More

Social Security Poll: Cutting Benefits An Electoral Minefield

Social Security Poll

First Posted: 06/28/11 02:54 PM ET Updated: 08/28/11 06:12 AM ET

According to a set of new surveys conducted in several key swing states by groups in favor of protecting Social Security, making changes to the program as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget deficit is widely opposed by independents and voters who say they're undecided on whom to support in the 2012 election, the key constituents that politicians court during election season. The vast majority of voters -- including independents and Republicans -- said they'd prefer raising taxes on the wealthy to shore up Social Security, a position that has few adherents in Congress.

The new polls, from Social Security Works, The Alliance for Retired Americans and the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, show that 74 percent of likely 2012 voters in Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Colorado say they would oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the federal budget deficit. That opposition is fairly consistent across the five states, ranging from 71 percent opposed in Colorado to 78 percent opposed in Missouri.

In the new polls, the results that could be of greatest political import show that 72 percent of independents in the combined surveys and 77 percent of those who say they are undecided in 2012's U.S. Senate race (or the race for U.S. Congress in Colorado, where there are no Senate seats up for election next cycle) also oppose cuts to Social Security benefits.

Although respondents' views on Social Security seem to match better with those of Democratic lawmakers, the polls do contain some bad news for Democrats: Republicans hold an edge in questions about who would better handle Social Security. Combined respondents from the five states surveyed favored congressional Republicans over congressional Democrats on the issue by a 29 percent to 27 percent margin, and congressional Republicans over President Barack Obama by a 32 percent to 28 percent margin.

Republicans' edge on the issue appears to come largely from political independents, who favored Republicans in Congress over Democrats in Congress by a 4 percentage point margin and Republicans in Congress over the president by a 5 percentage point margin. Similarly, undecided voters in their states' contests for U.S. Senate (or for the U.S. House, in the case of Colorado voters) gave Republicans a 3 percentage point advantage over Obama, though they favored Republicans over Democrats in Congress by only a 1 percentage point margin, well within the survey's margin of error.

How is it that voters don't want Social Security cuts but simultaneously think that the program will be better protected by Republicans, who publicly insist on such cuts? Part of the answer likely lies with Republican-leaning independents in the poll, who can be counted on to support Republicans in general, despite the specific question at hand.

According to the Pew Research Center's recently released Political Typology Report, which analyzed characteristics of like-minded groups across the political spectrum, one key group that largely identifies as independents but typically leans toward the Republican Party, dubbed the Disaffecteds, was especially opposed to making changes to Social Security and Medicare as a way to reduce the budget deficit. Only 15 percent of Disaffecteds said they would favor cutting entitlements rather than cutting defense spending or other domestic programs, the lowest of any group analyzed by Pew Research -- including groups comprised mainly of Democrats.

Democratic leaders in Congress have expressed an openness to Social Security cuts, although it is unclear whether that is influencing how much independents trust Democrats on the issue, or whether Americans are even aware of the particulars of politicians' positions on the issue. In addition, other polls have found greater trust for Democrats on managing the program, suggesting that some of those who said they were undecided on the new polls might lean towards supporting Democrats on Social Security if pressed.

Respondents to the new polls were largely opposed to several more specific changes to the Social Security program. Fifty-nine percent opposed raising the retirement age to 69 years old, 57 percent opposed changing the formula to reduce cost of living benefits for beneficiaries and 60 percent opposed means-testing to reduce benefits for those making more than $60,000 a year. Opposition to the proposal varies slightly by state, but does not drop below 55 percent for any of these proposals in any of the states polled.

On the other hand, the polls found broad agreement with a proposal to apply the Social Security tax to annual wages above the current cut off of $106,800 -- 70 percent of combined respondents supported that change. The majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters also favored lifting the taxable amount.

This preference for raising taxes over cutting Social Security benefits is confirmed by other national polls. A May poll by the Pew Research Center found 59 percent of adult respondents disapproved of plans to raise the age when people can begin receiving retirement benefits, while 67 percent approved of making more of high-earners' income subject to the payroll tax. Fifty-four percent of respondents to that poll said they would oppose reducing Social Security benefits for seniors with higher incomes.

