Because Social Security Matters & Privatization Isn’t the Answer

Reuters reports that things aren’t looking good for Bush’s social security plan. In case you haven’t been following, his plan allows workers to divert a portion of their retirement contributions into an individual investment account. Sound good? Think again…
Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, a progressive platform of labor, minority and women’s organizations explains that, “Bush’s plan [would] dismantle America’s most successful social protection and anti-poverty program.” Why? Heidi Hartmann of the National Council of Women’s Organizations explains that, “Social Security is critical to women, because it offers lifetime guaranteed benefits, higher returns for low-earning workers, cost-of-living adjustments and spousal benefits for widows and divorced women.” In fact, more than half of elderly women would live in poverty without the limited protections of social security.
While critics contend that the stock market generally *is* the only way to make long-term returns on investment, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond challenges this assumption, explaining that, “African Americans cannot afford to see their future raffled off in a risky stock market gamble.” Further, those individuals who do manage to turn a profit will find that their returns are “taxed” by administrative costs. For those who earn less & invest less, the administrative costs will be proportionally greater and the net returns smaller. (sigh).
So who exactly stands to benefit from this plan? John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO contends that: “The only group that would benefit from privatization is the financial service industry, to the tune of nearly one trillion dollars in fees to manage the private accounts. This would be the largest windfall for that sector in American history.” Wow–imagine that–Bushie in the hand of big business. Shocking.
What’s depressing is that women already receive the dregs of the current Social Security system. Thanks to the gender wage gap, women have less income to pay into the system. If you couple less retirement benefits with a longer life expectancy, women have to make a little stretch a lot further. While not ideal, *at least* the current Social Security provides benefits for life and adjusts for inflation. That’s a *lot* more than can be said for the market.
Women don’t need the stock market to increase their benefits. Rather, they need administrative changes to the current system–like crediting the work of caregivers and increasing survivor’s & divorcee’s benefits. Click here to send a letter to Congress telling them to just-say-no to the privatization scheme.