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. |