in the chart you see social security? -- do you see social security? host: it is going down, correct? guest: it is going down, but it is still high. in the next 10 years where it is social security contributing anything to these massive deficits? not a cent. it will continue to contribute to the surpluses, because people will continue to pay into salsa security. that is where some of the subject when someone says you have to cut social security benefits for seniors to you can cover the deficits. take good you think the 106,000 income cap should be lifted on so-so security? guest: those are the kinds of things we could have a conversation about to help social security in the long term. if you're going to raise the cap on income so that bill gates pay's not just taxes on his first 100,000 in income, but more of it the way most americans do. 94 percent of americans earned 106,000. 6% of americans to make more than $106,000 did not get all of their income tax. could we do something like that? absolutely. that could be part of the solution to help shore of

social security. use it as the excuse. the gang of six have the best i have no idea what is public about the gang of six or not. is it all public? so you know -- is now. [laughter] i have been told -- [laughter] ] and that is true. is the fact that i have been told that in the gang of six plan, what they consider cpi change, they talk about phase- in and protection for the poor. so those kinds of things, production for the poor, phase- in funds going directly to the social security trust fund, not sitting in the general fund, some things like that. but again, we're discussing things that may or may not happen. let's see what happens on sunday and deal with what emerges there. there is concern in my caucus about what would happen with the cpi, so i think that it is a benefit cut. others do not. but, again, this falls into both categories -- into the category of hypothetical at the present time. one reason i cannot say any more is at the nano anymore. we have not seen it. the 30 run devil is in the dirt

i am 77 and i have received the social security. last two yea, we've not got to raise, and now wmay be won't get a check next month. i received an e-mail and social curity in 2003 for the 2004 election. it told me to pass it on. i did not do it because i did not know whether it was true or false. now i am asking the question, is it true or fal? perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. our senators and congressmen and women do not pay into social security and of course they do not collect from it. social security was not suitable for persons of their evaluation. they felt they should have a special plan for themselves. many years ago, they voted into their own senator plan. in more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. for all practical purposes, the plan works like this -- when they retire, they continue to draw the same day until they die, except it may increase from time to time for the cost-of- living adjustment. host: any specific question for our guest? caller: byrd, white -- 7,8

it's wrong to go after medicare and social security. social security is not the problem. social security actually is the cash cow for the budget. it's running a surplus and will for the next decade and beyond that. no way should we ever touch social security. and medicare, no. not in this process. we're being held hostage. there's a simple way of doing that. put a clean, clean, lift the debt limit and let's get on with dealing with the problems of america. >> the republicans say you can have some revenue. that's going to bring as i see it you and the rest of the democrats to a cross roads. you're going to have to make a decision. if there are tack cuts or -- excuse me, if there are tax increases on the table for the wealthy, will you still say no cuts to social security? >> i thought i just said no and hell no. i mean it. we have no right at this time or anytime in the future to harm those who are in social security. period, no. >> why can't the president say that? why does he have such an insatiable appetite to do a deal with the republicans? >> i don't know. i don't get

he believes medicare and social security are just basic compacts.acred compacts that we have in our country to make sure that all of us wheb we are in retirement, can have a retirement that is dignified and healthy like people who who have worked hard their whole life deserve. soar when we look at for example, social security, the president doesn't look at that as short or medium term deficit issue. if we are doing anything on social security if that happens, it is for one reason and one reason only. because he thinks it is one of the truly aesh r treasured programs we have in our country. it has been that way for generations and any changes he would make would not be to dismantle or hurt the program but to strengthen it and make sure it is that rock solid benefit and help generations to come. >> all of this about the president would change or cut social security or medicare. you're saying the president's commitment to these programs is fifrm and any discussion would be around strengthening those programs and strengthening what they do for seniors a

to social security? >> you're quite right. it is the end, above that amount plus other forms of compensation that are not part of the social security base. >> ok, thank you. i yelled back. >> -- i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the last 24 hours, we have begun to hear about the concept of cpi instead of the traditional method. could each of the panelists talked a little bit about that concept? maybe describe to the public that is watching this hearing, described to them this concept. why it might be an important part of the solution to this problem. >> there is been debate about the cpi. what is the appropriate cpi? there is concern about what is in the market basket to value what is happening to the price of the goods we consume. the argument basically between the chain cpi and the current cpi, in the current, many people did not believe that we consider when the price of goods -- let's pick out a car. if the price of a mercedes goes up, maybe you do not buy the mercedes. you bite and -- you

