Social Security WorkS for texaS

0 downloads 179 Views 4MB Size Report
alker. Non-Metropolitan. 68,408. $38,024. 23.9%. 7,464. 10.9%. $128,808,000. 6.6%. 13.3%. 9,110. 5,975. 1,265. 825. 430.
Social Security Works for Texas

www.socialsecurityworks.org

2014

Our Social Security Works for America series of reports is written for public officials, members of the press, advocates, educators and other concerned citizens. In addition to providing information about Social Security’s history, character and vitality, as well as compelling, real-life stories, each report includes statistics about the number of people who receive benefits, the types of benefits they receive and the total amount of funds flowing from these programs into every state, its congressional districts and counties. Reports are available online for all 50 states, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A summary report, “Social Security Works for the United States,” is also available. Please note that a one-page fact sheet summarizing the data in this report can be found at the end of the report, directly following the endnotes. For congressional district-level Social Security data, please see “Appendix 1: Social Security Works for Texas’ Congressional Districts,” toward the back of the report, just before the endnotes. For county-level Social Security and demographic data, please see “Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties,” toward the back of the report, just before the endnotes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Like our Social Security system, this report is the product of the foresight and hard work of many people. Social Security Works partnered closely with the Alliance for Retired Americans, which is coordinating the release of this report in Texas. Many people shared in writing, designing and producing this, our fifth set of state reports. We are especially grateful to Benjamin Veghte, Ph.D., Research Director of Social Security Works (SSW), the lead researcher, whose commitment to excellence drove the project to its successful conclusion. Likewise, the outstanding contributions of Stephanie Connolly, SSW’s Legislative and Policy Associate, including drafting the appendices and compiling and verifying data, were crucial to its completion. Michael Phelan, SSW’s Deputy Director, and Alex Lawson, SSW’s Executive Director, managed the actual production of the report. We would like to thank Lacy Crawford, SSW’s Communications Director for assembling, sometimes writing and editing the personal stories included in all 50 state reports. Linda Benesch, Communications Associate, and Jasmine Jefferson, Legislative Associate, also helped proofread the data. Very importantly, we want to acknowledge our appreciation to Gus, Suzie, Ruby and Mike for sharing their stories and views about the importance of Social Security to their lives. Graphic design was provided by Deepika Mehta. Social Security Works also benefited from the work and commitment of several persons who provided original research and analysis for this report. We would like to thank Dr. Roberto Gallardo of the Mississippi State University Extension Service for calculating Social Security data on the metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties in each state and sharing the results of his unpublished work, as well as the Center for Rural Strategies for commissioning Dr. Gallardo’s research. Arloc Sherman, Senior Researcher, and Danilo Trisi, Research Associate, at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities generously provided access to unpublished poverty data analyzed by the Center, including the numbers of African American and Latino seniors Social Security lifted out of poverty in 2012. The data presented in this report speak volumes about the importance of Social Security to families, communities, and state and local economies. We hope the report is useful to you as you work to strengthen Social Security in this 79th anniversary year. Please contact Social Security Works Communications Director, Lacy Crawford ([email protected]), if you have questions about this report. Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson Founding Co-directors, Social Security Works; Co-chairs, Strengthen Social Security Coalition Authors of Social Security Works! Why Social Security Isn’t Going Broke and How Expanding It Will Help Us All (The New Press, January 2015), available for purchase at http://amzn.to/1uBmbce

The Alliance for Retired Americans is a grassroots organization representing more than 4 million retirees and seniors nationwide. Headquartered in Washington, DC, the Alliance’s mission is to advance public policy that protects the health and economic security of older Americans by teaching seniors how to make a difference through activism. Learn more about The Alliance and its work at www.retiredamericans.org The mission of Social Security Works is to protect and improve the economic status of all Americas, especially disadvantaged and at-risk populations, and, in so doing, to promote social justice for current and future generations of children as well as young, middle-aged and older adults. www.socialsecurityworks.org The Strengthen Social Security Coalition is made up of more than 320 national organizations and many state organizations, representing more than 50 million Americans. The Coalition is united around core principles, which include that Social Security benefits should not be cut and, instead, should be increased for those who are most disadvantaged, and the belief that our nation’s Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid systems are fundamental to the well-being of America’s families and to the type of nation we are. www.strengthensocialsecurity.org Social Security WorkS for Texas

Introduction “We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future Administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.” —Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 14, 1935

In 1935, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law he called it a cornerstone, the foundation of a structure to be maintained and built upon by and for future generations. Social Security could not protect all Americans against every risk, but, as the President said, it could lessen the consequences of lost earnings in old age for workers and their families. Since then, we have built our Social Security structure carefully and deliberately. In 1939, we added Survivors Insurance benefits for widows and dependent children, eventually extending it to widowers as well. Disability Insurance benefits were added in 1956, followed by Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The automatic cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was added in 1972, designed to maintain the purchasing power of benefits no matter how long someone lives. We built, maintained and strengthened these institutions for a reason: to enable working men and women to protect themselves and their families. We built them because we, as a nation, value hard work, personal responsibility and human dignity; we care for our parents, our children, our spouses, our neighbors and ourselves. This report highlights the remarkable success of Social Security for Texas and the nation. The numbers tell part of the story: how many people receive benefits in Texas, in its congressional districts

Social Security WorkS for Texas

and its counties; how many dollars flow into these jurisdictions in a year; the types of benefits and the types of people who receive benefits. Perhaps more importantly, the report presents the story of hardworking Americans and their families whose lives are immeasurably better because of the protections they have earned. As you read through this report, think of the people you know. Family members who live in dignity in old age because they can count on a monthly Social Security check that they or another family member have earned. Think of that older person who has outlived his modest savings, but who, thanks to Social Security, can continue to live independently. Think of a friend’s mother, who relied on Social Security to provide for her family after she was severely disabled in a workplace accident. Think of a neighbor, whose widowed father needed Social Security to pay the bills when her mother passed away suddenly. Think, too, of how the institution of Social Security, like the nation’s highway system, is part of a rich legacy built by those who came before, a legacy that keeps working in good times and bad. Throughout the past few difficult years, Social Security has been even more vital than before for Texans, and the lifeblood of many small businesses. Virtually all of the jobs our Social Security system supports stay in America.

1

Social Security Works We built our Social Security system because it is the most efficient, secure, universal and fair way for Americans to replace wages in the event of death, disability, or old age. For 79 years, even as our nation has endured wars, political crises and severe economic recessions, Social Security has never missed a payment; it has paid every dollar of earned benefits, on time and in full. The importance of Social Security—the nation’s family insurance against lost wages due to old age, disability, or death—cannot be overstated. Nationwide, Social Security provided $812 billion in benefits to 58 million beneficiaries in 2013—nearly 1 in 5 (18.3 percent) Americans.1 Social Security is not just a retirement program for seniors, however. Over 17 million people under age 65 received Social Security benefits in 2013—about 3 in 10 (29.5 percent) beneficiaries.2 In fact, Social Security is the nation’s largest and, despite its modest benefits, most generous children’s program. There were about 9.2 million children receiving Social Security benefits in 2013.3 These include over 4.4 million children who received Social Security benefits directly,4 and, additionally, an estimated 4.8 million children who lived in households where all or part of the income of the household comes from Social Security.5

(DI) benefits provide 75 percent of the income or more for nearly 6 in 10 non-institutionalized beneficiaries.9 Nonetheless, 1 in 5 DI beneficiaries remains in poverty.10 Through their hard work and payroll tax contributions, nearly all American workers earn Social Security’s retirement, disability and survivorship protections for themselves and their families. Social Security is the primary disability and life insurance protection for most Texas workers. Social Security provides a 30-year-old worker with a spouse and two young children, earning $30,000-$35,000, disability and life insurance protections worth about $583,000 and $550,000, respectively.11 Today, 210 million working Americans have earned these protections for themselves and their families.12 There is a significant chance that a worker will need these protections before she retires. Nationwide, just over 1 in 4 people who turned 20 in 2013 are projected to become severely disabled during their working years.13 An estimated 1 in 8 of today’s 20year olds will die before reaching retirement age.14 Taken together, this means that roughly 1 in 3 young adults entering the workforce today will die or become disabled before reaching the full retirement age.15

For the vast majority of beneficiaries—young and old alike—Social Security’s benefits are modest, but vital. The average Social Security benefit was $14,006 a year in 2013, and $14,777 for retired workers.6 Almost two-thirds (64.6 percent) of elderly couples and unmarried beneficiaries relied on Social Security for half of their income or more in 2012.7 The program lifted 22 million Americans out of poverty in 2012, including 1 million children.8 Social Security benefits are particularly important for disabled workers. Social Security Disability Insurance

Social Security WorkS for Texas

2

Figure 1

Figure 2

Texas’ Social Security Beneficiaries, 2013

Poverty Rate for Texas Beneficiaries 65+ with/without Social Security, 2010-2012 48.2%

15% Disabled Workers

43.1% 9% Widow(er)s

62% Retired Workers

5% Spouses

TX 13.7%

10.7%

9% Children 65+

Women 65+

n Poverty rate without Social Security n Poverty rate with Social Security Source: Social Security Administration, 2014

Social Security Works for Texas’ Residents and Economy • Social Security provided benefits to 3,756,420 Texans in 2013, 1 in 7 (14.2 percent) residents.16 • Texans received Social Security benefits totaling $50.9 billion in 2013, an amount equivalent to 4.4 percent of the state’s total personal income.17 • The average Social Security benefit in Texas was $13,562 in 2013.18 • Social Security lifted 1,375,000 Texans out of poverty in 2012.19

Social Security Works for Texas’ Seniors20 • Social Security provided benefits to 2,336,147 Texas retired workers in 2013, 5 in 8 (62.2 percent) of beneficiaries [Figure 1].21 • The typical benefit received by a retired worker in Texas was $14,807 in 2013.22 • Social Security lifted 871,000 Texans aged 65 or older out of poverty in 2012.23

Social Security WorkS for Texas

Source: Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, 2013

• Without Social Security, the elderly poverty rate in Texas would have increased from 1 in 9 (10.7 percent) to 3 in 7 (43.1 percent) [Figure 2].24

Social Security Works for Texas’ Women • Social Security provided benefits to 1,885,277 Texas women in 2013, 1 in 7 (14.2 percent) Texas women.25 • Social Security provided benefits to 202,698 Texas spouses in 2013, 1 in 19 (5.4 percent) beneficiaries WA [Figure 1].26 • Social Security lifted 509,000 Texas women aged 65 or older out of poverty in 2012.27 • Without Social Security, the poverty rate of elderly women would have increased from 1 in 7 (13.7 percent) to half (48.2 percent) [Figure 2].28

3

Social Security Works for Texas’ Widow(er)s • Social Security provided Survivors benefits to 320,634 Texas widow(er)s in 2013, 1 in 12 (8.5 percent) Texas beneficiaries [Figure 1].29 • The typical benefit received by a widow(er) in Texas was $14,531 in 2013.30

Social Security Works for Texas’ Workers with Disabilities31 • Social Security provided disability benefits to 574,276 Texas workers in 2013, 1 in 7 (15.3 percent) Texas beneficiaries [Figure 1].32 • The typical benefit received by a disabled worker beneficiary in Texas was $12,480 in 2013.33

Social Security Works for Texas’ Children • Social Security is the primary life and disability insurance protection for 98 percent of Texas’ 7,041,986 children.34 • Social Security provided benefits to 322,665 Texas children in 2013, 1 in 12 (8.6 percent) Texas beneficiaries [Figure 1].35 • Social Security is the most important source of income for the 803,513 children living in Texas’ grandfamilies, which are households headed by a grandparent or other relative.36

Social Security Works for Texas’ African Americans

Gus, Wisconsin Gus was a “tunnel rat” in Vietnam—one of the volunteer Army infantrymen who specialized in entering the web of narrow tunnels created by the VietCong. The tunnel rats would kill enemy soldiers hiding there and plant explosives to destroy these underground avenues of guerilla warfare. For his service in this capacity he was awarded the Silver Star, the third highest decoration for valor given by the Army. Sixteen days after he was mustered out of the Army, he returned to his home in Wisconsin—and was in a serious car crash, sustaining a high-level spinal cord injury. Because his injury was sustained outside military service, he was not eligible for service-connected disability compensation and had to turn to Social Security Disability Insurance. “To put it quite simply,” he says, “SSDI was a life saver.”

