ditches or helping build roads anything preferable to sitting on my butt. this would give those of those on unemployment back pride and accomplish something with the money being spent. there's a work force of a million people sitting idle waiting for something to do. that is a massive amount of lost labor that could be fixing america's infrastructure. instead of unemployment how your me to do that. there are closer than 15 million people sitting on a little waiting for something to do. there's plenty of important work for them to do and innumerable benefits garnered for having them do the work with in this implement a national program that provides a job guarantee for all citizens. >> now is your time. >> thank you. thank you very much and i would like to start by first thinking congressman cleaver and the congressional black caucus for inviting me here today to make a

rather controversial statement. a number that is been banded around quite a bit that regards the amount of money spent by our federal government to avert a global financial crisis is $12.6 trillion. now of this $12.6 trillion, only $700 billion had any legislation attached that spoke to the inclusion of minorities and women in the business of the economic recovery. and so at this point on the outset i need to thank congresswoman waters and the financial service ten of the 111th congress for having a profound impact on the inclusion of minorities and women in the business of the economic recovery. specifically because of section 107 mp3 of the emergency

economic stabilization act in 2008, minority and women colin firmed involved in a substantial way with the treasury department as it managed and sold assets. for a simple, in the capitol assets purchase program, which was a program where when the united states government put $700 billion directly into commercial banks they took back preferred stocks and then those securities had to be managed. again because the work of congresswoman waters the minority and women owned firms were involved in the management of specifically one particular firm piedmont investment advisors received a significant amount of these assets to manage. also in the public private investment part for ship program also known as ppip, they joined

them with minority-owned firms to manage the nation's distressed mortgage-backed securities portfolios. it's a great success that came out of this program is to particular joint ventures the game came together because of the government black rock teamed together with new cn and wellington and came together with the advent both of these institutions got to know each other through working on treasury business and because of that collaboration have decided to continue the relationship and are now actively marketing funds in the private sector. this is what government should be doing and we come command of the caucus for the system. yes, clap. [applause] then as it relates to treasury assets sales, i just mentioned the government now owns

securities sales and preferred stock and common stock companies like general motors and aig and others while the treasury has been selling these securities, selling organs from corporations like bank of america, pnc financial land this week citigroup. also the government owned 8 billion approximate shares of citigroup officially and hired 12 minority and women owned firms to work with those disposing of assets and ten minority firms involved in the general motors ipo and now we are working on a ayachi. again, none of this could have been possible without the legislation passed by the financial service tener and implemented. so again, thank you very much. now despite these initial successes, congresswoman waters were not satisfied.

you see, the only covered 700 billion of the $12.6 trillion u.s. government allowed late so they passed section of 342 of the dodd-frank wall street protection act to cover the rest of the mauney. justin did january 21st of this year section 342 covers all of the agencies and departments of the federal government that are involved in the business of the economic recovery. specifically the treasury department and the fdic from each of the federal reserve banks, the national credit union administration and the security exchange commission among others. each of these agencies and departments must and can office of minority and women inclusion that will implement the law which states that minorities and women and entities of owned by them must participate to the

maximum extent possible in the business of the agency and those contracting in the sale of assets. investment banking firms, asset management firms, consultants, lawyers and many other types of professional service providers are specifically cited. what impact could this have on the minority community if properly implemented and in first? first we believe section 342 could be a vehicle for wealth creation for minority and women entrepreneurs and investment banking asset management and commercial banking. the federal government is selling assets for the treasury department paid the fdic and eventually will sell assets house that the federal reserve bank of new york such as the meeting lane fund. what type of assets are being sold? first of all, they are selling banks. despite a depository financially

institution, the engines of economic growth in minority communities. many people received their mortgage loans, their car loans, their business loans, their local community banks. if more of these financial institutions were minority-owned, our communities could flourish. they are also selling a real estate. the fdic is selling all types of office buildings, apartment buildings, single-family homes and land. again, the purchase of these assets by minority entrepreneurs, resident and communities could have a significant impact on how the assets or redeployed. last been mindful of the time i would like to comment on the profession of section 342 of the dodd-frank which requires every corporation regulated by the sec to present a diversity plan annually. the measurement of both work force and supply diversity for

