Over the past sixty years, pollsters have asked hundreds of questions about Social Security. Over the past four years, they have begun to explore Americans’ opinions about personal savings accounts and investment of Social Security Trust Fund in the stock market. Although the pollsters have used different question wordings and approaches to explore these new ideas, the public’s responses are remarkably clear and consistent.

This report begins by reviewing four broader currents in opinion that will influence the debate on Social Security reform. Included in this discussion are polling questions asked in the past year on the new areas. Other more familiar data on Social Security issues, such as raising the retirement age, means testing, and generational differences, are presented at the end of the report. The tables that accompany this report include questions asked by polling firms such as the Gallup Organization, ICR and the Associated Press, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Opinion Dynamics/Fox News, Princeton Survey Research Associates, Zogby International, Roper Starch Worldwide, and Yankelovich Partners. Our understanding of current opinion on Social Security is richer for their efforts.

Setting the Stage

Polls are an imperfect instrument, so they should not be used to make policy. They can be helpful in understanding how Americans approach issues and how their thinking has changed over time. Four general sentiments are shaping current opinion about Social Security’s future. The first is a fundamental change in attitudes about the federal government. The second, a reaffirmation of self-reliance, is related to the first. Receptivity toward choice, always a powerful current in our individualistic society, is the third major force that is influencing attitudes. Public opinion toward risk, the fourth variable, is less easy to decipher through polls. It, too, will weigh heavily in efforts to reshape the program.

Attitudes about the Federal Government. In 1958, 73 percent of Americans told interviewers from the University of Michigan that they trusted the government in Washington to do what was right most of the time or just about always, and 23 percent said only some or none of the time. A sea change has taken place in Americans’ views on this question. When ABC News and the Washington Post repeated it in February 1999, 32 percent trusted Washington most of the time or just about always, and 67 percent said only some or none of the time.

In 1998, when CBS News and the New York Times asked whether the federal government could have a positive impact on people's lives, nearly nine in ten said that it could. When asked in a follow-up question if the federal government was having a positive impact today, only three in ten said it was. A more devastating indictment is the widely held view that the federal government creates more problems than it solves. From the New Deal to the mid-1960s, Americans were optimistic about the federal government’s abilities to address problems. The weight of survey data in the past twenty-five years, however, has been on the federal government as a problem causer, and not a problem solver.

It is important not to overstate public negativity about the federal government. Americans want the government in Washington to do many things. Social Security is one of the most—if not the most—popular government programs. Only about 10 to 15 percent of Americans support the idea of full privatization of the Social Security program. In an October-November 1997 survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Americans Discuss Social Security project (PSRA/ADSS) [funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts], 59 percent of those surveyed said that the government has a responsibility to ensure that older people have enough money to retire without living in poverty (37 percent said this was not something the government should be responsible for). Today, it's not that majorities believe that less government represents progress. They simply no longer believe that more government does.

Many survey questions today show a receptivity to non-Washington solutions to the nation’s problems. A question asked of registered voters in 1998 by Mark Penn of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates inquired about how we should handle the nation’s increasingly elderly population. Eighteen percent wanted to expand government-run programs to care for the elderly. Forty-two percent wanted to give families the tools to care for the elderly themselves, and 36 percent to give tax cuts to the elderly, to allow them to pay for their own expenses or needs. Expanding government’s role was the least popular alternative.

Changing views about the federal government have created a climate where people are more receptive than they were in the past to nongovernmental approaches to problems. This change may explain the support we see in surveys for personal savings accounts. [In polls and commentary, a number of different terms are used to describe accounts of this type, including personal savings accounts, personal retirement accounts, and individual savings accounts]. We will say more about those data later.

