portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states


Please sign this petition

From the DNC
Please sign the petition. Basing Social Security benefits on race and gender? How antebellum South can you get?

Do you believe that the amount of a person's Social Security check should be tied to the color of that person's skin? Of course not. But the Republican Party's point man on Social Security in the House is strongly recommending consideration of just such a step. On Meet the Press yesterday, Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA) raised the possibility of linking Social Security benefits to a person's race -- or even gender.

Sign our petition today and tell the Republicans we'll never let them link Social Security benefits to race or gender.
Sign the petition!
Tell your friends!

Ill-conceived, dangerous ideas about Social Security are nothing new to the Republican Party. But no idea is more dangerous or patently unfair than linking Social Security benefits to a person's race and gender.
We can disagree about which ideas should be on or off the table when it comes to the Bush plan to overhaul Social Security. But surely every American can agree that there is no place in the Social Security debate for linking the amount of a Social Security benefit check to the race or gender of the person receiving it.
Please sign our petition today and join the Democratic Party in demanding that President Bush immediately and unequivocally disavow Chairman Thomas' dangerous and offensive suggestion.
If the President and other Republican leaders fail to act, we'll know that there are no limits to the tactics they'll use in their radical campaign to dismantle Social Security and unravel one of the core programs at the heart of the American dream.
The President is already the main architect of a Social Security scare campaign designed to convince the American people that Social Security is in imminent danger. But the fact is, the Social Security system has the resources to keep paying benefits for decades to come -- and there is absolutely no need for Bush's radical approach.
Their aim is to tear the Social Security program apart by privatizing it. If they get their way, Social Security will be transformed from a sacred promise to a stock market gamble. And American taxpayers will be hit with the trillion dollar price tag for Bush's radical privatization plan.
We Democrats are ready, willing, and able to protect Social Security in a spirited public debate. But first, every political leader in America -- beginning with the President of the United States -- must disavow Chairman Thomas' suggestion that we put on the table the reprehensible idea of linking the size of someone's benefits to that person's race or gender.
Act now by signing our "Equality and Social Security" petition -- and join in supporting our campaign to protect Social Security from Republican efforts to dismantle it. It's going to take all the grassroots power we can muster to win this monumental struggle over the future of Social Security.

Terry McAuliffe
P. S. It seems as if every day, another Republican comes forward with a new idea for weakening Social Security. They've opposed Social Security from the start and they have made it clear that, in 2005, they will stop at nothing in their effort to dismantle this remarkable social achievement that has kept generations of America's seniors out of poverty. We will never let them win.
P. P. S. I have attached the transcript of Chairman Thomas' comments. Read them for yourself and then act to make it clear that linking Social Security benefits to someone's race or gender has no place in this debate.
Meet the Press Transcript
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something else you said at the National Journal Forum that raised some eyebrows: "Women are living longer relative to men today than they were in 1940. Yet, we never ever have debated gender-adjusting Social Security. ...But, at some point if the age difference continues to separate and more women are in the workforce and you have more of an equality of pay structure in the workforce, at some point somebody might want to suggest that we need to take a look at the question of whether or not actuarially we ought to adjust who gets what, when, and how."
A gender adjustment--what does that mean?
REP. THOMAS: Well, it was one of my ways of getting people to focus on the issue of age. To move from 65 to 68, which we did in 1983, was a benefit cut. But it also creates hardships based upon the occupation that you have, and it creates inequities on who you are and how long you live. You could just as easily have a discussion about occupations as to when would be a fair or an unfair time to require. We also need to examine, frankly, Tim, the question of race in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race? And you ought not to just leave gender off the table because that would be a factor.
Now, there are people who are saying, "Gee, this is great. We can get them into a box and maybe we can win some seats in the next election over this issue." This ought not to be about the next election. This is about how we have an opportunity given to us by the president, his willingness to work with us to solve some problems that are here and now, but will only get worse. If we're not in a crisis now, we're in a problem. Wait a few years. We will be in a crisis. We ought to examine all opportunities to solve the problem. Then we can dismiss them. But to not look at them denies us an opportunity to have yet another way to solve our problem.
MR. RUSSERT: So if someone is a woman and they live longer, they would get less per year?
REP. THOMAS: It's not that you would do it; it's something that you need to look at. Because if you extend the age beyond 78, if you go to 80 or 82, all of those concerns about race, occupation and gender are exacerbated. And you shouldn't just extend the age without understanding the additional complications and unfairness that you're bringing into the system. That's the point I'm trying to make. Don't look for a simple solution like shifting age without realizing you're creating additional problems for yourself down the road. Same thing with payroll tax. Same thing with individual accounts or other ways to bring additional revenue in the system. All of them should be examined. None of them should be labeled with the pejorative with an opportunity to try to gain seats in the next election. You are doing a disservice to the society if that's your intention in this debate. My goal is to get it as broad as possible, look for bipartisan support and give the president a bill on his desk that he can sign that addresses the real societal inequities that we have with seniors.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Congress, Mr. Chairman, would accept any formula that said that people would be treated differently because of their gender or their race?
REP. THOMAS: If we discuss it and the will is not to do it, fine. At least we discussed it. To simply raise the age and find out that you've got gender, race and occupational problems later, I would not be doing the kind of service that I think I have to do. You and I have been around quite a while. We went through the '80s. We went into the '90s. And now we're in the 21st century. We saw the choices that were made in the past. We went to the well over and over again with the same old solutions which really aren't solutions. We've reached the point where we have to fundamentally examine it in my opinion. The president has given us that opportunity. We ought to take it.
Sign the petition:

homepage: homepage: http://www.democrats.org/action/200501240001.html

add a comment on this article