More

Republican Voters Support Social Security, But Question Future Benefits

Social Security Polls

First Posted: 09/09/11 08:59 AM ET Updated: 11/09/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- A skirmish over Social Security in Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate helps illustrate two conflicting views of the 70-year-old program that cut across party lines. Although the program is hugely popular among both Republicans and Democrats, voters in both parties also have grave doubts about its future financial solvency, according to polls. And Republicans divide almost evenly about whether cuts to Social Security benefits may be necessary to reduce the federal deficit.

The dust-up in Wednesday night's debate centered on Texas Gov. Rick Perry's comment in his book, "Fed Up!" that Social Security "violently tossed aside any respect for state's rights." When asked to explain his view that Social Security was wrong from the beginning, Perry avoided a direct answer, saying instead that he does not intend to "go back and change 70 years of what's been going on."

Rather, Perry said he prefers to "transition the program" for younger Americans. He restated a claim that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," adding that it is a "monstrous lie" to tell 25 to 30-year-olds that they are "paying into a program that's going to be there" when they reach retirement age.

While conceding that "the funding program of Social Security is not working," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney countered by returning to Perry's comments in "Fed Up!" "You say that by any measure, Social Security is a failure," Romney said. "Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security."

The candidate's arguments play to two different aspects of public opinion on Social Security among both Republicans and voters across party lines. In portraying Perry as someone who sees Social Security as a failure, Romney speaks to the overwhelming majority of Republicans who see the program as a success. As the Pew Research Center confirmed in a national survey in June, 87 percent of Republicans say that Social Security has been good for the country. As the table below shows, Republicans are only slightly more negative about Social Security than Democrats.

2011-09-08-Blumenthal-PewSocialSecurity.png

Perry prefers an argument about how Social Security is funded and, more specifically, whether the program amounts to a false promise to younger Americans. On that argument, he too will find sympathy from most Republicans and from most voters generally. The same Pew Research survey found that only 18 percent of Republicans think the program is in excellent or good financial condition. Similarly, a CNN/ORC International poll conducted over the summer found that just 28 percent of Republicans believe Social Security will last another 70 years.

More to the point, the CNN/ORC survey found that just 39 percent of those currently employed (and just 32 percent of employed Republicans) believe that the Social Security system will be able to pay a benefit when they retire; 60 percent believe it will not. Among those 50 years old or younger, 70 percent believe they will receive no benefit when they retire.

This skepticism is not new. A series of surveys conducted by CBS News and The New York Times found similar results in 2005. In June of that year, 70 percent of those younger than 45 felt that the program would not have the money to pay benefits when they retire.

The argument between Perry and Romney does not yet center on policy specifics, since neither candidate has released a detailed plan for how they would deal with Social Security, although both support unspecified "reforms." As The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reported, Romney used similarly inflammatory rhetoric to discuss Social Security in his 1982 book, "No Apology."

Nevertheless, the current Romney-Perry skirmish on Social Security plays in some sense to their respective bases within the Republican party. In June, for example, the Pew Research Center found Republicans split almost evenly on whether the government should reduce the deficit or maintain retirement benefits. Slightly fewer Republicans (44 percent) said they considered it more important to take "steps to reduce the budget deficit" than to keep "Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are" (47 percent).

2011-09-08-Blumenthal-PewRepublicansEntitlements.png

Mirroring the Perry-Romney debate, however, those Republicans who agree with the Tea Party were more likely to favor budget reduction (by a 57 to 35 percent margin), while more moderate Republicans favored keeping benefits as they are (by a 56 to 36 percent margin).

For now, the Romney campaign's offensive on Social Security may be mostly an electability argument aimed at party insiders. "No federal candidate has ever won on the Perry program to kill Social Security," a Romney adviser told Politico Wednesday night. Ultimately, Perry's enthusiastic use of a provocative term like "Ponzi scheme" to describe an enormously popular program may be as important as the policy specifics. Should the issue turn to a battle of messages among the Republican rank and file, however, the outcome will be hard to predict.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- A skirmish over Social Security in Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate helps illustrate two conflicting views of the 70-year-old program that cut across party lines. Althoug...
WASHINGTON -- A skirmish over Social Security in Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate helps illustrate two conflicting views of the 70-year-old program that cut across party lines. Althoug...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,098
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (48 total)
  1 of 5  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
gomezrules 10:24 AM on 09/09/2011
This is news? The questions about Soc Sec have everything to do with the undeniable fact that it is not sustainable. Period. Even though nobody has any say-so as to their participation, the fact is that most people pay into it, so they naturally expect to get back what was promised to them. Soc Sec has been a good system, no argument. BUT, it has been so because it reaped the benefit of the Baby Boom that  Read More...
07:29 PM on 09/20/2011
The Social Security Administration is now 70 years old. But Congress started raiding the funds nearly 50 years ago. So for the first 20 years only, it was an investment pool to guarantee a safety net when you retired. But for the last 50 years, it's been a Ponzi scheme, where the only way seniors got paid is by handing over the money the young people were paying into it. You can single out Bush if you like, but nobody honored the "lock box", it was just money to spend, replaced by IOU's to be paid by somebody else, sometime in the future. The future is now, it's just a matter of who is supposed to come up with the money for those IOU's.
05:42 PM on 09/12/2011
Make no mistake, the Republican Party has been against Social Security since it's passage in the 1930's. They have not been able to do anything about getting rid of it so now the big push by the Republican Party is to keep spreading the BIG LIE that Social Security is in financial trouble and that continuation of the fund's benefits are questionable. The Republican Party's agenda regarding Social Security is to utilize the BIG LIE process and in that way weaken support amongst the party's own membership so that they will look to the party to do something about it. As if the Republican Party would do anything to really help the Social Security fund IF IT WERE REALLY IN TROUBLE, WHICH IT IS NOT.

