|
|
Nebraska Farmers Union |
1305
Plum Street • Lincoln, NE 68502 Contact
John Hansen Office: 402-476-8815, Fax: 402-476-8859, Cell: 402-580-8815 |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For Immediate Release
John Hansen participated in a joint press conference this afternoon with Jon Bailey of the Center for Rural Affairs, State Sen. Matt Connealy, and Patrick Adams of Nebraskans United to Protect Social Security. The released an Institute for America’s Future study that showed that rural communities are nearly twice as dependent on social security as are non-rural communities. They also released a Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. poll that showed that 71% of rural voters believe that Congress should wait to develop a different Social Security plan.
Below are the prepared remarks of John K. Hansen, President of Nebraska Farmers Union
Press Conference on a Poll Impacting Rural Nebraska and Social Security
June 23, 2005 --- Capitol Rotunda, Lincoln, Nebraska
Good afternoon everyone.
Thank you for being here. Why,
you might ask is a general farm organization getting involved in the Social
Security debate? First, a bit about who
we are. Nebraska Farmers Union is the
second largest and oldest general farm organization in Nebraska. We were first chartered December 16, 1913,
and presently have 4,500 family memberships.
Our mission statement defines our work:
“Nebraska Farmers Union is a general farm organization dedicated to
protecting and enhancing the quality of life and economic well-being of family
farmers and ranchers, and their rural communities.”
Social Security not only impacts the economic well-being of our retiring farmers and ranchers, and their rural communities, it also impacts the quality of life of all residents in rural Nebraska. Based on the survey we are jointly releasing here today, any cuts in social security benefits impact rural communities nearly twice as much as non-rural communities.
Nebraska Farmers Union, along with our national organization, and many of our sister state organizations around the country are getting involved in the social security debate not only because our rural residents are much more dependent on social security, our rural communities have a higher percentage of seniors than do non-rural communities. A visit to most rural communities will tell you that rural communities are getting both older, and poorer. That has been the trend for the last 20 years, in large part because of the failure of federal farm and trade policy, but that is a topic for another day.
The question that all citizens, but especially rural citizens should be asking is “Does the President’s plan, or the just released House Republican plans to reform social security fix what is wrong with our social security system? The answer is absolutely not. The problem is that our social security trust fund is not adequately funded over the long term. Neither the President’s plan, and to a lesser degree, or the new scaled down version of the plan House Republicans are now offering will fill the funding shortfall. Both plans take money out of the already under funded Social Security Trust Fund, and use the money to create an alternative program, that will either reduce benefits, raise taxes, or further deplete the Social Security Trust Fund.
Before we trust President Bush, or for that matter, the House or Senate Republican leadership on how to fix our under funded Social Security Trust Fund, let’s take a quick look at their track record on balancing the federal budget. Remember, the financial health and strength of our federal budget is directly related to our nation’s ability to step in, if needed, and fill in the low spots in the out years of social security benefits.
During President Clinton’s last four years in office, our nation enjoyed a $451 billion surplus with a $112.75 billion average surplus. In 1998, there was a $68 billion surplus, in 1999 a $122 billion surplus, in 2000, a $230 billion surplus, and 2001a $31 surplus. For the first time in many years, we were actually paying down our nation debt.
During President Bush’s first four years in office, our nation suffered a $ 2.049 trillion deficit with a $512.25 billion average deficit. In 2002, there was a $381 billion deficit, in 2003, a $529 billion deficit, in 2004, a $567 deficit, and in 2005, the deficit is projected to be $541 billion. Instead of paying down the national debt by $451 billion in four years, President Bush’s has put our nation $2.049 trillion further in debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects the President’s next four years to average $664 billion per year in deficits, which adds up to $2.656 trillion in additional deficits, and $2.656 trillion deeper in national debt.
In the trade arena, President Bush’s track record is no
better. He continues to support trade
policies that have reduced our national agricultural trade surplus of $27.4
billion in 1996 to a projected zero by the end of 2005, and which has cost U.S.
farmers $13.94 billion per year average annual lost marketplace value for their
cumulative value of their corn, wheat, soybeans, grain sorghum, cotton, and
rice crops during the same period. The Commerce Department said that the current
trade account balance for 2004, which covers not only merchandise trade but
also services and investment, showed a $665.9 billion deficit -- 25.5% larger
than 2003, and a record 5.7% of the national economy.
