A big hoax is about to be pulled
on the American people in the name of Social Security reform
if President Bush
and the Republican Congress get their way and send Social Security
money to Wall Street. If this happens all Americans will lose
big but African Americans will likely receive the shortest end
of the stick. Rationale for Social Security Privatization is Pulp Fiction
Social Security “reform,” codeword for privatization, seeks to
divert all or a portion of the funds currently supporting the Social
Security program into 401K-type accounts that individuals can invest
in the stock market. While this idea may seem innocuous on its
face, the reality is that privatization is a duplicitous attempt
to renege on our country’s promise to provide reliable support
to aging retirees, disabled workers, and orphaned dependents.
Supporters of individual account proposals
seek to perpetuate the fiction that Social Security is facing
a fiscal crisis that
can be solved only by privatizing the system. In reality, Social
Security’s “crisis” is thus: in the year 2052 the Social Security
trust funds will be able to pay 80 cents on every $1 in benefits
promised. What privatizers don’t want Americans to know is that
this 20 cent gap per dollar of promised benefits is manageable
and can be closed without radically altering the system. In fact,
the tax cuts President Bush gave away to the wealthiest one percent
of Americans could have covered the amount of the long-term Social
Security shortfall and there would have still been money left over
for other important priorities.
So, if Social Security’s fiscal imbalance is manageable why is
it that supporters of privatization are so intent on changing the
system? Could it be that they seek cover in their attempts to
justify the massive transfer of taxpayer dollars to the money managers
on Wall Street – a move that will further benefit the rich at the
expense of working and middle class families? Could it be that
they seek to dismantle an efficient federal entitlement program
that they have historically resented because all – including the
wealthy – must contribute? Could it be that, (like corporations
who move from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution
plans), they seek to make individuals more responsible for shouldering
the financial burden of their own retirement? Or, could it be all
of the above?
Plans to Privatize Blow a Hole in Social Security and the Federal
Budget
However you assess their strategy, one thing
is for certain: proponents do not promote privatization because
their plans are affordable,
effective, or efficient. Indeed, privatization plans like those
put forth by President Bush’s Social Security reform commission,
are prohibitively expensive. Not only do they blow a big hole
in the Social Security Trust Fund (thereby cutting benefits) by
removing trillions of dollars in dedicated revenue, they also require
massive transfers of money from the general budget in order to
sustain the transition and administrative costs of individual accounts
over the short, medium, and long term.
Since President Bush has already ruled out
the possibility of raising taxes in order to finance these enormous
costs, it is guaranteed
that they will have to be paid for by further shrinking Social
Security benefits and/or by piling more debt on top of our already
steep federal budget deficits – creating a hole so deep it will
take our economy almost 60 years to recover according to the 2004
Economic Report of the President.
African Americans are Harmed by Privatization Plans
Privatization’s likely impact on African American families provides
a prime example of why these plans also fail the effectiveness
test. Because of historical patterns of discrimination in the
U.S. education system and labor market, African Americans are more
likely to earn a modest living during the course of their working
lives, more likely to have experienced spells of unemployment or
underemployment, and more likely to retire with less income from
private pensions, assets or personal savings. To add insult to
injury, African Americans’ disproportionate lack of access to quality,
affordable healthcare – also rooted in education, employment and
income inequities – contributes to our higher rates of disability
and early death.
A comprehensive community insurance plan, Social
Security provides an equalizing effect in this perfect storm
through the provision
of a steady monthly check for retirees, for those who become disabled,
and for the dependent children and spouse of a worker who has died
in the prime of his or her life.
On the whole, Social Security Administration
statistics show that African Americans benefit significantly
from these benefits. The
only source of retirement income for 40 percent of African American
seniors, SSA estimates the poverty rate for elderly blacks would
more than double – from 24 percent to 65 percent – without Social
Security. Benefits for black seniors are boosted further by annual
cost of living adjustments and a progressive benefit structure
that replaces a larger percentage of pre-retirement earnings for
lower-income earners. In addition, Social Security’s disability
and survivor benefits are also extremely important for black families. Although
only 12 percent of the U.S. population, African Americans are almost
18 percent of those receiving disability benefits. In addition,
black children represent 23 percent of all children receiving survivor
benefits.
