delegation. representative carol miller served over a decade in the state house before for -- voters in virginia elected her to congress. politics runs in her family. she is the daughter of former congressman samuel divine. congressman michael guest was a local prosecutor in mississippi for nearly 25 years. the last decade as district attorney before his election to the house. he is also a sunday school teacher at his local baptist church. representative dave trott and his brother opened a small liquor store in delaware in the early 1990's. the company eventually moved its headquarters to maryland and has expanded to become the largest independent fine wine retailer in the country. eighth district elected a pediatrician and the only female doctor in congress. you congress, new leaders. watch it all, on c-span.

how your money is at work in the federal government. this week focusing on the future of social security, and to do that were joined by mark miller, a columnist for reuters. give state of social security today in america? >> the state of social security i would say remains the most important retirement benefit for most americans. it is ubiquitous, the thing that most people rely out the retirement. retirement. but they faced challenges. a lot of your listeners, your viewers, probably heard about clipooming 2034 financial that social security is facing. there are financial challenges that social security is facing. they are fixable and i don't

think anybody should be in a panic mode about social security. host: can you start with just how social security is funded in the first place and where the revenue streams are? guest: it is self-funded through the payroll tax and split evenly between workers and employers, and it totals 12.4%. and that is collected on wages up to about $133,000 this year. taxme above that level, no is collected, and that is how it is financed. that is the primary source of financing. a lesser important source is interest earned on the reserve funds of social security. another relatively speaking an important source is taxes -- income taxes collected on benefits of higher income social security beneficiaries. host: so where does the shortfall come into play? guest: sure.

social security has been building substantial surplus since 1983, which is the last time social security had major reforms done. and currently, it has surpluses of $2.8 trillion. that those reserves are starting to draw down now as the baby boom generation ages, reaches retirement age and starts drawing benefits. year at a point that the trust fund reserves will be exhausted -- we are at a point that the trust fund reserves will be exhausted. fluctuates year-to-year, but not by much. what that means is when the reserves are gone, there would only be sufficient revenue coming in from current payments to fund about 75% of benefits, so we are looking at a really sharp 25% across-the-board cut in social security benefits, if

nothing is done. that is the big caveat. host: what are the other options? guest: the options are, you can either increase revenue, or you can cut benefits, or you can do some combination of the two to restore the solvency of the bygram, and social security law, must project out a 75 year solvency ramp. ways of fixing the system, people talk the 75 your solvency picture. host: we are talking about the future of social security. we can look 75 years out of closer. we will put the phone lines on the screen throughout this discussion with mark miller. our phone lines in the central eastern united states, 202-748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, 202-748-8001 . mark miller, one of the members of congress looking to try to

help this program for the long-term is congressman john larson, a democrat from connecticut, unveiled a proposal to do just that. from the bit congressman talking about the future of social security. [video clip] >> since 1993, there has not then an adjustment in social security, but people continue to pay in and we have reserves in social security, but we don't have enough to sustain us by law for the 75 year period that social security should be. part of proposal does that. we make sure -- our proposal does that. that we extend social security beyond the 75 year deadline, but also, recognize we have to enhance the program, primarily we have far too many people in our country, most notably women, and especially women of caller, who

are retiring with social security as their only source of income command retiring into poverty. walk mark miller, can you us through the proposal in the passage on capitol hill? guest: the interesting thing with larson's proposal is it references a change in a dialogue about the social security reform. over the last decade, the conversation has been dominated benefitse need to cut -- what we need to do to cut benefits? since 2013, the progressive wing of the democratic party has been saying, no, we should have a modest expansion of social security benefits as part of an effort to solve the 2034 problem. that has gone from being a minority position in the democratic party to a majority position. larson's bill has more than 200 -- on the democratic side.