• In Texas, Social Security provided benefits to 2 in 9 (21.9 percent) African American households in 2012, 236,095 households.37 • Nationwide, Social Security lifted 1,231,000 African Americans aged 65 or older out of poverty in 2012.38 Without Social Security, the poverty rate among African American seniors would have increased from 1 in 6 (18 percent) to half (51 percent).39 • Nationwide, Social Security provided nearly three-quarters (71.5 percent) of the income of African American elderly couples and unmarried individuals receiving benefits, on average, in 2012. Social Security made up 90 percent of the total income for nearly half (46.4 percent) of these African American elderly households.40

Social Security WorkS for Texas

4

• African Americans were 12.6 percent of the population in 2011, but represented 19 percent of disabled worker beneficiaries.41

Social Security Works for Texas’ Latinos • In Texas, Social Security provided benefits to 1 in 6 (17.8 percent) Latino households in 2012, 467,340 households.42 • Nationwide, Social Security lifted 999,000 Latinos aged 65 or older out of poverty in 2012.43 Without Social Security, the poverty rate among Latino seniors would have increased from 1 in 5 (21 percent) to half (52 percent).44 • Nationwide, Social Security provided three‐ quarters (74.5 percent) of the total income of Latino elderly couples and unmarried individuals receiving benefits, on average, in 2012. Social Security was 90 percent of the income for more than half (52.6 percent) of these Latino elderly households.45 • The Social Security Administration estimates that Latinos receive a higher rate of return on their Social Security contributions than the overall population—the highest of any group. That’s

Social Security WorkS for Texas

because they tend to have lower lifetime income, longer life expectancies, higher incidence of disability and larger families.46

Social Security Works for Texas’ American Indians and Alaska Natives • In Texas, Social Security provided benefits to 2 in 9 (22 percent) American Indian and Alaska Native households in 2012, 10,183 households.47 • Nationwide, Social Security provided 90 percent of the income for 1 in 8 (12 percent) elderly American Indian and Alaska Native married couples, and half (50 percent) of elderly unmarried persons in 2011.48 • Since Social Security replaces a higher percentage of income for workers with lower earnings, Social Security replaces more of American Indians’ and Alaska Natives’ pre-retirement earnings than of the overall population. The median earnings for working‐age American Indians and Alaska Natives are about $30,000, compared to $42,000 for all working-age people. Social Security provides average benefits of about $13,251 and $11,017 annually for American Indian and Alaska Native men and women aged 65 or older, respectively.49

5

Social Security Works for Texas’ Asian Americans, Hawaiian Natives and Pacific Islanders • In Texas, Social Security provided benefits to 1 in 8 (12 percent) Asian American, Hawaiian Native and Pacific Islander households in 2012, 38,653 households.50 • Nationwide, Social Security provided, on average, over two‐thirds (67.7 percent) of the total income for Asian American households with beneficiaries aged 65 or older in 2012. Social Security was 90 percent of the income for over 4 in 10 (44.4 percent) Asian American elderly households.51 • Nationwide, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders receive a high rate of return from Social Security because of their long life expectancies. An Asian American or Pacific Islander man aged 65 in 2011, can expect to live until age 85, compared to age 82 for all men. An Asian American or Pacific Islander woman aged 65 can expect to live until age 88, compared to age 85 for all women.52

Social Security Works for Texas’ Rural Communities • Social Security is more important to Texans living in rural or non-metropolitan counties than to Texans living in metropolitan counties. 1 in 5 (21.2 percent) rural Texans received Social Security in 2012, compared with 1 in 8 (13.5 percent) metropolitan Texans.53 • Social Security is more important to the local economies of Texas’ rural or non-metropolitan counties than to those of its metropolitan counties. Total personal income in Texas’ rural counties was $108.8 billion in 2012 of which $8 billion, or 7.4 percent, was from Social Security. By comparison, total personal income in the state’s metropolitan counties was $1 trillion, of which $40 billion, or 4 percent, was from Social Security.54

Social Security WorkS for Texas

Susie, North Dakota Susie worked with her husband in their family shoe store for more than 22 years. “That’s how we made our living,” she says. “We made about $100,000 a year during good years. It wasn’t all profit, we also had expenses but we got by.” And even though her husband passed away 19 years ago, she’s reminded of their sacrifices and successes when she receives her earned Social Security and Medicare. She began work as a waitress at 14 years old in tiny Reeder, North Dakota. From there she maintained a series of jobs including later on, at her own shoe store. Today, she receives about $700 a month from Social Security along with support from Medicare. Even in Dickinson, the money doesn’t go far. “I’m on both Medicare and Social Security, and together they pay less than I earned when I worked,” Susie says. At 68 years old, Susie has the benefit of hindsight when she surveys her life and the lives of other seniors. When asked how she feels about some who say seniors could afford to get by on $50 less each month if Social Security were cut to cut, she has a stark reminder for younger generations: “Yes, $50 is a big deal! That means that I will have to drastically cut my food budget. It’s already being cut as we speak. I don’t even do entertainment out of the house anymore, because I can’t afford it. My way of living has been reduced dramatically.”

6

Social Security Works for Immigrants • Social Security is critical for all immigrants, of whom 7 in 10 (71.5 percent) were Latino or Asian American in 2012.55 • New immigrants tend to have lower career earnings, so Social Security is likely to be a larger source of retirement income for them. Nationwide, the median household income of foreign-born residents was $47,420 in 2012, 10.6 percent lower than the median for native-born Americans, which was $52,428.56 • Social Security is a lifeline for older workers who have serious health problems, difficult jobs or major work disabilities, among whom immigrants are disproportionately represented.57 Nearly 6 in 10 (55.7 percent) immigrant workers aged 58 or older work in physically demanding jobs or difficult conditions, compared with 4 in 10 (43.8 percent) native-born workers.58 • An analysis by the office of the Social Security Administration’s Chief Actuary shows that providing a path to citizenship for the country’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants would net Social Security $284 billion by 2024, extending Social Security’s full solvency by two years.59

Social Security’s Promise for Same-Sex Couples and Their Families As a result of the June 26, 2013 Supreme Court decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government now recognizes the rights of legally married same-sex couples to many federal benefits, including Social Security. While the Justice Department has determined that the Social Security Administration (SSA) must follow state law in Social Security cases, SSA encourages all potentially eligible same-sex couples—whether married, in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships—to apply for benefits (such as survivors, spousal, and related family benefits). Even if they are not yet legally eligible now, they may become so in the future; applying now creates a “protective filing date” which could potentially entitle them to retroactive benefits later.60 The Social Security and Marriage Equality (SAME) Act, for example, would amend the Social Security Act to grant survivor benefits to any individual legally married anywhere in the United States, regardless of whether Social Security WorkS for Texas

Ruby, Arizona I was born when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected into office in 1932, and three short years later he signed Social Security into law. I am retired now, so Social Security affects my life that way, but it also affected my life, and my children’s lives, through survivors’ benefits because we received benefits after their father died prematurely. It was a hunting accident. A guy across the hill from him shot, and my husband was hit, so I was left with the five kids. It was such a shock that I didn’t really know what I was going to do. It was really difficult. I got to the point where for three months, I could barely do anything and I finally had to go to the doctor. I could barely put one foot in front of me to physically walk to the doctor’s office. I don’t know what I would have done without Social Security. When I went to work, I only earned one dollar thirty cents an hour. It was tough but it was workable. Without Social Security I don’t know how it would have been.

7

he or she lives in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.61 Just as Social Security’s protections are critical for persons in traditional marriages, the availability of Social Security’s spousal and children protections are similarly crucial for: • The 50,000 same-sex couples who are married under state law,62 • The 90,000 couples in civil unions,63 • Others who are in long-term committed relationships but living in states that do not permit same-sex marriages or civil unions; and • The estimated 250,000 children being raised by same-sex couples.64 Although not all of these same-sex couples and their families have become eligible for Social Security, Social Security now works for many of our fellow

Figure 3

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Deficits n Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan n Bush-era tax cuts n Recocvery measures n TARP, Fannie and Freddie n Economic downturn $1.5

$1.2

Deficit, in trillions

Projected DEFICIT under current policies $0.9

$0.6

$0.3

DEFICITS WITHOUT THESE FACTORS

$0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: CBPP analysis based on Congressional Budget Office February 2013 estimates. Note: All components include the associated debt-service costs.

Social Security WorkS for Texas

Americans who are part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. As the population ages and as more states recognize the civil rights of these fellow Americans, Social Security will become ever more important to them.

Social Security Works Financially A public trust, Social Security is the nation’s most conservatively financed and carefully monitored institution. Social Security does not, and, by law, cannot add a penny to the federal deficit or debt (which is simply the accumulation of annual deficits).65 While the federal budget has run a deficit in every year but five over the last half century, Social Security is not allowed to pay benefits unless it has the funds to cover every penny of the cost; it simply does not have borrowing authority.66 This is why Social Security has nothing to do with reducing the federal budget deficit, and should not be part of any deficit reduction legislation considered by our nation’s leaders. To reduce the federal debt, Congress should be looking at its causes. It should not cut Social Security, which has not and cannot contribute a single penny to the federal budget deficit. The large run-up in federal deficits in recent years resulted primarily from huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003; the unpaid costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; the Great Recession, which dramatically reduced tax collections and increased unemployment compensation and other spending; the economic stimulus and recovery spending; and the Wall Street bank bailout [Figure 3].67 Not only is Social Security independent of the budget and self-funded; it is also among the most transparent pension programs in the world. Each year since 1941, Social Security’s Trustees issue a report about the program’s financial health. The annual Trustees Report projects income and outgo 75 years into the future— further than private pension programs and the Social Security programs of nearly every other nation. It is intended to provide Congress an extremely long lead time to make adjustments that are needed from time to time. Except for Medicare, no other federal program is subject to this type of scrutiny.

8

It is only because Social Security is required to project its finances 75 years into the future that we even know about its modest long-term shortfall. This year’s report, signed by Social Security’s trustees—the secretaries of the Treasury, Health and Human Services and Labor, the Commissioner of Social Security and two Public Trustees appointed by the President—projects that Social Security can pay all benefits in full and on time for nearly two decades.68 After that, if Congress were not to act, it could still pay 77 cents on every dollar of earned benefits for the remainder of the next 75 years.69 Social Security’s projected shortfall is incredibly modest as a share of the economy. Even with the retirement of the baby boomers, Social Security’s costs are projected to go from their current level of just under 5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to a peak of 6.2 percent in 2035, remaining just below that level thereafter.70 The cost of bringing Social Security into actuarial balance is equal to 1 percent of GDP.71 This increase in Social Security spending is smaller than the increase in spending on public education that occurred when the boomers were children.72 Our Social Security system can and should keep all its commitments without cutting benefits. For example, one approach would have everyone pay the same payroll contribution rate (6.2 percent) as about 94 percent of all American workers do.73 While the vast majority of Americans must make contributions on all of their wages, millionaires and billionaires only do so on the first $117,000 of their earnings this year.74 Asking all Americans to pay the same rate would come close to closing Social Security’s entire projected 75-year funding gap.75

Social Security WorkS for Texas

Mike, Ohio Mike was a small business owner. He had his own home construction business. While on vacation in the Bahamas, he suffered a massive stroke. He was only 60 years old. Although he did receive some initial medical attention in the Bahamas, his family, through the help of friends, was able to charter a plane to bring him back to states for treatment. His stroke left him paralyzed on his right side and with aphasia, which means he understand, but cannot speak. While most SSDI cases take usually a couple of years to get approval, Mike’s case was so compelling, he was approved immediately. In the seven years since his accident, Mike has managed to go through his IRA, which he used to pay for unexpected medical expenses. If he did not have SSDI and now his retirement benefit, his family does not know what he would have done.

9

Conclusion: Maintaining a Legacy for All Generations Social Security represents the best of American values—rewarding hard work, honoring our parents, caring for our neighbors, and taking responsibility for ourselves and our families. It is based on a promise that if you pay in, then you earn the right to guaranteed benefits. Given that the administration of the Social Security program is funded from the contributions of insured workers, not general revenues, part of the promise of Social Security is excellent customer service. Indeed, SSA has long been known for this,76 all while operating extremely efficiently on an administrative budget amounting to less than one percent of revenues. In recent years, however, Congress has repeatedly severely limited SSA’s budget, restricting its use of its own dedicated surplus, which has required field office closures, staff reductions, suspension of benefit statements and other measures that have significantly compromised the agency’s service, even as the agency has coped with the enormous increase in caseloads stemming from the aging of the Baby Boom generation.77 It is critical that Congress permit SSA to spend more of its surplus so that it can re-open closed offices, open new ones, and continue to provide stellar customer service to the American people. Our Social Security system has withstood the test of time. Like our interstate highway system, however, Social Security requires periodic maintenance to remain strong. Now it is our turn to maintain and build upon that structure, as those who came before have done. It is our turn to preserve and improve these valuable systems for ourselves and for those who follow. It is our turn to build a legacy for our nation’s children and grandchildren so when they become workers, they will have the economic security that Social Security provides.

