on c-span now. host: this is william arnone. guest: we have existed from the mid-80's in our is to educate the american people about

medicare, social security. why do we have them, what are they mean for you so that is our purpose. host: who financially back see you? guest: we have members who pays dues. host: if i understand it correctly. social security turned 87 this month. how is it doing? guest: remember henney young men. how is your spouse doing? compared to what? it is doing well compared to other government programs. it is the largest creditor to the federal government.

from that perspective it is doing well. from the perspective of beneficiaries, it is leaving a lot of people with economic insecurity. host: you are talking about the monthly benefit people would receive. guest: it really affects about 6 million children. host: the social security administration said the trust fund has a depletion date of 2035. what is that mean? guest: when the trustees issue their annual report, social security will run out of money by 2034, 2035. even in the worst case, depletion occurs, it will pay

about 80% of benefits. but that is not zero. those are misnomer's. if you look at the program as a whole, too often we just look at the trust fund. when the trustees report is negative, it gets widespread coverage. this last report was rather positive. you know the story, the media loves bad news. too often, the report can be negative. host: what are the positives? guest: in 87 years it is never missed payment. during covid, 100,000 children who lost parents got a social

security check. the spotlight is always on the shortcomings and we want the american people to see the positive. we must take action. we don't think you need to wait until 2033. we need the political courage to address it. host: you say we need to take action. what parts of the program need the most attention at this point? guest: you look at the program in terms of financial viability. it must be supported with adequate revenues. you look at the benefit structure and it is fair to say for low-income older people, it is not doing enough. it used to have a minimum benefit, no matter how little you earn, no matter how little you worked, you would get a benefit that was a certain floor

beneath which you would not fall. and across the board benefit increase. there is a group called the national council on aging. the best measure of screening on older people. we have to get real and beneficiaries are the first ones to tell you, can i live on this? in some parts of the country, 1400 a month is not bad. but in new york, you can't survive on that. host: if you have questions on social security, you can call (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8001 from the mountain pacific time zones, if you receive social security (202) 748-8003 and you can text us on (202) 748-8003.

for the monthly benefit how is that calculated? guest: they will index it to average wages. based on the age on which you receive it, it is a certain amount. people born 1960 or later. if you wait, you will get a hundred percent of the benefits. there are proposals that would raise the retirement age. how many members of today's congress were there in 1983? a half dozen. we don't have that legislative memory. we try to educate members of congress about the key aspects of social security. host: the money paid out month

by month, is not covered by money coming in? guest: last year, some of the interest on the trust fund securities, they had to use some of the interest because the money coming in from our paychecks was not enough to cover it. one of the things we think needs to be looked at, we don't recommend, other countries have a stabilizing mechanism. it would trigger an adjustment to what we pn. we asked the american people twice in the survey would you pay more to keep social security secure and the responses and overwhelming yes. they would add another percent.

think of another tax where the americans would pay more. it has a unique role in the american spectrum. host: the house democrats pass legislation social security 2100, it would change the cost of living, set at 20% above the cost of living. a five-month waiting. for disability. what do you think about those? guest: we don't take a position but i would commend the author. he has been the most forceful champion on acting for social security. could that pass in today's

congress? maybe you could get by the house but it would never pass the senate. social security requires bipartisan support. congress would have to to pass one mom. this would provide a financially secure law. canada does it, sweden doesn't. when you talk about other countries, people say well this is america. the guess what, social security was based on what other countries did. host: why do you think there is hesitancy there? guest: a quote that is been misunderstood, tip o'neill many years ago, he said cutting social security is the third rail of american politics.

we need to have the courage to address it. i think that momentum will build because we can't do what we did in 1983. this is a political program and we must act we can't wait. host: our first call is from bridget in fort lauderdale. go ahead with her? comment. caller: social security would not be cut, is that right? they can't cut your social security, do i have that right or not? guest: let's say the worst case, we get to 2030 4, 2035 and no action was taken, there would be an across-the-board 20% cut. do i think that will happen, no. host: do have a follow-up question?