Given the various ways in which Social Security
benefits black families, how would privatization proposals stack
up? The short
answer: they don’t. By diverting trillions of dollars in revenue
away from Social Security, privatization plans require drastic
up-front cuts to Social Security thereby reducing the guaranteed
amount received by African American seniors on modest, fixed-incomes. Since
they are all factored into the same OASDI (Old Age, Survivor and
Disability Insurance) formula, the diversion will also reduce and
destabilize the disability and survivor aspects of Social Security
that are vital to African American families. Private accounts
also eliminate the progressive aspects of the current system that
provide more help for African American seniors (those privatizers
who say they maintain progressivity by allowing low-income earners
to contribute more to their individual accounts are only guaranteeing
them more exposure to the risks of the stock market).
And will African Americans be able to make
up for these reductions through earnings from their individual
accounts as privatizers
claim? The answer ranges from maybe to no. First, is the obvious
that the stock market’s notorious fluctuations cannot guarantee
the long-term growth of amounts contributed to individual accounts. But
income inequalities would still be exacerbated for African American
families under healthy stock market assumptions. This is true
because, in the absence of a real progressive benefit structure,
black families would only accrue interest on their smaller wage-based
contributions. And, because of higher unemployment rates, African
Americans would be doubly vulnerable to having periods of zero
earnings where no contributions at all are made to individual accounts. Unlike
Social Security, individual accounts would not offset this labor
market disadvantage. Finally, the higher administrative fees associated
with these accounts are likely to wipe out a significant portion
of any accumulated earnings.
Thus, the unsteadiness of the market, smaller
wage-based contributions, greater periods of unemployment, and
high administrative fees make
all African Americans, but especially low-income earners, vulnerable
to the risk of having an inadequate level of retirement benefits
under private individual accounts.
The problems are even greater for disability
and survivor benefits. While
the President’s Commission did not address what would happen to
these benefits, it is widely understood that individual accounts
cannot make up for their value because these benefits are often
needed in the prime of a worker’s life – long before accounts have
had time to accumulate significant earned interest.
Privatization Destroys Communities
Privatizers consistently argue that African
Americans will experience a greater rate of return under a system
of individual accounts. Their
assertion, however, misses the point: it is misleading to measure
Social Security benefits by rates of return. Unlike the private
securities market, Social Security is an insurance system that
re-distributes economic assistance to contributors and their families
on an as needed basis at various points during their lives. The
value of this assistance for working and middle class African Americans
families, particularly in the event of unexpected occurrences like
disability or death, is priceless when considering how expensive
it would be if offered by the private insurance market.
Overall, African Americans are likely to experience
a negative rate of return. This is true particularly for younger generations
who would have the triple burden of paying for current retirees,
paying for their own individual accounts, and figuring out how
to meet living costs in the face of diminished disability and survivor
benefits. This state of affairs would be complicated by the fact
that heavy borrowing will lead to the reduction or elimination
of other social programs important to African American communities.
There are 101 very good reasons why Americans
of all backgrounds should rise up to defeat attempts to privatize
the Social Security
system. African Americans, however, should be highly alarmed about
privatization’s implications for the economic stability of their
families and community. For it is a guaranteed formula for disaster
when senior citizens, disabled workers, and children whose caregivers
are deceased no longer have the ability to put food on their table
or a roof over their heads.
Dr. Maya Rockeymoore is currently Vice President of Research
and Programs at the Congressional
Black Caucus Foundation. Previously serving on the Social
Security Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee
on Ways and Means, she is the co-editor of Strengthening
Communities: Social Insurance in a Diverse America and
author of The
Political Action Handbook: A How To Guide for the Hip Hop
Generation. |