one of the reasons we wanted to talk to chuck blahouse about this, aggressive social security reforms are needed. you just talked about one of them. what are some others? guest: let me give you an example. there is a benefit in social security that is paying the benefit does not recognize parenting is done by two-earner couples or single mothers, single parents. there's a different allocation of responsibility in states in america than there were in the early 20th century. the way the senate is structured, if you are a single mother earning minimum wage, the benefit you are in under social security is theally much less than benefit someone else gets if a stay-at-home, mary the richest person they know, do not pay any federal taxes. it is these sorts of regressive incomes that diverse resources away from people who need them. they add unnecessarily to the system. host: until the bottom of the blahoue are with charles s. folks on the line for you right now, including tommy in kentucky, independent. good morning. good morning. glad you could take my call. i worked in the coal mines in ke

one of the reasons we wanted to talk to chuck blahouse about this, aggressive social security reformsre needed. you just talked about one of them. what are some others? guest: let me give you an example. there is a benefit in social security that is paying people 50% of the benefits of the primary wage earner, and it is payable to the spouse. it is stay at home spouse. well intended benefit. it is intended to recognize the value of stay-at-home order. parenting, other household work. when iteflects a time was assumed the man would be working and the woman would be staying at home. it was originally structured as a so-called life insurance benefit, only paid on the basis of the man's earnings. it has been made gender-neutral innocence, but it is designed to problematically reflect those early 20th century assumptions. it turns out this particular benefit is designed in a way that's very regressive. money away from people who have less and give it to people who have more. the benefit does not recognize today that parenting is done by two earner couples. so, there's more -- there's a dif