to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here's a highlight from a key moment. >> let it stay with you. this flag is a symbol of our victory in this war. we stand, we fight, and we will win because we are united. ukraine, america, and the entire free world.

>> c-span, powered by cable. guest: i work for the cato institute, which is a nonpartisan libertarian-leaning think tank in washington, d.c. we advise congress and the administration on public policy, and the cato institute has a long history with social

security, having been known, especially in the early 2000's, for its plan to support private accounts when the bush administration was talking about it and we're building a new model at this time, so you'll be seeing more policy reforms coming out of cato in the next few months. guest: social security works is the name of our organization. i began working on social security in the 1970's, and i realized in 2010 there was a lot of misinformation about it. there was a lot of, supposed to provide a sense of security, and people were insecure because they were concerned the program would disappear. so i formed this organization, social security works, to educate everyone that social security is strong and will be there for everyone. host: the social security administration put out new information about the current status of the program, and just to summarize, and you probably

both know this as well, when you comes to the insurance trust fund, currently able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits to 2033. as of 2033, the reserve becomes depleted and it will be insufficient to pay 679% of schedule -- 79% of scheduled benefits. if you combine that, the projected fund will be able to pay 100% of total scheduled benefits until 2035. to both of you, i want to ask what these new figures mean and how we got here. ms. altman, if you wanted to start. guest: absolutely. social security is a pension plan, and like every other pension plan, it's got a set of actuaries, about 40 with the social security administration that are looking very carefully at the income and out go. these are annual reports that have come out since 1941. they should give people a sense of confidence. congress has, not surprising when you project over decades that sometimes you'll have

unanticipated surpluses, sometimes unanticipated shortfalls. what this means is money is being carefully monitored. congress has about a decade to bring in more revenue. this is no question congress will act. the only question is what they will do when they act. guest: yeah, i would like to add there's been slight improvements in the outlook of social security's finances thanks to greater labor productivity. so we're living in exciting times with the advancement of a.i., supporting especially lower and less educated workers in their jobs. we've seen great gains there. i look forward to seeing how that plays out. to the degree that the finances have been deteriorating, it's been in large part due to the aging of american society, which is in combination with the

decline in fertility. last year we had the lowest fertility rate in the united states, meaning americans are having fewer babies than ever before. all of these things factor into social security because it is a pay as you go program. what that means is that current workers working today, including myself and nancy, are paying for the benefits of current retirees. at the time when today's retirees were working, they were paying for the benefits of the retirees of that time. social security, unlike a pension program in that way, it is a government redistribution program that takes today's taxes to pay today's benefits. the trust fund makes up a small portion of the program, but even that is only invested in treasury securities, so that once again draws on current taxpayers in order to make good on those government bonds.

host: ms. altman, before her statement, ms. boccia, congress has to do something, i think this has been the kind of messaging from congress that something has to be done. but in your mind, you think congress is truly interested in doing something at this point? guest: oh, 100%. the number of bills that have been introduced all by democrats, but actually expand benefits. social security works extremely well. it's extremely secure. it's portable from job to job. it's universal. it's one short coming is that its benefits are too low. as important as it is to make sure the finances is there, that's a means to an end. so there are a number of puzzles introduced by democrats, and it's also president biden has taken the same position, and the democratic platform, which is to expand benefits, and no one earning under $400,000 will pay

a penny more. but to require those in excess, to contribute their fair share, and that will resolve, that will benefits will be introduced and paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future. republicans have not introduced any legislation but it is quite clear they say they don't want to raise revenue. the only other option is to cut benefits. so the democrats in short want to expand and require millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. republicans want to cut benefits and give tax breaks to millionaires. host: what do you think about this idea of increasing revenue or making changes to compensate for what the fund is able to do? guest: yeah, i most politely disagree with nancy that the

