you're here for the national academy of social insurances, a panel on strengthening social security for the long run with insights from 1983. i'd like to welcome you. i'm lisa men saw. -- mensh and i also serve as the chair of the board of the national academy of social insurance so welcome. we are thrilled to have you here. on the day before our big national holiday or before almost everybody leaves for the holiday. to really talk about one of the things that we are truly grateful for, our social security. and today we have an exciting panel and a very interesting exercise which is to look back a bit in history. my job is to introduce our panel and to also tell you why we conceived of this event the way we did and then to get out of the way but let our panel start and also to come back when it's time for your questions and answers. so let me tell you a little bit about my panelists here. you are really treated today. while 1983 i was busy typing my senior thesis on an ibm selectric typewriter which none of you know what that is anymore, this team was all involved with the social securi

-- in social benefits. a pretty good record. and while all of us must be concerned about the $13.4 trillion national debt that we have and the very large federal deficit, it is imperative that we be honest about the causes of that national debt. i got a little bit tired of people saying, well, we've got to privatize social security, we have got to cut back on social security benefits, we've got to raise the retirement age, because we have a $13 trillion national debt. you know what? social security has not added one penny to the national debt. quite the contrary. you want to know why we have an national debt? we're fighting two wars which we forgot to fund. we've given hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the top 1%. no one worried about that. medicare part d unfunded. out of wall street, unfunded, social security has a $2.6 trillion surplus. hasn't added a nickel to our national debt. so if there are people who for ideological reasons, people don't like government, people who want wall street -- want work

you're here for the national academy of social the entrances panel on strengthening social security for the long run with insights from 1983. i'd like to welcome you. i am lisa mensah, the executive director of the initiative on financial security at the aspen institute, and also served as the chair of the board of the national academy of social insurance. so welcome. we are thrilled to have you here on the day before our big national holiday, before almost every believes for the holiday, to really talk about one of the things that we are truly grateful for, our social security system. and today we have an exciting panel and a very interesting exercise which is to look back a bit in history to get my job is to introduce our panel, and to also tell you why we conceived of this event the baby did, and then to get out of the way to let the other panel start and then to come back when it's time for your questions and answers. let me tell you a little bit about my panelists. you are really treated today. while 1983i was busy typing my senior thesis on an ibm selectric typewriter, which none

social security and nothing more. a 60-year-old or 40 or 50-year-old, if they want to worry about retirement, they should worry about a define pension plan from their employer because those are the things that are going by the wayside. those are disappearing. social security has never missed a check and if we do it right it will never miss a check. >> here is what peter orszag said in "the new york times" on his column. on social security in particular the reaction from the left seems off to me. if you look at the specific social security proposals in the co-chair's set of recommendations they include a change that makes the benefits formula more progressive. they include a change that makes the payroll tax more progressive. they include changes that make the index used to measure cost-of-living increases more accurate. most importantly the proposals don't include private accounts as part of social security which four or five years ago had been the single most important thing the progressives were fighting against. th

social security better but they ought to be done on social security terms, not on budgetary terms.nd i think it was the right decision at that time one, because it has stood the test of time, and just prior to the 83 amendments there have been quite a few benefit increases in fact there was 20% increase in '92 and there had been a lot of short-term increases in the payroll tax and there was no eitc in the tax code to offset the payroll tax increases. we are in a different world today. we haven't had any tax increases. there's been a 6.2% dedicated to social security for the last 30 or 40 years and it's not going to go up. we now have the eitc at least protecting workers with children and there is one other thing i want to illustrate going back to this that one thing the 83 amendments did is we basically gave a choice to all workers, if their choice of when to retire to retire at age 62 or 70. obviously retired 62 you have eight more years of benefits. then someone who retires at age 70. but except rarely fair, so in essence if you look at the 83 amendments this chart is making a di

but many countries in latin america are on board as one student activist why he thinks socialism is seeing a resurgence twenty years after the fall of the berlin wall and we're going to ask you do people need either big god or big government to stay in control i'm going to speak with the reasons michael moore to hand about whether fiscal conservatism and social conservatism have to coexist and since it's friday we're going to treat you to some laughs so we can have the scoop on all the crazy stories making headlines this week from an s.t.d. test you can take on your phone to japanese holographs becoming rock stars comedy central blogger gonzalo cordova will give us his take at the end of the show but now to move on to city's top story. all the world leaders came together in seoul south korea for the g. twenty summit most of the hard work was pushed off for another year so what did we see what we did see though was world leaders expressing their dismay to president obama on the fed's recent actions and emerging economies wielding their newfound power on the global economic stage artes and h

