even though social security numbers were created to track wages for determining social security benefits, these numbers are widely used as personal identifiers. in fact, in their april, twetch report the president's identity task force identified the social security number as the most valuable commodity for an identity thief. these thieves are working overtime. identity theft is the fastest growing fraud in america. last year there were over 11 million victims. the federal trade mission says identity theft cost consumers about $50 billion per year. today we are taking a step forward all be it a small step -- albeit a small step to protect social security numbers by preventing prisoner access to these numbers and prohibiting social security numbers from appearing on government checks. believe it or not, the social security inspector general found eight states currently allow prisoners to work on jobs that give them access to social security numbers. with today's vote we will be one step closer to putting an end to that practice. i'm glad to report that over the years the ways and means co

the the millions of surviving spouses of children and people with disabilities who depend on social security. it has stay aed alive, it has pd on time, nobody has missed a payment, it will be financially secure for at least a for more decades, and this is all because of the ingenious way it was set up as, not just as another government program, but as an insurance program into which people paid their money. and fdr said explicitly, roosevelt said explicitly, this is not to be funded from general taxation. and that has helped keep this program safe from, well, as i said, the determined enemies it has had over the decades. >> the quote with which i began this portion of the broadcast, "the hill" is the source of this, from congressman defazio. he said tonight that the president is making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal. presumably, even in that quote, he's not saying the president called it a bad deal, from his perspective. but the gist of this, can you confirm any of that? >> i can't personally confirm that, no. i think there are some probl

so where are we with social security? social security financing we project in the report even with all the future changes and work to be having the trust funds on a combined basis exhausted and 2037 at which point we estimate we will still have 75 cents worth of taxes coming to be able to pay the benefits under the statutory regulations that is all we would be able to pay as you well know. so the question is can increase would help fill the gap and there is no question that it can. we have many people on the panel today we can help some of the reasons, not just the reason but the way that we can try to encourage that. let me just show you what the implications will be and something we can actually get. we have developed three hypothetical possibilities for increased labor force participation in the future over and above what the trustees are already assuming. one and that i think senator baucus referred to is what if at age 62 and over we had an additional 10% increase over the trustees estimating and people 62 and over a

we know an awful lot of social security pwreufs live mostly on their social security. most people have a little bit more than that but an awful lot have nothing more than that. they've got no cost of living adjustment this year because of this complicated formula. what was pretty amazing to me, mr. president, is how the same time that every republican signed a letter, 42 republican senators signed a letter saying they will do nothing else until they get their tax cut for the rich. it's almost like a work stoppage, the republican senators were on strike saying we're not going to do anything around here -- we're not going to work, we're not going to vote yes on anything around here -- until you give me people a tax cut. my wealthy friends and contributors in my state. so the contrast of their saying we won't do anything for anybody else except millionaires and billionaires. we won't even give a $250,000 check to seniors who are making about $14,000 a year from social security whafplt that check would -- what that check would mean to them, that contrast you made i think w

i am on social security. worked for 34 years putting money in the social security so that it would become available to me when i became the age that i am now. the government took money out of social security and spent it on other programs. now they are talking about making social security from 65 to 69. now they are talking about cutting medicaid. why are they talking about cutting from what is helping the people? my son has been self-employed for 14 years now. he has paid taxes every year. he only makes $20,000 per year. exxon can move to another country and pay them a lesser amount of taxes than they would pay here. but they would get a deduction on that tax that they pay. why is it that the republicans seem to be more interested in helping the businesses and the rich instead of the people who make up this country? guest: i think today's jobs report underscores how much harder on of these debates will come. here is a person who says he paid into social security and he wants to get his money back. he was pro

-- raids social security. if this is war, let's put away this white flag. i refuse to surrender to those who want to benefit the 2%ers at the rest of us. to do that would surrender their dreams and paychecks of families all across this country. it's time to put away the white flag and fight for working families. and with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: what is the time remaining on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from texas controls 35 minutes. the gentleman from michigan controls 52 1/2 minutes. mr. brady: at this time, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, ms. sanchez of california. ms. sanchez: i rise today in strong opposition to this reckless legislation. there is no question that i strongly support some of the items in this bill. unemployed americans desperately need their benefits extended

similarly, social security advocates will say it needs to be reinvested in social security. grover would say it has to be reinvested in bringing down the tax rate. everyone takes off the table the biggest things where you could actually have an impact on fiscal policy. >> let me just say -- the only one i took off the table was investment in investment in children. >> the one thing you learn is there is somebody who loves it all. all of it has flaws. you sit through these reviews. there is someone who loves every piece of the bget, every piece of the tax code has a flaw. every piece of the regulatory system has a flaw. the thd point, and this is more admonishment to a fellow democrat, when you reject the markets as a tool for allocating resources, understand what you're doing is appointing washington, our little budget office, the congress, and our regulators, to then do that allocation. when i sit and think about having a national health budget, for example, and we are going to determine whether or not we have enough doctors in sioux falls, south dakota, based on somebody h

today, social security has a $2.6 trillion surplus. today, social security can pay out benefits for the next 29 years. our goal, and what we must do is make sure that we extend it beyond 29 years for the next 75 years. well, if you divert $120 billion from the social security trust fund and give it to workers today, what you are doing is cutting back the viability, the long term viability of social security. that is not just sanders raising this issue. there are many people representing millions of senior citizens who are deeply, deeply concerned about this proposal, this provision in the agreement between the president and the republican leadership. the national committee to preserve social security and medicare is one the very largest senior groups in america. they do a very, very good job. i know we have many seniors in vermont who are members of the organization, and they do what the title of the organization suggests and that is to preserve social security and medicare, and just the other day they sent out a news release and the t

and i would say that social security -- you know, the real debate about social security, mr. president, is not one about finances. there has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there. i hear from some of my friends on the republican side that social security is going bankrupt, it's not going to be there for our kids, and that is absolutely not true. social security today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. social security can pay out every benefit owe owed to every eligible american, if we don't start diverting funds for the next 29 years, at which point it pays out about 79% of benefits. so our challenge in 29 years is to fill that 22% gap. that's it. can we do it? sure, we can. president obama, when he was campaigning -- and i think has repeated since -- a very good suggestion that instead of having a cap in terms of which people contribute into the fund at $106,000, what we should do is do a bubble, go up to $250,000, and people -- $people who make $250,000 or more should contribute into the social security trust fund. if you did that and nothing else, you have es

raise the retirement age on social security. cut back on the benefits on social security. maybe cut down on disability benefits. all kinds of things to cut down on social security so we don't have to take money from general revenues to put back into social security trust fund. mark my word, it is coming. the a coming. -- it's coming. now, what is it that no one is talking about, mr. president? first of all, there is no deficit in the social security trust fund. the social security trust fund can continue to pay out 100% of before thes until about 2037 -- benefits until about 2037. then it can only afford to pay out about 75% of benefits. not zero, but 75%. what could fix that? one very simple thing. it is called equity. it is called fairness. it is called justice. right now if you work and you make $40,000 a year, you pay on every dollar you make 6.2% into social security. if you make $400,000 a year, you're only paying in 6.2% on 25 cents of a dollar. why is that? because social security payments are capped at $106,800 a year. that means you pay 6.2% up to $106,800. over

s these are the same people whorle either want to make significants cuts in social security or elsec they want to privatize social te security entirely. and here's the point. divert funding that is supposed to go into the social security l trust fund, which is what this payroll tax holiday does.rust this is money that goes into the social security trust fund is now being diverted, d cut back o order to provide financial support for workers. but that is a lot of money not going into the trust fund. but the president announcers ar. saying is not to worry because that money will be covered by that is a very, very bad and bep dangerous precedent.y he gives up until now, what social security has been about his 100% funding from payroll contributions, not from the general tech space. again, is once again, this is a one-year of r program. the loss of revenue going into social security can be covered by the general fund. but we have a $13 trillion national debt. geral how much longer with the general fund put money into social security. is it a good idea for the general fund to be doing that?

