And we have 2.3 million ARP members in Texas alone. So it's great to welcome all of you here today. And I think we're in for a really good treat this morning. So if you haven't gotten your lunch yet, if you just want to go quietly, OK? So we have today, we have something really good to look forward to. We have an outstanding panel. We have a very highly regarded moderator and three outstanding panelists. And the issues that we're going to be discussing today are the future of social security and Medicare. Issues that touch each one of us and our families in a very personal way. Before I go on, I would like to recognize three very special women who are so important to our work on these issues in San Antonio and in Texas. First, Julia Castellano-Hoyt. And if you would just please stand and wave so they'll know who you are. She's a member of our executive council. Irma Mideles, and I know Irma's here somewhere. She is our congressional district lead for Congressional District 20. And Lisa Rodriguez, who is our associate state director, who's based here. Thank you. Thank you for all the work you do for AARP. Social security and Medicare are the very foundation of security when we get older. But I'm sure you know these programs are facing some very serious changes today. That's why AARP has been reaching out to its members and the public through a process called you've earned a say. A national conversation about social security and Medicare and what's on the table in Washington. And so far, during these you've earned a say sessions, which some of you have participated in, we have heard from six and a half million members. So what did we hear? This is what we heard. We heard from people telling us they are tired of politicians in Washington saying the only way to fix Medicare is to cut benefits or for seniors to pay more. We heard concerns about high prescription drug costs and waste and fraud in the Medicare system. And we heard concerns about social security being used as a piggy bank to offset deficit reduction. And today we'll get to hear, not only from our panelists, but also from you. Throughout the hour, and I think this, I'm gonna close this down so we'll open it up again later. And today we'll get to hear not only from our panelists, but from you. Throughout the next hour, we'll be collecting questions from viewers who are viewing the event through our webcast partner. NowcastSA.com and we'll allow some time at the end for questions and answers from those of you in the audience. All the questions, including those we can't get to in our limited time, will be forwarded to all three panelists after the event for their consideration. And I'm sure that we will print them up in an email or something so you'll get your answers. And now I'm excited to introduce to you today's moderator. We didn't have to travel too far into Austin to get just about the best in the country. He's just not just about the best, he is the best in the country. He will be introducing our panel in a few minutes, but first a few words about him. Evan Smith is the editor in chief and CEO of the Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan digital news organization based in Austin. The Tribune's deep coverage of Texas politics and public policy can be found at its website in the pages of New York Times, newspapers, on TV and radio stations across the state. Before co-founding the Tribune, he spent nearly 18 years at Texas Monthly, including eight years as editor and a year as president and editor in chief. On his watch, I'll close it to the mic. Okay, I thought I was loud. On his watch, Texas Monthly won the National Magazine Award for General Excellence twice. For eight years, he hosted the Lone Star Emmy Award-winning weekly interview program, Texas Monthly Talks, which aired on PBS stations statewide. He currently hosts Over Heard with Evan Smith, airing on PBS stations nationally. And I can tell you, I listen to it all the time. I watch it on PBS. He's much better than Charlie Rose. A New York native, he has a bachelor's degree in public policy from Hamilton College and a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University. So would you please help me welcome the incredible Evan Smith? Molly, appreciate it. Good morning. Hope that you're all well. Thank you very much for joining us.  But we have a special opportunity now to bring to us live from Washington D.C. Congressman Joaquin Castro, who represents, I believe you know, Congressional District 20. He's a very familiar face to this part of town. Not only does he represent Congressional District 20, but he represented House District 135 in the Texas House for 10 years, for five terms. He is a native of San Antonio, a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School. And along with his brother, Julian, and their amazing mother, Rosie Castro, who I think maybe, has Rosie Castro arrived, she'll be joining us at some point. Along with Rosie, the castros have really elevated the level of political conversation and discourse in this community and in this state and in this country to a degree that Democrat-Republican are independent. We can all be grateful for and proud of. Let's give Congressman Castro a hand. Congressman, I hear there's some kind of government shutdown that may have kept you from joining us today. Everybody over here, such a wonderful job for the seniors of San Antonio and of Texas. Thank you for putting this together. Kerry Flagg, my district director who's there, on my behalf, I want to say thank you to him very much. I wish that I could bring you to San Antonio. Of course, we are in the second week of the government shutdown and are very close to defaulting on our debt in the next few days, if an agreement is not reached. And for that reason, myself and all of us in Congress have remained here in Washington to try to reach an agreement to make sure that the pain that the nation has gone through over the last few weeks comes to a close. As you can imagine, I received in all, probably 1,000 calls and letters and emails regarding the government shutdown. We are a city where you have a lot of federal workers and we've got 22,000 people whose lives were affected in the work that's going on in San Antonio, for example, but not just in the public, also with education and with healthcare. Veterans benefits are at stake if this thing goes somehow past November 1st. So I'm up here in Washington trying to make sure that we resolve this as soon as we can. Just a word about some of the issues that y'all are gonna be talking about today and then I know that you probably have a few questions for me. As we think about the future of Medicare and Social Security, I am someone who wants to make sure that they preserve not only for this generation of Americans, my mom turned 66 this year, for example, but also for future generations of Americans. And when we get that question a lot in politics, what would you do to Social Security, what would you do to Medicare? And the story that I always come back to is a story of my grandmother and we got a chance to tell her story at the Democratic National Convention last year, but my grandmother, for all the years of work that she put in, after she had spent a lifetime working as a maid, a babysitter and a cook, the only thing she had when she could no longer work because she was afflicted by diabetes, the only income she had was about a $335 a month Social Security check to her name. That was it. Without that, and even with that, she still lived with us, with my mom and we were all in one household. So that story, unfortunately, is not an uncommon story. That is a very common story, not only in San Antonio, but throughout the country. So I wanna make sure that however we reform these programs going forward. And I do think that we should start with the areas where we can agree. So for example, if we're gonna do reforms, I think the reform should be done for people that are 40 and under first, because I think you're gonna find agreement easier for those ages. And also because I think people in my generation, generation X, generation Y, the millennials, we expect going forward that the programs are going to have to change. So, and I also think that if you can't agree on how to do it with people under 40 years old, then you're certainly not gonna be able to agree on how to do it with people that are ranging between 40 and 50 or 50 to 55. So that's been my goal, is making sure that when we think about reform, we think about how we're gonna do it to the future generations. I say that Evan and I'll close this point out with this. We know that Social Security, for example, for all the push for reform, which is good in terms of thinking ahead, but that program is solvent to about 2030 or 2033. So we need to approach it with a lot of concern, but also handle it at the right pace. It's not gonna go broke tomorrow. We do have time to come up with a sensible solution, a common sense solution, and that's what I'd like to work towards. Great, great. Congressman, let me ask you as you are in the midst of negotiations over the government shutdown and over avoiding a default where the full faith and credit of the United States is at some risk over the next day and a half to two days, right? Thursday is the day. That's right. How should people in this room who are concerned about the payment of government benefits, the kind of entitlements that make people in this room able to live the lives that they live, how should they be regarding the negotiations over the next couple of days? Are they at risk? Come Thursday, if you all can't decide on a deal. Absolutely. The entire nation stands a lot to lose. As I mentioned, if we go to November 1st, for example, veterans' benefits would be affected, but also for folks who have been able to put some savings into the stock market, for example, if UC is going to a default, the consequences are going to be severe, and not just the short-term consequences of the market, the effect on the market, but also the long-term consequences with respect to the American economy and our role in the world. For example, there were remarks yesterday or the day before by, I think, the economic minister in China who is seizing upon this opportunity and the self-inflicted wounds created within this Congress to make the argument to the rest of the world that we need to live in a de-Americanized world where the dollar, for example, is no longer the premier currency. And so we are giving those who would do us some harm an opening by essentially creating this crisis within government. So we've got absolutely a lot to lose. Yeah. What's your best guess at this point? I mean, I know you don't want to be in the handicapping business, but I just left the car driving down here from Austin where it sounded like the House Republicans and the Senate are very, very far apart. What do you