every investment bank asset management firm of our nation's 8,000 commercial banks, private equity firms and u.s. corporations could have a profound affect on the employment, retention and advancement of the minority in the the women in our economy. likewise, the purchase of goods and services for the minority and the women owned firms can be a tremendous vehicle for job creation. thank you. >> thanks very much. thank all of you for your opening remarks and for your brevity because we've got 25 minutes. maybe it's because, you know, change in leadership, office building, speaker boehner, republicans are in the majority. listening to all three of you, particularly doctors austin i keep thinking as you lay out

your ideas for putting americans back to work, for making sure that they never are unemployed again i kept thinking really wonder where's the money going to come from, and i know that each of you laid out several things, but also where is the political will going to come from? how are you calling to convince? you've got these folks convinced but how do you get the majority in this chamber convinced that your ideas are the way to go and they should from the them especially since a lot of those folks came into office this color around complaining about the $14 trillion national debt? sorry to be the skunk at the garden party but i had asked. >> i think that is a political

question as you are well aware. [laughter] so what's really necessary is more political leadership because i think the general public, you know, if you look at the poll data, the general public says the economy in jobs are the number one concerns. so we think their needs to be more people sort of mobilizing the public and organizing the public and listening to the public because really some of the concerns about the deficits i would argue has only risen as much as they have come in again, the economy and jobs are the number one and number two issues for the public at large but by the polling data that concern about the deficit is only risen

because people falsely linking it to jobs, and really its deficit spending this necessary now to create jobs. but people have -- some people have been misled to cutting deficits will create jobs which it won't. if the federal government spends less there will be less economic activity, more jobs and will be worse kuhl worse off economically so we need more leaders to step forward and make that clear to the public that we need to spend now and create jobs. >> the only pushback its transparent in the description of the various ways in which there could be other spending reductions that would be associated with an effective program of the job guarantee and those spending reductions would be substantial enough to make the expense such a program really not a major burden for

the excess deficits. also i am a little trouble about people asking where will the money come from in the aftermath of the delivery of close to 13 billion -- $13 trillion to the investment banking committee. where did that money come from? not to be labor this point but i think a lot of people would say it was the right thing, and tell me if i'm wrong to throw anything and everything possible to keep the economy from falling off the cliff because if it had, -- suppose $1 trillion had been used for the purpose of putting all the unemployed folks back to work instead of 13 trillion being delivered to the investment bank community.

[inaudible] >> i would say $13 trillion delivered to the investment-banking community. $13 trillion was utilized to avert a global financial crisis by direct market intervention by the government. we live in a very interconnected global financial system, and if one firm of significance were to fail in the united states the ripple effect could sink the global economy, and if you thought of the depression in the thirties was bad, if the treasury did not do all that the did and unfortunately president obama did not give enough credit for the work that he did immediately after being elected but before actually being inaugurated to avert the global crisis.

>> i would respectfully disagree. the reason why there would be a ripple effect is because of the collapse in the u.s. economy productive performance, and i am arguing that if you have inaugurated a program that would have guaranteed employment for all americans you would not have had the collapse in the u.s. economy productive performance regardless of what happened to the prices on wall street. what we need is a mechanism to insulate economy from the behavior of wall street, and i would propose a federal job guarantee would go a long way to providing the sort of insulation. >> i'm having a hard time following that, and again, correct me if i'm wrong than just the journalist, i am not a phd economist, but from where i was sitting at the time, what happened on wall street had nothing to do with the unemployment rate being 5% or 6%

and everything to do with wall street doing things and taking risks that put working american people and potentially working people around the world at risk so how does a national investment employment core -- how would that actually stave off either the collapse of september 15th, 2008, or potentially another one? i'm not making the link. speed because the joblessness produced by that circumstance. you just said it yourself. >> the federal government employed all of these folks. >> we have a job guarantee. spaghetti individual subjected to an empire that has the option of turning to the federal government for a job, that is what a federal job guarantees, it functions as an employer of last resort. >> and their precedents, there's a program of the sort that's

been implemented and argentina. we could look at the carefully to try to make sure that we replicate what is positives from that program and don't replicate the mistakes. there are precedents for doing that. it's not outrageous and it functions as a social insurance program on the grand order that actually has people do something productive in the process of receiving an come. >> you look like you really want to help me out here. >> i want to respectfully disagree. [laughter] very respectfully because i am also not an economist, i am a practitioner of the capitol market, and what i can say is that our global economy came jury close to melting down because of the ripple affect caused by the lack of trust among the financial institutions

