work this way? if a child is in one placement for too long, it can create issues. so if a foster child is with one foster family for six months or a year, they become comfortable and devoted to the family, and then suddenly your family member returns, so the system has frequently placed a child in different environments such that there is never potential issues with loyalty or devotion or conflict between foster families and birth relatives. i think maybe it sounds nice in the abstract. often, it produces instability and difficulty. >> rob henderson with his book "troubled," sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen to "q&a" and all podcasts on our free c-span now app.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including cox. ♪ >> this syndrome is extremely rare. good friends don't have to be. when you are connected, you are not alone. >> supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. the first guest of the morning is dan adcock as the committee to preserve socialedie serves as government relations and policy director. the name of the organization is obvious. tell us about it and what is your missing -- your mission? guest: it is to focus like a laser beam on advocacy for medicare and social security to

ensure that not only are these programs strong and good for the people to provide them economic and health security today but also for their kids and grandchildren. we were started by jimmy, a member of congress from california who happened to be the eldest son of franklin delano roosevelt. you might say that the roosevelts are in the g8 -- are in the dna. james roosevelt is on our board of directors and we are happy to have him. we are uniquely devoted to william johnson's aid for older americans? host: how is it funded? guest: membership dues. we are charging $12 a year so i pretty good deal. we do not take money from outside groups, pharmaceutical or insurance companies or wall street. it allows us to be pure in terms of advocacy. host: we will talk about the politics in a moment but can you

give an assessment of where social security and medicare are physically as of today? guest: according to the most recent trustees reports on social security, the social security trust fund has $2.8 to have reserves until 2034 and on those reserves will be depleted. but it never becomes bankrupt because the payroll taxes flow into the program, which means that people -- means that the trust fund will become depleted but there will still be money coming in. that means that if congress fails to act that will be a 20% cut. we do not want that to happen and we want to make sure the there is sufficient revenue coming into the program to ensure it is there. ■medicare, until 2031, the parta trust fund responsible for caring for hospitalization is

there. we think there are proposals that will extend that trust fund's life. it is more complicated because health care is complicated but we can get more into that. host: we can talk about the politics. stements earlier on from the former president. i want to tell you what he had to say a couple of days ago in get your comments on that. [video clip] >> one thing i think the perception is is that there is not a whole lot of difference between what you think we should do with entitlements or nondiscretionary spending and what president biden is proposing. it is almost a third rail of politics. we have a 33 or $34 trillion total debt build up. and there is very little we can do in terms of cutting spending. discretionary will not help. have you changed your outlook on how to handle entitlement, social security, that a care or medicaid? it seems i cast -- something has

to be done or we will be stuck at 120 percent of debt in the gdp forever. >> there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements and cutting and in terms of also the theft and bad management of entitlements. there is tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do. so i do not necessarily agree with the statement. [end video clip] host: that was a couple of days ago and followed up with an interview on right part saying and i will just pull you the quote saying "i will never do anhing that would jeopardize or hurt social security and medicare." those are the statements as a stand and what is your response? guest: action speak larder -- larger than words. when he issued his budgets he urged that social security be cut. on one hand he is unlike many

republicans in breaking the republican orthodoxy of being supportive of doing things like cutting the cost of living adjustment and raising the retirement age. in reality as president he suggested cuts to the social security programs. words do not necessarily mean anything but what you do does. but we know from past actions at he has been willing and listened able who support cutting social security. host: do you think there is an appetite to make those changes that you are concerned about? es i think there is for those who support it. but they know that it is very unpopular to do that. never my organization or any news organization has done polling suggests that the program sh cut it is very unpopular and it does not matter whether you are republican, independent or democrat,that ist