Self-Reliance. Also shaping attitudes toward reform of the Social Security program is the reawakening of an old virtue, self-reliance. Self-reliance never disappeared, of course, but with the expansion of the federal government’s role in the 1950s and 1960s, it was given less emphasis than it had in the past. That emphasis is changing, and polls suggest that Americans, and particularly younger ones, are more aware of the need to rely on themselves. A question from Roper Starch Worldwide about sources of retirement income underscores the change. In 1974, Roper began asking nonretired individuals whether they felt "fairly confident" that they could count on various things as sources of income in their retirement years. A quarter century ago, in 1974, 88 percent of nonretired people felt fairly confident that they could count on Social Security as a source of retirement income. When the question was asked in 1997, just 46 percent felt that way. For the first time since the question was asked, more people in 1997 felt fairly confident about relying on private savings than felt fairly confident about relying on Social Security (table 1).

A question asked since 1975 by the American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI) about confidence in the future of Social Security shows low confidence today. In 1998, 7 percent were very confident, 28 percent somewhat confident, 33 percent not too confident, and 26 percent not confident at all (table 1). More recent data from a March 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed even greater pessimism among the nonretired. Just 8 percent of this group were completely confident that Social Security would still be providing retirement benefits when they reached retirement age, 11 percent were very confident, 35 percent just somewhat confident, and 45 percent were not confident at all. The low levels of confidence in the program may be encouraging people to think more about preparing for their own retirement needs.

Several recent surveys explore current expectations about the role that government and individuals will play in providing for retirement needs. These questions also underscore the importance of self-reliance. In the OctoberÿNovember 1997 PSRA/ADSS poll, people were asked whether various things would help them to have enough money during old age. Thirty-six percent of those who were not retired said their Social Security would help a lot or a little. Eighty-two percent said their own savings and investments would help. The March 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 9 percent expected that all their retirement income would come from Social Security, 16 percent that most would, 21 percent that about half would, 25 percent that less than half would, and 25 percent that very little would.

In the fall of 1997, PSRA/ADSS conducted a survey in the United States on government and individual responsibility in various areas and oversaw surveys in five European countries on the same topics. (Some of the questions were also asked in Chile.) Cross-national surveys over the past several decades that have explored views about governments’ responsibilities have consistently shown that the United States differs from other democracies in the amount of responsibility taken by the individual and not the state. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed in the United States said that people like themselves should feel "entirely responsible for saving enough money to meet at least their basic expenses in retirement" (33 percent said people like themselves should expect help from the government). The European average of the individual responsibility side of the equation (42 percent) was much lower than the national response in the United States. In a separate question, 64 percent of Americans said that "people like themselves" should be entirely responsible for saving enough money to maintain their current standard of living. The European average was 54 percent. Young and old in the United States did not differ in their responses to these questions.

Greater affluence and the growth of private pension plans are reinforcing the new ethic of self-reliance. An April 1998 survey by Yankelovich Partners for Time and CNN found that 44 percent of those under age 65 (and a near majority, 47 percent, of those aged 18 to 34) felt that they could save enough to retire "if Social Security no longer existed." Surveys conducted over the past five years by Matthew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute and the American Savings Education Council show that majorities of current workers feel confident they will personally have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, though only about 20 percent feel very confident. Thirty-seven percent in the March 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said their retirement income will be enough to allow them to live comfortably, 32 percent said it would be enough only to pay their monthly bills and obligations, and 27 percent said they feared it would not be enough to pay their bills. In the poll, 52 percent of the nonretired said that they would be better off financially than their parents were at their retirement, 18 percent said worse off, and 24 percent said about the same.

