this is a big deal for california, and other states are going to be watching to see if it's successful or how successful it is. already the day after the election, standard & poor's raised california's ready to schmidt credit rating slightly but is directly because i passed proposition two. with the great recession a lot of states dip into the rainy day funds and they are now looking to put some money back in there and thinking about the smartest way to do it and the smartest way to pay down their debts they have. california might be a way that they take. >> sort of insulate from the next great recession, or little recession hopefully. i know that transportation funding was a big issue in a lot of places on tuesday. what were some of those highlight?

>> so transportation ballot measures were a mixed bag. like you're talking about earlier, the federal gas tax has not been raised in about 20 years. most states have raised theirs in about 20 years, and states are constantly worried about finding money for infrastructure to pay for road repair and bridge repair. it is an issue that voters really care about. there was good news on tuesday in texas, wisconsin and maryland. voters approved measures either to increase or protect transportation funding. in texas they are not going to put a part of the revenues from oil and gas taxes toward paying for transportation. texas particularly as big traffic problems there. never brought on by the oil boom and all the workers that came there. so it's a big issue that voters care about there. and in both wisconsin and

maryland they voted to basically lock up their transportation funds so they can no longer be used for general purposes which is something that often happened in the past and he pleaded their funding. there was some bad news on tuesday for transportation funding however though and that was in massachusetts. massachusetts a few years ago tied the gas tax increases to inflation. every year essentially the gas taxes will automatically increase without the legislature having to on about a dozen states have found ways to increase the gas tax. summertime to inflation, summer using the policies but voters repealed the automatic increase in massachusetts on tuesday which means the gas tax will still raise but will keep up with inflation.

so it's going to be a problem in the future when states are struggling to find money for transportation. it could send a message to lawmakers in other states and could make them more hesitant to consider policies, to consider tying the gas tax hike to inflation. it's going to be a struggle for certain in massachusetts and other states this year as it is every year to find money for transportation, especially with the uncertainty come me when the highway funding bill expired. >> i want to move on to what happened at the local level this week but there are two other state ballot initiatives i do want to touch on because i think they set up interesting fights and court decision in in the future. both of those are out of arizona which may be unsurprising likes

to test the waters. carolyn, what are we talking about in arizona? >> like we're talking earlier this is kind of an anti-obama, anti-federal government election and that's highlighted more than anywhere in arizona where these two ballot measures. the one that underscores that the most is arizona essentially passed a law this week allows the state to opt out of federal laws come certain federal laws of its choice. this means that voters in arizona next year decided they don't like obamacare, then they can pass a referendum on the legislature can pass a bill against obamacare and they will, then all the agencies, cities and counties will be banned in arizona of spending any of their money on enforcing obamacare or the federal clean water act or

whatever. this will be interesting because it is sure to bring lawsuits. the constitutionality of it is sure to be challenged. i don't believe it has yet but give it a few weeks. this isn't that surprising. arizona has a recent history of defying the federal government and asserting their state sovereignty. the other less extreme issue is arizona passed overwhelmingly a right to try law, and a couple other state legislators passed this law last you but arizona was the first to do at the ballot box. >> tell us what -- >> if you see the movie thousand five congres call this will makh more sense but the right to try basically means permit the

patience and arizona will now have with doctor pro bowl now will have access to drugs that have passed some clinical trials but have not yet been approved by the fda. in a way business undermine the federal government authority, but some in the medical community also sit in the long term it might undermine clinical trials and people participating in them because they might be less willing and might be less effective if they don't get the right people in those clinical trials. that is an issue that's also going to be pretty big in the coming years and activists are pushing in state legislatures. it's an issue that's not facing that much opposition so i wouldn't be surprised if he saw passed in many states.

>> the previous measure of opting out of any federal law is upheld, which state wouldn't want that? we do want to spend time to talk about local measures that passed. alan, you've been tracking that for us. this republican wave that we saw at the congressional and gubernatorial and state legislative level, is that sentiment continue at the local of a? >> similar storage what caroline was saying, they were more liberal leaning in general. it's not a huge year for local elections. everybody has governing current store in pittsburg which profiles the mayor who is progressive and he was elected as part of the class left with dual -- bill de blasio in new york and marty walsh in boston and ed murray in seattle, and yogodown the line at all ran on

similar pre-k income inequality transit type platforms. the big cities, talk about how they are more democratic, almost every big city mayor is a democrat and were getting even more progressive mayors elected. that were not a time of important mayor elections. there was one in d.c. greg fischer won easily in louisville. i don't know if anyone saw the news, former louisville mayor jerry abramson just picked yesterday by the white house to an office of intergovernmental affairs which is good for governing because we like them. providence got a lot of attention with its coral race because the former mayor, was an innovative mayor buddy twice had to leave office because of felony convictions.

he was unable to achieve his latest comeback. he ran as an independent. the republican nominee said i'm voting for the democrats. he wins in oakland. never been popular me. oakland does ranked choice voting we pick first, second and third choices. she's sort of came in the second choice in essence four years ago. she got beat by an aide to jerry brown who endorsed barbara boxer so she sort of gaming. san jose was an interesting race, very close. chuck reed has been a big pension reform. the guy he liked won with 51.5% of the vote. police unions heavily backed dave cortes who lost. they won't roll back those pension reforms. index voters, that was a local

measure to put municipal employees into 401(k) style plans. that was voted down. just a couple of county races of note. another former governing cover study, at houston district attorney lost. he was famous for having a wrongful conviction unit that exonerate about 35 people. not normally the party of prosecutors. he had some personal problems, a car crash and his county funds to pay for the settlement. his opponents said that she will continue the exoneration work. we will see, watkins claimed that was the real issue, not his personal problems. i mentioned i am from st. louis. st. louis county had its elections. michael brown was killed on august 9, a saturday, and we've had the primaries the tuesday before.

steve spinner won the democratic nomination for county executive beating a longtime african-american incumbent. bob mccullough, the county prosecutor had an opponent in the primary but no opponent in the general election. he has become a controversial figure for throwing the case to the grand jury rather than deciding whether to indict on his own which he would have authority to disappear it became a contested race, $3 million race. the republican nominee was a state house member and steve sanger, he was not dashing he kept saying he is too extreme. some of the african-american officials in st. louis county endorsed him out of anger for the party not supporting charlie but also out of fashion he is very close to the prosecutor.

and general frustration but ferguson and all the problems that were revealed. but he got his key endorsement from the african-american congressman from st. louis and held on by less than a percentage point the st. louis county, heavily public, 1 million plus counties always votes democratic. to run quickly through a couple of the ballot measures. we had paid sick leave passed in new jersey and in oakland. it was also a mixed bag on transportation with statesmen for infrastructure. bonds voted down in kansas city the seattle voted for more transit. clay county voting for a sales tax increase. there were bands on gmos pass at the local apple. humboldt county, california and