to do that. that is why they have suggested things like a fiscal commission. where they can make it more bipartisan. they can do everybody jumping off the cliff together to come to a solution because that is the only way they can get away with making cuts to programs when people consider their benefits earned and their money. host: the former president's response team put out saying that the focus was more on waste and reducing that waste. is there something there as far as waste and fraud in the programs of both social security and medicare. guest: not to the extent suggested. t any program whether it is public or private there is always going to be waste and ways to try and reduce it. but when you look at the overhead of the social security program just on the program alone, it is only about .5%$1.6n

benefits. that is pretty low. that does not mean it cannot be lor.we will get to that point especially with the nude commissioner mark o'malley, the former governor of marylane has got a lot of great administrative experience. we have talked to him and has the potential to do a great job. and we think that he will be -- he will do a lot with what he has and that is with the administration of the agency. host: if you want to ask about the politics behind social security and medicare and the actual status of the programs itself, 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. for those who received either social security or medicare and are a and want to give your thoughts you can call at 202-748-8003. you can use that same number if you want to text us.

before we go to the calls, since the president and former president havin it, does this become an issue going forward in campaign 2024? guest: i hope so. and i say that because when people go into the voting booth they need to think about the issue very importantly. if you are in your 30's and 40's you might not be thinking about social security. but if this program is cut, and medicare is people have less economic and health security, that means grandma will be living with you. and so even though you do not think you will be immediately affected you might be because it will force your elderly relatives to make decisions like that. that is why it is so about. not only for current retirees at their own future and immediate future. host: let us take calls. robin. alabama.

independent line. good morning. go ahead. caller: my question is would mass immigration help social security, save social security. if so how, and if not why? pedro, you got to -- you guys often have a topic if so, what america except mass immigration to save social security? i will take my call offline. host: thank you for the suggestion. guest: that is a great question. i guess i can answer it two ways. if people are entering the country undocumented workers, frequently they are getting social security numbers and pacing -- and paying the taxes. unless i get a green card or become a citizen they will never see a dime of the money contributed to the system. that actually helps the system.

but it is interesting, the congressional budget office a number of years ago, about 10, when the senate passed an immigration will -- an immigration bill saying the green card is not citizenship. they found of people became legal citizens or got green cards, they got out of the shadows and worked in jobs that paid more and they were paying payroll taxes. and so they found that the congressional budget office found that the solvency of the trust fund would be extended by a year if you were to enact a pathway towards a green card or citizenship. republican line. pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just want to say that 70 years ago, and i am now 86. 70 years ago i won a local contest and we were writing for the v.a. or something.

about why social security was such a bad idea and now -- and i am living on it completely now. i still think it is a bad idea, and it was a terrible idea to begin with when it was just a minor thing. and now the monolith that it has become is i have no idea how you can fix it. but please show the pie chart so that people can see how much of the budget is consumed with social security. and also, people when they get n arms and say that is my money, well i have been both management and labor, half of that is your money. your employer contributed half. host: you said you were on

social security, is that your sole source of income? caller: my full and only source of income. and i am going back to why it was such a bad idea. the minute you plant and someone's mind that the government will take care of them, that affects their whole life. if people understood as they are growing up and as they are being educated that they are responsible for themselves, then we would not have this. host: thank you very much for giving your input. guest: in terms of what i would say and margie thank you for your question, i is important to realize that social security is financed through payroll taxes which is a dedicated tax which does not at aenny to the debt. -- add a penny to the debt and it is self-sustaining. in terms of employer contributions, that is part of your employer's compensation to

you in the same way that your employer if you are lucky enough or your empyer to provide separate retirement benefits, that is compensation as well. it is a great program and you are not alone. there -- 40% of social security beneficiaries depend on the program for 90% or more of their income from social security. if you were to cut that, how may people would be in dire straits. i expect a lot would shift into poverty. only 9% of seniors live in poverty. if you were to cut that that number would go up. that would be a tragedy. host: in the 2025 budget president biden advocating a different taxation system to make wealthier americans p prog. guest: we think it would be a mistake to cut benefits to extend the solvency of the program. bee sure that the wealthy pay their

