Cato Institute: Workingwomen Will Benefit from Social Security Reform

DOES ANYONE IN DU LAND KNOW WHO/ WHAT IS ASSOC W/ CATO INSTITUTE?

http://www.cato.org/dispatch/01-25-05d.html#2

Workingwomen Will Benefit from Social Security Reform
"So far, the debate over changes to the Social Security system has focused largely on private investment accounts, an idea that Bush and many congressional Republicans are hawking as part of their rescue plan. ... The mere discussion of this option ought to worry a lot of women," according to a column in today's USA TODAY.

"However, according to the Cato study 'Social Security Choices for the 21st-Century Woman,' everyone who truly favors giving women more choices and control over their own lives should champion such a reform."

Leanne Abdnor, president of For Our Grandchildren and author of the Cato study, writes: "Although there has been much public attention paid to Social Security's looming financial crisis, even more important to women may be the clash between the current benefit structure and the socioeconomic changes that have occurred since 1935, such as the great increase in the number of women in the workforce, women marrying later or not at all, and the doubling of the divorce rate. By failing to keep pace with the changing nature of American families, Social Security's outdated benefit structure results in single women and dual-earner couples subsidizing the benefits of wealthier single-earner couples, which creates a sharply regressive element to the current benefit structure."

Retirement is a three-legged stool...

There's Social Security

Your company pension

and your personal savings and home equity.

Well, the fraud in the stock markets, banks etc, took care of much of the personal savings in this country (and many abroad)

The companies all went bankrupt and threw their pension obligations on the Federal program which is billions in the red and paying off pennies on the dollar promised.

Now Bush wants to chop the final leg out from under people, and his cronies and his sheeple are going to let him!

They're going to need to do some excavating in hell to get him in the proper circle.

about Soc Sec are destroying that reputation.

Big picture of what is current Social Security is deliberately lost so as to sell Bush destroy Soc Sec carve out private accounts.

And finding specific subsidy by sex in an insurance program with many benefits discussion is like how many angels can sit on the head of a pin discussions - no answer - and pointless.

Do they?

I haven't read the article yet, at work, but CATO is basically Libertarian in their POV.

Women (and African-Americans) make less than men and will have less to put in their privatized accounts. As a result, they cannot save as much and need more of a safety net than men. Allowing men to privatize a portion of the tax on their higher earnings will leave women high and dry. And, anyway, isn't this inconsistent with the whole conservative pro-marriage bit?

What does the Bush plan mean for married women who stay home with their children?

now to pay for their retirements, then single women - earning 70 cents on the dollar compared to men's wages - somehow magically WILL when we carry out the Welfare for Wall Street program to "reform" Social Security?

How in the hell do people manage to say shit like this with a straight face?

The pugs and libs might as well quit pretending they give a damn about a social safety net, since the whole goal of this is to get hold of the middle class' tenuously grasped savings in Social Security and piratize them for the benefit of the brokerages. Forget the idea of retiring if you're not wealthy. It ain't gonna happen, not if they get their way.

Welfare for Wall Street. Makes me sick.

Today Bush says SS hurts Blacks and now reform helps women.

Can you all see the method to their madness?

because they live too long? Here it comes, from Bill Thomas (R-CA 25th) on Meet the Press:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6853606/

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something else you said at the National Journal Forum that raised some eyebrows: "Women are living longer relative to men today than they were in 1940. Yet, we never ever have debated gender-adjusting Social Security. ...But, at some point if the age difference continues to separate and more women are in the workforce and you have more of an equality of pay structure in the workforce, at some point somebody might want to suggest that we need to take a look at the question of whether or not actuarially we ought to adjust who gets what, when, and how."

A gender adjustment--what does that mean?

REP. THOMAS: Well, it was one of my ways of getting people to focus on the issue of age. To move from 65 to 68, which we did in 1983, was a benefit cut. But it also creates hardships based upon the occupation that you have, and it creates inequities on who you are and how long you live. You could just as easily have a discussion about occupations as to when would be a fair or an unfair time to require. We also need to examine, frankly, Tim, the question of race in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race? And you ought not to just leave gender off the table because that would be a factor.

Now, there are people who are saying, "Gee, this is great. We can get them into a box and maybe we can win some seats in the next election over this issue." This ought not to be about the next election. This is about how we have an opportunity given to us by the president, his willingness to work with us to solve some problems that are here and now, but will only get worse. If we're not in a crisis now, we're in a problem. Wait a few years. We will be in a crisis. We ought to examine all opportunities to solve the problem. Then we can dismiss them. But to not look at them denies us an opportunity to have yet another way to solve our problem.

MR. RUSSERT: So if someone is a woman and they live longer, they would get less per year?

REP. THOMAS: It's not that you would do it; it's something that you need to look at. Because if you extend the age beyond 78, if you go to 80 or 82, all of those concerns about race, occupation and gender are exacerbated. And you shouldn't just extend the age without understanding the additional complications and unfairness that you're bringing into the system. That's the point I'm trying to make. Don't look for a simple solution like shifting age without realizing you're creating additional problems for yourself down the road. Same thing with payroll tax. Same thing with individual accounts or other ways to bring additional revenue in the system. All of them should be examined. None of them should be labeled with the pejorative with an opportunity to try to gain seats in the next election. You are doing a disservice to the society if that's your intention in this debate. My goal is to get it as broad as possible, look for bipartisan support and give the president a bill on his desk that he can sign that addresses the real societal inequities that we have with seniors.

Oh yeah, Cato Institute. That'll be a BIG help to women. :puke:

Edit: My Top Ten nomination for Rep. Thomas (R-Middle Ages) is already in. How about yours?

David Brooks and George Will will be asking this shortly.

And don't forget about the African Americans.

Cato Institute: Privatizing Social Security will increase inflows

Cato Institute: Privatizing the Marine Corps will allow for more efficient response in time of war.

Cato Institute: Eliminating estate taxes will benefit working Americans.

...'cause that's when that cabal will do ANYTHING that helps women.

LIARS!