Author: The Opportunity Agenda

Women bring something different to the table; a perspective that is distinct from men’s. Both experiences are equally important, and both need to be incorporated in to decision-making and represented in power-circles if we hope to embrace all viewpoints and make progress as a society. Yet advancement for women and for gender equality seems to have stagnated, and considering how far we are from equality, stagnation is tantamount to decline. When it comes to the percentage of women in national legislatures, the United States ranks 90th in the world, with women holding 90 of the 535 (16.8%) of the seats in the 111th US Congress. These numbers did not improve in the latest election.  Recent public opinion research shows that a gender gap persists in perceptions of gender inequality, and sexist messaging not only undermines a female candidate, it significantly reduces her favorability among voters.

Gender Equality

A summer Harris Interactive Poll on gender equality finds that most people believe women still have a long way to go before they are considered truly equal in the United States, but it isn’t a high priority for many. Ninety years after women were given the right to vote, 63% of Americans believe the United States still has much work ahead to achieve gender equality, with a substantial gender gap – 52% of men compared to 74% of women – in agreement with this statement. Over half of men (55%), but less than a third of women (32%) agree that “things are fine the way they are between men and women.” Three quarters of respondents agree that the current state of gender equality is not perfect, but that there are more important issues to resolve first, with no difference between men and women on this statement.

There is a gender gap on several equality issues, such as:

Data from Harris Interactive

Women in Positions of Leadership

Public opinion could seem optimistic in regard to women in public service leadership positions:

• According to a July CNN/Opinion Research Poll Americans are optimistic about a woman being elected president in the coming 20 years. 81% of Americans believe the chances are excellent or good, up from 62% in 2003. There is a gap among African Americans, however, with 72% agreeing that the chances are excellent or good that a woman will be elected president in the next 20 years, though this percentage is a significant increase from 2003 as well, when 57% of African Americans believed so.
• A June NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey finds that 46% of respondents are either enthusiastic about or comfortable with the fact that a candidate running for Congress is a woman and 47% assert that it makes no difference to them.
• On the topic of women and Supreme Court nominations, a poll by CNN/Opinion Research conducted in May shortly before Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings finds that the fact that she is a woman makes 16% of respondents more likely to support her; for 80% of Americans this fact makes no difference.
• In addition, according to a May CBS poll conducted just prior to Elena Kagan’s hearings, 48% of Americans believe it is very or somewhat important that there is another woman on the Supreme Court. This, however, is a downward shift from a year earlier when CBS asked the question in a July 2009 survey. The latter survey took place around the start of the Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, and 66% of Americans believed it was very or somewhat important for there to be another woman on the Supreme Court. Currently, three of the nine justices of the Supreme Court are women.

Sexism, Politics and the 2010 Elections

Sexism is still a hurdle for women, especially those running for office or occupying high profile positions. Sexist remarks, from comments on hair and fashion to sexual innuendos, were just as common in this election as ever. A recent survey by Lake Research Partners shows the damage that even mild sexism can have to a female candidate’s favorability ratings, severely holding women back. In an experiment, respondents were given the profiles of two competing hypothetical candidates, one male and one female. When criticisms of the female candidate contain mildly sexist statements, including the terms “ice queen” and “mean girl,” as well as commentary on her appearance, she lost a significant amount of support compared to non-sexist criticisms. Initially the difference between the female and male candidate was +11 in favor of the female candidate; after the sexist comments were introduced the scale shifted to -1 and the female candidate lost her advantage. If the female candidate responds appropriately, however, she can regain support.

The 2010 election was, at least in the beginning, touted as “the year of the woman” with a record 262 women running in primaries for the House, but how did women actually fare after the election? Nancy Pelosi, the first female House Speaker and the highest ranking elected woman in US history, will be stepping down from her leadership position and, as a consequence, the political clout of women at large will shrink. Although there were a record eight (maybe nine) new Republican women elected to the House, only one new Republican woman was elected to the senate, and there were not enough Republican women running to offset the losses suffered by Democratic women in office. Between 9 and 11 incumbent Democratic women lost their races, but they did not lose disproportionately to Democratic men. In addition the percentage of subcommittees chaired by women, currently at 27%, will decline as many Republican women in Congress have less seniority and are not well situated to take on leadership positions. Overall there has been no increase in female lawmakers – the first year in thirty years that the percentage of women in Congress did not increase.  

