Women and Social Security Alert (WomenSSA)
Items in this Alert
The Washington Scene Social Security issues dominated much of the news last week. In the last weekend of January, Republicans in Congress held a retreat at the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia at which Social Security was featured. Attendees were given a 100 page play book entitled “Saving Social Security.” Following this, President Bush devoted 20% of his State of the Union message to Social Security. On Monday, January 31, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) held a “pre-buttal” press conference and also offered rebuttals to the President’s speech on Feb. 2. On January 31, Rep. Pelosi stressed three key principles that should guide any proposed changes in Social Security:
She emphasized that changes to Social Security should be fair to younger workers and current retirees alike and that women and minorities should be treated fairly as well and not receive a different level of benefits, as suggested earlier by Rep. Thomas (R-CA). On Tuesday, February 1, Representative Sander Levin (MI), the Ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, met with numerous advocacy groups working to combat Social Security privatization. On February 3, Congressional Democrats headed for their retreat in Williamsburg, VA, to develop their agenda for Social Security and other issues. On Tuesday, February 8, The National Council of Women’s Organizations’ (NCWO) Task Force on Women and Social Security will hold a national press conference to show how much women depend on Social Security, why the current system is not in crisis, and why privatization is detrimental to most women.
Comments on the State of the Union (by IWPR President Heidi Hartmann, Ph.D.) Although the President was not very specific in the description of his proposed privatization plan for Social Security in his speech on February 2, White House staff have been briefing reporters, according to the Washington Post and the New York Times. In my view, the President seems to have taken to heart many of the criticisms that have been leveled by critics of privatization, such as high administrative fees and the potential losses from risky investments, and has outlined severe restrictions on workers’ potential investments as a result. His plan is not likely to please either the privatizers or the anti-privatizers. The features of his plan seem to be:
The President’s privatization plan reminds me of President Clinton’s Health Care plan. President Clinton developed a very complex plan that could mimic some of the good aspects of a single payer plan (in which in essence the government is the only health insurer) without its being a single payer plan. Here, President Bush is trying as best he can (which is not very well) to have his privatization plan mimic some of the good aspects of Social Security without its being Social Security. Why bother? Let’s just keep the Social Security we’ve got and get the real thing! Without siphoning revenues form the Trust Fund or borrowing $2 trillion in the first 10 years of privatization.
New Research and Poll Results 1. A recently released study by the National Women’s Law Center (Social Security: Women, Children, and the States) provides an analysis or each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia about the importance of Social Security to women and children. It highlights for each state how many women, men, and children receive Social Security benefits; the percentage of elderly women who would be poor without Social Security; the impact of benefit cuts proposed in the leading privatization plan; and the impact of Social Security privatization on state budgets. Please go to http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/sswomen&states2005.pdf to read or download the full report. 2. Since investing in stocks and bonds from early on in an individual’s career would produce a better return over a long span of time, women are likely to be losers in this privatization proposal. A recent brief (“Social Security Privatization’s Motherhood Penalty” by William Spriggs, Economic Policy Institute,) illustrates that even women with higher average lifetime earnings than men would receive lower benefits from private accounts because women often take time out of the workforce early in their career to have children or to obtain further education. 3. A new poll of 1,000 Americans aged 18 and older released February 3 by Rock the Vote, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, and AARP found that while young adults, women, African Americans, and Hispanics want to strengthen Social Security, most oppose private accounts once they are informed of the likely results of them. Nearly 60% of all 18-39-year-olds oppose private accounts if it would mean lower guaranteed Social Security benefits in retirement. When given the same scenario, women, Hispanics, and African Americans of all ages opposed private accounts by even larger margins. To access the full report, go to Public Attitudes Toward Social Security and Private Accounts.
Action Item—Let your Senators and/or Representative know what you think! Call or visit your Senators and/or Representative at their district offices during their upcoming district work period (February 18-28) and tell them how you feel about strengthening Social Security. The National Women’s Law Center report above has fact sheets on your state that you can use to call attention to important issues to you. |
||
Institute for Women's Policy Research
1707 L Street, NW, Suite 750 ~ Washington, DC 20036 © 2005 by IWPR |