no one wanted to finance anyone else and so our federal government had to be the finance year of last resort so if the credit drives up and insurance and dries up there will be no corporation to employ anyone, so we could have a national employment regulation that you discussed but if all of the businesses are shut down those people will go to work and not get paid. >> with those corporations shutdown did where does the federal government -- >> to get the tax dollars, absolutely. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> well i kind of -- i think this is a little -- we've just gotten off on a tangent because,

you know, the jobs programs that the doctor next peak of what we've done with financial institutions doesn't prevent us from doing the job program, so it's not like we have to choose one or the other. it's, you know, for me it's like we can view what we did as what we did but what are we going to do going forward? and as i said before, the problem is not one of can we afford. the problem is a matter of politics, not resources. as i mentioned, presented for ways of providing resources. we can also do deficit spending, and i mentioned there is also lots of other options i didn't go into. so it's not a matter of can we afford to create more jobs?

we can. there is no question about that. the question is will we and will political leaders to step forward and do it? >> i appreciate your diplomatic spirit and i think you are absolutely correct. there is no reason to necessarily substitute the employment program for a program of support for the investment banking community. the only reason i went in that direction is because i was asked where will the money come from and no one seemed to ask that question when the objective was to prop up failing financial firms at a much more expensive price. but i will say there is an interesting question when people ask where does the federal move government get the money one can also lost where does the private sector get the money given the

vast number of contracts that the federal government actually does issue that provides sources of revenue to the private sector and i would love to see an accounting on that because i think it's a very fascinating issue. >> very good point. you said this isn't a matter of funding because there is money to do all this. it's a matter of politics. each of you propose really despite apologies and gang up to the doctor. each raise interesting programmatic ideas if this isn't a matter of money but a matter of politics who are your allies here on capitol hill? and ensure that you can name a slew of democrats but in this age of bipartisan can't we all just get along major, who of the

other side of the ogle comes maybe a little close to where you are and what you're trying to do? because these are interesting ideas. they should be debated. it sounds to me -- is there? >> i would have to defer that question to the policy. the policy wing of the institute would be able to better answer that question. >> i was intrigued by the fact someone like kevin at the american enterprise institute while not proposing a policy of a permanent feature is very enthusiastic about the idea of having a direct mechanism for providing jobs to people who are out of work and if he is receptive to that that might

suggest there is a wider receptiveness to people who we might not conventionally think would be allies with us. i think the magnitude of the unemployment crisis is so severe that it touches virtually every community in the united states. it touches people who are highly educated, not well-educated at all and as a consequence i think they are going to be political representatives across both sides of the ogle who might be receptive to the direct job creation measures. >> i didn't ask the actual members of congress if they have any questions for the panelists and if you do, please -- >> i don't have a question i

just have a comment. we can look at the district that have states where there's a significant minority population or where the unemployment is may be higher than others and you're going to find them on both sides of the aisle, and while i can't point to a specific member of the senate or the house on the other side of the all we look at that for health care and we look pretty much at the health and where they are specific minority districts but i think that is one way to look for allies that might not be otherwise allies. still going to be an uphill battle but that this the way the we will start to look. >> we have just fillmore than five minutes left and i want to give you each of you would like an opportunity to make a last comment or to say something that came to mind during the

discussion or you can lecture me about how wrong volume. [laughter] >> it is just a simple idea. assure everybody the opportunity to work for a decent pay i think we would cure a large range of those that exist. >> dr. ross? >> i just want to reemphasize the number one problem facing the country is joblessness and that should be the top of the concern for the let the officials. i think when we put other things ahead of that we are losing sight of our priorities. >> and i would say in closing i think it's very important for our government and our nation to think about the concept of

commercial diversity both in the work force, minority and women being gainfully employed and having an opportunity to rise to the highest level in the nation's corporations as well as opportunity for minorities to grow and flourish and become full partners in our global economy and i believe the federal government needs to lead by example by being diverse with its own resources and section section 342 and other commercial diversity legislation like the 107 of t.a.r.p. i spoke about and 116h of the housing economic act that i didn't speak of and the federal bar to use its we pulled it and do business with

minority and women owned firms and within the majority owned firms to the benefit of our economy. i should speak to the tremendous amount of discussion generated around how do we develop the political will because i do think it is an important question not to be debated. one of the things important that is disturbing to me and i think our panelists brought up earlier the first panel is it is the different philosophies of government whether we would have limited the government and with the government has an actual launch of the middle market