For a detailed description of how women candidates managed in the 2010 midterms, please see the scorecard at the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics as well as a recent CNN article on the topic.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Women bring something different to the table; a perspective that is distinct from men’s. Both experiences are equally important, and both need to be incorporated in to decision-making and represented in power-circles if we hope to embrace all viewpoints and make progress as a society. Yet advancement for women and for gender equality seems to have stagnated, and considering how far we are from equality, stagnation is tantamount to decline. When it comes to the percentage of women in national legislatures, the United States ranks 90th in the world, with women holding 90 of the 535 (16.8%) of the seats in the 111th US Congress. These numbers did not improve in the latest election.  Recent public opinion research shows that a gender gap persists in perceptions of gender inequality, and sexist messaging not only undermines a female candidate, it significantly reduces her favorability among voters.

Gender Equality

A summer Harris Interactive Poll on gender equality finds that most people believe women still have a long way to go before they are considered truly equal in the United States, but it isn’t a high priority for many. Ninety years after women were given the right to vote, 63% of Americans believe the United States still has much work ahead to achieve gender equality, with a substantial gender gap – 52% of men compared to 74% of women – in agreement with this statement. Over half of men (55%), but less than a third of women (32%) agree that “things are fine the way they are between men and women.” Three quarters of respondents agree that the current state of gender equality is not perfect, but that there are more important issues to resolve first, with no difference between men and women on this statement.

There is a gender gap on several equality issues, such as:

Data from Harris Interactive

Women in Positions of Leadership

Public opinion could seem optimistic in regard to women in public service leadership positions:

• According to a July CNN/Opinion Research Poll Americans are optimistic about a woman being elected president in the coming 20 years. 81% of Americans believe the chances are excellent or good, up from 62% in 2003. There is a gap among African Americans, however, with 72% agreeing that the chances are excellent or good that a woman will be elected president in the next 20 years, though this percentage is a significant increase from 2003 as well, when 57% of African Americans believed so.
• A June NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey finds that 46% of respondents are either enthusiastic about or comfortable with the fact that a candidate running for Congress is a woman and 47% assert that it makes no difference to them.
• On the topic of women and Supreme Court nominations, a poll by CNN/Opinion Research conducted in May shortly before Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings finds that the fact that she is a woman makes 16% of respondents more likely to support her; for 80% of Americans this fact makes no difference.
• In addition, according to a May CBS poll conducted just prior to Elena Kagan’s hearings, 48% of Americans believe it is very or somewhat important that there is another woman on the Supreme Court. This, however, is a downward shift from a year earlier when CBS asked the question in a July 2009 survey. The latter survey took place around the start of the Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, and 66% of Americans believed it was very or somewhat important for there to be another woman on the Supreme Court. Currently, three of the nine justices of the Supreme Court are women.

Sexism, Politics and the 2010 Elections

Sexism is still a hurdle for women, especially those running for office or occupying high profile positions. Sexist remarks, from comments on hair and fashion to sexual innuendos, were just as common in this election as ever. A recent survey by Lake Research Partners shows the damage that even mild sexism can have to a female candidate’s favorability ratings, severely holding women back. In an experiment, respondents were given the profiles of two competing hypothetical candidates, one male and one female. When criticisms of the female candidate contain mildly sexist statements, including the terms “ice queen” and “mean girl,” as well as commentary on her appearance, she lost a significant amount of support compared to non-sexist criticisms. Initially the difference between the female and male candidate was +11 in favor of the female candidate; after the sexist comments were introduced the scale shifted to -1 and the female candidate lost her advantage. If the female candidate responds appropriately, however, she can regain support.

The 2010 election was, at least in the beginning, touted as “the year of the woman” with a record 262 women running in primaries for the House, but how did women actually fare after the election? Nancy Pelosi, the first female House Speaker and the highest ranking elected woman in US history, will be stepping down from her leadership position and, as a consequence, the political clout of women at large will shrink. Although there were a record eight (maybe nine) new Republican women elected to the House, only one new Republican woman was elected to the senate, and there were not enough Republican women running to offset the losses suffered by Democratic women in office. Between 9 and 11 incumbent Democratic women lost their races, but they did not lose disproportionately to Democratic men. In addition the percentage of subcommittees chaired by women, currently at 27%, will decline as many Republican women in Congress have less seniority and are not well situated to take on leadership positions. Overall there has been no increase in female lawmakers – the first year in thirty years that the percentage of women in Congress did not increase.  

