Bipartisan Majorities in the Battlegrounds Agree on How to Prevent Social Security's Insolvency and Preserve Benefits

News provided by

Aug 20, 2026, 09:00 ET

COLLEGE PARK, Md., Aug. 20, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- While Congress has been unable to agree on solutions to prevent Social Security's pending insolvency, new surveys of nearly 20,000 Americans in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive congressional districts reveal how Americans across party lines would tackle the budget shortfall and prevent benefit cuts.

Proposals to increase revenue and reduce spending, which together would eliminate Social Security's budget shortfall, are favored by majorities of Democrats and Republicans across the battlegrounds. They would:

subject income over $400,000 to the payroll tax
gradually increase the payroll tax
reduce benefits for top lifetime earners
gradually increase the full retirement age

Proposals to increase benefits, that would slightly increase Social Security's budget shortfall, are also favored by bipartisan majorities. They would:

raise the minimum monthly benefit
change cost-of-living adjustments, tying them to what older adults tend to buy, which would slightly increase benefits

These measures are derived from federal legislation, and proposals by the Congressional Budget Office, and the Social Security Administration.

Steven Kull, Director of the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation (PPC) noted, "For decades Social Security has been considered an untouchable third rail in Congress, yet majorities of Americans from both parties agree on taking steps that would solve the problem and extend Social Security's full benefits for decades."

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
This survey release is the sixth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, and Families and Children.

Solving Social Security's Budget Shortfall
Respondents were told they would be evaluating, "options that would reduce the budget shortfall of the Social Security program, and thus extend the amount of time that the program can provide full benefits." Four options were presented along with the amount that each would reduce the program's budget shortfall.

Bipartisan majorities in most of the competitive states and districts surveyed favor options that would completely eliminate the budget shortfall and solve Social Security's long-term insolvency.

Increasing Revenue
Subjecting wages over $400,000 to the payroll tax – which currently does not apply to income over $185,000 – is favored by at least two-thirds of Democrats (73 to 89%) and Republicans (66 to 84%) in all states and districts surveyed, and overall (70 to 85%). Nationally, 83% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans are in favor (overall 79%). This proposal would reduce the budget shortfall by 61 percent.

Gradually increasing the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.5 percent is favored by majorities of Democrats in all states and districts (55 to 81%). Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in 37 of the 39 competitive states and districts surveyed, with support ranging from 46 to 74%. Overall, majorities are in favor across the battlegrounds (56 to 72%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 66%, Republicans 61%, overall 62%). This proposal would reduce the budget shortfall by 15 percent.

Reducing Benefits
Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of lifetime earners is favored by majorities of Republicans in all competitive states and districts surveyed (53 to 74%). Among Democrats, majorities are in favor in 38 of the 39 states and districts surveyed, and divided in one (50 to 79%). Overall, majorities are in favor across the battlegrounds (56 to 73%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 69%, Republicans 62%, overall 65%). This would reduce the budget shortfall by 11 percent.

Gradually increasing the full retirement age from age 67 to 68 by 2033 is favored by majorities of Democrats in 29 of the 39 competitive states and districts, with support ranging from 39 to 71%. Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in 36 states and districts, with support ranging from 46 to 72%. Overall, majorities are in favor in 32 states and districts surveyed (47 to 66%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 55%, Republicans 58%, overall 56%). This would reduce the budget shortfall by 15 percent.

Majorities are opposed to raising the retirement age in one state (Ohio 51%) and two districts (MI-7 52%, MI-10 51%). However, in none of these cases is there a majority of both Democrats and Republicans opposed.

Increasing Social Security Benefits
Respondents were also presented two options for increasing Social Security benefits, along with the amount that each would increase the shortfall.

Raising the minimum monthly benefit from $1,125 to $1,630 (i.e. equal to 125% of the federal poverty line) is favored by over two-thirds of both Democrats (72 to 84%) and Republicans (68 to 83%), and overall in all states and districts (72 to 82%). Nationally, 81% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans are in favor (78% overall). This would increase the budget shortfall by 8%.

Large bipartisan majorities favor changing the formula used to calculate annual increases in Social Security benefits, by tying them to the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would slightly increase benefits for all (Democrats 62 to 77%, Republicans 60 to 84%, overall 64 to 73%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 73%, Republicans 70%, overall 70%). This would increase the budget shortfall by 12%.

MORE INFORMATION

About the Surveys
The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 - June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including 600-2,000 in each of the 11 states, and 400-500 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook's Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series
The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is running a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC) and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation
The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center
The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community's contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People
Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving 'We the People' a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

CONTACT: Jonathan Casaverde, (786) 469-9422, [email protected]

SOURCE Program for Public Consultation