caller: as people age they have house issues. -- health issues. when you think about cutting it you would have an older person that might be relying on that for medical things that come up. to cut it would be really bad for any senior who would have a health issue. guest: the program that deals with health is medicare. it is an offshoot of social security. medicare is the program for health insurance. host: here is mike from montgomery, alabama. caller: i have a question for your guest on taxation. people who will be 70 years old next year and have waited to

collect social security and are still working full time have paid in all these years to the fica deduction on their check. so now at 70 years old you will be getting this extra income in but the government will tax you again. that is double taxation. so basically, what i have read so far is that 85% of that check will be collected back in taxes and brought back into the government. it sounds like you need to dump tea back into the boston harbor. guest: close but not quite. before 1983 it was tax-free. let's apply income taxes to some of the benefits. 85% of the benefit is subject to taxation.

some people look at that and feel like it is double taxation. it is a contribution but it feels like a double tax. that mindset is important. just like you would contribute to a pension, an ira. we should look at it that way as opposed to attacks. host: if someone gives social security and medicare doesn't get deducted from social security? guest: you will have to file quarterly premiums. every october, social security announces the new adjustment. odds are it will be a record between 8-9%. the medicare premium will probably go down because it is

excessively high this year. think of the politics. the people of the midterm, older voters, they turned out. it will be interesting to see how it turns out. host: when it comes to the amount they will get, how much of it is factored and turns of the cost of living and how much of it is affected by inflation? guest: it does not reflect how older people spend their money. when you look at how older people spend their money, they spend it on health care, transportation, food. the basics that people working don't have their income skewed that way. the cpi undercount inflations.

it has been minimal in the past six years. they compensate for the missed poles. next year could be eight, 9%. host: we have maria from miami, florida. caller: good morning, thank you for your guest. i am 75. i received my benefits when i was 66. i continued working sometimes. i am still working now part-time. i don't see my benefits increasing even though i am contributing. and then they increase the

benefit for medicare. after the deduction for the medicare premium, it is 16 something dollars. i would like to mention that a lot of people that come to this country from other countries, if they are over 65, they start collecting benefits even though they never worked in this country. they never contributed. i would like to mention that also. host: could you respond to that? guest: as long as you are working your benefit will go up. at some point, you're working will improve your benefit.

when it comes to undocumented workers, they are not covered by social security. some of them are paying in and they will never get a benefit because they will not qualify. social security will not prevent undocumented people to receive benefits. host: when i was forced to retire, as i understand it, i get a check for life? guest: disability is something you have to certified. once you get to retirement age or converts to a retirement benefit. when you revert to it, there were rallies where someone were saying to keep the government out of my social security. yes it is a government check but it is not a handout. that is one of the genius of the program.

no darn politician kid play with it. -- can play with it. people will sometimes say with it, are they worthless ious. these are real securities. a trust fund. there have been some proposals -- host: ron johnson was on the regular joe show that wanted to approach social security with more oversight.

what's mandatory are things like social security and medicare. if you qualify for the entitlement, you get it no matter what the cause. the problem in this country, our federal spending is mandatory spending. you don't do proper oversight. you don't fix their programs going bankrupt. what we ought to be doing, we should turn everything into discretionary spending so it is evaluated. we can't fix the problems that are broken. as long as things are on automatic pilot, we can't fix them. guest: automatic pilot is viewed negatively by one and positively by another. they are protected from annual

discretionary allocations. that is the essence of social security. every year congress decides how much we should put in. that is the consequence of a proposal like that. that has been a theme. the programs need to be weathered away is what they're really saying. then what we do? host: i know senator rick scott had a proposal like that. you are saying, that is a possibility. guest: we don't know what will happen. let's say we end up in 2024 with the one-party government. here is my concern, millennials and generation z, today's workers. a lot of them look at social

security is not relevant. what is it do for me? we try to let them know, you will need this program is much as your parents. they had pensions, you don't. i must admit, that is a big concern for our academy. william arnone national academy of social insurance with national academy of social insurance. caller: my name is manny. i went to yale i used to sue lawyers. i missed a million-dollar benefit from my stepson and my wife. i get $2000 a month. i have a stepson that is three