For a detailed description of how women candidates managed in the 2010 midterms, please see the scorecard at the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics as well as a recent CNN article on the topic.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Whatever the results this Election Day, it’s clear that visionary progressive ideas will be less welcome at the start of the next Congress. And that’s saying something, given their track record in this Congress.

 But with that reality comes a new opportunity: the chance to tell our own story as progressives, instead of having it told for and about us.  We have a new chance to articulate our vision for America, and how it can bring, not just change for the sake of change, but positive and transformative change that can move us forward as a nation.

 If we thought—or perhaps still wanted to believe—that the White House or progressives in Congress would effectively do that job for us, then November 3rd will be a day to set aside that notion. We should, of course, work and vote for lawmakers who share our values and goals, and push back against those who don’t. But the days of them speaking for us should be over.
 There are so many examples. Inexplicably, neither the Obama administration nor the current congressional leadership have consistently communicated the benefits of health care reform, of financial reform, or even the wind-down of combat operations in Iraq.  And while it has sporadically touted the benefits of the Recovery Act (“Recovery Summer” rapidly became “Oil Spill Summer” thanks to BP and Halliburton), the administration has not demonstrated concretely to the American people (as Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, or Franklin Roosevelt would have done) why that investment was crucial to saving jobs and preventing another Great Depression—and many members of Congress are running from their votes in favor of it.

 Accordingly, most Americans wrongly believe that the stimulus did not save or create any jobs, that the President has not cut taxes (and may have raised them), and that the health care bill will expand, rather than reduce, the budget deficit. More damaging still, many of them believe that the halting, contradictory, soulless techno-speak so often on display in Washington represents the progressive vision.

 The problem is well documented, so what’s the solution? How can everyday Americans leapfrog the power of Beltway press conferences, pundits and opinion leaders? Examples as diverse as the Tea Party movement and Daily Kos tell the tale. The 21st century’s fragmented media landscape carries many dangers for our democracy, including the potential demise of investigative journalism. But it also carries great potential for those who are ready to wield it.

 Mass media are more available and affordable to every day people than at any time in the history of our planet. It is easier to connect with specific audiences—be they friendly, hostile, or persuadable—than it has ever been before. And media vehicles on the rise, from ethnic media, to the political blogosphere, to fake news, are especially open to our voices and ideas. Imagine what Martin Luther King, Jr. would have achieved if, in addition to marching and organizing door-to-door and pulpit-to-pulpit in Montgomery, he and his allies had been able to text message hundreds of thousands of supporters, capture video of Jim Crow atrocities, and tweet his Letter from a Birmingham Jail to the world. And imagine what Colbert and Stewart would have done with that material.

 But just what is the progressive story? We can all name the Tea Party’s core narrative of limited government, low taxes, and their own brand of liberty. But the progressive vision has long seemed fragmented and diffuse, too complicated and multi-faceted to be conveyed in a sound bite.

 That has to end now. Progressive vision and values have always been clear, concise, and profoundly American: the ideals of Freedom, Equality, Opportunity, and Community; the urgency of investing in people over institutions, seeking peace over war, ensuring responsible stewardship of the earth, and upholding human rights—the rights we all have simply by virtue of our humanity. Yet, it has been a long time since we focused on articulating them in universal, practical ways that everyone in our country and outside of it can understand and connect to.  And it’s been even longer since we’ve come together to communicate our vision through a shared, coherent narrative rooted in values but with concrete solutions that help all Americans advance and prosper.

 Whatever Election Day looks like this year, the day after that should be Independence Day for progressives in America.

 Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

The Opportunity Agenda has created a series of tools for advocates and policymakers to use as they advocate for equal opportunity in the economic recovery process.

Our most recent tool is a new report, Economic Recovery and Equal Opportunity in the Public Discourse: An Analysis of Media Content and Public Opinion (PDF). This report analyzes mainstream media coverage and a large body of public opinion research regarding America’s economic recovery and the ways in which it is affecting different communities and groups within our society.

It is intended to identify trends in reporting and beliefs, with the aim of contributing to a more robust, more accurate, and more sophisticated public discourse on this subject.