benefits are too low. i think that really depends on who you're looking at, and that might be an avenue for compromise because republicans and democrats, because the name of this program, social security, is officially called the old age and survivors insurance program. the question should really be, what are we ensuring -- insuring against? i would argue the most legitimate use of government in this instance is to insure against poverty in old age. at that level, there are some people that still fall below the poverty level even after receiving social security, so i think that's an area where we can come together and increase benefits potentially for some of the lowest income earners. however, social security is generous when it comes to higher income earners. if you have a too high earning individual that make up a couple, they can collect this year $117,000 a year from social

security. that's right, more than six figures for this two high earner couple. i think that is excessive. in terms of options, the option that nancy mentioned to let's call lifting the payroll tax cap, basically applying the social security tax to all earnings, without a limit. right now the limit is $168,500, up to which everyone pays social security taxes, and afterwards they still pay income taxes, but not payroll taxes. but if we lift that limit, even without increasing benefits further, as nancy referred to, just trying to pay current benefits, lifting the payroll tax cap would only close the funding shortfall by about half. that's not enough, it's not a quick fix for the program. we do need to talk about a broader sphere of changes, and i think looking at who receives benefits and how generous those

are is a key thing that should be on the table. guest: let me, if i can just respond a little bit, first of all, what social security is wage insurance. it insures wages against loss in the event of retirement, in event of death, leaving young children, in the event of disability, or you're disabled or no longer able to support yourself. it's wage insurance. and what experts say is that to replace, to maintain your standard of living when wages are lost, you're at 70% to 80% of your retirement wages. you need a higher percentage because they have no say and so forth. it's less discretionary income. social security, for someone earning about $30,000, it only replaces 40% of that income. for someone who's high income, who's earning maybe $160,000, it

only replaces 20%. that is much too low. breathe pensions are disappearing. we have a retirement income crisis where people in the future are going to require social security, even though today's retirement, the solution is to expand social security. they have costly bills that have been introduced. it was a bill that was introduced by two senators that increase benefits, but simply tax low over $400,000 on all their income. that actually raises more money than is needed, insures the benefits can be paid for 75 years and beyond. we have a bill that is over

$250,000. it increases benefits $200 a month. it shows that social security would be restored to 75-year actuarial balance. there's a third bill, the ranking member of the social security subcommittee, over 180 cosponsors in the house, and it's been introduced in the senate and it has an enormous number of both across the board increases and targeted increases, targeted caregiver credit, or age benefits and so forth. that allows benefits to be paid on time through 2066. the solutions are there. it's just the matter of congress taking a vote. host: we're inviting our callers to ask questions of our guests about the future of social security, especially in light of this new information.

different phone lines today. if you are under the age of 42, 202-748-8000. if you are falling between the ages of 40 and 65, 202-748-8001. if you are over the age of 65, 202-748-8002. if you receive social security benefits and you want to highlight that, please do, in our conversations with nancy altman of social security works and ms. boccia of the cato institute. to both of you, this idea of, i suppose, any time a discussion takes place about making these changes, the person that you have to ask, is this going to affect me right now? how do you satisfy those concerns despite any conversation that takes place going into the future when it comes to social security, ms. boccia? . we have a robust private

retirement savings system in the united states that's working fabulously. we have some of the highest private savings rate for retirement among all oecd nations. other industrialized countries like european countries, canada, etc. our 401-k and i.r.a. system, especially with features like auto enrollment that works through employers with direct deposit is a model of -- for the world. we shouldn't discount that income. especially when we are talking about burdening younger, lower net worth working americans with potentially higher taxes in order to finance benefits for many americans who simply don't need them. if you are a millionaire, yes, you have paid taxes into social security, your entire life, as has everyone else, it is still a government program. it is not a private account in the way that your 401-k is. i do think we need to ask,

