Alan Greenspan

Bravo, Alan Greenspan (“Greenspan Assails Clinton’s Social Security Reform Plan,” Jan. 21). The thought of the federal government maintaining huge stock holdings in American corporations is completely ludicrous. The potential conflicts of interest are staggering. Does a Clinton administration sell shares of Microsoft and Philip Morris because those companies don’t measure up to its notion of morality? Do publicly traded Hollywood studios receive investment dollars because their management supported Bill Clinton’s candidacy? I’m sure liberals can come up with equally scary scenarios if a Republican held the presidency.

Given the sheer size of the funds that Social Security would invest each year, the federal government would literally have the potential to control the boards of directors of massive American companies. Does anyone really want this?

This is the most foolish idea I’ve heard since Clinton’s proposal to nationalize health care, although both ideas seem to emanate from the same general philosophy that government bureaucrats know what’s best for us.

TOM ECKER

Los Angeles

*

Greenspan is correct. The federal government should not be in the investment business. The condition of the Social Security system in 1999 and the feds’ reluctance to fix it before now is proof of their capabilities in that particular area. However, that does not mean that the taxpayers couldn’t do their own thing in the stock market, with at least part of their Social Security taxes.

ELLSWORTH CAMPBELL

Victorville

*

Doesn’t anyone remember 1929?

RUSSELL F. GLASS

La Palma