Incredible article from the Gannett news service out there, saying
that because females get more benefits, they should have more say in
what happens to social security. My letter in response:

"I'm afraid your article on women and social security (Gannett News
Service 3/28/05) was off the mark. For years, it's been a national
shame that men pay so much more into social security and get back so
little. If the current proposal to raise the retirement age to 68
passes, then men, who die at 72, will have just four years of
retirement--compared to women, who die at 80 and who will have 12. In
that case, women will be drawing benefits for *three times* as long as
men. To make matters worse, those men will have paid far more into the
system, taking money from them that could have been used in their much
shorter retirements. In this way, social security is fast becoming an
unjust transfer tax from men to women. To say, in the face of that
inequity, that women's voices matter more than men's in the social
security debate because they receive more benefits is simply
incredible. It's like saying that because CEOs make more money than
average voters that they should have more say in writing the tax laws.
If you want equality in social security, start by looking at the men's
side for a change, bringing into line what is taken from them with
they actually get."

If you want to write in about this, you'll find a list of Gannett
newspapers online (click their COntact Us links etc to write to the
editor) at:

http://www.gannett.com/web/gan013.htm

The article (this is from USA Today, and was toned down feminist-wise
from what I saw in my local paper):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-15-socsec-women_x.htm

Women have bigger stake in Social Security overhaul

By Pamela Brogan, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON Women have more at stake than men in President Bush's plan
to make individual investment accounts part of Social Security.
Women are more likely to receive Social Security benefits, live longer
after retiring, have less money and rely more heavily on the
government retirement insurance program, according to federal and
private data.

Some groups representing women and minorities say individual
investment accounts would transform Social Security and its guarantee
of lifetime benefits into a risky investment plan.

"Privatization is about taking benefits away from women," said Heidi
Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "I'm
disgusted that this is not talked about more. I guess it's because
President Bush is setting the agenda and he doesn't want to talk about
how women and men use Social Security."

Others say Bush's plan would be no more risky for women than the
current system.

"Women are smart enough to decide for themselves whether they want a
personal account," said Leanne Abdnor, executive director of Women for
a Social Security Choice and a member of the bipartisan panel Bush
assembled in 2001 to propose solutions to Social Security' s looming
financial problems.

"The existing system is a risk because the country is dependent on
elected officials to decide their level of benefit," Abdnor said.

Social Security is the only source of income for one of every four
women 65 or older, according to the Institute for Women's Policy
Research.

Women also depend 10 times more heavily than men on the parts of
Social Security that pay benefits to widows and widowers and to the
spouses and children of disabled workers. Bush's plan is silent on how
those benefits would fare under his proposal.

That's a particular concern for black women, who are
disproportionately single and in poor health and are twice as likely
as white women to receive disability benefits.

Maya Rockeymoore, vice president of research for the Congressional
Black Caucus Foundation, said individual accounts "represent a threat
of deep poverty because they reduce the 'guaranteed' aspect of Social
Security."

Opponents of Bush's plan also note that women typically earn less than
men, which makes many women reluctant to support any changes to Social
Security. Currently, workers who earn lower wages get a larger
percentage of their income back after they retire than do
higher-income workers. Social Security benefits also include a
cost-of-living adjustment.

Income from personal investment accounts would not favor lower-income
beneficiaries, aren't guaranteed to last a lifetime and don't offer a
cost-of-living adjustment.

"I want Social Security to be there for younger workers when the stock
market goes up and down," said Bettye Ashwood of Muskogee, who
receives a $2,000 monthly Social Security check.

"I don't think private accounts are a very good idea," said Ashwood,
75, a widow who worked for 35 years for the telephone company.

Martha Moydell, 66, a retired nurse from Fort Gibson, receives a
$1,200 monthly Social Security check. She also said individual
investment accounts are too risky.

"Somebody is going to lose under this plan, and it's usually the
middle class or somebody who really needs the benefit," Moydell said.
"I know, because I've lost money in the stock market."

But Kit Stuart of Muskogee, a senior who declined to reveal her exact
age, disagreed. She supports Bush's plan.

"I think it's a good idea because Social Security is not going to be
sustainable under the current program," said Stuart, who receives
about $450 in Social Security benefits. "If I were young, I'd invest
in private accounts because I think they would do better (than the
current system)."

Bush's plan would affect only workers who are age 54 and younger.
Current retirees wouldn't be affected by the accounts, but their
opinions have helped shape the debate over the proposal.

Some younger women, including Sandra Jones, 27, of Des Moines, believe
that creating personal accounts would be less risky than doing nothing
to change Social Security.

"I'm not afraid of the small risks," said Jones, a state lobbyist. "My
generation is going to get the short end of the stick unless we do
something. It really frustrates me when I hear politicians say that
70% of the benefits will still be there in 40 years if we don't do
anything. Are you kidding me? Seventy percent is not good enough."

Bush would let younger workers invest up to 4% of their first $90,000
of income in personal accounts consisting of a limited array of stocks
and bonds. When those workers retire, their Social Security benefits
would be reduced by an amount roughly based on money accrued in the
personal accounts.

Alma Morales Riojas, president of MANA, A National Latina
Organization, said private accounts probably wouldn't benefit Hispanic
women, the poorest of all workers, because they don't earn enough to
set aside money for investments. In addition, Riojas said, many
Latinos don't trust financial institutions.

Riojas said Latino women also live longer than white or black women,
according to 2002 census data. As a result, Latino women depend on
Social Security to a greater extent for retirement income. Without it,
61% of Latino women age 65 and over would be living at or below the
federal poverty level.

"Social Security is not just a safety net for us but a matter of
survival," she said.

The details about how Bush's proposal would handle a minimum
retirement benefit if stocks plummet aren't clear. He also hasn't said
how his strategy would deal with disability benefits.

That's exactly why Cathie Holt, 44, of Warner Robins, Ga., opposes the
president's plan. Holt was earning a six-figure salary in
pharmaceutical sales before a 2001 car accident left her with multiple
disabilities. She now gets $1,500 a month for herself and $800 a month
for her 6-year-old daughter in Social Security disability benefits.

"I don't want to be the generation that is the guinea pig for
privatization," said Holt. "I have dreams for my child and I know that
college is still a possibility for her because of Social Security."




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/29/05 12:47:10 PM ---