host: kelly finishing off on the calls on tand still take part oe twitter pole and follow the hearing. a recent commt by former president trump on social security and medicare have renewed the topic including essential themes for campaign 2024. joining us adcock from the national security -- national committee to preserve social security and medicare. later on we will hear from my -- mike davis from the article iii project this is as president trump is back in court regarding his legal issues. we will talk about all of those things later on. washington journal comes your way after this. ♪

>>mt today, watch the 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 camp trip -- campaign trail online at c-span.org or download it as a podcast on c-span now, our free bic-span, your unfiltered view f politics. >> booktv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing the latest nficon books.

eastern we are featuring books on education beginning with the author of " school moms" which looks at the rise in parent activism and gaining control of schools at the public level. at 6:00 p.m. eastern, frederick and michael present their plan for a conservative alternative to the u.s. education system with their book "getting education right." afterwards, jane marie orth are of "selling the dream" talk about how multilevel marketing businesses make their profits. she is interviewed by emily stewart. watch booktv every sunday on c-span two and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at tb.org. -- at booktv.org. >> the c-span book show podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of the nonfiction

books in one place so you can see new authors and ideas. we are making it convenient with selling -- talking about biography, and history. you can also listen to afterwards, booknotes+ and q and a. you can find the podcast feed and all of our podcasts-span nop or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work and citizens are truly informed. get informed straight from the source. on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital wherever you are.

because the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: the first guest of the morninis adcock as the committee to preserve social security and medicare and he serves as government relations and policy director. the name of the ornization is obvious. tell us about it and what is your missing -- your mission? guest: it is to focus like a laser beam on advocacy for medicare and social security to ensure that not only are these programs strong and good forle c and health security today but also for their kids and grandchildren. we were started by jimmy, a member of congress from california who happened to be the eldest son of franklin delano roosevelt. you might say that the roosevelts are in thejames roosd

of directors and we are happy to have him. we are uniquely devoted to william johnson's aid for older americans? host: how is itundei=d? guest: membership dues. we are charging $12 a year so i pretty good deal. we do not take money from outside groups, pharmaceutical or insurance companies or wall street. it allows us to be pure in terms of advocacy. host: we will talk about the politics in a moment but can you give an assessment of where social security and medicare are guest: according to the most recent trustees reports on social security, the social security trust fund has $2.8 trillion of it and will continue to have reserves until 2034 and on those reserves will be depleted.

but it never becomes bankrupt because the payroll taxes flow into the program, which means that people -- means that the trust fund will become depleted but there will still be money coming in. that if congress fails to act that will be a 20% cut. we do not want that to happen and we want to make sure the there is program to ensure it is there. medicare, until 2031, the part a trust fund responsible for caring for hospitalization is there. we think there are proposals that will extend that trust fund's life. it is more complicated because health care is complicated but we can get more into that. host: we can talk about the politics. statements earlier on from the former president. i want to tell you what he had to say a couple of days ago in get your comments on that. [video clip] >> one thing i think the

perception is is that there is not a whole lot of difference between what you think we should with entitlements or nondiscretionary spending and what president biden is proposing. it is almost a third rail of politics. we have a 33 or $34 trillion total debt build up. and there is very little we can do in terms of cutting spending. discretionary will not help. have you changed your outlook on how to handle entitlement, social security, that a care or medicaid? it seems i cast -- something has to be done or we will be stuck at 120 percent of debt in the gdp forever. >> first of all there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements and cutting and in terms of also the theft and bad management of entitlements. there is tremendous amounts of

things and numbers of things you can do. so i do not necessarily agree with the statement. [end video clip] that was a couple of days ago and followed up with an interview on right part saying and i will just pull you the quote saying "i will never do anything that would jeopardize or hurt social security and medicare." those are the statements as a standnd what is your response? guest: action speak larder -- larger than words. when he issued his budgets he urged that sociasecurity be cut. on one hand he is unlike many republicans in breaking the repuican orthodoxy of being supportive of doing things like cutting the cost of living adjustment and raising the retirement age. in reality as president he suggested cuts to the social security programs. words do not necessarily mean anything but what you do does. but we know from past actions

