This article was carried on the Knight Ridder newswire, to newspapers across the country in January, 2000.

Social Security Reform: An Issue for Women in 2000

By Diana Zuckerman

    Of all the issues facing Congress and the President as we enter the new millennium, none is more important to women and families than Social Security.

    A year ago, it looked like the previously "untouchable" 60-year old program would be dumped for a newer, sexier, privatized model. Those ideas seemed to fade during the year, but were recently revived by presidential candidate George W. Bush. We can expect Social Security reform to be a political football this year, so it’s time to get past the rhetoric and focus on the facts.

    Whatever happens to Social Security, women will be more affected than men. Most of the Social Security checks are sent to women. Women depend more on Social Security because they are less likely than men to have their own private pensions when they retire. Even if they do, their pension checks are, on average, half as large as men’s are. The current Social Security system is relatively generous to low earners, and especially women. You don’t need to be an expert on Social Security to understand that the public debate on when or how to "reform" Social Security needs to focus on how any proposed actions, or inaction, would affect women.

    Doing nothing to change the current system is not good for women. Many elderly widows are dependent on Social Security, and they can barely survive on today’s benefits. No changes now will mean more dramatic changes later, such as greater cuts in benefits, and those will hurt the people most dependent on Social Security, who are mostly women. It is better for everyone, and especially women, to make changes this year, while the baby boomers are paying into the system and there is a Social Security Trust Fund and a general budget surplus. It is dangerous to wait until the baby boomers retire and the Trust Fund is being depleted or the budget surplus has been spent on pet projects.

    George Bush has been the presidential candidate who has most visibly supported privatization during the campaign. Unfortunately, it is necessary to pay for privatization by cutting benefits. This is a double whammy for women: investing in the private sector tends to primarily benefit the highest earners, who tend to be men, and many of the proposed benefit cuts would put holes in the safety net that has saved millions of Americans from poverty, most of whom are women.

• Privately invested personal Social Security accounts would increase interest rates on the income that is set aside. The administrative cost of a personal account – perhaps $50 each year – is a small price to pay for investing tens of thousands of dollars in retirement funds. But most women and men earn less than $25,000/year, and they would set aside only a few hundred dollars each year. For these low earners, even a 15% interest rate would be drastically offset by the cost of administering their personal account. For that reason, personal accounts benefit very few women. Even if retirees are given a choice, such a proposal is like a tax break for the rich, and may undercut public support for the current Social Security system rather than solve the problem of aging baby boomers.
  
  
• Private accounts will not last indefinitely. Social Security benefits currently last a lifetime. Privatized Social Security, like other private pensions, would run out of money if someone lives "too long," or would pay smaller monthly checks to women with the same earnings as men, since it is assumed that women live longer. Neither is as good for women as the current benefits, which last a lifetime and increase with inflation.
  
  
• Calculating Social Security benefits based on 38 years of employment rather than 35 years would decrease benefits for everyone, thus helping Social Security last longer, but women who spend years at home caring for children or other relatives would be harmed more.

    Experts estimate that only 30% of women who are retired in 2021 will have worked 38 years, compared to 60% of men. And, women will spend more years earning part-time salaries, because even today less than half of women between 25-44 years old are employed full-time. Why should we save the Social Security program by hurting women who stay home to care for their children and other family members? And yet, delays in reforming Social Security would make benefit cuts like these more likely.

• Delaying reforms is likely to result in proposals that would reduce guaranteed benefits that provide a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens – our lowest earners and those living alone. Most of these are women. This could be a particular problem for divorced women, and the number of divorced retirees is skyrocketing because divorce is much more common than it used to be.
  
  
• Delaying reforms is likely to result in proposals that would reduce benefits for the disabled. Many disabled workers and disabled children and adults who never worked are currently eligible for Social Security benefits, but some proposals would reduce these benefits. Relatives who care for the disabled are usually women.

    Social Security is more than a retirement program -- it is a social insurance program that keeps millions of Americans out of poverty. Action is needed to keep that safety net securely in place for women. The Social Security system is not bankrupt, and it doesn’t need radical surgery, but it does need to be carefully changed to keep it solvent for the next generation. As Social Security becomes a visible campaign issue, all of us need to demand a solution that will continue to protect the millions of women and men who depend on Social Security – and the sooner, the better.