Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

In swing states, both parties agree on ideas to save Social Security

Social Security card, treasury check and $100 bills
JJ Gouin/Getty Images

A new public consultation survey finds significant bipartisan support for major Social Security proposals — including ideas to increase revenue and cut benefits — that would reduce the program’s long-term shortfall by 78 percent and extend the program’s longevity for decades.

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.


This survey, run by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, is the sixth in the Swing Six Issue Surveys series being conducted in the run-up to the November election in six swing states and nationally. Unlike standard polling, respondents went through an interactive online “policymaking simulation” in which they learned about and then evaluated pro and con arguments for proposed reforms. The survey content was reviewed by experts on different sides of the debate.

(All Americans are invited to go through the same policymaking simulation as the survey sample.)

Revenue increases

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans support two proposals to increase revenues that would cover three-quarters of the Social Security shortfall.

  • Subjecting wages over $400,000 to the payroll tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $169,000. A proposal to make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, which would eliminate 60 percent of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 86 percent to 89 percent in the swing states. This includes large majorities of Republicans (83 percent to 89 percent) and Democrats (83 percent to 92 percent). Nationally, 87 percent are in support.

publicconsultation.org

  • Increasing the payroll tax: Respondents were given the option of gradually increasing the payroll tax over several years, from 6.2 percent to 6.5 percent by 2030, 6.9 percent by 2038 or 7.2 percent by 2044, or not raise it. Increasing the payroll tax to at least 6.5 percent, which would eliminate 15 percent of the shortfall, is supported by 83 percent to 88 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (83 percent to 88 percent) and Democrats (85 percent to 88 percent). Nationally, 86 percent are in support.

publicconsultation.org

Benefit reductions

Two benefit reductions, which would cover a quarter of the Social Security shortfall, also have robust bipartisan support.

  • Reducing benefits for high-income earners: Respondents were given the options of reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of earners, the top 40 percent or the top 50 percent, or they could not choose any of those options. Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of income earners, which would eliminate 11 percent of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 91 percent to 94 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (88 percent to 93 percent) and Democrats (91 percent to 94 percent). Nationally, 92 percent are in support.

publicconsultation.org

  • Raising the retirement age: Respondents were given options to gradually raise the full retirement age, which is currently set at 67 years old: to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041 or to 70 by 2064, or they could not choose any of those options. Raising the retirement age to at least 68, which would eliminate 15 percent of the shortfall, is supported by an overwhelming 88 percent to 91 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (88 percent to 94 percent) and Democrats (87 percent to 92 percent). Nationally, 89 percent are in support

publicconsultation.org

“While some of these proposals — such as raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes — are not popular in themselves, when Americans consider the full picture, large bipartisan majorities support taking tough steps to secure the Social Security program,” said Steven Kull, director of PPC. “We were struck by how similar the Republican and Democrats are on all these questions.”

Raising benefits

The four reforms endorsed by majorities would eliminate 101 percent of the shortfall. However, majorities also favor benefit increases that grow the shortfall by 23 percent. Combined, all of these proposals would reduce the shortfall by 78 percent.

  • Raising the minimum benefit: Increasing the minimum monthly benefit for someone who worked 30 years from $1,066 to $1,570, which would increase the shortfall by 7 percent, is supported by 70 percent to 73 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (65 percent to 72 percent) and Democrats (68 percent to 78 percent). Nationally, 71 percent are in support. The minimum benefit would rise with inflation, and always be set at 125 percent of the federal poverty line.

publicconsultation.org

  • Increasing benefits for those 85 and older: Raising benefits for those 85 and over by about $100 a month, which would increase the shortfall by 4 percent, is supported by 64 percent to 67 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (58 percent to 67 percent) and Democrats (61 percent to70 percent). Nationally, 68 percent are in support.

publicconsultation.org

  • Increasing cost of living adjustments: Changing the way COLAs are calculated by focusing on the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would increase the shortfall by 12 percent, is supported by 65 percent to 68 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (62 percent to 68 percent) and Democrats (62 percent to 70 percent). Nationally, 68 percent are in support.

publicconsultation.org


Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less