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.