However, a March Washington Post/ABC News poll found adult respondents opposed to decreasing the rate at which Social Security benefits increase by a narrower margin (3 percentage points) than the new polls.

The new polls also found support for a proposal not to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will expire in 2012 and instead re-purpose the revenue generated to pay for the Social Security program. That result is particularly unsurprising since most Americans supported ending those cuts the last time they were extended, even when the funds generated would not be used to pay for the popular Social Security program.

While these surveys were sponsored by an interest group opposed to reductions in Social Security benefits, the broad conclusions they reached are similar to other national polls. For example, an AP/GfK poll conducted in May found that 59 percent of U.S. adults said that the budget could be balanced without cutting Social Security, while 39 percent said that Social Security would need to be cut. A USA Today/Gallup poll in April found that 65 percent of adults were worried that Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan would cut Social Security too much.

The new polls were conducted by the Democratic firm Lake Research Partners. Respondents were selected from a voter list. In total, the surveys interviewed 2,694 respondents. The combined results for the surveys have a margin of error of 1.9 percentage points.

The surveys in Colorado, Florida, and Missouri each had about 500 respondents and margins of error of 4.4 percentage points. The Minnesota survey had 584 respondents and a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points, and the Virginia survey had 603 respondents and a margin of error of 4 percent.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
According to a set of new surveys conducted in several key swing states by groups in favor of protecting Social Security, making changes to the program as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget d...
According to a set of new surveys conducted in several key swing states by groups in favor of protecting Social Security, making changes to the program as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget d...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,390
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (39 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
CJCalgirl 08:51 PM on 06/28/2011
No one has yet been able to explain to me how cutting S.S. bennies could or would affect the debt or deficit.  Since S.S. fund is completely separate from the fed. budgetary issues.  So I have come to the conclusion that is left.  The borrowing from S.S. fund over the years is now coming due to be repaid.  AND THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY IT BACK.  SO much easier to just 'privatize' it  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lane Campbell
Say what?
12:40 AM on 07/21/2011
Face it, people, Social Security and Medicare are both flawed systems of transfer payments that pull money out of one pocket and immediately drop it in another. And while doing that, the administrative bureaucracy skims its percentage off the top, so in the long run, it will always take in more than it pays out. Sort of like insurance and legalized gambling. The house wins and the players lose.
Whether it's a "political mine field" or not, it's imperative that we wean ourselves away from this type of "entitlement", before it bankrupts the country. The "trick" is to devise means of doing it gradually, without screwing the people who have paid into it all their lives and expect something back. That will take time -- 30 years or more. Yeah, that's hard for people raised on short attention spans and instant gratification to swallow. The alternative is to bequeath our children and/or grandchildren with a massive infrastructure collapse due to the fact that the capital needed to keep things up & working was sucked up by these "entitlements".
