

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Demonstrators protest GOP attempts to cut Social Security on February 24, 2023 in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
"Voters would rather see taxes on wealthy Americans to ensure Social Security remains a guarantee for all," said the head of Data for Progress.
The vast majority of U.S. voters across the political spectrum don't support Republican proposals to gut Social Security benefits for Americans under age 50, according to polling results published Tuesday by the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
The survey, conducted Friday and Saturday, showed that 82% of all likely voters somewhat or strongly oppose policies that would mean "Americans currently under 50 would receive fewer Social Security benefits when they retire than those who receive Social Security benefits today."
Opposition was relatively consistent across parties: 84% of Democrats, 83% of Republicans, and 80% of Independents or third-party voters. The figures were also roughly the same regardless of age, gender, and education level.
Data for Progress further found that 72% of respondents—including 76% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, and 72% of Independents or third-party voters—are "less likely to vote for a candidate who supported cutting future Social Security benefits for Americans currently under 50."
Back in January 2020, then-President Donald Trump—who is currently the front-runner for the GOP's 2024 nomination, despite his various legal issues and the argument that he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again—said that programs like Social Security are "the easiest of all things" to cut.
Three of Trump's Republican 2024 opponents—Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, ex-Vice President Mike Pence, and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley—are now publicly pushing for changes to the program that would affect younger people.
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have also set their sights on the program and are currently fighting for funding cuts to the Social Security Administration that Julie Tippens, legislative director of the American Federation of Government Employees, recently warned would "devastate the agency's ability to serve the American public."
Earlier this year, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced plans to establish a "commission" to examine ways to cut Social Security, and the 175-member Republican Study Committee proposed raising the program's full retirement age to 69.
As Data for Progress press secretary Abby Spring wrote in a Tuesday blog post:
Republicans have argued that these proposed Social Security cuts are necessary to ensure that Social Security remains financially solvent—meaning the program would have enough funds to fully pay out beneficiaries—without affecting seniors currently receiving Social Security benefits.
However, other proposals, such as the Social Security Expansion Act or Social Security 2100, could extend the solvency of Social Security while increasing benefits for current and new recipients. These plans would be paid for by increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.
The think tank's poll also revealed widespread support for using tax hikes targeting the wealthy to sustain Social Security. Specifically, such policies were backed by 77% of everyone surveyed, including 83% of Democrats, 63% of Republicans, and 76% of Independents or third-party voters
"When it comes to Social Security, candidates in the Republican Party are seemingly competing over who can offer the least popular proposals," said Data for Progress executive director Danielle Deiseroth. "No one—not even Republican voters—wants cuts to Social Security benefits for Americans under 50. Instead, voters would rather see taxes on wealthy Americans to ensure Social Security remains a guarantee for all."
Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection, "proposed increasing taxes on the rich and businesses to prevent Medicare from running out of funds. But the latest White House budget does not propose a solution for extending Social Security," The Washington Post noted last month. "Numerous congressional Democrats have called for trillions in new taxes to avoid the Social Security shortfall, as well."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The vast majority of U.S. voters across the political spectrum don't support Republican proposals to gut Social Security benefits for Americans under age 50, according to polling results published Tuesday by the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
The survey, conducted Friday and Saturday, showed that 82% of all likely voters somewhat or strongly oppose policies that would mean "Americans currently under 50 would receive fewer Social Security benefits when they retire than those who receive Social Security benefits today."
Opposition was relatively consistent across parties: 84% of Democrats, 83% of Republicans, and 80% of Independents or third-party voters. The figures were also roughly the same regardless of age, gender, and education level.
Data for Progress further found that 72% of respondents—including 76% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, and 72% of Independents or third-party voters—are "less likely to vote for a candidate who supported cutting future Social Security benefits for Americans currently under 50."
Back in January 2020, then-President Donald Trump—who is currently the front-runner for the GOP's 2024 nomination, despite his various legal issues and the argument that he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again—said that programs like Social Security are "the easiest of all things" to cut.
Three of Trump's Republican 2024 opponents—Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, ex-Vice President Mike Pence, and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley—are now publicly pushing for changes to the program that would affect younger people.
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have also set their sights on the program and are currently fighting for funding cuts to the Social Security Administration that Julie Tippens, legislative director of the American Federation of Government Employees, recently warned would "devastate the agency's ability to serve the American public."
