Cutting Taxes at the Expense of Women
by Betty Soldz
Several weeks ago Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested that we cut Social Security benefits in order to deal with our soaring deficits. This was followed by President Bush stating that his Administration could attempt to reduce Social Security for today's workers.
If you remember the Presidential campaign promise of 2000, George W. Bush pledged he would not attempt to reduce Social Security benefits. In fact, it was one of his core campaign pledges.
Now, due to the audacious tax cuts for the rich, we have a huge deficit and it will continue to grow if Bush persuades Congress to make his tax cuts (mostly for the rich) permanent. As Chairman Greenspan suggested, these tax cuts may be paid for by reducing Social Security.
Bush has stated recently "My position on Social Security benefits is this: those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement." The president refused to say he opposed cutting Social Security for younger and middle-aged workers.
Women would be the largest group to suffer if these reductions in Social Security take place.
Without Social Security 50% of women over the age of 65 would live in poverty. Women earn less than men and are therefore less financially secure. According to OWL, The Voice of Midlife and Older women, over 90% of women over 65 receive social security with a median benefit of $7,750. On average, a woman spends 30 per cent of her income on housing costs and 22 per cent of her income on out-of pocket health care costs. Because women live longer and will have more chronic illnesses as they age, this figure will most likely increase. Does this administration really want to force these women into poverty?
Although Bush speaks of protecting those already on Social Security we must prevent this irresponsible attempt to tamper with this program and make sure our children and grandchildren have the same protection that has protected women since the inception of the program. It is totally irresponsible to talk of tax cuts to be paid for by reducing Social Security. Please bear in mind that, according to an article in The New York Times on 2/29/04, Bush's tax cuts provide the top 400 taxpayers, who had an average income in 2000 of $174 million each, with a tax cut of 4.7percent. That's over $8 million dollars in tax cuts for each of these 400 needy people.
We are now in an election year. Be sure to question candidates on their views on programs that protect women. We must not allow tax cuts for the rich to become permanent at the expense of social programs. Now is the time to be heard. We must work to protect Social Security.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||