problems and really securing the wellbeing of its citizenry. i think the lexicon of the country where everybody is turned into taxpayers versus citizens is at the heart of this problem of developing the political will. this was delivered. the word tax, we've got to get people back to the point at which the d.c. the baseline that we've got to look out for the common good whether we are talking about taking care of them were elderly, educating our children, having a decent, fair salary or guaranteed work for people having a safety net, making sure people are rewarded for their hard work, the quality

in our economy we reward people who work hard and if they work hard they are allowed to become wealthy but there is no reason to deny the revenue to the federal government for the common good on capital gains on dividend, hi and come and we have to change the lexicon of the political will has to come from all the people and right now we are engaged in a lot of class warfare. people like me taking care of the poor and vulnerable and other folks who want that the words come out of the mouse they're only concerned about the middle class. we hear people talk about the folks who need to protect those on the higher end. the common good is something we need to get back to and we need

to really disaggregate this notion of the tax payers. the tax payers are part of citizens and part of a family of people come all of us are very happy to be america and we figure out how to make stuff and export and how to get back on top. thank you. >> that is an excellent way to end this panel and on time. thank you very much, dr. william darity and austin, tha spirit this panel is entitled to using the 2012 budget to address the deficit reduction. we have heard a lot about the party's and we are going to see what we can do with the actual budget to get things under control.

first as i indicated before we made a deliberate choice not to do with the deficit until the employment situation under control, the employment situation stabilized not where it needs to be pitied the private employment is totally stabilized and state and local governments are cutting back the employment so much so its offsetting much of the private sector again. but in terms of the budget, we know how to balance a budget. we've done it paul we have the political will of 1993. it requires tough choices. it's not easy. one of the first things we do is paygo but we pay as you go if you have another program you have to pay for it. we cannot do deficit reduction with faint generalities and spending levels. you have to actually go to the budget and make some cuts and raise taxes. now, you also can't do it with a

constitutional amendment. there is a reason why that constitutional amendment they keep talking about hasn't passed and that is because right before it's time to vote people read the bill. the debate is all but title. we have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget did you to be the title. but you haven't heard of and the provisions of the ability to get the provisions of the bill those provisions have been in effect in 1993 we never would have balanced the budget to begin with so as that debate goes forward listen carefully not to the debate about the title, but about the provisions of the bill. in the 90's we balance the budget and created record jobs. the dow jones industrial average hit new records. we've reduced the deficit and eliminated. we are all the way to e eliminating the debt. the rate we are going by the end of 2000 if nothing bad happened

to the budget we would have enough surplus to pass the entire national debt held by the public. that is what zero nobody to china, japan, no money to saudi arabia. unfortunately, we also know what not to do, what we did in 2001. we've eliminated ps2 gough, we fought to wars, a drug program and are paid for it with lalinde offsets. instead of paying off the debt, we added significantly so the debt is now out of control, exploded out of control. traditionally we have been able to spend about 20% of gdp attacks and 18% and had a structural deficit. by the end of the clinton administration we were taxing 21% and will be spending 18% and that was locked in and we were all the way to paying off the national debt. unfortunately we are back now to

taxing around 15% in the spending bill for 20, 23%. so we have a huge deficit. one of the things in terms of gdp if we continue taxing 21% we can pay all of our long term expenses except health care. health care is growing greater than inflation and taking a larger portion of the gdp, and that is why the republican plan that seeks to balance long-term actually works. it will balance the budget long-term. the big complication is the way they do it is to eliminate and repeal medicare. if you don't mind repealing medicare, the budget problems are easy. this panel will explore how to get back of the right track and unfortunately we've already started last month the land in the wrong direction. we passed and 850 billion-dollar

tax cut bill, $850 billion we indicated in the previous panel the social security is putting in jeopardy if you don't make those corrections. but nobody talked about how big a bill that was. on the last panel $40,000 each you could hire 20 million people at the highest only 50 million with growing debt imply that. 20 million people could be hired at $800 billion, 850 billion-dollar tax bill. we also know 850 is bigger than t.a.r.p. and the stimulus and spends more in two years than the health care in the ten and we paid for the health care bill. incredibly i notice 850 billion virginia about 2% of the national population and our general fund budget is

