Rural Missourians rely heavily on Social Security income

A new report issued June 29 indicates rural Missourians rely on Social Security income more than any other region of the state, said Margarida Jorge, a political activist associated with Missourians United to Protect Social Security.

The study, performed by the Institute For America's Future, states President George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security "would hurt rural communities in Missouri" more than non-rural areas.

Specifically, the report concludes that rural residents depend on Social Security payments 42 percent more than their non-rural counterparts, and that rural communities have a greater percentage of seniors, elderly women and people with disabilities who rely on guaranteed benefits.

The Institute for America's Future and the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimate that the typical American worker stands to lose $214,000 in benefits under the president's latest privatization proposal.

"The mandatory benefit cuts would disproportionately hurt Missouri's rural areas because those constituents rely nearly twice as much on Social Security as do those in urban communities," Jorge says.

Her words were echoed by those of former state Sen. Jerry Howard.

"As chairman of the Missouri Democratic Rural Caucus and as a rural Missourian, I am absolutely appalled at the misinformation coming from the Republican administration about Social Security," he says. "The Republican-controlled White House and Congress seem to miss the whole point of the word 'security.'

"We don't trust Wall Street," the former lawmaker adds.

In Missouri, 96 of the state's 114 counties are considered rural, according to the National Association of Counties Rural Action Caucus.

A staggering 386,120 rural residents receive Social Security checks monthly; 254,120 receive retirement benefits; 74,675 receive disability insurance benefits; 57,325 receive survivors' insurance payments; 148,725 women more than 65 years old receive Social Security benefits; and 8.9 percent of rural Missourians' incomes comes from Social Security benefits, the study indicates.

Social Security recipients in those 96 counties were paid more than $3.5 billion in 2003, the latest figures state.

"I'm against privatization of Social Security," says Dist. 162 Rep. Terry Swinger, a Democrat. "It's a program that's served the country and the citizens well for 70 years or more.

"Privatization is for those who already make their finances and other things work," he adds. "Typically, those people don't depend on Social Security to pay their bills."

But for the financially burdened Missourians who do rely on Social Security as their primary income source, privatization may prove to be more of a hindrance than a help, Swinger explains.

"For the most part, those are the people who don't have money to invest anyway," he says. "We have concerns for people all over the world, and that's good.

"But we need to take care of our people at home first," Swinger continues. "Privatization, I think, would only help people who are financially able to take care of themselves. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for people understanding financial matters, saving money and providing for themselves. But we have an obligation to provide for other folks. We should maintain the Social Security system as it is."

Swinger's Republican counterpart, District 163 state Rep. Otto Bean says Bush probably should pay attention to the will of the people.

"I think the polls are showing that 69-70 percent of the people are in opposition to this privatization proposal," Bean says. "I oppose it.

"Although, I think younger people probably would like it," he adds. "They realize they're going to have to work longer to see any benefits, and I think they're worried about whether or not they'll see any benefits at all."

Bean says the Social Security privatization dilemma for him, "is not an issue," and doesn't see the president's nationwide tour aimed at selling the plan to both politicos and constituents as a smokescreen used to veil more pressing national matters, like the Iraq war.

"I think the president is pushing this privatization down our throats," the legislator says. "I don't like that, and I don't imagine other people like it either.

"Social Security has been an issue for a long time," Bean says. "The war in Iraq, in my opinion, is the most important issue the president has to address."

The report warns that cuts to the system "would swell the ranks of the rural poor" to levels not seen since the Great Depression.

In addition, the report indicates that rural governmental bodies at the local level "are struggling to meet the needs" of an older population.

"The president's Social Security plan would force these governments to either renege on their commitment to their seniors or dramatically increase taxes to support those who no longer afford to make ends meet," because of lost income, the study states.

And, the older population in the U.S. is expected to double by 2050 as Baby-Boomers and their children age, the report states.

Bootheel Regional Human Needs Center Executive Director Tracy Dettmer says privatization would mean more work meeting the needs of those served by the organization, and greater numbers of clients.

"My guess is we'd see a lot more people who have managed to get by on Social Security in the past who would be unable to get by if privatization legislation is approved and passed," she says. "It would certainly make it harder on us.

"We struggle now to feed the clients we have," Dettmer adds. "If these proposals, like privatization, take effect, we'll be seeing more and more seniors and disabled people. It's going to be an issue. That's for sure."

Calls placed by a Daily Dunklin Democrat reporter to U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson's office were returned by staff members representing both her Cape Girardeau and Capitol Hill offices. However, requests for interviews were not addressed because of the impending Independence Day holiday.