WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:04.200
<v Speaker 1>Social Security, the Trust Fund as they call it, is

2
00:00:04.240 --> 00:00:06.679
<v Speaker 1>going to be belly up by twenty thirty three, and

3
00:00:06.719 --> 00:00:10.679
<v Speaker 1>that could mean benefit cuts for everyone, even current retirees.

4
00:00:11.240 --> 00:00:13.919
<v Speaker 1>But is it really Because I got to tell you, guys,

5
00:00:14.039 --> 00:00:17.760
<v Speaker 1>I have heard in my lifetime over and over and

6
00:00:17.839 --> 00:00:19.879
<v Speaker 1>over again this same story.

7
00:00:19.960 --> 00:00:21.839
<v Speaker 2>So let's go to somebody.

8
00:00:21.559 --> 00:00:24.120
<v Speaker 1>Who has what has to be the most frustrating job

9
00:00:24.120 --> 00:00:26.839
<v Speaker 1>in the entire world. Mike Murphy works for the Center

10
00:00:26.920 --> 00:00:30.559
<v Speaker 1>for the Responsible Federal Budget, which obviously we don't have,

11
00:00:31.239 --> 00:00:33.640
<v Speaker 1>but he is here to talk about Social Security and

12
00:00:33.679 --> 00:00:35.159
<v Speaker 1>what that really really looks like.

13
00:00:35.240 --> 00:00:38.920
<v Speaker 2>Mike, Welcome to the show. First of all, thank.

14
00:00:38.759 --> 00:00:40.640
<v Speaker 3>You, Mandy. Great to be with you. Thanks thanks for

15
00:00:40.640 --> 00:00:41.000
<v Speaker 3>having me.

16
00:00:41.200 --> 00:00:44.399
<v Speaker 1>Is your job trying to create a responsible federal budget?

17
00:00:44.439 --> 00:00:46.679
<v Speaker 1>Is it just like walking up and just slamming your

18
00:00:46.719 --> 00:00:49.759
<v Speaker 1>head against the desk every single day watching what's happening

19
00:00:49.799 --> 00:00:50.600
<v Speaker 1>in Washington, DC?

20
00:00:52.520 --> 00:00:55.920
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, pretty much. At the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, Yes,

21
00:00:55.920 --> 00:00:59.560
<v Speaker 3>we advocate for fiscal responsibility, Amandy Goilso do it in

22
00:00:59.200 --> 00:01:02.200
<v Speaker 3>a non partisan, bipartisan way, so we're trying to work

23
00:01:02.240 --> 00:01:05.400
<v Speaker 3>with both parties, which is also tough, okay these days

24
00:01:05.400 --> 00:01:07.079
<v Speaker 3>to try to work on both sides. Of the aisle,

25
00:01:07.079 --> 00:01:09.760
<v Speaker 3>but sorely needed, and that, yeah, it is. It was

26
00:01:09.840 --> 00:01:11.560
<v Speaker 3>a little bit of pushing a boulder up the hill,

27
00:01:11.560 --> 00:01:12.239
<v Speaker 3>to say the least.

28
00:01:12.359 --> 00:01:18.079
<v Speaker 1>I would say that I have been so incredibly disappointed

29
00:01:19.079 --> 00:01:22.680
<v Speaker 1>by the lack of seriousness demonstrated in Washington, DC when

30
00:01:22.719 --> 00:01:24.719
<v Speaker 1>it comes to spending on either side of the aisle.

31
00:01:24.760 --> 00:01:28.920
<v Speaker 1>With the exception of Thomas Massey, who is as principled

32
00:01:28.920 --> 00:01:31.319
<v Speaker 1>about spending as any human being is ever going to get,

33
00:01:31.640 --> 00:01:34.159
<v Speaker 1>there doesn't seem to be any measure of seriousness in

34
00:01:34.239 --> 00:01:38.439
<v Speaker 1>DC about cutting spending because they simply refuse to acknowledge

35
00:01:38.480 --> 00:01:40.439
<v Speaker 1>the impact that it has on the overall economy in

36
00:01:40.480 --> 00:01:43.640
<v Speaker 1>my view. But now we've got social security. This is

37
00:01:43.640 --> 00:01:46.159
<v Speaker 1>a sacred cow. This is the third rail of politics.

38
00:01:46.400 --> 00:01:49.599
<v Speaker 1>And once again we're being told that in twenty thirty

39
00:01:49.640 --> 00:01:52.480
<v Speaker 1>three the trust fund will be insolvent, which means that

40
00:01:52.560 --> 00:01:55.000
<v Speaker 1>they will only be able to pay seventy seven percent

41
00:01:55.040 --> 00:01:56.879
<v Speaker 1>of benefits.

42
00:01:56.040 --> 00:01:57.400
<v Speaker 2>For all retirees.

43
00:01:57.439 --> 00:02:00.200
<v Speaker 1>And I say that because a lot of times before

44
00:02:00.200 --> 00:02:02.239
<v Speaker 1>we been told, well, these cuts will be in the future,

45
00:02:02.480 --> 00:02:05.879
<v Speaker 1>this will. But now the future is now according to this,

46
00:02:06.079 --> 00:02:08.000
<v Speaker 1>what's the reality of this, Mike.