i am on social security. i worked for 34 years putting money into social security, which is supposed to be available for me when i got to the age that i am now. but the government raises social security and took money out there was supposed to be for may and spent on other programs -- for me and spent it on other programs. now republicans are talking about making it from 65 to 69, cutting medicaid. why do they always want to cut what is helping people out here? second question is, like son has is on business, he is self- employed for 14 years now, and he has paid taxes every year, and he only makes $20,000- something the year. but exxon can move to another country and pay the lesser tax than they would pay here, but they get a deduction on the tax that they paid. why is it that the republicans seem to be more interested in helping the business and the rich instead of people that make up this country? guest: you know, i think today's jobs report really underscores how much harder all these debates will become.

thirdly, social security. we are going in this bill to provide for 2%, one-year reduction of 2% in the social security tax. that will cost us $120 billion in one year that will be replen issued from the general fund. politically, once you make that tax cut, it will be impossible to restore it. it will be $120 billion taken away from social security. the conservatives have said we have to increase the retirement age and reduce benefits because it contributes to the deficit. we said no. social security has nothing to do with the deficit. we are putting right in the middle of the deficit debate and will cost the general fund $120 billion a year, $1.2 trillion for 10 years and told you have to reduce benefits and increase the retirement age. we will be told a year or two, by the way, the money we are taking away from social security, we need the money for education, housing or something else and we don't want to be in that position. f.d.r. decided in 193 that social security would be supported by its own tax, by i

social security gets money from the general fund, general fund gives money to social security, where does it end? are we not setting ourselves up for an attack on social security where it cannot pay for itself, and then people are put into an argument to undermine social security? this worries me. not that i agree with the deal, but i am satisfied that the people who came up with the deal working at it. it is something i am concerned about. host: this viewer tweets -- would you have supported the compromise of taxation over $1 million? guest: i would have looked carefully at it. the me tell you this, susan. republicans say they want all the 2001, 2003 tax cuts extended permanently. democrats -- first of all, we agree that everyone would get a tax extension up to $250,000. i thought that we would come somewhere in the middle so we could negotiate on the number of years of the extension, negotiate on the amount. what ended up happening is, a lot of other stuff got into the mix, including the estate tax, and i am not here to sign up for schumer's proposal at the moment, but it is better

to avoid eviscerating social security a few years down the road.hat's the second major problem, which we don't want to see. the third is the give away on the estate tax which, over ten years, is $115 billion more than we should be doing. >> schieffer: do you think if this does not get done somehow in this lame duck session, it's going to be easier next year, when you have a more liberal democratic caucus and a more conservative republican caucus? because it's definitely going to be that, because that was the impact of these elections. >> i don't think it's going to be more easy. i think it will be probably somewhat more difficult. but the fight hasn't been made. we haven't gone to the country and said, "do you want to submit to the republican blackmail in order to keep the middle class tax cuts by increasing the deficit by $700 billion to give the millionaires and the billionaires their... let them keep their tax cuts?" and that issue has to be made and go to the country. i think we win on that. i think republicans have to back down. >> schieffer:

caller: no cutting social security because i am on social security. host: you don't think you can handle cutting back? caller: no, they need to cut their pay checks and get some of their jobs back. host: ron, democrat, is houston. caller: first-time caller. i am a little nervous. caller: take your time. caller: i don't agree with the tax cuts basically because -- or the cuts, rather, in social security and so forth, because the problem that we are suffering from started back in the 1980's, and that was the middle-class started to disappear. and all of our steel mills were closed, factories started to close. the middle-class has been struggling ever since. the people who had money found that it was much easier to invest and use that money to make money rather than the make the 2% to 3% they've made by running the business. it is really difficult to run the business -- having to deal with employees and union and everything. what has happened -- people do not realize that the people with money, they are the ones that are lazy. it is not the workers and t

>> no, social security is part of the problem. it has to be addressed. >> reporter: gregory mancue advised president bush and said simply today that this proposal makes sense. and so did jeff frankel, who held the same job in the clinton administration. >> it's just, we can't afford it. >> reporter: economists say, look at the pie chart at our spending. social security and then medicare, a bite as big and growing. today, that bold call to limit the annual increases in medicare, and we wondered, is there any way to avoid it? can medicare be left untouched? and still rein in this deficit? >> oh, no. medicare is part of the problem and indeed a bigger problem than social security. >> reporter: an even bigger problem because of the aging baby boomers. and, again, we heard agreement from president clinton's adviser. >> there is no way to rein in the deficit without slowing the rate of growth of medicare spending. >> reporter: and back at the chart, look at defend spending next. considered untouchable by many, so, again, we asked both s

guest: one of the great simple rules of social security is that we and our employers pay into social curity. it goes into a fund which has been groge lately to support the retirement. so it is a dedicated tax that assures everybody in the country that they have paid into social security and they will get back something equivalent, a little bit more for more low income people. so it would be a big mistake, i think, to cut the social security fica tax when that tax that we all pay is our guarantee as roosevelt said that we are going to have a healthy retirement. and of course with the recession, with the decline of private pensions, americans are depending on social security more and more to replace their income in retirement. so it's very, very important that we have a strong social security system. and i'm a little bit worried about this recent so called stimulus plan that has cut social security taxes supposedly temporarily. but if that cuts the social security taxes and gets extended a year from now hand we don't replace that mum with money from the federal treasury social security

, you know, reduction in income to social security. one very conservative republican call me, heard me speak today on this issue and he said, i share those concerns. you know, we can't -- he said, on our side it's a mantra that temporary tax cuts are not temporary and can never go back up. if we reduce the income to social security, we'll never get that back and we think that's the trap being laid for the president by those who want to privatize and further undermine social security. so, concern is really growing in the caucus around that issue. >> congressman, i not only agree with your substantive positions on these issues but it seems to me what's reflected is the white house misjudged the degree of opposition to the compromise that it's proposed and consequently on the other side, misjudged the degree of strength it would have had if it had taken a harder line with the republicans earlier on in negotiating this package. am i right about that? >> absolutely correct. i mean, come on. you're an experienced litigator and negotiator. >>

don't deserve social security like everyone else i mean they will still get their social security sensually one so again what the definition is trying to do is to spread the pain they don't want to do something that's just payroll tax increases and they are raising more revenue out there is reading the pain to middle class upper middle class and wealthy families of syria here is that the upper middle class and wealthy families can bear the brunt of that pain more you know they save more for. and they have more investment income they have more overall as well they pay more taxes and they do pay more taxes that's actually right but they also get more from from the government and from the economy and so the theory here is essentially if you're going to cut benefits you can't cut them for the people that need it the most those to rely on it for eighty percent of their post retirement income you have to cut it for people who rely on social security for a much smaller portion of their regardless people like you and myself our generation i mean never just can be screwed by the time we get around t

it is to get social security. to provide a payroll tax holiday is not to provide the american people a day at the beach but to risk serious undermining of social security. the national committee to preserve medicare has called the deal -- is still a disaster. i think it is. we don't want to subjects or treat social security as if it were the budget for public television or the national parks service, as important as those things are. it is very rare, as this debate suggests, that we have a temporary tax cut in this congress. when we get another year or two years down the road, there will be those who suggest that we should extend this tax provision. i think there is a real danger to social security if we begin to say that instead of it being a payroll social insurance system, that people pay in and receive old age survivor and disability insurance, we will just borrow money from the chinese to fund this and it will lose the sound foundation it has. this is an issue that has not received much attention in the cours

however, at the same time we need to make sure that social security is not only solvent through 2037, but solventor future generations and, therefore, we must address its solvency within its own construct. i think that's what many have said. there are many ways to do that. frankly, social security is much easier to deal with than is medicare and medicaid which as i pointed out to you is a very much greater challenge in terms of cost. now you mentioned as wellhe expenditures that we have made without paying for them. we fought two wars and have incurred about $1 trillion, nonef which has been paid for. it's all been borrowed money. when i said the civic virtues of self-discipline, we need to make sure that we pay for what we buy and, therefore, we included in our budget a statutory pay go. i think that was a returno what we did in the 1990's and disciplined ourselves in terms ofxpenditures. i think we need to continue to do that. at i have said and many of you have heard me say, in the short term, in an economic downturn, you cannot do that because what you need to do is to give stimul