you have to do it in strengthening social security, not paying for deficit that the social security and fish years had anything to do with. that is the difficulty that democrats had with what republicans are proposing. they want to put social security and medicare on the table. you heard mcconnell say we need to put both programs on the table to deal with the deficit and debt today. democrats are saying wait a second. whoa! every day an american works when he or she pays a fica tax out of the paycheck, it's going to social security and medicare. why when it's patted for system should it pay for deficit caused by the bush tax cut to wealthy, unpaid for wars in iraq and afghanistan? that is the big rub. >> bret: you are against any changed consumer price index, changed c.p.i., consumer price index change, which is essentially adjusting benefits for what the bureau of labor statistics says is overstated inflation? you're against that? >> are you parents still alive? grandparents still alive? >> bret: sure. >> do they have the same healthcare cost that you do? they don't. senior have higher

social security has not contributed to this problem. it has helped the bottom line look a little better because the surplus has masked true size of the deficit. host: who is talking about so security? guest: you mentioned simpson boels. these meetings at the white house, i am not there. we do get intelligence every once in awhile, and there is a plan that we have heard that will change the way the cola is computed. if you talk to anyone who is about to get a social security check, they know what i call it is. remember the cola wars? i think we're getting into another time of coal wars, because the plan is that we have heard under consideration is to change the way cola is computed. it is called change cpi. it is based on the consumer price index that measures inflation one year to the next. it is already flawed because it is measuring inflation as it impacts the wage earner, not a retiree who has different needs and buys different goods and services. it is already flawed. now there is a plan under consideration that would use a different

when the president is talking about medicare and social security, it's about making medicare and social security strong, survivable and sustainable. and when president reagan and speaker o'neal, democrat and republican, joined hands on social security, it was about making it stronger. it wasn't about raiding social security to cover tax cuts for the rich. so that's the real question. there is enormous anxiety. >> why are we even talking about this when you've got 80% of the american people who don't want to go down this road? >> there are two interpretations. number one, we shouldn't be doing it, because medicare should be discussed on its own terms. we have to bring down the cost of health care and that's important not only for medicare but it's important for the rest of the health care economy. but it's not about using medicare as a way to maintain tax cuts for the top 2% of americans. social security is the absolute bedrock of middle class security, and we cannot be using that as a piggy bank to pay for taxing the wealthy. >> will the president have support if he comes out with a pla

the social security statement reminds workers how much they have paid into social security benefits and gives an estimate of what those benefits might be. dr. goldberg, could social security choose not to provide a statement to workers, or is it required by law? >> the law says that the social security administration must provide a social security statement to individuals age 25 and over. how that statement is provided and whether it is mail or on- line is something the social security is considering right now. >> you do not think that they violated the law when they did not send one in the mail? >> we do not have an opinion. if we prefer to let courts make those decisions. we do think it is very important that people get this statement. when the decision was made in the spring not to mail the stedman anymore, to cancel the contract -- not to mail the statement any more, to cancel the contract, it was made for budgetary reasons. but there could be a full calendar year in which statement are not going out. >> what does the law require? and did they do it online? >> we have not seen what

have social security as a base. you have a private pension and an individual saving. so that you could have that trifurcated set of devices to help you at a time when you're in come from your work life would cease. we have a social security system that works. we should be much more concerned about the viability of the private pension funds. we need to do more oversight to make sure that private pension funds are as stable as we want them to be. host: the tweet. guest: we are going to have an election in 2012. i think that the presidential support among democrats are at an all-time high. i think that his support among independents is part of what is helping initiate these discussions geofacts -- go forward. i think it is a lot less important rather than winning the economic war against -- what is the wrong word -- economic competition among our major competitors. it is much more important of question than two or which party. it is a small fry discussion when the real issues our world leadership in play. we need ameri

i have seen the polling. 90% of the people are social security -- social conservatives.ove them into the political activism was their concern that they play by the rules, have paid their taxes, have worked hard, and they see the government for closing their financial future and the financial future of their children and grandchildren. they want it stopped. i think the two-party is sort of the del-tea party is the spear point of a larger movement. there's a real debate going on. some are listening to obama in 2008 when he said, i want to remake america. he is in the process of doing so. he is tried to take over one seventh of the economy to obamacare. he has taken over two of the three big automakers. now he has increased the percentage the government spends of gross domestic product from 20.6% to 20.5%, a huge increase. it is one of the things driving the debt crisis. there's a reaction to that from americans and many are called tea partiers. they do not want to remake america, but restore america. they think america took a wrong turn in the late 1960's. we began to emph

defending social security, and this is a quote from their recent document. when president obama and others are talking about cutting social skaourbgts one of the approaches they are -- social security, one of the approaches they are talking about is changing how they do colas. the congressional budget office estimates -- this theths from that document by social security works. the c.b.o. estimates documents from the so-called change c.p.i., which is what i believe the president would be talking about, used to cut benefits by $112 billion over ten years. the social security administration chief actuary estimates the effects of this change would be that beneficiaries who retire at age 65 and receive average benefits would get $560 less a year at age 75. let me repeat that. $560 less a year at age 75. now that may not seem like a lot of money to some folks around here, but when you're trying to get by at the age of 75, when you've got all kinds of medical bills and you've got all kinds of prescription drug costs and you're trying to eat and maybe you're getting

if we lose our social security checks, what will the american people who is on social security and ssi have to do? move in with our loved ones because we have no money for our rent, food, etc., or are we going to be put out on the streets? what will we have to do? the social security has not seen a cost-of-living raise in two or three years. cost of living has went up so high, and these democrats and republicans as well are playing ball. we are not children anymore. we cannot play games. we need to come to the bottom of this before the august 2nd deadline so that we as american people will know whether we are going to be funded with our money, which we are entitled to. we worked all of our lives. repay all of this money in and we are not going to receive our money back? that is unfair. host: let's go to rich in florida on the republican line. caller: my comments regarding the senate's failure to pass any sort of a budget for three years. why is now holding harry reid c to the fire on this? isn't there a federal -- feet to the fire on this? isn't there a federal law that requires him to

and you're cutting social security. you cut medicare. you're cutting medicaid. >> i understand your concern but all can i tell is you that that's just not accurate. we put a proposal out of the house, cut cap and balance that we sent to the senate and ask for us to have this debate open and honestly with the american people. we have $14.4 trillion deficit problem. it's time to get serious about it and make sure that this america is here for generations to come. >> that's good talking but let's get to my question. you are saying that the $111 billion of spending cuts is not in the bill? >> well, what i say reverend sharpton is that everyone agrees ppt gang of six, the president himself said in order to get this national debt crisis under control, we have to cut spending. spending is out of control. the pro knoposal -- >> the bills say we want to cut a specific $111 billion. we have a specific bill with a specific number. i'm asking you about the number and where you have the cuts in that bill. >> oh, absolutely we have cuts. we have cuts

social security, medicare, taxes? chris val hollen joins me live. >>> but first, look ahead at the president's schedule. we'll hear from him on jobs this morning. then he does a bunch of those regional tv interviews. later in the day. you're watching "the daily rundown" on msnbc. >>> we do not support cuts in benefits on social security and medica medicare. any discussion of medicare or social security should be on its own table. we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of america's seniors, women and people with disabilities. >> well, nancy pelosi sounding the alarm on possible cuts to entitlements. this morning she'll get to raise her concerns and those of other house democrats when she meets one-on-one with the president. with me now, maryland democratic congressman chris van hollen, ranking member on the budget committee, very close to the leadership. congressman, let me start with what you understand that is, quote, on the table in the $4 trillion grand bargain here. what part of social security is on

this debate over social security is a bit confusing progressive speak of the fact that social security is solvent for decades running to a surplus and has nothing to do with the deficit why is it on the table i understand the surplus or deficit does not affect the budget deficit or the national debt there must be some reason this is on the table and we borrow against the social security trust fund and by making cuts that will somehow improve the debt situation dems and cons of the talking points on social security it must be something more of this i'm not getting from resit talk let me try to set the record straight here on social security social security is in fact solvent it will be for at least another twenty five years it's got two point seven trillion dollars in its savings account that savings account was invested instead of buying for example stock in the stock market what the truth of it which would be pretty irrational particularly given the last crash we had you don't want to be gambling with your social security money and instead of just putting it in a checking account citi