years old. it is called survivors benefits. if you are looking to die, you look at survivors benefits. why is it called survivors benefits when it is benefiting my stepson and my current wife? they should call it something else. guest: words matter and sometimes we label programs that affects the people who receive them. they receive the benefits while they are still alive. host: people on twitter are asking how those means testing

effects social security. guest: this is a common question and this comes from a misunderstanding. this is not a social assistance program. it is deliberately designed to not affect your income. it may reduce your value. when you go to apply, let's look at your bank account, your real estate, your stocks and bonds. host: richard from maryland. caller: you have been giving us great clarity so far and we appreciate it. i have two quick questions. you spoke about undocumented people, people who come and get jobs here and who are not yet

citizens, do they pay into social security and our social security benefits tied into citizenship? i never hear politicians when they talk about job higher positions, they never tie that into talking about social security solvency. i feel that would be an automatic next step addressing those issues tied to social security. doesn't increased employment help social security? guest: if you are employed, whatever your status is, that would pay into social security. last year, there was $13 billion coming in from people who are not documented who will not get

a benefit but that help social security. is that right, that's a question but that is a fact. earnings are the lifeblood of social security. the more people work, the less unemployment and the higher wages grow, that is music to social security's ears. one of the most important variables is called the real wage differential. productivity is 1.5%. if workers are paid 1.5% in terms of inflation, that is something that is what we need to focus on. social security is an engine for the economy. social security checks are not

saved they get spent. it is of value to where the beneficiary lives. host: are there enough workers working? guest: worker to beneficiary ratio, it could go down to two to one. fertility is at an all-time low. there is no question there could be a constellation of factors that bode poorly for the program. the trustees report focused on this. we have to look at the evidence and decide what action must we take to compensate for those shortfalls of the demographic factors. host: leddy from taxes.

- from texas. caller: i understand there's like cap on paying, would that not benefit the program if it continued. if it continued to pour into the system and those people continue to get it anyway, is that correct? guest: the cap this year is 147,000 they stop paying into social security. they get a 1.6% bonus. it is the reverse of income tax which is progressive and aggregated. they should bring back the fica

tax, between 147 and 400. democrats said they will not tax anyone making less than 400,000. if they were to remove the cap completely it would not solve all of their funding programs but it would go a long way. the actuary doesn't analysis of what it would need to remove the cap. people who are multimillionaires are paying in the same dollar amount as the same people who make up to 140,000. fica applies only to wages. host: how was that calculated as far as social security is concerned? guest: if you make 20,000 year

you are paying 1.2%. host: the larson bill, the mena fit of 25% talk about that idea? guest: assured income, this comes from the 1935 of roosevelt. a floor of income below which no one should go. we have a program called ssi that attempts to do that but it is not reached its goal. we have to be careful that we don't give a benefit and then

you end up losing other benefits. the larson bill would protect people from unintended consequences. host: from joe in connecticut, go ahead please. caller: i am talking about the windfall elimination benefit. i am retired from 40 years of teaching but i have worked all summers and i paid into social security. when i retired, i applied for social security and found out that i had a substantial reduction. i am a frugal person and social security covered me fine. my wife retired at 70 and she died. she had cancer, and two months later she was gone at 70 years old.

she worked over 50 years, her social security which are much higher than mine. because of my pension and the government pension offset that i would get nothing more. it seems quite unfair to me. i would like to know your opinion on those programs. guest: my heart goes out to you. the larson bill would eliminate the penalty. it is a feature of how social security calculates benefits. you appeared to be a low-income person even though the benefit is high. this is an attempt to give you more if you have less earnings. that was the reason for it. it is very unpopular as you might expect.

host: you speak about supplemental security. in september, recipients of that income will get the first to september payments and just two weeks and they will receive $841 on the first and 30th of september. can you explain what they do? guest: it has not had increases since 1974. there is an asset limit as well. there's is a tremendous support for getting ssi up to speed. a floor of income to reduce poverty. the poverty rate among the elderly is twice as high.

talk to the beneficiaries you are hearing from and they are struggling.

to order starting a couple minutes early because we have a vote scheduled early