fair share. the last time that we made morcy program was 1983. and when we tax a payroll income we were capturing 90% of the income. because of income inequality and because there is a great difference between the have and have-nots, we are not capturing 90% of that income, we are capturing 81.4%. and that is an argument why that should be increased. by doing that we do not have to cut benefits. we can extend the program for decades and that is really the answer, to their fair share. host: that is the desire, but how realistic do you think it is? guest: if we have majorities in the house in the senate supportive of that idea it would happen tomorrow. unfortunately we do not. we hope that in the coming election to elect people to -- that feel that way to get to

that direction. the sooner we do that the better because these proposals like raising the payroll tax on income above $400,000 have more bang for the buck if they are done now instead of closer to the date of the projected insolvency of 2034. host: bruce from lexington, kentucky. independent line. i couple of quick questions and i appreciate you taking my call. w ho■t raided the social securiy fund in the 60's, and we are spending money on immigrants. what do we need to shore up social security and medicare. guest: thanks for your question, i think the answer to shore up the program is to bring more revenue intoxl it as we have ben talking about. we would free up $400,000. the me something. if your income is $168,000 a

year you are paying 6.2% of your income toward social security. but also your income is above that. let us say you are a wealthy ceo there is a good chance that you are paying a very smaller percentage of your income to support retirement. you are probably stopping paying the payroll taxes in january and february because of that.■< in terms of raiding the program, it never has. that kind of nio the way it is financed. it is a pay-as-you-go system. today's workers are paying for today'swhen you make your contr, that money immediately goes to the government. the governmentakes that money and buys a u.s. treasury security that earns interest, and then when it is time to pay benefits that treasury security is redeemed for cash and then it goes to pay benefits. in that transaction in which the

treasury security -- when they take your money and they use it to buy a treasury security, that goes to every function that the government pays for. it is paying for firefighters, wheels that eventually the money comes back. the same people put it in when the terms are redeeming that security for a benefit. host: there is a recent update from tara -- terrence keeley and amy po are proposed "the social security sys headed for insolvency largely that it has -- restricted itself in debt equivalents because bonds returnedhalf of what stocks return about 5% a year versus 10%. social security es are running well ahead compared to the canadian pension plan which stems from asset allegations investits, 4%n bonds and real estate -- real

estate credit. the canada percentage and -- engine plan annualized a 10% return. guest: any retirement expert will say that your income needs to be diversified, especially at your age you need to make less risky assessments. a problem with investing part on these assets are that they are risk-based and we do not have to worry about that if they ar■tres which are considered to be the most widley way that people invest. that is the best way to do it to ensure that the program is there. ther■ are enough people that remember the financial crisis of 2007 and because we have moved towards pensions and 401(k)s that they lost money during that period of time that caused a

delay to retirements. we want to make sure that there is something rocksolid and social security will be there for people and we want to keep it that way. host: our guest is with the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. tim, new york state. democrat line. hello. caller: hello. i have been hearing some rumblings that medicare might be on the chopping block and that republicans would like to eradicate medicare altogether and replace it with medicare advantage. could you give us some information about that. thank you. guest: that is a great question. there has been a lot of interest in terms of medicare and the direct way has been -- the direct assault has been through this idea of creating vouchers where people would get out -- go out and buy medicare or a private plan.

that was something that for instance tim ryan -- paul■& rya, i am sorry, republican for wisconsin supported and then also we have what is less a direct response but equally growing problem is the medicare advantage plans. ■ethese are private plans. i know there are a lot of people who like them and they might be right for them. but they are marketed in a way that you hear a lot about the pros of the plans and sometimes they have additional benefits. but they do not have a lot of one of the biggest cons of medicare advantage plans is that they have a limited provider network. that means if you get a disease and you need to go to the mayo clinic you might not be able to because you're medicare advantage plan will not. what if you are in traditional medicare it does. the problem is let us say there