Who am I? I'm 70 years old and still working full-time, because I already consider S/S a sick joke, although I've been paying into it all my working life...
11:09 AM on 07/12/2011
If Obama keeps bakcing down he will be a one term president - from a LL Dem
02:35 AM on 07/07/2011
Independents or idiots?
photo
undertheinfluence
POW in my own home country
12:56 AM on 07/07/2011
Obama should have read this report BEFORE he opened his mouth about cutting S.S and Medicare.
08:09 PM on 07/06/2011
YOU KNOW WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE NO BODY WAS SAYING ANYTHING THAT THEY ARE SAYING NOW NOW OBAMA IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY IT WAS FDR WHO IMPLEMENTED THIS SOCIAL SECURITY IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY BUDGET OR EMERGENCY USE FOR ANY BRANCH OF THE GOVERMENT TO USE SS MONEY THAT IS SUPPOSE TO BE THERE WHEN WE ALL RETIRE WHEN DID THIS COUNTRY BECOME BROKE THEY TO KEEP HANDS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY START USING SOME OF THAT GOLD IN FORT KNOX TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GOLD AND THEY DON'T WANT TO TOUCH SO WHY TOUCH SOMETHING THAT BELONG TO THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR IT TO BE THERE WHEN WE ALL RETIRE FDR HE MUST BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE RIGHT NOW I SAY LEAVE SOCIAL SECURITY THE HELL ALONE PLEASE USE SOME OF THAT GOLD WE HAVE AND THAT WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING THE DEFICIT AND EVERYTHING ELSE WHITH THAT D BUDGET
photo
undertheinfluence
POW in my own home country
12:57 AM on 07/07/2011
BECAUSE ALL WE EVER SEEM TO DO IS PUT LIARS AND CROOKS IN CHARGE OF OUR MONEY.
12:17 AM on 07/08/2011
yep that what we have in the house senate and congress fleas biting us on the butt hey under keep me posted thanks
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
02:03 AM on 07/01/2011
I am for raising revenue by eliminating all these tax laws that benefit the rich at the expense of the common good. I am for tax reform. When you calculate ALL the taxes each income quintile pays, the top quintile pays the least by using all these tax loopholes, deductions, credit, and other methods to game the system with their tax lawyers. Michelle Bachmann is a tax lawyer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cvwilson
12:26 AM on 07/07/2011
The richest 400 people in this country pay an average tax rate of 16%. Do a test. Add together what you pay in income and payroll taxes and calculate the percentage of your gross income. I will bet the percentage is a lot higher than 16%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
12:41 AM on 07/07/2011
I agree but don't forget many of those high earners like to hide their money off shore, in the backyard or anywhere it will not show up as income. The GOP stopped Obama from increasing IRS investigators by 8,000 people to protect the tax cheats who are mostly high earners. Some rich people have a legitimate reason for paying low taxes when they invest in tax free municipal, other local or state bonds but they are also investing in America. Lower income people also pay sales tax as a greater percentage of their wages than the rich. The US Tax Code is just a bundle of special interest give aways, subsidizes, loopholes, and deductions which most Americans don't benefit from. An example is the mortgage interest deduction, the savings to most home owners is not much compared to people with multi-million homes, vacation homes and cabins in the woods. I recall Animal Farm where they say "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stick4013
10:30 PM on 06/30/2011
Think what you want, but not once has Congress considered cutting their medical, retirement or any other benefits. Just one term and they are set for life. They have got to be laughing at us. -Richard Stickney
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:55 AM on 06/30/2011
People are starting to realize that Social "Security" provides them an awful return on their money and this is the start to the end of this awful program.