many of the democrats in the house are supporting his belt. every declared presidential candidate and those expected to support social security expansion of some kind, not necessarily the specifics of larson's bill. social security expansion, as part of this reform, has now moved into the mainstream of the democratic party. host: mark miller with us for the next 25 minutes, getting your thoughts and taking your questions as we talk about the future of social security. specializingalist, in retirement and aging. bob is up first. caller: please bear with me. this is simple map. it is the greatest extortion of all time. you pay into it, they take your money for 35 years. your employer also has to match that, the same amount. if i was able to take that

money, and put it in a bank account, and collect interest for 40 years, i would have a very substantial amount of money, and i could retire simply off that. but money that the government takes from you, you don't even get the interest back on what they accumulated from you for 40 years. you don't even get the interest. another thing, my brother just passed away at the age of 61 last year. um, employed through general motors for 38 years. he was at the top end obtain the maximum for medicare and social security. never collected a dime. never hear a politician talk about the people who pass away and never collected a dime. if he was able to say that money, he would have it for my sister in law and two sons. over $1.5ed it at

million that the government stole from him. host: mark miller? guest: my condolences on your loss. the point i would like to make is one of the things i hope will emerge from a debate about social security reform is a renewed sense of the definition of a social security is. an it is our -- and it is our bedrock social security program. like an insurance program. if we think about, and it also operates as a pension, the way it pays out benefits, so looking at it from a dollar in an interest gain with a drawdown sense is not the right comparison. goingsurance program is to have some people who are relatively winners through great longevity, and losers who do not collect because of a premature

death. but social security just doesn't ensure retirement. it also ensures survivors. is a breadwinner in a family passes away prematurely, there are survivor benefits that can be paid to that family. and benefits -- there are widows benefits. so, slipping the coin in looking at it from the winning perspective, people who live to advanced age is coming into their 90's, windup drawing down more than they put in, but they have to wait in the insurance words. repurchase fire insurance on her wees not that we expect -- purchase fire insurance on our homes, not that we expect a fire to burn down -- not that we

expect a fire to burn down our home. we have to look at social security in the concept of insurance. lynette is next from utah. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i am about to turn 67. i have not started to draw yet. i am waiting for the 80% accruals to add up. and i am afraid that the slashing will begin earlier than 2034. and i have calculated that at a 25% flashing, if it occurred as early as 2027, i'm better off beginning to draw off this summer. i would like to hear your prediction of bullet be an early

-- your prediction of will it be an early slashing, and should i begin drawing now? guest: that is a great question. first, congratulations on your strategy of delaying. pays off. nicely. once you pay off your full retirement age, the agent which you can draw 100% of your benefits. if you drop below that, it is reduced. up untilop above that 70, you get the delayed retirement credits. it is a very beneficial strategy for anyone who has reasonable expectation of living a long life. cuttinguestion of early before 2034, it is a very, very middle school chance that will happen.

changes to social security has always been done and a gradual way. it is unprecedented to have an immediate surprise change to the program. i would also add that i think the odds of the 2034 eclipse actually happening are quite remote. the reason i say that is i cannot imagine what legislator or what member of congress wants to go home to his or her district, and explain to folks like our caller whether benefits were cut 25%. this is not going to happen in my view. the question is, when do we get this taken care of and how does he get taking care of? john larson'soned proposal, ensuring social security is operable in the long-term. a lot of democrats have rallied around this. what are the republican proposals right now? guest: the republican proposals have centered around raising the retirement age further.

damage in the full retirement age is 66. some have proposed raising it -- currently, it is 66 and on its way to 67 as part of the 1983 reforms. when i mention the gradualism of social security reform, this is the best example. in 1983, this gradual increase in the retirement age was put into motion. we are not done with it yet. has beenlican proposal raising it from 67 to 69. this offense health letter reasonable idea. we are all living longer. we are not all living longer. gains and longevity are not across the evenly population. gains and longevity have stalled

out in the last couple of years. the other problem is what are your chances of continuing to work to those ages? there are rampant -- there is rampant age discrimination and people have health problems and need to quit to take. care of a spouse. some people are saying they want to work a lot longer. it is a great ambition. it is terrific if you can and want to do it, but it is not a guarantee. a recent study looking at the impact of an increase in the retirement age done by an economist at the urban institute who studies labor markets and aging, concludes a further increase in the retirement age would have very severe financial damage on about 25% of american households. the increase is a benefit cut. if you raise the bar on how long you have to wait to get to that

full benefit, it is a cut in benefits. the 1983 reforms, has been estimated, average out to a 13% benefit cut. when we talk about higher retirement ages, we need to understand as a benefit cut. the other thing proposed by republicans is means testing of benefits. it is not clear how that would be done. means testing is not a good idea because it changes the whole notion of social security from an earned benefit to something that you have to get based on need, which starts to sound more like a welfare program, which is not the social security is. host: steve is in philadelphia. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a big problem, but he needs to be solved -- but it needs to be solved with smart thinking. food -- this is

every well-known. years, we will be replaced by technology, so we will be losing more jobs and less income going at the social security. but we need to do is get people to start working in who areucture, people coming in, get the union stronger, get people back to work with hard labor, i take the social security number out from that end because technology will take these jobs away, at least 30% to 40% in the next 10 to 15 years. and that will not put any money into social security, so create these jobs, start the infrastructure. that everybody has to go to college. some people have to big -- have to pour cement for a living. that is how you put money back into the social security system.

