- Professor of Law at Suffolk University
- Pro to the question "Should Social Security Be Privatized?"
“Given the [Social Security] program’s looming financial crisis, benefit cutbacks are increasingly likely. Therefore, the entirely political nature of Social Security places workers’ retirement security at considerable risk. Indeed, Congress has already arbitrarily reduced Social Security benefits of some groups of workers. Moreover, because Social Security benefits are not a worker’s property, they are not inheritable.
In contrast, a privatized Social Security system, based on individual accounts, would provide workers with the benefits and the safeguards of true ownership.”
“Property Rights: The Hidden Issue of Social Security Reform,” Social Security Privatization, Apr. 19, 2000
- Theoretical Expertise Ranking:
Individuals with PhDs, JDs, or equivalent advanced degrees in fields relevant to social security and related issues. Also top-level government officials (such as foreign leaders, US presidents, Founding Fathers, Supreme Court Justices, members of legislative bodies, cabinet members, military leaders, etc.) with positions relevant to social security and related issues.
- Involvement and Affiliations:
- Professor of Law, Suffolk University, 1986-present
- Resident Scholar, Beacon Hill Institute
- Member, Advisory Committee, Cato Project on Social Security Choice
- Member, Emeritus Board, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
- Associate Professor of Law, Suffolk University, 1983-1986
- Adjunct Instructor, Suffolk University, 1978-1983
- Lawyer, First National Bank of Boston, 1977-1983
- Former Counsel, Franklin Foundation
- JD, Suffolk University
- BA, Columbia University
- Has authored 16 editions of Loring and Rounds: A Trustee’s Handbook, 1994-2010
- Quoted in:
- Pro & Con Quotes: Should Social Security Be Privatized?