<HTML><BODY STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>From: "NOW Media Relations" <A href="mailto:press@now.org">press@now.org</A><BR>Subject: [News-releases] Women Answer the President on Social Security<BR>Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:58:37 -0500<BR><BR><STRONG>Women Answer the President on Social Security</STRONG><BR> <BR><STRONG> Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy </STRONG><BR> <BR> February 8, 2005<BR> <BR> The National Organization for Women (NOW) warns that the plan to<BR>privatize Social Security will undermine women's financial security. <BR> <BR> Women are more vulnerable to the reduction in benefits that will<BR>accompany privatization because we have smaller benefits to begin<BR>with, and because women are less likely than men to have a pension or<BR>other means to supplement those reduced benefits. Playing the stock<BR>market always creates winners and losers, and women will end up on the<BR>losing end when Social Security falls prey to the boom and inevitable<BR>bust of the stock market. <BR> <BR>The existing system is progressive, in the sense that lower lifetime<BR>earners have modestly higher proportional benefits relative to their<BR>earnings. This increased benefit is critical for women because of our<BR>lower average earnings and time out of the workforce for caregiving.<BR>Those pushing for privatization want us to take money out of that<BR>progressive system and deposit it into a so-called personal account,<BR>which is just the opposite — it is a regressive system. Since earnings<BR>from private accounts would be dispensed through annuities, women<BR>would pay a higher price or receive lower benefits than a man with the<BR>same size private account because we live longer. <BR> <BR>Here's the bottom line: If you're a woman, you're being asked to take<BR>your money out of a system that offers guaranteed retirement,<BR>disability and survivor benefits, and move it into a privatized system<BR>that will discriminate against you in the amount it pays out because<BR>you are female. Women weren't born Democrat, Republican or yesterday. <BR> <BR> So much of the discussion to date has focused on retirement, but<BR>Social Security is also a disability and life insurance program.<BR>Privatization puts at risk disabled women, widows, single and divorced<BR>women and the children of a working parent who dies or becomes<BR>disabled. <BR> <BR>Instead of scrapping the current system, NOW suggests we fix it and<BR>fund it. Some improvements towards that end have been made, but more<BR>adjustments to this basically sound program must be undertaken. The<BR>following suggestions would address the needs of certain groups of<BR>women who live out their final years almost entirely dependent upon<BR>their modest monthly Social Security check: <BR> <BR>* Reduce the Child Care Penalty in one of two ways: provide up to ten<BR> years of Family Service Credits, with a maximum of $5,000 per year,<BR> for a single parent or the lower earner of a couple staying home to<BR> care for children under age six, or alternatively drop out some of the<BR> zero-income years;<BR> <BR> * Increase the Widow's Benefit to 75 percent of the couple's joint<BR> benefit, capped at the maximum earner's benefit;<BR> <BR> * Raise benefits for Disabled Widows and Divorced Disabled Spouses to<BR> 100 percent of the retired worker's benefits;<BR> <BR> * Increase the Divorced Women's Spousal Benefit to 75 percent and<BR> increase eligibility for divorce benefits after seven years of<BR> marriage, as long as there is a total of 10 years in combined marriage<BR> and work history;<BR><BR>* Revise the current Special Minimum to lower earnings required to 50<BR> percent of minimum-wage earnings for full-time, year round work.</DIV> <DIV> <BR>These improvements would bring more equity into the system. These<BR>suggestions recognize patterns of pay discrimination, uncompensated<BR>child care, today's marriage and divorce trends and women's increased<BR>participation in the paid workforce which result in higher numbers of<BR>women drawing Social Security worker benefits, instead of spousal<BR>benefits. <BR> <BR>To cover the costs of improved benefits and assure long-term financing<BR>for generations, we suggest two simple changes: (1) beginning around<BR>the year 2020 when Social Security begins to draw down on the surplus,<BR>a modest increase in the payroll FICA rate-for both employees and<BR>employers, and (2) an increase in the taxable wage base at the same<BR>time. We challenge the assertion that an increased payroll<BR>contribution — especially since it would be only a slight increase — <BR>would depress economic growth. Ideally, the payroll rate should be made<BR>progressive since the heaviest burden falls on women, persons of color<BR>and other lifetime low-income workers, while those at the top feel the<BR>impact far less. <BR> <BR> With these few changes, we can make our guaranteed insurance and<BR>retirement program the envy of the world and assure that all women who<BR>have given so much to society live out their later years in economic<BR>security. <BR> <BR>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE </DIV> <DIV>CONTACT: LISA BENNETT, 202-628-8669 x 123</B> </FONT> <BR> <BR> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- <BR> <BR> This news release can also be found online at: <A href="http://www.now.org/press">http://www.now.org/press</A> <BR></DIV></BODY></HTML><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href='http://explorer.msn.com'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>