The report consists of two parts: an analysis of media content, in the mainstream press and, to a lesser extent, broadcast news; and a meta-analysis of existing public opinion research on the economy, recovery, equality, disparities, and the role of government.

For the full report (PDF), please visit here.

We also have a recent memo offering communications ideas and messaging guidance helping to promote an equitable economic recovery that includes all Americans. Read Preserving the American Dream for All: Talking About Solutions for an Equitable Economic Recovery.

Pollsters are almost entirely focused on the upcoming elections.  Many are predicting substantial victories for the GOP, and analyze what is driving or curbing the enthusiasm of the electorate.

Harvard Poll:  Millennial Generation’s Enthusiasm is Waning

Harvard conducted a poll of Millennials – individuals aged 18-29 – and find that election enthusiasm among this age group has declined since a year ago.  
    • 27% say they will definitely vote in November, compared to 36% in November 2009
    • The percentage who consider themselves politically engaged has dropped to 18%, from 24% 11 months ago
    • Millennials would prefer a Democrat-controlled Congress 53% to 42%

An survey analysis focusing on youth in the polls conducted by Pew analysis corroborates Harvard’s findings.

A recent Pew analysis of Millennials finds that the still strongly back Democrats, but fewer say they have given a lot of thought to this year’s election compared to registered voters 30 and over. 

    • 31% of registered voters under 30, compared to 53% of registered voters 30 and older, have given a lot of thought to the elections this year; this is a notable drop from 39% in 2006
    • 45% of Millennials, compared to 76% of the 30+ crowd, say they will definitely vote in the 2010 midterms; this is down slightly from 48% in 2006, but still higher than the 39% who asserted the same in the 2002 midterms

Democrats across the board are less engaged than in 2006, but the percentage of Democrat or Democratic-leaning Millennials that have given a lot of thought to the election has dropped substantially – from 47% in 2006 to 27% in 2010.  Millennials that identify as Republican or Republican-leaning, on the other hand, have seen a rise in engagement relating to the election, from 31% in 2006 to 39% in 2010.

Although a majority (56%) of Millennials identify with the Democratic party, the gap has narrowed for this demographic group – as it has in general – from 62% in 2008 to 56% in 2010.  The percentage of Millennials identifying with the Republican party has increased from 30% to 36% in the last two years.

Pew also finds that young voters tend to be more progressive than older generations on social issues, with higher approval rates for health care legislation and a broader government safety-net.  They also tend to be more optimistic about Obama’s economic policies, the direction of the economy, and the state of the country, despite the fact that they have experienced greater economic difficulties than other age groups (51% of 18-29 year olds report that they or someone in ther household has been without a job or has been looking for work in the last year, compared to 44% of 30-49 year olds, 40% of 50-64 year olds and 23 of those 65 and over).

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Equal opportunity is one of our nation’s most valuable national assets.

On September 27, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General reinvigorated our nation’s commitment to opportunity for all people by releasing a memorandum adopting The Opportunity Agenda’s ongoing policy recommendations for the economic recovery.

To comply with civil rights requirements prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, and gender in federally funded programs, the Attorney General stated that federal agencies should consider:

•Posting prominent notices on their websites concerning the applicability of these civil rights laws to projects receiving stimulus funding.

•Requiring adherence to all civil rights assurances and agreements, including those pertaining to the collection and analysis of racial and ethnic data.

•Utilizing existing and readily available data to “identify situations in which racially or ethnically identifiable communities may be harmed by, or excluded from the benefits of” a project funded under the Recovery Act.

The Attorney General also asserted that the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is under instruction to “utilize its oversight authority fully” to assist agencies in achieving these goals through methods including information sharing, training, targeted partnerships, and the provision of technical assistance on data collection.

Now, at a moment when our economic stability has not yet been assured, this memorandum gives advocates, public officials, and recipients of federal funding an important tool in our efforts to ensure that all groups can participate in the building of our economic future.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Blog Action Day is an annual event held every October 15 that unites the world’s bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day with the aim of sparking a global discussion and driving collective action.

This year’s topic: water.