Social Security WorkS for Texas

Maintaining our Social Security system must not be reduced to a matter of simple arithmetic. Any changes we make to Social Security must help advance the program’s mission of providing economic security and dignity for America’s working families. Closing the program’s modest funding gap is a means to achieve this mission, not an end in itself. Cutting benefits now merely to avoid cutting them later would solve the arithmetic problem at the expense of Social Security’s fundamental promise. For example, basing Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustments on the stingier chained CPI (Consumer Price Index), a cut proposed by many in Washington, would undermine the adequacy of Social Security’s modest benefits. It would hit long-time beneficiaries, such as people with disabilities and the oldest old, the hardest, at a time in their lives when most have little else on which to live. Under the chained CPI, the average earner retiring at age 65 would see a cumulative benefit cut of $4,642 at age 75, $13,921 at age 85, and $28,015 at age 95.78 As important as Social Security is today, the need for it will only increase in coming years. Our nation faces an impending retirement income crisis. More than half (53 percent) of today’s working Americans are not expected to have sufficient resources to maintain their standard of living in old age.79 The outlook is even more dismal when anticipated health and long-term care expenditures are counted; then, roughly twothirds of working-age households are not expected to be able to maintain their living standard in retirement.80 The retirement income crisis is the result of changes in the economy that have diminished private sources of retirement income. Employers have been increasingly terminating traditional pension plans and either not replacing them, or replacing them with far more risky and inadequate 401(k) accounts. Just over half (52.5 percent) of all working heads of household are eligible

10

for an employer-sponsored retirement plan; less than half (44.6 percent) actually participate.81 Among those households nearing retirement (aged 55-64) with a 401(k) plan, IRA, or both, the median balance was $100,000.82 But 45 percent of households do not even own a retirement account, and 6 in 10 households nearing retirement have less than a year’s salary worth of retirement savings. Hence the median retirement account balance for all U.S. households aged 55-64 is only $12,000.83 Were it not for Social Security, the retirement income crisis would inevitably be much worse. Social Security continues to prove steady, stable, and reliable. In a world of stagnant wages and risky or inadequate 401(k) plans, Social Security is a fortress of security and reliability. In this uncertain world, where no one is invulnerable to the tragedy of premature death or serious and permanent disability, Social Security is there to cushion the economic blow of such tragedies. Further, Social Security benefits, while growing in importance, are already modest and declining. For a lifetime average earner retiring at age 65 in

2013, Social Security benefits replace 41 percent of pre-retirement earnings.84 That replacement rate alone ranks 30th out of 34 among countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.85 Social Security’s replacement rate will drop to 36 percent of pre-retirement earnings by 2025, mostly due to the ongoing increase in the full retirement age to 67.86 If health care costs continue to rise faster than inflation, Medicare Part B and Part D premiums will further reduce Social Security benefits’ value.87 The solution is clear. It is time to double down on what works. It is time to expand Social Security, not cut it. Social Security Works and the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, which includes over 300 national and state groups representing over 50 million Americans, support legislation in Congress that would do just that. Expanding Social Security is not only affordable; it is a wise public investment. With 64.6 percent of total income growth over the past thirty years going to the top one percent, while the aggregate income of the bottom 90 percent actually declined,88 and other sources of retirement security dwindling or unreliable, this is not the time to accept further cuts to Social Security as a “reasonable compromise,” as little “tweaks” that will do no lasting harm. Rather, this is the time for reasonable people to talk about expanding Social Security, just as the majority of Americans want. At base, this is about what kind of nation we want to live in and leave for those who follow. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. Our nation is much wealthier than it was in 1935, 1939, 1956, 1965, or 1972, when Social Security’s key structures were built and improved. The consequences of not expanding Social Security are far worse—a deeper retirement income crisis; greater income inequality; a more sluggish consumer economy—than the cost of doing what is right.

Social Security WorkS for Texas

11

2,336,147

574,276

320,634

202,698

322,665

Retired workers

Disabled workers

Widow(er)s

Spouses

Children 11,857

6,971

12,904

22,988

87,789

N/A

20.3%

6,767

5,105

6,545

9,639

56,411

N/A

11.7%

84,467

723,080

$1,343M

2

5,686

4,431

5,529

7,880

56,086

N/A

11.0%

79,612

724,712

$1,299M

3

11,696

6,000

11,916

24,743

93,115

N/A

20.9%

147,470

704,633

$2,021M

4

9,936

4,674

9,797

20,786

77,010

N/A

17.2%

122,203

711,441

$1,706M

5

9,274

4,330

7,233

15,252

63,303

N/A

13.9%

99,392

714,545

$1,456M

6

5,601

5,427

6,617

7,348

53,500

N/A

11.0%

78,493

714,849

$1,304M

7

8,702

6,238

9,974

15,636

81,086

N/A

16.8%

121,636

723,640

$1,818M

8

Congressional Districts

8,891

3,604

5,679

14,398

45,205

N/A

11.0%

77,777

704,014

$997M

9

7,905

4,955

7,934

12,832

66,306

N/A

14.1%

99,932

708,312

$1,490M

10

9,237

7,411

12,678

18,144

87,499

N/A

19.1%

134,969

706,946

$1,845M

11

7,920

5,005

9,094

15,166

70,930

N/A

15.0%

108,115

719,711

$1,605M

12

*The annual benefits for the Congressional districts were calculated by taking the monthly benefits and multiplying by 12. The state annual benefits number is the sum of the congressional district numbers.

Sources: “U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, “2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates,” 2013. SSA, “Texas,” Congressional Statistics, December 2013, 2014. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J5.1: Number by state or other area and sex, December 2013,” July 2014.

1,885,277

14.6%

Percent of residents receiving Social Security benefits

Women

3,756,420

Number of residents receiving Social Security benefits 142,509

703,224

25,644,550

Number of residents in state/ congressional district

1 $1,976M

State Total

Appendix 1: Social Security Works for Texas’ Congressional Districts (Page 1/3)

Total annual benefits $51,356M ($ in millions)*

Social Security Beneficiaries by category

Social Security WorkS for Texas

12

2,336,147

574,276

320,634

202,698

322,665

Retired workers

Disabled workers

Widow(er)s

Spouses

Children 8,736

6,414

11,760

18,449

79,260

N/A

17.8%

10,233

6,296

11,608

19,660

72,244

N/A

17.1%

120,041

703,773

$1,748M

14

9,904

7,059

8,983

15,128

55,123

N/A

13.5%

96,197

714,244

$1,011M

15

9,681

8,482

10,517

17,037

59,489

N/A

14.8%

105,206

711,491

$1,153M

16

9,296

4,691

8,575

16,908

64,660

N/A

14.7%

104,130

708,910

$1,417M

17

9,700

3,443

7,838

18,219

48,943

N/A

12.4%

88,143

713,599

$1,107M

18

9,610

6,484

11,549

17,573

73,494

N/A

16.8%

118,710

704,522

$1,580M

19

10,924

5,627

8,757

20,417

60,015

N/A

14.9%

105,740

710,016

$1,239M

20

Congressional Districts

7,350

6,526

9,673

13,990

88,587

N/A

17.6%

126,126

716,736

$1,896M

21

7,063

4,980

6,289

8,788

52,133

N/A

10.9%

79,253

727,399

$1,219M

22

11,057

8,765

10,475

18,116

66,176

N/A

16.1%

114,589

711,152

$1,315M

23

5,259

4,072

5,926

9,095

56,740

N/A

11.3%

81,092

718,266

$1,306M

24

*The annual benefits for the Congressional districts were calculated by taking the monthly benefits and multiplying by 12. The state annual benefits number is the sum of the congressional district numbers.

Sources: “U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, “2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates,” 2013. SSA, “Texas,” Congressional Statistics, December 2013, 2014. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J5.1: Number by state or other area and sex, December 2013,” July 2014.

1,885,277

14.6%

Percent of residents receiving Social Security benefits

Women

3,756,420

Number of residents receiving Social Security benefits 124,619

699,483

25,644,550

Number of residents in state/ congressional district

13 $1,713M

State Total

Appendix 1: Social Security Works for Texas’ Congressional Districts (Page 2/3)

Total annual benefits $51,356M ($ in millions)*

Social Security Beneficiaries by category

Social Security WorkS for Texas

13

2,336,147

574,276

320,634

202,698

322,665

Retired workers

Disabled workers

Widow(er)s

Spouses

Children 9,344

5,604

8,625

15,484

75,051

N/A

15.9%

6,956

3,515

5,716

9,427

54,464

N/A

11.1%

80,078

724,499

$1,257M

26

11,201

7,379

13,043

21,207

79,879

N/A

18.8%

132,709

704,288

$1,753M

27

11,117

7,803

9,554

16,597

58,167

N/A

14.4%

103,238

717,279

$1,121M

28

7,512

5,393

7,187

12,346

39,591

N/A

10.1%

72,029

711,135

$877M

29

9,770

2,880

6,773

21,647

55,805

N/A

13.8%

96,875

701,889

$1,236M

30

8,951

4,629

7,681

15,219

64,849

N/A

14.0%

101,329

721,902

$1,436M

31

5,758

5,040

6,721

10,908

62,353

N/A

12.7%

90,780

712,074

$1,451M

32

Congressional Districts

7,855

3,634

5,976

15,594

42,712

N/A

10.8%

75,771

704,441

$913M

33

10,785

8,072

10,964

16,651

63,427

N/A

15.6%

109,899

705,853

$1,169M

34

10,549

4,005

7,631

20,968

52,206

N/A

13.2%

95,359

719,739

$1,112M

35

10,582

7,754

12,913

20,036

72,539

N/A

17.6%

123,824

704,476

$1,814M

36

*The annual benefits for the Congressional districts were calculated by taking the monthly benefits and multiplying by 12. The state annual benefits number is the sum of the congressional district numbers.

Sources: “U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, “2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates,” 2013. SSA, “Texas,” Congressional Statistics, December 2013, 2014. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J5.1: Number by state or other area and sex, December 2013,” July 2014.

1,885,277

14.6%

Percent of residents receiving Social Security benefits

Women

3,756,420

Number of residents receiving Social Security benefits 114,108

718,277

25,644,550

Number of residents in state/ congressional district

25 $1,652M

State Total

Appendix 1: Social Security Works for Texas’ Congressional Districts (Page 3/3)

Total annual benefits $51,356M ($ in millions)*

Social Security Beneficiaries by category

Social Security WorkS for Texas

14

Social Security WorkS for Texas

15

Texas Total (254 Counties) Anderson Andrews Angelina Aransas Archer Armstrong Atascosa Austin Bailey Bandera Bastrop Baylor Bee Bell Bexar Blanco Borden Bosque Bowie Brazoria Brazos Brewster Briscoe Brooks Brown Burleson Burnet Caldwell

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

$50,747 $41,530 $57,690 $39,747 $40,883 $55,459 $50,040 $44,828 $51,448 $38,504 $48,492 $50,024 $33,164 $39,070 $48,391 $49,651 $52,668 $58,489 $40,763 $40,574 $64,883 $40,064 $39,235 $35,983 $26,857 $43,303 $43,561 $49,685 $42,963

26,059,203

Non-Metropolitan 58,190 Non-Metropolitan 16,117 Non-Metropolitan 87,597 Metropolitan 23,818 Metropolitan 8,735 Metropolitan 1,944 Metropolitan 46,446 Metropolitan 28,618 Non-Metropolitan 7,130 Metropolitan 20,537 Metropolitan 74,763 Non-Metropolitan 3,623 Non-Metropolitan 32,527 Metropolitan 323,037 Metropolitan 1,785,704 Non-Metropolitan 10,655 Non-Metropolitan 616 Non-Metropolitan 18,125 Metropolitan 93,148 Metropolitan 324,769 Metropolitan 200,665 Non-Metropolitan 9,316 Non-Metropolitan 1,561 Non-Metropolitan 7,161 Non-Metropolitan 37,825 Metropolitan 17,291 Non-Metropolitan 43,448 Metropolitan 38,734

N/A 22.5% 11.3% 20.8% 19.6% 9.4% 11.0% 17.8% 11.8% 17.5% 13.9% 14.3% 19.5% 27.6% 14.4% 19.1% 12.7% 8.8% 16.4% 20.3% 11.7% 27.2% 15.1% 16.3% 32.1% 18.9% 16.0% 15.3% 20.0%

17.9% 7,614 1,659 12,456 6,139 1,534 398 6,237 4,809 1,026 4,639 9,488 914 3,537 29,693 191,424 2,155 136 4,036 13,728 33,128 15,575 1,620 363 1,277 6,914 3,144 8,718 4,881

2,839,295 13.1% 10.3% 14.2% 25.8% 17.6% 20.5% 13.4% 16.8% 14.4% 22.6% 12.7% 25.2% 10.9% 9.2% 10.7% 20.2% 22.1% 22.3% 14.7% 10.2% 7.8% 17.4% 23.3% 17.8% 18.3% 18.2% 20.1% 12.6%

10.9%

4.3%

$136,212,000 7.4% $30,432,000 3.8% $237,936,000 7.5% $105,060,000 9.5% $25,812,000 5.7% $6,432,000 6.7% $100,788,000 6.1% $85,020,000 6.7% $14,400,000 5.8% $77,100,000 8.9% $183,144,000 7.6% $14,052,000 9.5% $55,608,000 5.6% $558,324,000 4.0% $3,396,612,000 4.6% $35,832,000 6.2% $1,836,000 4.9% $66,936,000 10.0% $239,052,000 6.8% $668,916,000 4.7% $288,108,000 4.3% $25,140,000 6.1% $5,208,000 9.6% $17,712,000 7.3% $120,384,000 9.6% $53,436,000 7.7% $160,824,000 8.2% $85,992,000 7.5%

$51,355,524,000 17.5% 13.2% 20.4% 31.3% 21.3% 23.7% 18.3% 20.2% 16.5% 27.2% 17.9% 30.1% 14.4% 13.7% 15.3% 23.4% 22.7% 26.2% 20.7% 13.7% 10.1% 20.9% 27.2% 24.3% 24.3% 23.2% 25.4% 17.4%

14.4% 10,200 2,130 17,865 7,455 1,860 460 8,510 5,795 1,175 5,585 13,350 1,090 4,700 44,415 273,000 2,495 140 4,740 19,295 44,595 20,220 1,945 425 1,740 9,190 4,015 11,020 6,735