12% is taken out of your check from the day you start working to the time your receive your last pycheck. If this amount was invested in US Savings bonds or a Bank CD, individuals would have over a million dollard in their account when they retired. This money could go towards, retirement living, health care, childrens or geand kids education or left to charity or their heirs.

Instead if we are lucky enough to live long enough to start collecting on this scheme we only get on average $1280/mo, an amount that fails to keep people living the poverty line.

People need the option of opt out of social "security" if they know they are able to save on thier own. This is truley an awful program.
11:17 AM on 06/30/2011
The problem is to many people have been able to opt-out of Social Security and set up there own plans that States can no longer support with out increasing the amount that the Employees pay in to there plans.

The answer is to not allow any group to opt-out and require that they pay first into Social Security and if they want to set up a fund to add to there retirement plan. Then that is up to the employee to do it separate from Social Security.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:59 AM on 06/30/2011
Even better - Just end social security as todays youth don't believe they will ever collect.

It's time to end the free ride.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mor-a-Les
02:15 AM on 07/03/2011
Sorry, but you're wrong...you pay 1.4% for medicare (try finding medical insurance for that cost) and 6.2% for Social Security.This cost is matched by the employer unless you are self employed. Not a bad deal especially since more and more companies are doing away with a traditional pension plan and medical insurance after retire.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:55 AM on 07/11/2011
Check your math. 6.2% from you plus the 6.2% of your money paid by the employer equals 12.4% of your annual salary being put into a phoney account. If you put the same amount into a CD or US Savings bonds you would have over a million dollars when you wanted to retire. Instead you rather take an average payment of $1280/mo and buy lottery tickets to make a million.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinney1a2b3
Truth, Justice and The American Way.
03:17 AM on 06/30/2011
Thanks to the trillions of dollars that the Chinese have made flooding our shores with cheap products, China is now in a position of tremendous economic power. So what is China going to do with all of that money? One thing that they have decided to do is to buy up pieces of the United States and set up "special economic zones" inside our country from which they can continue to extend their economic domination. One of these "special economic zones" would be just south of Boise, Idaho and the Idaho government is eager to give it to them. China National Machinery Industry Corporation (Sinomach for short) plans to construct a "technology zone" south of Boise Airport which would ultimately be up to 50 square miles in size. The Chinese Communist Party is the majority owner of Sinomach, so the 10,000 to 30,000 acre "self-sustaining city" that is being planned would essentially belong to the Chinese government. The planned "self-sustaining city" in Idaho would include manufacturing facilities, warehouses, retail centers and large numbers of homes for Chinese workers. Basically it would be a slice of communist China dropped right into the middle of the United States.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinney1a2b3
Truth, Justice and The American Way.
03:21 AM on 06/30/2011
So will all of this "foreign investment" really bring jobs back to the American people?

Perhaps a few, but the truth is that these "special economic zones" that the Chinese are setting up are designed to be self-contained communist Chinese communities. Some Americans will likely be employed in these areas, but not nearly as many as our politicians would have you to believe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
billydkidd
" Tea for the Tiller Man "
01:56 PM on 07/01/2011
They got to start somewhere, if America plays its cards right we can be earning 9 cents an hour too!
03:16 AM on 06/30/2011
I see the propaganda is starting from the Radical Right. Now it is all the Dems fault, according to the Right. They say this as they doing every thing they can to trash it. Don't trust a GOPher.