think is gonna happen in the next 12 to 18 hours? Where are we? Well, the good thing is that everybody is sitting down and talking, that there are serious conversations and proposals that are coming to the table. But my best estimate is that we do do something to avoid the default. That's certainly my hope, but also my analysis. It will be the Senate that we, in terms of that proposal. Because in the Senate, you actually have Democrats and Republicans who are working in earnest to try to find a resolution to this. The Republicans in the House of Representatives that control the majority in the House are, you know, are still sticking with things that they know the Senate is never gonna go for. As you remember, Evan, it was Senator Cruz and the Tea Party Republicans in the House of Representatives that really drove the government shutdown. And even now, it don't seem to be phased as much by the idea of defaulting on our debt. In fact, some have said that it would be cathartic, that it would be something that would be good for the nation if we default. Fortunately, you have 80% of Americans who disagree with that position and are very much pressuring people to come to an agreement. One more thing on that, what's also unfortunate is that even if we come to a resolution this time, I hope that this Congress learns its lesson, that we shouldn't have government by crisis, that an open functioning government is not something that should be horse-traded between the parties. In other words, it's not something that Democrats give to Republicans or Republicans give to Democrats. A working government is something that every member of Congress owes to the American people. And so if we come to an agreement, and I think and I hope that we will, I also hope that we won't be sitting here in January or February with the same problem or even a year from now with the same problem. Our greatest challenges right now are the self-inflicted means by this Congress and government. Our deficit, as you know, has been coming down at the fastest rate in American history. The President started with about a trillion dollar deficit, that's come down to about $250 billion. We need to get that to zero so we have a balanced budget, we can start paying off our debt and then everybody wins it though. Yeah. All right, well, Congressman, thank you for taking a couple of minutes away to join us, get back to work. Save our democracy, okay? Thank you. We'll see you back home soon. Everybody, let's give Congressman Castro a hand. Thank you very much. Thank you. On my left is Kerry Clack. He is District Director for Democratic U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro who represents Congressional District 20 in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Clack first joined the Castro campaign as Communications Director back in 2011. Previously he was a columnist editorial board member and Metro columnist for the San Antonio Express News. On his left is Bob Jackson who has been the AARP's Texas State Director since 2005. He first joined the organization as a legislative consultant back in 2000. Previously he was a partner in the Boyer and Jackson law firm in Sarasota, Florida where he practiced elder law. He also served as General Counsel and Legislative Affairs Director for the Florida Department of Elder Affairs and as Assistant General Counsel for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. And then finally on his left is Bill Mock, Executive Vice President of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce. This January will mark his 20th anniversary with the chamber where he began work in its Military Affairs Department. Over the years he's held a variety of positions at the chamber from Vice President of Membership to Vice President for Economic Development and to his current position which he assumed five years ago. Previously he spent 30 years in the United States Air Force retiring with the rank of Colonel. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Clack, Mr. Jackson and Colonel Mock. Thank you. Gentlemen I want to begin with, thank you for being here, I want to begin with a point that Congressman Castro made. I don't know how well the audio could be heard in the audience but I thought he made a very interesting point about the solvency of the programs we're discussing today. He posed it in, I'll paraphrase this way. It's an urgent problem but it's not an immediate problem in that we still have time to approach the task of reform at a proper pace. Not at a frenzied pace, not at a harried pace, not at an irresponsible pace but at a pace that adequately reflects the seriousness of the problem. I want to ask each of you beginning with Mr. Jackson. We hear a lot about the crisis of Social Security or the crisis of Medicare. Is that hyperbole that is appropriate to a political discussion but actually detached from reality or are these truly crises that we have to rush to address? It's not a crisis. Not a crisis. It's not a crisis. There are some important issues, there are complicated issues but Social Security, frankly, isn't very complicated. It's a matter of adding and subtracting. Well for some of us math is complicated so I wouldn't make it. Well for me too, we're out of going to med school but the point is you either add money into the system or you reduce benefits and it's just that kind of balance so Social Security really runs as just simple arithmetic. Medicare is much more complicated and I think that's one of the places that we've got to take a special care because in this country we know that the biggest driver of the cost of Medicare is in fact the cost of health care in general and we've got to deal with the cost of health care. We spend more than twice of what other Western nations spend per capita across the whole system. That's just too much. We know there's fraud and misuse within the system. Those are things that can be addressed and there's some efficiencies that can be addressed. We know that if you're managing care in a more deliberate way and managing chronic disease, you can make a huge impact on how much you have to spend and that's a big deal. These are all places that we need to sit down, not yell at one another and just really think through how do you take this problem and just deal with it one issue at a time. Okay, and we're gonna get into what some of the proposed solutions have been and some additional things that maybe we're not talking about politically a little bit later in our conversation. Let me ask Mr. Clack, you've come at this as District Director for Congressman Castro. I'm gonna ask you the political question. In the political world, we do only hear hyperbole and not only on the subjects of Social Security and Medicare, but on every subject. We hear this is the most important problem. This is the biggest problem. We have to upturn the Apple Card to deal with this problem yesterday. That's not really in touch with the reality that Bob talked about, is it? It's not, but it's politics, so I don't expect. Help us understand from inside the political system the view of these two issues. I also wanna say, first of all, the Congressman Castro does not really talk like that. He's very articulate and he doesn't, but I wanna say something, could I agree with Bob about hyperbole and about not being a crisis? But one thing that I've learned working in the district office since January, something I've probably kinda had a sense of before then, but really now know is that when you're on Social Security, it is a crisis sometimes, and especially because when it's fed by all the hyperbole. And if you're one of the 72% of low, middle income seniors who, that's 17% of your salary of your income, or like Congressman Castro's grandmother Victoria, if it's 100% of her income, it is a crisis all the time. For you, the problem couldn't be more certain. Exactly. But I do agree that it's not something that devastation is imminent. But I also don't think that the hyperbole of politicians on both sides is ever gonna stop. So then the focus, the attention on these two issues, even though the problem may not be immediate, is not misplaced. We do have to figure out how to solve these problems, even if the end of these programs is not tomorrow or anytime soon, the amount of attention we place on it in the political system is appropriate. Of course. Right. Colonel Mock, you represent the greater chamber of commerce on this, greater San Antonio chamber on this program. I think it's important to note that the greater San Antonio chamber does not have a position institutionally on what to do about these issues. You're not here to present that. That is correct. But the business community has a stake in the larger community, so the San Antonio chamber does have an interest in how this issue is addressed. Yes. I think the answer is we do have an interest, and I think the business community has an interest. While the greater San Antonio chamber of commerce does not have positions on either social security reform or Medicare, the US chamber of commerce does. And I would tell you that the president, Tom Donahue of the US chamber back in June said that he called this a ticking time bomb and that entitlements are doomed if something is not done. I would tell you that in the congressman's comments, he alluded to the fact that we often get to a crisis before we take action to do anything. I guess from a business standpoint, our interest would be that the reforms or the changes or whatever is necessary to make sure that the social security and Medicare are there for everyone for their lifetime, that we start to address that now. In 2005, there was a commission, I think, that the social security folks put together and they realized that there's a problem. Another eight years have passed and we haven't really done anything. So I guess my concern and interest is we gotta do something and do it in a, not in a crisis mode, but in a logical, well thought out group input. Isn't the reason, Mr. Jackson, that we haven't done what Colonel Locke is talking about, had a serious conversation about this despite our recognition that the problem exists. You often hear in politics that social security is the third rail, the thing that nobody wants to touch. Medicare can be said to be the same thing. This is a very difficult problem to solve substantively, but it has enormous political consequences. The people in this room, the people, the 2.3 million people that Ms. Bisterra described as part of the AARP universe in Texas. The people who care deeply about this issue because they're most directly affected by it, they vote. They're engaged people. And if you mess with their issue, they're gonna mess back with you. So isn't the politically sensitive nature of this issue, the reason that Colonel Locke is referring to why nothing has gotten done? Yes. Yeah, absolutely, yeah. I mean, our people vote and our members vote and they vote in every election and they show up and have their voices heard. What I think folks have to understand too is not only, and the Colonel's correct, and so is Kerry, I mean, this is an important issue. I mean, and it's a personal thing. I mean, when it's your income and it's a benefit that you paid into and earned, you don't like having it called an entitlement. When you've paid your lifetime for something, you've earned it. And that entitlement word has become one of those bits of political hyperbole, and we've gotta get away from that. So you object to the discussion broadly of quote entitlement reform, because you don't believe that these two programs qualify as an entitlement. I don't think they're entitlements. They're not entitlements. They are in fact programs that the people in this room and most of the citizens of this country pay into every day and have earned. And an earned benefit is not an entitlement. And what's happened is, in this country, we've turned the word entitlement into something that draws all kinds of funny emotional responses. That's not what these programs are. These programs are bedrock that allow people in the long run to be okay.  