yes, i am on medicare and social security. in those years i paid -- my paycheck went to medicare and yet i still have to pay $100 a month out of my social security check to keep my medicare. how is that fair? host: couple of questions -- do you think it is sustainable as far as the folks described as baby boomers joining as of saturday? you think the future is secure? caller: the feature should have been secure for everyone who has been paying into what. the government -- like johnson out of medicare and social security to pay for the vietnam war. they need to put back what they take out of our accounts and put a backhand. host: as far as changes, raising a age or the taxes or some other proposals, how would you respond? caller: i do not think we should raise va to limit. 65, if you worked as long as i have, you are ready to retire. you cannot physically do it anymore and i am 69 years old. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. host: political action committees, subject of the front page of "usa today close with this

tax reform, social security. things that we have to do with in terms of long-term. >> when he talked about his persistence, here is a guy that had a strong ideological agenda. for example, health care and financial reform. even though he lost the great massachusetts senate rate, he persisted on health care and got it. he knew he had two years of the 111th congress to do everything he wanted to do. ideologically, he did it. now he is going to act as a centrist so he gets a second mandate. >> don't ask, don't tell repeal. what will be the consequences of that? >> i say to all americans, gay or straight, who wants to serve in uniform, your country wants you, your country needs you, and we are honored. >> a whole don't ask, don't tell policy is the lowest priority in my mind right now. >> that is a soldier in afghanistan. senator mccain believes that we should not fix this. your take on that, colby? >> as i have said in the past, several times, i did not think the ending don't ask, don't tell would somehow hurt unit

social security. it is not take the savings and applied in to the deficit prevent it is done separately. this plan calls for fundamental forms for the to help make it more competitive. when you reduce the option and the opportunity to gain the system, you are going to generate more revenue. i said earlier there things i do not like. everyone of us can find those we do not like. i think this is a critically important moment. whether or not we get 14 votes, i think this will provide a guide post for decisions that must be made. verot the sooner they are made, the better for this country. if seeing ireland, greece, and portugal, possibly spain -- if we fail to act now, our country could find yourself in a circumstance in which we have to pay it draconian action at the worst possible time. i pray to god we had the wisdom to act before that point. >> thank you. this has been intense. it has been so informative. i congratulate you for your leadership and tremendous benefit. i also went to think folks to a b

even though i'll be paying less social security tax, the social security trust fund will get the money i'm not paying. the treasury will give the trust fund the bonds it would have gotten if i'd paid the $2,136, and social security had lent it to the treasury. people have been screaming at the fed for creating money to buy treasury securities under quantitative easing. but no one seems to care that the treasury is creating securities for the social security taxes i'm not paying. and then creating more securities to borrow the money to make up for the taxes i'm not paying. in washington, perhaps, this is called compromise and common sense. where i come from, we call it nonsense. i'm allan sloan. >> tom: that's "nightly business report" for tuesday, december 28. i'm tom hudson. good night everyone. we hope to see all of you again tomorrow night. "nightly business report" is made possible by: this program was made possible by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. captioning sponsored by wpbt captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> be more.

today social security has $toy 2.6 -- social security has $2.6 trillion surplus. tai social today social securitn pay out benefits for the next 25 years. we must be able to extend is it beyond 29 years to the next 75 years. if you divert $120 billion from the social security trust fund rands give it to workers today, what you're doing is cutting back at viability, the long-term viability of social security. that is not just bernie sanders raising this issue. there are many people representing millions of senior citizens who are deeply, deeply concerned about this proposal, this provision in the agreement between the president and the republican leadership. the national committee to preserve social security and medicare is one of the very largest senior groups in america. they do a very, very good job. i know we have many seniors in vermont who are members of this organization and their job is to do what the title of the organization suggests, and that is to preserve social security and medicare. and just the other day, they sent out a news release and the title of

social security is being taken down. this is dangerous. it's about a bad precedent and one i believe we will all regret. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to a member of our committee, mr. van hollen, who has been working day and night on this issue. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to havworked with congressman pomeroy and chairman levin on the amendment we will be voting on later tonight. while this house recently passed and democrats have been fighting to ensure that tax rates do not go up on 98% of the american people, senate republicans made it clear that they will raise, that they will raise taxes on every american if they don't get a special bonus tax break for the very top 2%. in order to break that, president obama concluded he needed to cut a deal.