especially with the demographic shift we are going through, who should receive benefits? what is the right level of benefits for those individuals that need benefits the most? and how can we encourage and support more saving and capital investment, and also investment in education by workers so they can have those productivity increases that allows them to thrive today and also save for the future? how do you prevent changes to people's current benefits, especially those people who rely on them. it means congress shunts wait until 2033 to take action. but they should take action today. i have been very encouraged by the efforts -- bipartisan efforts by house budget committee chairman jodey arrington, and scott peters from the democratic side, to put together a fiscal commission for congress to look at a holistic picture of the federal budget and try to stabilize the debt. social security's only one

aspect of our debt problem. it contributes roughly 1/3 to our unfunded obligations. the big elephant in the room is medicare. and if we use all of the additional tax revenue to shore up social security benefits, how are we going to make sure there is enough revenue available to protect seniors' health when they are sick? because medicare has an even greater shortfall. we shouldn't look at these things in a vacuum. we need to take a look at the full picture. host: before we takes calls miss altman? guest: social security is an important distinction between insurance and savings. social security does not add a penny 209 deficit -- penny to the deficit. it is completely self-financed. not sufficient income to cover any costs including administrative. benefits would be cut across the board. which is why we are facing this action in 2033, 2034.

it's very important -- just as private pensions are segregated from the general fund, that's how social security is treated and should be treated. it's important to understand that what you need for events that are unlikely to happen but very serious they do is insurance not savings. you need life insurance and disability insurance, which are two of the benefits social security provides. although most of us will reach retirement age, we all hope to, you don't know at age 20 whether you are going to live to 110 or whether you are going to pass away at 57. you know those kinds of issues. you don't know whether you are going to have periods of unemployment. whether you are going to become injured. uncertainties. actuaries know for groups but not individuals. that's why you can't really --

what you need for a secure retirement is insurance. a pension plan. that's what social security provides. it has the best features of private sector defined benefit traditional pensions and 401-k's with none of the disadvantages. that's why social security is a solution. host: take some calls. mark in pennsylvania on our line for those between the ages of 40 and 65. mark, go ahead. you are on with our guest. caller: i really like this conversation. you had a chart a couple weeks ago how much we are spending on social security and medicare, it was $4.9 trillion. we take in $4.3 trillion in taxes. i don't know what universe this is being paid for. we are $500 billion in the hole every year just paying for medicare and social security. and the democrats want to put on more spending on top of that. like putting your house on fire and pouring gasoline all over it

and say it's not burning down. this is not working. it was an insurance policy. not a retirement plan. nobody's readjusted it for the longevity of the american people. they planned it originally to be 65. and most people died right around 65. so they weren't paying for 20, 30-year retirement programs. i don't understand where you are getting your numbers. i don't. please explain to me how much money we have -- social security trust fund. how much. how many trillions of dollars. guest: absolutely. the social security -- as i say there are -- getting my numbers from the social security administration, from the office of the actuary that looks at this every single day. a report that just came out, the 2024 old age survivors disability insurance trustees report, shows that it -- social security currently has accumulated reserve, accumulated surplus of $2.7 trillion.

it brought in $1.3 trillion in revenue last year alone. so the numbers are quite clear. and the law is quite clear. social security is prohibited by law from paying any benefits unless it has -- sufficient revenue to cover every penny. and it has no borrowing authority. in fact, it is a creditor of the united states. it has, as i say, $2.7 trillion in accumulated surplus. it's on the social security website. if you go to ssa.gov/oact, for old age -- the actuary's website. office of the actuary and click on the publications and look at the 2024 trustees report. the numbers are all there. you are see every penny,

including the $2.7 trillion of treasury bonds that money is investmented in, including the maturity date, interest rates. it's there for anyone to see. the messenger: ms. boccia. guest: i agree with what nancy said about the financing overall. it's important to keep in mind where the caller is right as well is that we are hurdling our way towards a fiscal crises. two of the three major credit agencies have already taken the step of downgrading the u.s. debt. the third credit agency has turned our outlook, our credit rating outlook, to negative. investors are paying attention. we are also paying much, much higher interest rates now than we were before. how does social security play into that?

