COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND (August 21, 2026) — While Congress has been unable to agree on solutions to prevent Social Security’s pending insolvency, a new survey in Iowa and its competitive congressional districts — the first, second, and third — reveals 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; and
- reduce benefits for top lifetime earners.
Gradually increasing the full retirement age is favored by majorities of Republicans in each district, but a majority of Democrats in just one.
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, and
- 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 Iowans 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 eleven competitive states and 28 competitive US 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.”
Each option was presented along with the amount that it would reduce the program’s budget shortfall.
Bipartisan majorities chose options that would significantly reduce the shortfall and extend full benefits for decades.
Increasing Revenue
Subjecting wages over $400,000 to the payroll tax — which currently does not apply to income over $185,000 — is favored by bipartisan majorities. This proposal would reduce the budget shortfall by 61 percent.
- Iowa-statewide: 86% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans, 81% overall;
- Iowa-1: 87% of Democrats, 84% of Republicans, 83% overall;
- Iowa-2: 86% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, 80% overall;
- Iowa-3: 84% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans, 81% overall; and
- Iowa-4: 86% of Democrats, 84% of Republicans, 81% overall.
Gradually increasing the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.5 percent is favored by bipartisan majorities. This would reduce the budget shortfall by fifteen percent.
- Iowa-statewide: 67% of Democrats, 59% of Republicans, 63% overall;
- Iowa-1: 69% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans, 64% overall;
- Iowa-2: 64% of Democrats, 61% of Republicans, 60% overall;
- Iowa-3: 71% of Democrats, 59% of Republicans, 65% overall; and
- Iowa-4: 65% of Democrats, 54% of Republicans, 60% overall.
Bipartisan majorities in nearly all competitive states and districts surveyed are in favor of these proposals.
Reducing Spending
Reducing benefits for the top twenty percent of lifetime earners is favored by bipartisan majorities. This would reduce the budget shortfall by eleven percent.
- Iowa-statewide: 70% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, 67% overall;
- Iowa-1: 69% of Democrats, 63% of Republicans, 67% overall;
- Iowa-2: 72% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans, 69% overall;
- Iowa-3: 66% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans, 65% overall; and
- Iowa-4: 72% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans, 68% overall.
Bipartisan majorities in nearly all competitive states and districts surveyed are in favor of this proposal.
Gradually increasing the full retirement age from age 67 to 68 by 2033 is favored by majorities of Republicans in each district, but less than half of Democrats in two districts. This would reduce the budget shortfall by fifteen percent.
- Iowa-statewide: 49% of Democrats, 54% of Republicans, 52% overall;
- Iowa-1: 49% of Democrats, 56% of Republicans, 53% overall;
- Iowa-2: 53% of Democrats, 55% of Republicans, 51% overall;
- Iowa-3: 50% of Democrats, 54% of Republicans, 50% overall; and
- Iowa-4: 45% of Democrats, 52% of Republicans, 51% overall.
Bipartisan majorities in most competitive states and districts surveyed are in favor of this proposal.
Increasing Social Security Benefits
Respondents were also presented, “options for increasing Social Security benefits, which would increase the Social Security shortfall,” along with the amount that each proposal 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 bipartisan majorities. This would increase the budget shortfall by eight percent.
- Iowa-statewide: 79% of Democrats, 77% of Republicans, 78% overall;
- Iowa-1: 78% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans, 74% overall;
- Iowa-2: 82% of Democrats, 79% of Republicans, 80% overall;
- Iowa-3: 78% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, 78% overall; and
- Iowa-4: 79% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans, 80% overall.
Changing the formula used to calculate annual increases in Social Security benefits, by tying it to what older adults tend to buy, is favored by bipartisan majorities. This would increase the budget shortfall by twelve percent.
- Iowa-statewide: 67% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, 67% overall;
- Iowa-1: 68% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, 68% overall;
- Iowa-2: 67% of Democrats, 72% of Republicans, 68% overall;
- Iowa-3: 69% of Democrats, 62% of Republicans, 67% overall; and
- Iowa-4: 64% of Democrats, 62% of Republicans, 65% overall.
Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed are in favor of this proposal.
MORE INFORMATION
- Iowa + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
- All State and District Results
About the Surveys
The Iowa surveys were fielded May 27 - June 23, 2026, to 2000 adults, including 500 in Iowa’s first, second, third, and fourth congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 8.7%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 6.0%, and the maximum weights range from 5.5 to 6.7.
The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults nationally. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.51.
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
This series will include surveys in eleven competitive states and 28 competitive US House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover fifteen topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.
The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views — in competitive states and districts — focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policy-makers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonp-artisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.
Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). 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 non-partisan 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 policy-making process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.