now that social security has started to pay out more than it takes in, social security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. this will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years. you know how you pay your social security taxes out of your paycheck? right. you're paying for it. it is not a handout. this is not welfare. the program is not broke, and it is not broken. it did not cause the deficits, and you ought not to raid it for the purpose of fixing the deficit. likewise, medicare gets a bad rap for being too expensive, right? it's true that medicare spending is going up. yellow bar on the left shows medicare spending per patient is up over the past decade by 4.6%. compare it to what's happening in the private sector. costs growing nearly twice as fast. medicare is a bargain for this country. it's the best example we've got of holding down out of control health care spending. the private sector is a disaster compared with medicare. our out of control health care costs would be that much worse is medicare was gone. medicare and social securitys are among the most suc

one is that social security is not just a benefit to social security recipients. it's a benefit to the children of social security recipients, on whom their parents might otherwise be a burden. and it's an american value that senior citizens who have worked hard all their lives, who have played by the rules, who have built the america that we now enjoy should be able to not lose their dignity at the end of their life. that is a principle that is worth defending. ronald from cumberland, rhode island, has been on social security for a number of years. he wrote me to say, "it seems that it's always the people who need the help the most who get cut from the federal government. why is this? no social security cost-of-living adjustment for two years, yet prices for the basic needs still rise. in a country like the united states of america, this should not happen." these people, mr. president, who are living on social security income are not living high off the hog, and they should not be the targets of our cost-cutting zeal. the threat to the medicare program is just as

taxes this is what's referred to as the social security app on fix social security forever just do away with the cap and then the millionaires and billionaires are paying the same rate as everybody and when the end when they pay the same percentage as you do it'll start to work through easy except that if you even mention it to a republican like eric cantor paul ryan or mitch mcconnell they'll walk out of the room got to protect those billionaires so let's stop all the stupidity and the demagoguery and and stop scaring average working people and make these relatively small changes like letting walt disney c.e.o. pay his fair share of the social security taxes that will solve arms i don't program shortfalls pass it on. as the big picture for tonight for more information on the stories we covered visit our website at thom hartmann dot com free speech dot org dot com also check out our two youtube channel for a link to our dot com the sarah show is also available as a free video podcast on i tunes and we have a free thom hartmann i phone and i pad app in the app store you can service feedb

social security, medicare, and medicaid.aid it's important to remember goes to help the health care needs of the poorest americans. it helps people stay in nursing homes. it helps people who are most vulnerable adults who have no health care, sometimes children's programs. it is a vitally important program for the poorest americans. and without it, they have nothing. nothing at all. and so i -- are these the people who senator hatch thinks need to buck up and do more? are these the people he thinks are not doing their fair share? >> finally, since it's going to come down to a squeaker, i think, in the house, if and when there's a deal that's struck, it seems if you do the math, the progressive caucus is going to have genuine leverage here. and the reason is that they are going to need democratic votes to get this passed. will you pledge that you and your colleagues will not vote for a package that includes cuts to medicare, social security, and/or medicaid? >> yes. full stop. >> great. excellent. well, we got that on record.

now to your question about social security.you don't have to touch social security to do what i just said. and even if you touch social security, that's not going to help in this next decade to get the deficit reduction that we need. >> schieffer: quickly, senator, what's your response? >> that's a great position. i would support that. but that's not what the democratic senate budget that has been revealed partially to us does. it increases taxes by reducing these loopholes and increases other taxes and actually spends the money rather than using it to reduce rates. that's not acceptable. what's happened is this government has surged spending. the numbers of 24% increase in spending do not include the stimulus package which was almost a trillion dollars. they want to now demand that the american people pay more money to fund these increasingly high rates of spending. that's the big difference. the american people expect us to bring this spending down to reasonable levels before they're asked to pay more taxes. >> jeffrey.... >>

it doesn't cut social security. and it doesn't protect tax breaks for special interests corporations. now, look, what we are seeing here is people who are holding the american economy hostage. you have to stop playing kamikaze pilot with the future of the american people. in order to extract 100% of demands for budgets your way. compromise is necessary. and that is what senator reid put forward. a compromise proposal. let's show we can govern together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself five seconds to again say to my colleagues the measure we voted on last night stemmed from a bipartisan compromise put together in this very capital one week ago today. with that, madam speaker, i'm happy to yield 30 seconds--actually one minute to my good friend from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let's cut to the numbers and what this bill

