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.
- 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.
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.
- 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
“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.
- 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.
- 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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.