47
00:02:09.639 --> 00:02:11.639
<v Speaker 3>The future is now just to put one point on

48
00:02:11.719 --> 00:02:16.000
<v Speaker 3>that too. It's it's clear to me that next year

49
00:02:16.199 --> 00:02:19.360
<v Speaker 3>at the election box is arguably the first time, but

50
00:02:19.439 --> 00:02:20.800
<v Speaker 3>people are going to be voting for people on the

51
00:02:20.879 --> 00:02:24.240
<v Speaker 3>federal ballot that will be in office when this insolvency

52
00:02:24.319 --> 00:02:25.719
<v Speaker 3>date is right up against it. Because if you think

53
00:02:25.759 --> 00:02:29.000
<v Speaker 3>a six year Senate terms, so this this windows here

54
00:02:29.039 --> 00:02:30.479
<v Speaker 3>now because you're right, man, he because it has been

55
00:02:30.520 --> 00:02:32.680
<v Speaker 3>talked about for a while, it's always been in the

56
00:02:32.719 --> 00:02:36.080
<v Speaker 3>early twenty thirties, but it's common now and then we

57
00:02:36.439 --> 00:02:38.639
<v Speaker 3>need to get on it. So so the issue here

58
00:02:38.719 --> 00:02:41.680
<v Speaker 3>is social Security. You know, stepping back, it's a vitally

59
00:02:41.680 --> 00:02:44.840
<v Speaker 3>important federal program. I just seventy million people about on

60
00:02:44.879 --> 00:02:46.639
<v Speaker 3>Social Security. There's going to be more by the time,

61
00:02:47.080 --> 00:02:50.159
<v Speaker 3>you know, twenty thirty three rolls around. Over forty percent

62
00:02:50.199 --> 00:02:52.560
<v Speaker 3>of people rely on for a majority of their income.

63
00:02:52.840 --> 00:02:55.680
<v Speaker 3>So it's not it is the third rail of American politics.

64
00:02:55.719 --> 00:02:58.000
<v Speaker 3>But it also is a vitally important program. And then

65
00:02:58.199 --> 00:03:02.599
<v Speaker 3>when we reach that point, by law, they are required

66
00:03:02.879 --> 00:03:05.919
<v Speaker 3>when it goes insolved, to match what the schedule benefits are,

67
00:03:05.960 --> 00:03:07.479
<v Speaker 3>what the revenues that are coming in. And you said

68
00:03:07.479 --> 00:03:10.039
<v Speaker 3>it already. When that happens, it would have to be

69
00:03:10.080 --> 00:03:12.439
<v Speaker 3>in a twenty three percent across the board cut that

70
00:03:12.639 --> 00:03:16.960
<v Speaker 3>is estimated to be about equating to about seventeen thousand

71
00:03:16.960 --> 00:03:21.560
<v Speaker 3>dollars for the average middle income couple on consol security.

72
00:03:21.599 --> 00:03:24.280
<v Speaker 1>To put that in context, that is a big chunk

73
00:03:24.439 --> 00:03:26.680
<v Speaker 1>out of a relatively I mean, here's the thing. The

74
00:03:26.719 --> 00:03:30.439
<v Speaker 1>forty percent of Americans that are living on Social Security, they're.

75
00:03:30.199 --> 00:03:31.360
<v Speaker 2>Not living high on the hog.

76
00:03:31.800 --> 00:03:35.319
<v Speaker 1>These are people who are probably living very modestly already,

77
00:03:35.599 --> 00:03:39.199
<v Speaker 1>who are probably already very budget conscious already. At a

78
00:03:39.240 --> 00:03:41.319
<v Speaker 1>seventeen thousand dollars hit would be devastating.

79
00:03:42.919 --> 00:03:46.639
<v Speaker 3>It would be truly devastating. And it's even more so

80
00:03:46.840 --> 00:03:51.719
<v Speaker 3>why you mentioned how you know that you're discouraged, I

81
00:03:51.759 --> 00:03:54.479
<v Speaker 3>guess is a light way of saying about the lack

82
00:03:54.520 --> 00:03:58.599
<v Speaker 3>of attention truly on fiscal challenges. Obviously we are too.

83
00:03:58.680 --> 00:04:00.639
<v Speaker 3>But the one that really gets me it relates to

84
00:04:00.719 --> 00:04:03.639
<v Speaker 3>this is this is kind of a bipartisan agreement now

85
00:04:03.879 --> 00:04:06.439
<v Speaker 3>to talk about how we're not talking about social security,

86
00:04:06.479 --> 00:04:09.840
<v Speaker 3>we're not touching social security. That is now the campaign

87
00:04:09.879 --> 00:04:12.719
<v Speaker 3>talking point on both sides of the aisle. And the

88
00:04:12.800 --> 00:04:15.319
<v Speaker 3>reality is when someone says that they're not going to

89
00:04:15.439 --> 00:04:17.920
<v Speaker 3>touch Social Security're not going to talk about Social Security

90
00:04:17.959 --> 00:04:23.079
<v Speaker 3>and continues that stance. They're guaranteeing that twenty three percent

91
00:04:23.079 --> 00:04:25.519
<v Speaker 3>across the board cut. It's going to happen by law,

92
00:04:25.959 --> 00:04:28.639
<v Speaker 3>and it's better to solve it sooner rather than later

93
00:04:28.839 --> 00:04:31.639
<v Speaker 3>for all sorts of reasons. You can spread, spread the

94
00:04:31.720 --> 00:04:34.439
<v Speaker 3>changes out, you can phase it in. There's logical reasons

95
00:04:34.439 --> 00:04:36.399
<v Speaker 3>to do things sooner rather than later and not wait

96
00:04:36.720 --> 00:04:39.040
<v Speaker 3>to the deadline, which is what Washington always does.

