No survey question has repeatedly asked Americans over time if they support Social Security. An exception are the surveys by the CATO Institute in spring 1996, which found about two-thirds of Americans were "very" or "mostly" favorable toward Social Security.

Somewhat less direct survey questions confirm a pattern of sustained and very strong support for Social Security. A series of questions have asked respondents over a number of years whether "we [are] spending too much, too little, or about the right amount on... Social Security." The program's supporters favor the status quo or increased spending. Table 9 indicates two very important points. First, an extraordinary 9 out of 10 Americans support the view that spending on Social Security is "about right" or "too little." Second, the high support has been remarkably stable even though there was a seven percentage point shift from the "too little" to the "about right" category since 1986.

When Americans have been asked to set spending priorities in the federal budget, they have expressed overwhelming support for maintaining or expanding the program. Support remains enormous and opposition to cutting back massive. Table 10 indicates that since the mid-1980s less than 1 out of 10 Americans have favored decreasing Social Security's funding as they have wrestled with the competing demands on the federal budget, though there has been over a 10 percentage point shift from the "increased" to "about right" categories. Table 11 presents a series of surveys that used quite different question wordings to present Americans with the dilemma of whether the federal budget deficit should be reduced by cutting spending on Social Security. The remarkable finding is the consistency in over 15 years of surveys: supermajorities of two-thirds of Americans or more have opposed cutting the program to achieve budget reductions. Table 12 tells a similar story but based on the views of fiscal conservatives. Six polls in the mid-1990s asked respondents after they indicated support for a balanced budget if they would favor cuts in Social Security to achieve it; large majorities of between 58% and 71% opposed balancing the budget if it meant cuts in Social Security.

A nearly identical pattern of steadfast support for Social Security appears in surveys on benefit reductions as a means to trim the federal budget. Table 13 reveals that since 1982 majorities of 61% to 78% have opposed reductions in cost-of-living adjustments to reduce the federal budget deficit, though the proportions favoring the reform have increased over time. Although not presented, other surveys find similar opposition to cuts in Social Security to reduce taxes.

The public, however, has been more open to taxing the Social Security benefits of the wealthy as a means for reducing the federal budget deficit. Table 14 presents seven differently worded questions that show majorities of Americans in every survey but two agreeing to tax the benefits of the wealthy.

Americans have sent a strong and sustained message to budget cutters: while taxing the wealthy's benefits is acceptable, the basic structure of Social Security is off-limits in the competition for federal funding.

The public supports Social Security benefits for seniors because it represents an insurance against the risk of low income in retirement, a right earned by paying in during working years, and a protection from bearing the burden of financially drained parents. Americans perceive the program in ways other than individual profit and loss as they might evaluate a private investment; instead, they view the program as a protection like fire insurance against known risks.

A 1997 survey by the Public Agenda Foundation found that the public looks to Social Security as an insurance mechanism to protect against the risk of low income in retirement. Eighty-four percent agreed that Social Security "forces people who would otherwise neglect to save for their retirement to at least save something for it;" 77% supported the program because it guarantees a minimal income "even if you face financial disaster in retirement."⁷ A 1996 DYG survey reported similarly lopsided majorities in all age groups who supported Social Security as an insurance "just in case" it is needed.⁸

Social Security is also considered a benefit that is earned rather than doled at on the basis of need. Although a 1997 Washington Post survey found that 64% favored "reducing benefits paid to upper income retirees in the future" in order strengthen Social Security's finances, there is ample evidence that the public favors the principle that all contributors to Social Security earn a right to its benefits. Princeton Survey Research Associates discovered in a January 1996 survey that 63% of Americans approved of having their "tax dollars used to help pay" for the Social Security benefits of better off retirees. Tellingly, the young were more supportive than seniors.⁹ DYG found a similar pattern in its 1995 and 1996 surveys for the American Association for Retired Persons: 70% to 80% of Americans agreed that "everyone who pays into Social Security should receive it, no matter what other income they have."¹⁰ Americans consider cancelling benefits to any retirees to be tantamount -- as participants in the National Issues Forum explained -- to "breaking the promise" to retirees who paid into the Social Security system.¹¹ These surveys combined with the evidence in Table 14 of public support for taxing the benefits of the wealthy suggest that the public is reaching a subtle distinction: they acknowledge the principle that the wealthy -- like all others who have paid in -- have earned Social Security benefits but favor taxing those benefits as an extension of the principle that allows taxation of private pensions.

Another source of Social Security's support is that working Americans count on it to support their retired parents. Three surveys by DYG in 1985, 1995, and 1996 confirmed that three quarters of Americans supported Social Security because it relieved them of the financial burden of caring for their parents.¹²

Americans from quite varied personal circumstances all express substantial support for Social Security; even the differences among groups defy straightforward classification (Cook and Barrett). Table 15 and 16 use different survey items to tell a similar tale: generally super majorities of 70% to 90% of Americans from different educational, income and age backgrounds opposed reductions in Social Security spending to reduce the federal budget deficit. Within this overall consensus, some standard differences emerge. Individuals who were better educated, more affluent and younger were less opposed to spending cuts. There are, however, important departures from this pattern. The 1997 survey in Table 15 finds the most advantaged reversing positions and becoming possibly the greatest defenders of Social Security perhaps because of a growing sense that the federal budget is under greater control. (Variations in question wordings complicates comparisons over time.) Table 16 also offers evidence that the most advantaged can be strong defenders of Social Security, despite what would seem to be their self-interest.

The views of different demographic groups presented in Tables 15 and 16 defy any presumption of self-interest. Repeatedly, seniors, the affluent or the better educated departed from their expected positions to offer strenuous support for Social Security. The better educated were more protective of Social Security spending in 1991 (Table 16) and 1997 (Table 15) than the least well educated. The most affluent were equally opposed to cuts in 1994 as the poorest (Table 16). Despite breathless media accounts of intergenerational warfare, the younger cohorts were as defensive of Social Security spending (if not more so) as the oldest in 1993 (Table 15), 1995 (Table 16), and 1996 (Table 16).

Further evidence that Americans persistently act against their narrow self-interest in order to pursue what they see as in the public interest is available in a series of individual surveys in 1997. A March 1997 Washington Post survey reported that the young were the most concerned that Social Security benefits to average retirees were so small that they needed to struggle to get by; older groups were least likely to hold this view. A February 1997 Los Angeles Times survey found that the young were the most supportive of the existing arrangements for financing Social Security; there were no clear differences among educational and income groups.¹³