ERA would affect Social Security for stay-at-home moms and widows

by Phyllis Schlafly

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has made it clear that ERA would abolish the homemaker wife's and widow's benefits in Social Security.  This is the benefit that most mothers and grandmothers rely on.

The Social Security Act is sex-neutral -- employed women receive exactly the same Social Security benefits as employed men.

But what about the homemaker wife who is financially dependent on her husband for much or most of her life, who may work in the labor force only a few years or only part-time, and therefore does not build up enough credits in Social Security to receive a significant retirement check based on her own earnings? 

The Social Security System recognizes her value by giving the homemaker "wife" a check for 50% of her husband's benefit over and above the check he receives.  Upon her husband's death, the widow receives the full benefit that her husband had been receiving.  (The law also gives this benefit to a dependent husband, but we know that nearly all dependent spouses are women.)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" that the concept of "dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household ... must be eliminated from the code if it is reflect the equality principle." (page 206)  Ginsburg re-emphasized this in her opinion in the 2007 Supreme Court Partial Birth Abortion case, where she wrote that we must get rid of "archaic" notions such as the "dependency" of a homemaker on her husband's financial support. 

Beware!  A vote for ERA is a vote to take away Social Security checks received by most mothers and grandmothers.  It's hard to think of anything more anti- woman and anti-mother than the plan to deprive mothers and grandmothers of their Social Security benefits in order to obey some nebulous "equality" principle demanded by the feminists.

Please vote NO on ERA to protect mothers and grandmothers.

Comments

[Frank Goudy]

My comment is not related to the ERA issue. But it is related to the SS financial problems that will only get worse.

No spouse should automatically get 50% of the other spouses benefit when they have not contributed in "their own right."

My pension system does not provide for that. If a spouse does not contribute, they get NOTHING. They do get 50% survivor benefits and certainly those in the SS system should receive survivor benefits since the amount contributed should not be "lost" to the family.

At one time "contributions" to SS were minimal. Several "reforms" have been devised that never involved reform; but instead, just amounted to raising taxes. As a result, SS "contributions" are huge for many middle and slightly upper middle income people- particularly if they are self-employed. The "redistributionist" aspects of the system really hurt those who actually pay for the system.

Of course, I realize that the trend seems to be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and that any attempts to address this issue will fall on deaf ears by politiicians of either party.

[Fran]

Frank, your comment leads me to think that the system as is actually values stay-at-home moms more than one that is coming.

It's a tragedy that moms who devote their lives to raising the next generation are not appreciated and will be forced to poverty or living with their children in their last years because they devoted their career years to their families.

That's rather stunning to realize.

[Christine]

Frank,

I would prefer the entire system to be privatized. That way there will be no, "husband gets this and wife gets this" rules. It will all stay in the family. But that will happen when pigs fly.

In the mean time, that 15% that we pay into FICA (Yes, you really do pay the "employer portion" even if you are not self-employed because the employer considers it part of the cost of your work.) will only go up. If we could put that into an IRA, it would automatically go to the surviving spouse in full, so there would be no argument about who gets what benefits.

But don't tell me I haven't contributed "in my own right." Much of what I do at home enables my husband to work more and thus earn more. (statistics bear this out) Most good marriages do not have a my money vs. your money dyanmic. We file our taxes as a unit, we own all our property in common. If one of us evades taxes we will both be in trouble with the law. Why should only Social Security treat us as separate? All Social Securtiy allows is for the surviving spouse to take the larger of the two spouses benefits. You still don't get both when one dies.

[Frank Goudy]

Fran, I understand your view and it is shared by many other social conservatives However, as I have pointed out, this is one more drain on a government program that needs plugged.

My wife worked for over 30 years. WE have raised two fine sons. WE both worked and shared duties at home. This was our decision. I respect those who chose to have a spouse stay at home. That is their choice as it should be. However, the reality is that the present system forces many to pay high SS taxes with the result that they receive far less than they should in order that others receive benefits for which they have not contributed.

Certainly, those couples where only one spouse is employed should be allowed to both file and contribute to SS, in their own names, and receive SS based upon the payments they have individually made.

I find too many so-called conservative politiicans falling into the trap of redistribution. Phil Gramm, former Senator from Texas, used to carp about wealthy seniors receiving Medicare. Resulting legislation, no wage limits on contributions. He forgot to mention that those same seniors were the ones who had contributed the most to Medicare in the first place. Bush is pushing the same philosophy with the prescription drug program- advocating the so-called wealthy seniors pay more. I can get these type of economic philosophies from Obama.

Interesting, the "wealthy" are too often defined as those making around $200,000 year. Thus, they pay "surcharge taxes" in the same league as those making $2 million or $20 million or $200 million a year.

Again, the Obama approach of taxation.

Thanks for having this venue to share my thoughts.

[Elise Bouc]

Dear Frank -

Phyllis Schlafly addressed these concerns in the late 1970's before Congress when they were considering abolishing the social security benefit for homemakers. Phyllis was able to prove statistically that homemakers have more children on average than women who work outside of the home. As a result, these additional children go on to contribute to the social security system at the very time when their mothers are becoming eligible for social security benefits. Indeed, Phyllis showed that through the contributions of these additional children, homemakers actually "contributed" more to the social security system than women who work outside of the home. I rechecked those numbers to see if the statistics still hold true, and found that based on a 2002 family study, homemakers are twice as likely to have 4 children or more than women who are employed full-time. So, the truth still stands - homemakers are really earning their social security benefits. There's no free ride here.