They're more than just numbers. They're about real people. And the folks in this room aren't just concerned about their benefits. They're concerned about their children's and their grandchildren's benefits. And what we know is that folks nowadays, some folks have pensions and they have savings and they have social security. What we look at in the next generation is whole generations that don't have any pensions or have very limited pensions. And when you start to take away the fundamental safety net and benefit that's inherent in social security, you're really condemning the next generation to not be in a very good place. Mr. Mr. Clack, we can't help but, as Congressman Castro talked about, we can't help but consider these two issues, both the magnitude of the problem and the solutions against the backdrop of the current situation in Washington where there's a huge fight over spending broadly, the amount of money that we spend as a government broadly. At moments like this, when people who seek to cut the budget do their work, they often talk about, well, either entitlement reform or, as Mr. Jackson says, an earned benefit. But in any case, they talk about somehow reducing the outlay of money to people like the people in this room. Well, and ma'am, I'm gonna ask you to ask the first question when the time comes to ask questions later because I actually think that's a good question. But Mr. Clack, isn't the issue at least in part? Isn't the issue at least in part that we are in a situation nationally that requires us to consider every potential solution, one of which may be to cut benefits that have been promised to people, but that overall the federal budget has gotten out of control, some would say, and that we've got to figure out some new paradigm going forward for spending in this country. Yeah, but it's also important to remember that social security doesn't necessarily add to our debt. And going back to what Bob was saying with regards to entitlement, it has become a slur. It's a cold word for your freeload. It's a cold word for you're getting something that you don't deserve. I think it's wrong to use against anyone, but especially wrong to use against people like these folks who have worked all their lives for the little bit that they give in social security. But I also believe, I also think that when it, yeah, you do have to consider many options, some of them which are unpleasant, but it kind of goes back to what the congressman said earlier and what's been said before is that we're not at a crisis mode. There's no need for us to work in a frenzy, so we should take the time to consider alternatives to some proposals. I mean, some of them are very controversial, some we won't like, but at least talk about them. And I do it in a way where it's 2029 and nothing's been done, and then we are in a crisis mode. Colonel, the business community, I think it's fair to say, I hope you don't consider this to be a slur, like the word entitlement. The business community is by disposition small sea conservative. Business community doesn't like, for instance, a lot of new taxes being levied on communities or on individuals or on the business community itself. Now, I did say that I want the Q&A portion to begin with that very nice woman over there at the table, but I will actually take, I will take the baton from her and ask the question about new revenue. You know, often people say, well, the business community has done very, very well by the economic structure of this country over the last 10 to 20 years, and the gap between the people who have and the people who don't have has widened. We just had a whole presidential campaign about effectively that very topic. How would the business community, as you know them in San Antonio, react to calls for greater revenue by way of increased taxes to shore up the earned benefits promised to people in this room and elsewhere? Well, currently, I think the payroll tax is 6.2% for the individual and 6.2% for the employer, and so it's already pretty high. Perhaps another way to raise the revenue would be to increase the limit on which that tax applies, which currently is $113,600 or $700, and maybe tax people with higher earnings to get more revenue that way. But you're right that the business community is inclined to not like increased taxes. So Mr. Jackson, the scenario that Mr. Mock, Colonel Mock is talking about is people who make more should pay more to enable the system to be more stable. Have I characterized that, Colonel, correctly? Yes. Mr. Jackson, what do you think about that? Well, that's one of the solutions that's actually been talked about, is to raise the level of income that's actually taxed. Another position that's been talked about from time to time is to actually apply the Social Security tax to non-salary, to non-wage earnings. If you make a huge capital gain, you don't pay any Social Security on that, and very wealthy people, that is really how they make their money. Those things are out there. How do you think very wealthy people would react to that suggestion, Mr. Jackson? I doubt if very wealthy people want to, other than Warren Buffett, who says he's willing to pay more tax, but I don't know Mr. Buffett very well. But look, these are smart, engaged people in this room. Is it practical matter?  Lobbyists have access to the elected officials who would ultimately have to approve such a change. The likelihood of wealthy people standing aside while that change is made, taking money out of their pocket, even for the greater goods, not very high, right? Well, I think what is possible is to put together a series of changes that don't impact anybody negatively in an awful way. So there might be an ability to raise some revenue through some of those mechanisms. And why not? I mean, that's quite doable. I think what ARP doesn't want to see is solutions hit the table to just immediately start to reduce people's benefits. Right, anything that was put into effect would have to happen over time, gradually. Well, it needs to not only happen over time, but it needs to be balanced and it needs to be within a package. Ultimately, our board of directors would choose to either support or not support a package. But I don't think any single solution is what anybody's looking for. It's gonna need to be balanced like it was the last time that the trust fund actually was increased. Let me ask you about a couple, we've alluded to some of these. Let's just rush right into it, if you don't mind. Let's talk about some of the solutions that over the last decade or more have been proposed. Again, recognizing that the crisis is not an immediate crisis, we're not talking about the social security system going into solvent tomorrow, but understanding that we have to build towards something and want to do it in a rational and deliberate and properly paced way. Let's talk about some of the things that have been out there. And I'm gonna take Colonel Mock's suggestion that possibly we raise the payroll tax cap as a way into this first thing that's been floated. So you're suggesting that perhaps people who have more can afford to pay more. The flip side of that is that people who have more perhaps need less. And one of the suggestions on social security, and I suppose there could be a suggestion on Medicare as well, is that we means test recipients. So that people who actually have more money, maybe of the age to take advantage of the social security or the Medicare benefits provided to them, but they actually have enough money that they really don't need that money to live their lives, might no longer be eligible for it or might be eligible for less in order that people who actually have real need have access to it. So show up the system by making certain that the most needy people have access to those dollars. That seems as I say the words not an entirely unreasonable suggestion. So why not have that conversation about means testing, Colonel Monk? I think it's certainly something that's one of the variables in the whole solution bag of tricks, but because there are people that are millionaires, billionaires, we have some here in this community and some of them are probably have as much gray hair as I do and are probably drawing social security. So the question would be, should they be, is it important to them or do they have enough money to live a comfortable life without it? So I mean, I would agree that to some degree that's happening now in the Medicare Part B because some people's part of a contribution is gone up considerably based on whatever their tax filing is. I mean, obviously the fight would be over at what level you say somebody has adequate means to not need social security and Medicare. The devil's always in the details, but Mr. Clack, I'm looking at the Forbes 400 every year. There are more billionaires in Texas than any other state. And some of those billionaires are people like Red McCombs, who is nearly 80 years old from this community or maybe older than 80 years old or Boone Pickens, the oil man up in Dallas, who is surely in his upper 70s or Harold Simmons, the waste disposal mogul from Dallas who is himself in his late 70s. These are all people who would be eligible for Medicare, eligible for Social Security. They're worth billions of dollars. Do they really need those dollars to get through their daily lives? Not to pick on them individually, but why should they avail themselves of a system, Mr. Clack, that is under strain? Well, again, I'll encourage you to ask that, I'll encourage you to ask that question hopefully respectfully, though I can't do much about that, during the Q&A portion of this event. Wouldn't you say that