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

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
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less