that he has been willing and listened able who support cutting social security. host: do you think there is an appetite to make those changes that you are concerned about? guest: i think there is for those who support it. but they know that it is very unpopular to do that. never my organization or any news organization has done polling suggests that the program should be cut it is very unpopular and it does not matter whether you are republican, independent or democrat, very unpopular. that is why they are reluctant to do that. that is why they have suggested things like a fiscal commission. where they can make it more bipartisan. they can do everybody jumping ofthe cliff together to come to a solution because that is the only way they can get away with making cuts to programs d and their money. host: the former president's

response team put out saying that the focus was more on waste and reducing that waste. is there something there as far as waste and fraud in the programs of both social security and medicare. guest: not to the extent suggested. if you talk about any program whether it is public or private there is always going to be waste and ways to try and reduce it. but when you look at the overhead of the social security program just on the program alone, it is only about .5% of the actual money paid out. $1.6 trillion paid out in benefits. that does not mean it cannot be lower. we will get to that point especially with the nude commissionerey, the former governor of maryland, he has got a lot of great administrative experience. we have talked to him and has the potential to do a great job. and we think that he will be --

he will do a lot with what he has and that is with the administration of the agency. host: if you want to ask about the politics behind social security and medicare and the actual status of the programs itself, 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. indepeents, 202-748-8002. for those who received either social security or medicare and are a and want to give your thoughts you can call at you can use that same number if you want to text us. before we go since the president and former president have introduced it, does this become an issue going forward in campaign 2024? guest: i hope so. and i say that because when people go into the voting booth they need to think about the issue very importantly. if you are in your 30's and 40's

you might not be thinking about social security. but if this program is cut, and medicare is cut and older people have less economic and health security, that means grandma will be living with you. and so even though you do not think you will be immediately affected you might be because it will force your elderly relatives to make decisions like that. that is why it is so important for people to think about. not only for current retirees at their owfu host: let us take calls. robin. alabama. independent line. good morning. my question is would mass immigration help social security, save social security. if so how, and if not why? pedro, you got-- have a topic it

america except mass icial secur? i will take my call offline. host: thank you for the suggestion. guest: that is a great question. i guess i can answer it two ways. if people are entering the country■@ undocumented workers, frequently they are getting social security numbers and pacing -- and paying the taxes. unless i get a green card or become ae a dime of the money contributed to the system. that actually helps the system. but it is interesting, the congressional budget office a number of years ago, about 10, when the senate passed an immigration willimmigration bile green card is not citizenship. they found of people became legal citizens or got green cas, shadows and worked in jobs that paid more and they were paying

payroll taxes. and so they found that the congressional budget office un the solvency of the trust fund would be extended by a year if you were to enacty tor citizenship. host: margie. republican line. pennsylvania. go ahead. caller:■oode i just want to say that 70 years ago, and i am now 86. 70 years ago i won a local contest and we were writing for the v.a. or something. about why social security was such a bad idea and now -- and i am living on it completely now. i still think it isa, and it was a terrible idea to begin with when it was just a minor thing. and now the monolith that it has is -- i have no idea how

you can fix it. but please show the pie chart so that people can see how much of the budget isand also, please eo people when they get all up in arms and say that is my money, well i have been both management and labor, half of that is your money. your employerf. host: you said you were on social security, is that your sole source of income? caller: my full and only source of income. and i am going back to why it was such a bad idea. the minute you plant and someone's mind that the government will take care of them, that affects their whole life. if peopled as they are growing up and as they are being

educated that they are responsible for themselves, then we would not this. host: thank you very much for giving your input. guest: in terms of what i would say and margie thank you for your question, i think it is important to realize that social security is financed through payroll taxes which is a dedicated tax which does not at a penny to the debt. -- add any to the bt in terms of employer contributions, that is part of your employer's compensation to you in the same way that your employer if you are lucky enough or your employer to provide separate retirement benefits, that is compensation as well. it is a great program and you are not alone. there are -- 40% of social security beneficiaries depend of their income from social security. if you were to cut that, how may

people would be in dire straits. i expect a lot would shift into poverty. only 9% of seniors live in poverty. if you were to cut that that number would go up. that would be a tragedy. host: in the 2025 budget president biden advocating a diff system to make wealthier americans pay for these programs. guest: we think it would be a mistake to benefits to extend the solvency of the program. a better pathway is to make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share. time that we made major changes to the social security program was 1983. and when we tax a payroll income we were capturing 90% of the income. because of income inequality and because there is a great difference between the and have-nots, we are not capturing

