Social Security: Confidence in program's future dips 7 percent since 2020
The survey found that of the 3,599 respondents polled, 36 percent were very or somewhat confident in the future of Social Security – a 7-point drop from 2020. Lower confidence levels were mainly driven by younger Americans, the survey found, as those in their 30s were found to be the most pessimistic.
A closer look at party affiliation signaled shifts in confidence levels based on who was in the White House.
This year, Republican respondents were found to be the most confident about the system's future, with a level of 44 percent, compared to 30 percent for those who identified as independent and 32 percent who identified as Democratic.
By contrast, those who identified as Republicans during the Obama administration were least confident about Social Security's future, while confidence levels topped 50 percent for Democratic-identifying respondents at the time.
More retired respondents now say they either rely on or plan to rely on Social Security in a substantial way for retirement income, rising from 51 percent in 2005 to 65 percent in 2025. In the same time frame, the percentage of those who say they don't rely on the program for retirement income has only slightly risen, hitting 13 percent this year, compared to 10 percent in 2005.
The combined trust funds for Social Security are projected to run out in 2034, a year earlier than previously predicted, a board of trustees of the program's accounts said in a report released last month.
The report said the depletion dates for the funds had advanced by 'about three calendar quarters' compared with the previous year's projections. The report cited last year's passage of the Social Security Fairness Act as a key factor behind the shift in the funds' projected depletion dates.
The bipartisan bill repealed two tax rules that proponents say unfairly reduced benefits for many Americans who also receive government pensions. But many experts sounded the alarm over its expected price tag and raised questions of fairness around the legislation.
In the latest survey, 74 percent of all respondents said they see Social Security as one of the most important government programs, up from 68 percent recorded in 2020.
Older Americans were found to be more likely to believe it's unfair to make major changes to the program that would affect retirees or those close to retiring, with 95 percent of those ages 50 and older saying as much, compared to 85 percent of those between 18 and 49 years of age.
The survey was conducted from June 18-23. The nonprofit organization said the data has been weighted by 'age, sex, census division, race/ethnicity, education attainment and AARP membership.' The survey also listed a confidence interval of the total sample of 2.04 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Medicaid was signed into law 60 years ago. Trump's big bill is chiseling it back
WASHINGTON (AP) — On this day in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed legislation into law that launched Medicaid, creating a U.S. health care safety net for millions of low-income Americans in what would become one of the crowning achievements of his domestic legacy. A year earlier, he did the same for food stamps, drawing on President John F. Kennedy's first executive order for the development of 'a positive food and nutrition program for all Americans.' This summer, with the stroke of a pen, President Donald Trump began to chisel them back. The Republican Party's big tax and spending bill delivered not just $4.5 trillion in tax breaks for Americans but some of the most substantial changes to the landmark safety net programs in their history. The trade-off will cut more than $1 trillion over a decade from federal health care and food assistance, largely by imposing work requirements on those receiving aid and by shifting certain federal costs onto the states. While Republicans in Congress argue the trims are needed to rightsize the federal programs that have grown over the decades and to prevent rising federal deficits, they are also moving toward a long-sought GOP goal of shrinking the federal government and the services it provides. 'We're making the first changes to the welfare state in generations,' House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a recent podcast interview. As the tax breaks and spending cuts law begins to take shape, it is unleashing a new era of uncertainty for the safety net programs that millions of people in communities across the nation have grown to depend on, with political ramifications to come. Big safety net changes ahead Polling shows most U.S. adults don't think the government is overspending on the programs. Americans broadly support increasing or maintaining existing levels of funding for popular safety net programs, including Social Security and Medicare, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Local governments are scrambling to figure out how they will comply with the new landscape, calculating whether they will need to raise their own taxes to cover costs, trim budgets elsewhere or cut back the aid provided to Americans. 'The cuts are really big, they are really broad and they are deeply damaging,' said Sharon Parrott, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a research institute in Washington. 'The consequences are millions of people losing health care coverage,' she said. 'Millions of people losing food assistance. And the net result of that is higher poverty, more hardship.' At the same time, certain people who receive aid, including parents of teenagers and older Americans up to age 64, will have to prepare to work, engage in classes or do community service for 80 hours a month to meet new requirements. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 10 million more people will end up without health insurance. Some 3 million fewer people will participate in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, known as SNAP. 'People are really concerned what this means for their fiscal health,' said Mark Ritacco, chief governmental affairs officer at the National Association of Counties, which held its annual conference the week after Trump signed the bill into law. The organization had pushed senators to delay the start dates for some Medicaid changes, and it hopes that further conversations with lawmakers in Congress can prevent some of them from ever taking hold. At its conference, questions swirled. 'We're talking about Medicaid and SNAP — these are people's lives and livelihoods,' Ritacco said. GOP bill trims back health care and food aid Republicans insist the law is adhering to Trump's vow not to touch Medicaid as the changes root out waste, fraud and abuse. A memo from the House GOP's campaign arm encourages lawmakers to focus on the popularity of its new work requirements and restrictions on benefits for certain immigrants. 'Those safety nets are meant for a small population of people — the elderly, disabled, young pregnant women who are single,' the House speaker said on 'The Benny Show.' He said the years since the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, came into law, 'everybody got on the wagon.' 'All these young, able-bodied, young men who don't have dependents, riding the wagon,' the speaker said. Medicaid then and now When President Johnson established Medicaid alongside Medicare — the health care program for seniors — as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, it was meant for low-income families as well as the disabled. And it quickly took off. Almost every state signed on to participate in Medicaid by 1970, according to the KFF, an organization focused on health policy. It soon went beyond covering its core population to include pregnant women, school-age children and not just the very poor but also those with incomes just over the federal poverty limit, which is now about $15,650 annually for a single person and $26,650 for a family of three. In the 15 years since the Affordable Care Act became law under President Barack Obama, Medicaid has grown substantially as most states opted to join the federal expansion. Some 80 million adults and children are covered. While the uninsured population has tumbled, the federal costs of providing Medicaid have also grown, to more than $880 billion a year. 'There are a lot of effects Medicaid has on health, but the most stark thing that it does is that it saves lives,' said Bruce D. Meyer, an economist and public policy professor at the University of Chicago who co-authored a pivotal study assessing the program. The law's changes will certainly save the federal government 'a substantial amount of money,' he said, but that will come at 'substantial increases in mortality. And you have to decide what you value more.' Food stamps, which had been offered toward the end of the Great Depression but were halted during World War II amid rationed supplies, launched as a federal program when Johnson signed the Food Stamp Act of 1964 into law. Today, SNAP provides almost $200 in monthly benefits per person to some 40 million recipients nationwide. Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who delivered the longest speech in House history while trying to stall the bill, said the changes will hurt households and communities nationwide. 'Who are these people?' Jeffries said. 'Ripping health care away from the American people. The largest cuts in Medicaid in American history. Ripping food out of the mouths of children, seniors and veterans who are going to go hungry as a result of this one big, ugly bill.'
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs back in court
An appeals court may soon get in the way of President Trump's trade agenda as his Aug. 1 deadline approaches to impose so-called 'reciprocal' duties on a host of countries. One day ahead of that deadline, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will convene across the street from the White House to decide whether the bulk of Trump's tariffs are legal. Hanging in the balance at Thursday's oral argument is whether Trump can use an emergency law to justify his sweeping reciprocal tariffs on countries globally and a series of specific levies on Canada, China and Mexico. The Constitution vests Congress with the power to impose tariffs, so Trump can't act unless lawmakers delegated him authority. Trump points to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that authorizes the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during an emergency to combat an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump is the first president to attempt to leverage IEEPA to impose tariffs. Citing an emergency over fentanyl, Trump invoked the law as early as February to target Canada, China and Mexico, its top trade partners. By April, Trump moved more aggressively. This time citing an emergency over trade deficits, Trump declared 'Liberation Day' and announced a 10 percent global baseline tariff with steeper levies for dozens of trading partners. Trump delayed the latter portion, but he has threatened to institute heavy rates for countries that don't negotiate a deal by Aug. 1. In the lead-up to Friday's deadline, Trump has announced a series of agreements. On Sunday, he reached a deal with the European Union that will set tariffs at 15 percent. The president reached a similar deal with Japan last week and another one with the Philippines. In court, the administration has pointed to its dealmaking, warning that any judicial intervention undermines the president's ability to negotiate. The Justice Department also asserts there is no basis for the courts to review Trump's emergency declarations. 