means testing those people as a way to shore up the system might be one topic worth discussing? Yes, yeah, worth discussing. And I think the argument that she makes is the obvious one, they paid into it. And, but the argument that you're making, of course, is with regards to, but you know the key thing, what would be the level? Obviously someone like Red McCombs, a Graham Reston, you would think may not need those Social Security checks, but then when we start getting into, okay, so we're talking about what, 40, 50, 70,000? Right, the level, it would always be about the point at which, and when somebody would disagree with this, right? What point at which do you trip that wire and suddenly you're now not gonna take it? And that's gonna be the huge fight. The theory is one thing, but the execution is enough. And I do believe that it's something that's worth discussion, that it should be discussed. Mr. Jackson, again, we're many years from being in an immediate crisis situation, but one can imagine that of the many options available on the table, that's one that average people might look at and go, well, fair is fair. Well, they might, on the other hand, it fundamentally changes what Social Security is. I mean, Social Security is a system in which everybody in America has a stake, regardless of income. And frankly, already, if the more money you make, actually there is, in fact, less benefit based on what's paid in if you have a higher income. If you're in a lower income, you're actually more likely to pull out maybe even more than you actually paid in. So it's sort of built into the formula already, but do you really want to change that social contract? And I think that's what the conversation has to be, because then don't you turn Social Security into that hyperbole entitlement. It's not a low income. It's a social contract between generations. You know, it's a contract in which, you know, my grandson, who's two years and a month old, I want to make sure Social Security is there for him. And I don't have any idea what his income's gonna be. But wouldn't Mr. Jackson, wouldn't any reform of the system, by definition, alter the social contract? Any reform at all? No, I don't think, I mean the fundamental social contract has been that we're all in it together. And if you start to means test, you change that in a very fundamental way. And you know, certainly this conversation can be about that, but I think you want to ask yourself, do you really want to make that kind of fundamental change and change Social Security from being that social contract between generations to actually being a wealthier. And would you say the same thing, Mr. Jackson, about Medicare? I mean, we are talking about Social Security and Medicare. I hear you on Social Security, but again, on Medicare, Medicare is effectively a healthcare program to enable people when they hit a certain age to have access to the resources they would need to live healthy and peaceful lives. Again, Mr. McCombs is in the Mr. Pickens' of the world, not to pick on them specifically. But people of their ilk and of their income bracket may not need those resources. Why wouldn't we be better off as a society to redirect those resources to people who actually need them? Well, I mean, first of all, I think the people in that kind of income level, you need to take a look at the numbers and see, are you driving enough money to make it worthwhile? You may not be. And I think the research is that you're not. So, you know, so why do that? I mean, you know, number one, if it's not really gonna solve a problem. The other thing is, why would you have healthcare for older people in this country and cost based on ability to pay rather than based on healthcare? Yeah. I mean, it- Isn't that the fight we're having right now? Nobody else is doing that. Universal access, right? Yeah, right. I mean, nobody else is doing that. Right.  And I think that's an interesting conversation, but it sort of changes what America is, doesn't it? Of course, Mr. Clack, one of the things we hear now off of Social Security and on Medicare specifically, one of the things we've heard in the years we've been debating the Affordable Care Act is that the cost of healthcare in this country has spiraled out of control, that it's threatening to devour the entire budget. I know in the state of Texas, which I know better than I know the rest of the country, that the largest portion of the unrestricted portion of the state budget for every year until the last couple years was public education funding and that healthcare has now risen as a percentage of the budget to meet education as the largest expenditure in the state and healthcare is racing past public education so that in the next budget cycle, it may be the thing that we spend the most money on. We have to get a handle on this problem somehow. So, as we look at Medicare as a component of this earned benefit situation, is there any kind of reform, I'll ask the same question of you I asked of Mr. Jackson, that would not be viewed as violating the contract we have with individuals? Is there any way to fix this or are we basically just stuck with the situation as it? First of all, I would say that over the past few years and nation-wide, the cost of healthcare has actually gone down a little bit. Well, the pace of the growth has gone down but the reality is it still represents this massive thing that is a huge problem we're trying to get our arms around. Yeah, and of course Texas kind of will save it out of the water with that. I'm not, to me, it's a very important philosophical question with regards to the social contract, whether we're talking about Medicare or the means testing because I think instinctively someone like me, I'm not speaking for the commons, someone like me, I would go in that direction. But then you talk about what is exactly, what is Medicare and what is Social Security about? And the possible violation of that social contract, it does give me pause about how I would instinctively, what I would instinctively support. But again, any kind of reform that you did of either Medicare or Social Security would be viewed as somehow altering the contract. And then you would also, you talk about the greater social contract, if it's going to strengthen the greater social contract about the obligation we do have to one another than maybe one supersedes the other. Please, Bob. I think there's, but there's some things that we can do that frankly we've tripped ourselves upon in the system that don't really alter the social contract. I mean, Congress made the decision that the federal government as it operates Medicare is not allowed to negotiate to buy prescription drugs. And we know that, and the Veterans Administration is, and we know that under the veteran system, they're able to provide pharmaceuticals at a much lower cost, right? Well, that's just sort of a dumb thing to do. And why hasn't the federal government moved to negotiate for drug prices within the Medicare system? Well, we'll have to talk about the politics of that. Yeah, I mean, there's clearly some politics and involved in that. But if we wanna, I mean, there are things we can do to reduce the cost of the treasury of what Medicare costs. Biologics, we keep off the generic market years and years and years. Some of those things can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. We can do better than that to make the system. So rather than monkeying with the benefits that people in this room are receiving, we have some work to do in Washington. Absolutely. Washington first. Colonel Mock, let me ask you about another aspect of this. We didn't particularly see a lot of support for means testing up here, and I've been yelled at at least a couple of times for suggesting it. So let me move on to something else. See how you feel about this. What about raising the eligibility age? Gradually or, yeah, I went over very well also, didn't it, in the room. Raising the eligibility age for either Social Security or Medicare. So that we accept and acknowledge that when these programs were put into effect, the life expectancy in this country and the work life in this country ended at a much younger age than today. That's something we should all be very happy about. But that the need may not be the same at the age that it was back then. So why not think about pushing ever so slowly the eligibility age for these programs out? What about that? Let me start my answer by saying that in my research about possible solutions for fixing the problem, there's only like five variables that you could deal with. One, we've talked about indexing prices and that sort of got, no, we don't do that. The other one was increasing the payroll tax level and that was sort of, I didn't hear a lot of comments about that. Increasing the age for retirement is another one of those and it would be one that I think is part of the equation. So you're for that in general? In a gradual sense. And we've already gone through that. I know when I was eligible for full Social Security, the eligibility age was 65 years and six months. It's gone up some more from that. I mean, I think gradually if it went up a little higher, again, it helps to keep the whole system solvent and it's another arrow in our quiver of things to do. Because simply because Mr. Jackson, it's an earned benefit doesn't mean that it has to be earned on a particular day. Now promises are made and you wouldn't wanna violate a promise you made to make that benefit available to a current benefit recipient on a specific day but if you over time gradually change the expectation that people had about when their benefit would be available, possibly you could push out the retirement age or the eligibility age a little bit further and that might ultimately help shore up the system. Often you hear that. Well, and you might be able to do that. I think there are some issues that have to be dealt with if you push that up and that is that working people who work with their bodies, it's gonna be very difficult to do that. If you're working in construction to say you can't get full benefits until you're 70 years old or something it's gonna be pretty tough when the knees and the joints are gone. Yeah. I mean, how are you gonna do that? It works pretty easily for a white collar kind of person but not necessarily for the great mass. So what you wanna be careful of is that you don't make a general improvement that then shifts the burden and makes it more difficult for the folks who probably need it the most. And those are gonna be the folks who are probably the lower wage. Well, you end up in a situation where the government has to pick winners and losers in this fight and we don't want the government doing that in particular. Well, and you certainly don't wanna create a situation in which folks that are in the bottom quarter or third economically