Voters agree on Social Security solution

Congress may seem incapable of breaking through the bickering that holds up desperately needed reforms for Social Security, but blaming alleged public division on the issue will no longer fly. Survey says: A majority of Americans both red and blue agree on what to do. Even better, the options they approve would actually eliminate the shortfall.

According to Social Security Trustees, the trust fund will be exhausted by 2033 if nothing is done, which means that the only benefits delivered will be based on current receipts (what current workers pay in). In effect that would mean an average benefit reduction of 23 percent. The oft-repeated story is that Congressional failure to address the shortfall is driven by voter divide.

Not so, says a landmark study announced in February by Christian Science Monitor contributor Steven Kull. Kull directs the Program for Public Consultation, affiliated with University of Maryland, which conducted this study sponsored by "Voice of the People" - a bipartisan nonprofit whose board includes former government leaders, educators, and policymakers.

In careful consultation with top Democrat and Republican Congressional offices, political groups, and Social Security experts, a policy analysis process was developed similar to those prepared for Members of Congress: a presentation of the problem (retirees living longer, increasingly using benefits beyond what they paid in, and now outnumbering the number of workers contributing to the system), the options and their impacts, and a step-by-step approval or rejection.

Result? Three-quarters of those surveyed, "R" and "D," agreed on four answers, and just more than half agreed on a fifth - together addressing 100 percent of the shortfall in short order.

The bipartisan-endorsed options were:

1. Reduce benefits for the top-quarter earners (79 percent)

2. Raise the full retirement age to 68 (78 percent)

3. Raise the cap on annual income subject to SS tax to $215,000 (83 percent)

4. Raise the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.6 percent (75 percent).

These four would reduce the shortfall by 70 percent, according to Social Security Trustees. A smaller majority of 52 percent (58 percent of Democrats, 53 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of independents) also endorsed making all income subject to payroll tax, rather than exempting the lowest earners. Adding that to the mix more than eliminates the shortfall.

Encouraging too are signs of selflessness. For example, the highest earners in the survey, whose incomes would be taxed more in the proffered scenario, still voted in favor of that option at the same rate as lower earners. Also those younger than 48 were just as much in favor of raising the retirement age as those already retired or to whom the change would not apply.

This flies in the face of the idea that the public are too self-interested or immature to consider the problem and deal with the required trade-offs, be they partisan or otherwise. Let's hope those in Congress working on the problem get this report and can move forward with whatever compromises are necessary to heed the voices of their voters who, at least on this issue affecting us all, can pull together for mutual benefit.

Want to try the policy simulation yourself? See Vop.org/consultations.

Sholeh Patrick, J.D., is a former Congressional staffer and a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at [email protected].