It would appear that the 2004 'Security Moms' are now opening their eyes to the fact that their sons and daughters are far less safe with George Bush in office, especially those whose have sons that will be registering for selective service before Bush leaves office.
According to today's story at cnn.com:
Southern women have been some of Bush's biggest fans, defying the traditional gender gap in which women have preferred Democrats to Republicans. Bush secured a second term due in large part to support from 54 percent of Southern female voters while women nationally favored Democrat John Kerry, 51-48 percent
But the continued conflict in Iraq and the direction of the country have caused a great shift in the demographic that the Bush administration had counted on to keep Republicans afloat this November.
Democrats only need 15 seats to take the House and that is well within our grasp. I would say it is five years too late but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth and if these Southern Security moms are ready to step up and protect their families and children's futures by helping make that 15 a reality I say, 'welcome, we are excited to see you!'
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Bush no help to women in poverty
by: TERESA HEINZ KERRY and JEFFREY LEWIS
first appeared in the Dayton Daily News, Printed in the Seattle PI 9/6/2006
Today, one in five of America's retired single women and widows live in poverty, and millions more may be just one tragedy or illness away from sharing that fate. But the Bush administration continues to explore Social Security and Medicare "reforms" that are likely to make the status of retired women even more unstable.
The roots of retirement insecurity for women lie in their working lives. Women earn less and spend more years out of the work force, caring for children or parents, leaving less money to set aside for retirement.
As divorced or single parents, they outnumber their male counterparts 5-1, and are more likely to be rearing minor children -- again cutting into their ability to save.
They're also less likely to have jobs that offer retirement plans. And, because they earn less, their Social Security checks are smaller when they retire. Today, the checks of newly retired men are, on average, 47 percent larger than those of women.
As they have less in savings and lower Social Security payments, women benefit greatly from retiring as half of a married couple. But, at 65, women can expect to outlive their husbands by three years -- their income diminished by the loss of their husband's Social Security and pension, while expenses for housing and transportation remain just as great and medical expenses rise.
More than half of U.S. women older than 65 make do without the fiscal support of a husband, while almost three-quarters of older U.S. men live with their wives.
Many other older women face the fiscal and emotional hardships of divorce. About 10 percent of women older than 65 today are divorced or have an absent spouse.
Poverty rates for an aged couple are among the lowest, but those for aged widows and divorced women are among the highest.
Several trends have made retirement more secure for aging women, including requirements that wives must consent if survivor benefits are to be waived under their husbands' pension plans, shorter vesting requirements for pensions, improvements in asset exclusions under Medicaid and the greater number of women who have earned Social Security benefits in their own right.
Those positive developments may be offset by two more dangerous trends. The first is the movement away from retirement plans that pay a guaranteed amount every month, toward plans such as 401(k)s, which require contributions and offer no guarantees. With more time out of the work force and lower disposable incomes to contribute when they are employed, women can look forward to a significantly smaller nest egg than men.
Compounding the problems caused by this shift in pension planning, though, is a continuing effort by the Bush administration and the political right to privatize Social Security and to cut back on Medicare benefits. Those efforts are expected to continue despite the resounding rejection of similar efforts last year.
Recently, it was reported that Republicans might seek a new bipartisan effort to rein in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
If the social safety net that allows older women a chance at a secure retirement is to be rewoven, it is critical lawmakers take into account the unique needs and circumstances of women. Policy-makers must protect their economic security, lest their likelihood of poverty climb even higher.
As the November elections approach, politicians must remember that women matter, and that women are not timid about expressing their voice when they vote.
Teresa Heinz Kerry is chairwoman of the Heinz Family Philanthropies and the wife of Sen. John Kerry. Jeffrey Lewis is president of the Heinz Family Philanthropies. This column appeared in the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News.
first appeared in the Dayton Daily News, Printed in the Seattle PI 9/6/2006
Today, one in five of America's retired single women and widows live in poverty, and millions more may be just one tragedy or illness away from sharing that fate. But the Bush administration continues to explore Social Security and Medicare "reforms" that are likely to make the status of retired women even more unstable.
