Statement of Marilyn T. Leist, Middle Atlantic Regional Director
National Board of Directors, American Association of University Women

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Social Security
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on the Impacts of the Current Social Security System --
Protections for Women

February 3, 1999

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify today. My name is Marilyn Leist and I come before you today in many capacities. I am here speaking as a Regional Director of the National Board of the American Association of University Women, the nation's oldest and largest organization advancing equity for women and girls in education and in the workplace. I am also here from a personal perspective, to speak to you as a daughter, a mother, and a working woman who cares deeply about protecting my family. Social Security IS this nation's foremost family protection plan, and I urge this Committee to oppose any efforts to undermine protections for women and to support the Administration's framework for strengthening and preserving the system.

Let me begin by telling you my own story. My 83 year old mother, Lucy Elizabeth Thomas, worked 35 years as a waitress--earning less than minimum wage--while at the same time rearing two daughters, and caring for both my father, as he became increasingly disabled with rheumatoid arthritis, and for my grandmother, a farm woman, who had virtually no income for many years. Mother now depends solely on Social Security--on $650 a month. Although mother is a fiercely independent woman, she moved in with me at the age of 71 because she could no longer work outside the home to supplement her Social Security income. She has macular degeneration, a condition that has reduced her vision to shadows.

As a waitress and a bartender, my mother and father made barely enough money to pay for their daily living expenses. Thus, she does not have a pension, nor does she have income-generating savings. Her current income consists of about $8,000 a year from Social Security--she is one of the nation's elderly poor. Of that amount, $1,600 is used for secondary health coverage. Last year she paid an additional $1,000 in medical costs and another $1,400 for a hearing aid. In the fall, a bout with stomach ulcers forced her to pay over $200 for prescription drugs. I have purchased most of her clothing and paid for her room and board for the past 12 years. For many years Mother's identity and subsistence was closely tied to her productive function in the work force. Now Social Security is a real factor in her ability to survive with some dignity in her old age.

While my financial situation is a little better than my mother's, the cycle is about to repeat itself when my husband, who is becoming increasingly disabled with psoriatic arthritis, retires and requires attention from me, the caregiver. Just like my mother, I will be the provider and will not be able to stop working. Although I have some savings, I was out of the workforce for eight years, like millions of other women, when my daughters were young, and currently have only a limited pension. I will need to continue to work, not only to continue to shore up my retirement base but to pay for the additional costs of nursing care that will be required for my mother and my husband as they age.

Social Security is my mother's lifeline in retirement. Like 87 percent of all elderly women, she doesn't have a pension, and what savings she has, she's holding on to in case of an emergency. My mother's Social Security benefits, adjusted for inflation every year, are a predictable and secure source of retirement income she knows she can count on for as long as she lives. And this not only gives her peace of mind--it gives me peace of mind.

If this amount were reduced at all, what would she do? My own income is already stretched beyond capacity. It's because my mother gets a reliable stream of benefits that I can take her under my roof. Otherwise it would be a huge financial burden. That's why Social Security is so important--we all pay into the system to ensure protection for our own and others' families. Without a strong, solid Social Security insurance system, my mom and millions of other women like her would be living in poverty.

Social Security is a lifesaver for women, not only as retirement income but as protection against so many of life's adversities. If we work at home, or have low lifetime earnings, we can get benefits based on our husbands' work records. We get widows' benefits and protections in divorce. And I can sleep easier knowing that if my daughter, my husband, or I were to become disabled, we could get disability coverage.

I've heard that some people think that women would be better off if Social Security were replaced in whole or in part by a system of individual accounts--where we'd have our benefits cut in exchange for getting back some of our money to invest on our own in the stock market. This just doesn't make sense. What would happen if we invested poorly, or if we had to retire just as the market spiraled down? We'd lose out. And who would the burden land on? Our families. Now that would be intergenerational inequity.

We get all kinds of family protections from Social Security because the money is invested together, creating a universal insurance pool. If that money is put into individual accounts, those family protections would be jeopardized. Women would no longer get widow's or spouse's benefits; disability protections could be derailed; and divorced spouses would probably be left out altogether. I've heard administrative expenses could eat away a good portion of our benefits. This would change the system from Social Security to social insecurity.

I am not an economist, but anyone who claims that individual accounts can be set up as part of Social Security without raising taxes or reducing benefits isn't telling the whole story. Those plans will be very costly in the long-run and will undermine the integrity of Social Security.

AAUW would only support individual accounts that are kept totally separate from Social Security, that are aimed to help low and moderate wage earners, and that supplement the guaranteed benefits of Social Security--not undermine these benefits either now or in the future. We must keep in mind that Social Security is only one pillar of the retirement income system and we must work to develop initiatives outside of Social Security to increase savings and pensions for women.

Sometimes when I listen to this debate, I feel I'm in the Chicken Little story where everyone's screaming "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." But it isn't. There is general acknowledgment that Social Security is in sound shape for many years to come. Of course, it is important to act now to shore up the system for future generations. But we certainly do not need to dismantle the system. The Administration has proposed a framework which could help solve the funding issues while preserving the fundamental protections that are so important to women.

The 150,000 members of the American Association of University Women are so concerned about how Congress reforms Social Security, that the issue is now a top Association priority. Our members understand that any reform that is enacted must keep the present system intact. AAUW looks forward to working with the Committee in developing proposals on Social Security which are in the best interest of women--and, in so doing, the country.

Thank you.