that $2.7 trillion that nancy mentioned that is a assigned to the social security trust fund, is parter of our gross national debt which is as big as the entire economy of the united states. while social security still has trust fund reserves, in terms of cash flow, because you have to keep in mind it's a pay-as-you-go program. those trust fund reserves weren't invested in real market assets. they were invested in treasury bonds. where does the treasury get its money from? from current taxpayers. so it doesn't abelievate the burden on current -- alleviate the burden on current workers, especially when the proportion of workers responsible for paying for the benefits of each retiree is shrinking rapidly. that's where we need to keep in mind also the economic implications of drawing on current workers which make up a

smaller and dwindling group compared to the number of retirees which are growing and expanding as the size of the population from 15% to 20% of the u.s. population. how do we make this math work without having a severe fiscal crises where the indiscriminate cuts that social security beneficiaries are potentially facing in 2033 could be much, much smaller in magnitude than what might happen to much more americans if we run into a fiscal crisis. social security has a role to play there because it is underfunded. one last point, another report that i commend your readers to check out is the financial report of the united states government. it makes 75-year projections. it shows that of the unfunded obligations, the gap between what the government will select collect in taxes and what it has promised to pay in benefits, of those unfunded obligations, 100%

can be attributed to medicare and social security. that's one third social security, and 2/3 medicare. no matter how you look at this issue we are on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. we need to reform both social security and medicare to avoid a future fiscal crisis. host: hold on. sorry, let me get this call in. right back to you. alexander in baltimore. line under 40. go ahead. caller: hi. thank you so much for taking my call this morning. it was a difference in the view of the outlook of the utilization of social security that stood out to me in this conversation. one speaker mentioned that social security is meant to be wage insurance. and the other speaker mentioned that social security is intended to be protection against falling into poverty in old age. i have the privilege of actually working with mutual funds for living and working with retirees for a living.

i get to see the best of both worlds. i know that social security is on track to becoming insolvent really in about 10 years. so it's really not that far off. i understand there are challenges to sort of feeling with both. the bureaucracy of the federal government and its inability to keep a clean balance sheet in my opinion is the biggest think to -- thing to preventing it from insurance wages. likewise on the other side of that lack of information to poor people is probably the biggest in keeping them back from the robust private retirement plans that we have going on. it would be very nice to hear each of you speak about some of the obstacles in the way of what you believe is going to make this system better and come into some sort of consensus on that. host: that's alexander in baltimore. ms. altman, go ahead.

guest: let me talk about a number of things. excellent question. the united states is the wealthiest country in the world. we are at the wealthiest moment in our nation's history. doesn't always feel that way because we also have unprecedented income and wealth inequality. when social security was last -- when congress last acted in a major legislation with st*s amendments of 198 -- social security amendments of 1983, the actuaries as they always do issued a trustees report which showed that social security was in complete balance for the full 75-year period, which would have taken us to 2057. so what happened? the actuaries have said that the unanticipated, what they didn't anticipate, was the income and wealth inequality of the 1990's.

and studies, economic policy institute has put out a study that showed it just didn't last -- just in the last decade that income inequality has cost social security $1.4 trillion. that's $1.4 trillion that stayed in the pockets of wealthy americans rather than being contributed as it should have been to social security. the question of whether we expand social security or cut it is a matter of values. social security works extremely well. they say it has the advantages of the defined benefit and defined contribution private sector plans with none of the disadvantages. the american people as polarized as we are over so many hot button issues, poll after poll shows the american people are united in their support for social security. they do not want to see it cut. this is a bipartisan position. about 80% of the american people

do not want to see a cut. they believe it will be more important than ever. if anything they would like to see it expanded. that seems to me is the right policy. i think what's standing in the way is that the word is not out much of the media reportser nothing. there are a number bills analyzed by the social security administration pending in congress but that get very underreported. what we need to do is is bring them to a vote and let the american people see where the two parties stand on whether to expand or cut social security. host: ms. boccia. guest: i'd love to answer the caller's question as well. thank you for taking the time to call in and chat with us this morning. how do we make sure that more americans, especially lower income americans, can also take advantage of the robust private