3,756,425 6,065 1,200 10,080 5,170 1,195 320 4,665 3,950 725 3,835 8,710 695 2,575 24,420 158,595 1,815 90 3,300 11,140 27,680 13,005 1,425 280 970 5,865 2,585 7,935 4,265

2,336,150 1,820 340 3,210 970 270 45 1,580 640 140 775 2,205 175 785 9,090 49,930 250 5 610 3,790 6,245 2,790 210 30 275 1,495 615 1,105 1,100

574,275

960 270 1,620 550 180 40 795 540 135 370 925 110 575 3,525 22,155 205 20 380 1,635 4,130 1,650 140 50 225 735 360 845 590

320,635

435 155 885 370 100 30 555 305 95 265 450 50 315 2,005 14,440 130 15 210 715 2,700 1,045 80 45 115 415 195 615 260

202,695

920 165 2,070 395 115 25 915 360 80 340 1,060 60 450 5,375 27,880 95 10 240 2,015 3,840 1,730 90 20 155 680 260 520 520

322,665

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

% of Median % of % of Total Population % in Population Annual Total Retired Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Personal Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Receiving Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 1/9)

Social Security WorkS for Texas

16

Calhoun Callahan Cameron Camp Carson Cass Castro Chambers Cherokee Childress Clay Cochran Coke Coleman Collin Collingsworth Colorado Comal Comanche Concho Cooke Coryell Cottle Crane Crockett Crosby Culberson Dallam Dallas Dawson

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

595 445 8,700 460 135 1,465 120 860 1,910 215 370 95 105 305 9,250 75 585 2,880 425 85 985 1,780 65 95 80 180 75 130 50,880 340

425 265 5,720 255 120 805 145 600 880 130 225 60 95 205 6,125 80 470 1,855 320 55 650 840 55 75 70 145 50 100 21,990 295

305 155 4,555 135 75 375 125 330 405 75 125 65 50 115 4,790 35 255 1,245 235 40 320 500 20 60 50 85 30 75 13,030 205

300 220 6,070 210 70 710 105 475 885 80 180 40 40 135 6,655 45 290 1,635 230 40 450 1,200 20 60 50 105 50 65 24,615 155

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

% of Median % of % of Total Population % in Population Annual Total Retired Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Personal Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Receiving Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013 Non-Metropolitan 21,609 $44,736 16.7% 3,353 15.5% $58,308,000 7.3% 19.6% 4,235 2,610 Metropolitan 13,517 $41,874 16.5% 2,606 19.3% $43,332,000 8.7% 24.3% 3,280 2,195 Metropolitan 415,557 $31,080 35.5% 48,185 11.6% $618,300,000 5.8% 14.4% 60,040 34,995 Non-Metropolitan 12,449 $37,232 22.1% 2,085 16.7% $38,448,000 8.6% 22.6% 2,815 1,755 Metropolitan 6,157 $53,302 8.9% 1,070 17.4% $17,280,000 6.2% 19.2% 1,185 785 Non-Metropolitan 30,166 $36,172 20.1% 6,224 20.6% $106,428,000 10.1% 26.8% 8,085 4,730 Non-Metropolitan 8,164 $40,710 20.1% 1,103 13.5% $15,936,000 4.2% 15.3% 1,250 755 Metropolitan 36,196 $73,031 9.0% 3,688 10.2% $88,164,000 4.4% 16.1% 5,810 3,545 Non-Metropolitan 51,206 $35,202 26.7% 7,968 15.6% $139,440,000 8.5% 20.7% 10,575 6,495 Non-Metropolitan 7,029 $34,731 25.0% 1,074 15.3% $16,560,000 9.1% 19.0% 1,335 835 Metropolitan 10,535 $51,960 11.7% 2,012 19.1% $35,484,000 6.3% 24.8% 2,610 1,710 Non-Metropolitan 3,046 $35,652 20.7% 463 15.2% $7,296,000 6.2% 20.2% 615 355 Non-Metropolitan 3,231 $37,891 14.7% 840 26.0% $11,844,000 10.5% 27.4% 885 595 Non-Metropolitan 8,675 $32,231 22.0% 1,953 22.5% $31,824,000 10.3% 28.8% 2,500 1,740 Metropolitan 834,642 $81,992 7.8% 73,018 8.7% $1,440,588,000 2.8% 10.7% 89,215 62,395 Non-Metropolitan 3,036 $35,484 21.2% 541 17.8% $8,040,000 7.1% 21.6% 655 420 Non-Metropolitan 20,696 $40,702 17.8% 4,094 19.8% $69,120,000 7.3% 23.7% 4,895 3,295 Metropolitan 114,384 $59,081 10.0% 18,987 16.6% $378,720,000 6.6% 22.4% 25,565 17,950 Non-Metropolitan 13,765 $36,522 21.4% 3,084 22.4% $47,280,000 9.4% 26.6% 3,665 2,455 Non-Metropolitan 4,010 $37,147 33.7% 606 15.1% $8,748,000 8.2% 17.5% 700 480 Non-Metropolitan 38,688 $51,473 14.8% 6,509 16.8% $111,540,000 5.3% 20.0% 7,750 5,345 Metropolitan 77,231 $46,132 14.6% 6,148 8.0% $115,536,000 3.9% 12.4% 9,565 5,245 Non-Metropolitan 1,486 $30,660 20.8% 365 24.6% $5,640,000 9.6% 31.0% 460 300 Non-Metropolitan 4,562 $55,599 10.1% 547 12.0% $9,096,000 4.3% 14.8% 675 385 Non-Metropolitan 3,743 $46,713 14.3% 557 14.9% $8,520,000 5.4% 18.3% 685 435 Metropolitan 6,126 $36,492 24.3% 1,076 17.6% $16,584,000 6.4% 21.6% 1,325 810 Non-Metropolitan 2,290 $31,430 23.2% 368 16.1% $5,256,000 6.5% 22.1% 505 300 Non-Metropolitan 6,996 $40,312 13.8% 609 8.7% $12,336,000 3.7% 13.7% 960 590 Metropolitan 2,453,843 $47,343 19.3% 224,990 9.2% $4,257,420,000 3.4% 12.2% 298,625 188,110 Non-Metropolitan 13,640 $36,312 22.3% 1,944 14.3% $31,980,000 7.2% 18.1% 2,465 1,470

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 2/9)

Social Security WorkS for Texas

17

Deaf Smith Delta Denton DeWitt Dickens Dimmit Donley Duval Eastland Ector Edwards Ellis El Paso Erath Falls Fannin Fayette Fisher Floyd Foard Fort Bend Franklin Freestone Frio Gaines Galveston Garza Gillespie Glasscock Goliad

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

395 210 8,860 660 80 335 95 405 630 3,285 60 3,720 20,095 745 660 1,270 580 105 140 50 7,575 320 555 425 275 7,495 120 535 15 220

305 95 5,170 495 50 225 95 335 475 2,305 65 1,710 11,785 535 295 605 565 115 140 30 4,755 210 330 310 255 4,370 80 545 15 160

230 40 3,235 260 20 140 50 225 210 1,360 45 940 9,930 320 140 275 315 65 115 25 4,005 115 180 180 180 2,240 55 430 30 110

200 95 6,440 290 45 210 40 275 285 1,785 30 2,005 11,215 510 295 515 315 60 80 20 6,365 195 310 265 200 3,960 65 295 5 125

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

% of Median % of % of Total Population % in Population Annual Total Retired Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Personal Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Receiving Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013 Non-Metropolitan 19,360 $39,481 17.7% 2,220 11.5% $35,448,000 4.8% 14.6% 2,830 1,700 Non-Metropolitan 5,329 $37,515 19.0% 1,124 21.1% $18,180,000 10.2% 26.3% 1,400 960 Metropolitan 707,304 $71,338 8.8% 55,023 7.8% $1,162,356,000 3.4% 10.5% 74,030 50,325 Non-Metropolitan 20,465 $40,515 19.4% 3,844 18.8% $59,544,000 6.8% 22.4% 4,575 2,870 Non-Metropolitan 2,323 $32,829 24.2% 469 20.2% $7,212,000 9.4% 25.4% 590 395 Non-Metropolitan 10,461 $33,342 25.7% 1,531 14.6% $19,620,000 4.6% 19.2% 2,010 1,100 Non-Metropolitan 3,598 $35,081 19.8% 769 21.4% $11,544,000 8.6% 24.6% 885 605 Non-Metropolitan 11,717 $33,223 25.3% 1,961 16.7% $27,312,000 5.7% 21.5% 2,520 1,280 Non-Metropolitan 18,421 $37,916 21.4% 3,760 20.4% $60,648,000 4.6% 25.3% 4,665 3,065 Metropolitan 144,325 $49,784 14.5% 14,367 10.0% $261,636,000 4.1% 13.5% 19,540 10,805 Non-Metropolitan 1,968 $34,388 22.2% 442 22.5% $6,276,000 8.2% 26.4% 520 320 Metropolitan 153,969 $58,016 10.9% 16,809 10.9% $348,240,000 5.8% 15.5% 23,810 15,435 Metropolitan 827,398 $40,092 24.0% 87,237 10.5% $1,279,200,000 4.8% 14.4% 118,975 65,950 Non-Metropolitan 39,321 $38,636 22.2% 5,138 13.1% $82,356,000 6.4% 15.6% 6,135 4,025 Metropolitan 17,610 $34,388 24.9% 2,913 16.5% $42,912,000 7.7% 20.1% 3,535 2,145 Non-Metropolitan 33,831 $43,183 17.7% 6,058 17.9% $104,520,000 9.3% 22.7% 7,695 5,030 Non-Metropolitan 24,695 $46,907 12.7% 5,638 22.8% $89,256,000 8.1% 25.4% 6,280 4,505 Non-Metropolitan 3,844 $38,963 15.7% 899 23.4% $12,984,000 9.3% 25.6% 985 640 Non-Metropolitan 6,367 $34,503 24.5% 1,127 17.7% $16,704,000 6.6% 20.5% 1,305 830 Non-Metropolitan 1,307 $32,041 18.4% 338 25.9% $4,452,000 8.9% 27.5% 360 235 Metropolitan 627,293 $86,037 8.9% 52,764 8.4% $983,076,000 2.7% 10.4% 65,025 42,325 Non-Metropolitan 10,640 $40,892 17.0% 2,078 19.5% $35,676,000 8.9% 23.8% 2,535 1,695 Non-Metropolitan 19,515 $45,402 16.7% 3,399 17.4% $53,256,000 7.3% 19.9% 3,890 2,515 Non-Metropolitan 17,702 $32,276 32.0% 2,022 11.4% $27,876,000 4.9% 14.7% 2,610 1,430 Non-Metropolitan 18,413 $46,659 15.9% 1,733 9.4% $25,344,000 3.7% 11.1% 2,035 1,125 Metropolitan 300,484 $59,588 12.3% 35,942 12.0% $734,796,000 5.0% 16.4% 49,260 31,195 Non-Metropolitan 6,412 $39,988 30.6% 724 11.3% $11,160,000 3.4% 13.5% 865 545 Non-Metropolitan 25,153 $51,132 12.2% 6,981 27.8% $109,620,000 8.8% 30.2% 7,605 5,800 Non-Metropolitan 1,259 $55,394 9.5% 173 13.7% $2,580,000 3.5% 15.1% 190 125 Metropolitan 7,351 $46,400 16.2% 1,461 19.9% $21,852,000 8.6% 22.9% 1,680 1,065

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 3/9)

Social Security WorkS for Texas

18

Gonzales Gray Grayson Gregg Grimes Guadalupe Hale Hall Hamilton Hansford Hardeman Hardin Harris Harrison Hartley Haskell Hays Hemphill Henderson Hidalgo Hill Hockley Hood Hopkins Houston Howard Hudspeth Hunt Hutchinson Irion

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

630 590 4,410 3,980 805 3,495 800 105 260 80 160 1,770 71,675 2,285 45 170 2,980 45 3,360 15,540 1,265 585 1,335 1,180 830 975 105 3,220 580 35

395 445 2,075 2,350 495 1,820 595 85 190 105 90 1,230 41,110 1,140 65 170 1,580 55 1,655 8,870 710 470 1,035 675 505 580 60 1,280 485 40

180 315 970 1,115 265 1,110 410 55 115 100 40 745 27,725 615 60 85 950 45 805 7,845 355 295 665 335 230 265 65 605 300 25

290 310 1,830 2,055 430 2,000 420 50 140 50 70 940 44,835 1,150 25 70 1,690 30 1,305 10,615 580 350 640 580 390 500 60 1,385 255 20

