Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter (1996) find in their recent systematic study of political knowledge that Americans' overall levels of political knowledge are "modest at best." Social Security is an exception. The public appears to know more about more about Social Security than about national defense or basic government institutions. Although the public does not approximate the ideal standards of a fully informed citizenry, its knowledge of Social Security is much higher than widely assumed.

Table 1 reports a string of 19 surveys since 1973, which shows that a half or more of Americans have consistently reported that they are "very" or "fairly" well informed. The results in Table 1 are confirmed by several additional surveys in 1997, which reported that nearly 60% of Americans felt confident in their understanding and knowledge about the program.² The degree that Americans perceive themselves as informed varied by education, income and age, though the differences were not always large. Figures 1, 2, and 3 present the demographic breakdown for 5 selected years from the aggregate data in Table 1. The figures suggest that between 1989 and 1997 distinct subpopulations generally move in parallel (Page and Shapiro, 1992). Seniors consistently rank themselves highest followed and those below 30 the lowest. Figure 2, though, suggests the surprising finding that the narrow difference between income groups remains quite stable. Social Security is apparently sufficiently well understood through interpersonal contacts and media coverage to counteract the typical advantage of the affluent. An alternative hypothesis is that lower income groups are more likely to deceive themselves about a program that they have heard of but which they do not understand to the same depth as the more affluent.

Americans' confidence in their information apparently springs from the attention they are giving the issue in the media. Princeton surveys in January and February 1997 found that about half or more of Americans report following news reports on Social Security "very" or "fairly" closely.³

Of course, whether Americans' confidence in their understanding of Social Security is justified remains a separate issue; the public may be overestimating its competence or the information conveyed to the public by policy makers and journalists may be inaccurate.

The evidence suggests, however, that the public's confidence is not unwarranted. Many of the basic rules and procedures of the Social Security system are known to half or more of the public. A string of eight surveys since 1978 indicates that generally two-thirds or more of Americans accurately understand that Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. Table 2 shows that as many as 79% of Americans and no fewer than 61% have understood this fundamental fact since 1978 when data began to be collected on this item.

A collection of individual survey items since the 1970s reveal an impressive pattern of knowledge about Social Security -- with some notable exceptions which we discuss below. Table 3 Table 3 shows the percentage of respondents correctly answering factual questions about Social Security in national surveys. Most of the items indicate that a majority or a solid plurality accurately understand important facts about Social Security. The public recognizes that its funds are invested in government treasury bonds rather than in stocks or placed in a bank account; that exhaustion of the trust fund in 2029 will result in fewer assets and reduced benefits rather than the system becoming completely broke and unable to pay any benefits; and that its future financial problems stem from fewer workers and increased life expectancy. These are comparatively detailed and technical issues.

Over a third of the items in Table 3, however, point to gaps in the public's understanding. Only one or perhaps three in ten Americans correctly understand that Social Security is one of the federal budget's most expensive items; that fraud and abuse have not caused the program's financial trouble; and that Social Security is not facing financial difficulty because it is a "ponzy scheme" to finance other programs.

Although Americans are wrong on a number of facts, their responses are either plausible or reflect the information that policy makers and journalists have fed them. For instance, there is no systematic evidence that Social Security is inefficient or corrupt. Less than 1% of its benefits are consumed by administrative costs and independent auditors have never charged that its rolls of retirees are bloated by bureaucratic bumbling and government incompetence. Yet, Table 3 indicates that only 7% realize that Social Security's financial problems do not stem from fraud and abuse. Similar results were reported in a 1997 survey by the Public Agenda Foundation; it found that 84% believe "the government is mismanaging Social Security so badly that the money is going to waste," and that 67% are convinced that "too many people are cheating" the program.⁴ In a separate item, 62% of respondents who were most critical of Social Security pinned the program's faults on waste and mismanagement; only 25% pointed to an aging population and 9% blamed unaffordably high benefits.⁵ The public's false suspicions that Social Security is poorly administered most likely stem from a general distrust of government and from the media's widespread coverage of administrative slipups; Social Security is guilty simply by association with government.

The public is also incorrect in placing foreign aid and food stamps ahead of Social Security as the most costly items in the federal budget. Again, though, the public may be echoing the impressions that politicians and the news media have created. The 1996 presidential election, for instance, cautiously steered clear of Social Security but gave ample play to the burden on taxpayers of funding welfare and -- in the Republican primaries -- foreign "give a ways." Concluding that food stamps and foreign aid are significant budgetary burdens is not so far-fetched.

Still other Social Security issues on which the public appears off-base are actually points of contention on which reasonable people disagree. Only 8% of Americans do not attribute Social Security's financial difficulties to unwise investments. But, of course, elites are deeply divided on just the this issue, with some arguing that investing in stocks represents a wiser investment strategy.

A March 1997 survey by the Washington Post illustrates the ambiguity of question wording. The survey asked respondents if the average annual benefit that Social Security paid to retired workers was less than $10,000 a year, $10,000-$20,000 a year, $20,000 to $30,000 or more than $30,000. Thirty-eight percent chose the first category and 49% the second. The correct answer is not straightforward. It depends on whether the question is interpreted as referring to couples or nonmarried beneficiaries; the average Social Security benefit in 1992 was just over $10,000 for couples and a bit under 10,000 for non-married individuals.

In short, the difference between "right" and "wrong" may not be clear because of ambiguous question wording or complex policy issues. Americans' knowledge about Social Security is far from complete and certainly does not conform to the ideal of a democratic citizen, but it is more extensive than is commonly assumed and wrong answers are often reasonable conclusions based on available information.