-- voted down g. most. there were some places in california and in denton texas voted to ban fracking. is already a lawsuit against denton texas. finally, there were so tax measure in the bay area in san francisco, berkeley, more than 12 many dollars spent on those racist. precedent-setting. so san francisco voted, majority voted for it require a super majority. berkeley did vote for the soda tax, 75%. most of the money from the beverage industry but there was some money, michael bloomberg, the any of the big gulp put in 400,000. so berkeley uprooted 75% of the voters. i love this quote, roger salazar, a spokesman for the anti-tax campaign in both places

said san francisco would have mattered but berkeley, it's berkeley but he said i don't think people will look at berkeley's results and said that's what the rest of the country would you. berkeley is the city that gives away free pot away to poor people but it's not mainstream. it's hard to believe a charmer like that was also not successful. >> other than free pot for poor people, is there any overarching take away we should think about as far as these local measures were local elections? >> to the gentleman's question earlier where we will have, how do you manage up, where you stand depends on where you sit, one of my favorite clichés in government. if you're a mayor of a big city in the state with heavily republican state government, what do you do? how do you work that? cities are always hated by the rest of the state anyway. i think that would be a tricky

area for people to navigate. i think in general the cities will be the blue of democracy while the states by the red labs of democracy. >> we will take more questions from you all at this point. who has questions about the elections either at the state level, local bible, any of the initiatives that caroline ran through? >> you mentioned the mixed bag as far as transportation and represent a national transportation association. we are very excited concerned the federal gridlock lately of the state races and ballot initiatives. do you see given the mixed bag and taking up different issues such as dmt, calling, sales taxes such as in some of the northern states like michigan? >> alan, is that something --

>> i'm not super knowledgeable it at the you will know more than we do but states keep wanting to build growth. it's a key priority, and certainly phoenix push for. without a lot of experiment, although public-private partnership. i think that would be in there when we talk about tension between the states and the feds. governors do want money for transportation, but have you heard any percolation's of -- >> of recent? >> what will be the innovative funding sources of the future? >> like you mentioned, piii is always the big one. >> caroline, you sort of me to point the voters seem to be willing to set aside money that already exists for transportation or protective transportation funding from being used for other sources but maybe less excited about

increasing revenue for transportation. >> one interesting thing to note is tax increases at the state level generally are hard for voters to pass and they are unwilling to pass at the state level. at the local and particularly in the selection, voters are much willing to pass a tax increase because at the local level they can see exactly where that money is going to. vacancy if their taxes increase that's going to the bridge i drive over every day to go to work or going to expand this road where i sit in traffic every day. i think that's one take away on transportation funding that is important to note that if you're trying to get the voters to pay for it, which is always hard to do, it's much easier at the local bible.

>> i think we will continue to see contested battlefields of what kind of spending in transportation to visit just wrote a roads and transit and so forth? i am pretty sure in the wisconsin measure that passed its all sorts of transportation funding including bike paths and pedestrian. in texas to you guys recall -- >> specifically not applicable to transit and just wrote transportation. >> texas will have a lot of surplus, demand for schools because there's so much growth. a desire to cut taxes. so what the split will be would be very interesting. i was thinking about georgia, a year or two ago had regional transportation taxes that failed. they tried to be strategic and had these long lists of specific projects of people would do with the money was going. that backfired because people were like that's not my county. it's tough but everybody wants roads. nobody wants to pay for them spent and it's never local

enough. even light in georgia it was a nine county region for 12? >> they split the state into that like multicounty region. >> if it's not my road or my commute. other questions? [inaudible] >> i'm wondering what you think of the biggest no significant gateways on health care whether it be federal, state, local, aside from the obvious, obamacare potential? what are the biggest takeaways you see in this area? >> on health care is that -- >> there were a couple of ballot initiatives mostly in california on health care. both of those failed. there was one to give the insurance commissioner the power to reject excessive premium

hikes and this is something insurance commissioners and other states do have but in california they rejected it. interestingly enough the health exchange in california opposed this ballot measure. that's because it gets really complicated. they believe that in the end it would actually be, if the insurance commissioner the power to reject invites in california then it would put too much restrictions on the system which could raise prices up premiums in the end. that was a really interesting one. >> arthur takeaways on health to? >> it would be interesting to watch. so much of the republican argument against obamacare is changed of health care system

take away health care from people. if the republican governors you're either newly an office or who are, who are newly emboldened, if they decide to cut back or and the medicare expansion of whatever, they are going to be dealing with, having to take folks health care away. even in a conservative state it will be interesting to see whether that approach applies or not. particularly arkansas where they had a private sector approach to the the medicaid expansion. it was passed as a compromise between the gop legislature and the democratic governor. it nearly got overturned partway through even after it was put into place.

but now with a gop governor strengthened gop control of the state legislature, if they are going to fold up like it's going to take away a lot of health insurance from people and that might be seen as critical. it might not fly. >> i think they want to. a lot of people ran on the. a lot of state legislatures ran on that. they took the money from the feds to apply to private insurers and that was seen as a possible workaround model but it was her issue in the state races. arkansas, fun fact, the legislature just slipped two years ago -- flipped two years ago. it's the first time the state is toward republican-controlled since 1864, one of those on fax. that will be real issue there. they could be getting into

obamacare, sort of a castle incentive for states to go with it. we will see some governors, mike pence, another republican governor in utah that they were negotiating with some kind of expansion on what terms they will take it. one thing to watch i think in health care is chip, the children's health insurance program which was supposed to go away under a obamacare because they thought kids would be covered under the medicaid expansion but it's not happening in a lot of states. funding expires and will that be a priority of this congress? i don't think it will go away if i'm guessing but whether it will get the funding its head. it's been expand into obama years. i don't know what will happen with chip spent another particularly regarding medicaid expansion from these elections is because the republican wave is unlikely we're going to see a

lot of the states, a lot of new states expanding medicaid. what is at risk are the states that have expanded medicaid. in a lot of those cases it's not necessarily because the governor has come out against medicaid expansion and simply wants to repeal it. it's oftentimes legislature. it will be interesting to watch what seems like it's going to be some battles between republican legislatures and republican governors who, many have said i'm not necessarily against it, i'm going to watch it, i'm going to look at the numbers. even a lot of republican governors have adopted medicaid expansion. it will be interesting to see how that pans out in the states that have already expanded. >> i think we have time for maybe one more question. actually, if you just wait for the microphone.

>> i'm going to take a different path with this question. what about trickle down? one of the areas that has potential agreement between the white house and republican majority is tax reform. how did you see that light up with a lot of the local initiatives priorities? i will take transportation again as an example. the last time the transportation federal gas tax was raised i think in 92 and it was a tax reform initiative. in previous congress goes, the same thing. previous initiatives to how does that light up with not just transportation but also some of health care issues? how is this going to impact the new legislatures? are they going to produce?

>> lou, i guess that goes back to your point of we will see how nationalized these elections get a buddy of any other thoughts about on the specific kinds of issues, what d.c. insurance of trickling down, dc-4 out from d.c.? >> i think it depends to a certain extent on whether president and congress decides to pursue policy as opposed to skirmishing for a better position in 2016. >> do you want to take bets on that? >> exactly. there certainly is an opening for some serious policy advancement and compromise, but we do have a presidential election coming up and open seats. there's going to be a lot of pressure on congress from presidential candidates and so

forth to try to fight the next battle instead of trying to consolidate gains and make policy. >> i think we're going to have to end things there. i would like to thank alan greenblatt, lou jacobson and caroline cournoyer, and i would like to thank all of you for joining us for governing elections briefing this morning. thanks so much. [applause] thank you. >> an[inaudible conversations] >> in honor of veterans day, vice president biden will participate in the annual ceremony today at the tomb of the unknowns. ..

how much i enjoyed q-and-a at 5:00 on the west coast everything stops in my house. i turn off the phone, get it my cup of coffee and it's the most enjoyable hour on television. >> the guests are very informative, good opinions. i enjoyed listening to the comments. being in the middle east he was accurate and on point.

