On Wednesday's All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, host Hayes demonstrated his far left views on big government as he called for raising taxes and increasing Social Security benefits even beyond projected spending increases while guest and liberal MSNBC analyst Jonathan Alter was taking a more moderate position that Democrats should agree to restrain unsustainable growth in spending on the program.
After Alter as a guest criticized liberals who oppose changes in Social Security as wanting to "preserve it in amber," adding that "that is not possible," Hayes a bit later in the discussion injected:
Let me just intervene and register my, I'm not for preserving in amber. I am for pouring more amber in and basically expanding, right? So I think we should expand Social Security-
After Alter cautioned that "kids won't get anything and seniors will get the whole pile," Hayes added: "No, you just have to tax people a lot more."
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, April 10, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC:
CHRIS HAYES: Jonathan, I feel like you have been someone who's been vocal in calling for Democrats to compromise on entitlement reform or social insurance cuts. I prefer the latter phrase. So what's your reaction to the Senator (fellow guest Jeff Merkley (D-OR)) and to this budget?
JONATHAN ALTER: Well, if the Senator can propose another reform of entitlements that can raise $230 billion and that doesn't hurt truly vulnerable people -- and remember, the President said in his budget this will not hit truly vulnerable people, that's who he's protecting in the rest of his budget -- if the Senator can come up with an alternative to that that has any kind of a chance at passage, I'm all ears.
I'm not wedded to chain CPI. What I am concerned about is that there's this sense on the left among those like me who are very strong supporters of the social contract that Franklin Roosevelt established. There's this sense on the left that we can protect it all in amber, preserve it in amber, we don't have to change anything. That is not possible. So when you say, "What would you change?" they say, "Raise the cap."
HAYES: Right.
ALTER: But raising the cap-
HAYES: But raising the cap means raising the cap on payroll taxes so you can fund the Social Security trust fund.
ALTER: To over $113,000. That is not gonna happen.
HAYES (SMILING WITH POSSIBLE SARCASM): But it should happen, but it should happen!
ALTER: So in other words, so the question here goes to the President's basic question, which is, is the perfect the enemy of the good?
(...)
ALTER (RESPONDING TO FELLOW GUEST HEATHER MCGHEE OF DEMOS): I agree with you in the short term. We are on completely the same page, but, to say, with the babyboomers retiring, and these unbelievable, you know, boulders coming down the road on the next generation-
HEATHER MCGHEE, DEMOS: But Social Security is not that out of balance.
ALTER: To say, the idea that nothing has to be done on Social Security is not accurate (GETS INAUDIBLE AS HAYES JUMPS IN)-
HAYES: Let me say, I, let me just intervene and register my, I'm not for preserving in amber. I am for pouring more amber in and basically expanding, right? So I think we should expand Social Security-
ALTER: Then kids won't get anything and seniors will get the whole pile.
HAYES: No, you just have to tax people a lot more.
-- Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center