The reaffirmation of self-reliance is especially visible among younger Americans. Young people today are not confident about Social Security’s future. The bipartisan polling team of Frank Luntz and Mark Siegel got a lot of laughs and an enormous amount of media attention when they asked 18-to-34-year-olds in a 1994 poll for the Third Millennium, an organization that supports privatization of Social Security, a question about UFOs and, separately, a question about the health of the Social Security system. More young people responded affirmatively to the first question, that UFOs existed (46 percent), than responded affirmatively to the second question, that they believed Social Security would still exist by the time they retired (28 percent). More recently, in 1999, the duo asked a national sample which was more likely to happen: that they would collect all the Social Security that is owed them or that a pro-wrestler would be elected president. Fifty-two percent put their money on the pro-wrestler, 39 percent on collecting all their Social Security. In an article in the New Republic, Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Shapiro criticized the Third Millennium/UFO survey, and they compared the responses in that survey to a question asked by the Employee Benefit Research Institute that showed young people were more likely to believe in Social Security than in UFOs.

The puckish nature of the Luntz-Siegel efforts notwithstanding, we have accumulated enough of these kinds of questions to buttress their major point: young people are not very confident about Social Security’s future. This fact may be encouraging them to take more responsibility for themselves. In the 1998 ACLI survey mentioned above, just 24 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds were confident of Social Security’s future, but 65 percent were not. In the PSRA/ADSS survey, just 7 percent of 18ÿ34-year-olds thought Social Security would help them a lot in their old age (24 percent said this source of income would help some). But 61 percent said their own savings and investment would help them a lot in their old age (25 percent said some).

Choice. Survey data make it abundantly clear that Americans like to have choices and they like making choices themselves. This powerful impulse contributes to the attractiveness of individual saving accounts, although it can be seen in many other areas. Solid majorities, for example, endorse the view that "the choice on an abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor." A Yankelovich Partners question found that a quarter believed that "smoking was a bad habit and our society should do everything possible to stamp it out," but 73 percent chose "smoking is a bad habit but everyone should have the right to make his or her own choice about whether to smoke or not." Questions about pornography show that Americans believe adults should be permitted to buy or read whatever they wish. A 1996 article in Public Opinion Quarterly about third parties concluded that "support for a third party seems to be rooted in a desire for more choices at the polls rather than any deep-seated desire to replace, or do away with, the existing choices." Even questions about euthanasia show that people want individuals’ choices about ending their own lives to be respected.

The responses to a handful of questions that have been asked over the past fifteen years about making the Social Security system voluntary have been erratic. But each time the question emphasizes individual choice, support has been strong. In March 1992, for example, Gallup conducted a poll for the Employee Benefit Research Institute in which people were asked: "Do you think participation in the Social Security system should be voluntary?" Forty-four percent said it should, but 55 percent disagreed. That same year, in November, Gallup/EBRI asked this question: "Do you think participation in the Social Security system should be made voluntary so that individuals can choose to participate in the Social Security system or not?" Fifty-six percent responded affirmatively, and 43 percent negatively. It is unlikely that opinion on voluntary participation in Social Security shifted from opposition to support in a matter of nine months. Rather, the inclusion of the phrase "so that individuals can choose" in the November question probably pulled people in the direction of support for the idea. A more recent question from the March 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 51 percent of the nonretired would choose to be in the Social Security system and pay taxes, but 44 percent would choose to get out of it and not pay taxes. In 1979, 77 percent said they would choose to stay in, and 19 percent choose to get out.

A number of recent polls show that Americans feel pretty confident about making retirement savings choices on their own. In the September 1998 PSRA/ADSS poll, 14 percent said they would do an excellent job of making these investments and managing their own retirement account [described in the question as "a system where individuals invest some of their own payroll tax contributions themselves"], 38 percent said they would do a good job, 25 percent said only fair, and 17 percent said poor. The January 1999 Luntz/Siegel poll for Oppenheimer Funds found that 32 percent were confident about Washington’s ability to manage their retirement account, 53 percent were confident about Wall Street’s ability, and 85 percent were confident about their own abilities to manage them.

The importance of individual decisionmaking can be seen in the March 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Thirty-one percent of those surveyed, in the top response in the question, said that "giving people more personal control over their Social Security savings" was the most important goal in reforming the system, and 30 percent contended that "the long-term stability of the system" was most important. Another question in the poll posited that people would be allowed to put a portion of their Social Security taxes in individual retirement accounts that could be invested in the stock market. Sixty-seven percent said they would prefer the option of a system in which people could invest in any stock or fund that they chose, but 25 percent said they would prefer a system in which people could choose from a limited number of government-approved funds.

