Social Security's Real 'Crisis' One of Morals
By Paul Nathanson
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
as it appeared in the Albuquerque Journal
Wednesday, January 19, 2005

The president's aim is to get government out of providing essential social services and leave it to the private sector to deal with our most vulnerable populations.

The administration has used scare tactics to create a crisis in the minds of the public when none exists. What is critical is to stop the president and others in Washington from trading off the guaranteed benefit of Social Security for personal retirement accounts invested in the securities markets.

Social Security is an enormously successful program offering workers and their families a monthly income for the rest of their lives following retirement, disability or the death of a wage earner. Nearly 47 million people receive Social Security benefits, including more than 32 million retired workers. Of those, two-thirds receive more than half of their retirement income from Social Security.

Clearly, some fairly simple fixes are needed such as including state and municipal employees in Social Security, adjusting the way cost of living is calculated and including the Social Security tax on all earnings above $90,000. Perhaps retirement age could be moved back a year or two. These steps, taken together, would solve the "crisis."

Many New Mexicans will be severely affected if Social Security is privatized. People of color rely on the system in far greater numbers. Social Security is the primary or sole source of retirement income for many single women, Hispanics and Native Americans.

As chair of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I disagree with proponents who argue with no real basis that privatization would benefit certain groups, including Hispanics.

While Social Security is expected to be only part of a person's retirement, many minorities, who have lower incomes and less pension coverage, rely on it for more of their income. More than three-fourths of Hispanic beneficiaries rely on Social Security for at least half their income. Nearly 45 percent of Hispanic beneficiaries rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

Social Security is also important to women. On average, women today who reach 65 outlive men by four years. Women are also less likely to have an employer pension than are men. According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, only 38 percent of women participate in an employer pension plan compared to 51 percent of men. Moreover, their pension is likely to be smaller.

This fight is not about a crisis in Social Security; it is about political philosophy. Interesting that the president doesn't call the budget deficit or trade imbalances "crises" when they are much more significant than the easily solved Social Security shortfall.

As a nation we talk about "moral values," but when it comes to help for the most needy in our population we want them to go it alone. Do we take the moral high ground to say each of us is on our own and as a community we don't owe each other anything?

Social Security is about a national sense of community. It is about providing social insurance where we pool resources to help those who need it the most. If I get a bit less out of it than I could, so what if it helps a more needy person? What is more "moral" or spiritual than that?

That is what this debate is about, and I wish individuals and the country would recognize it. Let us try to be consistent when we talk about moral values.

Paul Nathanson, director of the University of New Mexico's Institute of Public Law, is board chair of the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Copyright 2005 Albuquerque Journal