97
00:04:39.480 --> 00:04:41.959
<v Speaker 2>I have a very smart listener.

98
00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:44.079
<v Speaker 1>His name is Joe, and he sent me this earlier,

99
00:04:44.480 --> 00:04:47.120
<v Speaker 1>and he says, the simplest and farest solution is the

100
00:04:47.160 --> 00:04:49.399
<v Speaker 1>same one that's been used six other times in the

101
00:04:49.439 --> 00:04:53.399
<v Speaker 1>past ninety years. Raise the payroll contribution rate. The current

102
00:04:53.439 --> 00:04:56.240
<v Speaker 1>Fyker contribution rate is seven point sixty five percent for

103
00:04:56.279 --> 00:04:59.319
<v Speaker 1>the employee and the same amount from the employer. Of

104
00:04:59.360 --> 00:05:02.360
<v Speaker 1>that point two percent goes into Social Security and one

105
00:05:02.399 --> 00:05:05.519
<v Speaker 1>point four to five percent goes into Medicare. Increasing the

106
00:05:05.560 --> 00:05:09.439
<v Speaker 1>contribution rate zero point five percent each moves the program

107
00:05:09.439 --> 00:05:12.839
<v Speaker 1>from its current annual cash deficit position into an annual

108
00:05:12.879 --> 00:05:16.800
<v Speaker 1>cash flow positive position and begins to rebuild the trust fund.

109
00:05:16.920 --> 00:05:20.399
<v Speaker 2>How accurate is that and is it possible.

110
00:05:22.560 --> 00:05:27.279
<v Speaker 3>The number sound accurate, and it's certainly possible. The solution

111
00:05:27.360 --> 00:05:29.199
<v Speaker 3>to Social security. People have been looking at soci security

112
00:05:29.240 --> 00:05:31.360
<v Speaker 3>for years in the kind of public policy world, okay

113
00:05:31.399 --> 00:05:33.759
<v Speaker 3>in DC, and the levers that you can change on

114
00:05:33.759 --> 00:05:36.360
<v Speaker 3>social Security actually pretty well known. And you have to

115
00:05:36.399 --> 00:05:38.399
<v Speaker 3>look at the both sides of the equation. It's on

116
00:05:38.439 --> 00:05:40.759
<v Speaker 3>the revenue side that comes into the program, and can

117
00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:43.680
<v Speaker 3>you adjust benefits that are going out and on the

118
00:05:43.720 --> 00:05:46.279
<v Speaker 3>revenue side, so you touched on what the gentleman's recommending

119
00:05:46.319 --> 00:05:49.519
<v Speaker 3>is sort of adjusting the rates of taxes. Another very

120
00:05:49.560 --> 00:05:52.279
<v Speaker 3>common proposal. I was actually just at a couple of

121
00:05:52.319 --> 00:05:55.720
<v Speaker 3>speaking events in Colorado yesterday talking about this, and three

122
00:05:55.759 --> 00:05:58.800
<v Speaker 3>times this idea came up, which is not necessarily adjusting

123
00:05:58.839 --> 00:06:02.040
<v Speaker 3>the rate. But any people realize that you stop paying

124
00:06:02.199 --> 00:06:05.079
<v Speaker 3>Social Security tax contributions when you reach a certain income,

125
00:06:05.519 --> 00:06:07.839
<v Speaker 3>right so it'd right throughout one hundred and seventy thousand

126
00:06:07.920 --> 00:06:11.040
<v Speaker 3>dollars above that you don't pay any payroll tax right now,

127
00:06:11.040 --> 00:06:13.920
<v Speaker 3>you don't get benefits either, and as a social insurance program,

128
00:06:14.040 --> 00:06:16.639
<v Speaker 3>so it's designed that way, but they haven't adjusted that

129
00:06:16.759 --> 00:06:19.800
<v Speaker 3>level to account for total wages and years, and you

130
00:06:19.839 --> 00:06:22.279
<v Speaker 3>can easily adjust that cap. That's actually a much more

131
00:06:22.319 --> 00:06:25.160
<v Speaker 3>popular and it actually polls well on both sides of

132
00:06:25.199 --> 00:06:27.639
<v Speaker 3>the aisle to adjust that cap. So I think on

133
00:06:27.680 --> 00:06:31.399
<v Speaker 3>the revenue side, that's a more likely scenario than maybe

134
00:06:31.439 --> 00:06:34.120
<v Speaker 3>adjusting the rates. But then there are things you can

135
00:06:34.120 --> 00:06:35.279
<v Speaker 3>do on the benefit side as well.

136
00:06:35.319 --> 00:06:37.839
<v Speaker 1>Do you eliminate the cap entirely, because that seems like

137
00:06:37.879 --> 00:06:40.439
<v Speaker 1>the most practical way to just say, look, if we're

138
00:06:40.480 --> 00:06:41.879
<v Speaker 1>going to do this, let's do it all in one

139
00:06:41.879 --> 00:06:44.240
<v Speaker 1>fell swoop instead of piece mealing it and saying we're

140
00:06:44.240 --> 00:06:46.120
<v Speaker 1>going to raise it to three hundred thousand or whatever

141
00:06:46.160 --> 00:06:48.879
<v Speaker 1>it is. I mean, that seems to me to be

142
00:06:48.920 --> 00:06:50.639
<v Speaker 1>the most practical way if you're going to do it,

143
00:06:50.680 --> 00:06:54.800
<v Speaker 1>And frankly, that would be preferable than some of the

144
00:06:54.879 --> 00:06:58.399
<v Speaker 1>other asenine proposals that I've seen, things like, you know,

145
00:06:58.519 --> 00:07:02.399
<v Speaker 1>if you are above everybody at the same level, So basically,

146
00:07:02.680 --> 00:07:04.439
<v Speaker 1>if you have made more money in your career and

147
00:07:04.439 --> 00:07:06.519
<v Speaker 1>you've paid in at a much higher level, you're going

148
00:07:06.600 --> 00:07:09.120
<v Speaker 1>to get the same benefits as someone who didn't. And

149
00:07:09.120 --> 00:07:12.279
<v Speaker 1>and that offends me that that that irritates the crap

150
00:07:12.279 --> 00:07:15.879
<v Speaker 1>out of me, because it's just a wealth redistribution scheme

151
00:07:15.920 --> 00:07:18.199
<v Speaker 1>at that point, and I'm very uncomfortable with that notion.

152
00:07:18.680 --> 00:07:20.920
<v Speaker 1>So I'd rather pay more in on the front side

153
00:07:21.040 --> 00:07:23.480
<v Speaker 1>and leave that sort of you know, if you pay more,

154
00:07:23.480 --> 00:07:25.680
<v Speaker 1>you get more the way it is.

155
00:07:27.480 --> 00:07:30.399
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I think there's a there's there's several considerations, and look,

156
00:07:30.480 --> 00:07:33.279
<v Speaker 3>that could ultimately be part of the solution. We wet

157
00:07:33.279 --> 00:07:35.360
<v Speaker 3>the committee first, put a bunchet, don't advocate this is

158
00:07:35.399 --> 00:07:37.279
<v Speaker 3>your exact solution. There's lots of ways to do this.

159
00:07:37.480 --> 00:07:40.480
<v Speaker 3>That could be one, but there's some considerations to be

160
00:07:40.560 --> 00:07:43.319
<v Speaker 3>had there. So one you already I think mentioned before.

161
00:07:43.519 --> 00:07:45.079
<v Speaker 3>So if you let's say you lift that cap and

162
00:07:45.160 --> 00:07:46.879
<v Speaker 3>that the name that always says you're listening to the caps,

163
00:07:47.120 --> 00:07:49.199
<v Speaker 3>say warm Buffet's going to be paying it up to

164
00:07:49.279 --> 00:07:52.040
<v Speaker 3>his full income, right right? Well are you paying benefits

165
00:07:52.079 --> 00:07:54.439
<v Speaker 3>to Warren Buffett up to that full income too? Right?

166
00:07:54.480 --> 00:07:56.439
<v Speaker 3>Because those are the considerations you have to have, and

167
00:07:56.560 --> 00:07:59.560
<v Speaker 3>that that obviously changed the equation and the other factors

168
00:07:59.600 --> 00:08:03.399
<v Speaker 3>you have to have thought there are Well someone might say, well, no,

169
00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:06.639
<v Speaker 3>you shouldn't do that, but then also you've got to

170
00:08:06.639 --> 00:08:08.839
<v Speaker 3>be cognizant of then it's somewhat changes the nature of

171
00:08:08.879 --> 00:08:11.680
<v Speaker 3>the program. There's always been somewhat sort of as a

172
00:08:11.800 --> 00:08:14.759
<v Speaker 3>fairness issue of like there's something related to the contributions,

173
00:08:14.800 --> 00:08:16.920
<v Speaker 3>related to what benefits really to what you pay in.

174
00:08:17.040 --> 00:08:19.680
<v Speaker 3>So if you start messing with that doesn't infect the

175
00:08:20.079 --> 00:08:22.759
<v Speaker 3>political viability of the program in different ways. So the

176
00:08:22.839 --> 00:08:25.199
<v Speaker 3>other thing you have to think about is what's the

177
00:08:25.319 --> 00:08:28.680
<v Speaker 3>other dollar potential purpose for that same tax revenue, because

178
00:08:28.720 --> 00:08:31.600
<v Speaker 3>a lot of people have ideas right of different programs,

179
00:08:31.680 --> 00:08:33.840
<v Speaker 3>new programs, ways we want to spend money on different things,

180
00:08:33.840 --> 00:08:35.120
<v Speaker 3>and if we're going to try to pay for them,

181
00:08:35.320 --> 00:08:37.919
<v Speaker 3>potentially more revenue. A lot of times people try to

182
00:08:38.039 --> 00:08:41.639
<v Speaker 3>put that revenue on the wealthier side of the tax base.

183
00:08:41.840 --> 00:08:43.919
<v Speaker 3>And if you're doing it for this and also want

184
00:08:43.960 --> 00:08:45.440
<v Speaker 3>to do it for something else, you got to take

185
00:08:45.480 --> 00:08:48.159
<v Speaker 3>that into accounts. So those are just other considerations, Mandy.

186
00:08:48.440 --> 00:08:51.519
<v Speaker 3>But I think different ways to adjust that cap are

187
00:08:51.600 --> 00:08:54.399
<v Speaker 3>certainly going to be part of the discussion when politicians

188
00:08:54.440 --> 00:08:55.039
<v Speaker 3>get around to this.

189
00:08:55.759 --> 00:08:57.840
<v Speaker 1>And that's the sad part because the longer they wait,

190
00:08:57.919 --> 00:08:59.759
<v Speaker 1>the more this is going, the bigger this adjustment is

191
00:08:59.799 --> 00:09:02.679
<v Speaker 1>going to have to be. And my frustration is is

192
00:09:02.759 --> 00:09:07.879
<v Speaker 1>that we have now normalized allowing Congress to create an emergency,

193
00:09:08.360 --> 00:09:12.240
<v Speaker 1>and then they last minute, at midnight run in with

194
00:09:12.360 --> 00:09:15.919
<v Speaker 1>some crap plan to fix the emergency that they created

195
00:09:16.000 --> 00:09:18.320
<v Speaker 1>because they didn't act on it earlier. And then we're

196
00:09:18.320 --> 00:09:20.240
<v Speaker 1>all supposed to be grateful that they came up with

197
00:09:20.320 --> 00:09:23.279
<v Speaker 1>a garbage solution because they did it at the last minute.

198
00:09:23.320 --> 00:09:25.840
<v Speaker 1>And I'm like, this is too big an issue to

199
00:09:26.159 --> 00:09:29.159
<v Speaker 1>just continue to kick the can down the road. Is

200
00:09:29.240 --> 00:09:32.960
<v Speaker 1>there any real movement? Are there enough members of Congress?

201
00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:35.559
<v Speaker 1>Are there enough members of the Senate that are concerned

202
00:09:35.559 --> 00:09:38.240
<v Speaker 1>about this that anything could happen feasibly in the next

203
00:09:38.360 --> 00:09:41.120
<v Speaker 1>couple of years instead of waiting till twenty thirty two

204
00:09:41.519 --> 00:09:45.039
<v Speaker 1>for the last minute garbage solution that will inevitably be horrible.

205
00:09:46.399 --> 00:09:48.480
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, there are some. I can tell you that there

206
00:09:48.519 --> 00:09:51.679
<v Speaker 3>are certainly many actually that understand the problem. They know

207
00:09:51.799 --> 00:09:54.480
<v Speaker 3>what's coming. It is the quintessential third rail. That's why

208
00:09:54.480 --> 00:09:57.559
<v Speaker 3>if you do step out and offer specific solutions. But

209
00:09:57.679 --> 00:09:59.960
<v Speaker 3>I I'm I'm going to try to be an ey

210
00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:02.000
<v Speaker 3>optimist that I tend to be an optimist that some

211
00:10:02.120 --> 00:10:03.720
<v Speaker 3>of the things we were already talking about gives me

212
00:10:03.759 --> 00:10:05.600
<v Speaker 3>a hope it's going to start to be on the table.

213
00:10:05.639 --> 00:10:08.879
<v Speaker 3>When you start seeing this within the election windows of people.

214
00:10:09.279 --> 00:10:11.159
<v Speaker 3>I think that can start to make it an issue

215
00:10:11.200 --> 00:10:13.639
<v Speaker 3>when you know, the next presidential election, which will be

216
00:10:13.720 --> 00:10:15.759
<v Speaker 3>here frankly before you know it's that's going to be

217
00:10:15.919 --> 00:10:20.240
<v Speaker 3>in bad term. So thinking about how to raise this

218
00:10:20.360 --> 00:10:23.559
<v Speaker 3>in the context of campaigns and make sure when it's

219
00:10:23.840 --> 00:10:26.679
<v Speaker 3>talked about in campaigns that can make it be more

220
00:10:26.720 --> 00:10:29.279
<v Speaker 3>of an issue because right now it's not being talked

221
00:10:29.320 --> 00:10:31.480
<v Speaker 3>about during campaigns and we need to. And that's why

222
00:10:31.480 --> 00:10:33.559
<v Speaker 3>I talking to folks like yourself and your listeners who

223
00:10:33.639 --> 00:10:37.799
<v Speaker 3>want to press their polutmakers and candidates to how will

224
00:10:37.840 --> 00:10:40.200
<v Speaker 3>you save Social Security? Don't tell me we're not touching it,

225
00:10:40.399 --> 00:10:42.360
<v Speaker 3>because not touching it leads to that cut.

226
00:10:42.559 --> 00:10:43.399
<v Speaker 2>Well, here's the thing.

227
00:10:43.759 --> 00:10:45.799
<v Speaker 1>The thing is this. The thing is I've already solved

228
00:10:45.840 --> 00:10:48.840
<v Speaker 1>that problem because I am a genius. I don't know

229
00:10:48.879 --> 00:10:51.720
<v Speaker 1>if you know this. I'm a mastermind of everything. I'm kidding,

230
00:10:51.960 --> 00:10:53.600
<v Speaker 1>but I have given this a lot of thought and

231
00:10:53.720 --> 00:10:55.840
<v Speaker 1>how to make this a campaign issue. In this article

232
00:10:55.960 --> 00:10:58.480
<v Speaker 1>last week actually solidified this for me. So if I

233
00:10:58.559 --> 00:11:01.480
<v Speaker 1>am a Republican who is serious about cutting US or

234
00:11:01.559 --> 00:11:04.840
<v Speaker 1>fixing Social Security, or if I'm a Democrat serious about

235
00:11:04.879 --> 00:11:08.679
<v Speaker 1>fixing social Security. My accusation of my opponent is he

236
00:11:08.840 --> 00:11:11.960
<v Speaker 1>wants to cut your social security twenty three percent, because

237
00:11:12.000 --> 00:11:15.200
<v Speaker 1>that's what inaction does, and that is the campaign slogan

238
00:11:15.279 --> 00:11:17.480
<v Speaker 1>that I go with. The opponent wants to cut your

239
00:11:17.480 --> 00:11:20.200
<v Speaker 1>social security twenty three percent, We've got to fix it,

240
00:11:20.480 --> 00:11:22.639
<v Speaker 1>We've got to figure it out, and that person is

241
00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:26.039
<v Speaker 1>unseerious and wants your benefits to be cut. Now, it's

242
00:11:26.120 --> 00:11:29.519
<v Speaker 1>a scare tactic, one hundred percent, but since the creation

243
00:11:29.840 --> 00:11:32.759
<v Speaker 1>of social security, it's been used as a scare tactic

244
00:11:32.840 --> 00:11:33.360
<v Speaker 1>in campaign.

245
00:11:33.480 --> 00:11:34.840
<v Speaker 2>So I'm just leaning in on it.

246
00:11:35.240 --> 00:11:37.360
<v Speaker 1>But I think until we get people that are serious

247
00:11:37.399 --> 00:11:40.960
<v Speaker 1>about this and recognize that doing nothing is a twenty

248
00:11:41.039 --> 00:11:43.720
<v Speaker 1>three percent cut, we're gonna end up with this.

249
00:11:43.840 --> 00:11:45.879
<v Speaker 2>And I will say this, Mike, I'm gen X.

250
00:11:46.240 --> 00:11:47.919
<v Speaker 1>When I read this article last week, I was like,

251
00:11:48.519 --> 00:11:51.080
<v Speaker 1>of course gen X is getting ready to retire.

252
00:11:51.440 --> 00:11:54.799
<v Speaker 2>Of course social security is going broke. Of course it

253
00:11:54.919 --> 00:11:56.200
<v Speaker 2>happens to this generation.

254
00:11:56.759 --> 00:12:00.720
<v Speaker 1>So you know, millennials, I think, really believe social security

255
00:12:00.759 --> 00:12:01.440
<v Speaker 1>isn't going to be there.

256
00:12:02.279 --> 00:12:03.080
<v Speaker 3>I know I believe it.

257
00:12:03.159 --> 00:12:06.159
<v Speaker 1>When I was younger, I wish i'd plan more for retirement.

258
00:12:06.200 --> 00:12:09.879
<v Speaker 1>I'm playing catch up. Now, but I don't know what

259
00:12:10.039 --> 00:12:14.639
<v Speaker 1>to do to unscare or maybe scare them in the

260
00:12:14.720 --> 00:12:18.120
<v Speaker 1>right direction, especially people who are already getting benefits, because

261
00:12:18.159 --> 00:12:21.200
<v Speaker 1>I've had a few people text me today and say, well,

262
00:12:21.240 --> 00:12:23.200
<v Speaker 1>this is just for people going forward, right, They're not

263
00:12:23.240 --> 00:12:25.080
<v Speaker 1>going to cut my benefits, but it is going to

264
00:12:25.159 --> 00:12:26.720
<v Speaker 1>cut everyone's benefits right.

265
00:12:28.879 --> 00:12:32.240
<v Speaker 3>By law required across the board, everybody on the program.

266
00:12:32.559 --> 00:12:35.559
<v Speaker 3>And so I think, look, I think your tactic is

267
00:12:35.879 --> 00:12:38.080
<v Speaker 3>exactly a lot right, easy for me to say, right,

268
00:12:38.120 --> 00:12:40.720
<v Speaker 3>because I completely agree with that, where we just have

269
00:12:40.879 --> 00:12:43.519
<v Speaker 3>to be warning people that this is what's coming as

270
00:12:43.559 --> 00:12:46.519
<v Speaker 3>a result of people not, you know, putting forward a

271
00:12:46.600 --> 00:12:50.600
<v Speaker 3>solution if they're going to attack somebody else, you not

272
00:12:50.679 --> 00:12:53.120
<v Speaker 3>putting forward a solution as leading to that twenty three

273
00:12:53.120 --> 00:12:55.759
<v Speaker 3>percent cut, I completely agree with that, and I think

274
00:12:55.840 --> 00:12:59.039
<v Speaker 3>that you know, what we really need to do is

275
00:12:59.200 --> 00:13:01.559
<v Speaker 3>have it. It's going to have to come from voters,

276
00:13:01.879 --> 00:13:04.919
<v Speaker 3>because voters. Actually, this is kind of when you're folks

277
00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:06.919
<v Speaker 3>like ourselves who we talk about this all the time,

278
00:13:06.960 --> 00:13:09.159
<v Speaker 3>we always actually find it surprising because we say it

279
00:13:09.240 --> 00:13:11.679
<v Speaker 3>all the time and it's in the news a decent amount,

280
00:13:11.759 --> 00:13:14.639
<v Speaker 3>but people still don't know that that date's coming. I

281
00:13:14.720 --> 00:13:16.639
<v Speaker 3>said it multiple times in some of these events this day,

282
00:13:16.639 --> 00:13:18.919
<v Speaker 3>and I had several people go, wait, that's in twenty

283
00:13:18.960 --> 00:13:21.279
<v Speaker 3>thirty three. That's actually not that far away. Yeah, and

284
00:13:21.399 --> 00:13:24.039
<v Speaker 3>so people actually don't know what's coming. So we really

285
00:13:24.080 --> 00:13:26.039
<v Speaker 3>need to get out there and tell the truth about

286
00:13:26.080 --> 00:13:29.679
<v Speaker 3>the state of Social Security during the campaigns, going out

287
00:13:29.720 --> 00:13:32.399
<v Speaker 3>to voters, making sure they're aware so they then can

288
00:13:32.480 --> 00:13:35.000
<v Speaker 3>convey that same message maybe that you just said.

289
00:13:35.360 --> 00:13:37.480
<v Speaker 1>Let me put this in the context of a bigger

290
00:13:37.559 --> 00:13:41.960
<v Speaker 1>conversation about the federal budget itself. Here's my problem, right, Okay,

291
00:13:42.080 --> 00:13:44.159
<v Speaker 1>so raise the cap, take more of my money. I

292
00:13:44.320 --> 00:13:47.159
<v Speaker 1>don't trust the federal government to just keep it for

293
00:13:47.279 --> 00:13:49.039
<v Speaker 1>social Security because we already know how that.

294
00:13:49.120 --> 00:13:52.639
<v Speaker 2>Song and dance sense. I mean, that's my problem.

295
00:13:52.840 --> 00:13:56.120
<v Speaker 1>Is there anything that, in the course of reforming what

296
00:13:56.200 --> 00:14:00.759
<v Speaker 1>we've got now, we could create or rather remove the

297
00:14:00.879 --> 00:14:03.879
<v Speaker 1>ability of the federal government to pilt for the Social

298
00:14:03.960 --> 00:14:04.759
<v Speaker 1>Security funds?

299
00:14:06.320 --> 00:14:08.039
<v Speaker 3>Yeah? I think I think that should be part of

300
00:14:08.080 --> 00:14:12.399
<v Speaker 3>the discussion going forward, to think about how you're putting

301
00:14:12.399 --> 00:14:15.200
<v Speaker 3>some guardrails around this. But the broader point there is

302
00:14:15.279 --> 00:14:19.360
<v Speaker 3>that they just have to get the whole fiscal house

303
00:14:19.399 --> 00:14:23.519
<v Speaker 3>in order. Okay, because what's been going on is, which

304
00:14:23.559 --> 00:14:25.639
<v Speaker 3>I think is what you're alluding to, is that, yes,

305
00:14:25.919 --> 00:14:28.440
<v Speaker 3>like the social security quote unquote surplus that was there,

306
00:14:28.639 --> 00:14:30.240
<v Speaker 3>what's been going on is they actually just use a

307
00:14:30.279 --> 00:14:32.320
<v Speaker 3>lot of that revenue that's coming in to kind of,

308
00:14:32.679 --> 00:14:35.639
<v Speaker 3>you know, make the deficit frankly appear less than it

309
00:14:35.759 --> 00:14:39.480
<v Speaker 3>otherwise would have been. Okay, but it's still huge, and

310
00:14:39.559 --> 00:14:40.799
<v Speaker 3>so it's just a matter of if we got to

311
00:14:40.799 --> 00:14:42.840
<v Speaker 3>get the overall deficit under control. That goes back to

312
00:14:42.919 --> 00:14:45.320
<v Speaker 3>your original point, Mandy, of what's been going on in Washington.

313
00:14:45.679 --> 00:14:49.320
<v Speaker 3>People talk a big game on the deficit and spending,

314
00:14:49.679 --> 00:14:51.559
<v Speaker 3>and then when they get to governing and they have

315
00:14:51.679 --> 00:14:54.159
<v Speaker 3>the opportunity to do so, they don't get a time.

316
00:14:54.399 --> 00:14:56.919
<v Speaker 3>And that's actually is what we're seeing right now with

317
00:14:57.080 --> 00:14:59.320
<v Speaker 3>the big beautiful billets moving forward. That's concerned that that

318
00:14:59.399 --> 00:15:02.320
<v Speaker 3>will inc increase the deficit based on the way it's

319
00:15:02.320 --> 00:15:04.559
<v Speaker 3>structured right now, because they're not cutting enough spending to

320
00:15:04.639 --> 00:15:08.159
<v Speaker 3>all set the spending increases in the taxes. So that's

321
00:15:08.200 --> 00:15:10.320
<v Speaker 3>the issue is, yes, they should try to figure out

322
00:15:10.360 --> 00:15:12.679
<v Speaker 3>to put some guardrails, but the broader point is they

323
00:15:12.759 --> 00:15:15.080
<v Speaker 3>need to get more responsible at the entire federal budget

324
00:15:15.240 --> 00:15:16.519
<v Speaker 3>right as part of the conversation.

325
00:15:17.080 --> 00:15:19.000
<v Speaker 1>You appreciate it with the choir on that. I really

326
00:15:19.039 --> 00:15:22.559
<v Speaker 1>appreciate your time, Mike. I wish that you know some

327
00:15:22.679 --> 00:15:24.840
<v Speaker 1>of the ideas that are floating around there. I think

328
00:15:24.879 --> 00:15:27.720
<v Speaker 1>are way better than others. But I hope that we

329
00:15:27.799 --> 00:15:31.480
<v Speaker 1>can inspire the conversation and maybe, as I said, those

330
00:15:31.519 --> 00:15:34.360
<v Speaker 1>politicians need to run on they're in action, And somebody

331
00:15:34.480 --> 00:15:36.919
<v Speaker 1>rightfully texted this, they said, but the candidate must present

332
00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:39.600
<v Speaker 1>a plan, not just run on the mantra. But I

333
00:15:39.720 --> 00:15:41.840
<v Speaker 1>think if you came out as a candidate and said, look,

334
00:15:42.480 --> 00:15:45.080
<v Speaker 1>we have multiple options, and here are the options that

335
00:15:45.159 --> 00:15:47.679
<v Speaker 1>I like best, but I'm open to a bigger conversation

336
00:15:47.799 --> 00:15:50.679
<v Speaker 1>about fixing this issue, I think then you can at

337
00:15:50.759 --> 00:15:53.120
<v Speaker 1>least begin to have the conversation and get people who

338
00:15:53.120 --> 00:15:56.960
<v Speaker 1>are serious about fixing the problem in office. Because I

339
00:15:57.120 --> 00:15:59.960
<v Speaker 1>do believe that laying it out in those stark terms

340
00:16:00.519 --> 00:16:03.879
<v Speaker 1>would motivate older people who are already getting benefits, who

341
00:16:03.960 --> 00:16:08.000
<v Speaker 1>are absolutely going to vote, to really think about that.

342
00:16:08.200 --> 00:16:11.320
<v Speaker 1>The solvency of their own pocketbooks may be the thing

343
00:16:11.399 --> 00:16:14.399
<v Speaker 1>that makes this happen. Mike murphylic you have the last

344
00:16:14.440 --> 00:16:17.000
<v Speaker 1>word from the committee for the responsible federal government.

345
00:16:19.480 --> 00:16:21.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, I just agree. I agree with everything you just

346
00:16:21.919 --> 00:16:24.080
<v Speaker 3>said about the fact that people, when they're talking about

347
00:16:24.159 --> 00:16:26.600
<v Speaker 3>in the campaign, actually I think it, frankly is better

348
00:16:26.840 --> 00:16:28.720
<v Speaker 3>that you're actually putting out there. You don't have to

349
00:16:28.759 --> 00:16:31.399
<v Speaker 3>put out your specific solution. This is exactly how I'm

350
00:16:31.399 --> 00:16:33.519
<v Speaker 3>going to say. But that would be nice, not be preferable,

351
00:16:33.600 --> 00:16:36.600
<v Speaker 3>but frankly, the political reality is that that actually might

352
00:16:36.679 --> 00:16:38.519
<v Speaker 3>hurt people to basically, like, all of a sudden, you're

353
00:16:38.600 --> 00:16:40.039
<v Speaker 3>kind of honing in on that one thing, and people

354
00:16:40.039 --> 00:16:42.120
<v Speaker 3>are going to attack that. When there's a range of

355
00:16:42.200 --> 00:16:44.720
<v Speaker 3>frankly common sense options, we have them on our website.

356
00:16:44.759 --> 00:16:48.080
<v Speaker 3>People can go and check that out at CERFB dot org.

357
00:16:48.200 --> 00:16:50.519
<v Speaker 3>We have a tool it's called the Reformer that you

358
00:16:50.559 --> 00:16:52.759
<v Speaker 3>can go on there and basically fix all scared of yourself.

359
00:16:53.080 --> 00:16:55.679
<v Speaker 3>It shows a lot of these options. So I think

360
00:16:55.759 --> 00:16:58.360
<v Speaker 3>that's a great approach, and I just thank you Mandy

361
00:16:58.440 --> 00:17:01.519
<v Speaker 3>for caring about this issue and drawing attention to it.

362
00:17:01.679 --> 00:17:05.000
<v Speaker 3>I just hope for for folks that are concerned about

363
00:17:05.039 --> 00:17:10.240
<v Speaker 3>it to get more involved, impress their representatives to make

364
00:17:10.279 --> 00:17:12.240
<v Speaker 3>this an issue that they're going to solve.

365
00:17:12.519 --> 00:17:14.519
<v Speaker 1>Mike Murphy, I appreciate your time today, and we'll keep

366
00:17:14.559 --> 00:17:15.599
<v Speaker 1>preaching the same message.

367
00:17:16.559 --> 00:17:17.759
<v Speaker 3>Thank you, Mandie, thank you for having me