Remember what Bushie said was his one regret? Not the wars, not the debt, not his poor selections for the SCOTUS, but not privatizing SS.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinney1a2b3
Truth, Justice and The American Way.
04:09 AM on 06/30/2011
So, is it the facts that shy you away and set you in lefty attack mode? The Dems (as you call them) did start a lot of the problems. Without ways to pay for there ideas and programs. You could learn history or keep doing what you are doing and watch MSNBS for all your lefty news. Lefty is short for many things, like progressive socialist, AKA, a bigger government, AKA more debt. A true China dependant. Ouch...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinney1a2b3
Truth, Justice and The American Way.
02:54 AM on 06/30/2011
Wow, kind of rabid M.... Who raided the Social Security Account back in the day when Social Security had an Abundance of money to pay the American's who paid in? The Democratic Party. They wanted to spend it on something else and did. Social Security has never been the same. Oh, well, there is a ton of fraud that hurts the program, just like all the other government programs. Is anything being done about that? no. Does the government know about it? yes, "they don't have enough people to verify all claims." What? Verify at the point of the transaction, right? That's how it works EVERY place else. But, no, that would save billions of Tax Payers Money almost automaticly.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinney1a2b3
Truth, Justice and The American Way.
02:31 AM on 06/30/2011
Will we go quietly into that good night, America?
Learn to speak Mandarin. ***National Security Issue***
China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile **Self-Sustaining City**
South Of Boise, Idaho
endoftheamericandream.com
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinney1a2b3
Truth, Justice and The American Way.
03:06 AM on 06/30/2011
Um, check and see if our government has OK' ed it.
Oh, see if there is 200+ more projects like that OK' ed all over America.
No way. Right?
China fenced in a 50 by 50 Mile area doing what ever they want...
So, 200+ more and that is OK with our American government?
Go and see... www.endoftheamericandream.com and do it sitting down, with a friend. You two will not believe it. No way, will be something that will be said over and over. you'll see.
What can you do? I mean for a double dip economy, you stock up on food stuffs and daily stuff for the hard time coming. But, for this? Buy a Tank? ugh... ??? Good luck.
03:17 AM on 06/30/2011
Yes, we can thank Bushie for all that and more. He was the worst pres ever...ever...ever...ever.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinney1a2b3
Truth, Justice and The American Way.
03:23 AM on 06/30/2011
Tell Obama: stop it! You can right? He is the best ever, right? So, he will, I'm sure. Right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
billydkidd
" Tea for the Tiller Man "
02:07 PM on 07/01/2011
I said in 2001 that Bush would do what all the Countries in the world combine could not do and that was distroy this Country. I was right then and i am right now. You don't go into wars on borrowed money and expect the poor and less fortunate to pay for it. There isn't any rich boys and girls over there dying, all anyone is asking is for you to do is put yours 2 cents in, to contribute. And you are even above that.
02:30 AM on 06/30/2011
The railroad has Tier I and Tier II programs for retirements. The Tier I is identical to the social security. It does not have a problem. Tier I started in 1934 and a year later in 1935 Social Security started.
12:41 AM on 06/30/2011
Two trillion in unfunded government pensions is no good reason to cut SS in any way.
A reform is in order, people collect longer then they were on the job.Can't afford this!
No ones fault, we live longer.A total freeze is a good place to start in the public sector.
I am a small business and we are bleeding out, one of thousands that can not and will
not rehire the people we HAD to lay off. Bad news for the country!
01:14 AM on 06/30/2011
I am a Goverment retiree. I paid 7% of my pay every payday for my retirement. I also paid 3.6% into medicare. I don't get medicare I pay for Blue Cross Blue Shield every month. Stop listening to talking heads. Look up some Goverment web pages so you will know what you are talking about.
12:12 PM on 06/30/2011
How long before you have collected more then you have put in? That is the problem.
Like I said it's no ones fault we live longer. The only other choice we have is cut out of
entire programs and that will mean the lose of jobs, and we can't put any more people on the street. We are at 17% unimployment now and it's a long way from getting better.
I own a small business and had to lay off 40 of 60 employees end of 09,brutal!
I would love to hire back but not enough work in the pipeline.
photo
mac2jr
The truth always wins out
12:26 AM on 06/30/2011
If one becomes 62 years of age, and he or she paid into the system, then he or she can claim Social Security. The amount depends on the amounts put into the system over the period. Now, the second part of the equation, the 'boss'. Your boss has to equal your contributions into the system, and if he or she does not, which many do NOT, then the system will go broke. You cannot pay out a $1.00 if one person puts in $0.50 and the other who is required by law to do so, does NOT. Therefore, part of the Social Security Reform MUST be to go after the 'illegal EMPLOYERS, who are CHEATING the SYSTEM and the American Taxpayer. This includes employers that hire 'illegals', deliberately go out of business yearly, deliberately go bankrupt, and deliberately NOT pay their fair share of THEIR TAXES. Currently the estimated number is 1.6 Million in the USA
12:40 AM on 06/30/2011
I agree with some of what you said. You make some good points. When I worked at the navy base in Port Hueneme CA in the 80s the janitors worked for a private contractor. They were all Mexican. They had to work a year to get benefits. The company always found a reason to fire them after 11 months. Then they would get their jobs back but they had to start at day 1 again. What could they do they needed the work and couldn't fight back. They never got benefits like SS and the company never had to pay the Government. They were a Government contractor. I know for a fact that some of them were illegal and I think the Government knew it too.
01:46 AM on 06/30/2011
What you're saying has a lot of truth. You can be sure the government is on top of this. Not only will the employer have to pay the amount that was not deposited timely, but also will be penalized for Failure To Deposit (FTP) You may wish to read IRM 20.1.4. Based on circumstances, one could end up in Federal Court and sent to one of the barbed wire motels for a few years.
11:06 AM on 06/30/2011
Great conversation, Guys.