There is no consensus among Americans behind the kind of incremental reforms that policy makers are weighing as alternatives to privatization. Americans' preferences toward the usual menu of incremental adjustments -- reducing benefits and increasing taxes -- are mixed.

Americans do not support hiking the retirement age as a means for strengthening Social Security's finances. Table 19 shows that since 1977 there has been strong and sustained opposition to increasing retirement age. In recent surveys, over 60% of Americans reject this option. The public is more divided on the issue of reducing the consumer price index (CPI), which would lower Social Security's costs by lowering the program's automatic cost of living adjustments. Two surveys by NBC/Wall Street Journal show that in December 1996 Americans favored reducing the CPI by a 47-43 margin; an altered question in March 1997 found that the public opposed the change by a 53-37 margin.²⁴ Finally, as mentioned earlier, a March 1997 Washington Post survey indicates that 64% favor scaling back (but not cancelling) the benefits of upper income retirees in order to strengthen the program's finances.

Evidence on Americans' willingness to pay increased taxes is also mixed. A February 1996 CBS/NYT poll found that 52% opposed paying higher Social Security taxes to strengthen the program's financial future; by March 1997, opposition appeared greater (61%) in a somewhat differently worded Washington Post question.²⁵ The public's distrust of government may be fuelling resistance to tax hikes. A participant in the National Issues Forum may have captured the sentiment of many Americans when she complained that "raising taxes won't solve the problem because [elected officials] won't use the money for Social Security"; though a young man added that "I'd pay more money now if I knew [it] would be there when I retire."²⁶

When the public is forced to wrestle with the tradeoffs facing policy makers, they prefer tax hikes to benefit cuts. A 1997 survey sponsored by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) forced Americans to choose between increasing payroll taxes on workers or decreasing benefit levels for retirees and found that 63% chose the former while only 32% opted for the former. There was no significant difference between retired and non-retired Americans.²⁷

Of course, new polls may find support for additional incremental reforms that are just receiving attention. For instance, future surveys may find that the public favors spending part of the projected budget surplus to strengthen Social Security's financial future. There may also be support for boosting the base on which Social Security taxes are paid.

More successful -- as measured by educational and income attainment -- are relatively more supportive of strengthening Social Security's future finances by reducing benefits to cut spending. The elderly are also sensitive to direct threats to their immediate circumstances. Although the preferences of different income and age groups is often consistent with their self-interest, the affluent and elderly consistently take positions that contradict their narrow personal stakes. One of the most striking patterns is the opposition of all groups to scaling backing Social Security. Failure to find a rigid battleline between seniors and younger cohorts confirms a significant body of previous research (Page and Shapiro, 1992; MacManus; Rhedebeck).

Most segments of society consistently reject benefit reductions as an appropriate strategy for strengthening Social Security's finances. Table 20 shows that opposition to hiking retirement age is strong in all groups but especially among the less well educated, the poorest and the youngest -- all groups who stand to lose the most from any change. Table 21 reveals a more complex picture of opposition to reducing the consumer price index (CPI). Seniors and the lower income groups (especially in 1997) were particularly defensive. But, the better educated are only slightly less opposed than the less well educated, and those earning above $50,000 in 1996 were more protective of the CPI than the lower income groups.

The attitudes of different age groups also defy conventional images of "greedy geezers" or simple characterization. Table 21 suggests that seniors are protecting their self-interest by leading the opposition against lowering the CPI; such a change represents a direct threat to their retirement. But, on the other hand, the young are the most opposed to raising the retirement age and seniors the least. (Seniors's support for hiking the retirement age may rest on the calculation that it will not affect them because they assume that they will be protected from any change. Younger cohorts perceive this change as directly affecting them.) Table 22 indicates that seniors agreed with the youngest cohort in favoring a reduction in the benefits of upper-income retirees, and that the lowest income group who were least affected by the reform also expressed the least supportive.

Reforming Social Security poses significant political risks, especially to Democrats who have traditionally been perceived by the public as defenders of the program. Reforms that were unpopular with the public and were identified with Democrats would threaten what has traditionally been a "Democratic issue" -- and the evidence points to just this kind of erosion.

Table 23 indicates that the Democrats have generally held a steady edge in public trust. But, Americans' views have changed as President Clinton has inched toward embracing Social Security reform and many Democrats embraced the balanced budget amendment despite warnings of the danger to Social Security: a growing number have concluded that neither party can be trusted to handle the program. In little over two years the proportion expressing confidence in neither party has jumped from 15% to a steady 22%.