Saving Social Security in the States

Social Security privatization advocates have pushed resolutions through some state legislatures as part of a campaign to cut guaranteed benefits and require workers to instead invest in stock market accounts. Conservative and Wall Street-backed groups have promoted pro-privatization measures in Arizona, Indiana, Utah, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Delaware, Texas and Washington state to create an illusion of public support for privatization. Only two were successful—Oregon and Colorado. In response to public resistance Maine and Indiana passed pro-Social Security resolutions.

Indiana felt it necessary to quell fears that they advocated the destruction of Social Security after a pro-privatization resolution was introduced. In response to pressure, Indiana passed a resolution asking Congress to "give priority to reforming the present system and making certain that it is universal, mandatory, with risk pooled among all workers, rather than individuals."

Like Indiana, Maine made a strong statement about preserving our system of guaranteed monthly benefits. Maine state Sen. Susan Longley comments that, "we felt it worth our time to debate this federal issue, muster a majority to pass a state resolution, and forward it to our federal counterparts."

For most state legislatures, dubious promises of privatization advocates do not outweigh the benefits of Social Security’s progressive formula that guarantees benefits to the middle class and low- to moderate-income workers. The Institute for America’s Future (www.ourfuture.org) notes that Social Security privatization disproportionately harms women, who make up 60 percent of recipients, and people of color. According to a study by the 2030 Center (www.2030.org), 75 percent of African-American and Latino households, because of lower pensions and lifelong earnings, depend on Social Security for more than half of retirement income.