he wasn't using his own personal innuendo and i greatly enjoyed it and i hope that you have more guests like that. but he was right on target this morning. >> i am calling to say that i think like many people, c-span is wonderful but as two criticisms i almost have none. the reason i almost have none is i think that you all do a tremendous job of showing just about every side of everything in the way people look at things in dc and elsewhere.

the federal government announced social security payments will go up by 1.7% starting in january 2015. next the chair of the white house council of economic advisers discusses efforts to sustain the social security program. this was hosted by the national academy of social insurance and it's about one hour and 50 minutes. >> i would like to welcome all of you to the national academy. my name is william invite had the honor of chairing the board of directors of the national academy in washington and today we are releasing what is a very significant study in which the american people were asked in a very systematic way what would

they prefer as the solution to the long-term challenge. i don't know how often we get the chance to do surveys that forced the american people to make choices and that's what they did and i view it as the voice of the people on this important program. when the american people are presented with facts it is surprising how they come up with very sensible and in some ways sacrificing answers as you will hear. i get to washington periodically in new york and i can't imagine another issue where there was a close to the border agreement whether it is in politics, the arts of sports, maybe agreement that they would never win the stanley cup. other than that on social

security as you'll hear across the generational lines and the geographical income and political affiliations it's a unifying issue if the american people are listened to and if it is the reason that the academy academy and the mission is to educate the american people about why we have programs like social security, medicare, unemployment insurance. before we do that though i want to thank two of the sponsors that made this report possible by the ford foundation and the whole plan foundation of a particular. she might like to think she has some credit but we appreciate what they did and there is an

evaluation form in the materials that you were given and we hope you will take the time at the end of this to provide a candid feedback on the value of this event or things you might have hoped for but we didn't provide recipes filtered out before you leave today. in terms of the order my colleague is going to describe the study's findings. matthew will explain how it works and informs him in sometimes difficult choices. and we are very thrilled about jason who chairs the council of economic advisers and also a member of the academy of social insurance is going to join us to comment on the study and address the issues that it raises and we will have an outstanding panel on him to provide their perspective answering questions he might have in the course of the presentation. let me introduce lisa and income policy analyst with the academy

and she's part of a generation. my daughter doesn't want to be called generation y. and prefers not to be compared to other generations like a generation x., the boomers, forget it. as you will hear the survey found some disturbing opinions on the part of the generation when they are asked will social security be there for you however the more they understand the social security future is much better than they were led to believe. they have the objective facts and findings on social security so to some extent it is a

natural continuation in the courier and lisa will be followed by matt who directs the research firm that bears his name and he is a member of the national academy. so this makes the survey unique in its findings. if they have a burning question of technical clarification feel free to ask the right we would ask you to hold the questions until the panel select me start with you and she will take you through what the surveys found. presenting findings on the opinion study the americans make hard choices on social security.

the study consisted of three related parts. first we conducted focus groups to help inform the question design. we then conducted a survey of 2,000 americans ages 21 and over about their attitude towards social security and their views on policy changes. as part of the survey used a trade-off analysis method to learn which social security changes americans prefer and are willing to pay for. we partner in conducting the study in a trade-off analysis in more detail. i want to start with a couple facts about social security to explain why we did this study. first social security is the foundation for most americans. benefits are modest under $1,300 on average if there is a main source of income. benefits keep more than 22 million out of poverty and

without social security, more than half would live in poverty as defined by that measure. second, social security finances need attention. according to the trustees come social security faces a long-term financing gap but can pay full benefits until 2033 but after that would only be able to pay three quarters of the benefit. social security needs some adjustment so that's where the study comes in as lawmakers were deliberating various options for adjusting social security, the national academy of social insurance was to find out what the american public thinks the changes should be. the survey first asked the attitudes on social security benefits and on paying for the program nearly seven in ten say that they would have to make significant sacrifices or they wouldn't be able to afford the basics in retirement, things like food, clothing or housing.

a large majority say they don't mind paying for social security for a variety of reasons. 73% agree so they don't mind picking for social security because they know they will be receiving benefits when they retire. 73% again i agree because they know that without it, they have to help support their parents or other relatives. and most of all people value the security and stability social security provides millions of americans. 81% say they don't mind paying for social security because of that and the chart shows responses by the political parties into 72% of republicans and 87% of democrats and 81% of independents say they don't mind paying social security taxes because it provides security and stability to millions of americans. large majorities agree across the income lines as well.

americans not only don't mind paying for social security they also indicate they would consider increasing the benefit. 85% agree social security benefits now are more important than ever to ensure that they have a dependable income. nearly nine in ten say the benefits don't provide enough income to the retirees and more than seven in ten say we should consider increasing social security benefits. however as we all know there is no free lunch and increasing benefits come at a cost. so we'll so explored the willingness to pay somewhat more for social security if needed. nearly eight in ten respondents agreed with the statement. it's critical that we preserve the benefits for future generations even if it means increasing the social security tax is paid for by working americans. that includes about a third that strongly agree. and more than eight in ten agree that if it means increasing the social security tax is paid for by the top earners.

as a come a large majorities of americans believe that all workers can contribute more to social security if necessary and better off americans could pay more because they have higher earnings. this is true across generations come income groups and political parties. the following chart shows agreement on the two statements by the political party. those that agree that working americans could pay more included seven to ten republicans and eight to ten democrats. those earning the top burners could pay more including a striking seven in ten republicans and nine in ten democrats. there is no doubt on social security americans are far less polarized than they are on many other issues. another part of the study the trade-off analysis is to examine which changes americans prefer and are willing to pay for. respondents examine the social

security policy consisting of the revenue increases and benefit reductions and benefit increases. each option presented with a short description and estimate of the options impact on social security financing gap. i'm not going to read through the entire list of option but it's available on the highlight brief that you picked up on your way in. that will be going into more detail on the trading methodology so i'm going to skip to the findings. the trade-off analysis found that americans preferred package of changes to social security but do four things. first it would eliminate the tax cut over ten years. this would mean 6% of workers that earn more would pay into social security all year long as other workers do and in return they would get higher benefits and it would raise the social security tax rate from 6.2% to

7.2% over 20 years for workers and employers. they would be so gradual that a worker earning $50,000 a year would pay about 50 cents a week more each year matched by their employer. third it would increase social security cost-of-living adjustment to reject the inflation experienced by seniors someone that pete into social security for 30 years can retire at 62 or later and not before. these changes would more than eliminate the long-term financing gap leading a margin of safety for the future financing. specifically the package eliminates 113% of the shortfall under the assumption of the trustees report which was the most recent available when the survey yielded in june and 107% under the new 2014 trustees report. the preferred package is also the same as what americans

preferred in 2012 when the academy's prayer study was conducted. seven in ten americans would pay for the package of changes over the status quo and the support is remarkably studied across the generations come income groups and political parties. seven in ten preferred package. the trade-off analysis also allows us to learn how respondents weigh the appeal or the lack of appeal to the individual policy options. some have a strong positive impact meaning respondents are much more likely to choose the package when that option is included. the four options with a strong positive appeal for the gradually eliminating the tax gap reasoning the tax rate of 7.2% keeping the retirement age at 67 rather than raising it in increasing cola. for other options have a

negative appeal. they were not lifting the tax gap, the tax rate, raising the retirement age to 70 and a bouldering. others from the trade-off analysis and we also asked respondents their views on policy options one at a time. do you favor or oppose this option. there is a different methodology from the trade-off analysis which looked at each option as part of a package. here's one way of depicting. this is a bit small to read on the screen but it's also available from the fact sheet on the folders. the green bar indicates the respondents to save that they pay somewhat or strongly favor each option into the red bar below the access indicate the respondents but somewhat or strongly oppose the option.

