Issues

February 2005

The new budget: Regression for women and families

On February 7, 2005, President Bush revealed his $2.5 trillion budget, which eliminates or drastically cuts funding for about 150 domestic programs vital to American women and their families. Bush attempts to justify the cuts by claiming they will aid in reducing the budget deficit by half by the year 2009.

The budget omitted the costs of the proposed Social Security privatization plan and the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If these costs were included along with his proposal to make permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, the budget deficit would grow to $6.1 trillion. In fact, the budget deficit is projected to reach a record high of $427 billion in this year alone.

The impact of the budget on women and children would be devastating.

  • Eliminating education programs including state grants for vocational education, which train women and girls to perform jobs from which they have traditionally been excluded such as construction, computer technology, and aviation.
  • Eliminating funding for the Women's Educational Equity Act, which provides resources and guidelines for school programs that promote gender equity and outline school responsibilities regarding sexual harassment.
  • Cutting $45-$60 billion from the Medicaid program despite the fact states are already struggling to meet rising health care costs and health insurance coverage is declining, especially for women. Women make up 70% of all adult Medicaid recipients.

The budget cuts mean fewer healthy women and children, fewer children receiving child care assistance, and millions of youth losing access to after school programs. Additionally, approximately 300,000 working families will lose their food stamps. Although the number of Americans living in poverty increased for the third straight year and the number of people living without health insurance reached a record high in 2003, President Bush still proposes cuts that will further exacerbate these trends.

Privatization jeopardizes women's financial security

The issue of Social Security reform is Bush's top priority for 2005. However, privatization of the Social Security severely impacts women. Privatization will cut or eliminate important programs for women and children and endangers the only secure source of income for many women aged 65 and older. Because women make up the majority of all adults who receive Social Security benefits, they have the most to lose under a privatized plan.

The current Social Security program provides benefits to 27 million women or 58 percent of all adults receiving these benefits. For nearly one-in-four women aged 65 and older, Social Security is their only source of income. Without these benefits over half of all elderly women would be poor.

It's also important to keep in mind that Social Security means more than just retirement income for women. Social Security also provides survivor and disability benefits to women and their families. Women make up 94 percent of adults who receive benefits as the relative of a disabled, deceased, or retired worker. In addition, nearly 4 million children receive Social Security benefits as dependents.

What does privatization mean for me?

The privatization of Social Security will put the financial security of women into jeopardy for a number of reasons. The Bush plan would cut guaranteed benefits by at least 30 percent even those who don't contribute to private accounts. This cut will result in as much as $152,000 in lost benefits for recipients. Those who participate in private accounts will face even deeper cuts in benefits. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the government would take back at least 70 cents in benefits for every dollar in a worker's private account.

Social Security is the only component of an individual's retirement income that is predictable and guaranteed by the federal government. We lose this guarantee under privatization. Women stand to lose the most, however due to unique features of the system benefit women and lower-income earners.

The current Social Security system is structured in a way that provides more generous benefits to lower earners as compared to higher earners. This feature is especially important to women who earn, on the average, 76 cents for every dollar earned by men. The private accounts under the new plan would not contain this progressive feature, thereby creating a major disadvantage for women.

Because women are more likely than men to work in temporary employment and change jobs, they are less likely than men to build up adequate income for their retirement. Social Security benefits are critical for their financial security.

Another aspect of the current system that benefits women is the cost-of living adjustment that protects recipients against inflation. Because women tend to live longer than men, this adjustment benefits women disproportionately. The new plan would not offer cost-of-living adjustments, so inflation could potentially decrease the real value of private accounts.

We encourage you to stay active in this debate, and to share this information with other AFSCME members, co-workers, family and friends.

Sign the AFSCME petition to protect Social Security.

Stay informed — visit AFSCME'S Women's Rights web page for resources and fact sheets that you can use to educate yourself and others: www.afscme.org/about/ssp-women.htm

Watch for AFSCME Women E-Blast updates over the next few weeks, as we work to keep you up-to-date about the pressing issues of this debate. To sign up for the AFSCME Women E-Blast, email womensrights@afscme.org, include your name, local and mailing address.

Paid Sick Days Act: A step in the right direction

Legislators in the State of Massachusetts, recognizing the importance of healthy workers and healthy families, introduced the new Paid Sick Days Act. The legislation, introduced by Representatives Anne Paulsen and Patricia Jehlen and Senator Steven Tolman, defines a sick day as "a day when an employee is unable to report to work because of medical or health reasons due to illness, injury, health condition, or preventative routine care, for himself or herself, or for a child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse." The Paid Sick Days Act will direct employers, public and private, if passed, to grant full-time employees at least seven paid sick days per year, and a comparable number of paid sick days to part-time workers based on the number of hours they work per year.

Legislators introduced the Act because positive work-family policies benefit both employees and employers. Happy, healthy workers mean increased productivity for employers, and working families win when states create policies that help them balance the responsibilities people face at work and home.

Fortunately, for most union women, out contracts include workplace benefits like these already. It pays to be a union member!

Don't keep a secret!

The AFSCME WomEnews is a great resource for mobilizing union women and motivating them to take action in their communities and workplaces. Use the information contained in the newsletter to talk with leaders in your local or council, including your women's committee, to devise ways the union can address issues that are important to you. Possible options include forming a committee to explore the issue, hosting a public meeting or event about the topic, or talking with management to create ways to deal with the issue in the workplace.

Distributed monthly, this newsletter should be shared with your union sisters and brothers. Or better yet — send us their names and email addresses at womensrights@afscme.org, and we will send them their own copy! Copies of earlier newsletters are available on the AFSCME website.

WomENews is produced by the Women's Rights Department and written by Quinci Moody and Amy Vance.

 

Print Version