Risk. Pollsters ask many questions about what level of risk people are prepared to take in their personal lives. Many of the questions are hypothetical and prospective, and it is hard to know exactly what the responses mean. In the current polls about Social Security, a number of issues arise that involve risk. Using different question wordings describing levels of risk, the pollsters have been exploring people’s general reactions to the idea of individual savings accounts. They have then asked people who like the idea whether they would invest all or part of their retirement funds in the stock market. They have also explored whether government should provide a minimum base retirement amount if we should move to a system of private savings accounts, and they have asked whether government should step in if people's investments do poorly. Several pollsters have been in the field before and after periods of unusual market volatility to see whether views about personal savings accounts are affected. Finally, pollsters have been exploring whether portions of the Trust Fund should be invested in the stock market.

Nearly all of the two dozen questions in table 2 show support for the idea of individual savings accounts. The one asked by Zogby International in April and October 1998 is the most radical. Zogby includes the word replacing with regard to Social Security. In April 1998, 43 percent still supported the idea (46 percent were opposed), and in October, 47 percent supported it (45 percent were opposed). Questions posed by NBC News/Wall Street Journal interviewers in April and October of 1998 and again in March 1999 introduce the idea that some people think personal savings accounts may be "too risky." In two of the three iterations of this question, bare majorities were opposed. In a December NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 49 percent opposed "allow[ing] workers to take all [author italics] of their Social Security taxes out of the system and invest them on their own" (47 percent were in favor). In March, when the pollsters asked about allowing workers to take some of their taxes out of the system and invest them on their own, 62 percent were in favor.

An April 1998 Yankelovich Partners question also emphasized that some risk would be involved in this new savings vehicle: "People who did this would get more money when they retired if those investments did well, but less money if those investments did poorly." Sixty percent endorsed the idea of personal savings accounts when they were described in this way. In the next question in the survey, people were asked what they would do if this option were to become available. "Would you put some of your Social Security taxes in investments such as the stock market, or would you continue to put all those taxes in the Social Security system?" Fifty-nine percent of those under age sixty five said they would put some in investments, and 35 percent would put all of it in Social Security. Most polls show a preference for investing a portion, but not all, of Social Security taxes in personal accounts.

A question in the August 1998 PSRA/ADSS survey addresses risk in another way, by asking whether in a personal savings account regimen there would be a guaranteed floor for government assistance. "Earlier you said you want workers to invest some of their own contributions themselves. If this happens, should Social Security have a guarantee that no one’s monthly benefit would ever be lower than the poverty level, no matter how their own investments performed, or do you think there should be no minimum guaranteed amount?" Forty-eight percent of those who felt it is important to let workers invest for themselves said there should be a guaranteed minimum, but nearly as many, 44 percent, said there should not be.

The April Yankelovich Partners survey asks whether the government should compensate individuals who make less money in the market: "If the government allowed people to invest part of their Social Security taxes in investments such as the stock market and individuals controlled their own investments, do you think the government should or should not compensate people who make less money than they would have in the Social Security system?" Put this way, 21 percent said the government should compensate them, but 72 percent said government should not.

Two sets of questions, one asked by Zogby International and another by the PSRA/ADSS project, found no change in support for the idea of personal savings accounts after significant rumbles in the stock market.