as you will notice the four options that were included in the package and the trade-off analysis also received high levels of support on the survey question. for example looking at the first bar, more than eight in ten respondents say they favor the gradually increasing social security tax rates 7.2% including four in ten that strongly favor that option. options to reduce the benefits received no support. for example in the second to last bar, three quarters of respondents opposed raising the retirement age to 70 including more than four in ten that strongly oppose it. the reports of findings about the american confidence in social security. despite the support for the program and the willingness to pay for it for six in ten say they are not confident in the future of social security. we also asked americans who are

not currently receiving benefits would be expected to get all of their earned benefits when they retire and nearly seven in ten said no. in addition, they knew that social security would still be able to pay it off three quarters of benefit after 2033. most of the rest of the finances would be in far worse shape. they took the program would be unable to pay any benefits at all. so next we tried a little experiment. they thought that it felt that it was a crisis or a significant problem. they felt that it was a manageable problem or not a problem and that is not surprising given the low level of confidence. the proportions flipped and the share of people that thought

total security funding is a crisis or a significant problem dropped from 70% to 33%. after learning social security taxes from 6.2% to 7%. accurate information helps people better assess the scope of the challenges that social security faces. i'm going to add a couple of concluding thoughts before wrapping up. first the findings were consistent across the three parts of the study and the focus groups the participants were concerned that the benefits being too low whether they considered their own benefit or more often the benefits they see their parents or grandparents receiving. in the survey, large majority of republicans, democrats and

independents say they don't mind paying for social security and they want to consider increasing benefits and they would be paying more for social security if needed. the preferred package consists of two benefit increases and revenue increases. second, better information could improve public knowledge about social security and confidence in social security. finally, americans may be polarized on many issues but on social security, they are remarkably an agreement. they not only support social security but supports social security but also agree on specific changes for the future. with that i will turn it over to matt greenwald who will tell more about the analysis purpose to be. thank you. [applause]

there will be a pop quiz at the end. the products that people will buy in a competitive world that people prefer over their competitors they don't care that much if they like the car they like it better than what their competitors are offering and in 1978 from a statistical technique was developed by a professor at the university of pennsylvania and sends, it has been used more than numerous times because a lot of private sector companies don't want to build the product to see how it works. they want to do research first before they pick up the card into the factory. they have identified the preferred package including the

cost. the most attractive is the one that you can so a buick or mercedes for $12 but 37,000 includes cost and identifies the impact on preference so if i cannot -- to give you the example of a car it can have numerous features and different size, transmission quality, backup camera, different types of sound systems. each feature has a cost into there could be 300 combinations which is the best. but you can't ask an individual pre- hundred questions and expect quality answers.

it is by properly aligning the choices you can ask eight to ten questions and estimate how people would respond to each of the 300 using the math basically and also understand the impact of each one. so, the objectives that we have been working for to understand the preferred package of the social security benefits where there are a couple hundred different possibilities to make sure that each of the costs are taken into account when determining a preference. of course people want more benefits but are they willing to pay for it? and if you're interested in closing the finance gap can help you go about doing it and also

if you are looking at the different features to trick you make the trade-off decisions what is the value of each feature. some have the benefit of closing the finance gap and the increase in the finance gap what is the reaction to each one understanding that the goal is to get the best package. what do american speakers of this is what we did and i want to say again we've requested 12 specific changes from costs more, some cost less. each responded to solve ten questions and each question they were given four choices and every choice they had a cost in terms of what they did to the financing gap. three new options where you don't impact the financing gap at all the choices just continue

so built into each is the revenue of that future and what this put this bid is at the costs into the creation. if you want a benefit increase it has to be paid for. if there was a benefit reduction, close the financing gap. and it allowed us to understand which overall package would impact on the financing gap that people prefer to. this wasn't a wish list. this was how americans preferred to solve the problem. they do want to close the financing gap and this was evident in the responses and in the package they preferred the most so this is the methodology used very often in the private

sector. i don't think that it's been applied in the public policy but i think that it really gave new and important insights. with that i alternate over. [applause] jason is on his way. we will have questions. yes right over there. >> state your name. >> the question is where is it. here it comes. >> ima tax reporter --

>> a humble tax reporter. >> there are three of us. i am not an expert about social security, but my understanding is that the surpluses of the programs for a given year investing the trust fund into the treasury bonds that tend to have a bose yield and i know that obviously there was a plan to privatize social security and that is controversial but was that something that you covered in the survey or were asked respondents about because it would seem to me having a slightly more than normal return of the funds would make them solvent right? >> there are a lot more policy options than then we were able to include in the survey. at the options are endless and any one of the options that we

tested. by necessity we have to pick and choose what to include especially in the trade-off analysis only 12 of what we consider to be the most commonly proposed options for social security. so, we did not test the options that would invest the trust fund money differently. that said, it would certainly be a great question to ask. >> i would the national center and i have a methodology question which is how do you get people to pay attention to the details of survey questions that looks like it took about 20 or 30 minutes to complete.

i'm just curious how did you get them to do that? >> [inaudible] this was an online survey into people were part of a research panel of about 2 million people. they had a slight incentive to participate. it was about 20 minutes and we do a lot of surveys and you can get peoples attention in 20 minutes. the good thing about the online panel is people can read the choices and really understand and we find that useful. at any rate there is a good deal of research that's still being done. we will see what happens this time. we got the cooperation that was needed.

i should say there was a quality control so we saw how long people took to answer the questions and if they did to quickly, we threw them out. if they answered everything the same, we agree. so we have quality control and a lot of survey is being done and the system still works. >> was there any overlap between the respondents. we didn't go back to the people that we surveyed before and that is by design because sometimes people learn in the survey they want to have people prejudice in that way. >> it's funny when people hear the findings of the survey there is a bit of encouraging libby they can't believe. they say they would raise their own taxes and so one part of me says the only 2,000 people in america you found them two years ago when you went back again

this time and from this methodology is completely accurate. but they just welcomed you. jason is the chair of the council of economic advisers and academy of social assurance and has a couple of jobs in the united states. you don't look like you have it. there are very few issues which there is a bipartisan agreement, social security as one of them. whether you are are republican, democrat or independent, the reputation for the objectivity, quality is unquestioned as it is a pleasure to have you here to talk about the white house perspective. [applause] thank you for that introduction and for being here today.

social security plays a critical role in the retirement system providing the basic foundation on which retirement security is built. but social security is not only about retirement. it provides disability and survivor insurance protecting all of us against the possibility that we will not be able to work or that it will devour family to the reduced means of support. that's why i'm so grateful for the continued work on all of the aspects of social insurance and how all of them fit together. ..