social security is the easiest of all our problems to solve. but do you think that the congress has the political will to do what it takes to do that? >> i think we have to have that will. i pointed out there are a number of democrats, including senator conrad. 14 of us signed a letter saying let's move forward with this work that needs to be done on the debt. at the same time, not everyone agrees with everything in that report. i would say with social security, looking at one of the proposals is to take right now the income cap where you get taxed at $106,000. you could put a area where you don't get taxed up to say $250,000 and then put that tax back in. as senator graham mentioned, there were there was some discussion in the report about reducing benefits for some of the upper-income people. you have the fact that they also looked at people that have really hard labor jobs that maybe you should treat them better and treat them differently. i think it's really worth looking at some of the ideas in that report. you know, democrats have made a

and they want to cut social security if you know bomb as the deficit commission right right now if he carefully takes a hit there he did not have to create that commission he did not have to appoint the social security people to that commission who appointed. and he has to praise the agreement they came to when they came to it but he did all those things he clearly has his eye on social security and once you cut social security are you talking about a long term decline in the demand in the economy that is anti stimulus so what we will get with this issue with this deal is is a small amount of stimulus for the next one year coupled with long term stimulus from cuts in social security that will come later on don't know we're getting what we're seeing right now obviously is a lot of anger coming from the left do you think that this could be that final nail in the car. and where obama said i understand you guys want to fight i'm sympathetic to that but now is not the time but how much longer are progressives going to be sympathetic to obama do you know there are murmurs right now that per

social security is a large federal program.we don't anything -- if we don't do anything, the program will not be able to pay out benefits down the road. we should allow people to put more private savings opportunities so they can fund their own retirement. social security is a program where we will have an enormous disparity in the future, where we are heavily taxing young people in order to give increasing subsidies to the elderly. and that is going to be a very unfair situation, where is the burden is all fallen on young people. it is not affordable. >> our client for democrats. jesse, you are on "of the washington journal." caller: i agree with you about cutting defense spending. i am a political science and history major. it blows my mind the amount of money the country waste on our defense budget. i agree completely with you on there. there are some things i do disagree with you on, and that is the education. if anything, i think that is one of the few things we need to put more money in. especially in the economic. that w

social security. it does not take the savings and applied them to the deficit. the deficit reduction, some $4 trillion over the next 10 years is done separately. this plan calls for fundamental tax reform. lower the rates, like out some of the past expenditures that have run out of control, to help make america more competitive, to make the tax system more fair. i think those are critically important components. i believed it will generate more revenue than any forecast. when you reduce the option and the opportunity to gain the tax system -- i used to be a tax commissioner -- you will generate more revenue. i believe that. i said earlier there are things i do not like. everyone of us can find those we do not like. i think this is a critically important moment. whether or not we get 14 votes, i think this will provide a guide post for decisions that muste made. rot the sooner they are made, the better for this country. if seeing ireland, greece, and portugal, possibly spain -- if we fail to act now, o

and i would say that social security -- you know, the real debate about social security, mr. president, is not one about finances. there has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there. i hear from some of my friends on the republican side that social security is going bankrupt, it's not going to be there for our kids, and that is absolutely not true. social security today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. social security can pay out every benefit owe owed to every eligible american, if we don't start diverting funds for the next 29 years, at which point it pays out about 79% of benefits. so our challenge in 29 years is to fill that 22% gap. that's it. can we do it? sure, we can. president obama, when he was campaigning -- and i think has repeated since -- a very good suggestion that instead of having a cap in terms of which people contribute into the fund at $106,000, what we should do is do a bubble, go up to $250,000, and people -- $people who make $250,000 or more should contribute into the social security trust fund. if you did that and nothing else, you have es