, paying into social security.the flow of the -- the mismatch of inflows into social security versus the outflows is going to get worse, not better. sometime in a couple decades down the road, we're going to start running out of money to pay 100% of social security benefits. we won't allow it to stop altogether but we'll have to give them a pretty serious haircut. i was a freshman congress mn sworn in on january 3, 20 -- 198 p 3. the day i was sworn in, the other end of the capitol, they told my freshman class, we're going to run out of money in social security. that's what they said. we said, when? like a couple of decades or when? and they sid, no, this year. this year. and we said, are we going to, like, provide a haircut, reduce social security payments? they said, nuh-uh, we're going to stop making them. because we're running out of money in the social security trust fund. that's where we were on january 3, 1983. thanks to the work of a commission, led by alan greenspan and others, but the good work they did t

so social security is not the problem, but we do need to strengthen and make social security sustainablee long term, but we need to consider social security on its own merits without adversely those getting benefits. the fact is everything needs to be on the table but not every facet of everything should be on the table. we don't think -- i agree with leader pelosi, we don't certainly want to look at reducing health care costs for people or reducing social security benefits because we want to give large tax cuts to the wealthiest in america. that's not, i think, a policy that the american public thinks is either smart, or frankly, moral. >> it's going to be a tough couple days. thank you so much. u.s. congressman steny hoyer, house democratic leader. >> thank you, chris. >>> joining me now, democratic senator mark warner of virginia. on the banking, budget and commerce committees. senator warner, i was wondering in the course of the -- as we get closer and closer to the deadline on the action of the debt ceiling legislation, why are we not hearing from big business? why are we not hearin

"okay, here is social security. i've told you medicare will be on the table. are you willing to put revenue increases on the table?" >> the white house believes a $4 trillion agreement is within reach. whether it can be reached will become much clearer this weekend. darren gersh, "nightly business report," washington. california is making progress on its rating. standard and poors today raised its outlook for the golden state from negative to stable. the reason, california was able to pass its budget on time, closing what was once a $27 billion gap. here are the stories in tonight's "n.b.r. newswheel." two encouraging reports about the job market-- payroll processing firm adp says, by its count, american businesses added 157,000 jobs in june. economists were expecting many fewer. that's encouraging for an upside surprise when the labor department reports june job numbers tomorrow. also, fewer people filed for unemployment benefits last week- - new claims fell by 14,000 to 418,000. that positive jobs news pushed stocks higher. the dow rose 93 points, the nasdaq

into that equation when has it become a problem social security social security is the federal government's cash cow social security is running a surplus we're using social security to finance the federal government have been for a long time and will continue to do so for at least a decade and probably fifteen to sixteen years out before social security has to be changed now probably five or ten years out we ought to begin that process of change so what can we do take a look at the fact that social security taxes a very very regressive tax. the first dollar you earn in america you pay six percent six and a half percent and you also add on to that the medicare which is now their percent half so it's almost eight percent of the very first dollar you use but after you get past one hundred seven thousand dollars you don't pay anything all right you want to deal with social security index that tax so that when you go to one hundred fifty two hundred three hundred thousand dollars you continue to pay his seven or eight percent so if i sell you a little sister isn't it going at the benefit is so e

let me get back to social security. social security is funded by the payroll tax.t has a $2.6 trillion surplus. it can play out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 25 years, why in god's name in the middle of a recession would you cut back on social security? this is what the right-wing republicans have wanted for decades. and it saddens me very much that the president is going back on his promise to the american people and is apparently succeeding to the republican request 37. >> do you almost feel betrayed by this president? >> welsh it's not just me. when somebody runs for office and says i am not going to cut social security, and then 2 1/2 years later says oh, i am going to cut social security. it's not just me. i think there are millions of people who think the president said one thing and did another thing. massive disappointment in this country. >> what are you going to do about it. there could be a default. interest rates could go up, unemployment would go up, the value of the dollar would go down. that would be an across the board b