The reality of the feminists' agenda is that they are playing the role of an Orwellian Big Sister. They don't feel we as homemakers should be "dependent" on our husbands, and so they want to pull our social security benefits to force us to go out into the workforce in search of retirement fiscal security. The other option they proposed in the 1970's was to force our husbands to make a double contribution into the social security system to justify our benefits. This double contribution would put a financial strain on most families and force many homemakers out into the workforce. While the feminists claim to be about choice, their real objective is to force their view of how women should live their lives upon the rest of us. With the recent trend of an increased number of college educated mothers choosing to stay home with their children, the feminists are now advocating that they need to take over the social education of our children so that our daughters will not choose to stay home with their future children. No wonder they want comprehensive day care provided for all children. This would allow them to begin teaching their controlling doctrines to our children at an even early age.

[Christine]

Elise,

You are right about the agenda of the feminists. They, along with many chauvinistic men don't believe that "women's work" is worthwhile. They also don't think women should have more than two children. (Really, they don't think we should have any.)

And if it were really about choice, the Social Security system would be privatized. I would get to choose how to invest my money and who would get it after I died. Now, plenty of people contribute and never see a penny because they die first. But their family doesn't get it either.

And I wish people would get it through their heads that there is no Social Security "account" waiting for you or a "lockbox." And most of today's senior citizens are getting far more than they put in. True, if the money were invested in the private sector, the return would probably be greater, but its a tax, not an investment or a retirement account. It doesn't and can't earn interest.

[Frank Goudy]

Certainly, I believe that women's work is worthwhile. I also think that the work I do at home is worthwhile and no one pays me to do it. To think otherwise is part of that entitlement mentality that is destroying this nation.

Perhaps SS should be privitized in an ideal world, but it is so large and so much a part of our history and economic reality that it will not be ablolished.

And yes SS should be viewed as a pension program and not just another government partial redistributionist program. If one believes that it is truly just a tax, you have missed the point- otherwise one could easily claim that as such it should be redistributed to those "who need it" totally ignoring one's own contribution.

If one is a stay at home mom fine- but don't tell be I should have pay you to do so. Again, if that is what you believe, that is fine, and join the Obama girls.

And the issue of day care is irrelevant. I too am opposed to taxpayer day care. And for the same reason. Make your choices and live with them.

[Jim]

Frank,

It seems to me that you are speaking in idealisms here. The reality is that social security was never meant to be a pension or a savings plan. It was (and still is) intended to be a source of steady supplemental income. If you read the benefit statement you get from the Social Security folks it says that very clearly (even goes so far as to suggest using 401(k), private savings and other retirement investment vehicles to be the mainstay of your retirement income). It also (dare I say) was a "socialistic" piece of legislation (again, NOT a savings vehicle, but a "safety net"). Unfortunately, most people have erroneously been led to believe that Uncle Sam will take care of you (I agree with your entitlement statment).

Here is the reality. If a woman stays home to raise the kids and her husband suddenly dies, what do you think she has? Not much. And taking away her small social security check could mean the difference between paying the mortgage or not. Are you going to honestly argue that your tax is too high to potentially help out those who could benefit the most?

[Christine]

Frank,

You seem to be of two minds regarding Social Security.

One the one hand you argue that it is a pension. Many, if not most, private pension plans have a provision for the surviving spouse to collect all or part of that pension when the "earner" dies. My grandmother collected her husband's pension for about 20 years after his death. (He only got to enjoy retirement for 4 years) Most elderly widows collect their husbands' pensions. (And if it were a true pension plan, the money would be invested not spent by the federal government.)

On the other hand, you say I should live with my choices. However, we have no choice about the money we put into Social Security. If we could put that in an IRA, instead, this would all be moot.

I am not asking you or anyone else to pay for my working at home. If you are going to take the idea that one should get out of the system if one has paid in, then since my husband and I have paid in, we shouldn't lose out if one of us dies. We pay taxes as a single unit. Why should that change when talking about SS.

Yes, Social Security is a redistribution program. It is also a ponzi scheme. I am willing to live with it because it's the only reason I don't have my mother currently living in my basement. It may be the reason your mother or mother-in-law is not living in yours.

If you want to complain about redistribution with regard to retirement, just look at your property tax bill and how much of it goes to the teachers' pension plan. Their plan must be pretty good. I keep saying, I should have studied education, but I am too old to go back to college now.

In my view, the main problem with Social Security is that too many people think it is a pension plan and it is also very inefficient. At the time it was created, we needed a reason for older workers to retire to make way for the younger. Since then, we have gotten this idea that anyone over 60 or so shouldn't really be working or should be winding down. If you do this, your retirement could easily be a third of your adult life.

[Frank Goudy]

Please read what I said. I noted that survivor benefits should be given, but based upon the employees contribution. Again I know of no pension system that allows a non-contributing spouse to automatically receive one-half of the pension while still living.

Whenever one tries to dissacociate SS from a pension, well that is when we get into the redistributionist financial farce we are in now. That is a reality no matter how much one wants to rationalize the "stay at home mom" paycheck mentality. And it is pretty clear that is where the respondents placed their logic on my comments in he first place.

Whether the SS should be abolished is another issue. I am addressing a logical financial approach to a system that, no matter what, is not going to be abolished into a private account system.

But do not worry, since my comments make financial sense and personal responsiblity a given, they will not be enacted by our politicians.

[Christine]

Frank,

I guess I misread what you are upset about (and I honestly still don't get it) Are you claiming the existence of able bodied women today who have at no time in their life ever contributed to Social Security?

Because I have never met such a woman. Not unless she was either past her working life at the time SS was enacted, or got her pay all under the table.

At any rate, such a "housewife" would be so rare as to make no real difference in your SS taxes.

Every woman (or man) I know who stays home with the kids has worked for a few years at least. And most will return to the work world after the kids are older.

And it's us supplemental income earners that drive down the wages of you breadwinners. I can work for less and not demand benefits because my job is the second one in my household. So when people like me compete in the job market we drive down your wages.

But that's another subject.