Working Papers number: [1999] [98-30] [97-10] [96-35] [95-21]
WP-99-6
Is Social Security
Reform Ready For the American Public?
Benjamin I. Page*
ABSTRACT
Public opinion is relevant to entitlement reform because it bears upon issues of political feasibility. Proposals that go against the strongly held views of ordinary citizens are not likely to be politically feasible. In addition, we may consider public opinion especially well-informed, deliberative opinion relevant to what policy makers ought to do in a democracy. The available data indicate that the American public, as a collectivity, knows quite a bit about Social Security and rather firmly holds a number of opinions that have been highly stable over many years. This is particularly true of general support for the program. Since 1984, for example, more than 90% of Americans have regularly indicated a desire to keep the program the same or expand it. At the same time, most Americans are aware of impending financial shortfalls in the program and acknowledge that major changes must be made. Proposals of benefit cuts have generally aroused considerable public opposition, whether in the context of reducing budget deficits or preserving the program. This is true not only of across-the board cuts but also of reducing COLAs, extending the retirement age, or even - as best we can tell - more technical program changes. (Only cutting benefits of the well-to-do wins substantial public support.) Resistance to benefit cuts may possibly decline with further deliberation, but this does not appear likely. Most members of the public prefer other solutions. General increases in payroll taxes are also quite unpopular, but large majorities of the public say they prefer tax increases to benefit cuts. Some data suggest that there is support for using general revenues. The publicÙs willingness to tax the benefits of higher-income retirees also indicates possible receptiveness to a more progressive financial system through such measures as removing the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes but more survey questions on this matter are needed. Privatization is an area in which opinions are much less well formed. There is considerable interest in the idea of receiving greater returns on Social Security contributions and in having individual choice about investments. But support for privatization drops sharply when issues of risk are raised and when other costs and limitations (administrative costs, limits on choice, obligations to current retirees) are mentioned. As debate continues and as the public becomes more aware of such costs it is possible that public investment in equities currently less popular than private investment may gain in appeal, especially if it is insulated from the political process. More time and more data are needed before we can judge.
* Department of Political Science, Northwestern University
ABSTRACT
Congress abolished Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1996, and some argue that "Social Security as we know it" is next. This paper shows that a politics of apparent consensus about Social Security has become a politics of clear dissensus. To illustrate the politics of Social Security, the paper presents a new framework which uses a metaphor of theater. At center stage are debates among policy elites who differ both on the extent of the Social Security problem and on the solution. The media are the chorus, interpreting the events on the stage to the audience, telling a discordant story about how even the experts cannot agree. Above the stage is the proscenium arch, containing the factors that provide the context of the debate - the demographics of an aging society, historical circumstances, and the economic climate. Members of the public - as in traditional theater - are the spectators, removed from the stage and seated in the audience, being "played to" by the elites on stage. The disagreements and confusion among the elite actors on the stage undermine the watching public's confidence in the long-term viability of Social Security, though their support for the program remains high. Beginning in January 1998, the President and several foundations and interest groups have attempted to engage the public more actively in deliberations about the fate of Social Security by involving them in town meetings, forums, and other discussions. Thus, applying the framework of theater, the current effort is to transform traditional theater into interactive theater as the public moves onto center stage along with the policy elites. Finally, the paper overlays an agenda-setting framework on the theater framework and concludes by arguing that Social Security appears to be ripe for change.
* School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University
ABSTRACT
Using data from the National Election Study (NES) surveys in the seven election years between 1984 and 1996, this paper examines stability and change in both the levels of support and the explanations for support of two social welfare programs--Social Security and Food Stamps. An explanatory model incorporating personal dispositions of respondents (ideology, party identification, and retrospective economic assessments), attributions about program recipients (warmth of feelings toward people on welfare, blacks, and poor people for Food Stamps, and warmth of feelings towards the elderly in the case of Social Security), as well as the demographic characteristics of respondents was used to explain the variance in support. Despite the often heated rhetoric about the political legitimacy of social welfare programs over the last decade, a majority of the public favors maintaining or increasing spending for each program in every year; the difference is that whereas only a few (less than 7 percent) ever want to cut spending for Social Security, a much larger group want to cut spending for Food Stamps (about a third in most years up to 1992 but rising significantly in 1994 and 1996). The data show overwhelming stability in support for Social Security over the twelve-year period; less stability in support for Food Stamps, though the opinion changes in the 1990s are a rational response to the period's political and economic climate; and a surprising amount of stability in the underlying structure of support predictors for both Social Security and Food Stamps.
*Respectively, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University,
and Department of Political Science, Northwestern University.
By Fay Lomax Cook and Gretchen Caspary*
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the framing of social welfare programs in the opinion pages of two major elite newspapers that research shows are widely read by U.S. policymakers. In particular, it focuses on level of attention (salience) and level of support. The data consist of all editorials, op-ed columns, and letters to the editor dealing substantively with social welfare programs or issues that appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 1995 (N=1,824). Results from reading and coding of each article show that the salience of social welfare programs as a whole remained stable over the period studied but that the salience of individual programs changed markedly from year to year, primarily in response to political events. From 1990 through 1994, support was strongly positive, with the majority of editorial, op-ed columns and letters to the editor calling for increases in spending on benefits. In 1995, fewer articles called for increases in social welfare programs, and more advocated either decreases to or maintenance in program scope and spending. This change was found to be primarily a defensive response to social welfare program cuts proposed by the Republicans' Contract With America. Thus, overall, we conclude that in the six years studied, the opinion pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post were highly supportive of American social welfare programs. The task that awaits future research is an examination of the influence, if any, that this framing of social welfare programs had on the opinions and actions of policymakers, government bureaucrats, and the general public.
*School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University.
ABSTRACT
Some commentators argue that one implication of the growing numbers of older persons is increased levels of resentment and anger against the old. Using analyses of media portrayals and the results of public and elite opinion surveys, this paper examines the extent to which one "accompaniment" of the aging society has been growing antagonism toward the old. Results show that, in fact, these analysts are quite right in their warnings about the possible change in anger against the old if we look at the media and views of certain policy elites. However, these media portrayals have not resulted in a loss of public support for social programs for the old. Instead, the public's support for social programs that target elderly people is strong and has shown a remarkable degree of continuity over time. However, amidst the continuing hostile political climate and the politics of blame, which view the elderly as exacerbating problems ranging from the deficit to health care costs, it is difficult to predict how long such support can be maintained.
*School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University.