it doesn't cut social security. and it doesn't protect tax breaks for special interests corporations. now, look, what we ar seeing here is people who are holding the american economy hostage. you have to stop playing kamika pilot with the future of the american people. in order to extract 100% of demands for budgets your way. compromise is necessary. andthat is what senator reid put forrd. a compromise proposal. let's show we can govern together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself five seconds to again say to my colleagues the measure we voted on last night stemmed from a bipartisan compromise put togethern this very capital one week ago today. with that, madam speaker, i'm happy to yield 30 seconds--actually one minute to my good friend from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. joan: i thank the gentleman for yielng. let's cut to the numbers and what this bill does. we go

social security cuts that shouldn't be on the table because social security has nothing to do with the federal budget.y hth so, in the short run we have a r jobs crisis. sure, we have a budget deficit, but right now we have a -- got to attend to that. >> no doubt we have a jobs crisis.t if you create more jobs you create more revenue. it is the same. i can't believe that they cannot come to a deal about benefits for three-year-old. girls who are three-year-olds now, there has to be some sort of happy medium where we get our fiscal house in order and women have to get their fiscal house in order.hae in order. it's across the board.ing as americans we have to be more responsible, have to be more realistic. yea i am okay with making a deal now for something that is going to happen 30 years.o up to 67, tell me now, don't -- they keep pushing the ballown the court and need to make ane t decision because we have to live within our means. o >> part of that deal that you're willing to make, i think most of us are willing to makthe deal,nt but part of that have has to involve ending tax cuts to

in the chart you see social security? -- do you see social security? host: it is going down, correct? guest: it is going down, but it is still high. in the next 10 years where it is social security contributing anything to these massive deficits? not a cent. it will continue to contribute to the surpluses, because people will continue to pay into salsa security. that is where some of the subject when someone says you have to cut social security benefits for seniors to you can cover the deficits. take good you think the 106,000 income cap should be lifted on so-so security? guest: those are the kinds of things we could have a conversation about to help social security in the long term. if you're going to raise the cap on income so that bill gates pay's not just taxes on his first 100,000 in income, but more of it the way most americans do. 94 percent of americans earned 106,000. 6% of americans to make more than $106,000 did not get all of their income tax. could we do something like that? absolutely. that could be pa of the solution to help shore of so

and you could clearly put social security payments way down the list. and those lists could also show that favored treatment is given to the members of the armed forces and other elements of our national security apparatus. in the past the president and the congress have agreed to exempt social security from the debt ceiling in order to ensure that the payments go out to social security recipients. as a matter of fact, it was as recent as 1996, the treasury reported that it had insufficient cash to pay social security benefits in march of that year. and in response, the congress then passed, and it was a bipartisan congress, it was headed by a majority of the republican party, and there was a democratic president, president clinton, and they passed and was signed into law a measure that provided the treasury with temporary authority to issue securities to the public in the amount equal to the social security benefit payments due. mr. president, i ask for four additional minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the senator ma

have to caution the president that social security has been a cornerstone of social and economic justice in the united states since 1934. >> he's not listening. the president's not listening to the democrats right now on protecting the big three. he's not doing it. >> it's called having the votes to pass a plan. if they're missing social security, medicare and medicaid in with the debt ceiling issue. they're not likely to have a vote to pass the plan. there's no reason why america should go into default. there have been routine extension to the debt ceiling, 74 since 1962. 10 since 2001. there's no reason we should be looking at a fiscal version of armageddon right now. people are pushing a certain agenda. tax cuts, the deficit, we're going to add another $1.5 trillion to the deficit by getting rid of the alternative middle tax that would help those in the top brackets. we have to ask ourselves, are we united as a nation for all the people? because right now, these plans will essentially help the continuation of the acceleration of the wealth of america into the hands of the few, at the