'It is not difficult to imagine that Congress meant for the President to use his IEEPA powers as a tool to create leverage, just as Congress and the President have long done in other international-trade contexts,' the Justice Department wrote in court filings. The case arrived at the Federal Circuit after the U.S. Court of International Trade in late May invalidated the challenged tariffs by ruling that IEEPA does not 'confer such unbounded authority.' The 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses suing go further, contending that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs in any circumstance. They say the law instead concerns measures like sanctions and embargoes. 'No statute contains the sweeping delegation of authority the government claims,' the businesses wrote in court filings. 'Nor could a statute grant such unbounded tariff authority without violating the separation-of-powers principles on which our Constitution is based.' The Federal Circuit put the lower ruling on hold until the appeal is resolved. The court has agreed to expedite the case, meaning a decision could come soon after the arguments. One other potential wrinkle to watch Thursday: The Trump administration argues the Supreme Court's recent decision clawing back universal injunctions means the tariffs shouldn't be blocked nationwide, even if they are declared illegal. If you want to listen in, audio of Thursday's argument will be livestreamed here. The appeals court will hear from three attorneys. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's civil division, will represent the administration. Neal Katyal, who served as solicitor general in the Obama administration and one of the most well-known Supreme Court advocates, will argue on behalf of the businesses. And Benjamin Gutman, Oregon's solicitor general, will represent the states. The trio will appear before 11 of the Federal Circuit's 12 active judges. Judge Pauline Newman, 98, the nation's oldest active federal judge, will not participate. Her fellow judges in 2023 suspended her from hearing new cases over concerns about her mental fitness. Newman is suing her colleagues, and the judges on Monday asked to extend her suspension another year over a refusal to undergo full neuropsychological testing. Thursday's argument is arguably the most prominent challenge to Trump's tariffs, but it is far from the only one. The tariffs have come under roughly a dozen lawsuits in total. A case filed by another group of small businesses is headed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for oral arguments on Sept. 30. Those plaintiffs are meanwhile asking the Supreme Court to leapfrog the process and take up the dispute now. On Monday, the lower trade court refused automotive parts manufacturer Detroit Axle's request to separately block Trump from rescinding a tariff exception for low-cost goods from China. Many of the other cases are frozen, all waiting for the Federal Circuit to act. Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). Criminal defendant challenges Habba's appointment A criminal defendant is going after Alina Habba 's workaround that allows her to remain New Jersey's top federal prosecutor. Staring down drug charges, defendant Julien Giraud Jr. says his indictment must be dismissed because Habba has no legal authority to proceed. 'Giraud Jr. has a constitutional right to be prosecuted only by a duly authorized United States Attorney,' Thomas Mirigliano, Giraud's attorney, wrote in court filings. 'The illegitimacy of Ms. Habba's appointment undermines Giraud Jr.'s fundamental due process rights – as well as the due process rights of all similarly situated defendants – necessitating dismissal or immediate injunctive relief,' Mirigliano continued. Earlier this year, Trump named Habba, his former personal defense lawyer and White House counselor, to serve as New Jersey's interim U.S. attorney. Federal law provides that such interim appointments can only last 120 days unless the relevant court signs off on an extension. When Habba's clock ran out last week with still no Senate confirmation, the bench of federal judges in New Jersey refused to extend her tenure. Instead, they tapped Desiree Grace to take the helm. The Trump administration is now attempting a workaround. Trump withdrew Habba's nomination to take the role permanently, and she was instead made the office's No. 2 official, which doesn't require Senate confirmation. The Justice Department also fired Grace, enabling Habba to be elevated the role of acting U.S. attorney. Saurabh Sharma, an official in the White House's presidential personnel office, instructed Grace in a Saturday email that 'you may not lawfully serve as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,' court records show. But the criminal defendant is taking up the argument, contending the switch-up isn't legal. Giraud points to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), which lays out rules for filling senior executive branch vacancies. The FVRA prevents someone from being elevated to an acting role if the president 'submits a nomination of such person to the Senate for appointment to such office' and they weren't in the No. 2 spot for at least 90 days. Giraud contends withdrawing Habba's nomination doesn't restore her eligibility, but the administration disagrees. 