ON CAPITOL HILL.
NEIL: THANK YOU FOR THAT LUCAS
TOMLINSON AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
THERE ARE BRAVE POLITICIANS OUT
THERE WHO RECOGNIZE THE FISCAL
ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, ARE
ENTITLEMENTS AND A LOT OF
PEOPLE LIKE SOCIAL SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICARE BUT WHEN
IT COMES TO TRY TO SHAVE EVEN
THEIR GROWTH, THEY ARE LOOKED
UPON AS SORT OF LIKE THE OLD
VIDEOS AND FILMS WE SAW A GUY
WHO LOOKED A LOT LIKE PAUL RYAN,
AT THE TIME, SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE PUSHING PEOPLE OFF A CLIFF
ENTER LOUISIANA SENATOR BILL
CASSIDY, WHO HAS SOME VERY BASIC
IDEAS TO ADDRESS THIS , TO KEEP
SOCIAL SECURITY GOING BECAUSE
HE’S A FAN OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
BUT AT THE RATE WE’RE GOING
DOESN’T THINK WE’RE ALL GOING TO
BE HAVING IT.
SENATOR, GREAT TO SEE YOU.
>> THANK YOU, NEIL, GOOD TO BE
WITH YOU.
NEIL: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU
PROPOSE IS EVENTUALLY RAISING
THE FULL RETIREMENT AGE WHICH
YOU CAN GET SOCIAL SECURITY FROM
67 AS IT IS NOW TO 70.
THAT IS ALSO THE AGE AT WHICH A
LOT OF PEOPLE EVEN TODAY IF THEY
PUSH IT OFF UNTIL THEN WOULD GET
THE MOST BENEFITS BUT HOW
SOON WOULD YOU ROLL SOMETHING
LIKE THAT IN?
MAYBE EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION ON
JUST THE AGE THING.
>> THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN
DEFINITE BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE
AN AGREEMENT FROM EVERYBODY WE
NEED TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT FROM.
NEIL: RIGHT.
>> BUT YOU CAN DO WHAT REAGAN
DID, TIP O’NEILL AND RONALD
REGAN AND NOT LET IT AFFECT
ANYBODY FOR DECADES.
NEIL: RIGHT.
>> NO ONE WHO IS CLOSE TO
RETIREMENT BE ABLE TO DO IT, BUT
NEIL, LET’S JUST STOP FOR A
SECOND.
PEOPLE START TALKING ABOUT THAT.
LET’S TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER
THINGS YOU COULD DO.
ONE THING YOU CAN DO IS ACTUALLY
MAKE THE PROGRAM MORE FAIR.
YOU CAN ACTUALLY INCREASE
BENEFITS FOR MANY PEOPLE, AND
THE WAY WE DO THAT, AND THIS IS
THE PRINCIPAL PART OF IT.
WE CREATE AN INVESTMENT FUND
SEPARATE FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
WE DON’T TOUCH ANY SOCIAL
SECURITY DOLLARS, AND AN
INVESTMENT FUND THAT WE HOLD
IN ESCROW, AND YOU ALLOW THE
STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN
ECONOMY TO BUILD A BRIDGE TO
SUSTAINABILITY FOR THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TRUST FUND.
WE END UP UNDER OUR PLAN WITH
ENOUGH MONEY OVERTIME IN ORDER
TO INCREASE BENEFITS FOR MILLION
S OF AMERICANS.
INDEED, UNDER OUR PLAN, MILLIONS
OF AMERICANS WILL SEE INCREASED
BENEFITS WHEN THE LAW IS PASSED,
AND NO ONE WILL SEE A CUT, AND
NO ONE WILL SEE THEIR AGE OF
ELIGIBILITY INCREASE IF THEY ARE
CLOSE TO RETIREMENT AT ALL.
NEIL: SO YOU HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT
IS CLOSE TO RETIREMENT, I GET
THAT AND YOU’RE REFERRING TO
RONALD REGAN AND TIP O’NEILL,
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE TO COME
UP WITH A PLAN THAT LATER BECAME
THE BASIC PART OF THE GRACE
COMMISSION THAT DID EXTEND
SOCIAL SECURITY FOR DECADES, BUT
DIDN’T PRESIDENT BUSH, GEORGE W.
BUSH LOOK AT DOING JUST THIS ,
AND OF COURSE IT WAS THE THIRD
RULE AND HE WAS JUST
ELECTROCUTED.
>> A GREAT QUESTION.
WHAT GEORGE W. WISHED TO DO WAS
TO CREATE PRIVATE ACCOUNTS.
EACH INDIVIDUAL WOULD HAVE HIS
OR HER OWN ACCOUNT.
NEIL: IT BE OPEN TO YOUNGER
PEOPLE, BUT GO AHEAD.
>> AND THE FEAR OF SOME WAS
THAT THE RISK WAS BORNE BY THE
BENEFICIARY.
UNDER OUR PLAN, THE RISK IS BORN
E BY THE FUND, NOT BY THE
BENEFICIARY, AND THE
BENEFICIARY IS GUARANTEEED
TO GET THE BENEFITS WHICH HAVE
BEEN PROMISED TO HER OR
PROMISED TO HIM.
SHE IS AT NO RISK WHATSOEVER.
THE RISK IS BORNE BY THE FUND
BUT OVER THE TIME HORIZON WE’RE
TALKING ABOUT THAT, THAT’LL BE A
MINIMAL RISK.
NEIL: SENATOR, THERE’S ANOTHER
ISSUE THAT KEEPS COMING UP,
WHETHER WE LIMIT THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES TO REALLY AROUND
A THOUSAND AND A HALF AND THERE
ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO GET PAID
A LOT MORE THAN THAT AND THAT
CONTRIBUTION INTO SOCIAL
SECURITY SHOULD BE PAID AT A SET
RATE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU MAKE
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?
>> YEAH, SO WHAT WE DO, WE
DON’T RAISE THE RATES, PERIOD,
END OF STORY.
WE DON’T RAISE THE RATES BUT
WHAT WE DO IS WHAT WE WOULD DO
IS IF WE CAN GET PEOPLE TO BUY
INTO IT, IF WE CAN GET PEOPLE TO
CHOOSE TO PRESERVE, STRENGTHEN
SOCIAL SECURITY AS OPPOSED TO
LET IT GO INSOLVENT IF WE CAN
GET PEOPLE TO CHOOSE, OVER 40
YEARS, WE GRADUALLY INCREASE THE
PERCENT OF WAGE INCOME TO
WHICH THE SOCIAL SECURITY
PAYROLL TAX APPLIES.
RETURNING IT TO WHERE IT WAS IN
1936 AND WHERE IT WAS IN 1983
WHEN REAGAN AND O’NEILL DID
THEIR PROPOSAL, AND SO --
NEIL: BUT I KNOW THOUGH, SENATOR
, WHEN WE FIRST GOT
SOCIAL SECURITY, 16 WORKERS WERE
PAYING IN FOR EVERY ONE PERSON
GETTING SOCIAL SECURITY.
NOW, OF COURSE IT’S ALMOST DEAD
EVEN, OR CLOSE TO IT.
HOW DO YOU CHANGE THAT MATH OR
CAN YOU?
>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY YOU CAN.
WE PATTERN AFTER SOMETHING THAT
WAS DONE UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH
HAS BEEN FOR 30 YEARS OR SO IF
I HAVE MY MATH RIGHT.
THE NATIONAL RAILROAD RETIREMENT
SYSTEM WHICH HAD FEWER WORKERS
AND MORE RETIREES AND WAS GOING
INSOLVENT.
SOUND FAMILIAR?
THEY CREATED A FUND KIND OF WHAT
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY CREATED A FUND, IN WHICH
THEY BEGAN TO INVEST SEPARATE
FROM THEIR, YOU KNOW, A FUND AND
THEY’VE GOT AN 8.9% RETURN EVERY
YEAR, A SYSTEM THAT WAS GOING IN
SOLVENT IS FIRMLY IN THE BLACK
PAYING THE BENEFITS THAT WERE
PROMISED.
IF WE HAD DONE THAT WITH SOCIAL
BACK THEN, WE WOULDN’T BE HAVING
THIS CONVERSATION.
WELL, THE BEST TIME TO PLANT AN
OAK TREE IS 50 YEARS AGO AND
THE SECOND-BEST TIME IS TODAY SO
LISTEN.
JUMP ON IT NOW TO CHOOSE TO
PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE
PROGRAM AND NOT DO WHAT SAY
PRESIDENT BIDEN IS DOING,
CHOOSING TO LET IT GO INSOLVENT
AND WHEN IT GOES INSOLVENT,
PEOPLE GET A 24% CUT IN THEIR
BENEFITS.
NEIL: YEAH, IT’S UNSUSTAINABLE
TO YOUR POINT.
I ADMIRE THE GUTS OF YOU AND
OTHERS LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE
IT’S NOT CRAZY IDEAS WHAT YOU’RE
TRAYING TO DO IS SUSTAIN
SOMETHING, SO THAT IT DOESN’T GO
BELLY-UP AT THE RATE IT’S GOING
IT’S GOING TO GO BELLY-UP.
SENATOR I’D LOVE TO GET UPDATES
FROM YOU ON THIS HOW IT’S GOING,