The Pillaging of the Elderly

I would hesitate to call this a "victory" or "progress" or even a "step in the right direction." The traditional three legs of the retirement table - defined-benefit (DB) pension plans, Social Security payments, and personal savings - is an outdated model for looking at retirement. Ever since the ERISA allowed employers to pass the risk that comes with a pension plan onto their workers, DB plans, which pay retired workers based on a fixed rate based generally on seniority and company loyalty, have been in decline. Marketed under the ruse of controlling your own retirement and creating an "ownership society," newer retirement tools have been a significant boon for employers trying to reduce the amount of money spent on employee compensation.

Just two years ago, the dubiously named Pension Protection Act of 2006, passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bush, continued this assault on DB pensions by making 401(k)s even more attractive to employers. In fact, within a month after it passing, three major employers reduced their DB program. One finance expert called it the "tombstone for defined-benefit plans and resurrection of defined-contribution plans."

Even most industry insiders, except for the most delusional, know that 401(k)s and IRAs, for most workers, are inferior to DB plans.

A Beyond Marriage Victory?

The WRERA was meant to provide some tax relief to seniors who try to get by with even less and clarify a few technical aspects of the PPA, including requiring that employers allow employees to roll over their IRA's into those of non-spousal beneficiaries. This is a big tax break for same-sex partners, caregivers, and other people could benefit from that was originally reserved for only married couples.

In a sense, this could be read as a "beyond marriage" victory - people can leave their IRA's to people who are not necessarily their spouses. That's a good thing for seniors, who might be afraid of losing other means of income and health care benefits should they re-marry. It's also good for LGBT people, who might not be able to marry their significant others with whom they're financially interdependent. And it's good for anyone else who defines their closest family differently than a married spouse.

So it's good that HRC's supported this one - while marriage has become the Holy Grail of the gay rights movement, "beyond marriage" laws can provide parts of the same protections to a greater number of families who need them. They reflect the way kinship patterns have changed since the Eisenhower era. And apparently they can get signed into law by a reactionary president without any fuss.

Not a Step in the Right Direction

But one thing's for certain about this: we're not moving in the right direction.

Progressivism is a limited lens through which to look at policy making, but it's definitely popular in America. The left often gets stuck on the idea that American society, heck, even the world in general, depending on whom you ask, is moving towards an eventual goal where we'll all be equal, free, and provided-for. In that context, pretty much any law that improves people's lives gets labeled as a "step in the right direction," no matter how obvious it is that we're not moving in the right direction.

And when it comes to retirement benefits for the working class, America's definitely not moving in the right direction, and Bush and his ideological colleagues are doing everything they can to move us in the wrong direction.

Which is why I remain unimpressed with this law. Sure, it'll improve people's lives. But it accepts as a given a system that works against the working-class elderly. And without any sort of material commitment to improving their lives, there's no reason to think this will compound with other legislation to eventually reach the goal of safe retirements for all Americans.

One of the biggest instances of culture shock French tourists in the US realize is seeing people in their 70's and 80's working in supermarkets. While they've just started their conservative backlash against the working class with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy two years ago, they still have a great nationalized pension program compared to American workers.

But the French aren't "ahead" of America, or more "advanced" than we are. It's 2008 in both countries, with the same technology available to both societies. They simply have a greater commitment to economic equality than we do, something which we could try to emulate instead of putting hoping our current mentality will eventually produce social justice.