90% of that income, we are capturing 81%. and that is an argument why that should be increased. by doing that we do not have to cut benefits. we can extend the program for decades and that is really the answer, to make the wealthy pay their fair share. host: that is the desire, butgun the house in the senate supportive of that idea it would happen tomorrow. unfortunately we do not. we hope that in the coming election to elect people to -- that feel that way to get to that direction. the that the better because these proposals like raising the payroll tax on income above $400,000 have more bang for the buck if they are done now instead of closer to the date of the projected insolvency of 2034. host: bruce from lexington, kentucky. independent line. caller: i couple of quick

questions and i appreciate you taking my caho raided the sociay fund in the 60's, and we are spending money on immigrants. what do we need to shore up social security and medicare. guest: thanks for your question, i up the program is to bring more revenue into it as we have been talking about. we would free up $400,000. the me something. if your income is $168,000 a year you are■e■f paying 6.2% ofr income toward social security. but also your income is above that. let us say you a good chance tu are paying a very smaller percentage of your income to support retirement. you are probably stopping paying the payroll taxes in january and february because of that. that is important.

in terms of raiding the program, it never has. that kind of notion comes from the way it is financed. it is a pay-as-you-go system. today's workers are paying for today's retirees. when you make your contribution, that money immediately goes to the government. the government takes that money and buys a u.s. treasury security that earns interest, and then when it is time to pay benefits that treasury security is redeemed for cash and then it goes to pay benefits. in that transaction in which the treasury security -- when they take your money and they use it to buy a treasury security, that goes to every function that the government pays for. it is paying for firefighters, submarines and meals on wheels that eventually the money comes back. the same people put itl3 in when the terms are redeeming that security for a benefit. host: there is a recent update

from tara -- terrence keeleds ae social security system isd for insolvency largely that it has -- restricted itself in debt equivalents because bonds returned only f what stocksn a year versus 10%. social security expens running well ahead compared to the canadian pension plan which stems from asset allegations investing 57% in equities, 4% i bonds and real estate -- real tate credit. the canada percentage and -- engine plan annualized a 10% return. guest: any retirement expert will say that your income needs to be diversified, especially at your age you need to make less risky assessments. a problem with investing part of social security trust fund man

these assets are that they are risk-based and we do not have to worry about that if they are invested in treasury securities which are considered to be the most widley way that people invest. th to do it to ensure that the program is there. there are enough people that remember the financial crisis of 2007 and because we have mov pes that they lost money during that period of time that caused a delay to retirements. make sure that there is something rocksolid and social security will be there for people and we want to keep it that way. host: our guest is with the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. tim, new yor hello. caller: hello. i have been hearing some

rumblings that medicare might be on the chopping block and that republicans would like to eradicate medicare altogether and replace it with medicare advantage. could you give us some information about that. thank you. guest: that is a great question. there has been a lot of interest in terms of privatizing medicare and the direct way has been -- the direct assault hasp7 been through this idea of creating vouchers where people would get out -- go out and buy medicare or a private plan. that wasomething that for instance tim ryan -- paul ryan, i am sorry, republican for wisconsin supported and then also we have what is less a direct response but equally growing problem is the medicare advantage plans. these are private plans.

i know there are a lot of people who like them and tthem. but they are marketed in a way that you hear a lot about the pros of the pnsbut they do not f the cons. one of the biggest cons oflans t they have a limited provider network. that means if you get a disease and you need to go to the mayo clinic you might note able to because you're medicare advantage plan will not. what if you are in traditional medicare it does. the problem is let us say there are persuaded to go to a medicare advantage plan when they first become eligible for the medicare they hit 70 or 75 they do have some serious health problems and they need to go to a hospital or doctor, and a specialist in whatever their issue is. it is hard to go back to traditional medicare because it

is hard for them to get a plan that wraps around traditional medicare. it can be very difficult in those situations. at told when they are sold on medicare advantage. host: how often do you hear from younger people that they are not interested and why should it concern me? how would you respond? guest: i think we find that from experience that i have learned is run into a lot of people who feel that way. but i think they appreciate the program once they get into it. a lot of people find especially with the medicare program that it provides better coverage than they had when they had employer-sponsored health insurance. host:rom idaho. independent line. go ahead. caller: a couple of quick questions and i will take my answer off air. why do we keep the elderly under

