President Bush has been talking for some time about privatizing Social Security, and I have disagreed this proposal pretty much from the start. A lot of that antagonism, though, comes from my suspicions of Bush's motives (the ultimate dismantling of any sort of safety net, the creation of huge deficits to "starve the beast" without concern for the real economic effects on average people, and the transfer of yet more government money to private financial interests through account fees).

There is one factor that Bush hasn't likely considered--though I imagine it won't escape his attention (or the attention of other Republicans) for long. Because the federal government does not recognize gay marriage or near-equivalents, there is currently an inequality to the system. If one person in a married couple dies, the other person can continue to receive benefits based, in part, on the social security taxes paid by the deceased spouse. The same would not happen if one person in a gay marriage dies. If I died, Benson would see no extra social security payments. Right now, this means that Benson would go without approximately $2000 a month (in today's dollars) that he would get if he was a woman. Unfair, right? Trust me, when you are a gay American, you get used to the number of "unfair" situations there are.

Bush has promised that the private Social Security accounts will "be yours to keep" and that "the government can never take it away." He states that you can pass it on to your heirs. If I understand correctly, this means that I could pass this money on to Benson, just as I can pass my 401(k) money on to him. Instead of seeing no Social Security benefits, Benson would likely see a significant amount.

I am sure as soon as the Republicans hear that gay people might in any way benefit from their plan, they will modify it so that you can only pass it on to a defined set of heirs that does not include gay partners.

One could argue that in 40 years, gay marriage or some equivalent will be fully recognized by the federal government. We can only hope.

The problem with the appeal this twist on the Social Security plan has for me is that it is ultimately selfish. The greater good is having a plan that ensures all old people are not living on the street and can have some dignity. Bush's plan will no doubt lead to lower guaranteed benefits. The stock market is inherently risky--saying that it has proven over time to give benefits better than social security is fallacy, because as any mutual fund ad you read states "past performance is no guarantee of future results." Would you want to retire during a huge market downturn?

GLBT politics socialsecurity