Earlier this year, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced plans to establish a "commission" to examine ways to cut Social Security, and the 175-member Republican Study Committee proposed raising the program's full retirement age to 69.
As Data for Progress press secretary Abby Spring wrote in a Tuesday blog post:
Republicans have argued that these proposed Social Security cuts are necessary to ensure that Social Security remains financially solvent—meaning the program would have enough funds to fully pay out beneficiaries—without affecting seniors currently receiving Social Security benefits.
However, other proposals, such as the Social Security Expansion Act or Social Security 2100, could extend the solvency of Social Security while increasing benefits for current and new recipients. These plans would be paid for by increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.
The think tank's poll also revealed widespread support for using tax hikes targeting the wealthy to sustain Social Security. Specifically, such policies were backed by 77% of everyone surveyed, including 83% of Democrats, 63% of Republicans, and 76% of Independents or third-party voters
"When it comes to Social Security, candidates in the Republican Party are seemingly competing over who can offer the least popular proposals," said Data for Progress executive director Danielle Deiseroth. "No one—not even Republican voters—wants cuts to Social Security benefits for Americans under 50. Instead, voters would rather see taxes on wealthy Americans to ensure Social Security remains a guarantee for all."
Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection, "proposed increasing taxes on the rich and businesses to prevent Medicare from running out of funds. But the latest White House budget does not propose a solution for extending Social Security," The Washington Post noted last month. "Numerous congressional Democrats have called for trillions in new taxes to avoid the Social Security shortfall, as well."
The vast majority of U.S. voters across the political spectrum don't support Republican proposals to gut Social Security benefits for Americans under age 50, according to polling results published Tuesday by the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
The survey, conducted Friday and Saturday, showed that 82% of all likely voters somewhat or strongly oppose policies that would mean "Americans currently under 50 would receive fewer Social Security benefits when they retire than those who receive Social Security benefits today."
Opposition was relatively consistent across parties: 84% of Democrats, 83% of Republicans, and 80% of Independents or third-party voters. The figures were also roughly the same regardless of age, gender, and education level.
Data for Progress further found that 72% of respondents—including 76% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, and 72% of Independents or third-party voters—are "less likely to vote for a candidate who supported cutting future Social Security benefits for Americans currently under 50."
Back in January 2020, then-President Donald Trump—who is currently the front-runner for the GOP's 2024 nomination, despite his various legal issues and the argument that he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again—said that programs like Social Security are "the easiest of all things" to cut.
Three of Trump's Republican 2024 opponents—Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, ex-Vice President Mike Pence, and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley—are now publicly pushing for changes to the program that would affect younger people.
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have also set their sights on the program and are currently fighting for funding cuts to the Social Security Administration that Julie Tippens, legislative director of the American Federation of Government Employees, recently warned would "devastate the agency's ability to serve the American public."
Earlier this year, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced plans to establish a "commission" to examine ways to cut Social Security, and the 175-member Republican Study Committee proposed raising the program's full retirement age to 69.
As Data for Progress press secretary Abby Spring wrote in a Tuesday blog post:
Republicans have argued that these proposed Social Security cuts are necessary to ensure that Social Security remains financially solvent—meaning the program would have enough funds to fully pay out beneficiaries—without affecting seniors currently receiving Social Security benefits.
However, other proposals, such as the Social Security Expansion Act or Social Security 2100, could extend the solvency of Social Security while increasing benefits for current and new recipients. These plans would be paid for by increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.
The think tank's poll also revealed widespread support for using tax hikes targeting the wealthy to sustain Social Security. Specifically, such policies were backed by 77% of everyone surveyed, including 83% of Democrats, 63% of Republicans, and 76% of Independents or third-party voters
"When it comes to Social Security, candidates in the Republican Party are seemingly competing over who can offer the least popular proposals," said Data for Progress executive director Danielle Deiseroth. "No one—not even Republican voters—wants cuts to Social Security benefits for Americans under 50. Instead, voters would rather see taxes on wealthy Americans to ensure Social Security remains a guarantee for all."
Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection, "proposed increasing taxes on the rich and businesses to prevent Medicare from running out of funds. But the latest White House budget does not propose a solution for extending Social Security," The Washington Post noted last month. "Numerous congressional Democrats have called for trillions in new taxes to avoid the Social Security shortfall, as well."