whether it is social security or anything else, i mean, do you think i'm wrong about that? >> i certainly think you are, because we've had a big discussion about medicare, it's not as if we haven't had a year long conversation about health care costs. now that seniors today are paying out of pocket about what they did when medicare was first initiated, about 30% of their income is going to health care, to now say that we ought to increase the co payments, the out of pocket costs that seniors pay, when we're just at the very beginning of some very important changes we've made to the -- to medicare and medicaid. as far as social security is concerned, this is a proposal that if someone making $43,000 today retires at age 65 will see a 22% reduction in their benefits. one other point. this proposal that they made does not just affect future beneficiaries, but by cutting the cost of living adjustment, we are going to affect current beneficiaries, something that was promised would not happen. >> yeah. >> people feel an ownership of social security. we made a promise to them, and

in social security? in other words, my point is there are a lot of -- as senator harkin has said, people are hurting all over the country. it is so easy for people up here, you know, who have money or take campaign contributions from millionaires and billionaires. we have to cut the programs. what happens if you are a widow trying to raise two kids, your sole income is social security? >> we need to protect those people. >> we sure do. thank you very much, mrs. mor write. >> thank you. >> thank you. we look forward to your information. >> we move to the next panel. dr. vanderhei. then we have mr. ross eisenbray, president of the economic policy institute. prior to that, mr. eisenbray worked as a staff attorney in the u.s. house of representatives, a committee council isn't the u.s. senate, and in the occupational safety and health administration. we will talk about how the system is failing workers and social security. finally, we will hear from shareen miller, a home care worker from falls church, virgi

they want to slash social security. raise their retirement age, they also want to set new limits on medicare. and they want to end several middle-class tax cuts. on its surface, it's not completely detailed what's on your first impression of what former senator erskine bowles have come forward with. >> well we know that the committee already is -- was stacked with individuals who represent various interest groups who have long wanted to privatize social security and who believe that medicare ought to be reduced. the fact of the matter is that if you reduce medicare or social security benefits, you're actually contributing to the acceleration of the wealth of the nation upwards. you cannot take any more from the middle class, they're already suffering. you can't tell people to work a lifetime and put their money into social security, that the benefit levels are not going to be there and we cannot reduce medicare services to people who depend on them. now we can cut the pentagon budget. we can put it substantially without

the social security reform that paul brian put together, the actuary of social security look back and say if we do this the social security system will be solvent. it is a great reform not just because it will make the system solvent but because it will allow people to have personal requirement accounts that they themselves alone that at the end of their working life they will buy an annuity with it will pay them the same benefit of social security that is not controlled by the government and anything that is left over they can either spend at their will or pass on to their children, actually increasing the wealth of future generations and the independent future generation rather than decreasing it so i'm all for paul ryan. >> i've been watching the hearings -- i've been watching the elena kagan hearings unfold in one amazing moment happens in an exchange between senator coburn and elena kagan where they talked about the government's power to tell you to by your fruits and vegetables and i thought her book in relation to that and thought you might have a few comments to make. >> this

tensions between different social groups. to get to us lawrence of ngo to you i think that really isn't a very important point because in the united states has it been reported recently the division in wealth is really incredible in it's growing here and when you know let's look i mean over the last two years and with this new congress coming in there is no political will on the republican side we'll see with the tea party side to get the kind of financial reforms that the current president has really been pushing for they're just going to wait him out in waiting two more years in the united states could be catastrophic what do you think about that. well i'm not so pessimistic the oh paul ryan is a very good congressman who is now the head of the house budget committee he certainly has some very good and straightforward ways of fixing things that this democratic administration hasn't considered and i don't you know but basically he's not for eliminating our what we call our welfare state i think our welfare state is pretty si

there is good socialism and bad socialism.at won't work is ill conceived, too expensive, not grounded in reality. i will join glenn beck in the opposition to that kind of socialism. bad socialism is bad. but not all socialistic notions are bad. we should not allow this country to live in fear of a word. socialism has contributed mightily to the quality of life in this country as has capitalism and both will continue to. we can continue to lie to ourselves about this the way glenn beck and bill o'reilly do, or we can look to the truth of ourselves and realize what "newsweek" realized in 2009, 16 years after i did, we are all socialists now. >>> yesterday the most recent ♪ [ male announcer ] what does it take to excel in today's business world? our professors know. because they've been there. and they work closely with business leaders to develop curriculum to meet the needs of top businesses. which means when our graduates walk in the room, they're not only prepared... they're prepared to lead. devry university's keller graduat

there is good socialism and bad socialism.ialism that won't work is ill conceived, too expensive, not grounded in reality. i will join glenn beck in the opposition to that kind of socialism. bad socialism is bad. but not all socialistic notions are bad. we should not allow this country to live in fear of a word. socialism has contributed mightily to the quality of life in this country as has capitalism and both will continue to. we can continue to lie to ourselves about this the way glenn beck and bill o'reilly do, or we can look to the truth of ourselves and realize what "newsweek" realized in 2009, 16 years after i did, we are all socialists now. naturally colorful vegetables are often a good source of vitamins, fiber, or minerals. and who brings you more natural colors than campbell's condensed soups? campbell's.® it's amazing what soup can do.™ >>> yesterday the most recent losing vice presidential candidate who will never be president tried a rare foray into monetary policy. sarah palin criticized federal reserve chairman

medicare and social security is. how much of my money is going into a total federal program that is not connected to my pay? guest: thank you for that question. right now, social security is the biggest program, but that will change rather quickly over the next few decades because health-care costs are growing so much more rapidly than social security benefits. so, in the future, medicare will be the biggest. medicaid is somewhat smaller, but growing rapidly as well. as i think you alluded to, both social security and medicare are totally federal programs. medicaid, on the other hand, is a program that is financed partly on the state level and partly on the federal level. so i don't know if that gets at your request -- gets at your question sufficiently, but you could go to the congressional web site ande's look up the exact numbers. host: you talked about the commission's for reducing the deficit. the first one was the president's commission, and the second the bipartisan policy centered. explain to us the significa

it actually national socialism. who had national socialism? hey, that's right.rnment setting the pace of the economy using private companies to be the engine. who had this system? that's right. national socialism. somebody had it. look that up. privately owned companies, just do what the state said. in china is completely different. they have privately owned companies that has to do what the state says. i know we wouldment take national socialism, because that was germany. germany had this. that is national socialism, the nazi party. if we wouldn't go for national, let's just capitalize the "s" so we don't freak anybody out, because we say it's not national socialist, it's state. everybody is freaked out by communism and it's not communism. you still get to own things. call it capitalism when it's national socialism. let's call it state capitalism. and the world will feel so much better. do you understand? this is what progressives do. they just change the words. change the meaning. national socialism. what hitler said could never be defeated. what are you heari

it's not a proposal to privatize social security in any way. it's a very gradual raising of the retirement age. so why not say, instead of being reflek tifl negative, why not say, okay, let's talk about this? if we also talk about x, y, and z? >> first of all, let's talk about $700 billion if we don't extend the -- if we do extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, the same people who seem amenable to the cuts in social security want to see us extend tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. we are concerned that for older americans, who have an average income of $18,000 a year and by the way -- >> there's a safety net in this. there is a safety net in this for the poorest on social security and in the chairman's mark. >> again, the committee staff of the social security subcommittee says that, in fact, it will increase poverty, not decrease poverty because the qualifications for getting that increased benefit -- look, of course we need to discuss this and make cuts. there are cuts that we agreen. we may come up with an agreement, not a total c

we talk about social security as helping people. what type of benefit is it when every career bureaucrats decide just what benefit you get? social security tax started at 1%. it's now over 6%. the bills get bigger and bigger and bigger. it's headed for collapse, whether it's in means testing, whether it's in higher taxes. it's not a sustainable system. >> that's absolutely false. we've seen study after study with smart changes like changing the retirement age, like means testing. >> that's the whole point, julian. >> would you let me finish the point, jonathan? >> yeah. >> we can put social security on the path to solvency very easily. >> as opposed to actually fending for yourself and having your own retirement fund. jonathan, the problem here is the politics. if democrats do this, republicans would use it as a club against them in the next election. if republicans try to support it, democrats would lea use it a club against them in the next election. >> don't you think there's some sort of political impetus right now to change som

because social security, you don't get nothing. you pay all of your life and you get nothing in return and now they are taught -- talking about reducing it? host: we will leave it there, frank. frank in beverly, new jersey. chuck in palm coast, florida. independent line. what is your proposal? caller: thank you for c-span. you know, our federal government not long ago stepped out of its constitutional role. i would like to see state's right to be reinstated. host: how would that save money? caller: the federal government has this top-down way of looking states. ate's -- they decide what the states are going to do. they pass all of these laws and try to be daddy to everyone. if the senate would just do it constitutional duty and only do what the states want -- after all, we are the united states of america and we have the 10th amendment. congress should not be doing anything unless the majority of the states feel that there is a need for a national solution. otherwise, most of the problems could be solved at the state level where it

but what's important here is the money they save on social security goes back into social security. liberals have always complained, wolf, that you save the social security money and you put it into deficit reduction, you balance the budget on the backs of the seniors. what they're saying here is we're not going to do that. whatever we save on social security goes back into the system to make it solvent. >> we'll see if this initial proposal by erskine bowles and alan simpson, if it gets off the ground, if they get a total of 14 members of their commission on board. we'll see what happens. >> it gets the conversation going, which is what's important. >> we had a little conversation here as well. gloria, thank you. >>> other important news, president obama, he's in south korea right now, meeting with other leaders of the world's biggest economies. tensions over currency values and trade expected to run high at what is called the g-20 summit. especially between the united states and china. our senior white house correspondent ed henry is joining us now from seoul. how much of this sum

the baby boom that could bust social security. should the retirement age be raised for tens of millions of americans? and april in the abbey. william and kate set the date for their royal wedding. captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news world headquarters in new york, this is the "cbs evening news" with katie couric. >> couric: good evening, everyone. the thanksgiving getaway is under way. travelers dealing with crowded roads, gas prices 24 cents higher than last year, crowded planes, the security concerns that come with every holiday these days, and now the new screening procedures at the airports. none of that is keeping an estimated 42 million americans from traveling this thanksgiving 11% more than last year. we have correspondents at two of the nation's busiest airports tonight. mark strassmann is in atlanta, but first, dean reynolds is in chicago tonight. dean, these new measures aren't really keeping people away from the airports, are they? >> reporter: no, katie, they're not. in fact, the pace is quickening here at o'har

but let's get into social security. >> are you ready to cut social security 22% for the next generation? because that's what current law says, and if you don't put forth a plan, that's what you're defending. >> what i'm saying is increase the retirement age, and are you for increasing the retirement age for everybody under the age of 55? >> i'm willing to put everything on the table including increasing the retirement age on a gradual basis for those under 55. >> i'm not talking about putting it on the table, i'm saying you are for it. >> as part of a plan to save social security for future generations, absolutely the answer is yes. i'm willing to do a whole lot of things, but are you willing to support personal accounts that ultimately uses what albert einstein called the greatest -- compound interest to help grow our way out of this problem. because ultimately you're going to be looking at benefit cuts, you're going to be look at greater taxes or you're going to have to grow our await of this. >> congressman, i have said for years, compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world,

the social security reforms are designed to make social security solvent for the next 75 years.he hard reality of social security is headed for insolvency. in just a few years, we will be spending more in social security than the revenue that is coming in. and so we have to deal with it. the same is true of medicare. it's a simple reality that those programs, so critically important to the country, have to be reformed, or they will go broke. >> now, let me ask you this. this was a kbbusiness part of ts had to do with having massive tax reform. this is coming right on the heels, you guys are about to take up this issue of what to do with the bush tax rates. i obviously -- compromise is in the air. david axelrod saying, we know the reality is we have to accept a compromise. how long do you want to extend them for now before you take up tax reform? one year, two years, three years? >> chuck, you may recall that several months ago i proposed we extend all the tax cuts for two years, because you don't raise taxes or cut spending at a time of serious economic weakness. that's bad econ

we believe in protecting social security, protecting medicare. the home interest deduction's a middle class tax cut, we support that. i don't know why you propose a commission that you knew was going to come out with stuff like this. i think someone's got to stand up for these programs and the president should do it. >> is it possible that this is the crazy plan and whatever he then comes up with look much more sane by contrast? >> i don't know. it's almost like we're giving them some air cover to do it. the more this stuff gets talked about. if you think about it, they all fall into the same category. that the middle class catches a break from. let's turn to my colleague sam stine and i were interviewing david axelrod a couple hours ago at the white house, and he said to us, he basically didn't know he was going to do this until virtually minutes before they did it, less than an hour before they did. so if this was the president's commission as congressman weiner said, the leaders of the president's commission. stls an unofficial comment at this

social security is not in crisis. one member of the group argues that none of the finances will succeed if the president isn't involved. >> our leader hasn't decided whether he wants to lead. we got to talk about that with him. very openly soon. without him being a leader, it won't work. >> he says the deficit is the greatest crisis the nation faced since world war ii and if we don't address it now, the u.s. could turn into a second-rate country. >> bret: jim, at least ten republican senators led by republican jim demint, are pledging a ban on earmarks, money for local pet projects but some are accusing rand paul, incoming senator of going back on his pledge. what is the deal? >> rand paul supports a ban on earmarks but he uses the same definition that john mccain does. earmark is something slipped in a bill in the dead of night without having gone through committee or having been voted on. smart elector paul says if you go to the committee process to repair a bridge falling down in kentucky for instance, that is not

paquette, some people think it's easy to address social security, but cutting social security benefitsor payroll taxes will be far from easy. and not for the first thing we should do about social security is just like the first thing we should do for the deficit generally. we should look at the $50 billion annual tax cap for social security payroll taxes. at least 50,000, not collection. and so by closing the tax gap, will address the current activity s. work together to reduce the deficit and improve american standards of living for years to come. [inaudible] >> you bet. >> mr. chairman, thank you to the two of you for hosting us. i would say were off to pretty good start. i hope we can continue to check our egos and our kool-aid and out the door. i honestly believe if we portray an honest picture of our nation's economic diet, americans won't be afraid to eat their vegetables. and that's where we should go. to me the principal question i want to see answered as we explore the economic condition we're in is what kind of nation do we want to be? because we can balance our budget. if we

"we're not talking about cuts in social security. if we can just cut the administrative waste, we can cut hundreds of billions of dollars a year at the federal level. cutting benefits to seniors is not on the table." now, here is the question i have. are you saying no cuts to seniors who are currently in the program? or are you ruling out cuts in social security benefits to people who are ten, or 20 years away from going on the program? >> we need to remind everyone that social security has not added a penny to our debt at this point. as a matter of fact, the country would show a lot more debt if we reported how much the government borrowed from social security, which is trillions of dollars right now. i have probably done more work on to social security reform than anyone in the senate. i have put out proposals with people like paul ryan in the house. we don't change anything on anyone who is in retirement or over 55. but we restructure the program to give younger workers more choices, allow them to take more savings on to themselve

we have no george run social security -- no short run social security problem, but we could use the deficit is to make it better. they should be done on social security terms, not budget terms. i think it was the right decision at the time. just prior to the 83 amendments, there had been quite and you increases. there was the will ober increas. there was a lot of short-term increases in the payroll tax. there was nothing in the tax code to offset the payroll tax increases. we are in a different world today. there has been a 6.2 dedicated to zoll security -- dedicated to social security for the last three or four years. we know how the eec protecting workers with children. there's one other thing i want to illustrate going back that's one thing -- that on thing the 83 amendments did is we basically given a choice to all workers to retire at 62 or 70. if you retire at 62 you will collect eight more years of benefits than someone who retires at age 70. it is actually really fair. --increasing the age lowers the benefits at all levels. if you just looked at 83 amendments, individuals got more o

socialism despite being declared dead. has seen a revival in governments in countries all over the world. really united states talked about the overthrow of the soviet union and the coming down of the berlin wall at the end of socialism it's absolutely not true a system of capitalism is in the k. at this point there are pieces of the berlin wall all over the world what came following the historic moment was this bali hood era of freedom now marked by economic collapse and list war two decades after the fall of the berlin wall some argue the u.s. empire is also when plotting its influence waning in the face of rising world powers several of them with distinct socialist leanings jan hospice r t washington d.c. . it's not only developing countries that socialist policies are getting vocal vice presidential candidate in two thousand and eight u.s. election eugene puryear explains why he feels america also needs socialism. well we believe that in a world and particularly in a country where there's so much wealth and it's primar

especially because of the severe cuts in terms of social programs. you can argue about changing the tax code radically. first of all, that's not going to happen to begin, but the cuts that the democrats will fight tooth and nail are probably what makes this impossible, one member of the commission, a democrat, already said she would have nothing to do with it, so they're not going to get the 14 votes they need. i suppose the white house would say, we've kind of shook things up, got a lot of things on the table, but as the congressman says, most of the things on the table are going to be unpalatable to the democratic party. in some of them, if you believe the president's rhetoric from the 2008 presidential campaign, are things that should be unacceptable to him. for example, he said in june of 2008 in north carolina, i will not raise the retirement age. that's barack obama candidate speaking. but today, it's not exactly clear, yet, where the white house stands on that or any of the other issues that these guys put on the table today. >> i don't know h

we're not balancing the budget on the backs of social security.s just garbage. >> and people talk about what kind of affect is this going to have. there's what you promise and what you actually can deliver. and if we stay on automatic pilot, the social security trust fund-- including all of the interest earned on it-- runs out of funds in 2037. that's a fact. and by law they can't pay out more than they take in. so there's going to be a 22% cut in social security benefits beginning in 2037 under any circumstance. and what we do is try to address that now. we raise a little bit of revenue. we raise... we have a few benefit cuts, principally on the upper-end people so that we can preserve social security and preserve its solvency for 75 years. >> rose: and then we have 125% of poverty for those at the lowest level and aÑi little boot for people over 80 and groups... big groups like the a.a.r.p. are saying to us, look, oh, this is horrible. but we have... we know that all we need to do is modest changes and we say will you please share with us what t