host: mark miller? guest: the caller is raising really critical points. you know? softness in wages has been one of the reasons why we are facing the 2034 issue, so there is clearly a problem. i asked some of the experts to look at the social security system from time to time and what they think about automation and how that could impact social security? honestly, i don't think they have a handle on that problem yet, but it is a wildcard. actuaries security have a fantastic track record for projecting the systems in the future with shocking accuracy. there tend to be wildcard events out there. host: robert's next from gainesville, georgia. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. curious.

i understood social security was years as athe fdr reaction to the depression that there was not enough money moving around inside the wenomy, and the idea that could give some people some discretionary funds to use, and bit to serve as a little for the whole society as a whole as opposed to individual insurance. i wanted to ask mark about that surplus and if i had my history right about the original age of social security. guest: such an interesting question. social security does have its to restore ther

economy in the 1930's. social security law was passed in 1935. i was talking earlier about social insurance and the historical roots of the movement back in the 1930's, and roosevelt from people in from wisconsin part of the progressive movement who had designed the first unemployment insurance system. that was the first place -- the first place that was done was in wisconsin. he brought them in to design social security. social security was designed for that purpose at the time. property among the elderly was a huge issue at that time. we have all heard the phrase, poorhouse. poorhouses really existed back then. i think social security is one of the proudest policy achievement in our country's history.

the it has done to improve condition of the elderly is nothing short of stunning. it is a universal program and fundamentally fair as -- fundamentally fair the way it distributes funds. i don't use it as a safetynet. is an insurance against the risk of poverty in old age. host: santa fe, new mexico, tony, go ahead. tony, are you with us? inwill go to stewart madison, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. appreciate you so much. live right here alone the most polluted river in the united states, the ohio river. i am wondering why it is that the social security of the collection ends at $130,000?

obviously, it was raised to a $200,000 --ion two always a, if it was raised to a to $200,000, it would be more beneficial. thank you very much, c-span. host: mr. miller? guest: great question. many address the caller's question. social security is designed as a middle-class benefit program, and therefore, it delivers benefits up to a certain level. no one gets rich off social security benefits. on the other side of the coin, it is designed to collect taxes in a similar vein. the cap is adjusted every year using an inflation formula, but what has happened with income

inequality and developing income at the high level, and more people earning income that is not ordinary income, but investment income, income from dividends and someone, more and has of the u.s. income base escaped off the top of the cap. there have been proposals to adjust that. what larson's bill does is create a doughnut hole, saying we continue to collect taxes up to that $133,000 level, and and start collecting again at $400,000. that is $400,000 in ordinary income. baseis a small overall tax for that ordinary income. hasof the solutions that been discussed as capturing more income at that high end. ,he other thing that it does the larson bill, a gradually

increases the payroll tax rates and we are paying. period.1% over a 23 split and be something workers and employees would pay. those of the two mechanisms that larson's built does. it restores the 73 year solvency. so, there are several key components. there is a 2% across-the-board benefit increase for everybody that works out to $30 a month. secondly, it raises what is called social security minimum benefits, the benefits that goes to very low income workers who currently receive $10,000 a year from social security on average. it boosts the benefit up to

$16,000. and then the third thing it does is delivers an effective increase in benefits to more middle and higher, when i say hi income, i don't mean wealthy, but middle affluent households, get an effective increase. lifts the cap on that. effectively, more money in their pocket. it is a rather balanced approach and delivers benefit increases in several different ways. mr. cavanaugh: we have one or two -- >> have time for one or more phone calls. you can see his work at retirementrevised.com. what is that? where ihat is the blog link to all my work.