the poverty rate on social security and two, why isn't there a means test for people who make $1 million a year? they obviously do noneed social security or medicare. that is my question. host: thank you. guest: good question and let me ne. there is something called the special minimum benefit that has not been updated and we think we need to so it captures more make sure that they live above the poverty level and there is legislation that has been introduced by john larson that we do exactly that. and that is why we supported that. as far as means testing, we were concerned that if you were to that it would turn into a welfare program. the important thing about means testing, extend the solvency of the program it would not just be means testing millionaires you would have to

do that down to the income level of $40,000 a year in order to raise enough revenue to extend solvency which is why we are opposed. what was the cost of increased -- the cost of living increase? guest: 3.2% which brings up an important issue. over the years, basically about a 14 year period, excluding the two years of high percent -- been 1.4%. in those four years we had the zero quote. people who are in that situation thought they did not have zero inflation. we need a more accurate measure of inflation and something ⌟ll the consumer price index for the elderly. especially it does a better job of measuring health care costs as they tend host: should that be tied to whatever increases, in the future? guest: we think so.

it would be more accurate, fair and most are a result of a higher cost-of-living adjustment for seniors. host: what is the highest increa in recent history? guest: i cannot remember but it was over 8% on one of those years where webut now it is dow. you can see how much lower the cpi has gone because inflation is sharon. pennsylvania. democrat line. go ahead. caller: thank you. a previous caller was preaching self responsibility and so forth that is well and good. but, during the great recessiono forth i lost back to back full-time jobs with benefits and

over time. and i was doing fairly well. after that age 61 i put in 100 applications, who would hire 61-year-old woman in the great recession? so i subsisted on unemployment for a while plus low-paying temporary jobs and part-time jobs. and i was never able to get back to the level i had had. so, many of us work more than one job just to make ends meet, and even as seniors. so, please don't preach at us. thank you. host: that is sharon in pennsylvania. guest: sharon, that is a great point. you are not alone in your situation. this is why the social security program so

important. because you don't know what your lifers -- life is going to bring you. historically in the last 30 years middle-ass wages ve been pretty much stagnant. that means there is a growing share of americans that depends on multiple security -- on social sit is why it is importar the program to be there, for the program to be strong, and also improve benefits for individuals so they can live a decent quality of life.host: this is sn massachusetts saying, could you discuss the possibility of raising the caps on money subject to social security taxes? you may have to explain that a little bit. guest: yeah. stephen, that is a great support., d right now the social security administration, when you are a worker you are paying payroll your first $168,600. any money you earn above that you are not paying social

security payroll taxes. the example of a professional basque ballplayer, for example. probably at noon on january 1 they already paid off■ their social security payroll taxes for the year because they make so much money. but everybody else, and probably most people listening to me right now, are paying 62% on all of their income. and they are paying at not just until the first of the year, but paying it in every single paycheck. we think it is a matter of equity that the wealthy pay their fair share of social security payroll taxes. that is why we support legislation introduced by senator bernie sanders and congressman john larson, and congresswoman jan schakowsky, ando the senator from connecticut, that would increase that rate of payroll taxes so finally the wealthy pay their fair sha.as i said previously, a reason for that. because of the fact we use to capture 90% of income to pay for

social security and payroll taxes. now we are only capturing 81% of that money. because of income and equality, it is time the wealthy pay their fair share. host: how much of an increase would you call for? guest: again, it would be on you could continue to attack people up to the limit that increases every year by the amount that wages increase. right now it is $160,600. any income above $400,000 you would pay the payroll taxes on. host: let's hear from mary. om ohio. hello. caller: hello. over 40 years ago, graduate school class, looked at social security and said we should have an actuarial review. at tha■ztimedw■(?q we said you d

be age 70 to receive social security. i know now that they are doing a step process. but why didn'tongress implement something for review to determine? because when it was instituted beinage 65 was st landmark thaty make. and now you can live to 100. they can set up something for that review. thank you. take it off-line. guest: sure. thanks for your question. there has been a lot of work on that and a lot of action on that. the last time there were major changes to social security was 1983. the things that was done was to raise the social security normal retirement age to 67. that was raised over a number of years. today that is what it is for people who are born in the 1960's,ge■x 67.here is the probg

