WOMEN DESERVE MORE SOCIAL SECURITY, NOT LESS

by Martha Burk



As we all know from
the State of the Union speech, [Bush] is pushing hard – on his own
party as well as the Democrats – to privatize Social Security. While
some of his folks know carving private accounts out of the present
system is a non-starter, they’re still trying to figure a way to please
their [pResident] and still get re-elected next year. Representative Bill
Thomas, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee and a heavy-hitter
in the debate, recently floated the idea of “gender and race adjusting”
benefits. Thomas strongly implied that since women live longer than
men, their checks should be reduced so an equivalent amount of money
would stretch over the additional years.  



Great.
Women already have lower benefits than men because they make less over
their lifetimes due to pay discrimination and years spent out of the
workforce caring for kids and elderly parents, so Thomas’ idea adds
insult to injury. But putting aside the fact that gender or race-based
benefits would be against the law, Thomas ought to consider some
“adjustments” that would really be fair to women.



In 2003,
the last full year for which we have Census Bureau earnings data for
full-time, year-round workers, women earned only 75.5 cents for every
$1 men earned. Adjusting women's benefits upward to compensate for that
lower pay, would mean an increase in their benefits of 32.5 percent to
bring them in line with men's benefits.



Making
race based adjustments could help Hispanic and African American women
even more. Hispanic women earn only 52.5 cents for each $1 earned by
non-Hispanic white men, and African American women earned only 62.5
cents. So Hispanic women would need a 90 percent adjustment and African
American women a 60 percent upward adjustment to bring their benefits
into line with white men’s.



And, if
Rep. Thomas wants to compensate women for the time they spend out of
the labor market caring for children and other family members, the
upward adjustment would have to be much larger. The Institute for
Women’s Policy Research recently estimated that the typical woman earns
just 38 cents for each $1.00 the typical man earns over a lifetime,
taking years out of the workforce into account. Since Social Security
benefits are based on the highest 35 years of earnings (and the years
women spend at home are averaged in at $0). To compensate women for the
impact of this lost time doing unpaid care work, women's benefits would
need to be increased by 163 percent, more than double.  



Of
course, privatizing Social Security would make all of these inequities
worse, not better, since women have fewer pennies to invest in that
great casino we call the stock market.



The
National Council of Women’s Organizations sent a strongly worded letter
to Thomas, urging him and his colleagues get serious about
strengthening Social Security in ways that preserve and improve
benefits for all those who rely on it, including women. The system is
not in crisis, but it will be if it’s starved by taking money out
through risky privatization schemes. Congress ought to be working to
stop that plan, not proposing ways to further disadvantage women
through disproportionate benefit cuts.





Martha
Burk is a political psychologist who heads the Center for Advancement
of Public Policy in Washington, D.C., a think tank focusing on the
wisdom of providing for more equal treatment of women in society.  She can be found at MinutemanMedia.org.