are a lot of younger people who are persuaded to go to a medicare advantage when they first become eligible for the medicare program, but when they hit 70 or 75 they do have some serious health problems and they need to go to a hospital or doctor, and a specialist in whatever their issue is. it is hard to go back to traditional medicare because it is hard for them to get a plan that wraps around traditional medicare. it can be very difficult in those situations. that is something frequently they are not told when they are sold on medicare advantage. host: how often do you hear from younger people that they are not interested and why should it concern me? how would you respond? i think we find that from experience that i have learned is run into a lot of people who feel that way. but i think they appreciate the program once they get into it. a lot of people find especially

with the medicare program that it provides better coverage than they had when they had employer-sponsored health insurance. host: george joining us from idaho. independent line. go ahead. caller: a couple of quick questions and i will take my answer off air. why do we keep the elderly under the poverty rate on social security and two, why isn't there a means test for people who make $1 million a year? they obviously do not need social security or medicare. that is my question. host:guest: good question and le answer the first one. there is something called the special minimum benefit that has not been updated and we think we need to so it captures more people to make sure that they live above the poverty level and there is legislationt been introduced by john larson that we do exactly that.

and that is why we supported that. as far as means testing, we were concerned that if you were to lower benefits based on income that it would turn into a welfare program. the important thing about means testing, in order to achieve cost savings to extend the solvency of the program it would not just be means testing millionaires you would have to do that down to the income level of $40,000 a year in order to raise enough revenue to extend solvency which is why we are opposed. what was the cost of increased -- the cost of living increase? guest: 3.2% which brings up an important issue. over the years, basically about a 14 year peri, excluding the two years of high percent -- high inflation it has only been 1.4%. in those four years we had the zero quote. people who are in that situation

thought they did not have zero inflation. we need a more accurate measure of inflation and something called the consumer price index for the elderly. especially it does a better job of measuring health care costs as they tend to rise faster than inflation. host: should that be tied to whatever increases, in the future? guest: we think so. it would be more accurate, fair and most are a result of a higher cost-of-living adjustment for seniors. host: what is the highest increase in recent history? guest: i cannot remember but it was over 8% on one of those years where we had very high inflation. but now it is down to 3.2%. you can see how much lower the cpi has gone because inflation is down. host: sharon. pennsylvania. decrat line. go ahead. caller: thank you.

a previous caller was preaching self responsibility and so forth financially. that is well and good. but, during the great recession after these manipulators and so forth i lost back to back full-time jobs with benefits and over time. and i was doing fairly well. after that, at age 61 i put appe 61-year-old woman in the great recession? so i subsisted on unemployment for a while plus low-paying temporary jobs and part-time jobs. and i was never able to get back to the level i had had.

work more than one job just to make ends meet, and even as seniors. so, please don't preach at us. thank you. host: that is sharon in pennsylvania. guest: sharon, that is a great point. you are not alone in your situation. this is why the social security program and medicare are so important. because you don't know what your lifers -- life is going to bring you. historically in the last 30 years middle-class wages have been pretty much stagnant. that means there is a growing share of americans that depends on multiple security -- on social security. that is why it is important for the program to be there, for the program to be strong, and also improve benefits for individuals so they can live a decent quality of life. host: this is steve in massachusetts saying, could you discuss the possibility of raising the caps on money subject to social security

taxes? you may have to explain that a little bit. guest: yeah. stephen, that is a great question, and it is one we support. right the social security administration, when you are a worker you are paying payroll taxes on your first $168,600. any money you earn above that you are not paying social security payroll taxes. the example of a professional basque ballplayer, for example. probably at noon on january 1 they already paid off their social security payroll taxes for the year because they make so much money. else, and probably most people listening to me right now, are paying 62% on all of their income. and they are p the year, but paying it in every single paycheck. we think it is a matter of equity that the wealthy pay their fair share of social security payroll taxes. that is why we support

legislation introduced by senator bernie sanders and congressman john larson, and congresswoman jan schakowsky, and also the senator from connecticut, that would increase that rate of payroll taxes so finally the wealthy pay their fair share. reason for that.usly, there ia because of the fact we use to capture 90% of income to pay for social security and payroll taxes. now we are only capturing 81% of that money. because of income and equality, it is time the wealthy pay their fair share. host: how much of an increase would you call for? guest: again, it would be on income above $400,000. you could continue to attack people the limit that increases every year by the amount that wages increase. right now it is $160,600.