social security provides greater benefit to the most vulnerable workers. it replaces a larger share of the workers pretty bizarre names for workers at lower earning levels. all those people 40 million retirees would fall into poverty without social security. without social security benefits the party rate for americans age 65 with increased from less than 10% to over 40%. as retirees draw down their savings and stop working completely at older ages, social security becomes even more important as a source of income. for the most elderly social security as a primary source of

income for over half of married and nearly three quarters of unmarried beneficiaries. social security benefits are particularly important to women. 2010 more than half of women over 65 have no retirement savings in a 401(k) counter women's will retirement savings and longer life expectancies can translate into greater hardship in old age. that is why features including spousal benefits, survivor's benefits and progressive benefit formula ending indeed iphone benefit indexed to the cost of living all also important for women. who account for 67% of the most elderly beneficiaries. many of these features make social security benefit to import for african-american and hispanic households. white households had fixed on the retirement savings of african-american or hispanic households. this gap has grown over the past

two decades and stems in part from unequal access to an enrollment in workspace retirement savings plan. only 27% of hispanics and 40% of african-americans age 21-63 participate in an employment-based retirement plan in 2012 compared to about half of whites. there is disparity and reliance on social security by different groups. for elderly beneficiaries, social security accounts 490% of income, for 35% of whites. 42% of asian-americans, or 9% of african-americans and 55% of hispanics. social security is more than just the retirement program. it is an insurance program that covers the vast majority of american workers. almost all workers in paid employment and self-employment

are covered while retirees make up 70% of beneficiaries, disabled workers and survivors of deceased workers make up the other 30%. roughly 95% age 20-49 has survivorship protection for the families, and 90% as disability protection. these protections are provided at a relatively low administrative costs and without the adverse selection premium you might otherwise have to pay. social security will continue to grow in importance and future is workers now bear more of the financial risk associated with their workplace retirement benefits. in 1981 roughly 60% of active participants in private pension plans were in defined benefit plans. by 2011 this number had fallen to 18%. instead employers have switched to offering defined contribution

plans which provide what workers have saved plus whatever the investment gains have accrued. these plans provide a really important opportunity for americans to a cumulative wealth and are an important part of the retirement system. not all americans have access even to defined contribution plans. currently over half of the workforce has no private pension plan at all. moreover, for those who do have retirement savings, few people roll over their savings into annuities, special annuities with the type of built in cost-of-living adjustment provided by social security. part of the answer to these challenges is to strengthen the ability of americans to save for the own retirement and to annuitize their savings. in 2009 the treasure expanded the ability of companies to establish opt out systems for retirement savings that are a proven way to increase take-up for 401(k) plans.

earlier the president directed treasury to establish my ira account said would provide an easy and safe way to introduce more americans to retirement savings. we are pushing for legislation to make workplace savings plans available to all workers who do not have them today. ultimately bears no substitute for sal so security guaranteed benefits. that's why it's so important to work together to protect and strengthen social security, addressing the solvency challenge it faces as well as protecting the beneficiaries that rely on it. as the president said in his 2011 state of the union address, quote, we should find a bipartisan solution to strengthen social security for future generations.

we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable more people with disabilities, without slashing benefits for future generations and without subjecting americans guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. thank you. [applause] >> the survey finds across the board support of deeply politically -- for expanding social security so it provides a more generous benefit special for the lowest income. about a handful of bills understand that already been introduced in the senate and house to do this. what are the prospects the president might get behind efforts to do this is will? >> as i said and as the

president has made clear he thinks this is something we need to deal with on a bipartisan basis. any to do with the solvency of social security budgets are in the process of doing that want to look at key barriers, for example, elderly women living alone have disproportionate hype arbitrates and that something one could address in the context of social security reform. things like the minimum benefit has become essentially outdated. that's another type of thing you could lock in the context of social security would form. a as he said many times that conversation should recognize the important things about social security i described, should address solvency but should try to strengthen and improve the system we have today. >> questions? none other? there was one.

>> hi. nice seeing you again, jason. the other broad area of agreement in the survey was increasing the fica tax i think for the program to increase its solvency in the long-term. i'm guessing you don't want to announce that today. if you do, feel free. but do you think there's any bipartisan appetite for that? >> i don't want to speculate about what there's appetite for what's important is that this program has a bipartisan history. it's important across the political spectrum, and that we work together to strengthen it. >> any other questions for jason? >> nothing from you, maya? >> very good. i can, identify yourself and then -- >> maya macguineas.

the previous question made me think about that. we found the results of this were bipartisan but it sounds like there's bipartisan support for lifting the payroll tax rate. is that something the president would be willing to do even though it would come in conflict with a pledge not to raise taxes under $250,000 to your? >> i can -- >> if there were bipartisan support. >> this is something you want to work on a bipartisan manner to do and he has said in the past that when given with the social security, he said on a number of occasions that bring in additional revenue from high income households is something he thinks has a lot of support and would be consistent with strengthening the program and its important features. >> one more, virginia. >> thank you. is this on? a slightly different question which is not so much what would the president do or what our policy makers going to in the near term, but what we found in the survey is quite widespread support among the general

population for strengthening social security been raising taxes if that's what it takes to keep it strong for the long-term. do you have any kind of personal speculation on how the disconnect between what we are hearing from the general public and the conversation in washington? >> i'm not an expert in public opinion, but i can tell you that social security is such an important program, people understand that and understand that there are ways in which you can improve on and strengthen it. they also understand that part of this making sure it remains there for future generations by addressing its solvency. >> okay. if there are no more questions, jason, once again thank you very much. [applause] >> and let me thank elisa and

matthew for presenting these survey findings to we will ask our panelists to come up and began to provide us with comments on the survey. [inaudible conversations] >> now to moderate this panel discussion about the study findings, we have mark, who's

been very involved in writing about retirement, mark miller has a column he writes on retirement. he also covers the issue for reuters and has probably been looking at this issue as much as anyone else in the past few years. is a bio you can read about in your material, but i think when you look at his writings, they are strikingly pragmatic. it looks at these issues from a what does it mean to me perspective, what should i be doing about it, with the idea that everybody has to take a role in planning for their own retirement and precision different income sources appropriately. so marked will moderate this and he will introduce the other panelists. >> thanks, bill. and good morning to everyone. a special welcome to everybody who's watching on c-span, and live on the internet, welcome to you as well. i know we'll have ever interesting and provocative panel discussion.

we have about an hour for the panel which is going to give us time for questions at the end. before wge get started the academy staffers asked me to remind you about those evaluation forms. we hope you'll take a minute to fill those out as it helps us was planning future events. as bill mentioned as a journalist covering retirement and aging i devote a lot of coverage to social security, spent a lot of time on a. i think along with coverage of health care there's no more important element of retirement security as a topic for average americans. i was reminded of this recently earlier this month when the census bureau really, its latest numbers on poverty and no surprise anybody studies social security indicated 83% of americans would be living below the poverty line if not for social security, compared with roughly 15% today. that's a fairly dramatic figure i think. as noted earlier the benefits

that are provided are not rich. next year the average benefit will be just a few thousand dollars over the poverty line, just under $16,000 a year. when it comes to the future of social security i think this survey we've heard about that show a clear public consensus on solutions across all these different dimensions, political parties, age groups, income groups. people do want to social security to do more and not less and they seem to be willing to pay for it which is remarkable to me in light of the general distrust of government we see today and lack of agreement about just like anything else in society. at the same time we see these concerned about the future of the program so that a lot of meat in the study of thing. let's get to thoughts of our panelists. all of them are members of the academy to come going to introduce them to you in alphabetical order and you will find more detailed biographies of each of them in your packet.

andrea campbell teaches political science at mit. she is a preeminent expert on social insurance, taxes and public opinion about them both in u.s. and abroad. cheesecloth of a new book called trapped in america's safety net, one family's struggle. i'm sure now ago on amazon. that uses their own families experienced to explore how means tested programs actually work on the ground. maya macguineas that the president of the committee for a responsible federal budget an expert on budget, tax and economic policy. once dubbed an anti-deficit warrior by "the wall street journal" she testifies before congress and publishers in national media outlets. virginia reno as the vice president for income security policy at the academy and she directs the academy's work on social security, disability insurance, workers compensation, unemployment insurance and related issues.