All the questions I have been able to locate show opposition to investing Social Security Trust Fund in the stock market (table 3). In January 1999, Zogby International put this question to a national sample: "There is a proposal to invest a portion of Social Security reserves in the stock market. The money invested in the stock market would total about $700 billion. The amount invested would never be more than 15 percent of the total Social Security reserves." Thirty-nine percent were in favor of the idea, and 53 percent were opposed. Those who were opposed were then asked about four statements describing factors that might lead people to oppose this proposal. Seventy-nine percent said the argument that it is "wrong for the federal government to interfere in the stock market and decide which companies receive investments from Social Security;" was a very important factor for their opposition, 70 percent said their fear "that the stock market could go down and endanger [their] Social Security benefits;" was very important, 69 percent the option, "you want to decide for yourself how your Social Security contributions will be invested in the Stock market" as being very important, and 58 percent said they did "not trust government to make the best possible investment decisions in the market." This battery suggests that people’s opposition to the idea is motivated by general skepticism about government as well as an aversion to the risk the market entails.

The data suggest that people like the idea of having a choice of personal savings accounts, and that their preference would be to invest some but not all of their funds in them. Support is reduced if a discussion of risks is included in the questions, although substantial proportions still support the general idea of personal accounts. People seem to feel that they should bear a substantial part of the risk of their investment themselves, though it is hard to know how much to trust these responses in the abstract. Finally, people oppose investment of the Trust Fund in the stock market.

Opinion on Other Social Security Reforms

In addition to the new areas of inquiry, the pollsters continue to poll on other, more familiar Social Security issues. A summary of current data is provided in table 4.

How the Program Works. In 1978, Louis Harris found that 78 percent of those surveyed thought Social Security taxes were used to pay for Social Security benefits that people were collecting, and 8 percent thought they were set aside in a fund for their own retirement. When PSRA/ADSS updated that question in March 1998, the responses were very similar. When asked about what happens to the money an individual pays into Social Security, 78 percent said that it is used to pay people who are already receiving benefits, and 13 percent said that it is held in trust or reserve for that person until he or she is eligible to receive benefits.

Is There a Crisis? During the Clinton health care debate, the pollsters started asking whether the system was in crisis. When questions are formulated that way, with a public accustomed to crisis rhetoric, most people say there is a crisis. When you give people a range of possibilities about the soundness of the program, most people say that our health care and Social Security programs have serious or fundamental problems, but that they don’t see a crisis. Twice in 1996 and once in 1998, Yankelovich Partners asked people whether there was a crisis in the financial condition of the Social Security system; a problem but not a crisis; or no problem; each time, a majority said there was a problem but not a crisis. In April 1998, 31 percent saw a crisis, 55 percent saw a problem but no crisis, and 10 percent saw no problem.

Major of Minor Changes? In three surveys by the PSRA/ADSS project in 1998, only about 10 percent said the program was secure and solid, with the remainder viewing the program as being in major or minor trouble. In the same three surveys only around 5 percent said that no changes need to be made to keep the program out of trouble. The remainder said the program needed big or small changes. In August 1998, the latest iteration of the question, the figures were: 58 percent big changes, 30 percent small changes, and 5 percent no changes.

Generational Differences. There is no evidence in the survey data of generational warfare over Social Security, although there are generational divides on many questions about Social Security. Young people are less confident about Social Security’s future than are older people, but they are no less supportive, and in many poll questions actually more supportive of the general idea of government involvement in providing a basic retirement income. In the OctoberÿNovember 1997 PSRA/ADSS survey, 69 percent of young people aged 18-to-29 said that the government should be responsible for making sure older people have enough money to retire without being in poverty (30 percent said this was not a government responsibility). Sixty-one percent of the next age group (30-to-44-year olds) said this was a governmental responsibility, as did 56 percent of those 45-to-64 years of age, and 47 percent of those 65 and older.

An April 1998 Zogby poll, like many others, show stark differences in the perceptions of young and old about the program. Thirty-seven percent of 18-to-29-year olds surveyed agreed with the statement "There is no need to make significant changes to the Social Security system. The long-term solvency of Social Security can be accomplished with a few adjustments to the current system." Sixty-seven percent of those 65 years of age and older agreed.

