The case for private accounts is clear. More money + more ownership + more control over your destiny = private accounts are awesome. But you’ll be hard pressed to find a voice of reason on a college campus when it comes to Social Security reform.
At my alma mater, Bucknell University, the economics department went so far as to say that there wasn’t a problem with the Social Security system. The department brought Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research to campus to “deflate the scare stories” about Social Security. All students in entry-level economics—a required class for several majors—were either offered extra credit or required to attend the lecture. The same month that Baker spoke, the Bucknell University Conservatives Club sponsored a town hall meeting with Senator Rick Santorum on Social Security reform. Needless to say, Senator Santorum’s visit took place with no support from the economics department.
Women’s groups such as the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research are among those leading the fight against private accounts, and thus against young workers. NOW alleges that “Social Security is a successful program. It is not in crisis.” They also call private accounts “foolhardy” and say “privatization will hurt everyone, especially young workers.” It’s ironic that groups like NOW are so adamantly opposed to reforming a system that does such a disservice to women.
Women, on average, rely on Social Security more than men do for retirement income. It stands to reason that if future benefits are cut to compensate for the system’s shortfalls, women will be among those most deeply affected. Private accounts would allow women to earn interest even while taking a break from the workforce (for example, to raise children). Private accounts would be treated like any other asset in the event of a divorce, allowing women to collect an appropriate amount of benefits.
The advantages of PRAs are clear. But you wouldn’t know it to look at the death grip liberals have on the Social Security system.
Democrats even went so far as to give President Bush a standing ovation at the 2006 State of the Union address when he announced that Congress was unable to pass Social Security reform. It’s one thing for Democrats to dislike a Republican president, but that act went well beyond political defiance – it was the equivalent of giving a symbolic middle finger to America’s youth. People have the right to disagree with the President’s plan, but applauding irresponsible inaction is, in the words of NOW, foolhardy.
Allison Kasic is director of campus programs at the Independent Women’s Forum. This article is an excerpt from the new IWF publication, Social Insecurity.