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

% of Median % of % of Total Population % in Population Annual Total Retired Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Personal Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Receiving Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013 Non-Metropolitan 20,045 $36,006 20.7% 3,102 15.5% $50,160,000 7.0% 20.0% 4,000 2,505 Non-Metropolitan 22,978 $43,131 17.6% 3,554 15.5% $62,412,000 6.2% 19.3% 4,435 2,775 Metropolitan 121,935 $46,127 16.4% 19,854 16.3% $377,208,000 8.4% 21.8% 26,605 17,320 Metropolitan 122,658 $43,321 18.8% 16,799 13.7% $330,372,000 5.5% 19.3% 23,625 14,125 Non-Metropolitan 26,783 $42,674 19.9% 4,038 15.1% $71,484,000 7.3% 19.6% 5,240 3,245 Metropolitan 139,841 $62,141 9.5% 17,241 12.3% $306,792,000 5.1% 16.4% 22,920 14,495 Non-Metropolitan 36,385 $40,118 22.0% 4,401 12.1% $72,372,000 6.6% 15.7% 5,710 3,485 Non-Metropolitan 3,293 $28,656 24.3% 747 22.7% $10,740,000 10.5% 25.7% 845 550 Non-Metropolitan 8,307 $37,386 17.4% 2,123 25.6% $31,020,000 9.6% 28.1% 2,335 1,630 Non-Metropolitan 5,521 $51,038 13.2% 790 14.3% $12,696,000 4.0% 16.6% 915 580 Non-Metropolitan 4,082 $34,601 18.3% 803 19.7% $12,720,000 8.7% 24.3% 990 630 Metropolitan 55,190 $52,318 12.9% 7,839 14.2% $160,956,000 6.9% 20.1% 11,105 6,420 Metropolitan 4,253,700 $51,298 18.6% 369,564 8.7% $6,845,556,000 2.8% 11.3% 478,575 293,230 Non-Metropolitan 67,450 $44,958 17.9% 9,437 14.0% $174,972,000 5.3% 19.3% 12,985 7,795 Non-Metropolitan 6,144 $61,498 11.7% 870 14.2% $8,856,000 2.7% 9.8% 605 410 Non-Metropolitan 5,901 $31,505 24.7% 1,288 21.8% $18,624,000 9.3% 24.7% 1,455 960 Metropolitan 168,990 $55,819 16.3% 15,570 9.2% $321,876,000 5.1% 13.0% 22,015 14,815 Non-Metropolitan 4,080 $60,499 8.6% 506 12.4% $7,584,000 2.4% 13.0% 530 355 Non-Metropolitan 79,094 $38,017 23.1% 15,846 20.0% $289,392,000 10.1% 26.1% 20,620 13,495 Metropolitan 806,552 $33,393 34.2% 78,782 9.8% $941,976,000 4.9% 12.3% 98,885 56,015 Non-Metropolitan 35,115 $37,610 20.0% 6,692 19.1% $117,300,000 9.4% 24.4% 8,560 5,650 Non-Metropolitan 23,072 $46,010 16.8% 3,111 13.5% $53,424,000 4.9% 17.4% 4,005 2,305 Metropolitan 52,044 $56,591 11.6% 11,819 22.7% $217,140,000 9.1% 27.4% 14,235 10,560 Non-Metropolitan 35,469 $40,228 17.4% 5,812 16.4% $102,228,000 8.0% 21.6% 7,665 4,895 Non-Metropolitan 23,161 $33,650 25.5% 4,709 20.3% $71,316,000 9.7% 23.1% 5,350 3,395 Non-Metropolitan 35,408 $42,256 20.9% 4,565 12.9% $72,900,000 5.6% 16.1% 5,705 3,385 Metropolitan 3,337 $30,043 29.7% 499 15.0% $5,880,000 5.3% 18.6% 620 330 Metropolitan 87,079 $42,821 19.5% 12,803 14.7% $245,760,000 8.0% 20.3% 17,665 11,175 Non-Metropolitan 21,922 $50,752 13.2% 3,216 14.7% $61,164,000 6.8% 19.2% 4,205 2,585 Metropolitan 1,573 $57,551 10.1% 293 18.6% $4,776,000 5.2% 22.3% 350 230

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 4/9)

Social Security WorkS for Texas

19

Jack Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis Jefferson Jim Hogg Jim Wells Johnson Jones Karnes Kaufman Kendall Kenedy Kent Kerr Kimble King Kinney Kleberg Knox Lamar Lamb Lampasas La Salle Lavaca Lee Leon Liberty Limestone Lipscomb

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

190 400 1,395 45 8,405 140 1,355 4,225 490 450 3,015 630 5 10 1,555 130 5 95 760 100 2,165 405 680 185 555 455 615 2,550 890 65

170 370 910 30 4,770 145 965 2,130 325 310 1,320 630 10 35 1,165 125 0 85 585 105 1,000 330 380 125 495 315 450 1,585 395 55

100 195 590 45 2,435 75 605 1,150 170 185 580 475 0 10 785 70 0 50 370 70 500 220 265 85 245 175 260 830 195 50

110 265 745 25 4,180 90 865 2,440 285 210 1,605 400 15 5 690 50 0 60 430 40 865 195 355 130 275 240 260 1,195 610 20

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

% of Median % of % of Total Population % in Population Annual Total Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Personal Retired Receiving Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013 Non-Metropolitan 8,983 $44,064 16.9% 1,406 15.7% $23,868,000 5.9% 19.1% 1,720 1,150 Non-Metropolitan 14,255 $45,363 15.6% 2,420 17.0% $40,752,000 7.4% 20.8% 2,970 1,740 Non-Metropolitan 35,923 $39,219 20.6% 6,246 17.4% $116,376,000 9.2% 23.6% 8,485 4,845 Non-Metropolitan 2,307 $43,065 13.2% 619 26.8% $8,292,000 9.2% 28.2% 650 505 Metropolitan 251,813 $41,207 21.1% 32,598 12.9% $643,884,000 6.4% 18.2% 45,785 25,995 Non-Metropolitan 5,249 $34,546 24.7% 836 15.9% $10,752,000 5.2% 19.1% 1,000 550 Non-Metropolitan 41,754 $43,696 20.1% 5,652 13.5% $98,244,000 5.1% 19.5% 8,135 4,345 Metropolitan 153,441 $56,659 12.9% 18,945 12.3% $385,608,000 6.6% 17.6% 26,980 17,035 Metropolitan 19,973 $38,066 26.6% 2,830 14.2% $44,352,000 7.2% 17.4% 3,480 2,210 Non-Metropolitan 15,233 $37,292 27.1% 2,158 14.2% $33,828,000 6.7% 18.2% 2,775 1,620 Metropolitan 106,753 $55,044 14.1% 11,824 11.1% $255,828,000 6.3% 16.9% 18,025 11,505 Metropolitan 35,956 $68,975 8.9% 6,478 18.0% $122,832,000 5.2% 22.4% 8,040 5,905 Non-Metropolitan 431 $36,236 16.4% 64 14.8% $672,000 2.3% 15.1% 65 35 Non-Metropolitan 839 $38,627 12.9% 232 27.7% $2,628,000 8.7% 22.6% 190 130 Non-Metropolitan 49,786 $40,919 18.4% 12,898 25.9% $214,008,000 9.4% 30.2% 15,050 10,855 Non-Metropolitan 4,560 $38,378 18.9% 1,139 25.0% $16,464,000 9.3% 27.5% 1,255 880 Non-Metropolitan 276 $53,263 9.8% 45 16.3% $420,000 3.1% 10.9% 30 25 Non-Metropolitan 3,603 $38,870 22.9% 893 24.8% $11,388,000 9.9% 26.2% 945 655 Non-Metropolitan 32,025 $39,237 24.3% 3,834 12.0% $60,120,000 5.0% 15.7% 5,020 2,875 Non-Metropolitan 3,789 $33,182 21.1% 809 21.4% $11,160,000 8.2% 23.4% 885 570 Non-Metropolitan 49,811 $37,943 23.0% 8,763 17.6% $157,428,000 8.5% 23.9% 11,920 7,390 Non-Metropolitan 14,008 $34,505 20.3% 2,260 16.1% $34,488,000 7.9% 19.8% 2,780 1,630 Metropolitan 20,107 $48,442 16.3% 3,390 16.9% $60,204,000 5.5% 23.2% 4,665 2,985 Non-Metropolitan 7,109 $32,001 34.4% 926 13.0% $12,300,000 5.1% 16.9% 1,200 675 Non-Metropolitan 19,468 $41,606 12.2% 4,186 21.5% $69,168,000 8.4% 26.3% 5,115 3,545 Non-Metropolitan 16,601 $49,906 14.1% 2,785 16.8% $47,400,000 6.3% 20.8% 3,445 2,260 Non-Metropolitan 16,803 $42,201 16.7% 3,742 22.3% $72,792,000 11.1% 29.8% 5,015 3,430 Metropolitan 76,571 $48,441 18.6% 9,265 12.1% $190,296,000 6.7% 17.6% 13,490 7,330 Non-Metropolitan 23,585 $36,496 21.9% 3,958 16.8% $67,428,000 8.1% 22.1% 5,205 3,115 Non-Metropolitan 3,480 $51,003 11.3% 505 14.5% $7,404,000 4.1% 15.9% 555 365

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 5/9)

Social Security WorkS for Texas

20

Live Oak Llano Loving Lubbock Lynn McCulloch McLennan McMullen Madison Marion Martin Mason Matagorda Maverick Medina Menard Midland Milam Mills Mitchell Montague Montgomery Moore Morris Motley Nacogdoches Navarro Newton Nolan Nueces Ochiltree

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

225 635 0 6,985 145 290 7,455 10 355 535 115 90 1,100 1,410 1,340 70 2,570 850 130 220 725 9,220 325 665 30 1,975 1,865 575 475 10,395 130

230 510 0 3,820 130 195 3,430 20 220 270 80 100 740 1,075 755 55 1,860 560 125 180 485 6,090 280 365 45 1,060 785 325 345 5,755 165

155 320 0 1,925 95 105 1,720 20 125 125 50 70 380 1,005 480 40 1,105 360 70 90 220 3,905 200 205 25 475 405 190 195 3,190 95

135 245 5 3,680 70 125 3,945 5 215 215 75 35 485 965 820 30 1,445 440 75 95 355 5,480 170 280 10 905 1,015 270 220 5,685 100

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

% of Median % of % of Total % in Population Annual Population Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Retired Personal Total Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Receiving Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013 Non-Metropolitan 11,664 $44,573 17.9% 2,342 20.1% $25,620,000 4.8% 16.9% 1,975 1,230 Non-Metropolitan 19,085 $44,316 16.0% 6,235 32.7% $93,612,000 11.8% 33.9% 6,465 4,755 Non-Metropolitan 71 $41,252 16.9% 7 9.9% $180,000 5.3% 21.1% 15 10 Metropolitan 285,760 $41,555 22.0% 32,436 11.4% $594,840,000 5.5% 15.2% 43,410 26,995 Metropolitan 5,783 $34,852 20.2% 931 16.1% $15,048,000 7.2% 19.8% 1,145 705 Non-Metropolitan 8,313 $36,483 21.3% 1,754 21.1% $25,848,000 7.1% 25.1% 2,090 1,375 Metropolitan 238,707 $40,855 19.8% 30,817 12.9% $559,380,000 6.3% 17.6% 42,025 25,475 Non-Metropolitan 726 $49,866 11.3% 186 25.6% $2,208,000 4.8% 23.4% 170 115 Non-Metropolitan 13,677 $36,579 23.9% 1,984 14.5% $34,056,000 8.4% 18.5% 2,535 1,620 Non-Metropolitan 10,324 $33,330 24.0% 2,284 22.1% $38,616,000 10.9% 28.4% 2,935 1,790 Metropolitan 5,017 $47,358 14.5% 639 12.7% $10,368,000 4.7% 15.7% 790 470 Non-Metropolitan 4,003 $42,128 15.6% 1,079 27.0% $14,988,000 10.1% 28.5% 1,140 845 Non-Metropolitan 36,547 $40,860 19.7% 5,512 15.1% $97,188,000 7.5% 19.4% 7,105 4,400 Non-Metropolitan 55,365 $31,313 28.4% 6,039 10.9% $81,420,000 6.2% 17.7% 9,820 5,365 Metropolitan 46,765 $51,345 17.3% 6,874 14.7% $107,412,000 6.2% 18.6% 8,715 5,320 Non-Metropolitan 2,240 $31,608 24.9% 631 28.2% $7,752,000 10.7% 29.0% 650 455 Metropolitan 146,645 $61,268 9.8% 15,473 10.6% $267,804,000 2.1% 12.7% 18,615 11,635 Non-Metropolitan 24,157 $38,715 22.1% 4,522 18.7% $77,328,000 8.6% 24.0% 5,795 3,585 Non-Metropolitan 4,828 $39,396 20.1% 1,178 24.4% $17,388,000 9.2% 27.7% 1,335 935 Non-Metropolitan 9,336 $37,395 24.0% 1,258 13.5% $20,220,000 7.4% 16.4% 1,535 950 Non-Metropolitan 19,565 $45,996 17.3% 4,017 20.5% $70,356,000 7.4% 26.4% 5,160 3,375 Metropolitan 485,047 $65,874 12.5% 54,650 11.3% $1,105,260,000 4.1% 14.8% 71,920 47,225 Non-Metropolitan 22,313 $47,445 13.9% 2,143 9.6% $34,932,000 4.3% 11.5% 2,555 1,580 Non-Metropolitan 12,787 $35,294 22.7% 2,563 20.0% $49,212,000 10.1% 28.9% 3,690 2,175 Non-Metropolitan 1,202 $36,772 17.5% 323 26.9% $4,524,000 10.5% 29.1% 350 240 Non-Metropolitan 66,034 $35,183 24.3% 8,045 12.2% $151,164,000 7.3% 16.8% 11,120 6,705 Non-Metropolitan 47,979 $40,624 20.3% 7,210 15.0% $135,516,000 7.7% 21.6% 10,355 6,285 Metropolitan 14,200 $35,830 21.0% 2,391 16.8% $36,264,000 8.5% 19.9% 2,820 1,460 Non-Metropolitan 14,924 $34,941 20.9% 2,509 16.8% $41,436,000 7.7% 21.5% 3,215 1,980 Metropolitan 347,691 $48,066 17.5% 43,760 12.6% $737,880,000 4.9% 16.7% 58,175 33,150 Non-Metropolitan 10,728 $55,700 11.3% 1,089 10.2% $18,204,000 3.1% 12.3% 1,315 825