The roots of retirement insecurity for women lie in their working lives. Women earn less and spend more years out of the work force, caring for children or parents, leaving less money to set aside for retirement.
As divorced or single parents, they outnumber their male counterparts 5-1, and are more likely to be rearing minor children -- again cutting into their ability to save.
They're also less likely to have jobs that offer retirement plans. And, because they earn less, their Social Security checks are smaller when they retire. Today, the checks of newly retired men are, on average, 47 percent larger than those of women.
As they have less in savings and lower Social Security payments, women benefit greatly from retiring as half of a married couple. But, at 65, women can expect to outlive their husbands by three years -- their income diminished by the loss of their husband's Social Security and pension, while expenses for housing and transportation remain just as great and medical expenses rise.
More than half of U.S. women older than 65 make do without the fiscal support of a husband, while almost three-quarters of older U.S. men live with their wives.
Many other older women face the fiscal and emotional hardships of divorce. About 10 percent of women older than 65 today are divorced or have an absent spouse.
Poverty rates for an aged couple are among the lowest, but those for aged widows and divorced women are among the highest.
Several trends have made retirement more secure for aging women, including requirements that wives must consent if survivor benefits are to be waived under their husbands' pension plans, shorter vesting requirements for pensions, improvements in asset exclusions under Medicaid and the greater number of women who have earned Social Security benefits in their own right.
Those positive developments may be offset by two more dangerous trends. The first is the movement away from retirement plans that pay a guaranteed amount every month, toward plans such as 401(k)s, which require contributions and offer no guarantees. With more time out of the work force and lower disposable incomes to contribute when they are employed, women can look forward to a significantly smaller nest egg than men.
Compounding the problems caused by this shift in pension planning, though, is a continuing effort by the Bush administration and the political right to privatize Social Security and to cut back on Medicare benefits. Those efforts are expected to continue despite the resounding rejection of similar efforts last year.
Recently, it was reported that Republicans might seek a new bipartisan effort to rein in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
If the social safety net that allows older women a chance at a secure retirement is to be rewoven, it is critical lawmakers take into account the unique needs and circumstances of women. Policy-makers must protect their economic security, lest their likelihood of poverty climb even higher.
As the November elections approach, politicians must remember that women matter, and that women are not timid about expressing their voice when they vote.
Teresa Heinz Kerry is chairwoman of the Heinz Family Philanthropies and the wife of Sen. John Kerry. Jeffrey Lewis is president of the Heinz Family Philanthropies. This column appeared in the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Prescriptions must be filled under newly adopted rule
Recently Washington's state Board of Pharmacy had been toying with the idea of allowing pharmacists to object to filling prescriptions if they 'morally' object. Of course what they mostly objected to was providing birth control options to women. Yesterday they passed new guidelines that state that individual pharmacist will be required to fill prescriptions IF the drug is in stock.
According to the linked article, this compromise was drafted by Gov. Gregoire and women's advocacy groups are excited with the adoption but it seems that the reality is that this is not really much of a win.
Plan B birth control must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and if a pharmacist 'morally objects' it would seem the easiest way to keep from breaking the new rules is to make sure the needed birth control options are not in stock. I do realize that at times we need to celebrate small wins, but this doesn't seem to be a win of any kind. Rather, this just appears to be nicer packaging on allowing pharmacist's conscience in women's private choices.
I do realize that at times we need to celebrate small wins, but this doesn't seem to be a win of any kind. Rather, this appears to be a nicer package on allowing pharmacists' conscience in women's private choices.
According to the linked article, this compromise was drafted by Gov. Gregoire and women's advocacy groups are excited with the adoption but it seems that the reality is that this is not really much of a win.
Plan B birth control must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and if a pharmacist 'morally objects' it would seem the easiest way to keep from breaking the new rules is to make sure the needed birth control options are not in stock. I do realize that at times we need to celebrate small wins, but this doesn't seem to be a win of any kind. Rather, this just appears to be nicer packaging on allowing pharmacist's conscience in women's private choices.
I do realize that at times we need to celebrate small wins, but this doesn't seem to be a win of any kind. Rather, this appears to be a nicer package on allowing pharmacists' conscience in women's private choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)