are worse off. I mean, that doesn't seem like a very good improvement. So is there no situation from an AARP's perspective in which a discussion of the eligibility age or the retirement age makes sense? No, AARP has said within the context of looking at a total package, AARP would consider, you know, any variety of things and might consider. But it's gotta be done with some balance across, revenue, benefits, et cetera. It's all gotta be looked at together. What you don't start with is the idea that you have to cut social security to balance a budget. What you have to start with is let's have a conversation about what social security ought to look like. Social security pays its own way. So one is it ought not be in any of this conversation. It needs to be in its own conversation. And then Medicare needs to be in its own conversation because Medicare isn't social security. Medicare is in fact healthcare for people 65 plus and the disabled. And we have to remember that when Medicare was created in 1965 and even today, there was no private insurance essentially available to people in that age group. Right. And the other thing I think we've gotta keep in mind is that the older you get, the more likely you are to be poor. It happens over time. People run out of their assets. So that these programs that are targeting an older demographic are also necessarily targeting a demographic that may be more in need. Well, it may, yeah, it's gonna inherently be more in need because as folks are working less and less and a lot of people as they've gotten older have continued to work. That's been part of not retirement. I mean, retirement's not retirement anymore. It's kind of reimagining what you're gonna do next. And a lot of folks are working and that's a part of how they get by and that's all well and good. And it ought to be available to folks. But there's penalty associated with work in terms of the amount of tax you pay on that social security too. Right. So the system is taking care of what has changed in terms of people's expectations. Is there an age that if we were to do it to start phasing it in slowly gradually? I know the congressman mentioned the age of 40 which is close to him, but would you, would there be a younger age? Or I mean, if it was something that we were to do. Right. Where would we, where could we start? Right, so basically anybody above the age of X the benefit that is now in place remains in place but anybody below the age of X we're putting you on notice that the intention is to change the eligibility age or the age at which you trigger the receipt of these benefits. I think you've gotta have that discussion and that discourse in the context of long-term financial security for that younger demographic as well. Like we said earlier, kids, our kids and grandkids for the most part don't have pensions. Defined benefit pensions are pretty much a thing of the past. They don't exist. They're mostly 401ks if they exist at all. And savings among younger generation, frankly older generation isn't very high. So when you start to tinker with that one guaranteed benefit and that social security, when you start to tinker with that I start to think about venture. So, I mean, I'm looking at the two-year-old going what's that gonna look like for him at 67 years old, right? Mr. Clack, you know this question of people working longer and wanting to have access to pensions and the change in the pension system of course immediately the image of Governor Perry pops into my head. Because it was a couple years ago when he ran for president that we found out thanks to the need for a federal financial disclosure form different from the state financial disclosure that the governor who continues to be the salaried chief executive of the state had also quote retired so that he could take his pension alongside his salary. This came to be described as double dipping and we find out that a lot of people in state government who have the ability to do so have said look, it's my money, it's my earned benefit. So why shouldn't I have access to that money right now even though they're also making a salary? That is a complicated issue politically and I think it illustrates the problem that a lot of people are simply working longer and working past a time when we imagine those pension benefits, those earned benefits would kick in. No, I agree, I mean, and again. Anything wrong with that? Don't take a free shot at the governor. The camera is recording what you say. If you've earned it, you've earned it and it looks worse when you are the salary governor of Texas and it's been so for many years but and again we kind of circle back to the social contract and you played by the rules, you did what you were supposed to do and even if you're governor Perry. Couldn't you make the same argument which is I earned that money. I paid into the system, I did my year as a service, it's mine, right? That's what I'm saying, yeah, yeah. Colonel Mock, let me ask you about another thing we've heard less lately. We heard quite a lot about it during the Bush administration, the W. Bush presidential administration. You come again from the business community, you understand the private sector in all of its complexities. What about the idea of taking the social security system private? That was discussed back in the Bush administration, floated as a possibility, give people the ability to take that money, invest it themselves, possibly generate a positive outcome if the economy is doing well. What about that, didn't go over so well when it was discussed 10 years ago in the Bush administration, what about that? From some of the noise from the crowd I would say it wouldn't go over well now but in my personal opinion, I would like the opportunity to take some of the money that they're taking for payroll taxes, put it into a savings account that can grow. Right now your money just goes in and it goes out and so again it's a way to help solve the problem and it's not like you just take the whole social security system and abolish it. The way I understood it, you would take a portion of the payroll tax, maybe 4%, put it into a savings account for Bob and that over time it grows and that when he gets to be eligible for retirement it starts drawing down. The estimate was that for somebody that was in their 30s that was making about $35,000 a year that by the time they retired they could have about $250,000 in their account that the government couldn't take, it would be their money. They could pass it on to other people if they were deceased and to me it's maybe a little bit better or common, but it's still allowed for people to stay in the other system that it exists today so it's a matter of choice, it's a matter of control and... You're not as opposed as some on the stage say Mr. Jackson might be. He already told me he was opposed. Yeah, he might be. Mr. Jackson, save your negative energy for the discussion of chain CPI in a second but for now, take a swing at this particular ball. Why is the notion of giving people more choice not the right way to go? Well, to begin with it doesn't solve anything. It doesn't solve any solvency because if you take money out of the system that's paying the benefits you're gonna have less money to pay the benefits. So one is I don't know how that starts to solve solvency in any way by withdrawing revenue from the system itself. I think it's a fantastic idea for folks to do that saving and to do it in addition to Social Security would be a great idea. But it's plus dollars, not the dollars that are used. It would be plus dollars. Otherwise, frankly, you're making the system less solid. So why would you, that's never been a solution to anything and frankly, back when the stock market tumbled more than 40%, I'd have hated to be the poor devil who was trying to live on. Right, to Mr. Jackson's point, Mr. Clack, we talk about the benefits of individual choice here but the reality is it's a lot less control personally than we think because events outside of our control might cause the economy to go down and therefore might cause the stock market to go down and therefore might cause those funds as we invest them to be worth quite a bit less. And for all the hyperbole we discussed earlier surrounding Social Security, Social Security has been stable. Certainly more stable than the stock markets. And yeah, to being around in 2008, 2009. You know, a plane flies into a building or an investment firm collapses and suddenly the economy goes down and none of us is responsible for that but everybody in here pays in a system like that. All right, Mr. Jackson, have at it on the Chain CPI. Explain first of all for the benefit of this audience what Chain CPI is. We hear that discussed as a component of a possible budget deal from time to time. I think Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader may be the loudest opponent of a Chain CPI plan. Well that's great. So I want to hear. This is a bad idea. Let's hear what it is and why you think it may not be the right course. I was looking at some material actually yesterday and it looks like the cost of living increase for Social Security when we finally get a government that's open that can tell us this may be in the neighborhood of one and a half to 1.6%. Something like that. It's gonna be very low. But if Chain CPI was in place, it would be reduced by at least a point through it. And explain what that means. Chain CPI means more. Chain CPI is a different way to calculate cost of living and it's essentially based on an economic principle that if you go to buy something and it gets to be too expensive, you'll buy something that's less expensive. The difficulty for people who are in their older years is we know how they spend their money. If you, you know, the average Medicare recipient in Texas spent about $7,500 out of pocket in 2012. So if you're going to the doctor and the doctor costs 35 bucks, you don't get to say, well let me go find a cheaper doctor. You know, it's just not readily available. And so there is not really necessarily a less expensive place to go. So Chain CPI actually represents the way older people spend their money in the worst possible way because so much of it is just dictated. You know, if you're in a position to go buy a T-bone steak, that's great. You know, but, and if you can't afford it, yeah, you might buy a less expensive cut. But that doesn't happen with healthcare. It doesn't happen with housing. It doesn't happen with the fundamental way that older folks have to spend their money. Okay, so Chain CPI is a terrible idea. It's simply a benefit cut. And it stacks. So if you get a reduction of three-tenths this year, and then you get Chain CPI, you get a reduction next year, and you get a reduction the year after, and it applies to veterans benefits, it applies to social security, it applies to all kinds of things. It's just a sneaky way. It's kind of like an earned benefits sequester. Yeah, it's a sneaky way to cut your benefits and say you're not. That's what it is. So. Um. Colonel Mach, I wanna ask you about the idea of sacrifice as a broad theme of this conversation. So you served honorably for so many years for which we're all grateful in the United States Air Force, and we honor people who serve in the nation's military branches for their sacrifice. We hear a lot about the need for people to sacrifice for the greater good. Well, why don't we all sacrifice to enable programs like these programs we're talking about today to continue to live in the world? Shouldn't we all sacrifice for the good of the country? Can you talk about how much of a conversation should we be having in this room, in rooms like it, about the need for all of us to sacrifice to save these programs? Let me comment by saying that the whole discussion about entitlements or. Earn benefits. Earn benefits.  