Let’s take the high profile Hillary Clinton and the very rich Ann Romney out of the working/non-working mother story. The woman who is able to choose to stay at home and raise her family may start with volunteering at a co-op pre-school, fill in to help with school parties, become a Scout leader and help out at the local food bank.
She is not sitting home eating bon-bons and waiting to put dinner on the table. Her spouse may be just making ends meet but they are getting by. Our working woman is doing some volunteer work (as able) but more likely is donating to the food bank and sending bakery goodies to the Scout meeting. She isn’t a high-earning attorney or doctor, but more likely worked her way through a retail company to become manager of her own department, or runs her own small business.
There is no good or bad here. Both women are big contributors to our economy. Moving on through the years, both women are late 50s or 60ish, divorced and self-supporting. Our working mom has a house, a retirement, probably a good savings program and decent Social Security check. The stay-at-home mom may or may not have a house or SHAG apartment, a little savings from the family account, and a percentage of her husband’s Social Security. There she is struggling to pay bills and keep healthy.
Is this right? This is the mom who makes it possible for others to choose to work. She should be given more financial due for her “golden years.” She should be getting equal Social Security to her husband. We shouldn’t be talking about taking away from Social Security but looking at how it can be better. I don’t know the answer, but I do feel we are not using it to its full potential.
Janis Hoover
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