. >> these are not just social security checks., their checks. there are about 70 million checks that go out. >> can you guarantee as president those checks will go out on august 3rd? >> i cannot guarantee that those theks go out on august 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it. >> both sides insist that they will not raise the nation's borrowing limit without a deal, without a big deal to cut the federal deficit. >> we want to know what the impact will be if the government doesn't have the money to send out benefit checks on august 3rd. our question of the day. e-mail us, give us a tweet, tell us onbook and we will read through some of them later in the show. >> howard wrote no checks for them, no checks for us. if this happens they should boot everybody out of office. >> there is a whole lot less that goes to congress than social security. >> roads buckling and intense weather has gripped much of the country continues another day. rob has the steamy details. >>> fig

what if we just get rid of social security all together, and that question now should social securityam. the founder of the memphis tea party joins me now and also roger hickey, the co-director of the campaign for america's future. mark, let me start with you. get rid of it all together? does social security and has it not over time served a lot of good in this country? >> well, t.j., it has, but let's be clear. i'm in my 50s now, and this year for the first time i think we're going to spend $29 billion more than taxes actually pay for social security. we're sitting on $2.5 trillion of ious from the treasury for social security since the monies have been used for other used in the treasury and in the budget so i think we need to over time move towards privatization and i think it's a practical matter. certainly a person of my age looking at 65 and where we are has no real likelihood of having that money be paid, and indeed the other part we deal with is this notion of continuing to raise the age limit. we have a demographic problem in this country as well. we have particularly when yo

social security is the only thing they have to live on. the tea party has ruined the republican party. they have opened a bag of worms. number two, the number one cause and reason, that alone tells me their intentions 11 times. what's wrong with obama. they have an agenda. america, wake up if you don't wake up, we are gone. thank you. host: this is first primary tweeting in. everyone wants more and will get less especially the republicans and the tea party. we are continuing the discussion now. the chair will be out here. the congressman grijalva will take your calls. coming up next is grover norquist. >> members will ask her about the service plans when it began super vicing the nation's largest banks. watch on line at c-span.org. she testified about home mortgage foreclosures. >> we have seen little oversight . watch today on capitol hill l e live. >> find a lot of answers in the original show, library of congress. we'll tour the jefferson building, we'll show treasures found in rare books and special collectio collections. and president

there are many people put in social security.omething they take out of our paychecks every time we get paid. i will be receiving social security next year, like i say because the republicans want to take it away, my concern is -- why are they doing this to us? we are the middle class. it is very disturbing. i wish i had gotten in to ask him my question. host: auburn dale, florida. caller: two things. republicans are completely against raising taxes. basically they are talking about the wealthiest 2% of america. what i am trying to figure out is -- if you do not want to raise taxes for this people -- these people and do not want them to be broke all the time, why not tax the corporations being outsourced? they are not only outsourcing manufacturing jobs, they are also outsourcing technical jobs, like tax support. that will be a part of america real soon. host: a couple of twitter messages this morning. host: las vegas, republican, your thoughts? caller: thank you for taking my call by am just completely appalled at the previous ca

it would compromise indeed medicare and social security. it forces massive cuts consistent with the ideological republican budget that was unanimously opposed by democrats. this bill does not promote certainty for our nation's economy. instead, it brings more un certainty for families facing major financial decisions, for businesses deciding whether to invest or hire, for markets unsure when the next shoe might drop. this bill is not balanced. instead, it embraces the republicans' one mantra just expressed by the chairman of our committee. no end to unjustified tax loopholes or tax breaks for the very wealthiest even as so many middle class families have been losing ground. in a few words, our nation's economy and jobs are too much to risk on a bill that is a bridge to no where between our two houses. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. herger. the chair: the gent

. >> there is no social security crisis. in the future of 10 or 12 years fromm now. then the social security money that is raised through the pay roll tax will be less than the outgo. but right now there is a surplus. the social security program actually had a surplaus and that surplus is used to help finance the federal budget . the cash flow help to finance the federal budget . now so understand social security is not today's problem . it is certainly ought not be part of the budget negotiations. we don't need to go there and medicare. medicare is crucial to seniors. before there was medicare, seniors, 40 percent of the seniors in america had no insurance and they were the most impoverished part of the american population . over the years as medicare came in. poverty among seniors has significantly dropped and so the thought of the going out and slashing medicare is going right after seniors and going to force them to pay more and this was part of the republican budget that passed our house and force seniors to pay 6,000 o