blahous? >> yes. with the disclaimer, i'm probably on the pure line of expert you. i'm probably on the estimates with respect to how bad is going to be for the future of the program if we delay too long, but i certainly agree definitely within five years. i would hope it would be even faster. >> and i ask, the payroll tax holiday was important to many families, but it did blow a hole in social security's revenue stream. it was backfill but we know that can't continue. again, no politics in this. your advice as trustee, should we continue the payroll tax holiday, or should we restore the full stream of revenue to social security? dr. blahous? >> speaking very much for myself, but i would urge that social security go back to its 12.4% rate. >> we have to do with how we do that, but your advice would be restore the full amount of money? >> that's a personal view. not board of trustees. >> dr. reischauer? >> mine obviously is a personal view, to pick but i would phase it out with speed. >> right.

blahous and dr.reischauer would concur with me that under the last social security cannot run deficits. is that correct legs >> that's correct. social security will never face a deficit. but we do face and i think he is the right word. an actuarial deficit because we actually see the difference between what we collect to what we hope to pay out and there was a deficit here d that's what we have to tackle sooner than later. can the social security system ever run deficits by law. the cold hard fact is that we have to -- i think we have to tell americans in 2033, guess what? all of a sudden your benefit and from 20% of what you're getting to 75%, which is to be cruel. but neither has social security run a deficit and never can and do we in congress changed the law. with that i would yield that. >> eliminate the final comment on that? >> i certainly don't want to be construed as complying with the bond of the trust fund are not realized this to social security. as my testimony indicates a travesty makes

blahous? >> basically right right now the old-age survivors fund the so-called retirement fund, that is -- disability 2016. if you could put them together combined funds would be under 2033. >> so it would be the same? >> by 2033 is the figure we often throw around because it refers to social security as a whole. if you split it into the two funds one of them to 2035 and the other is 2016. >> the 2013, 33 assumes that you reach the allocation of the payroll tax between the two trust funds? to maximize the length? >> the old-age survivors who are saying in this report is still 2035? >> that one is 2035. >> it was 2038 eight last year. >> so it has come down? the other point i just want to be clear is when you present value this unfunded liability we are talking about eight.$6 trillion which is over two years of all federal spending. at that includes the 2.7, using that money within the trust fund? >> right, that is basically the actuarial deficit on top of the trust fund and redeeming the trust

blahous? >> i'm an advocate to act as soon as possible. >> dr. reischauer? >> i think speedy action is called for. >> how much time do you speak whether the actual changes in policy you make need to be sorted implemented next year is a totally separate issue. this is an area where we phase policy in over longtime to get people speed you both made a point if we don't act soon we will be -- so again, your advice to us. what is the timetable? how soon do we need to act? this year, next year? i mean, your advice to us. >> you know, i think you should act when the climate is right. when changes are being made, i me, is his speed is not from a political standpoint. i'm asking you as a trustee looking at the numbers, how much time would you say we have to act, in your beliefs be? i would hope that you would act within the next five years. >> dr. blahous? >> yes. with a disclaimer, i'm probably on the -- i'm probably on the pessimistic end of the skin with respect to how bad is going to be for the fut