Right now, almost a billion people on the planet don’t have access to clean, safe drinking water. That’s one in eight of us who are subject to preventable disease and even death because of something that many of us take for granted.
The global water problem is severe:

1. Unsafe drinking water and lack of sanitation kills more people every year than all forms of violence, including war. Unclean drinking water can incubate some pretty scary diseases, like E. coli, salmonella, cholera and hepatitis A. Given that bouquet of bacteria, it’s no surprise that water, or rather lack thereof, causes 42,000 deaths each week.
2. More people have access to a cell phone than to a toilet. Today, 2.5 billion people lack access to toilets. This means that sewage spills into rivers and streams, contaminating drinking water and causing disease.
3. Every day, women and children in Africa walk a combined total of 109 million hours to get water. They do this while carrying cisterns weighing around 40 pounds when filled in order to gather water that, in many cases, is still polluted. Aside from putting a great deal of strain on their bodies, walking such long distances keeps children out of school and women away from other endeavors that can help improve the quality of life in their communities.
4. It takes 6.3 gallons of water to produce just one hamburger. That 6.3 gallons covers everything from watering the wheat for the bun and providing water for the cow to cooking the patty and baking the bun. And that’s just one meal! It would take over 184 billion gallons of water to make just one hamburger for every person in the United States.
5. The average American uses 159 gallons of water every day–more than 15 times the average person in the developing world. From showering and washing our hands to watering our lawns and washing our cars, Americans use a lot of water. To put things into perspective, the average five-minute shower will use about 10 gallons of water. Now imagine using that same amount to bathe, wash your clothes, cook your meals and quench your thirst.

Access to clean water is not just a human rights issue. It’s an environmental issue. An animal welfare issue. A sustainability issue. Water is a global issue, and it affects all of us.

Learn more about the water crisis.

Sign a petition supporting the United Nation’s goal of providing clean drinking water to everyone.

Finally, donate directly to help those in need.

The last three and a half decades have seen a disturbing increase in inequality in the U.S.  The wealthiest Americans have made significant income and wealth gains, while the rest of us have treaded water at best.  And yet, as our national dream of economic security and mobility dies, we don’t even care enough to offer a eulogy.  As Willy Loman’s wife reminded us, “Attention must be paid.”
In recent research (PDF) by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely, a sample of randomly selected Americans believed that the middle-earning 20% of Americans control almost 15% of wealth.  The reality is less than 5%.  The same sample believed that the wealthiest 20% of Americans controlled almost 60% of wealth.  The reality is nearly 85%.  And, the same sample believed that the poorest 40% of Americans controlled nearly 10% of the wealth.  The reality is less than a third of one percent.  Let me put that another way.  The roughly 1.3 million richest Americans have 315 times as much wealth as the roughly 1.3 million poorest, and as a nation, we either don’t know or don’t care.

The recession will end (or has ended, by official measures), eventually.  Job growth will happen, eventually.  The question is, do we care enough to make sure that our new economic growth model brings real benefits to all of us, or are we content to let it build upon existing, and growing, inequality?

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Two new government reports illustrate the complex and troubling state of opportunity in America, but also the right way forward.

The first set of data, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found that the gender pay gap is at a historic low, with women earning almost 83¢ for every dollar earned by men—compared with 76¢ a decade ago and until fairly recently.  The change is due in part to young women’s progress in the workplace—they increasingly are better educated and out earn their male counterparts—but also to depressed wages and, especially, more rapid job loss by men.
Wage rates, in other words, are largely leveling down instead of leveling up.  Figures for African Americans were especially striking: median weekly wages rose 8% over a one-year period for black women and fell by 2.4% for black men.

The second set of data came from the Census Bureau, which reported that the number of working age Americans living in poverty was the highest since the 1960s, and that one in seven Americans were poor.  The poverty rate for Latinos (25.3%) and African Americans (25.8%) is more than double that of whites (9.4%), meaning, among other things, that one in four people of color are struggling to provide for their families.

The poverty figures were for 2009, President Obama’s first year in office.  So they are less a referendum on his Presidency than they are a clear problem statement for the Administration and Congress (whatever its partisan composition) going forward.  Together, the new information calls for initiatives and investment in both greater and more equal opportunity for all Americans.

That means, for example, a focus on retraining and education for well paying jobs in the new economy, and better aligning existing green jobs training to actual, long-term job opportunities.  But it also means ensuring that private sector jobs and public sector initiatives reach all Americans and their communities, irrespective of race, gender, or ethnicity.