that. even if you live to 100 if you raise the retirement age it is a benefit cap. and you don't have to do that. as i mentioned previously, you can raise the cap on social security payroll taxes to do that. the other important thing to consider is also it depends on the blessing of longevity. some people are lucky enough to live to 100. some people are not. especially if they worked in jobs where they were manual laborers, that kind of thing. these proposals to raise the retirement age are especyong lot only live to age 70 or 80. that is another reason. even if you are lucky enough to live to 100 it is a benefit cut if you were to raise the retirement age. host: robert in florida. you are next. hi. caller: hi, how are you doing? i have a couple of questions. would you please explain to me

that 75% of my taxes -- i pay social security. i'm retired. i got a pretty good income, but i still have to pay 75% of my social security. please explain it to me. i will get off the line. thank you. guest: that is a very good question, robert. last time major changes were made to social security was in 1983. that was when some of your social security benefits were taxable. unfortunately the amount of money, the income levels at which you were taxed were not share of americans had their benefits index. we think that is wrong. again, the social security 21 hundred act introduced by congressman john larson from connecticut and senater richard blumenthal are we change that. would be indexed and it would mean callers like robert, that their social security payroll taxes would go down.

ight move, because we think it is especially hard for those individuals when they don't have any other sources of income, to be taxed at that point in their life. host: aside from the legislators advocating the legislation you were talking about, what do you think of making changesor of these programs, and what do you think the delay is? guest: the delay is because there is not agreement on the right way to do that. instance, in this congress i think it is doubtful, and that is unfortunate. i think you need to have majorities, at leaste way we want to see the program extended, that would support revenue increases. that is part of the reason. what was the second question? host: if congress knows these deadlines are coming why are they doing something about it? guest: for the same reason. i think if they all agreed we could do it tomorrow. we could raise the social security payroll taxes. but we don't have that agreement, especially with a divided congress. until we have majorities in both

houses that agree on what a solution is it may unfortunately go down to the 11th hour in 34, of making that solution. we hope we don't get to that place. would be better to fix this problem now rather than later, because of these proposals thatd solvency, they are more effective if we do them now versus later. host: from cincinnati, ohio, john is on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i'm 81 years old, and i thinkngl security when i was 16 years old, but, anyway, they call this coming you know, like it is a benefit. and we paid into it. but government workers, like al security department, irs, all of the government workers, you never hear of their pension systems or anything running out of money. li in congressional district

one in ohio, we have, probably they are paying for six different congressman, fi of which are no longer in congress. but they get lifetime benefits and everything else, and you never hear about those people running out their funds -- their funds never running out. explain that to me. guest: well, i think that is a very good point tothey do have d system that has been in place for a long time. and for government employees it is something that, you know, that is part of their compensation package that they get. it is an important point to raise. if you're going to have this system for yourselves you need to make sure the system for your social security is there for them. they earned these benefits. because of the fact they are so extremely popular, regardless of party affiliation or age, that they need to step up it -- step

up to the plate and do it in a way that extends the program without cutting benefits. host: susan in indiana. republican line. hello. caller: hello. he mentioned that trump wanted to cut $65 million, but i am wondering how much is there every year and maybe you are misunderstanding whas, because y tries to talk about privatization of social security or some other way to be able to save, you know save it for later years, they are totally demonized, and you see those democrat pictures of rolling the wheelchair of the grandma off the cliff, and how■w they are going to cut social security and take it away from you. and, you know, so, actually, you talk about coming together and fixing it.

but anytime anybody tries to fix it, you know, you demonized them and i'm talking out the democrats. they demonize them and my other question is, how much money has congresstofrom social security? you know, when you talk about trump wanting to cut it, maybe he didn't mean and cut by removing it all. maybe he means cut by trying to fix it, and the democrats are just twisting that to make it sound, again, like he is anti-social security, jerry really don't think he i susan i. the president responded to this afterword on breitbart and other forms. go ahead. guest: i think i'm counting four questions at least, or at least four points. in terms of fraud, it is one of the most efficient programs the government runs. is remarkable.

in terms of just social security and medicare, i mean, just in terms of social security the overhead is, the administrative cost is about 5% of the cost of the benefits that are paid. so, it is pretty low. again, because of thes perfect,r it is private or public, there is fraud, waste, and abuse. we think that is an issue that should be addressed. we know the new commissioner, the former governor of maryland, thats the top of his agenda. in conversations we have had with him he is working very hard to do that. i would disagree with the characterization that there is a tremendous amount of fraud in the program. but i think more should be done and is being done to take care of the program. in terms of money being stolen from the program, that hasn't happened. there has not been a dime stolen from the program. every ne since 1935 has gotten every pennybe