saving system that this country offers. i think education can be part of it, but we also have to keep in mind that one of the primary reasons that many lower earning americans do not participate in the 401-k system is it has such strict rules under what circumstances you can take the money out early. if you make a mistake you pay a hefty tax penalty. i think that if you are worried you might need the money, not when you're 65 and older, but maybe the next five or 10 years because your car breaks down or your heater in your house needs to be replaced, then you are not going to be willing to lock that up until retirement because otherwise you end up having to pull on credit cards which ultimately hurt your overall financial well-being in the long term. what do you do? canada has a really good plan here that i think congress should take a closer look at. that's for universal savings account that aren't just savings accounts where your money gets locked up until retirement, but

that allow all americans to save for emergency needs. for things that they might need immediately and and leave the money in those accounts if they don't need it, and it will also be there for them in retirement. making it more flexible so -- especially lower income americans can participate in the great growth of the united states economy by having their savings and accounts that they own. and that they control. and where they can invest those funds for retirement and other needs. i think would greatly expand participation among that population. host: in new york, stephanie, go ahead. caller: i want to address the young lady from the cato institute. i'm retired now. and you're saying they want to cut out social security. how can a person live on $1,600 a month? you saying everything should be private. i don't think so. because i worked over 30 years.

and i contribute to the social security. just like every working poor person in this country. the problem is that the rich people are not contributing the way they supposed to contribute. we are the ones who are contributing to the social security. not those over $400,000. it's not fair to us. then you all want to go into private partnership with these cutthroat people and wall street who takes all the money from the poor people. they don't care about us. you want us to go into private? the republican party stole from the social security during the bush administration and during the reagan. tell them to give us our money back. host: that's stpef any. ms. boccia. for both of you if you want to factor in how many people you think depend on social security -- their own means of retirement support.

ms. boccia. guest: there were a lot of strong claims in there and i probably won't have time to debunk all of them. i would like to say that the way that social security is structured, it's an earnings related benefit. if we want to talk about making it into a welfare program where people pay in at higher incomes without receiving commensurate benefits, that is a discussion that we can have. but that's not how the system is set up. right now. wealthy people also contribute payroll taxes up to the cap. their benefits also reflect that. actually they get lower levels of return, if you will, on those taxes, because social security uses a progressive benefit formula that provides higher benefits for lower earners compared to their preretirement earnings. and lower benefits to higher earners which makes logical

sense because higher earns can supplement their social security with other savings and investments. i do think we should have a conversation about exactly how social security can better provide benefits for lower income workers and what those benefits should look like. and i think that's something where maybe democrats and republicans could find some compromise. we have seen this play out in other countries. at cato we just had a social security symposium looking at the program and potential reforms from a global perspective. if you look at the united kingdom, for example, it has moved away from an earnings related benefit towards a flat benefit that is predictable. and that -- so that you know what you can expect from the system which also makes it easier to figure out how much you need to save on your own in order to achieve that level of retirement income where you're comfortable. the way that works in the u.k.

is they increase benefits for lower earners, and increase benefits for caregivers and others that have breaks in their employment history. so those people who rely on benefits the most because they haven't had consistent high earnings histories. they redues benefits significantly for upper income earners so the program is more targeted and provides that poverty protection for those people who need it the most. host: hear from nancy altman. guest: i think the caller really stated it very well. this is an earned benefit. it's part of workers' compensation. workers start paying in with their first paycheck. they pay from the first dollar they earn. and it is deferred compensation. it's an earned benefit. it's insurance. we have another program that was enacted in 1972, a companion program, called the supplemental

security income program. it was designed to make sure it's a means tested program for people over age 65 and people with disabilities. but as one of the architects -- creators of social security said, the american people, the program has not been expanded. this is, again, supposed to keep people out of poverty. when congress enacted it they said it was guaranteed so people would not retire into poverty. yet it currently pays benefits that are only 3/4 the poverty level. it's got extremely restrictive asset limits so you can only save a few,000. over that you lose your benefits. you can earn very little income. it really needs to be expanded. there are bills to expand it.