It's so polarized with the different political parties. It's hard to have a conversation that leads to a solution and something. In terms of sacrifice, I think that as an individual, I worry about my fellow man. And woman. And if it requires me to help in some way to help everyone from a personal standpoint, that's just the way I am. I can't say that I speak for everyone in the country because there are a lot of people that say, iron mine, too bad. You are on yours, right? You are on yours. And so it's not maybe a good answer you're looking for, but I think it is a common problem that we all have to deal with. And as we sit here this morning in this conversation, I think what you have seen in terms of our comments here at the podium illustrates the problems that the Congress has. We can't even agree at this table about which way to go. It was three people. So if you've got millions of people and all of you have different ideas, what I would say is how I think everyone in this room and the people that belong to AARP could be helpful is to tell your elected officials that you want something done and then have the dialogues that present your position as opposed to doing nothing. Mr. Klack, when we hear a lot about sacrifice in this country, people often quote John F. Kennedy's famous speech about don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. The reason they quote Kennedy is no president since Kennedy has actually asked us to do anything. And that often in this country, we find that leadership stops at the edge of asking all of us here to play a role that might involve giving up something or sacrificing something for the larger good. Isn't that a fundamental problem with any system of government and with our system, particularly that the desire to ask people to do something hard kinda ebbs at the political level? And admittedly, during the Iraq war with President Bush, I wrote a couple of columns that was critical about that. But after 9-11, there was no call to do something. They didn't ask us to do anything. And on a national level as a call for action, I think it's something that's necessary and I think people respond to that in a way. But when we're talking about sacrifice, say with regards to Social Security, Medicare, whatever, taxes, it's like, who's gonna sacrifice? And to sacrifice usually means that you have something that maybe you can do without. And there's so many folks who don't have enough, they are doing without, but they can't sacrifice. Well that comes back to the idea that perhaps people of greater means might be in a position to sacrifice than people without. Mr. Jackson, before we open this up to question. So I said, I had the opportunity to interview Senator Cruz a couple weeks ago on the question of healthcare and I said to him, you've told us for 21 hours in one sitting and for weeks and for months, what you're opposed to, tell me what you're for. Now I wanna say the same thing to you. I know what you're opposed to now, but from your perspective or from the AARP's perspective, tell me what you're for. Tell me affirmatively what you'd like to see done. Well I obviously don't speak for the AARP Board of Directors, but let me tell you what AARP's position has been. It's that there are a variety of solutions on the table for either one of these programs. And that what ultimately AARP would like to do is sit down and take a look at a set of proposals that are balanced. They don't start by asking people to sacrifice who are the ones who are least able to afford to pay. Social security for instance, in Texas the average benefits about a little over $14,000. Three quarters of social security beneficiaries in Texas are making about $26,000 total family income. Those are not folks with a lot of money to sacrifice, just trying to make it. So we need to start with some fundamental values about what is the safety net? Where does this whole piece land? I think folks in America are willing to look at something that's balanced. But it doesn't, you don't start by saying, I want to balance the federal budget by taking money out of social security. It's the wrong discourse, because it doesn't even contribute to the deficit. So we've got to lower that conversation so that frankly AARP, its members and the whole country can have a reasonable discourse about these three or four things in combination or something folks can live with. Got it. And I think that's where AARP is gonna be. It's where it was every time this discussion is happening. Comes back up, right. Yeah, right. All right, so we're gonna move to questions in the audience. And I'll explain how this will work in a second, but I understand since the time that we were on remotely with Congressman Castro, that Congressman Castro and Mayor Castro's mother, Rosie Castro has come and joined us. Where is Rosie Castro? Would you wave and say hello, Rosie? How are you? In many respects, Rosie, you're better than the real thing. So glad to have you here, welcome. So the way this will work is old fashioned. For the Q and A we'll ask that you wave your hand. We'll have a microphone. Y'all, I know you want to be first, ma'am. I know that. We'll have a microphone walked around to you and we'll have till about 12.30 or a little bit after. How are we on time now, Rafael? 12, 12. Got about 20 more minutes. And so we'll take as many questions. The one thing I would ask of you is that I ask of any audience when you moderate a discussion like this, two conditions. Number one, be respectful and civil. Let them answer. And number two, please no speeches. Ask questions, okay? Ma'am, you can go first if they'll walk through my microphone. Excuse me, excuse me. Ma'am, I'm afraid the gentleman in the back took your microphone, so you all can settle this later. Excuse me, sir. Yes. With all due respect, I have a question. Yes. Especially involved veterans. Veterans. Happens that Social Security took out of my monthly 25% without me making application. I'm a veteran and I receive all kind of services. I know a few veterans that they don't know how to defend themselves like I do. I went there and I take care of my problem. But took me four months, four months without the 25% of my, that's my question, my suggestion now is that please, please inform through the paper or whatever two veterans that have the same problem and they don't know how to deal with. Thank you very much.  The questioner is saying that veterans are at a disadvantage. Very often they don't know what they are entitled to and how to go get it. That is the problem. Would you agree? I don't know, I don't personally know that's the problem of how to get it. I do know that there's a lot of complaints about the time it takes to get seen at a VA hospital or to get taken care of. I don't have any answer for you. Mr. Plank. I don't know if Congressman Castro is your congressman, but our office is right across the street at 4715 Fredericksburg Road, the far Spain building. That's what a district office does. In fact, and the VA is the main thing we deal with, Social Security is second. But come to our office, and if you're not in our district, we'll find out what district you're in. And we'll get you an answer. Whether or not it's a good answer or a bad answer, I promise you that we'll get you an answer. I'll get you my card afterwards. Outreach director Tony Sonner is right over there, but we'll see what we can do. That's what a district office is for. Thanks for your service. Now I've got a call on the woman with the red hair just because she's been desperate to ask a question since 1101. So I'm gonna let her ask, and then we'll make certain that we spread the love around the room a little bit, okay? So ma'am, yes. You know, we talk about actual entitlements being people getting something for nothing, but no one ever talks about the entitlements that General Electric, Exxon, Walmart get. They receive more welfare from the government than each of them receives more welfare from the government than all of the people who get food stamps, who get WIC, who get welfare in the whole country. It's time to change those things. And the only way that's gonna change, and this is my question, if we're ever gonna make a change, we really have to make a change on both sides. I'm talking about both Democrats and Republicans. We have to stop gerrymandering, and we have to take money out of politics. How can we do that? Yeah, this is a very broad question. I don't know that anybody up here wants to particularly take that on, but to the questioner's point, there is a discussion, they call it corporate welfare, right? And I'm not sure how gerrymandering necessarily fits in this, but the problem of who gets what in this country, Mr. Jackson, is a larger one than simply Social Security and Medicare. I mean, the government's fundamental function is, in many instances, is determining who gets what, when, and how. It's the old definition, and they're gonna be winners and losers in the tax system, and entitlements, and whatever, and earn benefit. And often the people who have access to help, by which I mean lobbyists, are the ones who have the most and the most to protect. And the people who maybe don't have access to those people are often the people who are most in need, and so the system skews sometimes more heavily in favor of people who have the most and have the help to protect what they've done. Well, and I think that's why we appreciate something that Colonel Mock said earlier. I mean, that sense of civic responsibility for your fellow citizen is something that we really need to talk about.  