Social Security could be a deciding issue in key Senate races

More than three-quarters of voters in five states with U.S. Senate elections this November said they would be more likely to back a lawmaker who has a plan to prevent future Social Security benefit cuts, according to new battleground polling.

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation survey found that 77 percent of voters across Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas would be more likely to vote for a lawmaker with a plan to reform Social Security after being told that benefits could be cut by 22 percent for tens of millions of current and future beneficiaries if Congress does not address the program’s projected funding shortfall.

With control of the Senate at stake, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report considers all five races competitive in the upcoming midterm elections. As of September 15, Michigan, Ohio and Texas were rated toss-ups, while Georgia and North Carolina were rated “Lean Democratic.” Democrats currently hold seats in Georgia and Michigan, while North Carolina, Ohio and Texas are Republican-held.

“The voters who will determine the balance of the U.S. Senate are calling on candidates to strengthen the future of Social Security,” said Michael Peterson, the CEO of the Peterson Foundation. “Senators elected this fall will be in office in 2032 when Social Security recipients will face immediate 22 percent cuts, so all candidates should be putting forth solutions in this campaign to prevent this catastrophic result.”

“The good news indicated by this survey is that voters want this problem addressed, and there is strong bipartisan support for many available solutions that would sustain this essential program,” he continued.

Voters Would Back Social Security Reform Candidates

Social Security is facing a funding conundrum. As it stands, trust funds that help pay out benefits to more than 70 million Americans are depleting, and they are scheduled to run dry by the final quarter of 2032, according to the latest Social Security trustees’ report. At that point, dedicated Social Security payroll taxes will be able to pay 78 percent of scheduled benefits, which could result in current and future beneficiaries losing thousands of dollars in benefits every year if Congress does not act.

In Georgia, 78 percent said they would be more likely to vote for a lawmaker with a plan to fix the funding issue, including 50 percent who said “much more likely.” That figure was 74 percent in Michigan, with 39 percent saying much more likely; 80 percent in North Carolina, with 49 percent saying much more likely; 75 percent in Ohio, with 47 percent saying much more likely; and 76 percent in Texas, with 47 percent saying much more likely.

The survey was conducted by Global Strategy Group for the Peterson Foundation from August 20 to 27 among 2,500 registered voters, with 500 interviewed in each of the five states.

The results come less than two months before the midterm elections that will determine the makeup of the next Senate. Republicans currently hold 53 seats and Democrats 45, and two independent senators caucus with the Democrats. Georgia and Michigan currently have two Democratic senators each, while North Carolina, Ohio and Texas each have two Republican senators.

Lawmakers Search for Social Security Fix

Some sitting senators in the five battleground states have already joined efforts to address Social Security’s funding problem. In Michigan, Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin is a co-sponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act, introduced in July. The bill would raise additional revenue by applying Social Security taxes to earnings above $400,000 and adding a tax on investment income for people earning more than $400,000, while also increasing some benefits.

Two Republican senators, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas, are in a group of lawmakers involved in the bipartisan PROMISE Act, also introduced in July. Rather than setting specific tax increases or benefit changes, the bill would require the independent Social Security Advisory Board to develop a plan capable of keeping the program fully funded for at least 50 years. Congress would then be required to consider the proposal through an expedited process.

In Ohio, Republican Senator Bernie Moreno is working with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on a separate proposal to raise more money for Social Security by removing the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes. The pair announced the plan in June and said the additional revenue would be used to extend the program’s solvency, though the legislation has not been formally introduced.

In all, sitting senators from Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas are involved in current proposals aimed at Social Security’s finances, although the approaches differ. Slotkin and Moreno are backing efforts centered on collecting more revenue from higher earners, while Tillis and Cornyn have backed a process designed to produce a broader bipartisan solvency package.

Voters Are Concerned About Benefit Cuts

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated in July that a typical newly retired dual-earner couple could lose about $16,900 a year in scheduled benefits beginning in 2033 if the projected 22 percent reduction takes effect. A typical single-earner couple could lose about $12,700 annually, while the impact would vary according to income and work history.

The Peterson poll found that across the battleground states, 81 percent of respondents said they were concerned about these automatic benefit cuts, including 61 percent who described themselves as extremely concerned. Ninety-one percent said it was important for lawmakers to reform Social Security to prevent automatic cuts, with 69 percent saying it was very important. 

Voters largely said they wanted to hear more about the problem: 88 percent said lawmakers had not been talking enough about plans to prevent Social Security cuts, compared with 9 percent who believed the issue was receiving enough attention.

The survey also found broad agreement that the approaching shortfall requires some form of action, with 77 percent agreeing that lawmakers who promised not to touch Social Security were making the problem worse because waiting longer would make it harder to fix, compared with 11 percent who disagreed. Separately, 75 percent agreed that such promises leave current seniors vulnerable to automatic benefit cuts, while 13 percent disagreed.

Eighty-five percent of voters also agreed that current high living costs make it more important for lawmakers to fix Social Security so seniors do not lose benefits they rely on, while 8 percent disagreed.

Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Daniel Orton and Shakeema Edwards.

Related Articles

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial