Talk:Edwin E. Witte/Draft

Solely Responsible?

First, let me say, this is a nice piece of work! I have only a couple of suggestions: The second sentence may be a little strong. it mays it sound a bit like the SSA sprung fully-formed from the mind of EEW. My understanding is that Witte's primary contribution was in the area of OASI, and the actual act contained many other dimensions including OAA, ADC, and AB, as well as an attempt to recover from the revocation of Sheppard-Towner a few years earlier with the Title IV children's provisions. As the article makes clear further along, this may have been more of a group effort.

Also, I believe that the idea of including health care in the original bill (and subsequent health measures) was opposed not only by the AMA, but also by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), but I can't document that at the moment (and that both had opposed TR in the original proposals as well. (see below)

If I were to add anything, it might be a section on (or a link to) "The Wisconsin Experiment" or some such title, with a notation of that remarkable group of economists (like Ely and Commons) and politicians (notably LaFollette) of which Witte was a member. (see below.)

I don't know if he was involved with Social Security after the passage of the bill or not. One of the reasons the program worked as well as it has - to the chagrin of its opponents - was all the careful actuarial work that took place after passage (and continues). Was Witte involved with this? Or with setting up the arrangements? I just don't know. (see below.)

Also, since learning what I have about Theodor Lohmann and the others who performed a similar (earlier) role on social insurance in Germany, and since many of the earliest generation of social scientists (including Ely? Commons, maybe?) did their doctorates in Germany, I'm wondering if there is any record of an "Atlantic connection" here? Roger Lohmann 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Atlantic Connection, the source to consult would be Daniel Rodgers's Atlantic Crossing. I know it deals heavily with "peace progressives," I don't remember how much it discussed social insurance. Russell D. Jones 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Health Care

Also, I believe that the idea of including health care in the original bill (and subsequent health measures) was opposed not only by the AMA, but also by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), but I can't document that at the moment (and that both had opposed TR in the original proposals as well. Roger Lohmann 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

NAM may well have opposed it too, but all I had was the quote from Perkins. Russell D. Jones 17:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wisconsin Idea

If I were to add anything, it might be a section on (or a link to) "The Wisconsin Experiment" or some such title, with a notation of that remarkable group of economists (like Ely and Commons) and politicians (notably LaFollette) of which Witte was a member. Roger Lohmann 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not heard the term "Wisconsin Experiment" before. Is it the Wisconsin Idea (The close interaction and connection between social scientists at U-Wisc-Madison and the State Legislature to advise and help in the creation of social legislation)? Russell D. Jones 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Afterward

I don't know if he was involved with Social Security after the passage of the bill or not. One of the reasons the program worked as well as it has - to the chagrin of its opponents - was all the careful actuarial work that took place after passage (and continues). Was Witte involved with this? Or with setting up the arrangements? I just don't know. Roger Lohmann 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The couple sources I referenced do mention that he served as a consultant to the SSB for many years afterward, but I have no idea just what is meant by "consultant." You know he wasn't on the board or actively employed by the SSB after his work with the CES. Russell D. Jones 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the specific SS boards on which Witte served. Russell D. Jones 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just be careful not to wikilink SS. :={ Howard C. Berkowitz 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Toward Approval

This article has two editors acting as authors, one of which is nominating the May 27 version of this article, and a third apparently endorsing that same version. That's not good enough to get the article approved. It looks as though we can use the three editor approval method if Russell adds his name to the template, or use the one editor approval if Howard becomes the primary nominator and Roger can sign as second if he wants. There are a couple of copy-edits that have been made since the May 27 version that could be included as well. D. Matt Innis 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't touched the text of this article. It does seem simplest to have Russell sign on. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done; and I've updated the link to this version. Russell D. Jones 00:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That works. We're on schedule for a June 10th approval. Feel free to continue to improve the article, but just make sure that each editor shows that they endorse the version in the template (and to update the template!) D. Matt Innis 13:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.0

Keep them coming! D. Matt Innis 17:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.