is the place it can find me online because i have spread all over the web between my writing for reuters. i contribute to the retiring columnist, the new york times, and a few other spots. has been waiting in colorado. good morning. caller: i am glad you touched on the actuarial people examining who will be affected or not by the 67-year-old retirement age, and i wondered if anybody had ever considered analyzing the types of jobs that people do getting up to retirement. some are just physically impossible to do in the later stages of aging. for instance, i am a nurse. nursing -- bedside nursing is really hard on your feet, your back, and everything else. some people might not be able to get that far, construction workers, just to have heavy-duty jobs. the other thing is raising the

cap. i wonder if anybody had ever considered collect it on all income all the way until wherever and then for the really wealthy people, instead of -- they won't need the benefits if they have been investing in the stock market. giving them tax credits in the later stages of their lives. possibility? a i would appreciate an analysis of that. guest: those are great points and great questions. let me take the last point first about somehow fiddling with the very wealthy benefits. why do we pay social security to warren buffett and bill gates? they don't need benefits. they don't. there are very few -- you could mess around with that stuff but there are very few of those people so it does not have any meaningful impact on the overall programs finances. the other point i think is really a very good want to get into, which is who are the people that can work longer?

the joke you here it is that it is fine for somebody sitting in their nice air-conditioned office in a think tank in washington, d.c., working well herto his armor 70 -- or 70's. a construction worker, a nurse. this was one of the issues with ages. retirement it's just not evenly distributed. to me, higher retirement age is are really a problematic way to solve the problem. host: glendale heights, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. i actually have a question. ideamr. miller have any how much government actually owes our social security trust? i believe they have been borrowing money from the social security fund. i think it started back with reagan. any idea how much that money is at this point now?

guest: this is the one thing that gets a little confusing about social security. social security has this very large surplus. it's about $2.8 trillion right now. in amoney doesn't just sit bank in somewhere. it is invested in a special form of treasury note. to theplus is lent government. the government uses it for whatever purposes is going to reduce it for. we sell treasury notes all the time. the chinese by it. we use it to fund our government deficits. the government runs a deficit. it borrows money. the fact that some of that is coming from social security in my view is immaterial. one of the things that is proposed to change social security's -- one thing that considered would be to let social security take some of that surplus and invest it into the stock market. much higherld get a return than you get on treasury notes. it could help materially with

the financial outlook. individual recipients benefits and stock. nothing that risky. any pension program out there, you know, private sector pension pension fund does not invest struggle he in bonds. they invest in stocks and all kinds of things. the issue of which side of the ledger the social security assets sits on is one of the things that is often tangled and misunderstood. >> teresa is in cambridge, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is where does the funding come from that pays benefits to children, who they diagnosed with adhd? in my area, this has become a scam. parents are putting their kids they act a certain way so can collect these checks every month. i know families were, at least

three of their four kids, are getting ssi checks. is that impacting social security benefits at all and the money that is available to pay people who actually have worked and paid into the system? host: thanks for the question. guest: great question. although i am not intimately familiar with the scam issues being suggested, i will say ssi, administered by the social security administration, its funding is separate from the retirement system we are discussing. that money has no impact on the outlook for social security, retirement, or disability programs. they are funded separately. is a columnister with reuters. you can see all his writings. appreciate your time. come back again. guest: thank you very much. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, connecticut democratic congressman jim himes joins us

to talk about the war powers act and fridays government funding deadline. then we will discuss immigration and border security with the center for immigration studies's representative. usa today veterans affairs correspondent donovan slack. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. >> on tuesday on the c-span networks at 11:00 a.m. eastern, we are live from dearborn, michigan. member oft-serving the u.s. house, who died last thursday at 92 years of age. 3:45 p.m., his casket arrives at the u.s. capitol. on, the senate continues work on legislation regarding public lands and natural resources management. a final vote expected in the

afternoon. the chamber votes on whether to advance william barr's nomination as attorney general. at 9:30 a.m., the senate armed services committee looks at operations in the u.s. into pacific command and u.s. forces korea. >> monday evening, house and senate negotiators announced they reached an agreement in principle to fund the federal government and resolve disputes over immigration. richard shelby announced the deal, saying he hopes the white house would support the agreement. according to the story in the washington post, the framework will provide more than $1.3 billion for barriers along the border, including 55 miles of the fencing with certain restrictions on the location. democrats backed down for their demand on the tight limits for the number of detention beds.

the white house has not said whether or not the president will agree with the plan. without a deal, federal funding expires at midnight. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house. the supreme court. and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> monday night, president trump held a rally in el paso, texas, to push for a wall along the u.s.-mexico border. he talked briefly about the deadline to avoid another government shutdown. this runs one hour 20 minutes. ♪