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 6/9)

Social Security WorkS for Texas

21

Oldham Orange Palo Pinto Panola Parker Parmer Pecos Polk Potter Presidio Rains Randall Reagan Real Red River Reeves Refugio Roberts Robertson Rockwall Runnels Rusk Sabine San Augustine San Jacinto San Patricio San Saba Schleicher Scurry Shackelford

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

35 3,335 920 755 2,610 140 315 2,170 3,420 165 440 2,330 65 140 670 340 260 10 575 1,290 340 1,525 530 445 970 2,120 140 55 410 80

30 2,085 560 535 1,655 175 250 1,185 1,745 185 215 1,720 60 115 315 270 205 20 385 760 275 970 330 270 520 1,400 135 65 345 80

25 1,300 305 300 995 170 185 875 830 230 125 920 40 65 155 200 125 10 175 510 125 510 235 145 285 865 85 50 190 45

30 1,595 435 425 1,430 115 150 810 1,535 110 160 1,240 35 65 260 170 115 10 275 970 170 760 220 190 420 1,115 85 25 195 25

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

% of Median % of % of Total Population % in Population Annual Total Retired Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Personal Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Receiving Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013 Metropolitan 2,060 $49,048 14.0% 268 13.0% $5,196,000 5.0% 18.7% 385 265 Metropolitan 82,977 $49,238 16.8% 11,993 14.5% $265,224,000 7.8% 21.8% 18,100 9,785 Non-Metropolitan 27,856 $40,817 19.0% 4,895 17.6% $84,084,000 7.6% 22.3% 6,200 3,980 Non-Metropolitan 24,020 $50,916 13.9% 3,899 16.2% $68,544,000 6.0% 21.0% 5,035 3,020 Metropolitan 119,712 $63,720 10.8% 16,242 13.6% $318,540,000 5.8% 17.9% 21,435 14,745 Non-Metropolitan 10,183 $44,256 14.4% 1,237 12.1% $19,116,000 4.8% 14.4% 1,470 870 Non-Metropolitan 15,619 $42,378 19.3% 1,895 12.1% $27,156,000 5.3% 14.8% 2,305 1,405 Non-Metropolitan 45,656 $40,254 17.8% 8,917 19.5% $274,404,000 14.9% 41.1% 18,785 13,745 Metropolitan 122,335 $35,754 23.4% 13,617 11.1% $245,172,000 5.6% 15.2% 18,565 11,035 Non-Metropolitan 7,525 $32,861 21.7% 1,443 19.2% $15,000,000 6.1% 23.0% 1,730 1,040 Non-Metropolitan 10,943 $41,349 17.1% 2,453 22.4% $41,844,000 10.9% 27.0% 2,950 2,010 Metropolitan 125,082 $56,716 11.3% 16,209 13.0% $290,952,000 5.2% 15.7% 19,580 13,370 Non-Metropolitan 3,475 $56,680 9.4% 374 10.8% $6,228,000 3.8% 13.4% 465 265 Non-Metropolitan 3,369 $33,598 21.5% 921 27.3% $15,156,000 13.4% 34.7% 1,170 785 Non-Metropolitan 12,694 $33,153 20.8% 2,818 22.2% $44,364,000 10.4% 28.5% 3,615 2,215 Non-Metropolitan 13,798 $34,431 28.2% 1,692 12.3% $25,896,000 7.3% 16.2% 2,240 1,260 Non-Metropolitan 7,259 $40,970 15.9% 1,476 20.3% $24,432,000 7.3% 25.3% 1,840 1,135 Non-Metropolitan 854 $60,857 8.1% 170 19.9% $2,592,000 5.5% 20.5% 175 125 Metropolitan 16,545 $39,771 17.9% 2,899 17.5% $47,796,000 6.8% 22.1% 3,650 2,240 Metropolitan 83,021 $85,164 6.7% 8,824 10.6% $183,288,000 3.9% 14.1% 11,685 8,155 Non-Metropolitan 10,449 $35,593 20.0% 2,157 20.6% $33,000,000 9.6% 24.9% 2,600 1,690 Metropolitan 54,026 $44,478 18.2% 7,888 14.6% $136,704,000 7.3% 18.5% 9,970 6,205 Non-Metropolitan 10,433 $35,805 20.7% 2,948 28.3% $51,624,000 14.2% 34.9% 3,645 2,330 Non-Metropolitan 8,818 $31,714 23.9% 2,120 24.0% $34,032,000 12.2% 29.1% 2,570 1,520 Non-Metropolitan 27,126 $42,160 19.6% 5,081 18.7% $84,372,000 9.1% 22.1% 5,990 3,795 Metropolitan 65,600 $48,287 16.5% 8,864 13.5% $168,552,000 6.2% 19.7% 12,930 7,430 Non-Metropolitan 6,002 $37,107 21.1% 1,259 21.0% $18,324,000 9.3% 24.1% 1,445 1,000 Non-Metropolitan 3,264 $47,322 15.7% 467 14.3% $7,092,000 5.9% 16.7% 545 350 Non-Metropolitan 17,126 $49,340 15.6% 2,376 13.9% $40,668,000 4.8% 17.4% 2,975 1,835 Non-Metropolitan 3,356 $48,779 13.5% 614 18.3% $9,588,000 3.8% 20.7% 695 465

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 7/9)

Social Security WorkS for Texas

22

Shelby Sherman Smith Somervell Starr Stephens Sterling Stonewall Sutton Swisher Tarrant Taylor Terrell Terry Throckmorton Titus Tom Green Travis Trinity Tyler Upshur Upton Uvalde Val Verde Van Zandt Victoria Walker Waller Ward Washington

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

995 25 6,215 175 1,630 280 30 25 65 170 35,815 3,525 35 325 40 795 2,980 17,935 730 885 1,525 85 750 925 1,840 2,575 1,265 840 320 790

555 40 3,465 150 1,105 200 25 60 75 185 18,970 2,105 25 265 45 450 1,865 7,830 425 535 835 70 525 875 1,025 1,755 825 550 240 655

285 35 2,025 95 975 110 15 25 60 125 11,175 1,095 15 145 30 280 1,000 5,180 190 320 470 45 385 830 515 1,090 430 300 155 370

550 10 3,015 100 1,045 135 25 25 50 85 20,515 2,160 15 160 10 430 1,475 9,560 265 410 770 55 440 650 910 1,425 615 420 160 615

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

% of Median % of % of Total Population % in Population Annual Total Retired Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Personal Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Receiving Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013 Non-Metropolitan 26,019 $37,122 19.2% 4,068 15.6% $70,452,000 7.9% 21.1% 5,490 3,105 Non-Metropolitan 3,073 $46,196 13.0% 440 14.3% $5,172,000 2.8% 11.6% 355 245 Metropolitan 214,821 $46,305 17.2% 31,692 14.8% $604,380,000 6.4% 19.6% 42,045 27,325 Metropolitan 8,598 $52,988 11.4% 1,385 16.1% $23,556,000 5.9% 19.0% 1,630 1,110 Non-Metropolitan 61,615 $23,358 43.6% 6,629 10.8% $72,996,000 5.7% 15.5% 9,540 4,785 Non-Metropolitan 9,464 $40,805 20.2% 1,770 18.7% $28,692,000 5.3% 22.2% 2,105 1,380 Non-Metropolitan 1,191 $51,059 12.0% 188 15.8% $3,216,000 5.4% 20.6% 245 150 Non-Metropolitan 1,475 $39,054 16.7% 370 25.1% $4,920,000 7.2% 26.4% 390 255 Non-Metropolitan 3,950 $60,695 13.1% 605 15.3% $9,048,000 3.3% 17.8% 705 455 Non-Metropolitan 7,891 $37,076 21.1% 1,354 17.2% $20,424,000 7.1% 20.3% 1,605 1,040 Metropolitan 1,880,153 $56,030 15.5% 180,052 9.6% $3,493,512,000 4.0% 12.7% 238,805 152,330 Metropolitan 133,473 $43,181 18.9% 18,074 13.5% $319,092,000 5.7% 17.9% 23,935 15,050 Non-Metropolitan 917 $37,395 17.1% 203 22.1% $2,568,000 5.5% 25.1% 230 140 Non-Metropolitan 12,613 $34,928 23.3% 1,823 14.5% $28,380,000 5.9% 17.5% 2,205 1,310 Non-Metropolitan 1,601 $41,149 12.9% 394 24.6% $5,628,000 6.5% 26.5% 425 300 Non-Metropolitan 32,663 $39,312 19.5% 3,991 12.2% $69,672,000 6.9% 15.8% 5,155 3,200 Metropolitan 113,281 $43,393 16.6% 16,116 14.2% $281,340,000 6.0% 18.7% 21,150 13,830 Metropolitan 1,095,584 $57,293 18.0% 85,534 7.8% $1,687,476,000 3.1% 10.4% 113,885 73,380 Non-Metropolitan 14,309 $33,771 19.7% 3,339 23.3% $61,380,000 13.4% 31.0% 4,435 2,825 Non-Metropolitan 21,458 $39,255 21.1% 4,295 20.0% $71,640,000 10.3% 24.3% 5,220 3,070 Metropolitan 39,995 $43,356 16.7% 6,547 16.4% $120,660,000 7.4% 22.1% 8,850 5,250 Non-Metropolitan 3,283 $49,846 16.0% 472 14.4% $7,932,000 4.3% 18.1% 595 340 Non-Metropolitan 26,752 $32,920 26.2% 4,125 15.4% $60,480,000 6.2% 20.0% 5,360 3,260 Non-Metropolitan 48,705 $39,864 21.3% 6,297 12.9% $81,576,000 5.0% 16.9% 8,255 4,975 Non-Metropolitan 52,427 $42,563 19.0% 10,017 19.1% $175,644,000 9.0% 24.2% 12,700 8,410 Metropolitan 89,269 $49,012 16.7% 12,492 14.0% $233,868,000 5.6% 19.0% 16,945 10,100 Non-Metropolitan 68,408 $38,024 23.9% 7,464 10.9% $128,808,000 6.6% 13.3% 9,110 5,975 Metropolitan 44,357 $47,015 19.7% 4,870 11.0% $85,500,000 5.7% 13.4% 5,935 3,825 Non-Metropolitan 10,879 $46,047 17.7% 1,594 14.7% $27,396,000 5.5% 18.8% 2,040 1,165 Non-Metropolitan 34,093 $45,657 15.1% 6,515 19.1% $109,812,000 6.6% 22.4% 7,645 5,215

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 8/9)

Social Security WorkS for Texas

23

3,885 1,080 125 4,625 515 615 6,960 1,200 180 1,480 1,680 140 635 295 400

3,330 880 115 2,210 245 400 4,250 595 160 895 970 140 425 240 215

2,935 440 65 975 110 280 2,705 400 105 490 570 120 205 195 110

3,410 620 85 1,985 220 345 4,370 615 120 780 635 110 275 205 270

Disabled Widow(er)s Spouses Children Workers

Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013*

*State totals in this appendix may not equal state figures cited elsewhere in the report, because individual county figures provided by SSA are rounded. 2012 Population: US Census Bureau, 2012 Population Estimates, “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012,” 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. The total state population given in Appendix 2 may not match the state population in Appendix 1 because it is the sum of the individual county population estimates, which have a higher margin of error than congressional district population estimates. Metropolitan/Non-Metropolitan: Unpublished calculations of US Census data performed by Dr. Roberto Gallardo, Mississippi State University Extension Service, on behalf of the Center for Rural Strategies, and shared with Social Security Works. For the purposes of this analysis, “metropolitan” refers to counties with at least one urbanized area of 50,000 people or more, and adjacent counties in which 25 percent of the workforce or more commutes to county with 50,000 people or more. “Nonmetropolitan” refers to counties designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as non-metropolitan, including micropolitan areas, or “small cities,” with urban clusters of 10,000-49,999 people, and non-core areas lacking a centralized population of any kind. Dr. Gallardo’s initial calculations distinguished between “small cities” and “rural” counties. For Social Security Works, he created a weighted average of “small cities” and “rural” counties that allowed us to classify both as “nonmetropolitan” figures. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (ERS), What is Rural?, May 10, 2013. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural.aspx#.UeSGcGTTWGN Total Personal Income, 2012: Unpublished calculations of US Census data performed by Dr. Roberto Gallardo, Mississippi State University Extension Service, on behalf of the Center for Rural Strategies, and shared with Social Security Works, ibid. Median Househould Income, 2012: US Census Bureau, Small Area Estimates Branch, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2012, “Table 1: 2012 Poverty and Median Income Estimates - Counties,” 2013. http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2011.html Percentage in Poverty, 2012: US Census Bureau, Small Area Estimates Branch, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2012, “Table 1: 2012 Poverty and Median Income Estimates - Counties,” 2013. http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2011.html Population over 65, 2012: US Census Bureau, 2012 Population Estimates, “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012,” 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/ http://factfinder2.census.gov/ Percent of Population Receiving Benefits, 2013: SSA, OASDI Benefits by State and County, 2013, “Table 4. Number of beneficiaries in current-payment status, by county, type of benefit, and sex of beneficiaries aged 65 or older, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_sc/ Annual Total Benefits, 2013: SSA, OASDI Benefits by State and County, 2013, “Table 5. Amount of benefits in current-payment status, by county, type of benefit, and sex of beneficiaries aged 65 or older, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www. ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_sc/ Social Security Beneficiaries by Characteristic, 2013: SSA, Ibid, Table 4.