And I applaud you for that, and I think that's what folks in this room wanna do. That's why we're out here doing this, and why we're having these conversations. Before we take a question from the audience, I've been handed a question from Facebook. This is the 21st century, I guess this is what happens, right? Wow. Facebook has a question. It's Rob Hickman from Facebook, and it's a very good question. Why isn't our country taking care of its own? We send millions to other countries, but yet we get a modest cost of living increase this year. Facebook appreciates your applause, I'm sure. So what about that? Let me ask Carrie, you know, you often hear at times of economic crisis, wait a minute, we're spending money on other people's countries. You know, we talk about nation-building, how about building this nation, right? So what about that? And it's a question that's been asked for generations. I do think that our first responsibility is at home. I also think when we talk about civic responsibility or to broaden it just to responsibility to our fellow man and woman, I think it's a necessity that other nations, especially the United States, do what we can to help other countries and do what we can to help folks elsewhere. So I don't think it necessarily has to be an either or situation. Obviously, if a family here in San Antonio is being hurt because of aid being sent elsewhere, then of course that's a problem, but I don't think it necessarily balances out like that. So I think that we have to take care of ourselves. And I also don't think that just if the money wasn't going overseas, it would necessarily be helping folks here. So but it can't be an either or situation. We gotta take care of where we can when we can. So Colonel Mock, again, you spent 30 years in the Air Force. You appreciate the strategic rationale for the interactions we have with people outside of this country. And sometimes I know economic or foreign aid is an issue. A lot of people have a hard time with it. Just look at, there's been a discourse recently about the money that goes to Egypt and the Congress I think just now has pulled back some of those payments, but in the bigger picture, sometimes spending money with the foreign government helps cut down cost in other ways in terms of if you have a conflict or you need an ally or what have you. So it's a big balancing act. Good. Sir, we had a question in the back and that woman right there, ma'am, yes. Thank you for hearing my words. It's like little voice in the wilderness, but this is for social security. Now maybe a lot of people in this room are affected by this, I'm gonna say it. I was saving money for my burial, okay? Now my bank said that I couldn't have over $2,000. I had $2,000 and they cut off my social security. So what I'm asking is how is it possible for me to save any money without them, the social security taking my check away? Mr. Jackson, there are regulations and restrictions and procedures that sometimes seem to the benefit recipient to be unfair. There are and frankly, I don't know how to answer your individual question. I think that's something that we'd be glad to see if we can help you navigate because I'm not quite sure what that set of regulations is that would be applied here. There certainly are some restrictions in terms of social security, collecting social security and work and whether or not you're paying taxes or not paying taxes and that sort of thing. I'm not really familiar with the savings piece. That sure sounds like a question for your district director. Mr. Clack's day is gonna be a lot fuller after he leaves here today. Kerry, I'm really glad you're here. I'm really glad you're here. You may as well just direct every question to him as he'll be seeing all of you for the next two months. Is there another question in the back? Yes, I'm here. Okay, and then I wanna take this gentleman in the front who's been very patient, okay? Okay, I have a question about SSI because all this talk seems to have ignored our needs as well. There are a lot of disabled people who do not qualify for SSDI. They qualify for SSI. They depend on the Medicaid program. These are the programs that people wanna cut the most and that leaves lots of people out there object poverty. How do you propose to address our needs as well? Yes. We're honest decent people. We just cannot work and we have health problems. I'll let Mr. Jackson take that. Well, I mean, I think frankly, and I appreciate you bringing up the SSI piece because if there's any area of this whole discourse that's getting close to crisis, it's the funding in that particular part of the trust fund and we're gonna have to deal with that because what I think something in the neighborhood of a quarter of expenditures actually are going to the disabled, not necessarily to older retirees. So it's gotta be a part of the discourse and frankly, it needs to be pretty high on the list of how we're gonna deal with it because that trust fund, that part of it needs more money in it. No doubt about it. Anybody else wanna jump in on that? Nope. Gentleman in the front, very patient. I appreciate it. Thank you, thank you very much, panel. I've got a question for the entire panel if they can answer it. And that is, we talk about social security and Medicare that you pay into the system so there's really not other funding going in to address the issue in terms of the national debt, right? So my question is, has the Bush impacts, which was the tax reform for the rich, the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the impact of the financial meltdown, has that caused a problem other than the Congress and the Senate wanting to address the issue about taking the money out of social security to address the debt issue? How has that impacted the question about social security? Yeah, it's a really good question. Did the concerns we have about the insolvency as immediate as they may be or not, is this a byproduct of what we've seen over the last 10 years? Has it simply exacerbated what was already a problem? Is there a way to really bread crumb the origins of the problem back to any one thing? Questioners talking about the Bush tax cuts and the wars and the collapse in the economy in 08. This is a problem that probably has, I'm gonna just assert this, that maybe has origins, Mr. Jackson, that go back farther than that. Well, I think it does go back. I mean, there are some systemic issues. I mean, actually, we knew there was gonna be a point in time in which you needed more money into the social security system and certainly in Medicare. Medicare actually does, in fact, draw some of its money from the general revenue fund. So clearly, the healthier the economy is, frankly, the more revenue is gonna be going into both of these systems, and that's a good thing. I don't think AARP certainly doesn't have a foreign policy set of issues, but we gotta figure out the balance. And if you look at kind of global economy and the world, I mean, all these parts fit together. And that's why this is complicated. And that's why this is the right kind of discussion because we need to sit down in this tone of voice and talk through, well, if we do this, then what? If we do that, then what? And think about what the consequences are. I mean, it's the only way we're ever gonna solve this stuff. Evan, my point would be that when Social Security was created, there were 16 workers for every person that was a recipient. And now we're to the point where there's three people that are working to pay for one recipient. It's soon gonna go to two. It's just a math of less money goes into the system because it's just the way things have changed. Well, the population growth in this country and in the state, for instance, is not necessarily corresponded with an adequate level of revenue to meet the needs that we see as a consequence of the growth, right? We need to call our kids and tell them to start having babies. We gotta get this thing going. The only one. Or, for that matter, stop, as the case may be. Ma'am. My name's Anita Soto and my question is, I just recently heard in the news that you're gonna be cutting down, probably in the near future, the cost of living. It's gonna be cut down. I'm assuming that's for the near future. My question is, since there's so much unemployment and people are getting unemployment checks and trying to find a job and everything, why would they cut that now? Wouldn't you think cost of living should be given extra? I mean, why would they do it now? Why would you cut? Well, Mr. Clack, since you represent a congressman and he represents government, I think this is on you. I mean, I didn't quite hear the question. The question is, how come the government is talking about an adjustment to the cost of living at a moment when so many people are out of work and therefore their need for those dollars may be greater and not lesser? Is that a fair paraphrase? It's inexplicable, just like it's inexplicable considering the circumstances right now that you're eliminating food stamps, cutting food stamps. A lot doesn't make sense. I mean, you want a rational answer to a great question and I can't give you one because it doesn't make sense. So was that one of the votes that you accepted? No, you shouldn't accept it. Well, the answer is vote, but as the questioner in the back pointed out, you're living in a district where the person who represents your district is already with you on this issue and beyond voting to reelect that person, there's not really any other way to express your point of view. Unless you voted for two of them, oh, that's right. Yeah. Hope so. Where this is really going. Okay. Rafael, a couple more, we have time for, we have time, I'm told, for two more. Two more, okay, we got them here. And we'll make certain, as we said, that the questions that are not asked of the panel in this setting are provided to the panelists after the fact. Gentlemen there, yes. Congress was to cut the Social Security, you know it was paychecks. How would they cut their own paychecks? I'm sorry, I don't know that the microphone was allowing us to hear you as well as we needed to. The Congress was to cut everybody's paychecks. Social Security, benefits, and everything. How would they cut their own paychecks to help the economy? I'm still not actually, Joe, could you repeat the question? Congressman? How would Congress cut their own paychecks? Why won't Congress cut its own paychecks if they're going to cut everybody else's paychecks? I'm actually. Are you just talking about in the context of the shutdown or are you talking about generally? Generally, so if they're going to come after Social Security or Medicare or any other earned benefit program, why shouldn't they begin by cutting their own salaries? Well, that's in the close line. Does the chamber have a point of view that you'd like to express on that, Colonel Monk? I don't. Yeah, I didn't think so, okay. Mr. Klack. I know a question that's been asked about, like with the current shutdown, about why Congress is still receiving their paychecks. Well, Congressman Castro is donating his paycheck, is he not? Yes, he is donating his paychecks. Not every Texas member of the legislature or the Department