'A lifetime ban of that sort would have no logical relationship to the distinct separation-of-powers problem that Congress sought to address,' the Justice Department wrote in court filings. U.S. District Judge Edward Kiel, an appointee of former President Biden who had overseen Giraud's case, won't decide the matter, presumably because Kiel serves on the bench that refused to extend Habba's tenure. Instead, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in neighboring Pennsylvania, will handle the matter. Brann held a conference with the parties Tuesday afternoon. Without explanation, Brann conducted the proceeding under seal. Was a judge busted for using AI? Are we hallucinating — or did AI? A federal judge in New Jersey withdrew a ruling in a biopharma securities case after lawyers flagged that the opinion was littered with fake quotes and other errors. The mistakes were brought to U.S. District Judge Julien Neals 's attention last week by Wilkie Farr & Gallagher lawyers representing a biopharmaceutical company, who noted a 'series of errors' in the June 30 opinion. Neals is a Biden appointee. The errors included three instances where the outcomes of cases cited in the decision were misstated and 'numerous instances' where made-up quotes were falsely attributed to decisions. Neals wrote in a minute order that his opinion and order denying the company's request to dismiss a shareholders lawsuit were 'entered in error.' He directed the court clerk to remove it and promised a subsequent ruling would follow. Now, let's be clear: Neither the lawyers nor the judge have said that artificial intelligence was to blame. However, the mistakes closely mirror the AI 'hallucinations' that have embarrassed lawyers in other cases. Earlier this month, lawyers for MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a Denver defamation case were fined $3,000 each for submitting an inaccurate brief to the court that was generated by AI. The judge noted some 30 defective citations in the February brief but didn't extend her sanctions to Lindell, since the lawyers did not inform him they were using AI tools in his case. Last year, ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen and his lawyer narrowly avoided sanctions for a submission that included fraudulent case citations cooked up by AI, though the judge chided them for the 'embarrassing and certainly negligent' episode. Those examples are two of some 140 AI hallucinations in U.S. court cases since 2023, when French lawyer and data scientist Damien Charlotin began tracking the incidents. And even those are just the hallucinations we know about. A 2024 Stanford study found that generative AI models produce hallucinations regarding legal information between 69 percent to 88 percent of the time. 'I suppose this particular case is settled, but I would wager there are more orders on Judge Neals' dockets that have hallucinations,' constitutional law professor Josh Blackman wrote in Reason's 'The Volokh Conspiracy.' 'Indeed, I suspect there are many judges throughout the country that have issued opinions with hallucinations,' he said. Trump Org seeks crackdown on Trump merch sellers The Trump Organization is taking action against online stores it says are illegally selling Trump-branded merchandise. Trump and his companies own four registered trademarks of the 'TRUMP' name, which cover its use on campaign buttons, apparel, banners, bumper stickers, decorative car decals, glasses and more. The suit claims the sellers have illegally used the protected marks in selling products on sites like AliExpress, Amazon, DHgate, eBay, and Walmart. 'Plaintiffs have not licensed or authorized Defendants to use the TRUMP Trademarks, and none of the Defendants is an authorized retailer of the genuine TRUMP Products,' the Trump Organization wrote in its lawsuit. The company is represented by the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. The lawsuit does not publicly name the sellers and instead asks to keep them under seal. But the complaint contains images of several of the allegedly counterfeit products, including Trump-branded hats, hoodies, shirts and mugs. 'In addition, the Counterfeit Products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the Counterfeit Products were manufactured by and come from a common source,' the lawsuit states. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas Barber, a Trump appointee who serves in Tampa. Sidebar 5 top docket updates Santos reports to prison: Former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) began his 87-month prison sentence Friday after pleading guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Planned Parenthood protected: A federal judge expanded her injunction blocking a provision of the 'one, big beautiful' bill. It now protects all Planned Parenthood affiliates from Medicaid funding cuts. Democratic-led states sued over the same provision Tuesday. Trump wants Murdoch deposed: Trump is seeking an expedited deposition of Rupert Murdoch in the president's lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, citing the media mogul's old age and health issues. Paxton takes action: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is taking legal action against a New York county clerk for rejecting Texas's attempt to enforce a judgment against a doctor who allegedly mailed abortion medication to a Texas woman. Another emergency at SCOTUS: The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to permit the cancelling of National Institutes of Health grants over their connections to diversity initiatives. It's the administration's 21 st emergency appeal since taking office. In other news RIP Layla: A Washington state woman accused the United States Navy's Blue Angels air show of terrorizing her elderly cat, Layla, and blocking her on social media when she used the platform to criticize the flight demonstration squadron. The complaint includes a photo of the late cat 'in her summertime prime.' High court, low tide: A law professor at the University of Texas at Austin shared on social media that the school has hung artwork depicting Supreme Court justices and other figures adjacent to the court soaking up the sun at Rehoboth Beach. You have to see it for yourself. Big Cheese busted: The Tallahassee Police Department on Thursday arrested