she has authored many of the academy's breeze and reports and directed its landmark studies on proposals to partially a tie social security and on promoting rehabilitation and employment of her sons with disabilities. and maya rockeymoore as the president and ceo of global policy solutions. she co-chaired the commission to modernize social security which developed the reform plan that would make social security fully solvent for more than 75 years while strengthening benefits for vulnerable groups. she has held leadership positions at the congressional black caucus foundation, the national urban league, office of congressman charles rangel and on the staff of the house ways and means committee. she serves on the academy's board and also chairs the board of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. each panelist will comment on the study for a few minutes and then we'll have a moderated conversation before inviting

some questions from the audience. let's turn first to andrea campbell. feel free to stay there or, as he would like. if you do state to make sure to press that button to turn on your microphone. wheand get the bright green lig, you are on. >> thank you so much for inviting me to be here today. i want to make two general points if one is to talk about social security in the context of other welfare state programs we have in the u.s. and also the u.s. versus other countries. and talk about what the public might support a what the survey tells us about that. there was a lot of commentary that reached a fever pitch during the great recession about the cost of the major entitlement programs, applications for the fiscal future and the need to transcend out -- back. leaving aside the question of medicare for a moment, social security is in pretty good shape not that you' you would necessay know that from the national

conversation but it is actually predictable. the long-term gap is solvable in a number of ways. i would argue not only other strong argument for preserving the social security program as it exists today but strong arguments for enhancing benefits, especially the low end of the income spectrum and particularly would look at what social security does for our senior citizens compared to what happens in other countries. it is our most effective antipoverty program. you were the statistics this morning. it provides a safety net for entire families as we saw during the great recession is unemployed and underemployed adult children move back into the other senior citizen parents. it's a far more effective antipoverty program than our array of social assistance for means tested programs which are variously waitlisted, such as tanf or housing assistance for child care assistance, or which don't reach as many people as

they could, take food stamps, only two-thirds of eligible people are enrolled in food stamps compared to almost anyone who's eligible for social security being enrolled. medicaid recipients have difficulty accessing doctors because reimbursement levels are low. as best buy, cash payments to our poor, elderly, blind and disabled citizens provide payments that are below the poverty level. i.t. gale these shortcomings in the book which mark was kind enough to mention, and i should say that social security as a social insurance program rather than social assistance program does a better job than all of these means tested programs. in terms of leaving poverty. there are number of reasons for concern about social security but despite the fact is the most expensive social policy that we have in the u.s. it has some significant shortcomings. the senior citizen poverty rate

in the u.s. is have the child poverty rate. however, it's higher in the u.s. and the senior poverty rate in our two nations than in other rich democracies. replacement rates was also security, the percentage of people, working age incomes is also stripper places is lower than in many of our peer nations. the minimum benefit has become inadequate over time. many seniors with weak work histories live in poverty, especially as cited older women, older minorities and the old, old as other sources of income have oftentimes become exhausted later on in retirement. the other thing worth noting that effective social security benefits are falling in the sense that medicare cost sharing is going up. if you look at the premiums, deductibles and coinsurance that senior citizens pay for doctor visits and prescription drugs, that consumes a cruncher of the average social security check. it was 10% in 1990.

now it's about 29%. social security isn't crippling effect of program but the arguments that needs to be strengthened and number of ways. the question is is the public support there and that's we can take a look at the survey. so we know that large majorities say that social security benefits do not provide enough income for seniors as than one pointed out that we should raise future benefits, we need to preserve social security but if you look at other polls taken their support for social security to other government programs, social security usually comes up as number one. is very popular. is there a willingness to pay for preserving or enhance benefits over time? past poll questions have asked the social security in isolation. do you want funding to increase, decrease or chip the same but usually there's high support for those questions are asked in isolation. when asked questions such as

should social security funding to increase versus reducing taxes, or addressing the budget deficit? usually social security wins out. there can be questions that ask how would we want to go about enhancing social security funding? oftentimes i'm referring to questions by cute and gallup over time. the most part the answers are increase taxes on the affluent. many ordinary people are unwilling to fund social security themselves. i think that's what the survey comes in. the beauty of the trade off analysis is that we can assess what the most attractive package is. what's interesting about the preferred package is that it includes not just contributions from high earners lifting the wage cap would also increase in the payroll tax for all earners. it makes us more certain people are willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to supporting social security.

what's also interesting is the percentage the people support increased taxes just on top earners by lifting the wage gap versus increase in the payroll tax on all americans is only 6%, very, very small. you have large majorities of income groups agreement with this. there's a lot of consensus here. the other interesting thing is the preferred package in this trade off analysis tears these remnant enhancements with benefit enhancements that are progressive in nature. raising the call for seniors reflect a particular kind of inflation to confront but also raising the minimum benefit above the poverty line. it's pretty clear from this analysis that people want these progressive reforms and robust funding. i will end by saying what about cleavage is by age, by income, by party identification which we see in other opinion areas? there was this whole cottage industry of political scientists and sociologists during the '80s to talk about looming

generational conflict. i've never seen any evidence in survey data and you don't see this looming generational conflict in these they either. there are 12 points that separate american sport after 1980 from older americans in terms of overall support for the program but i think the real take-home point is that, even though there is a gap, it's large majorities of younger people are supportive of the program. 80% of people in generation y. or whatever we call them say social security benefits are now more important than ever. 77% say they don't mind paying social security taxes. 69% say we should consider increasing benefits to you might have a gap by age for java strong majority even in the most skeptical age group supporting social security. income, so might imagine a rich between lower and higher earners and recommended changes for

social security. especially for higher earners who pay more in the ultimate get a replacement rates and/or less dependent on the program for income. are those high on his less supportive of the program as a result? not so much. we have large majorities of higher earners supporting social security in general, a taxes and the possibility of raising benefits. and then finally party id. we have such a polarized era by many opinion objects, democrats and republicans are wide apart. take the aca, the gulf in terms of support is 50 points. that gap is a lot smaller when we turn to social security. there are differences. it is a 20-point gap between republicans and democrats and favorability toward social security in the survey budget, republicans are on the positive side of the 50% that you. 59% of republican injury or favorable towards social security.

there is a 15% gap between democrats and republicans in the percent sing they don't mind paying social security taxes, but again its republican majority, 72% saying they don't mind paying taxes. a 15-point difference about whether we should consider raising social security benefits but republicans are at 65% in terms of support for raising those benefits. enclosing social security is a crucial support. it's one that could provide more comprehensive protections. the public support is there. we might work conservative people engage in cheap talk and that support would evaporate when changes are actually on the table but the trade off analysis can make us more certain that these opinions are real. we need lawmakers are willing to put these proposals on the table because he you all know this and we make changes, the less severe they have to be. >> thanks, andrea. on this point of intergenerational conflict, i've always walked with some

bemusement can intergenerational warfare. as you point out there's no evidence in the data suggest that exist. i think one of the key reasons for that is we don't live in a segregated silos but we live in families. young people have parents or grandparents who are on medicare or so security and understand the meaning of it and what the importance of it for that reason. i marvel we keep writing the stories and trying to make it up as the this exist when there's no basis for. my mcinnes, why don't you go next? >> okay. thank you very much. thanks for hosting this event today but it's a really, really interesting and pertinent study. i will start with kind of just talking about how important social security is to the overall country, economy, budget. it does so much to lift millions of people out of poverty. it is more than just a retirement program and that helps with visibly come itself with the pandas, plays a critical role. one of the most important things about it, and jason allude alluo

this comp is its and in uniform. what social security does is it protects people against out of in their retirement benefits. we don't have that in other areas of our retirement. really, really important. it's the federal budget largest program. while it is separate from the rest of the budget and as a unique separate status can it has a big effect on the rest of the budget. the survey i think this is going to end up being kind of a singing the praises of trade off analysis because i think the survey is really important. one, it focus on the right question. focus on how we fix the social security getting lots of different choices and the trade off is what budgeting and fixing these programs is all about. i think about this and political season social security this kind of the issue that people in the most negative ads on attractive scaremonger the most. you can imagine one candidate sang i would fix the social security by lifting the cap, raising the age, changing the

cola, whatever it is. ..