they are already talking about screen social security out. -- is growing social security up. cutting spending. clean some of this crop up. please. guest: she is right. you need to cut everywhere. and certainly, there has got to be a lot of targeting across the board. the commission report really did look at everything. they looked at entitlements. they looked at spending and i taxes. things like the ethanol excise tax credit, they did not target it. they may have started it in a specifically, but generically, -- targeted at it this was of a good, but generically, we need to be looking at these provisions and the tax code, sort of like what we did in 1986 with the last tax reform. when we need to look at how to make social security more sustainable and how to get discretionary spending under control. those are all things that congress is going to have to -- congress is going to have to walk and chew gum at the same time. the only way to do it as to tackle them all at the same time. host: pat on the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. the comment that i have is

but the open sesame, the golden key is the social security number. >> the social security number is theof choice if you want to unlock someone's files and it's the first tool of choice for an identity theevment ate loves the thief to get credit in the name of the innocent victim. >> there are ways for a reasonableibly -- reasonabley clever money maker, that is, someone who wants to make money it's called phishing. that's sends out e-mails, is that correct? >> we're educating consumers. more consumers are learning not to respond to an e-mail saying reenter your password. >> or a bank account perhaps. >> i want to go to the social security number. we believe that an s.s.n. is a sensitive item of information and we believe it should be controlled under a security program. the idea that the social security number is somehow out on the internet without control, available to the general public so that you and i can look at each other's social security numbers that's not where we want to be. >> or used as a student identifier at a university, bad idea, video stores, bad idea. we need to rollba

but on social security, the proposals are relatively straight forward. for example, bowles and simpson put forward a combination of additional revenue in the form of, for example, raising the cap on where the payroll tax applies and then also indexing benefits or indexing the retirement age to life expectancy. there is a variety of changes that are possible here, and a combination of revenue and benefit changes is the most plausible scenario in terms of addressing the deficit in social security. >> and what is possible in terms of addressing the high cost of health care? >> well, there i think what we're going to need is an evolutionary approach where there are all these promising ideas -- the accountable care organizations and bundles and pay for performance. but we need to try them and then have a mechanism for moving the scale immediately when something proves to be promising or proves to be effective. the new legislation actually does create some mechanisms to do that through the innovation center and through the independent payment advisory board in

it doubles the problem social security has.f being depleted in 2040 and playing 75% of benefits, social security will be depleted in 2023 and only be able to pay 50% of benefits. that's one felt stroke in this bill. brilliant on the part of the republicans. just abyss male stupid on the part of white house advisers. >> republicans were the ones who got elected, came back into the majority, because they were screaming about the deficit. now they're adding $1 trillion to it at least. have they been confronted with this reality that they for the sake of the tax cut for the rich are adding human sums to the deficit? what did they say when you pushed them on that issue? >> i spoke just after the conservative and honest republican from arizona, he raised that exact point. he would get to balance in a different way, but he raised the cost of this package, as did pence, a senior republican leader, so i think -- i had a conversation after with a couple republicans who said there's growing concern in our caucus over this deal. because th

similarly, social security advocates will say it needs to be reinvested in social security. grover would say it has to be reinvested in bringing down the tax rate. everyone takes off the table the biggest things where you could actually have an impact on fiscal policy. >> let me just say -- the only one i took off the table was investment in investment in children. >> the one thing you learn is there is somebody who loves it all. all of it has flaws. you sit through these reviews. there is someone who loves every piece of the budget, every piece of the tax code has a flaw. every piece of the regulatory system has a flaw. the third point, and this is more admonishment to a fellow democrat, when you reject the markets as a tool for allocating resources, understand what you're doing is appointing washington, our little budget office, the congress, and our regulators, to then do that allocation. when i sit and think about having a national health budget, for example, and we are going to determine whether or not we have enough doctors in sioux falls, south dakota, based on somebo

it's the same arguments, ed, i heard about social security and medicare. >> you don't purchase social security. >> it's exactly the same. by the way, this same judge said, you know what, we're going it be arguing this case until 2014 anyway. he's going to make enough money on this either way. so will he benefit from this? without question. i don't doubt that. frankly, if i have a judge who i think is bias, he should remove himself under these circumstances. it's what i would expect when i walk into court today and when i walk into court tomorrow. >> what's the obama administration going to do? is the obama administration going to say, look, let's send this -- we can appeal this, they can appeal this, you're right, for the next two years or they can settle it once and for all and send it to the supreme court. >> well, they'll probably send it to the supreme court. it's not a big key element of the health care bill, in my opinion, because the insurance companies -- >> it's actually a huge part of the health care bill. >> no, it's not. >> it is, ed. you know what, you're lying to your vi

