[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H422-H424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2140
SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Schweikert) until 10 p.m. as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker pro-tem, we are going to do a couple
things tonight, but first, just every once in a while, when we get
behind these mics, and you have got to get something sort of off your
chest because it really annoys you.
If I see one more headline from the scribes who are basically the
Democrat propagandas--and I am sorry to be that mean. I have tried to
treat the press respectfully over these years, but, you know, the
Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Okay. Up until a few hours ago, I was the senior Republican over
Social Security in Ways and Means Committee. No one has asked me.
I talk about Social Security every single day when I am here. I have
never met a Republican Member ever, ever, talk about cutting Social
Security.
So yesterday, I grabbed one of the reporters out here who had it in
their story but had no names. I walked up and said, okay, tell me who
this is because I really need to talk to them.
I can't tell you. It is a reporter thing. I can't explain that to
you. No, no. You need to tell me who is telling you to write stories
that the Republicans intend to cut Social Security.
I am the ranking Republican--I was up until a few hours ago--over
Social Security. I have spent the last year of my life working on it.
No, no. I can't tell you who.
If you are going to make crap up, stop doing it in a way that you
hurt people.
You know, for my Democrat colleagues, I know power. I know you
desperately want to be back in charge, but the fact of the matter is,
the math is the math.
You all saw the CBO numbers from a couple days ago. Social Security
runs out of money in 10 years.
Do you care?
The fact that CBO is saying there is going to be a 23 percent cut in
Social Security recipients' checks in 10 years, we will double senior
poverty. Do you care, or is the politics of weaponizing it more
important than saving retirement security? This is perverse.
This is called reporting around here? If you want to weaponize
something, weaponize something that doesn't crush people.
I feel better getting that off my chest.
All right. I want to do a little something I consider a bit amusing
and maybe a little sadistic.
A week ago or so when we were here, I did a presentation on
structural deficit. I was trying to talk to the new Members of
Congress, you know, my friend from Oklahoma, others. What is actually
going on? Where does the debt come from?
The fact that 10 years from now, you have almost a $2 trillion
structural deficit. That $2 trillion is functionally interest, a
trillion bucks, and the growth in Medicare and a little bit of
Medicaid.
I did something I almost never do. I actually read the comments.
Look, I am appreciative. Almost 600-some-thousand people watched the
YouTube video.
You get these comments like, well, cut foreign aid. That will balance
the budget. Just don't pay Members of Congress and Senate, and that
will balance the budget.
So we had a conversation in our office. How do I explain the scale?
Look, if you are not used to 12 zeros, or in this case, the current
deficit, 14--if we are at 31 trillion, that is 14 zeros.
If you are not comfortable with the math, maybe I can find an easy
way to discuss this. If this comes across a bit sarcastic, I mean it
to.
So we actually built a little calendar, and we thought this would be
sort of fun because we have too many people out there--they hear the
political class get behind the microphone and say, we have a spending
problem.
Then they come up with stupid--excuse me--ideas that really don't
save us. So let's actually walk through these.
[[Page H423]]
Let's start with the one I consider most amusing. A number of the
comments were, just don't pay Members of Congress and the Senate. Okay.
Great.
So this is a calendar of the year; 12 months, 365 days. If I said
this is just the borrowing, so this is a calendar every day we borrow
the equal amount, and we are going to base it on last year's borrowing,
so it is a real number.
If you didn't pay any Member of Congress--and maybe we shouldn't get
paid for the quality of our work; I am not going to argue about that--
how much of the debt deficit would it take care of?
Well, it turns out it is this little, tiny sliver down here. We
calculate it is about 28 minutes for an entire year. That is all. You
got a whole 28 minutes.
What would you like to do with the other 365 days, you know, 364
days, 23 hours or 23 and a half hours? You get the point.
I know it may make you feel better. I lashed out. I was mad. But you
have a country that structurally is going to be buried in a scale of
debt where you are starting to flirt with a debt crisis and a failed
bond option in a decade or so. This is not a game. This level of debt
takes down a republic.
So let's do a couple of the others here just for the fun of it. I
will explain with these colors.
So whatever color that is--I guess that is like a turquoise--foreign
aid. Every dime of foreign aid, if you removed it, hey, functionally,
you just got rid of maybe 17 days, and we threw everything into it.
So you got rid of 17 days of borrowing. What would you like to do
with the rest of the year? Well, if we got rid of the 2017 tax reform
and played the fake scoring that every dime would come in, and you
didn't lose the growth effects that we got from the tax reform and all
those other things, you basically get 2 weeks of borrowing. Okay. Well,
this obviously isn't working.