Webb Wharton Wheeler Wichita Wilbarger Willacy Williamson Wilson Winkler Wise Wood Yoakum Young Zapata Zavala

County

Social Security Benefits, 2012-2013

% of Median % of % of Total % in Population Annual Population Metropolitan/ 2012 Household Population Retired Personal Total Poverty, Over Age Total Benefits, Receiving Non-Metropolitan Population Income, Over Age Income, Beneficiaries Workers 2012 65, 2012 2013 Benefits, 2012 65, 2012 2012 2013 Metropolitan 259,172 $35,974 31.3% 21,019 8.1% $303,936,000 4.2% 11.9% 30,765 17,205 Non-Metropolitan 41,285 $40,716 17.8% 6,279 15.2% $107,340,000 6.6% 19.3% 7,955 4,935 Non-Metropolitan 5,626 $47,012 12.4% 990 17.6% $15,084,000 4.9% 20.6% 1,160 770 Metropolitan 131,559 $43,791 16.4% 17,671 13.4% $325,008,000 6.0% 18.5% 24,335 14,540 Non-Metropolitan 13,258 $37,304 17.1% 2,165 16.3% $36,600,000 7.0% 21.4% 2,835 1,745 Non-Metropolitan 22,058 $29,225 38.6% 2,677 12.1% $36,168,000 5.8% 16.5% 3,645 2,005 Metropolitan 456,232 $71,272 7.7% 44,862 9.8% $902,208,000 4.3% 13.0% 59,370 41,085 Metropolitan 44,370 $61,103 11.1% 6,138 13.8% $100,848,000 5.7% 17.3% 7,685 4,875 Non-Metropolitan 7,330 $48,727 14.2% 856 11.7% $15,552,000 5.0% 16.2% 1,185 620 Metropolitan 60,432 $53,927 11.9% 8,127 13.4% $152,964,000 6.1% 17.5% 10,590 6,945 Non-Metropolitan 42,022 $45,466 15.8% 10,793 25.7% $195,504,000 13.4% 31.9% 13,395 9,540 Non-Metropolitan 8,075 $55,063 11.1% 958 11.9% $16,680,000 3.6% 15.4% 1,240 730 Non-Metropolitan 18,339 $43,248 15.2% 3,498 19.1% $60,276,000 6.7% 23.9% 4,380 2,840 Non-Metropolitan 14,290 $33,462 29.0% 1,549 10.8% $20,160,000 4.6% 13.8% 1,970 1,035 Non-Metropolitan 11,961 $25,157 34.0% 1,469 12.3% $19,980,000 7.6% 18.4% 2,195 1,200

Texas County Demographics, 2012

Appendix 2: Social Security Works for Texas’ Counties (Page 9/9)

Endnotes 1 Total annual benefits in 2013: $812,045,000. Social Security Administration (SSA), Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J1—Estimated total annual benefits paid, by state or other area and program, 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html. Total beneficiaries as of December 2013: 57,978,610. SSA, ibid., “Table 5.J2—Number, by state or other area, program, and type of benefit, December 2013.” Total U.S. population 2013: 316,128,839. U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013,” 2013 Population Estimates, 2014. http:// factfinder2.census.gov/ 2 Calculated by subtracting number of beneficiaries 65 and older (40,865,508) from total beneficiaries (57,978,610). SSA, ibid., “Table 5.J3—Number and total monthly benefits for beneficiaries aged 65 or older, by state or other area and sex, December 2013.” 3 There are an estimated 9,189,620 children receiving benefits, including 4,412,620 children receiving benefits directly and an estimated 4,777,000 children under age 18 supported by a parent, guardian, or other relative receiving benefits. The number of children supported by a parent, guardian, or other relative receiving benefits dates from 2010, so it likely understates the total for 2013. Unless otherwise specified as children under 18, the term “children” used in this section is consistent with the Social Security Administration’s use of the term to include three groups: “children under age 18,” receiving benefits through a parent receiving retirement or disability benefits, or a deceased parent; “students aged 18-19,” which refers to children receiving benefits at ages 18 and 19 who are matriculated in an institution of secondary education; and “disabled adult children,” which refers to those adults with a severe disability that began before age 22, at a time when a parent was receiving retirement or disability benefits or was deceased. Children receiving benefits directly: SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J10—Number of children, by state or other area and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j10. Definition and eligibility of disabled adult children: SSA, Benefits for Children with Disabilities, 2013, 2014, p. 11. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10026.pdf. Children dependent on a parent, guardian, or relative receiving benefits: Congressional Research Service (CRS), Thomas Gabe, Social Security’s Effect on Child Poverty, December 22, 2011, Figure 1, pp. 3-4. http:// socialsecurity-works.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CRS_Children-Social-Security_2011.pdf 4 Of the 4,412,620 children who received benefits directly in 2013, 3,236,746 were under age 18; 145,708 were students aged 18-19; and 1,030,166 were disabled adult children. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J10—Number of children, by state or other area and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j10 5 The estimated 4,777,000 children not receiving benefits directly, but living in households that do, include 1.816 million children under age 18 with a parent or guardian receiving benefits, and 2.961 million children under age 18 in families where a relative other than a parent is receiving benefits. These data are from December 2010, the most recent year available, so it likely understates the total for 2012. Congressional Research Service (CRS), Thomas Gabe, Social Security’s Effect on Child Poverty, December 22, 2011, Figure 1, pp. 3-4. http://socialsecurity-works.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CRS_ Children-Social-Security_2011.pdf 6 Average benefit found by dividing total spending by total beneficiaries. Total annual benefits from SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5. J1—Estimated total annual benefits paid, by state or other area and program, 2013 (in millions of dollars),” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html. Total beneficiaries from SSA, ibid., “Table 5.J2—Number, by state or other area, program, and type of benefit, December 2013.” Average retired worker benefit found by multiplying average monthly retired worker benefit by 12. SSA, ibid., “Table 5.J6—Percentage distribution of monthly benefit for retired workers, by state or other area and monthly benefit, December 2013.” 7 SSA, Income of the Population 55 or Older, 2012, Table 9.A1, April 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/income_pop55/2012/sect09.html 8 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-by-State Analysis, October 25, 2013. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4037. 9 Michelle Stegman Bailey and Jeffrey Hemmeter, “Characteristics of Noninstitutionalized DI and SSI Program Participants, 2010 Update,” Research and Statistics Note Nr. 2014-02, February 2014, Table 2. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/rsn2014-02.html 10 Stegman and Hemmeter, ibid., Table 5. 11 $583,000 value of disability benefits includes $405,000 of Disability Insurance benefits, and $178,000 of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance benefits once the disabled worker reaches the full retirement age. Estimates of illustrative worker’s career earnings and corresponding value of disability and life insurance benefits understate current amounts, since they are in wage-indexed 2011 dollars for a worker beginning to receive benefits in 2012, the most recent year for which data was available. SSA, The Insurance Value of Potential Survivor and Disability Benefits for an Illustrative Worker, Unpublished Memorandum from Michael Clingman, Kyle Burkhalter, and Chris Chaplain, Actuaries, to Alice H. Wade, Deputy Chief Actuary, September 27, 2012. 12 SSA, “Estimated Number of Fully Insured Workers, by Age Group and Sex, on December 31, 1970-2013.” http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/ table4c2FI.html (accessed July 11, 2014). 13 SSA, “Fact Sheet,” April 2, 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf 14 SSA, ”Fact Sheet,” ibid. 15 Robert Baldwin and Sharon Chu, “A Death and Disability Life Table for Insured Workers Born in 1985,” Actuarial Note 2005.6, SSA Office of the Chief Actuary, February 2006. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/ran6/an2005-6.pdf 16 Total beneficiaries from SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J2—Number, by state or other area, program, and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j2. State population data from U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013,” 2013 Population Estimates, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 17 Total annual benefits from SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J1—Estimated total annual benefits paid, by state or other area and program, 2013 (in millions of dollars),” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j1. Benefits’ equivalent percentage of total personal income calculated using state figures from Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, “SA1-3 Personal Income Summary (thousands of dollars),” May 30, 2014. http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm 18 Average benefit found by dividing total spending by total beneficiaries. Total annual benefits from Social Security Administration (SSA), Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J1—Estimated total annual benefits paid, by state or other area and program, 2013 (in millions of dollars),” July 2014. http:// www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j1. Total beneficiaries from SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J2— Number, by state or other area, program, and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j. html#table5.j2 19 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-by-State Analysis, October 25, 2013. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4037. State estimates are based on a three-year average (for 2010-2012) to improve their reliability; the national data are for 2012. 20 For the purposes of this report, “seniors” describes individuals aged 65 or older. Social Security WorkS for Texas

24

21 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J2—Number, by state or other area, program, and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. 22 For the purposes of this analysis, “typical” is used to describe the “median” benefit. Herein, all references to “typical” will reflect this description. Monthly median benefit multiplied by 12 to calculate annual figure. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J6—Percentage distribution of monthly benefit for retired workers, by state or other area and monthly benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j6 23 CBPP, ibid. 24 CBPP, ibid. 25 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J5.1—Number, by state or other area, and sex, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/ policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j1. Percentage of women receiving benefits calculated using total female population from U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013,” 2013 Population Estimates, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 26 Total spouses receiving benefits calculated by adding number of spouses of retired workers to number of spouses of disabled workers. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J2—Number, by state or other area, program, and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/ policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j2 27 Unpublished tabulations of Current Population Survey data for March 2011, 2012, and 2013, performed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for Social Security Works. The state-level data are averaged for the 3 years from 2010-2012, to increase reliability. Data for the United States as a whole are from 2012. 28 CBPP, unpublished, ibid. 29 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J2—Number, by state or other area, program, and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j2 30 Monthly median benefit multiplied by 12 to calculate annual figure. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J9—Percentage distribution of nondisabled widow(er)s, by state or other area and monthly benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j9 31 The data here are for disabled workers receiving disability benefits. It does not include those disabled workers and “disabled adult children” who receive old-age (retirement) or survivors benefits. In this report, any use of the term “disabled worker” will refer only to those disabled workers receiving disability benefits. 32 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J2—Number, by state or other area, program, and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j2 33 Monthly median benefit multiplied by 12 to calculate annual figure. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J8—Percentage distribution of disabled workers, by state or other area and monthly benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j. html#table5.j8 34 In this case, “children” refers to individuals under age 18, and includes neither disabled adult children, nor individuals aged 18-19. When discussing Social Security’s insurance protections for children, children under age 18 was considered the most appropriate group to reference in this analysis, since even students aged 18-19 receiving benefits as dependents of a disabled or deceased parent must have qualified for benefits before age 18. While disabled adult children may receive benefits for a severe disability sustained at age 18 or later, it must occur before age 22, meaning that a large proportion of beneficiaries will likely have begun receiving benefits before age 18 as well. Population under age 18: U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013,” 2013 Population Estimates, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Data on percentage of children insured from SSA, Survivors Benefits, June 2013, p. 4. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf 35 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014, “Table 5.J10—Number of children, by state or other area and type of benefit, December 2013,” July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/5j.html#table5.j10 36 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, “Relationship to Householder for Children under 18 Years in Households,” 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov 37 The term “households” as it is used here refers to households reporting income in the past 12 months. Households receiving Social Security benefits are those households listed as receiving “Social Security income.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, “Selected Population Profile in the United States,” 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 38 CBPP, unpublished, ibid. 39 CBPP, unpublished, ibid. 40 SSA, Income of the Population 55 or Older, 2012, Table 9.A3, April 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/income_pop55/2012/sect09. html#table9.a3 41 SSA, Social Security is Important for African Americans, April 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/africanamer.htm This is the most recent statistically valid data available. 42 The term “households” as it is used here refers to households reporting income in the past 12 months. Households receiving Social Security benefits are those households listed as receiving “Social Security income.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, “Selected Population Profile in the United States,” 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 43 CBPP, unpublished, ibid. 44 CBPP, unpublished, ibid. 45 SSA, Income of the Population 55 or Older, 2012, Table 9.A3, April 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/income_pop55/2012/sect09. html#table9.a3 46 SSA, Social Security is Important to Hispanics, April 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/hispanics.htm. This is the most recent statistically valid data available. Fernando Torres-Gil et al., “Hispanics’ Large Stake in the Social Security Debate,” June 28, 2005. http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-2805socsec.pdf 47 The term “households” as it is used here refers to households reporting income in the past 12 months. Households receiving Social Security benefits are those households listed as receiving “Social Security income.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, “Selected Population Profile in the United States,” 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 48 SSA, Social Security Is Important to American Indians and Alaska Natives, February 2013. http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/amerindian-alt.pdf This is the most recent statistically valid data available. 49 SSA, Social Security I Important to American Indians and Alaska Natives, ibid. 50 The term “households” as it is used here refers to households reporting income in the past 12 months. Households receiving Social Security benefits are those households listed as receiving “Social Security income.” For states in which there are large numbers of Asian American residents as well as Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander residents, the numbers of beneficiaries and residents were added to calculate percentage of total Asian American, Social Security WorkS for Texas