anybody who gets social security or ever hopes to get social security should be very concerned that theepublicans are finally getting a foothold into it like this. >> ifill: why shouldn't liberals be upset that the president is giving away too much of the store? >> look, i come from a centrist organization. i don't love the plan either. i mean, i think it's, you know, the tax cuts for those over $250,000 i think it's dubious economic value. at a time we can't really afford it. it will have to be paid back by future generations. >> ifill: do you hr a "but" coming? >> to chinese holders of our debt. yeah. look, there's a new reality out there that i don't love but it's the reality. that is, you know, they're going to have to find bipartisan compromises to these things. i don't know if this was the best plan the president could get or the best plan that democrats could get but this is, you know, after the election there's a whole new ballgame going on right now. and as much as we don't love this plan, my guess is the american people are probably going to like it. they want to see the two p

the road what your position is on social security? can you tell me that you believe that every american should have health care? and oh by the way since the surge was a year ago what's the centrist position on afghanistan? we're living in political times that call for absolutes. and it's up to liberals to stand tall on principle that this is how we're going to turn this country around and change this country. for the record, i'm in the 30% crowd tonight if you want to believe the polls. i think this is going to be a devastating mistake and i want to be wrong. i mean i really want to be wrong. i want to come back a year from now when there's another million jobs that have been created and the economy's turning around and the treasury's starting to get a little bit more solvent, even by a dime. but i don't believe it. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's text survey question is, do you think the republicans will ever compromise with president obama? text "a" for yes, text "b" for no to 622639. we'll bring y

i would be opposed to cutting social security. if we did cut it, we would say, we should not be taxing people and using it to fund the pentagon. i don't think that is very honest. the last point, again, i was not saying that in jest when talking about europe. it is not my ideal way of forming a health care system. if you have vouchers, it would produce savings. i see no harm in it. sarah palin as saying everyone's grandmother is dying because they don't have health care. people have the option to go to canada, to england, to these places, and put money in their pocket. i think it would give us better perspective about the world. i do not know how many hospitals there are on the canadian side taking in americans coming across the border. >> i direct the economic policy department. the question is for you. there is a handy chart on all of our chairs. it represents a kind of work that has been done over the last 12 to 18 months. they came up with ideas on how to tackle a national problem. to every -- everyone of them has taxes on the

general fund borrows money from social security. social secity gets money from the general fund, general fund gives money to social security, where does it end? are we not setting ourselves up for an attack on social security where it cnot pay for itself, and then people are put into an argument to undermine social security? this worries me. not that i agree with the deal, but i am satisfied that the people who came up with the deal working at it. it is something i am concerned about. host: this viewer tweets -- would you have supported the compromise of taxation or $1 million? guest: i would have looked carefully at it. the me tell you this, susan. republicans say they want all the 2001, 2003 tax cuts extended permanently. democrats -- first of all, we agree that everyonwould get a tax extension up to $250,000. i thought that we would come somewhere in the middle so we could negotiate on the number of years of the extension, negotiate on the amount. what ended up happening is, a lot of other stuff got into the mix, including the est

say they are funding the social security trust fund, you hear that the social security trust fund iskrupt. if that was part of that bill, that is a good question also. guest: ok, my background -- i worked at congressional quarterly for about one year before i started working at the hell covering house republicans. prior to that, i was an off-air reporter -- producer for fox news channel one floor below. based on capitol hill, i cover the house and the senate and i went to university of california-berkeley and i am a history major. in terms of the social security trust fund -- that is the argument that many republicans, the conservative republicans were making. there is not necessarily a trust fund. you have someone like michelle bachmann who is the darling of the tea party who voted against this bill saying that the provision regarding the tax credit -- the payroll tax credit would be detrimental because she believes that president obama will have to act for a tax increase to make up for the money that they lose by lowering the rates for the payroll tax. that is kind of over my head