again, congress has not taken the step, the republicans have not allowed it to be expanded. what they want to do is turn social security into the supplemental security income program which then they will no. what we need to do is expand both programs. we need -- i agreed with romina, in a country as wealthy as ours no one should retire into poverty. the responses to expand social security, to increase the -- update the minimum benefit by which nobody gets anymore, and expand the supplemental security income program. again, this is a question of values not affordability. host: two guests joining us for this discussion. nancy altman of social security. romina boccia works at the cato institute. pennsylvania, hello. caller: yes, i was wondering.

i was wondering if you could do anything about the predators of social security. in 2022 i got a nice raise on my social security. the i don't remember the exact amount i got on my social security the new monthly income. gas prices and everything else went up. it took all of my money out of my rent. is there anything they can do about that? host: the idea of cost of living increases? i think cola is the akreuman -- acrow pheupb -- acrow pheupb -- acura pheupb. guest: there is an automatic annual adjustment every year. this is not pwaepb fit increase. it's simply designed to ensure benefits don't erode over time. the beneficiaries can tread water.

but they are sinking. because as important as this feature is, it uses a measure of the cost of living, what's called the consumer price index for urban workers. that was the only index that was available in 1972 when congress enacted these automatic adjustments. but congress realized right away that was insufficient. that undermeasured the cost of living of seniors and people with disabilities who spend disproportionately on things like health care and much less on things like the latest technology where health care prices have been going up faster than overall inflation. smart phones, as you know, you keep getting new features and less costs. so forth. so congress directed the bureau of labor statistics to come up with a new measure, the cpie for

the elderly. and they did that and they have been putting it out every year. congress did not take the next step of saying ok now we are going to use that for social security and the other retirement civil service. the other retirement programs. the bills that i mentioned, the sanders-warren-schakowsky bill, the larson bill, and president biden have all come out for using the cpie not the c. -- cpiw. the caller is exactly right. it's not a good -- it's better than not having any measure. private sector plans don't have -- again, this is an increase, if inflation goes up double digits, you get a double-digit increase. there is no limit to it. but it under measures and should be updated with the cpie. tph*epb those -- then those benefits will go up. will not erode but will retain

their purchasing power, even if you live 20, 30, 40 years. it has a compounding effect. so the older you are, the more your benefits will erode if they are not properly indexed. host: romina. guest: we disagree on the inflation adjustment. what's even more important to point out here is that the reason that we have to to protet scenessor from this excessive inflation is because of the excessive deficit spending that the federal government is doing with social security and medicare contributing to a large degree to that deficit fend spending in addition to the higher interest rates that the federal government is now having to pay. i think that emphasizes that we should protection all americans from excessive inflation which ultimately is a hidden tax that hits people's bank accounts, money that they have invested in real estate or other market assets f you just have savings

in your bank account, those get eroded from inflation. and for lower income workers, whose wages have not been keeping up with inflation, this is a double whammy as your savings are eroded and their income is declining at the same time. how do we protect all americans from inflation, including seniors so we don't have to have this band-aid fix of the cost of living adjustment, which, of course, is a good thing textists. but that is to -- that exists. that is get our federal budget under control and closer to balance and at the point where we are stabilizing the growth and debt. the current united states debt is $34 trillion. as large as the size of the u.s. economy. over the next 30 years congress is projecting to accumulate four times the publicly held debt that we have aggregated over the entire history of our nation. four times that just over the

