Don't count race, gender for benefits

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The leading candidate for dumb and dangerous idea of 2005 comes from Bill Thomas, who wants to explore using race and gender to calculate Social Security benefits.

If Thomas were just some academic social engineer or a wacko radio talk-show host we could blithely ignore his trial balloon. Unfortunately, because he chairs the congressional panel that controls federal purse strings, his musings can't be ignored.

Thomas suggested a public debate on giving workers who paid the same amount of Social Security taxes different-sized benefit checks based on the projected average lifespan of their sex or race.

It's not clear if his comments are meant to sidetrack President George W. Bush's plan for personal Social Security accounts that would allow younger workers to invest part of their taxes in the stock market.

If so, the California Republican who chairs the U.S. House's Ways and Means Committee should just come out against the idea, although that would be shortsighted given the pressing nature of the problem.

Social Security, by far the single largest item in the federal budget, is projected by impartial analysts to begin collecting less in payroll taxes in 2018 than it will pay in benefits. By mid-century, the system could be insolvent.

We can and should have a debate about the solvency of Social Security, and what change is required to keep the benefit checks coming. But, let's not sabotage the whole effort by making Social Security reform even more controversial.

Thomas is a smart, veteran lawmaker who should know better. Raising such a potentially volatile issue can only make it more difficult to deal rationally with the central questions about the retirement system's solvency.

Moreover, the idea itself is repugnant. It is the last thing needed in a society already Balkanized by special-interest groups promoting one racial or gender group's interests over those of the general population.

Of course, Thomas is factually correct that different groups of Americans live longer than do others for a variety of reasons having to do with lifestyle and biology. Women, as we know, live longer than men; whites live longer than blacks.

But then, smokers die earlier than those who don't, and housewives presumably live longer than hookers. But taking any of this into account in calculating Social Security benefits or what should be the retirement age is more than just bad policy.

It would be a dangerous step away from an America in which all see themselves as an equal part of the whole. We are and should be Americans first, and members of an ethnic or gender group last.

One of affirmative action's legacies has been the increasing ethnic and gender identification of Americans. It has produced a zero-sum mentality in the United States, creating a palpable resentment among those who feel it pits one group against another.

Neither is good for America.

Moreover, using race or gender to calculate benefits checks reinforces the flawed mentality that treats people as members of a group, not as individuals who may live longer or shorter than the averages predict.

Thomas, whose committee role makes him one of the most influential lawmakers in determining the fate of Social Security reform, used a national television interview to raise the race and gender issue.

"We need to examine, frankly . . . 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," Thomas told NBC's Meet the Press on Jan. 23.

If such a change were to occur, it would eliminate the one part of Social Security that has made it by far the most popular program administered by the federal government — its perceived universality.

That's because Americans do not see Social Security as a means-tested welfare program, even though the benefit formula gives lower-income workers more generous benefits than the taxes they contribute to the program would justify.

That's one reason why it has been so politically untouchable. We all think that we get what we earn and that no one is freeloading off the system.

It would be hard, if not impossible, to find other federal programs that are considered so even-handed. There are an awful lot of Americans who believe their tax dollars are spent on others, but not on them. They see Social Security as the exception to the rule.

There are more ideas about how to fix Social Security than you can shake a stick at. The notion of making gender or race a factor in how to save the symbol of universality in American government should be clubbed to death.

Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here.

02/14/05: Do you trust adults or children?
02/08/05: Chairman's race can't turn party around
01/20/04: The law has caught up with public opinion on gay-rights matters
01/04/05: To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of charity
12/21/04: Fierceness of Supreme battle is logical result of continuing pattern of those who lose at the ballot box looking to the courts to reverse the will of the people
12/14/04: Minority party still ducks basic problem
12/07/04: U.S., Canada: Joined at hip if not heart
11/24/04: Why does U.N. get free ride in scandal?
11/15/04: Gonzales lives America's promise
11/09/04: A Bipartisanship does not mean 50-50
10/26/04: Al-Qaeda adopts Viet Cong's Tet strategy: Don't' fall for it
10/19/04: Even in '91, Saddam cowed Kerry
10/13/04: Patriot Act, preemptive force here to stay
09/15/04: Kerry bets on Iraq change over consistency
09/07/04: Miller's treatment shows media bias
08/31/04: Europeans discovering value of work
08/17/04: A home where wolves don't roam?
08/10/04: Public interest vs. minority rights
08/10/04: Kerry deserves an A in history, and in his willingness to mimic the mantra of those he has spent an entire political career vilifying
08/03/04: Kerry's challenge: Closing the deal
07/29/04: Note to Prez: Customer's always right
07/20/04: If Kerry doesn't tell, voters should ask
07/14/04: PSST, pass it on, Kerry & Crew no longer think Iraq war was a mistake. Really!
06/29/04: Hostile media, prickly president — a troubling mix
06/22/04: With Kerry's choices, you'd want McCain, too
06/04/04: A debt unpaid to D-Day warriors
05/25/04: America has a bad attitude!
05/20/04: Surprise! A thank you to Bill Clinton
05/06/04: Corrupt U.N.? Shine a light
04/28/04: Kerry not weak on defense — just wrong
04/22/04: No attacks in U.S. since 9-11: Why?
04/16/04: Schools should focus on boys — now
03/16/04: Scalia recusing could give Kerry a bruising
03/04/04: Abortion, gay marriage show hypocrisy
03/01/04: Politicians can't repeal economic laws
02/19/04: The question prez, Kerry won't debate
01/21/04: Dems trying oh so hard to keep tired issue alive
01/21/04: Can whiners ever see positive side?
12/23/04: UN proves yet again it's dangerously misguided
11/18/03: U.N. oversight of Internet: Dumb idea
11/11/03: Absent change, GOP trend continues
10/28/03: Soft-on-defense stereotype — no wonder
10/22/03: Bet on Bush and the economy
09/23/03: France's time to decide: Friend or foe
09/16/03: Alabama no fluke in rejecting tax hike
09/03/03: Why Bush, Dean will win big in California recall
08/12/03: Hypocrisy from anti-death-penalty crowd
08/05/03: The rule of law or the Golden Rule?
07/22/03: A cautionary tale for those who naively believe that political posturing can override the laws of economics
06/24/03: Let seniors make their own choices
06/03/03: Bush bucks NRA to woo soccer moms
05/28/03: Bail out states? It's not D.C.'s job
05/20/03: Lawyers' party hits a new low
05/13/03: Bush mimics Nixon, Reagan by going against the political grain