any income above $400,000 you would pay the payroll taxes on. host: let's hear from mary. mary joins us from ohio. hello. caller: hello. over 40 years ago, graduate school class, looked at social security and saiwean actuarial . at that time we said you should be age 70 to receive social security. i know now that they are doing a step process. but why didn't congress implement something for review to determine? because when it was instituted being age 65 was sort of a landmark that you can usually make. and now you can live to 100. so, maybe they can set up something for that review. thank you. take it off-line. guest: sure. thanks for your question. there has been a lot of work on

that and a lot of action on that. the last time there were major changes to social security was 1983. one of the things that was done was to raise the social security normal retirement age to 67. that was raised over a number of years. t is for people who are born in the 1960's, age 67. here is the problem with doing that. even if you live to 100 if you raise the retirement age it is a benefit cap. and you don't have to do that. as i mentioned previously, you #can raise the cap on social security payroll taxes to do that. the other important thing to consider is also it depends on the blessing of longevity. some people are lucky enough to live to 100. some people are not. especially if they worked in jobs where they were manual laborers, that kind of thing. these proposals to raise the retirement age are especially harmful for individuals that don't have long longevity, that

only live to age 70 or 80. that is another reason. even if you are lucky enough to live to 100 it is a benefit cut if you were to raise the retirement age. host: robert in florida. you are next. hi. caller: hi, how are you doing? i have a couple of questions. would you please explain to me that 75% of my taxes -- i pay social security. i'm retired. i got a pretty good income, but i still have to pay 75% of my social security. please explain it to me. i will get off the line. thank you. guest: that is a very good question, robert. last time major changes were made to social security was in 1983. that was when some of your social security benefits were taxable. unfortunately the amount of money, the income levels at which you were taxed were not indexed, so over time a growing share of americans had their

benefits index. we think that is wrong. again, the social security 21 hundred act introduced by congressman john larson from connecticut and senater richard blumenthal are we change that. those thresholds would be indexed and it would mean callers like robert, that their social security payroll taxes would go down. we think that would be the right move, because we think it is especially hard for those individuals when they don't have any other sources of income, to be taxed at that point in their life. host: aside from the legislators advocating the legislation you were talking about, what do you think of making changes to preserve the future of either of these programs, and what do you think the delay is? guest: the delay is because there is not agreement on the right way to do that. for instance, in this congress i thinkis unfortunate. i think you need to have majorities, at least in the way we want to see the program extended, that would support

revenue increases. that is part of the reason. what was the second question? host: if congress knows these deadlines are coming why are they doing something about it? guest: for the same reason. i think if they all agreed we could do it tomorrow. we could raise the social security payroll taxes. but we don't have that agreement, especially with a divided congress. until we have majorities in both houses that agree on what a solution■ is it may unfortunatey go down to the 11th hour in 2034, of making that solution. we hope we don't get to that place. would be better to fix this problem now rather than later, because of these proposals that are available to us to extend solvency, they are more effective if we do them now versus later. host: from cincinnati, ohio, john is on our independent line. good morning. caller: good in and thanks for taking my call. i'm 81 years old, and i think i started paying into social security when i was 16 years old, but, anyway, they call this