next 30 years. that is clearly unsustainable. many independent outlets like penn wharton have said we are going to face a fiscal crises over the next 15, perhaps 20 years depending on economic conditions. but there is pretty much no one who thinks that is affordable, sustainable, or that investors are just going to keep up buying government debt so we can continue to pay medicare and social security benefits without making any changes to these programs. we have to look the facts in the eye and congress needs to work together which is why i think a fiscal commission like the fiscal stability act would set up, is a great vehicle to bring both sides to the table to discuss these important issues and put us on a path to reform. guest: if can i say, social security, then, does not add a penny to the deficit. medicare is a symptom. medicare is more efficient than private health insurance, but our patchwork system of health

insurance has us paying the highest health care costs in the world with less good outcomes, higher infant mortality, and so forth. the answer is to have universal health insurance. medicare for all. medicare was intended to be a first step. in fact, president roosevelt proposed -- studied it and president truman, and president johnson decided to go let's do it incrementally. medicare for seniors was added in 1965 for people with disabilities in 1972. we have not made any progress since. it is time to put in a medikids program, that's the way to control health care costs, private as well as public. that will help the deficit issue, but it will also help families afford -- not have to pay so much for health.

host: let's hear one more call. scott in maryland on our line for those under 40. hello. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. glad you both can talk about this subject while smiling at each other. one comment i'll say is social security, it's not socialism security. i just want to reiterate what ms. romina had mentioned. the deficit is what, the debt is $34 trillion. as she pointed out it just seems, to me, maybe i'm stupid, but how is that sustainable? who is going to pay for that? it seems like we have an us versus them society already based on class. based on age. based on race. and our leaders are promoting this. but if you have 30% of the younger people paying for 70% of the older people, and also the demographic breakout there, like

i said we seem to be politicizing our differences, i think that's a very scary thing, to be honest. we just can't afford to saddle the younger generation with this enormous tax burden. host: scott there in maryland. take his thoughts. final thoughts as well. ms. boccia, you start. guest: i agree that it's not just a question of values. values are important, but affordability is also important. what can our economy afford. what can current workers afford? given the aging of society and the excessively generous benefits that social security is especially paying to higher income earners, we need to look at more transformative change so the program can fulfill its original purpose of providing some measure of poverty protection without undermining economic growth and the future of america's families and younger workers. host: ms. altman, last word. guest: social security in the future is going to be more important than ever.

we need to lower our drug costs. we need to control health care costs by having medicare for all. we need to expand social security. the whole point of social security is to provide basic economic security to the american people. that is by definition really a political question in the best sense of the word. how much do we want to provide ourselves collectively through this pooled risk program of social security and medicare extended to medicare for all and how much we want to do privately. social security is going to be more important in the future, not less important. and the american people, as i say, are overwhelmingly united by poll after poll after poll. if the members of congress follow the will of the american people, which i think is the best policy as well, and they allow these democratic bills to come up for a vote, we will

expand social security, require the very wealthiest, millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share. as i say, the american people will have greater economic security. host: social security works.org is the website for the organization in which nancy altman serves as president. romina boccia of the cato institute. budget and entitlement policy direct kwrofrplt find her work at cato.org. lots of future conversation i suspect on this topic for both of you. thanks for giving us your time. >> the u.s. house has gaveled out and will be back in session this afternoon at 2:00 eastern. today members are working on several measures, including a five-year re-authorization of f.a.a. funding that cleared the senate last week. representatives will also debate a measure on price transparency for tickets and lodging expenses. and one expressing support for law enforcement. live coverage of the house when

members return here on c-span. >> earlier today acting labor secretary julie su joined other biden administration officials, as well as state and local leaders torques speak at a infrastructure conference hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce in washington, d.c. this year's focus was on implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure law and other challenges and opportunities still ahead. watch the event tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. c-span now our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill. providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. taking you to where the policy's debated earn decided with the

support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided. with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> coming up, a conversation about defense priorities for the united states and lithuania with u.s. ambassador to nato, julian smith, and lithuania's defense minister. they talk about the russia ukraine