WASHINGTON, D.C. - We've all heard a similar story: A friend of a friend who's been married for twenty years and finds out that her husband has secretly spent his 401(k) savings, leaving their future at risk. In response to these anecdotes, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Illinois) has taken up the cause with a small provision in the Senate's tax bill about to go to conference. Watch out -- this is feminist victimology in all its glory.

A vestige of Moseley-Braun's Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997, the Senate's tax bill includes a plan to require spousal consent for the distribution of funds from a married individual's 401(k) plan. In other words, any financial decisions concerning a person's savings must have their spouse's sign-off.

In her efforts to be a feminist hero, the Senator seems to believe only husbands have 401(k)s -- while in fact over 10.5 million women maintain their own 401(k) -- furthermore, she assumes that all marriages are as bad as the one in the story. Her bill is pitched as protecting a woman's right to her husband's assets. Most alarming of all is her absolute faith that government can resolve these issues. Apparently the impending bankruptcy of Social Security has not put the Senator off government intervention for retirement planning. I envy her optimism.

A legislative aide to Moseley-Braun explained the Senator's concerns in the following terms: allowing employees to make withdrawals from their plans without spousal consent puts complete control over all retirement decisions in the hands of one spouse. This is, of course, not necessarily true; many couples depend on other sources of income for their retirement. The comment also suggests that the average married couple does not discuss its financial security. Instead of affirming a couple's responsibility to communicate and plan, the bill would pass it over to government. As Mark Ugoretz, president of the ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) Industry Committee, raises the question, "Can government mandate good marriages?!"

Though Moseley-Braun has the support of some women's pension groups like the AARP's Women's Project and WISER, a women's pension advocacy group, many industry experts like Mr. Ugoretz assert that her legislation would actually hurt the very women she aims to protect. Today, 41 percent of 401(k) plans are held by women. Under Moseley-Braun's proposal, these women would have to get their husbands' consent to distribute their independently earned funds. This sounds a lot like the 19th century laws that prohibited women from owning property.

There is also a privacy consideration in this debate. Moseley-Braun's bill would force personal issues into the workplace. A woman who needs money from her 401(k) for any of a set of special circumstances (eviction and medical emergency are among these) may need this money precisely because her husband is not available--he left her or disappears for weeks or months at a time. The spousal consent requirement would force her to track down the errant husband (and in the worst cases, expose her to possible emotional or financial extortion) or go public with the unhappiness of her personal life. Some choice.

The sentiment of Moseley-Braun's legislation is classic feminist victimization theory, positing that women need the protective hand of government and leaders like Moseley-Braun to mediate their personal choices. It ignores the incredible fiscal gains of women over the last 30 years and their ability to negotiate their own future financial security. Most states already have laws to deal with the circumstances of divorce and division of property earned directly and indirectly. The problems of planning for retirement and the poverty faced by many senior women today are real, but by ceding the responsibility to government, we don't help anyone.

The Founders of the country believed in an individual's right to the fruits of his own labor, and the feminists that followed affirmed that principle's inclusion of women. Moseley-Braun's proposal would blur the lines of property rights to the detriment of women who have taken the greatest steps towards economic independence. This is not to say that a couple shouldn't share their income and savings -- it is simply to say that every person, man or woman, has the right to choose to do so or not.

-by Katherine Post

Director, Center for Enterprise and Opportunity