise between how much aid we give out.
As for space exploration...I think it needs to be reinstated! Now that space exploration is stopping...China and Russia are going to one-up us, and I think if we want to follow through with Obama's "innovation" policy, we need to continue learning and exploring more (space!).
@Ryan
The policy of vietnamization is tricky...we wanted to help out the south, but at the same time public opinion is to withdraw troops. I think that we need to remember human rights, and although it sometimes is best to stay out of foreign affairs, we need to be a police power and not let injustice happen to countries under our watch. Being the dominant country in the world comes the responsibility of helping out other countries in time of disaster.
@Jared- I like your point about how we have changed our priorities so significantly about Kennedy’s New Frontier program. I think our priorities have changed so much because the Soviet Union has dissolved… and communists take second place to unfriendly countries with nuclear weapons, coupled with a persistent recession/depression. I personally am sad to see it go, because I think space is fascinating and should be explored. Originally, though, I think it was established for the wrong reasons (one of which was to spite the Soviet Union and prove we were better); I think its purpose should have been closer to what Kennedy described.
ReplyDelete@ Eric:
ReplyDeleteVietnamization did burn the U.S., and yet as you said, the world respected the decision. The prospect of Vietnamization is extrememly controversial today, especially when opponents claim that the idea was what led to the U.S. to the recession in the 70s.
Alison- and actually Carissa, too- The space exploration aspect is really important, especially with NASA kind of shutting down in a sense. I probably should have touched on that more, now that I think of it, but whatever. Point is, yes, you'd think programs of that sort would be a greater concern right now... I guess the populace is too busy arguing over other stuff to think about space (which I don't necessarily agree with).
ReplyDeleteDanielle- With the Great Depression being our topic for acadeca this year, we studied a lot over whether or not FDR's New Deal really helped. In some ways it actually slowed down recovery (going so far as to initiate another mini-crash in the mid 30's, actually), but, though I don't really like all the programs he initiated, I'll admit that at least some of them have merit- Social Security is a good concept, but the current system is rapidly becoming unviable, what with the 3-1 ratio for pay in-pay out. He had some admirable ideas, but if they can't be seriously reformed to deal with the issues of 2011, then I think they'll have to be scrapped, or they'll just implode anyway.