So if we went to a marginal 50 percent tax rate, a 50 percent tax
rate, which some of the Democrats have actually proposed, you basically
take care of 6 weeks of borrowing. Now, you slow down the economy, but
let's just pretend the money keeps coming in.
You walk through, hey, how about a 35 percent marginal tax rate on
corporations? Well, you got rid of maybe--you maybe could get another
month and a half of borrowing, just borrowing coverage. That is
assuming that you get all the revenues in, and you haven't slowed down
the economy, slowed down GDP, which is pretend.
Okay. Let's do one of my others. You know, you take out itemized
deductions. Okay. You got rid of a week.
To understand almost all the ideas that are out there, really, on the
scale of it, if you threw them all in, you can't even get rid of half
the year's borrowing, and that is for last year.
Understand, this year, we are going to probably borrow a little less
than a trillion dollars. In 10 years, we have doubled it.
I beg of our brothers and sisters here. If the Democrats don't want
to help, don't want to play, don't want to tell truth about the math--
and the math will always win--I beg my Republican brothers and sisters:
Let's be the truth tellers.
Yes, there is waste and fraud. As of a couple hours ago, I just
became the chairman of the Oversight Committee in Ways and Means, and
there is waste and fraud we are going to grind into.
There is a chance unemployment fraud and some of the pandemic fraud
may be the largest fraud in human history. We are going to find out
what happened.
But I need you to think of our world and our government. We
functionally have become an insurance company with an Army.
So I want to walk through a couple of the other comments you get just
so I can get them off my chest.
When you look around the House here, you notice there are no people
here. These are what we call the special orders. It is a chance for
Members to come to the mic and walk through something, tell a story.
We are on probably a thousand televisions around Capitol Hill. So
sometimes when I do this, I am not actually talking to my constituents
at home in Arizona.
I am actually talking to the staff. I am talking to the new Members
of Congress to help them understand here are the numbers I see.
{time} 2150
I am the senior Republican in the House on something called the Joint
Economic Committee, so I have a handful of economists who are just
freaky smart who are in my office pounding information into my head
every single day.
I know it is not the shiny objects. We want to talk about a laptop
with secret documents, and a Chinese spy and this and that. Those are
shiny objects that you can see on cable television tonight. I will
argue, these numbers are what take out the Republic.
So let's actually go over some of the other comments I get over and
over and over, particularly when I have talked about Social Security;
and this is back to the cruelty the Democrats and the press have been
doing this last 2 weeks, trying to light people's hair on fire with
basically, what's the proper term, oh, yeah, lies.
For the average American who is going into Social Security today--
remember, I keep seeing these comments: If I could just get all my
money back. Okay. If you are willing to make a deal with the Republic
saying if I gave you back all your money on Social Security and
Medicare, would you sign up for that deal? Because we would take it in
a moment because when you see what you get back, you realize this is
actually where much of the structural deficit comes from.
When people say, well, the money--there is no lock box. You don't
want it in a lock box. You want it in T bills so you get interest back.
Social Security for years ran a surplus. That was building the trust
fund because we had this demographic bubble coming called baby boomers.
We saved and saved and saved.
Then, a couple of years ago, we started having more people move into
retirement than functionally what they were paying, workers were
paying. So every month, when the check goes out, you take the FICA
income that is associated with the old-age, survivor's system, the
Social Security system, send that out. But we needed a little bit more,
so Social Security would take its Treasury bill, present it to the
Treasury; Treasury would give them cash plus some interest.
For many years the interest rate was actually a spiff over--higher
what you would get on the market T bill. The money wasn't stolen. It
was put into T bills, just like you might do with your extra savings.
Stop making stuff up.
So the average American, the typical retiring couple--let's do it
that way because it is easier math, will receive--well, let's not do
the Medicare number. Let's first do the Social Security.
That couple, the average, over a lifetime of work--so this is 35-plus
quarters, sometimes 40 quarters--will put in $625,000 in FICA on the
Social Security portion of that tax, and they are going to get back a
little under $700,000. So they make a little bit of money.
Now the reality, if you had put that money in your IRA or something
like that, it would have been multiples of this.
If you remember, George Bush tried to have the conversation of taking
particularly young people, allowing them to take a sliver and put it in
private accounts because it would have a much higher rate of return,
and the Democrats and the unions went berserk on that. But now we can
look back 25, 30 years and it would have been a hell of a lot better
today for Americans if we had done it. But the politics of it is the
control freaks wanting control of your money.
This in inflation-adjusted dollars, so it is like for like. You get
your money back, plus a small spiff on Social Security. You could have
had a lot more if you put it in markets and in other places, but you
get your money back, inflation adjusted. Okay.
That is not what drives the debt. Our problem with Social Security is
our number of workers. It is Medicare, and this is hard to talk about,
but math is math.