another area i think is important that the highest level of poverty is for women over 85 and we can look at things that would bump up the benefits that would also help strengthen the program. the other thing that i was impressed with is people were talking about being willing to lift the payroll tax rate because so often what we but we hear about in the budget discussions right now in the polarized environment is what you cut somebody else's benefits and this is people saying we are so committed to the program that we are willing to put more to support it. that is incredibly important. what i think about the results and what plan i would or wouldn't like and this isn't discussed directly but it would be affected if you put that whole plan into place it would increase the benefits for thou well off by an awful loss so if

you were to put this plan in place the overall increase in benefit from the additional money put in would be $150,000 of lifetime benefit increases and medium term it would be $14,000 lifetime benefit but for the well off it would be about $1.5 million in additional lifetime benefits. that's for somebody making a million dollars a year while they are working and contributing to the plant. in my mind having ten times as much as low income workers is aimed at all the best use of resources so that's the kind of thing i would rethink. the other piece i want to put into perspective because i think broadening the discussion and not compartmentalizing is important is the amount of revenue that it would take to fix the system while simultaneously expanding benefits. the plan would be an edition of the $4 trillion of revenue and

to put that perspective it's a trade-off peace but with the same amount of money you could get rid of the budgetary sequester hitting a lot of parts that are underfunded and you could find the highway trust fund program. you could have another war in iraq which is not right in saying we should do that in terms of perspective another $800 billion you could have the resources for something else. and you could double the funding for low income education, social services, job training so is a question that comes up a lot in budgeting is what is the best use of new resources and i think the question we've seen is that social security is incredibly popular and again people are willing to put their own money into it and that shows the level

of support but the one thought i had is we should take the trade-off analysis and expanded. i don't think that we should fix social security. it's done separately on a parallel track but it's important to think about less compartmentalized approach is because we have unmet needs in healthcare and we've underinvested and have a huge fiscal gap we have to figure out what to make it solvent so in the trade-off analysis this is the next project you can work on but they would be very interesting to see what would come out of that so my final thought it's critically important in everything we are seeing is the next generations are not preparing well enough for retirement. we have to fix social security and look at other things and of increasing individual savings is an objective we should think

about and we need to revamp our system because we are not headed in a different direction. second thinking about the big picture is important because budgeting is about trade-off and this opened a discussion on doing that. third as i talked about what this plan would with this plan would do to increasing benefits for the well off my belief is that there are better ways to target these benefits so the targeting of limited resources is critical and finally the bottom line nobody will get the first choice for how we fix social security but we have to fix it and as it was mentioned at the longer we delay the worst choices become. it's great to start a discussion on how we should get to the business of fixing the system. thank you. >> virginia will go next.

>> i have a handful of overheads. how do i get to number one? thank you. i want to say thank you by the way and comment on the survey findings more of a historical perspective and also responded to a couple of the questions and comments that were raised. first if you take a long-term commitment view of the programs yes people pay for it but they expect something in return and pay for and that future benefits are closely connected. also both the benefits and revenues are specified in detail so this is something that has to

be addressed by lawmakers if the system is out of balance. what kind of questions to lawmakers do lawmakers need to consider and i would oppose the same kind of questions that we ask asked the american people are the benefits adequate come are the taxes needed to pay for them affordable and do they do the job and then what kind of a balance is fair keeping in mind of the people that paid for the program at one point in time are later the people benefiting at another point in time. on the question of affordability we hear that many entitlements over out-of-control. social security is not among them. if we look at the affordability and the benefits of the current law though they are not fully

financed beirut close to a flat line. it's about 6% -- excuse me, 5% rising to 6% and then flattening between 6.2, 6.0 the rest of the next 75 years so there's the affordability issue for the benefits in the wall at least i would argue is not a major concern. part of the reason why social security going out into the future is a socially a flat line is current and future benefits are gradually being scaled back by more than we realize or are talking about. in 1983 the last major social security reform several important changes were put in place to lower benefits very gradually over time.

the first was to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. that's happening now but it's happening very slowly. and as i think most people realize that is a quick length to the across-the-board cut to the retirees about 6.6% each year the age goes up so 13.5% roughly by raising the age for two years. by 2050, retirees younger than 90 will have been affected by this retirement age. that keeps benefit costs lower than they otherwise would have been. the second change is subjecting part of the changes to income taxes that was done in 1983 with revenues went back to the social security trust fund to finance

benefits. so it's also refinancing mechanism but it's a reduction in the take-home benefits for beneficiaries. in 1993 congress took another step in subjective that it's more benefits to income taxes and allocated to the hospital insurance program so that's about eight to 9%. social security outlays that are coming back to social security and medicare meaning a net reduction. it does affect the beneficiaries because it follows income tax rules and the last long-term changes quite small but it's put up the package that lowers the future and that is delaying it is delaying the cost-of-living adjustment for half a year and that continues at another one or two percentage point reduction because the cost-of-living adjustment is assumed to be between two and three or 4%.

but these are the lasting impacts we haven't seen particularly the retirement age into the taxation of benefits. so, what did the lawmakers to back in 1983? when the greenspan commission met in 1983, the primary concern was eliminating the social security financing gap of the 1980s running out of money before it was finally signed. it didn't come up with a recommendation for the long-term it did come up with two options one was to raise the retirement age into the second option was to schedule a tax increase out into the future when the funds would be needed to keep the system in balance into both of those options were to address the demographic challenge of the

21st century. when it got to the congress the lawmakers chose the retirement increase and one of them is recorded as having said there is a reason for this we have to give workers ample notice but we don't need to give the notice to the tax we can do that when we need to do it. it's interesting the survey seems to suggest that the american people are suggesting maybe now is the time. the americans are willing to pay for social security and it sounds like this may be the time to do it. i would like to comment on my two points about lifting the gap. those included in the package doesn't provide a 50% bracket.

and it's not to pay extraordinary benefits to millions air is. i will stop there look forward to the discussion. >> last we will hear from my. >> thank you. i would like to thank the academy of social insurance for producing a very important report. americans have made the hard choice on social security and about hard choices to say we support social security. social security is one of the colors of progress. we created it because there was market failure prior to the creation of social security there were no options for people who were modest or low income

toru worked all of their lives and then had no ability to continue to receive support in the retirement. so many of those people actively ended up in poor houses, depended upon their families and in utter destitute, poverty. we decided we can do better than that. when we worked together, we achieve tremendous benefits. in the creation of social security was one of the pillars of progress that we decided we would come together to create in the 20th century. medicare was another one. market failure created a situation where seniors many of whom worked all of their hard working lives more than 50% were unable to get health insurance on the private market prior to the creation of medicare.