If one were to check the Congressional Budget Office they would learn that SS has over two TRILLION dollars in their reserve fund. That if all payments to the fund were stopped today 100% benefits could continue for all participants until 2037 and after that date the participants would receive 75% of the benefits thereafter. AND THAT IS IF ALL PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND WERE STOPPED TODAY!!! Social Security needs some really minor tweaking to adjust the full benefits for all participants beyond the 2037 date. MINOR TWEAKING!! Certainly not the privatization schemes the Republicans want to adapt for the fund or anything else those vultures want to pull off to make the Social Security program disappear.
07:24 PM on 09/20/2011
Talk about big lie. One agency of the government is the Social Security Administration. It has no money. What it does have is Treasury notes guaranteed by another agency of the government, the U.S. Treasury. Yes, if the U.S. Treasury can make good on 2 trillion in debt to the SS Administration, then everything is hunky-dory.

But the U.S. government is falling into deeper and deeper debt day-by-day. If Obama is going 1.5 trillion more in debt each year, what are the chances that he can pay back 2 trillion owed to the Social Security Administraion?

If you're 55, you just might something back. If you're 25, you're screwed.
05:31 PM on 09/12/2011
"Perry prefers an argument about how Social Security is ... a false promise to younger Americans. On that argument, he too will find sympathy from most Republicans and from most voters generally."

Republican media has told the public for a decade Social Security will run out of money, so benefits must be reduced, which alarms seniors, and made young workers wonder if they'd receive benefits. The last Republican Congress and G.W. Bush robbed Social Security repeatedly, which now holds $2.7 T in IOUs, while spending on 2 wars and cutting taxes for the rich.

If you're not financially secure, you should not vote for Republicans on this alone, unless dying on the street is appealing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
daveclementsusa
Mommy, Daves hitting me with TRUTH again
04:56 PM on 09/12/2011
Who would of thought Perry would have a head larger than Tom Ridge???
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SETexasLib
TryingToBeGood,ButRelyingOnMercy
05:37 PM on 09/12/2011
Such large heads to hold such small brains, what a waste!
03:58 PM on 09/12/2011
Perry seems to have taken a page from McCain. Flip flop when your words get you in trouble. Pander to the voters, Gov Perry but we still know what you are really thinking.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jkbc8484
03:31 PM on 09/12/2011
I would like to know how many Republicans are receiving SS benifits.
02:58 PM on 09/12/2011
there are a few good ideas people on this blog have made: the money we contribute to SS could be used to buy govt bonds in an account each contributor has. A) we could help fund the govt and B) those accounts would be our property to do as we please with when we retire or die (they would be part of our estate)
03:32 PM on 09/12/2011
But what about for those of us already on SS, or SSDI? And those over 40 or 50 who have paid into it all of our working lives? Also, with the recent debt ceiling "talks" where we were told the Government might default on those debts, including it's bonds, how could we trust that the Government would still be able to pay on those bonds when we need them them?

That said, I have an idea which could save money for Medicare. Yes, there's a lot of fraud which must be eliminated. But, currently, everyone must sign up for Medicare Part B within 3 months of turning 65, or face financial penalties when they do sign up down the line. Right now, Medicare is the primary payor, even for a person who is still working and their employer-funded insurance is secondary. Why not have those people who still have employer-provided insurance use that as the primary payor instead of Medicare, which would then be secondary? Medicare would then pay 20% instead of 80%. Also, don't penalize anyone for not signing up for Medicare Part B if they want to wait -- but also make it law that anyone who hasn't signed up cannot receive retroactive benefits, just like any other medical insurance. This would at least be a start.
05:04 PM on 09/12/2011
I fit in that age group. Of course the changes I submit would not negate older workers or those already receiving payments. Changes would be introduced on some type of sliding scale depending on age.

your Medicare ideas are good
02:52 PM on 09/12/2011
technically SS is run like a Ponzi scheme but it was intended to be a forced savings plan and not another form of revenue for the government, unless, of course, the recipients passed away before they could collect what they put into it.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LittleRedHenSez
01:51 PM on 09/12/2011
When SS was passed, it was also supported by some Republican congressmen. William Borah, R senator of Idaho said at the time:

"We are told that for the Government to feed this woman and her sick children would destroy her self respect and make a bad citizen of her," Borah said, belittling the impoverished version of civic philosophy held by his opponents. "Does anyone believe it? It is a cowardly imputation on the helpless. I resent it and I repudiate it." Borah echoed this view in 1932 when he said that "[some conservatives say] if we keep [the unemployed] from starving we will undermine their character. I denounce that as a libel of American citizenship. Ninety percent of our people would return to work tomorrow. They would scorn your charity. They would refuse your gifts if you would give them the opportunity to get to work."

