Whatever our government does during the next four years, nothing is more important to women and families than Social Security.
Most Americans are focused on homeland security, but the economic security of our Social Security program is equally essential. A few years ago, it looked as if the FDR-era program would be retired before it reached 65 - dumped for a new, privatized model. In 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush promised to take up this challenge, but no real efforts were made during his first term.

That may change soon.

If Bush follows through with his plan to privatize Social Security, women will be more affected than men. Here's why.

. Most Social Security checks are sent to women, because women live longer than men.

. Women depend more on Social Security than men do, because women are less likely to have their own private pensions when they retire. When women have private pensions, their pension checks are, on average, half as large as men's are.

. Our Social Security system is currently relatively generous to low earners, and especially women. A privatized system would be more generous to high earners, most of whom are men.

In recent years, Congress has been unwilling to reach consensus on changes to the Social Security system. Unfortunately, we have been hurt by the failure to change the system eight years ago, or four years ago - while the economy was robust and baby boomers were fully employed. For example, small increases in Social Security taxes during a flourishing economy would have added a great deal of money to the Social Security Trust Fund. The budget surplus of a few years ago - now replaced by a harrowing deficit - could have been used for transition costs for a privatized system.

As a result of the delay in addressing Social Security's long-term problems, we will need to make greater increases in Social Security taxes or greater cuts in benefits, than would otherwise have been necessary.

Although the details are murky, President Bush's goal is to increase Social Security benefits for everyone by providing small private accounts. The plan would keep the current system in place but create a small private plan to supplement it. The assumption is that Social Security benefits invested in stocks and bonds would earn high dividends that would make up for cuts in benefits.

Unfortunately, any privatized plan would still have transition costs that would add up to trillions of dollars, and the only way to pay is by cutting benefits.

There are alternatives to private accounts that would be better for everyone, and especially women. One attractive proposal is to invest Social Security funds in stocks and bonds, which would increase the rate of return. Instead of privatized accounts that individuals would invest as they choose (sometimes disastrously), a part of the Social Security Trust Fund could be invested, thus reducing the investment risk for individuals.

In addition to risk, private accounts can be expensive. The administrative cost of a personal account - at least $50 each year - may be a small price to pay for investing tens of thousands of dollars in retirement funds. But most women and men earn less than $30,000 per year, and if their privatized account is 2 percent per year (as generally proposed), only $600 or less would be added to the private account each year. For these low earners, the dividends from such a small account (let's be generous and estimate 10 percent - which is $60 a year) would be drastically offset by the $50 or more cost of administering that personal account. For that reason, personal accounts benefit very few women.

Private accounts will not last indefinitely. Social Security benefits currently last a lifetime. Privatized Social Security, like other private pensions, would run out of money if someone lives "too long," or would pay smaller monthly checks to women with the same earnings as men, since it is assumed that women live longer. Neither is as good for women as the current benefits, which last a lifetime and increase with inflation.

The program needs reform, but not by harming women. Social Security is more than a retirement program - it is a social insurance program that keeps millions of Americans out of poverty. The Social Security system is not bankrupt, but it does need to be carefully strengthened before the baby boomers retire. We should maintain guaranteed benefits that provide a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens - our lowest earners and those living alone. Most of these are women.