Women's Organizations Condemn Privatizers' Attacks on Stay-At-Home Moms

[liveoaktx]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=45017

Cite Gross Hypocrisy of Party Claiming Mantle of Family Values

...
A divide and conquer strategy targeting women is being waged by Congressional supporters of President Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security. In a briefing paper distributed to Republican lawmakers for use during the Easter Recess, Representatives were advised to draw attention to the Social Security benefits earned by married women who work in the paid labor force versus married women who stay at home, including those who raise children and care for elderly parents. The document was issued by the House Republican Conference on March 18th, and was drafted by a pro-privatization front group based in Boulder, Colorado.

"This attack on the spousal benefits under Social Security is a telling example of how little privatizers value the unpaid caregiving work that millions of women provide for this society," said Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women and Co-Chair of NCWO's Women and Social Security Task Force.

As a gender-neutral program, Social Security benefits are based on an individual's work record or the work record of his or her spouse, whichever is higher. Not surprisingly, most married women receive higher benefits based on their husband's earnings history than on their own-because of time out of the workforce for family caregiving and because of lower lifetime earnings due to continued disparities between the wages of men and women.

"Even today, the typical woman, over her life-time, earns little more than one-third of the typical man's life-time earnings," explained Heidi Hartmann, head of the Institute for Women's Policy Research and Co-Chair of NCWO's Women and Social Security Task Force. "Spousal benefits are designed to compensate women for their time spent raising children and caring for other family members," said Hartmann.

....

[Extend a Hand]

1. It looks like an attack on working women to me...

If working women do indeed get their own SS benefits plus 50% of their spouse's benefits.

I was under the impression that you had to pick between all of your benefits of 1/2 of your spouses...maybe that's not the case?

[China_cat]

3. You don't get both

One or the other. But that's better than it used to be. Back when I was first starting to work, it didn't matter how much you earned on your own, when it came time for retirement you were only allowed half your husband's even if it was less than your own. (Men didn't get...and really didn't want...any of their wife's SS) The only way you got benefits based on your own earnings was to be single.

Thank goodness that got changed in the 60's. At the same time that those who were self-employed were finally allowed to start paying into the system on themselves.

[Extend a Hand]

4. wow, thx for the info

I didn't realize that you didn't even have a choice until the sixties.
(I need that little jaw dropping smiley).

[rodeodance]

2. "Republicans claim women are getting "extra" benefits"--All Bush

cares about politically is that women get to vote in the ME!



The document characterizes stay-at-home moms as freeloaders who are "granted 50% extra" in the form of spousal benefits. Since raising children is necessary for society to survive, and since it is women who do the major share of the work of raising children, women, not men, receive the major share of spousal benefits. "How dare these Republicans claim women are getting "extra" benefits when in reality they've sacrificed their own economic well-being by caring for their families? The hypocrisy of the party that supposedly stands for family values is stunning," said Gandy.

The document also contradicts itself because at the same time it seems to be complaining that spousal benefits are too generous for those married women who stay home to take care of families, it also complains that spousal benefits are too hard for divorced women to qualify for, because they must have been married for 10 years. Are the privatizers saying that we should make it easier for divorced women to qualify for spousal benefits but harder for married women?

Many working women aren't getting a fair deal. However, the problem is not Social Security. Addressing the issues of unequal pay, the lack of family-friendly workplace policies, and the shortage of high-quality, affordable child care would be a good start to ensuring working women get what they've earned. Improving-not replacing-Social Security benefits would also go a long way toward ensuring economic security for women.