Indeed, I have kept my system to what I would like to call an optimal minimum - neither so little is proposed that no significant value is attained nor so much that it creates political problems. When I think back to some results I have seen in the field (based on some work I was doing while at Harvard Business School), it would appear that it would be better for languages to have fewer symbols and sounds, not more, especially since having a very large number of symbols and sounds may impose a heavier burden on poorer children (and note that I am talking about poor children in the Third World) who may already know to speak the language (as native speakers) but do not have family members who can teach them to read. This is indeed a good reason why policy makers would not want to allow new sounds in a language. In fact, I think that this may be the only one good reason why issues around language would acquire a political hue. It is for this reason that I am not proposing to introduce any new sounds into Tamil.
Tamil has a rich and vibrant history stretching over centuries. I personally know by heart poetry that was written in Tamil centuries ago that still comes through today with all the beauty and richness with which it was conceived. Jean Cocteau once said "Poetry is indispensable – if I only knew what for". It is a pity that the man is dead. I believe I could have helped him understand some of the benefits of Tamil poetry to society, not the least of which is this fabulous conversation I have been able to have with George Hart and Harold Schiffman. Discourse such as this is essential for democracy in India.
Update (July 19): I have heard back from Prof. Harold Schiffman as well. This is in addition to Prof. George L. Hart (Prof. Hart concurs with me that this system has benefits). Please also see the update (posted today, July 7th) of the original post. Also, fixed text in the main post as part of this update.