How News Sources Portray Social Security Privatization Policies
This chart shows how major news sources across the ideological spectrum frame social security privatization policies, from left to right-leaning perspectives.
Social security privatization is the notion of moving Social Security from the public sector to the private sector. Social security is a social policy in the United States that provides monthly payments to retirees, disabled individuals, or the families of retirees, disabled persons, and deceased individuals. Workers in the country pay into the Social Security fund and, once eligible, receive monthly payments back. The estimated average monthly Social Security payment is $1,976 as of January 2025.
In 2021, approximately 176 million people were covered by government spending on Social Security, constituting about 94 percent of all jobs in the United States. However, a small subset of jobs provides their own retirement plan in lieu of Social Security; this is particularly true for state and local government employees, as well as teachers.
Privatization of social security would mean a significant shift away from the current system. The government would need to cover the cost of workers who have already contributed to Social Security for decades and are retired or nearly retired. Meanwhile, the new system would need to provide a path for younger generations to accumulate wealth in their private accounts. Due to these factors, it is possible that benefits would need to be cut to new retirees to cover the costs.
The History of Privatization
Privatization of the Social Security system has rarely been explored in the United States. Despite modern opposition to privatization in the Democratic Party, the concept was temporarily pursued between Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1998, with plans to provide personal retirement savings accounts for workers. However, the effort collapsed as attention shifted to impeachment efforts against the president in 1998 and 1999, and the original agreement was never realized.
In 2005, Republican President George W. Bush pursued a policy to partially privatize Social Security. However, even as the president traveled around the country and campaigned on it, the initiative rapidly lost popularity and was ultimately discarded prior to Democrats gaining control of Congress in 2006.
In modern times, the Democratic and Republican parties face substantial differences on government spending policies such as Social Security.
The Democratic Response on Privatization
The Democratic Party stance on Social Security privatization is strongly oppositional. Most Americans agree with this position. In a 2022 Data For Progress poll, 79 percent of Democrats or Democratically-aligned voters responded that the United States should leave Social Security as is. Only 13 percent of those same voters responded that Social Security should be privatized. Among all frequent voters in the United States, 77 percent said that Social Security should remain unchanged; only 15 percent felt it should be privatized.
Liberals frequently argue that the government has an obligation to provide social insurance to its citizens. They suggest that the program should be further expanded to remedy wealth inequality across the country. Liberals often criticize conservatives for playing politics with the livelihoods of seniors who have paid into the program their entire lives.
The Republican Response on Privatization
The conservative stance on Social Security privatization is unclear. While the GOP has strongly advocated against any increases to the program, given their long-standing policy stance on reducing government dependency, there has not been a sustained effort to privatize Social Security. In a 2022 Data For Progress poll, 76 percent of Republicans and Republican-aligned voters favored leaving Social Security as is rather than privatizing it.
Privatizing Social Security is advocated by conservatives, who argue that private accounts would provide a greater return on investments for workers. They claim that individuals should have greater freedom over their investment decisions rather than deferring to the government. They also point to other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Chile, all of which have private systems.