One of President Obama’s first acts was to sign the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and his Justice Department has stepped up its fair employment enforcement considerably.  But more is needed.

The Opportunity Agenda has proposed the use of Opportunity Impact Statements to ensure that public investments in employment and infrastructure in fact create quality job opportunities, and do so equitably.  And Congress move forward with legislation to ensure paid sick leave for all workers—a step that will help close the gender wage gap, since women are more likely to lose work days, and pay, as caregivers to sick children, elderly parents, and others.  

These protections should be elements of a renewed focus on job creation, such as through the Local Jobs for America Act proposed by Congressman George Miller of California.  Also welcome is the commonsense proposal for immigration reform to be introduced by New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez—fixing our broken immigration system will raise both wages and tax revenues now and for years to come.

As the latest economic figures show, steps to ensure both greater and more equal opportunity benefit all Americans, and our nation as a whole.  Now is the time to make them a reality.

Having reached it’s 75th birthday, Social Security cuts are now being considered by the federal deficit commission.  Survey data shows, however, that this action is wildly unpopular with a majority of Americans, as Social Security has historically held high levels of public support, and continues to do so.  People have doubts about the program’s solvency in the long-term, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed in a meaningful way.  Americans are against using the Social Security fund to reduce the federal budget deficit, showing that, despite difficult economic times, the social contract and programs that contribute to the common good are salient.

According to a recent survey by CNN, 55% believe there will inevitably be cuts to benefits eventually, showing a substantial increase from 32% in 2005.  In addition, 60% believe  the Social Security system will not be able to pay them benefits when they retire, and 62% opine that it is somewhat or very unlikely that the Social Security system will last another 70 years.
Despite doubts about Social Security’s solvency, the AARP Social Security 75th Anniversary Survey – the fourth installment in a series of surveys on Social Security – shows consistently high public support for the program over time:

•63% of respondents believe Social Security is one of the most important programs of government; 65% believed so in 2005

•80% agree completely (52%) or somewhat (28%) that they are glad to have Social Security as taking care of parents financially is too much of a burden without it; 57% believe it is a way to build financial independece in retirement

•83% agree completely (63%) or somewhat (20%) that everyone who pays in to the system should recieve benefits no matter what other income they have, underscoring the importance of the program’s universality

•Although 59% agree with the notion that that they could do a lot better on their own investing the money they pay into Social Security, 82% agree completely (52%) or somewhat (30%) that it is important to continue to contribute to Social Security for the common good

The AARP survey also reflects the public’s concern over the need to strengthen social security so that it will continue to pay full benefits for the long-term.  A majority (57%) would opt to pay more in to Social Security so that the benefits can remain the same, rather than reduce benefit payments.  The Social Security Administration projects that the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2037 – 21% take this to mean that the fund will not be able to pay any benefits, 21% understand (accurately) that Social Security benefits will be paid at a reduced level, and 58% don’t know what this means (despited the fact that 70% believe they are very or fairly well informed on the way Social Security works).

According to the AARP poll, 85% oppose (72% strongly) cutting Social Security spending to help reduce the federal budget deficit. On this topic, a recent NBC News Wall Street Journal survey finds that a majority of Americans (62%) have reservatiosn about or are very uncomfortable with supporting a candidate running for office that favors phasing out Social Security.

This is consistent with a recent survey by Democracy Corps and Campaign for America’s Future, showing that 67% of Americans would prefer not to make major spending cuts in Social Security due to the federal deficit. In addition, 66% oppose raising the retirment age for Social security to 70 years.  Further, there is broad support (61%) for eliminating the cap on Social Security payroll taxes (requiring that households earning more than $107,000 pay the same rate as everyone else), indicating the desire for workable steps towards finding a meaningful solution to reducing the fund’s projected shortfall.
The fact that a vast majority of Ameicans prioritize Social Security over deficit reduction perhaps indicates that, despite messages in the media to the contrary, people realize there is no connection, and there shouldn’t be a connection, between the two.  Social Security is funded independently of other government programs, and does not contribute to the deficit.  To blur this line breaches the social contract, and renders useless one of the most effective and successful government programs in US history.  Instead, workable solutions should be proposed, and steps should be taken to ensure that the fund remains solvent, so that future generations can benefit from Social Security.