so we decided that we were going to join together again to create a solution to form another pillar of progress and that was called medicare. so here we are despite all of the rhetoric and all of the arguments that we have heard over the past some odd decades intensified over the last decade. we can't afford social security. to social security. we can't afford these programs. we can't afford entitlements. these programs certainly just the ultimate disrespect to the american people suggests that these are unearned benefits. people know that they pay for it and they are deserving of it and so to actually label these programs as entitlements as if it is a welfare program is a slap to the hard work ethic of the american people and certainly to the history making

sure that we actually invest in our social insurance programs. and so with that, virginia actually mentioned the demographic challenge of the 21st century in the context of the reforms of 1983. and at that time they were framing the demographic challenge as one of the retirement of the baby boom generation that we were going to cut benefits and dated by increasing the retirement age they cut benefits and allowed the social allow the social security trust fund to actually grow so they could prepare in advance for the projected demographic shifts with regards to the expected retirement of the baby boom generation so we came to do the right thing to pre- fund the program so that we could make sure that we were taking care of the future demographics. i'm here today to suggest we need to do the same thing before another demographic challenge of

the 21st century. many people focused on america but very a very few people focused on the browning of america and that's why the ethnic editor of the racial population is incredibly important for this conversation. today out of all four in the united states a majority are of color. by the year 2019 the census bureau projects that i've just been under the age of 18 in majority will be children of color. then the bureau projects that by the year 2033 a majority of the entire nations population will be of color. why is this important to social security? when you look at the socioeconomic status of the populations, you can understand why social insurance continues to be a very important pillar of progress that we not only need to preserve and strengthen for the future but when you are

looking at there is a racial income gaps if you look at the median earnings of white compared to african-americans and latinos you see a stark difference earnings significantly less than white. when you look at the racial income gaps in terms of modest income that assets of 015 east populations for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white families come at can the typical african-american family owns sixth sense in a typical latino family only earns, on the owns 7 cents. so these are populations, the very populations that are expected to grow in the future are the very ones that remain at the margins and at the bottom of the economy and the economic ladder. so that means that social

security will be as important if not more so for the rising demographics in terms of race and ethnicity as it is for today's population. that means we need to think about strengthening social security from a different perspective now from we been hearing the last five years or so we need to cut benefits so that we can preserve social security. cutting benefits basically takes the rug out from under the people who were going to need it the most in the future and we've been hearing arguments like one of the most important is raising the retirement age. then people make a disingenuous arguments like they need to raise the age because we are living longer. that is a fabrication. the upper half is living longer and the bottom half of their

life expectancy stagnated and in some groups it is even actually reversed. white women without a high school degree and poverty life expectancy has he climbed by five years and this is this is in the wealthiest nation in the world, the united states of america where we have declining expectancies among certain populations. we've been talking about inequality on a broader scale and in social security is an important part of this conversation and social insurance in general that we need to be looking at a notable solutions that look at the whole picture to figure out how we actually bring equity and opportunity for all americans for future generations and so with regards to that of

african-americans, latinos they have a higher reliance and because they have little income they have a heavy reliance on social security and they are reliant on the entire program not just retirement benefits. many people don't have approximately 38% of all benefits go to disability and survivor benefits but when you look at the african-american puppy should almost half rely on such as security for disability or dependent care or the survivor benefits program so you know the entire program is important for the populations and we need to keep that in mind when we are looking at solvency and i would like to end by saying that we are in a

democracy. we are supposed to be representative of the people and so with the national academy of social insurance has been able to do with americans making the hard choices on social security has been able to shine a spotlight on what americans want and what they are willing to pay for. they are saying we want social security and we are willing to pay for it. so i encourage all policymakers in washington to listen to your constituents. thank you. [applause] we will do a few questions from the podium and then open up to the floor. the first question we will start

with you as a political scientist and then i would be interested in other thoughts. the study is showing a broad preference across the spectrum of politics to address social security's long-term financing problems with contributing rather than cutting benefits in any way and that stands in stark contrast to the discussion in washington where the conventional wisdom for quite some time has been that there will never be bipartisan agreement on this issue unless we make a cut so an example would be the notion of the changed cpi which is a benefit cut. so my question is what do you think it would take to bridge the gap between these viewpoints, the public and the washington view? >> lawmakers listening to constituents as it has been

urged. it's interesting when you look at the polls that when they ask about the policy question and about labeling the proposed changes republican or democrat it's not giving members these political cues then you see the incredible consensus. it's only when you start labeling things as a proposal from the congressional republicans were president obama people think that's the other team's proposal therefore i must propose it -- oppose it. the problem is now we have to disconnect between the elite but it comes to the program where the mechanism is as clear as social security i don't know what it's going to take.

there've been a few instances where lawmakers even realize they have to go to constituents and thought the party preferences and that is just on the privatization and a second term it was republicans who came back and said don't go there. constituents don't want to go that direction. so on occasion there is more responsiveness to the public but i don't know the agreements to work more constituents. >> do think it would be possible to do the reform without a cut of any kind? >> do i think there could be a revenue only plan? the first step is lawmakers get a whole lot of different things. there are others but have different results in terms of

what it is people want when they are reforming social security -- microphone, sorry. there is a study that also says there's a high majority of support for cutting benefits for the top quarter of people and support for the retirement age for another year. we have a not very scientific poll but where people can just go on the website and play around and come up with how they would fix the system and raising the age is one of the most popular. they would come to the fiscal watchdog website and i wouldn't dismiss the findings as anything but scientific but i think one of the things is that they want to get a lot of different information so let's study this more. i would like to put it next to an overall budgetary situations we think of it as a country with so many resources. so if you left calf that we are

talking about on the proposal that top rate would be 59% for high income people that is higher than most people on the payroll taxes. his attire than most people say they support. i just think if you do more studying and we come up with more solutions, i think that makes it more likely that they will listen but i haven't seen a single issue that generates more ads and that is anybody talking about anything and so we also have to find a way to completely depoliticize or bring down the rhetoric and the ring of truth telling in terms of the choices and which ones are people going to be willing to make in order to fix social security. the third thing is i think we will have to do something soon maybe not in the overall system that disability is, social security is going to be running out of reserves so there is about to be kind of a forcing moment where we have to figure out how to deal with a disability. most people would say that

ideally you would do it as a comprehensive fix at the same time. i'm not as optimistic as i would like to be but we will talk about it soon and that will open up this discussion and when it comes to revenue and suspending the cuts i think that is the single biggest fighting point that there is. there is more willingness to lift revenue than other parts of the budget but this is the one where everybody goes into the camps and doesn't want to budge and that is where we have to compromise and look at what can pass the parties in the politicized environment. >> it's happened before where that disability trust fund has experienced a challenge and we solved it before i actually

reconfiguring how reality across the trust funds. it's been simple before and it's still simple. we've done it before and we will do it again. >> you have written elsewhere about the idea of the means testing as part of social security reform and i wanted to ask if you could talk more about exactly how that would work and would've the means testing be a wealth test were income test and what is the justification given the notion that come up the notion that the reality that it's an earned benefit and not a welfare program. >> it is a benefit we contribute to but part of the reason is people got more out of social

security than they put into it and i am comfortable saying that it functions as a program where not everybody will be able to get everything they put into it debuted to otherwise it doesn't work for those who are low-income or doesn't work very long. when i don't bring it up it's the one that gets brought up the most by people i talk about and that is the most popular one. it didn't come up here today. but what confuses me about the means testing is an area that seems to go to this partisan divide where you have generally many people on the left don't like the idea of means testing because what they think it would do in virginia or anyone else and correct me if i'm not representing this this well but it would undermine support for the system so everybody is into getting a lot of what they put into the program o