I know many people will come up to me, Schweikert you can't talk
about that. You are going to get unelected.
I am in one of the most competitive districts in America, but at
least I am in one of the best-educated, smarter districts in America,
and understand whether you like me or not, I am telling you the truth
on the math.
[[Page H424]]
Here is the substantial portion that drives about three-quarters of
all U.S. sovereign debt. The average couple, in their lifetime of
working, will put in $161,000 into Medicare.
Remember, the Medicare tax you pay as part of your FICA, your payroll
tax, is just for the part A, the hospital portion. The rest of the
healthcare spending you get when you become 65 and are on Medicare
comes out of the general fund.
The average taxpaying couple put in that $161,000, and they are going
to get back $522,000. This number is based on sort of before the
inflation cycle.
We are working on some math but I wasn't able to vet it; that the
amount of money we expect in medical costs for our brothers and sisters
on Medicare actually has gone up rather substantially which, that means
when you say 161, 500 plus, that gap, now multiply that toward how
many; 70 million Americans 65 and up, and the number grows with baby
boomers because, what, just the baby boom population is what, 76
million?
You see the driver of U.S. sovereign debt. The solution is not
cutting. The solution is having a revolution of the cost.
ObamaCare was a financing bill. It is who had to pay and who got
subsidized. Actually, it was mostly about subsidizing. The Republican
alternative actually spread out the actual numbers so you got some
efficiency but it was still about who had to pay and who got
subsidized.
Medicare for all is all about subsidies. But those are financing
bills. They don't touch the problem.
The real problem is the cost of delivering healthcare services.
For people who might say, well, he is not giving us a solution; go
look at the probably 70 hours I have over the last few years on the
floor here. Half those were bringing solutions. Most of my solutions
are uncomfortable because they require disruption. It is technology. It
is a thing you can blow into that knows you have the flu and allowing
it to prescribe. Taking on the big things, curing diseases.
It turns out cures are remarkable at crashing the price of healthcare
and just the basic morality of it. If diabetes is 33 percent of all
healthcare spending, and there is a chance out there that there is
being some success in curing Type 1 with a CRISPR-altered stem cell
treatment, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but the literature right
now says there are about six people who have been cured of Type 1. We
need to know this. We need to find out over the next decade could it be
for Type 2.
What do we do on the farm bill, on nutrition support and everything
else. Is that a possibility? Because if you could disrupt that cost--do
you realize if you could disrupt half, just half of the diabetics' cost
in this country, you would actually wipe out the substantial portion of
the next 30 years debt.
These are moral, but they are also financial ideas, and we run away
from them. It is almost easier for Members of Congress to talk about
cuts than it is competition to disrupt business models.
So understand, the next time you have someone saying well, if I could
just get all my money I paid back in FICA taxes, we will make that
deal, because you are getting--that couple is getting hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they put in.
It is the math. Whether you feel that way or not, it is the math, and
that is the primary driver of U.S. sovereign debt.
Now, we made this deal. This is a societal contract. People worked
their hearts out. They paid into FICA. We made a deal as a society.
Our job, as the brain trust here, as Members of Congress, we have got
to figure out how to make this work.
You start to look at how fast these numbers are eroding. I have
already said this a couple of times; maybe seeing it on a board makes
it easier; and I am trying--one of the criticisms was too many of my
boards had too many numbers on them. I am trying to make them easier to
read. Let me know if I am succeeding, but I am trying.
This is a really simple chart. It basically says, here is where we
are today. In a decade, structurally, just functionally, Medicare and
Medicaid, and then if I add in interest, then there is another,
functionally, just my cost there I am heading toward a trillion-plus
dollars just from my Medicare.
Medicaid adds another quarter trillion dollars of borrowing; and then
somewhere in there I have almost $1 trillion of interest. That is what
I look like a decade from now.
So people run around here and say, I am going to cut and give you a
10-year balanced budget. Okay. Tell me what part of paying our bonds
you are going to cut. That is $1 trillion of the deficit 10 years from
now. You have got to do that.
All the people--you are going to default if you don't raise the debt
ceiling. No, you are not, and I will do another presentation in the
coming weeks on, stop making crap up.
The United States has plenty of cash flow to cover our sovereign
debts and the majority of our earned entitlements. It is a lot of the
discretionary we don't have enough cash for.
These are big, complicated, and then to have, as I started with, the
trite Democrats and wanting an edge in the press, making it really hard
to do something that has got to happen bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, I know we are up against time.
{time} 2200
The last one I am going to show very quickly. This is your 10-year
chart. It is very simple. This is Social Security. This is the
healthcare entitlements. This is everything else. This is what we are
up against.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tolerance from everyone. If I hurt your
feelings, I am sorry. It may be too much caffeine and just being too
damn cranky around here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________