Nebraska Farmers Union believes that President Bush’s approach to reforming social security not only will not fix social security, it will turn a small problem into a massive problem. We are convinced that his plan will further deplete the already under funded Social Security Trust Fund.
If our farmers and ranchers managed our farm and ranch finances the way the President has handled our federal budget, our trade policy, and proposes to do with social security, our bankers would call our farm operating loans, and we would be out of business. Farmers know you cannot spend your way out of poverty, and you cannot deficit spend your way out of debt. At the end of the day, income has to equal or exceed outgo. Robbing the Social Security Trust Fund will not cure the problem of under funding. It is just that simple.
We encourage all Nebraskans, especially rural Nebraskans to gather the facts, understand the numbers, and get engaged in the social security debate in the days ahead so that our elected public officials know how we feel on this absolutely critical issue.
Thank you again for coming today. I will do my best to answer any questions.
Nebraska United to Protect Social Security
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For more information, contact:
June 23, 2005 Kristofer Eisenla (202) 955-1002
Rural Leaders Release New Report Showing Rural Nebraskans Rely on Social Security Income More than Twice the Rest of the State
Nebraska United
Releases National Rural Poll Showing Majority of Rural Americans are Opposed to
President’s Social Security Plan
LINCOLN, NE – Nebraska United to Protect Social Security held a press conference in the Nebraska Capitol Rotunda today with rural leaders, joined by State Senator Matt Connealy, to release a report showing that rural Nebraskans rely on Social Security income by nearly twice as much than non-rural communities. Also John Hansen of the Nebraska Farmers’ Union, and Jon Bailey of the Center for Rural Affairs, were on hand to release the groundbreaking report and the national rural poll results showing that only 39% of rural voters support George W. Bush’s plan for changing Social Security, whereas a 53% majority oppose it.
“The President's plan to dismantle Social Security betrays small town Americans, like those in Nebraska, and the thousands of Nebraskan families who depend on it,” said State Senator Matt Connealy. “Rural Americans need to read the fine print on President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. Instead of standing up for our rural communities and our values, the President's Social Security plan cuts benefits and jeopardizes the most important safety-net in rural areas for retirees, survivors and the disabled.”
The mandatory benefit cuts included in the President’s Social Security privatization plan would hurt Nebraska’s rural communities more harshly than urban communities. For every county in Nebraska, the Institute for America’s Future analyzed Social Security income and beneficiary data as well as other distinguishing characteristics from the Social Security Administration, Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Economic Analysis and other sources. The study found that Nebraska rural communities depend on income from Social Security more than the non-rural communities.
According to the National
Association of Counties, there are 89 non-metropolitan or rural counties in
Nebraska. Total personal income in these counties was fully $21,528,084,000
in 2003 according the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA reports that individuals with Social Security income in these counties cumulatively received $1,583,016,000 in Social Security benefits – or 7.4 percent. Although non-rural communities rely on Social Security income, they do not nearly as much as rural areas. There are 4 non-rural communities in Nebraska with a total personal income of $30,907,668,000 with individuals receiving $1,265,959,000 in Social Security benefits – or 4.1 percent.
“Nebraska Family farmers and rural residents are concerned about the future of Social Security,” said John Hansen of the Nebraska Farmers’ Union. “The report we released today shows how vital Social Security income is to rural Nebraskans and our rural communities. The Social Security income received by Nebraskans is absolutely critical to both the economic viability of our rural communities, and the quality of life for our rural residents. We must protect, preserve, and strengthen the financial integrity of our social security system. We must keep our promises to the people of Nebraska.”
The report also reveals that Rural Nebraska has a higher percentage of Seniors, higher percentage of women who receive Social Security, and more disabled people receiving Social Security benefits.
The national poll further revealed that three times as many voters strongly oppose the plan (36%) as strongly favor it (12%), a clear indication that voters who care deeply about this issue overwhelmingly oppose the President’s proposed changes. Seventy-one percent of rural voters say that Congress should wait and develop a different plan for Social Security rather than approve Bush’s proposals, while just 16% want Congress to pass the Bush plan.
###