a Chuck E. Cheese employee for credit card fraud. He was taken out in handcuffs, wearing the mouse costume. On the Docket Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit will hold arguments on fair housing groups' request to block the Trump administration's freezing of 78 Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) grants. A federal judge in Florida will hold a hearing on whether their court is the proper venue to consider a lawsuit aiming to stop the construction of 'Alligator Alcatraz.' A federal judge in South Carolina will hold a hearing to mull blocking the state's law that resulted in the cancellation of the AP African American Studies course in the state. Thursday: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in the Trump administration's appeal of an order blocking the bulk of Trump's tariffs. Speak Up for Justice is set to hold a virtual event called 'Judges Break Their Silence: Attacks, Intimidation, and Threats to Democracy.' Four sitting judges, including two who have handled major cases involving the Trump administration, are expected to participate. Friday: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1 st Circuit will hear oral arguments in the administration's appeal of an order blocking Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. A federal judge in Maryland is set to hold the second leg of a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Trump administration's cancellation of hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants dedicated to LGBTQ health. A federal judge in California is set to hold a motions hearing in a challenge to the administration's decision to end temporary protected status (TPS) for Venezuelans and Haitians. Monday: A federal judge in Oregon is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) gutting of the National Endowment for the Humanities. A federal judge in Maryland is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge to DOGE's termination of Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) contracts and grants. Tuesday: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's elimination of the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant, which is appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act. A federal judge in Hawaii is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge to Trump's proclamation stripping protections from the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument and opening it to commercial fishing. What we're reading
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US EPA proposes axing greenhouse gas rules that apply to motor vehicles
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed ending rules that address the contribution of motor vehicles to climate change. In a statement, the EPA said that its proposal would 'repeal all resulting greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines, thereby reinstating consumer choice and giving Americans the ability to purchase a safe and affordable car for their family while decreasing the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver'. Transportation is the largest source of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the US and for years the EPA has pushed vehicle makers in the US to reduce their contribution with steps that have included strict tailpipe standards and target a big transition to EVs and plug-in hybrids by 2030. In his presidential election campaign, Donald Trump pledged to roll back 'electric vehicle mandates' and boost the oil and gas industry. He framed his policies as about restoring consumer choice. They were also supported by the oil and gas industry and climate change sceptics, as well as parts of the US auto industry who have said tailpipe standards are too strict and costly to meet. The EPA's 'endangerment finding' in 2009 determined that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are a form of air pollution that the agency can regulate under the Clean Air Act, because climate change harms human health. The EPA's latest proposal would revoke the endangerment finding, seen by many as a cornerstone of US federal rules designed to tackle multiple sources of greenhouse gases – such as motor vehicles. Although CAFE standards remain in place, the US Department of Transport is reviewing them and Congress has already voted not to enforce big fines for vehicle manufacturer non-compliance. It has also voted to end the State of California's so-called 'EPA waiver' that meant it adopted tougher greenhouse gas policies than federal rules. The Trump administration has also scrapped consumer EV tax credits. 'With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,' said EPA Administrator Zeldin. 'In our work so far, many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year. We heard loud and clear the concern that EPA's GHG emissions standards themselves, not carbon dioxide which the Finding never assessed independently, was the real threat to Americans' livelihoods. If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.' 'Thanks to President Trump's leadership, America is returning to free and open dialogue around climate and energy policy - driving the focus back to following the data,' said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. 'Today's announcement is a monumental step toward returning to commonsense policies that expand access to affordable, reliable, secure energy and improve quality of life for all Americans.' Administrator Zeldin also announced the agency would reconsider the Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles regulation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. "US EPA proposes axing greenhouse gas rules that apply to motor vehicles" was originally created and published by Just Auto, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