coming you know, like it is a benefit. and we paid into it. but government workers, like social security department, irs, all of the government workers, you never hear of their pension systems or anything running out of money. like in congressional district one in ohio, we have, probably they are paying for six different congressman, five of which are no longer in congress. but they get lifetime benefits and everything else, and you never hear about those people running out their funds -- their funds never running out. explain that to me. guest: well, i think that is a very good point to raise with your members of congress. they do have a fairly solid system that has been in place for a long time. and for government employees it is something that, you know,

that is part of their compensation package that they get. i think it is an important point to raise. if you're going to have this system for yourselves you need to make sure the system available to the general public for your social security is there for them. they earned these benefits. because of the fact they are so extremely popular, regardless of party affiliation or age, that they need to step up it -- step up to the plate and do it in a way that extends the program without cutting benefits. host: susan in indiana. republican line. hello. caller: hello. he mentioned that trump wanted to cut $65 million, but i am wondering how much is there every year and maybe you are misunderstanding what he means by cuts, because anytime any tries to talk about privatization of social security or some other way to be able to save, you know save it for later

years, they are totally demonized, and you see those democrat pictures of rolling the wheelchair of the grandma off the cliff, and how they are going to cut social security and take it away from you. and, you know, so, actually, you talk about fixing it, people coming together and fixing it. but anytime anybody tries to fix it, you know, you demonized them and i'm talking about the democrats. they demonize and my other question is, how much money has congress stolen from social security? you know, when you talk about trump wanting to cut it, maybe he didn't mean cut, and cut by maybe he means cut by trying to fix it, and the democrats are just twisting that to make it sound, again, like he is

anti-social security, jerry really don't think he is. host: susan in indiana. the president responded to this afterword on breitbart and other forms. go ahead. guest: i think i'm counting four questions at least, or at least four points. in terms of fraud, it is one of the most efficient programs the government runs. it is remarkable. in terms of just social security and medicare, i mean, just in terms of social security the overhead is, the administrative cost is about 5% of the cost of the benefits that are paid. so, it is pretty low. again, because of the fact that no program is perfect, whether it is private or public, there is fraud, waste, and abuse. we think that is an issue that should be addressed. know the new commissioner, the former governor of maryland, that is the top of his agenda. in conversations we have had

with him he is working very hard to do that. ■- on that his 60 years old.

is that going to be discontinued? and then my second question is, how do they determine thet that is received?

guest: thanks, shelley. how do they determine the amount that's received by the survivor? t is one i have not seen and terms of cutting survivor benefits. i think it is going the opposite direction. again, with the legislation we have been talking about that has been introduced by congressman larson and senator blumenthal. it does have survivor benefits. usually it is limited by household amount of both spouses. that amount will be increased, so that is a great thing. for survive -- for survivor benefits it is important because of the fact that if you do have one passed away and the other one still there, it will mean a significant drop in the income of your household. and you are going to need that, so that is why we support these provisions that would make survivor benefits enough so that people could live a quality life. that is a great question. host: our guest organization's

website. dan adcock with the national committe >> c-span journal," our live forum discusses the latest issues in government, politics and public policy from. washington and across the country. coming up saturday morning, we'll look at the russian presidential election, set to see win a fifth term in power. then the executive director of united america his idea to overhaul public primaries in the u.s. warren, join in conversation live at 7:00 eastern saturday morning on c-span, c-spannow or online c-span.org.

♪ >> c-span's voice of 2024, we're asking voters across the country, what issue is most important to you in this election and why? >> the most important issue this political season is immigration. >> i think that homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed. >> we invite you to share your thought by going to our website c-span.org/campaign.2024. record a 30-second video telling us your issue and why is. c-span's voices 2024. be a part of the conversation. if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can finding it at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events features markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy

highlights. these points of interest appear on the right-hand of your screen when you hit play videos. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including spotlight. >> the greatest place on earth is the place you call home. at spark light it's our place too. right now we're all facing our greatest challenge. that's why we're working around the clock to keep you connected. >> spark light supports c-span as a public service as well as these giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> up next, the head of the u.s. fires state officials