know i think the answer to that is partially that one of the brilliant propaganda moves is that pete peterson anti social security anti medicare anti government anti taxing the rich anti-tax and corporations click has done is made all of these far right positions out to be somehow nonpartisan or bipartisan or centrist when they're really none of these things so i think she felt as opposed to say belonging to the i don't know the socialist workers party that somehow she could characterize this or and it would probably be characterized by many of her friends and peers as an unbiased and bipartisan effort for her to be involved in so i think she probably thought she could get away with it whereas if she was on the board of a group seeking to expand social security which is a position most republicans as well as most americans want to see supported you once they're out of the lee it's most americans of all kinds democrats republicans across the board she would probably have to say well that's too far left for me to associate myself so this is the kind of bias we're seeing you know among the very

somebody like alice rivlin, the former head of the budget office of the white house who is funded by pete peterson and she comes out and says social security is going bankrupt we need to stop it or capsize and they don't always get the message about what is really going on. so the sort of an element of complexity and lack of good information out there about social security is a real issue. >> it has political support among the voters in general. >> i did the polling going back 35 years and i found it consistently if people were presented with the option of paying a little bit more in payroll tax in order to secure social security, they all say yes this is the earliest poll i found that was in 1977, and it's consistent. what's changed is the view of the elite in this country, not of working people. >> talk about what needs to be done politically to strengthen the social security system. >> there's three things that need to be done. we are talking about the political crisis, not the suppose of fiscal crisis. number one is, and this may sound a little out of left field we need to revise the movement

stimulus here and not fall prey to this all these claims of austerity and you know conservatives like pete petersonwant to justify cutting social security whether it's through this thing that president obama has has now endorsed of using the so-called chained consumer price index which essentially is just a cut that gets worse and worse every year. that's bad for us in europe yes they need to know get rid of these austerity policies as well i think you're probably saying greece in particular at the breaking point socially and for them you know giving up the euro you know have some short term problems but being able to devalue their currency again that was sovereign currency again which would be a good idea for them it has it has hurt them so badly that we're seeing now the rise in these countries of radical political parties a. nazi party in greece and scary stuff. that was damage that's been done professor kind of pain thomas thank you so much for being with us i really thank you for having me. best of the rest the news according to a new study from the washington toxics coalition over five thousa

tamryn hall was moderating a conversation at the pete peterson institute at international economics with bill gates and bill clinton and take a look. >> women are clamoring at the edge of our seats. wondering what is next. we know that she's dynamic, her leadership is unmatched. her voice for women, the poor, families, so i have to ask it. mr. gates, when is melinda jumping into politics? >> i don't think melinda is going to run for president, she hasn't mentioned it to me. >> i pivot to you. mr. president? >> melinda hasn't mentioned it to me, either. but i don't know what's going to happen. but i know this, that is the worst expenditure of our time. you know, she's taking a role in the foundation, she's writing a book, she's having a little fun being a private citizen for the first time in 20 years and she's you know, that's fine. but we need to be worried about the work at hand. >> so tamryn and bill gates and bill clinton. the bills. i'll be heading down there right after the show to join admiral mullen and governor o'malley and carly fiorina for a conversation about education. thank

right after there there were a group of inflew enshall and wealth anymore, one of them pete peterson, an investment banker, who were furious that more drastic exchanges were not made to social security in 1983, so they launched a multipronged movement to cut social security, and they were able to pull in center-right democrats democratp republicans. a group called americans for generational equity that was unlawful the '8s that began putting out research and pulling together influence enshall people behind the idea we have to cut social security. little known fact, every president, from jimmy carter on, has attempted at some point or other to cut so-security, including barack obama, bill clinton, republicans and democrats, and these groups in the 80s managed to -- they didn't manage to sell the public on the idea of cutting social security, but they really built up a very strong constituency among the elite in this country that his has to be done. in the mid-089s the privatizization movement began. wall street got behind the movement to privatize social security, and suddenly all the

think paul krugman is right in the short run and peep eaters in an simpson-bowles, everybody -- pete peterson an simpson-bowles are right in the long run. if we do not pass a plan in advance, there is always the chance that the economy will start recovering and interest rates will go through the roof and it will make this sequester look like a sunday afternoon walk in the park. do not forget, if interest rates today were what they were when i was president we would -- which were pretty low, concerted -- considering we would have growth -- annual payments would go from $300 billion to $650 billion. so, we need to deal with this. secondly, because of the debate, because it is stale it is taking up all the oxygen. but i think a lot of cuts have already been made and in the short run, the president has ffered a long-term plan that basically reflect the private understanding he had with john boehner when they were negotiating. and i think that the best thing to do -- simpson-bowles has done update, which i just read and i think is pretty good. they need to, the simpson-bowles update says we should

i think paul krugman tried in the short run and pete peterson and simpson-bowles, and the question islanning. if you do not kick the long-term reduction plan in, at the right time, and we do not pass the plan in advance, there is always the chance that the economy will start recovering and interest rates will go through the roof and it will will make the sequester look like a sunday afternoon walk in the park. do not forget, if interest rates today were what they were when i was president we would -- which were pretty low, concerted -- considering we would have growth annual payments would go from $300 billion to $650 billion. so, we need to deal with this. secondly, because of the debate, because it is stale it is taking up all the oxygen. but i think a lot of cuts have already been made and in the short run, the president has offered a long-term plan that basically reflect the private understanding he had with john boehner when they were negotiating. and i think that the best thing to do -- simpson-bowles has done update, which i just read and i think is pretty good. they need to, t

billion a year in cuts, the most important one i want to make is what you hear when you come to pete peterson is a focus on how we as a country deal with the challenge of the baby boom retirement. the question to ask is what does the sequestered do for the second decade of savings? the answer is it is a big zero. it is important for people to understand that. this cuts the domestic part of our budget which is already about to be the lowest it has been as a percentage of the economy since the 1950s. it would cut this severely even though that is where a lot of investments in children and innovation and research are. and then it has a small cut in entitlement savings which, and this is important, ends exactly on the tenth here. it goes away. when you look at the sequester, somebody says they are serious about long-term entitlement savings but they think the status quo is acceptable, therefore, an approach that would have zero savings in the second ten years compared to the president's approach which would have $1 billion to $2 trillion of the entitlement savings in the second decade. >> a big d