Sunday, January 30, 2005

why, of course

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article today about how women will be most influenced by the impending battle over the future of Social Security. As Joe Garofoli points out, women live longer, earn less, have less significant pension accounts and lose years of income-earning in order to raise children or care for their elderly parents. Because of this they rely more on Social Security in their later years.

Keep this in mind as you listen to the language used by either side. Republicans, for a change, are advocating for "choice". And, yes, it's the Democrats who will be scaring the panties off of you with talk of the need for "security".

Leanne Abnor of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security hits the semantics ball out of the field with the line, "It's demeaning to women not to have the choice to invest in private accounts. Women should have the same choice to make with their bank accounts as they have with their bodies."

Who in the White House Communications Office let that one get out there?

No comments: