Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So I've seen some stories in the past couple of
days about Senate Majority Leader not for LNG, Chuck Schumer
bringing this bill in the Senate, and I guess a
version of it past the House already that would make
some changes to the social Security system. And these changes
are a little bit technical. So we're going to need
a little bit of understanding on this, and we also
(00:20):
need to understand why it's important, because this whole thing
strikes me as quite a bad idea, and yet a
bad idea that a bunch of Republicans signed on too.
So we're going to get into the politics and the
policy of it with Rachel Gresler, who is a researcher
on actually, let me just get the whole things. I
want to make sure I get this all absolutely absolute, right,
(00:42):
Senior Research fellow in Workforce and Public Finance at the
Heritage Foundation. All right, Hi, Rachel, thanks for doing this
on short notice.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
I really appreciate it for us. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
So, first of all, can you tell us what the
issue is at hand that this bill addresses, and then
we'll talk talk about why you and I think it
might not be a great idea.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Sure, and this actually goes all the way back to
Social Securities founding in nineteen thirty So Social Security is
just a.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Little bit younger than you there.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
And when the system was designed, it was supposed to
be progressive benefits. That means that people who make less
money are going to get a higher proportion back in
their benefits and retirement.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
And the system was also.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Designed for the society of the nineteen thirties, which meant
that most women would not work in their formal labor
force once they got married.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Now there was an.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Unanticipated flaw in Social Securities benefit formula, and this applies
to people who work in public sector jobs teachers, firefighters
that used to be entirely.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Exempt from Social Security.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
So what happened is you had some workers who spent
an entire career working, say as a teacher, but that
was exempt.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
From Social Security.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
So when Social Security was looking at it, it looked
like that individual had zero earnings their entire life and
would have been a stay at home spouse and therefore
entitled to a benefit on behalf of his or her spouse.
And the same thing happened for individuals who actually did
work both in covered employment, paying Social Security taxes and
then an exempt employment where they weren't paying Social Security taxes.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Those public sector usually stay in local jobs. So somebody
who had, you know.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
One hundred and fifty thousand dollars of earnings throughout their
entire career, but only a third of their career was spent.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
In a job that was subject to Social Security.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Taxes, they're going to look like they only made fifty
thousand dollars and that was their earnings, and therefore they
looked like kind of a middle income earner and they're
going to get a higher proportional benefit when in reality
they were a very high earner. And so these were
just unanticipated things. In Congress said, okay, we want to
fix this. The problem is when they did these fixes
(02:55):
in nineteen seventy seven, in nineteen eighty three, they didn't
have the data they needed to do an accurate fix
to give the benefits that they intended. They didn't know
what people actually made in those non covered earnings. So
today they actually have the data and they could do
it correct in a fair and accurate fix. But instead
what we see the House pass and the Senate voting
(03:16):
on likely this week is something that is ironically called
the Social Security Fairness Act.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
There's nothing about it that's fair.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
It simply reverts to those formulas that existed back prior
to nineteen seventy seven and eighty three, and it provides
these large windfall benefits to people who spent a lot
of their career or their entire career not paying Social
Security taxes.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
So, just so, just so I understand, let's use as
an example a teacher in Colorado who is in Colorado's
state run pension program called pera peer. So assuming that,
and I don't know whether you know anything about Colorado specifically,
but let's just assume that Colorado people who are working
in government have a similar pension structure to most other
(03:59):
people and other teachers and other places in government. So
they contribute some amount and the government contributes some amount. However,
it works to their para pension, and that replaces Social
Security for them, and they do not pay Social Security
taxes out of their paycheck. They're not contributing to Social
Security out of their paychecks. They are in a parallel,
(04:21):
separate system. So is that right? So far, that is.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Correct, that's how it works, and usually those pensions are
significantly larger than Social Security.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Yeah, there's a big issue here in Colorado actually, because
there's still a lot of defined benefit stuff going on.
That's a big problem. But we'll do that another day.
But in any case, so now what this change would
somehow do if it passes, would be what it would
allow these people to double dip to get the para
(04:51):
pension and Social Security or what.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Yes, yes, it's going to treat those individuals like they
either had zero earnings and didn't aren't a pension in
their own right and therefore they get a spousal benefit
from Social Security, or those who had partial earnings and
partial exempt earnings, it's going to treat them like the
years that were exempt were zeros.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
And they were a lower income earner than they were.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
So these are by definition wind fall benefits, benefits that
the program did not intend to pay. But simply because
of access to the information, we weren't able to come up.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
With a correct fix. So it's not that no fix
is needed.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Something is actually needed because what Congress enacted before the
weapon the GPO were kind of ad hoc trying to
get to the right figure without actually having the correct data.
So today you know, some people are receiving what they should,
but some people are receiving a little bit less and
some people are receiving a little bit more.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Okay, So how if this thing were to pass, how
much would it cost taxpayers? And given that Social Security
is a Ponzi scheme that's already failing, hasn't quite failed yet,
but there's no such thing as a lock box, and
it's it's on a road to a fiscal disaster that
will seem small compared to the collapse of Medicare, but
(06:09):
still isn't actually small. How much is it going to
cost us? How much is it going to accelerate the
decline of social securities finances?
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Yes, so providing these windfall benefits has an enormous cost
one hundred and ninety six billion dollars just over ten years,
and it would cause Social Security to become insolvent in
six months earlier. So it's already protected to become insolvent
in nine years, so it's going to be six months
earlier than that. And when that happens, everybody that is
currently receiving a benefit or in the.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Future is going to be subject to at least.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
A twenty one percent that couple increase over time, but
also by providing these benefits, it means those cuts are
actually going to be higher than the twenty one percent
because you're still going to be providing that windfall benefit
going forward.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So in essence, this is trading providing.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Windfall benefits to three or four four percent of beneficiaries
at the expense of cutting benefits for ninety six ninety
seven percent of retirees.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Okay, So I understand the point you made about that
there is actually a problem here that needs to be solved.
But this isn't it. It's like doctor, I got a
really bad hangnail. All right, let's amputate your arm. So
uh And by the way, I'm president of the Bad
Analogy Club, And that was exactly why. I just gave
you a really good example of why. So what I
(07:28):
don't understand more than any Look, I understand why Chuck
Schumer and the Democrats would want to pander to members
of government workers' unions because government workers' unions will take
their extra money and funnel it back to Democratic campaign committee.
So I get the politics of it. Why are there
Republicans on this bill? Why did this pass the House?
Why are there I think sixty two sponsors or something
(07:51):
in the Senate, I don't do they do. Republican senators
just not understand or what am I missing?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Well, the people who this.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Affects are very loud, and they are constantly in the
ears of their congress members. And it only came to
a vote at the behest of a Republican House member
who is retiring. And so I think that the reason
that people are in their congress members years is because
this is misunderstood, and so they think that their benefit
is being unfairly reduced, when in reality, now that we
(08:22):
have this information.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Social Security could providing more accurate.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Statements to individuals along the way as it is today,
these people who are subject to the weapon GPO, they
receive a statement that is what their benefit would be
based only on what is paid into the Social Security
system and not the other stuff outside of it, and
so when they then retire and receive a smaller benefit,
they think their benefit has been cut. I mean, those
(08:47):
statements do have a disclaimer on them saying, hey, you
may be subject to this, but they don't know how
much that's going to affect their benefits. So I think
part of it is just an education and awareness component
going forward, but it is unfortunate that we have seen
so many Republican members sign on to this bill, and
I think it's just the reality of what they're hearing
from their constituents who don't necessarily understand the issue.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Either.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Is this a fail complete at this point? Is this
definitely going to pass and going to be signed and
we're all going to be, you know, two hundred billion
dollars poorter.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Well, there is a hope that there could be an
amendment on this. There is a better bill. I would argue,
it is still providing more money than is necessary, but
there is an equal treatment for public servants bill. Representative
Arrington in the House has held this and there was
a Senate version previously, so it's possible that this could
be brought up as an amendment. And this is an
(09:38):
alternative way to fix the web that would provide the
actual fare and accurate benefit calculation. It would even give
payments to people who have been affected by this in
the past one hundred dollars a month or one hundred
and fifty dollars per month each and then going forward
it would provide a proportional benefit.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Nobody would get a benefit cut.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
The only scenario is you can get a benefit increase
until twenty sixty eight, when they would completely change the formula.
But the crux of it is, you know, the fair
and accurate fix which this would do going forward is
to just say, hey, we're going to base your benefits
on what you earned and what you paid into the system.
It's going to be the same for everybody, whether you
were in it the whole time or fifty percent.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Of the time.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Okay, So I just you've said the same thing, that's
a very important thing a couple of times now, and
I just want to come back to it one more
time in the context of some listener questions here, Okay,
listener texts, and I want to I'm going to I'm
just going to read three listener texts to you, but
they're all basically versions of the same question. From nineteen
(10:40):
ninety eight through twenty ten, I was a highly paid
executive six figures. I've since left that profession and now
I've worked for the State of Colorado for eleven years
and I plan to retire from there. What does this
mean for me? Another listener text? What about someone who
worked in the private sector for twenty years and then
was in PERA for twenty years. And then another listener text,
some PERO recipie and have acquired Social Security credits after
(11:02):
leaving PARA or before becoming PARA recipients. How does this
work for them? So I think it's all versions of
the same question. So can you please be pretty granular,
So not so much a conceptual level, but what does
it actually mean for people like this?
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Yeah, so if they don't pass the bill, it means nothing.
It's the status quo.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
But each of those three individuals is probably receiving either
a little more or a little less than Social Security
actually intends, so their benefit is probably not accurate to
what it should be.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
If the bill.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Passes, every one of them is going to receive an
additional windfall benefit because it's going to look like they
were significantly lower income earners than they actually were, so
that they get a proportionally higher benefit. If this bill
doesn't pass it and instead you get an amendment to
the more correct formula, then they would see a little tweak.
(11:53):
You know, if they're slightly below now, they get a
small boost. If they're slightly above now, they'd actually be
held harmless and apply until the future.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
So nobody in no case anyone's benefits be cut. I
guess that's the bottom line here.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Windfall benefits will be provided to the tune of one
hundred and ninety six billion dollars for this, you know,
three four percent of retirees. If the bill passes, and
if the amendment passes, it will just be smaller benefit increases,
more accurate.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Wow, All right, Well, we're going to keep an eye
on it. I have a feeling this thing might pass.
I think in recent years, and I hope this change
is going forward, but in recent years, the Republicans have
barely even given lip service to fiscal responsibility. And you know,
I think Trump in his first term didn't care about
(12:44):
fiscal responsibility at all. These days, he's making some slightly
better noises, but I'll believe it when I see it.
So I think Republicans feel free to spend more money
and buy votes the way Democrats always have. So my
my guess is that it passes.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
So I guess my hope.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Rachel needs to be that's amendment passes to make it better.
It seems like the most likely. It seems like the
most likely outcome at this point, right or something, something's
going to pass.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Hopeful you know, I'm not super optimistic like you. I
think that probably still will pass if it comes to vote.
But the thing here is not like other governments spending
where we're just increasing the debt.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Social Security as a closed system, so.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
You take one hundred ninety six billion dollars out of
it that comes directly from the benefits of ninety six
percent of retirees.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Rachel Gressler is a Senior Research Fellow in Workforce and
Public Finance at the Heritage Foundation Heritage dot org. You
can also find her writing at the Heritage publication called
The Daily Signal, which has a lot of great stuff.
Daily Signal dot com. Thanks for doing this, Rachel, very
interesting conversation and we'll keep in touch.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
My pleasure. Thanks Ross.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
All right,
So I've seen some stories in the past couple of
days about Senate Majority Leader not for LNG, Chuck Schumer
bringing this bill in the Senate, and I guess a
version of it past the House already that would make
some changes to the social Security system. And these changes
are a little bit technical. So we're going to need
a little bit of understanding on this, and we also
(00:20):
need to understand why it's important, because this whole thing
strikes me as quite a bad idea, and yet a
bad idea that a bunch of Republicans signed on too.
So we're going to get into the politics and the
policy of it with Rachel Gresler, who is a researcher
on actually, let me just get the whole things. I
want to make sure I get this all absolutely absolute, right,
(00:42):
Senior Research fellow in Workforce and Public Finance at the
Heritage Foundation. All right, Hi, Rachel, thanks for doing this
on short notice.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
I really appreciate it for us. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
So, first of all, can you tell us what the
issue is at hand that this bill addresses, and then
we'll talk talk about why you and I think it
might not be a great idea.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Sure, and this actually goes all the way back to
Social Securities founding in nineteen thirty So Social Security is
just a.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Little bit younger than you there.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
And when the system was designed, it was supposed to
be progressive benefits. That means that people who make less
money are going to get a higher proportion back in
their benefits and retirement.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
And the system was also.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Designed for the society of the nineteen thirties, which meant
that most women would not work in their formal labor
force once they got married.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Now there was an.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Unanticipated flaw in Social Securities benefit formula, and this applies
to people who work in public sector jobs teachers, firefighters
that used to be entirely.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Exempt from Social Security.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
So what happened is you had some workers who spent
an entire career working, say as a teacher, but that
was exempt.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
From Social Security.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
So when Social Security was looking at it, it looked
like that individual had zero earnings their entire life and
would have been a stay at home spouse and therefore
entitled to a benefit on behalf of his or her spouse.
And the same thing happened for individuals who actually did
work both in covered employment, paying Social Security taxes and
then an exempt employment where they weren't paying Social Security taxes.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Those public sector usually stay in local jobs. So somebody
who had, you know.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
One hundred and fifty thousand dollars of earnings throughout their
entire career, but only a third of their career was spent.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
In a job that was subject to Social Security.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Taxes, they're going to look like they only made fifty
thousand dollars and that was their earnings, and therefore they
looked like kind of a middle income earner and they're
going to get a higher proportional benefit when in reality
they were a very high earner. And so these were
just unanticipated things. In Congress said, okay, we want to
fix this. The problem is when they did these fixes
(02:55):
in nineteen seventy seven, in nineteen eighty three, they didn't
have the data they needed to do an accurate fix
to give the benefits that they intended. They didn't know
what people actually made in those non covered earnings. So
today they actually have the data and they could do
it correct in a fair and accurate fix. But instead
what we see the House pass and the Senate voting
(03:16):
on likely this week is something that is ironically called
the Social Security Fairness Act.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
There's nothing about it that's fair.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
It simply reverts to those formulas that existed back prior
to nineteen seventy seven and eighty three, and it provides
these large windfall benefits to people who spent a lot
of their career or their entire career not paying Social
Security taxes.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
So, just so, just so I understand, let's use as
an example a teacher in Colorado who is in Colorado's
state run pension program called pera peer. So assuming that,
and I don't know whether you know anything about Colorado specifically,
but let's just assume that Colorado people who are working
in government have a similar pension structure to most other
(03:59):
people and other teachers and other places in government. So
they contribute some amount and the government contributes some amount. However,
it works to their para pension, and that replaces Social
Security for them, and they do not pay Social Security
taxes out of their paycheck. They're not contributing to Social
Security out of their paychecks. They are in a parallel,
(04:21):
separate system. So is that right? So far, that is.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Correct, that's how it works, and usually those pensions are
significantly larger than Social Security.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Yeah, there's a big issue here in Colorado actually, because
there's still a lot of defined benefit stuff going on.
That's a big problem. But we'll do that another day.
But in any case, so now what this change would
somehow do if it passes, would be what it would
allow these people to double dip to get the para
(04:51):
pension and Social Security or what.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Yes, yes, it's going to treat those individuals like they
either had zero earnings and didn't aren't a pension in
their own right and therefore they get a spousal benefit
from Social Security, or those who had partial earnings and
partial exempt earnings, it's going to treat them like the
years that were exempt were zeros.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
And they were a lower income earner than they were.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
So these are by definition wind fall benefits, benefits that
the program did not intend to pay. But simply because
of access to the information, we weren't able to come up.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
With a correct fix. So it's not that no fix
is needed.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Something is actually needed because what Congress enacted before the
weapon the GPO were kind of ad hoc trying to
get to the right figure without actually having the correct data.
So today you know, some people are receiving what they should,
but some people are receiving a little bit less and
some people are receiving a little bit more.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Okay, So how if this thing were to pass, how
much would it cost taxpayers? And given that Social Security
is a Ponzi scheme that's already failing, hasn't quite failed yet,
but there's no such thing as a lock box, and
it's it's on a road to a fiscal disaster that
will seem small compared to the collapse of Medicare, but
(06:09):
still isn't actually small. How much is it going to
cost us? How much is it going to accelerate the
decline of social securities finances?
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Yes, so providing these windfall benefits has an enormous cost
one hundred and ninety six billion dollars just over ten years,
and it would cause Social Security to become insolvent in
six months earlier. So it's already protected to become insolvent
in nine years, so it's going to be six months
earlier than that. And when that happens, everybody that is
currently receiving a benefit or in the.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Future is going to be subject to at least.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
A twenty one percent that couple increase over time, but
also by providing these benefits, it means those cuts are
actually going to be higher than the twenty one percent
because you're still going to be providing that windfall benefit
going forward.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So in essence, this is trading providing.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Windfall benefits to three or four four percent of beneficiaries
at the expense of cutting benefits for ninety six ninety
seven percent of retirees.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Okay, So I understand the point you made about that
there is actually a problem here that needs to be solved.
But this isn't it. It's like doctor, I got a
really bad hangnail. All right, let's amputate your arm. So
uh And by the way, I'm president of the Bad
Analogy Club, And that was exactly why. I just gave
you a really good example of why. So what I
(07:28):
don't understand more than any Look, I understand why Chuck
Schumer and the Democrats would want to pander to members
of government workers' unions because government workers' unions will take
their extra money and funnel it back to Democratic campaign committee.
So I get the politics of it. Why are there
Republicans on this bill? Why did this pass the House?
Why are there I think sixty two sponsors or something
(07:51):
in the Senate, I don't do they do. Republican senators
just not understand or what am I missing?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Well, the people who this.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Affects are very loud, and they are constantly in the
ears of their congress members. And it only came to
a vote at the behest of a Republican House member
who is retiring. And so I think that the reason
that people are in their congress members years is because
this is misunderstood, and so they think that their benefit
is being unfairly reduced, when in reality, now that we
(08:22):
have this information.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Social Security could providing more accurate.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Statements to individuals along the way as it is today,
these people who are subject to the weapon GPO, they
receive a statement that is what their benefit would be
based only on what is paid into the Social Security
system and not the other stuff outside of it, and
so when they then retire and receive a smaller benefit,
they think their benefit has been cut. I mean, those
(08:47):
statements do have a disclaimer on them saying, hey, you
may be subject to this, but they don't know how
much that's going to affect their benefits. So I think
part of it is just an education and awareness component
going forward, but it is unfortunate that we have seen
so many Republican members sign on to this bill, and
I think it's just the reality of what they're hearing
from their constituents who don't necessarily understand the issue.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Either.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Is this a fail complete at this point? Is this
definitely going to pass and going to be signed and
we're all going to be, you know, two hundred billion
dollars poorter.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Well, there is a hope that there could be an
amendment on this. There is a better bill. I would argue,
it is still providing more money than is necessary, but
there is an equal treatment for public servants bill. Representative
Arrington in the House has held this and there was
a Senate version previously, so it's possible that this could
be brought up as an amendment. And this is an
(09:38):
alternative way to fix the web that would provide the
actual fare and accurate benefit calculation. It would even give
payments to people who have been affected by this in
the past one hundred dollars a month or one hundred
and fifty dollars per month each and then going forward
it would provide a proportional benefit.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Nobody would get a benefit cut.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
The only scenario is you can get a benefit increase
until twenty sixty eight, when they would completely change the formula.