of Congress is doing that, but Congressman Castro is one of the first. I do know that. That's true. But I actually think it's tied constitutionly if I'm not mistaken with regards to congressional pay is tied to the 27th Amendment. And so, I mean, it's not maybe the greatest answer, but it's the answer. But everyone is right that from the start of this furlough, Congressman Castro has donated his paycheck and our offices have been furloughed, but. Of course, he went from making $600 a month in the Texas legislature to making more as a member of Congress. He can probably afford to give up that paycheck comparatively, right? Okay, we have time for one more question there in the back and then we're gonna let the remaining questions go to the panelists after our event is concluded. Excuse me? I cannot see. Gentlemen, over there, thank you. My name is Roger Oliverine and I'd like to text about the Texas. I know they wanna raise a text, but how do you expect us to pay the tax when our, for an example, meet Robert Goodman and pay his. And he hasn't enough money to pay his tax an hour or two if he wanted to. And another thing is that on the AARP, I'm trying to, you know, there's no dental work on AARP. They only have their halves just to clean your teeth. I can't even have my teeth pulled because of that. And I was with Security Horizon AARP for many, many years. And you know, I'm still having trouble to have my teeth pulled. And I only have one teeth to be pulled and I can't even do it. And the other thing is, how can we live with the money they give us at $7.25 an hour? I mean, who can live with that? Can people live with $7.25 an hour? No. And what happened to the United States of America? What happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave? I mean, where is this? I thought it was supposed to be united. So let's have that broad, it's a good broad question to end on. I appreciate it. What's happened to this country? Is really the questioner's asking, have we gotten to be a kind of country where the values that we've talked about for so long are no longer in evidence in the way we treat other people or treat one another? I'm gonna let everybody on the panel have a last word as far as that goes. Colonel Mock, Mr. Clack and then Mr. Jackson left. Do you think we have a broader problem with the values of this country being out of whack with the ideals that we have as a citizen? I think the answer is yes. I know it's hard for a lot of people to understand as this lady mentioned that what we talked about earlier, sending money to other countries when we're not taking care of our own people. The issue of minimum wage and things like that is always a very political issue. And I don't know what to say other than it is a real problem for a lot of folks. Mr. Clack, you know that the minimum wage conversation is percolating right behind many of the ones we're having right now. People feel like that even the minimum wage in this country is not adequate to give people the basics that they need. Oh, that goes without saying, it's not. But to the question, I'm realistic and I'm an optimist, but I don't look at the world at things through the cliched, those colored glasses. I think there are always times in this country when we ask what has happened? What are the values you believe in? I mean, what are the values you believe in doing slavery? What are the values when women didn't have the right to vote? I mean, I think we always are asking ourselves, are we living up to the declaration of independence of the Constitution? We're always asking that. And we get very, and we have these periods where we're just kind of distressed, we think we've lost our moral compass, but this country always finds a way to get that moral compass back. So I understand the very real pain that people are in, but I also feel that we always find a way to somehow alleviate that pain. And I think I always remind people, the theme of the Civil Rights Movement wasn't we shall eliminate, it wasn't we shall eradicate, it was we shall overcome. So whatever problems we have, we're not gonna eliminate them, we're not gonna eradicate them, but we're gonna always find a way to overcome. Mr. Jackson, that's actually a hopeful note. It's a hopeful note to end on. These problems with Social Security and Medicare right now may seem enormous, whether they're immediate or not, and there may not be any broad agreement on solutions, but just as Mr. Clack says, eventually we all work together, we're gonna come up with some kind of solution. Well, and just look at this room. I mean, the reason AARP began this initiative that's called You Learn to Say is so that you do get to say, people are disillusioned around what's going on in Washington, D.C., we know that, we all are. But the fantastic thing that's going on is we're having this discourse. And as we continue to have this discourse, we can affect what happens inside Washington, D.C. We get the government we choose. It's our government, it's not our enemy, it's our government. And you know, we need to continue to have these conversations. You need to raise your voice, you need to get heard, and we need to do it all over the country. More than a million petitions were delivered to Congress saying, we want you to find sensible solutions to these programs. And that's what AARP's gonna continue to do, engage you, help raise the voice, and that's what we all need to do. And we'll keep doing it, because that's what we've always done. Evan, you mentioned before, the power of the lobbyist in the private sector, I view AARP as the lobbyist for everybody in this room. And so your membership in AARP gives you a voice, and you've got to exercise that voice by letting them know what concerns you. Good place to end. Let's acknowledge and thank our panelists for their time, Mr. Clack, Mr. Jackson, and Colonel Mott, thank you all for coming. Hope you enjoyed it. Thank you. Enjoy it. All right.


s shown below I am not able to trace what all grants are supporting this five million six hundred and eighty thousand dollars Is it possible to get a rough idea? I can tell what's ARPA and what CDBG but I am unclear about how the others are funded I Mean I obviously I know where the rehabilitation for sewers and water come from Dr. Yontar All right, so we're on page five of the report under item number four team work on the entire capital playing chair Items one two three and four ARPA five a cemetery fund six is chapter 90. That's the state grant seven to CDBG as you can see eight nine ten eleven twelve our water and sewer funds 13 14 15 16 our ARPA 17 is a grant 18 is the parking benefits district ARPA by the way is the federal American Rescue Plan Act that is giving Arlington on the order of thirty five million dollars a portion of which goes to capital and the big belly solar is a That was again the parking benefits district is paying their item in the rating. Okay Thank you that was impressive You're welcome. Thank you. We'll take mr. Wagner. I stay up till 2 a.m. So I plenty of thank you mr. Moderator Carl Wagner precinct 15 I move that we terminate debate on the article and all associated matters Thank you. We have a motion to terminate debate on all matters before the article and a second So let's do a quick voice vote all those in favor of terminated bait on article 38 Say yes All those opposed say no The bait is terminated. Let us bring up a vote on the garber amendment okay, and The voting is open We won't shut it right away because I still need to explain or describe what this is The garber amendment is looking to to add a line item to cut $15,000 of item to in a section 2 of the capital budget And that's all I said and that is at the direction of the town manager to determine how to apply that cut Let's wait a bit a little bit longer the votes are still coming in since I was still describing what we're voting on This is the garber amendment to add a $15,000 cut to section 2 of the capital budget You're in favor of that $15,000 cut Which is at the direction of the town manager vote yes if you're against that cut vote no Okay, let's close voting. This is a this is a majority vote for the amendment and the amendment passes Let's hold our applause 107 in the affirmative 85 in the negative 19 abstentions. Okay, so the main motion is now amended and So let's bring up the Vote on the main motion before we open that though. Let me there's a lot of detail on this and I'll try to cover it As best as I can summarize this is a two-thirds vote The main motion as amended vote. Yes, if you approve of nine items that are enumerated in the Capital planning Vote language the first five of which I'll summarize here the remainder are some additional terms and conditions related to grant applications and unused funds Which you can find in the official vote language number one Transfer of 208,000 sorry 203,815 dollars 91 cents from amounts previously appropriated and borrowed number two Appropriate roughly three point nine million dollars for various capital projects and equipment expended under the direction of the town manager number three appropriate Roughly 19 million dollars for death service expanded under the expended under the direction of the town manager number four Authorized that various capital projects and equipment purchases be undertaken and financed by grants or other funds to be expended Under the direction of the town manager and number five appropriate roughly three point seven million dollars for Extraordinary repairs to public facilities land acquisition and the purchase and installation of equipment and incidental costs Again, this is a two-thirds vote. Let's open voting Voting is now open Please check your handsets to make sure that the vote was received in case you were just clicking into the speaker queue We're voting on the capital planning committee's recommended vote amended by the Garber amendment Okay, let's close voting and the budget passes 204 in the affirmative seven in the negative And And Do we have any do we have any motions? Oh, I'm sorry. Do we have any notices of reconsideration? 37 and 38 Okay, any other notices of reconsideration? I think that's all we had right so Just do you have motion to adjourn? Okay, we have the second okay all those and all those in favor All those opposed okay, we are we are adjourned On Wednesday, we will take up the special town meeting warrant articles aside from reports of committees There are only two other other articles in that warrant And once those articles are disposed of and the special town meeting is dissolved will return to the business of the annual town Meeting and Article 9 which was postponed until tonight will be resumed after the special town meeting is dissolved on Wednesday As always, please return your handsets to the plastic bins return your seats to the upright position Raise your tray tables and good night