25

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander residents receiving benefits. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, “Selected Population Profile in the United States,” 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 51 SSA, Income of the Population 55 or Older, 2012, Table 9.A3, April 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/income_pop55/2012/sect09. html#table9.a3 52 SSA, Social Security is Important to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, April 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/asian.htm. This is the most recent statistically valid data available. 53 SSA, OASDI Beneficiaries by State and County, 2013, July 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_sc/ 54 Unpublished calculations of Social Security Administration and Bureau of Economic Analysis data performed by Dr. Roberto Gallardo, Mississippi State University Extension Service, on behalf of the Center for Rural Strategies, and shared with Social Security Works. For the purposes of this analysis, “rural” refers to counties designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as non-metropolitan, including micropolitan areas, or “small cities,” with urban clusters of 10,000-49,999 people, and non-core areas lacking a centralized population of any kind. “Metropolitan” refers to counties with at least one urbanized area of 50,000 people or more, and adjacent counties in which 25 percent of the workforce or more commutes to county with 50,000 people or more. Dr. Gallardo’s initial calculations distinguished between “small cities” and “rural” counties. For Social Security Works, he created a weighted average of “small cities” and “rural” counties that allowed us to contrast metropolitan and non-metropolitan figures. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (ERS), What is Rural?, May 10, 2013. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural.aspx#. UeSGcGTTWGN 55 Latino and Asian American status are defined here by self-identification, not nativity, and “immigrants” refers to foreign-born residents of the United Statess refer to foreign-born Americans. ere by ethnicity, not nativity. e redistributive shifts in income from the bottom . U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2010-2012 3-Year Estimates, “Selected Population Profile in the United States,” 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. Social Security provided all or nearly all of the income for over half (52.6 percent) of Latino senior households, and more than 4 in 10 (44.4 percent) Asian senior households in 2012, compared with one-third (34.6 percent) of white senior households. SSA, Income of the Population 55 or Older, 2012, Table 9.A3, April 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/income_pop55/2012/sect09.html#table9.a3 56 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2010-2012,3-Year Estimates, “Selected Population Profile in the United States,” 2013. http:// factfinder2.census.gov/ 57 More than half (51 percent) of workers who retired earlier than expected in 2012 cited a health problem or disability as the cause. Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), “2012 Retirement Confidence Survey Fact Sheet #2: Changing Expectations About Retirement,” March 2012, p. 1. http://www. ebri.org/pdf/surveys/rcs/2012/fs-02-rcs-12-fs2-expect.pdf 58 Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), Hye Jin Rho, Hard Work? Patterns in Physically Demanding Labor Among Older Workers, Table 8, August 2010, p. 14. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/older-workers-2010-08.pdf 59 SSA, Office of the Chief Actuary, Estimated Long-Range Financial Effects on Social Security of the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” legislation introduced as S. 744 (113th Congress) by Senator Marco Rubio and passed by the Senate on June 27, 2013, February 2014. http://ssa.gov/oact/solvency/MRubio_20130627.pdf. At the time of the publication of this report, the US House of Representatives had yet to vote on the Senate’s immigration bill—or any other, for that matter. 60 SSA, “Social Security Defines Policy for Same-Sex Married Couples. Agency Extends Benefits Broadly, Subject to Legal Constraints,” June 20, 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases.html#!/post/6-2014-1. National Organization for Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, “SSA Begins Processing Claims for Same-Sex Couples,” September 26, 2013. http://www.nosscr.org/news/2013/09/ssa-begins-processing-claims-same-sex-couples. More on the financial loss experienced by same-sex couples and their children who are denied Social Security benefits here: National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) and Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Living Outside the Safety Net: LGBT Families and Social Security, February 2013. http://www.ncpssmfoundation.org/Portals/0/lgbt-report.pdf 61 Senator Patty Murray, “The Social Security and Marriage Equality (SAME) Act of 2014.” http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/50c5cddf96c2-4a14-879d-15c1c7b62650/same-act-bill-text-final.pdf 62 The Williams Institute, Marriage for Same-Sex Couples. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/headlines/marriage-for-same-sex-couples/ (accessed July 2, 2014) This is the most recent such data available. 63 The Williams Institute, ibid. 64 The Williams Institute, ibid. 65 Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, because benefits can only be paid from revenue collected by the Social Security trust funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund and Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund—which are completely separate from the general budget. Social Security Trustees, 2014 Social Security Trustees Report, July 2014, Table II.B1. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2014/tr2014.pdf. The trust funds do not have borrowing authority, and therefore cannot deficit-spend. In the event that trust fund revenues fall short of what is needed to pay 100 percent of benefits, then, by law, benefits could not be paid in full and on time. That is why, if Congress does nothing to shore up the program’s finances by 2033, Social Security will only have sufficient revenue to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087. This modest funding shortfall is often cited as evidence that the program is financially unsustainable, or “in deficit.” In fact, it is just the opposite: it attests to Social Security’s self-sustaining funding structure that bars it from deficit-spending or borrowing from the general budget in any way. 66 White House, Office of Management and Budget, Table 1.1 Summary of Receipts, Outlays and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789-2018, 2013. http://www. whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals 67 Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), “U.S. Budget Deficits 2001-2013,” Analysis of Congressional Budget Office data, unpublished. 68 Social Security Trustees, 2014 Social Security Trustees Report, July 28, 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2014/tr2014.pdf 69 Social Security Trustees, ibid. 70 Social Security Trustees, ibid. 71 Social Security Trustees, ibid., “Table VI.G4.—OASDI and HI Annual and Summarized Income, Cost, and Balance as a Percentage of GDP, Calendar Years 2014-90.” 72 National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI), Janice M. Gregory, Thomas N. Bethell, Virginia P. Reno and Benjamin W. Veghte, Strengthening Social Security for the Long Run, November 2010, p. 7. http://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/SS_Brief_035.pdf 73 The most recent data on the percentage of workers with earnings below the taxable maximum are from 2011. SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2013, “Table 4.B4—Percentage of workers with earnings below annual maximum taxable, by sex, selected years 1937–2011,” February 2014. http://www. ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2013/4b.html#table4.b4 74 SSA, “Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937-2014).” http://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.htm (accessed July 1, 2014) 75 SSA, Provisions Affecting Payroll Taxes, “E2.1 Eliminate the taxable maximum in years 2013 and later, and apply full 12.4 percent payroll tax rate to all earnings. Do not provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum,” January 4, 2013. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/ provisions/charts/chart_run362.pdf Social Security WorkS for Texas

26

76 United States Senate Special Committee on Aging, “Reduction in Face-to-Face Services at the Social Security Administration,” Summary of Committee Staff Investigation, May 2014. http://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSA%20Hearing%20Staff%20Memo1.pdf 77 Strengthen Social Security Coalition, “Transition Report for the New Commissioner of Social Security: How to Ensure the World-Class Service the American People Deserve,” March 2013. http://www.socialsecurityworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Transition-Report-for-the-New-Commissionerof-Social-Security-How-to-Ensure-the-World-Class-Service-the-American-People-Deserve.pdf 78 Social Security Works analysis of SSA data. Social Security Works, Social Security COLA Cut: A Benefit Cut Affecting Everyone, 2013. http://www. strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/Chained_CPI_Fact_Sheet_FINAL_Feb-2013_0.pdf 79 Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR), Alicia H. Munnell, Anthony Webb, and Francesca Golub-Sass, The National Retirement Risk Index: An Update, October 2012, p. 3. http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/the-national-retirement-risk-index-an-update/ 80 This is a conservative estimate. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimated that in 2006, just before the Great Recession, 44 percent of working-age households would be at risk of downward social mobility in retirement, but this percentage rose to 61 percent when health care costs were included, and to 64 percent when long term care costs were counted—an additional 21 percent. In its 2010 estimate, which projected that 53 percent of households were at-risk of not being able to maintain their living standards in retirement, the Center did not include an estimate of the additional share of households that would be at risk if health and long-term care costs were taken into account. If this additional share were equivalent to the 21 percent it amounted to in 2006, then more than 7 in 10 households would be at risk after taking into account health and long-term care costs. Alicia Munnell et al., “Health Care Costs Drive Up the National Retirement Risk Index,” no. 8-3, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, (February 2008). http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ib_8-3.pdf; Munnell et al., “The National Retirement Risk Index: An Update,” no. 12-20, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, October 2012. http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/IB_12-20-508.pdf. 81 Just over half (52.9 percent) of all working heads of household are eligible for an employer-sponsored retirement plan; of that half, 4 in 5 (83.8 percent) elect to participate. The resulting total of all working heads of household who participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plans is 3 in 7 (44.6 percent). Federal Reserve, Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances, June 2012, p. 38. http://www. federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/PDF/scf12.pdf 82 Federal Reserve, ibid., p. 30. 83 Nari Rhee, “The Retirement Savings Crisis: Is It Worse than We Think?” National Institute on Retirement Security, June 2013. http://www.nirsonline.org/ storage/nirs/documents/Retirement%20Savings%20Crisis/retirementsavingscrisis_final.pdf 84 Social Security Trustees, 2013 Social Security Trustees Report, “Table V.C7—Annual Scheduled Benefit Amounts for Retired Workers With Various Pre-Retirement Earnings Patterns Based on Intermediate Assumptions, Calendar Years 2013-90,” May 31, 2013, p. 145. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2013/ tr2013.pdf 85 CBPP analysis of OECD data, “Social Security: We’re Number…30!” May 11, 2011. http://www.offthechartsblog.org/social-securitywe%E2%80%99re-number%E2%80%A6-30/ 86 CBPP, Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security, November 6, 2012. http://www.cbpp.org/files/PolicyBasics_SocSec-TopTen.pdf 87 CBPP, ibid. 88 The share going to the top 1 percent is even higher when one also considers the redistributive shifts in income from the bottom 90 percent upwards. From 1979-2012, the average income of all Americans grew by $9,442. The bottom 90 percent experienced negative 30.8% of total growth, while the top 1 percent got 84.5%, the top 1-5 percent got 31.6%, and the top 5-10 percent got 14.8% of total net growth. (These shares of total net growth add up, unrounded, to 100%.) Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998,” updated to 2012 by Emmanuel Saez at http://elsa.berkeley.edu/users/saez/.

Social Security WorkS for Texas

27

Key Facts about Social Security in Texas Social Security Works for Texas’ Residents and Economy • Social Security provided benefits to 3,756,420 Texans in 2013, 1 in 7 (14.2 percent) residents. • Texans received Social Security benefits totaling $50.9 billion in 2013, an amount equivalent to 4.4 percent of the state’s total personal income. • The average Social Security benefit in Texas was $13,562 in 2013. • Social Security lifted 1,375,000 Texans out of poverty in 2012.

Social Security Works for Texas’ Seniors • Social Security provided benefits to 2,336,147 Texas retired workers in 2013, 5 in 8 (62.2 percent) of beneficiaries [Figure 1 in full report]. • Social Security lifted 871,000 Texas residents aged 65 and older out of poverty in 2012. Without Social Security, the elderly poverty rate in Texas would have increased from 1 in 9 (10.7 percent) to 3 in 7 (43.1 percent) [Figure 2 in full report].

Social Security Works for Texas’ Workers with Disabilities • Social Security provided disability benefits to 574,276 workers in 2013, 1 in 7 (15.3 percent) Texas beneficiaries [Figure 1 in full report].

Social Security Works for Texas’ Women • Social Security provided benefits to 1,885,277 Texas women in 2013, 1 in 7 (14.2 percent) Texas women. • Social Security lifted 509,000 Texas women aged 65 and older out of poverty in 2012. Without Social Security, the poverty rate of elderly women would have increased from 1 in 7 (13.7 percent) to half (48.2 percent) [Figure 2 in full report].

Social Security Works for Texas’ Children • Social Security provided benefits to 322,665 Texas children in 2013, 1 in 12 (8.6 percent) Texas beneficiaries [Figure 1 in full report].

Social Security Works for Texas’ People of Color • Social Security provided benefits to 2 in 9 (21.9 percent) African American households in Texas in 2012, 236,095 households. • Social Security provided benefits to 1 in 6 (17.8 percent) Latino households in Texas in 2012, 467,340 households. • Social Security provided benefits to 2 in 9 (22 percent) American Indian and Alaska Native households in Texas in 2012, 10,183 households. • Social Security provided benefits to 1 in 8 (12 percent) Asian American, Hawaiian Native, and Pacific Islander households in Texas in 2012, 38,653 households.

Social Security Works for Texas’ Rural Communities • 1 in 5 (21.2 percent) rural or non-metropolitan Texans received Social Security in 2013, compared with 1 in 8 (13.5 percent) metropolitan Texans.

www.socialsecurityworks.org