Several recent surveys show that majorities of young people do not believe the Social Security program is fair. As difficult as it is to pin down just what people mean when they say something is unfair, this belief among the young could erode the foundations of the system.

Raising the Retirement Age. For at least two decades, survey researchers have been asking about raising the retirement age at which people would be eligible for full Social Security benefits, and the results have been remarkably constant. It doesn’t seem to matter whether the pollsters ask about retirement at age 68 or at age 70. In the late 1970s, for example, when people were asked about raising the retirement age from 65 to 68, solid majorities were opposed. Today, solid majorities are opposed to raising the retirement age to age 70. Even when people are told that raising the retirement age to 70 would "enable working Americans to contribute to the Social Security system so it will be there for their retirement without raising taxes or reducing benefits," as Mark Penn told them in his poll for the Democratic Leadership Council in 1998, people were still opposed.

Surveys also show very little difference in responses to a question asking people about raising the retirement age as a general proposition and one asking about raising the retirement age over, let’s say, the next twenty or thirty years.

Means Testing. Americans have long supported the idea of means testing in Social Security, although support varies depending on the threshold at which benefits will be limited or taxed. In the September 1998 PSRA/ADSS survey, 42 percent were in favor (22 percent strongly, 20 moderately) of reducing benefits for people who have retirement incomes over $60,000 a year. Forty-nine percent (20 percent moderately, 22 percent strongly) were opposed. In the December 1998 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 62 percent were in favor of raising taxes on Social Security benefits for those earning more than $75,000 a year, and 36 percent were opposed. In the same team’s March poll, 53 percent were found to be in favor of raising taxes on Social Security benefits for those earning more than $50,000 a year, but 43 percent were opposed.

Raising the Wage Cap. Recently, pollsters have started exploring the idea of raising the cap on wages on which Social Security taxes are collected. In September, PSRA/ADSS found that 30 percent strongly favored, 23 percent moderately favored, 14 percent moderately opposed, and 16 percent strongly opposed "collecting payroll taxes on earnings up to $100,000 per year, instead of the current cut-off of about $68,000." In February 1999, 59 percent were in favor (31 percent strongly, 28 percent moderately) and 28 percent were opposed (the cut-off in this question was described as about $72,000). In the Luntz-Siegel 1999 poll, 57 percent were in favor of increasing the payroll tax for workers earning $75,000 or more, and 38 percent were opposed.

Raising Taxes, Cutting Benefits. Consistent with our general national aversion to tax hikes, Americans are opposed to raising the payroll tax and to raising income taxes to help the program. In the PSRA/ADSS September 1998 survey, 54 percent were opposed to increasing the payroll tax "that workers and employers each pay in the Social Security system," and 36 percent (14 strongly, 22 percent moderately) were in favor. When the question was repeated in February, 50 percent were opposed and 44 percent were in favor. In the August poll, 85 percent (67 percent strongly, 18 percent moderately) were opposed to "requiring retired people to pay income taxes on their Social Security benefits just as if this was ordinary income instead of letting part be tax-free"; 12 percent were in favor. In the December 1998 ICR/Associated Press poll that inquired about changes being considered for the Social Security program, 27 percent were in favor of raising taxes for everybody, and 69 percent were opposed. Even when Opinion Dynamics and Fox News asked in March 1999 about raising the payroll tax to help save Social Security, 54 percent were opposed and 37 percent were in favor. Cutting benefits is another nonstarter. In the March 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 49 percent were strongly opposed to reducing benefits to ensure the long-term stability of the system, and 25 percent were mildly opposed. Only 16 percent were mildly in favor and 6 percent strongly in favor.

The data presented in this report provide a broad general outline of public opinion on Social Security today. They cannot and do not not tell us how people will react to specific legislative proposals. They can and do tell us that people are generally receptive to, and even enthusiastic about, the idea of personal savings accounts.

 Table 1
 Table 2
 Table 3
 Table 4

Karlyn H. Bowman is a resident fellow at AEI.