Too bad there aren't any Republicans like him anymore.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eztempo
02:40 PM on 09/12/2011
It's also pretty lame that the Republicans are using the exact same arguments against helping their fellow citizens today as they used 3 generations ago. No imagination, no growth, no deepening of any understanding of our national condition.

Pathetic.
01:34 PM on 09/12/2011
Isnt the idea of starving the gov. and smaller or no gov. oversight anarchy?
12:54 PM on 09/12/2011
There is propaganda & then ,there are..."polls"...

When people are asked if they like a person,a program,an idea,without comparing it to others ,
it is easy to get approval in the 80s & 90s .

A person,alone,without comparison,might get 80s .
However,compared with other persons,he could drop to 50s & 40s.

Same with SS.
Alone,it gets 80s..
Compared to a hypothetical private Individual Retirement Program,
guarranteed by the gov,the opinions could split 50-50...

That's the poll I want to see...

That's the real issue...
03:57 PM on 09/12/2011
If your hypothetical Individual Retirement Program is "guarranteed" [sic] by the government, then it's not private.

Perhaps you could also explain how it would be different from the system we have now?
04:33 PM on 09/12/2011
Savings accounts in banks are private but guarranteed (sic)....

A private program would be voluntary & the people would follow it because it woud belong to them & offer interest...

I think both warranty & guarrantee get a double r...
photo
billy goat
Sniffing Out Bad Cheese Everywhere!
12:29 PM on 09/12/2011
Using Perry's logic anything not purchased now for cash is a Ponzi Scheme. Since no one can predict or know the future, it is impossible to say whether or not for certain that will ever be funds to pay for anything. His argument is absurd.
photo
BBackSoon
Hello, I must be going.
12:15 PM on 09/12/2011
I truly don't understand how someone making less than say $50k a year can be a Republican.
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
01:12 PM on 09/12/2011
Very true,,,98% of the people that vote for Republicans can't afford to be Republicans
06:12 PM on 09/12/2011
I am afraid your figure of 50k is way wide of the mark. Unless one is not making at least $750,000 annually and votes Republican he or she is voting against their very own self-interests. $250k a year puts a person into the top 2% of money earners in the country but in reality these are not the Hedge Fund managers or CEOs who for the most part are clipping coupons and paying only 15% on their income. All the tax breaks and tax exempt off-shore accounts go to the 1% or Super Rich portion of our population and those are the only people who when voting Republican are voting their self-interests. Everyone else are suckers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:06 PM on 09/12/2011
Would someone please ask Gov. Perry to define exactly what HE thinks a Ponzi Scheme is, exactly how a Ponzi Scheme works, and exactly how that applies to Social Security?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:31 AM on 09/12/2011
Changing Social Security would be a reason I would vote for a candidate. Currently 12.6% of your pay is taken out of your paycheck and given to this ponzi scheme with the hopes that maybe someday you'll be able to collect from it an average of just $1280/mo.

If a person put 12.6% of their paycheck into a CD or US Savings bonds from the day they first drew a paycheck they would have over $500k saved by the time they retired.

Given the choice of $500k in the bank, or $1280/mo which would most people choose? The choice is clear, Social Security is ripping off the American public.
11:57 AM on 09/12/2011
I don't think your figures are right on the Bonds. Bonds go up and down just like the stock market and believe me the Stock market is NOT the place for anyone's retirement. Too many Effing Crooks and most are Republicans.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:17 PM on 09/12/2011
Over the last 30 years the average interest rate was over 7%. Bonds do go up and down, but the interest rate is secure. If you put $2,000 into an account every year from the day you started working till you turned 65 and retired, you would have over $625K at those rates. Imagine how much you would have contributing 12.6%.

Chack my math - It's correct.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SETexasLib
TryingToBeGood,ButRelyingOnMercy
05:45 PM on 09/12/2011
fanned and faved
12:19 PM on 09/12/2011
Were you absent the day the market tanked? Many, many people lost almost everyhting they had invested. My 401K dropped by half in the blink of an eye.

You may also want to look up the actual definition of Ponzi Scheme. Social Security ISN'T one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:52 PM on 09/12/2011
Social security is a ponzi scheme.

Why did you have ALL your money in just stocks? You liked the gains before the crash and just got a little greedy?
tnjr
Humor gets me through the day
11:01 PM on 09/12/2011
Do you think your are entittled to social security? In 1930s, the Supreme Court ruled that social security was to used for the general welfare and not necessary for the person who paid into it. They also held that Congress determines who is the general welfare. In 1960, te Supreme Court held that there is no contract entered between the government and the individual concerning social security. The individual doesn't not contribute, rather the government collects a payroll tax. By law, you are not entittled to a dime. So stop complaining about your social security, it's not yours, it's congress who determines the general welfare, think means testing.