But the crux of it is, you know, the fair
and accurate fix which this would do going forward is
to just say, hey, we're going to base your benefits
on what you earned and what you paid into the system.
It's going to be the same for everybody, whether you
were in it the whole time or fifty percent.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Of the time.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Okay, So I just you've said the same thing, that's
a very important thing a couple of times now, and
I just want to come back to it one more
time in the context of some listener questions here, Okay,
listener texts, and I want to I'm going to I'm
just going to read three listener texts to you, but
they're all basically versions of the same question. From nineteen
(10:40):
ninety eight through twenty ten, I was a highly paid
executive six figures. I've since left that profession and now
I've worked for the State of Colorado for eleven years
and I plan to retire from there. What does this
mean for me? Another listener text? What about someone who
worked in the private sector for twenty years and then
was in PERA for twenty years. And then another listener text,
some PERO recipie and have acquired Social Security credits after
(11:02):
leaving PARA or before becoming PARA recipients. How does this
work for them? So I think it's all versions of
the same question. So can you please be pretty granular,
So not so much a conceptual level, but what does
it actually mean for people like this?
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Yeah, so if they don't pass the bill, it means nothing.
It's the status quo.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
But each of those three individuals is probably receiving either
a little more or a little less than Social Security
actually intends, so their benefit is probably not accurate to
what it should be.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
If the bill.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Passes, every one of them is going to receive an
additional windfall benefit because it's going to look like they
were significantly lower income earners than they actually were, so
that they get a proportionally higher benefit. If this bill
doesn't pass it and instead you get an amendment to
the more correct formula, then they would see a little tweak.
(11:53):
You know, if they're slightly below now, they get a
small boost. If they're slightly above now, they'd actually be
held harmless and apply until the future.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
So nobody in no case anyone's benefits be cut. I
guess that's the bottom line here.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Windfall benefits will be provided to the tune of one
hundred and ninety six billion dollars for this, you know,
three four percent of retirees. If the bill passes, and
if the amendment passes, it will just be smaller benefit increases,
more accurate.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Wow, All right, Well, we're going to keep an eye
on it. I have a feeling this thing might pass.
I think in recent years, and I hope this change
is going forward, but in recent years, the Republicans have
barely even given lip service to fiscal responsibility. And you know,
I think Trump in his first term didn't care about
(12:44):
fiscal responsibility at all. These days, he's making some slightly
better noises, but I'll believe it when I see it.
So I think Republicans feel free to spend more money
and buy votes the way Democrats always have. So my
my guess is that it passes.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
So I guess my hope.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Rachel needs to be that's amendment passes to make it better.
It seems like the most likely. It seems like the
most likely outcome at this point, right or something, something's
going to pass.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Hopeful you know, I'm not super optimistic like you. I
think that probably still will pass if it comes to vote.
But the thing here is not like other governments spending
where we're just increasing the debt.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Social Security as a closed system, so.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
You take one hundred ninety six billion dollars out of
it that comes directly from the benefits of ninety six
percent of retirees.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Rachel Gressler is a Senior Research Fellow in Workforce and
Public Finance at the Heritage Foundation Heritage dot org. You
can also find her writing at the Heritage publication called
The Daily Signal, which has a lot of great stuff.
Daily Signal dot com. Thanks for doing this, Rachel, very
interesting conversation and we'll keep in touch.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
My pleasure. Thanks Ross.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
All right,
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.