15 billion a year. 2% of the 17 billion. we call the national council of state legislatures and found out if you add up the general budget of all of the state's it is about $650 billion. add the additional money it gets up to a trillion did the general budget for all 50 states eds of 650 billion the past 850 billion-dollar tax bill and the congressional black caucus said all along this is a nice adel accept we want to know how you're going to pay for it. how are you going to pay for the $850 billion? i was at a program earlier today sponsored by nasa, and we are suspected we are not going to be able to explore space technology we have available because we need to help offset those tax cuts. education. you can't save for 850 billion without calling after education and pell grants access to

college, healthcare, all of those priorities are glad to be in jeopardy because of the thousands of bills they are so bipartisan in everybody's looking get what they are going to get and mog with your going to have to pay later. nobody complained about the huge size of the bill. so the panelists today will talk about how we will pay for it and how we can use the budget to get our deficit under control and address our priorities. the moderator is jamal simmons, a graduate of morehouse college where he recently received a presidential award of distinction and a master's degree in public policy from harvard and is a principal in the washington, d.c. based firm. his views have been featured in publications such as "the new york times," usa today, international tribune and even gq magazine. he's frequently on cnn.com

msnbc, the news hour with jim lehrer and the bbc. please welcome our moderator, john paul simmons. [applause] >> hello, everyone. i know it's getting late in the afternoon so we are going to try to keep this lightly. all this economic talk everyone is engaging in the to the volume when to start off with we are going to go least first and worked on the panel so we have to introduce everyone who's here. first we have fleece of the executive stricter of the aspen institute initiative of financial security. which is dedicated to the support of the idea of a new generation of individual development accounts available university to help low and moderate-income families build assets through retirement. before launching the initiative, she was a deputy director of the economic development to the ford foundation paid in her 13 years

of the foundation, she was responsible for the grants to the community development financial the institutions and work of saving. prior to joining the ford foundation, ms. mensah worked in corporate finance, citibank in new york. next to her is derek hamilton. derrick is an associate professor at the new school for management and urban policy and if we get the faculty member of the the part of economics at the new school for social research. the faculty research fellow at the center for economic policy analysis and the center for american progress and former assistant director of the american economic association summer research program. he earned ph.d. from the part of economics and university of north carolina at chapel hill in 1999. professor hamilton has done a bunch of other really important things. i'm not going to read all of them. but he did spend time at the university of michigan ann arbor

which is near my home town of detroit so i'm going to give that to shout out. his work focuses on the causes, consequences, remedies of the ethnic eddy, the economic health outcomes which include an examination of the intersection of identity, racism, color and socio-economic outcomes. welcome. next to him, jim car coverage e-business officer for the national community reinvestment coalition the executive committee member of american's financial reform and a trust blocker for the roosevelt institute new deal 2.0 initiatives. prodir to his appointment, and he was senior vice president for the financial litigation plan to get research for the fannie mae foundation. assistant to dr. for tax policy with the u.s. budget committee and research associate at the center for urban policy research at rutgers university. jim servile the research policy advisory board of harvard, university, for directly and

university, for that he holds a graduate degree in urban planning from columbia and the university of pennsylvania and architecture degree from hamilton university. so, welcome. this ought to be fun and interesting cattle. we are going to let the panelists get started but you'll have been sitting through this and you know like i know the president talks a lot about the deficit is of the main pillars of his planned and the other night the seat of the year did address. we saw the response from the republican party based on devotee of the response from the tea party, to the republican party based on the same thing. it's interesting to listen to everyone go back and forth about these because we all know that we have dug ourselves into a whole. we all know that the last really the eight years starting from 2000 but the wind up until now

president obama inherited the trajectory we are on the we've gotten ourselves in a hole that is going to require all of us to do things we don't like to get out of. the latter is what are our values and priorities, who is it that is going to bear the brunt of the decisions we have to make and how we make these decisions in a way that maintains our position it has opportunity for all of the citizens a of the ones who have guided us into the troubled and of having to bear the same cost at least the sale of the cost has everyone else did not getting off the hook with that i'm going to start with alisa and let you open us up and we will have some questions with the panel was finished. >> thanks, jamal in the congressman scott and members of the congressional black caucus. it's a pleasure to be here. i love the question you left us

with getting our deficit under control and address in our economic priorities. i see that is the right way to go into the budget season. for both of us who spent time in the policy circles of washington there is another star in the night of the state of the union de and the release of the president's budget which will come and i think that's what you have asked us to take a look at here and how could this budget be used to address the deficit but also to address our economic parity. i want to say three things like we should all keep in mind about the rationale the we did to this budget year and i want to say a few words about what you think, congressman scott, getting back on track and what to avoid it that i want to leave it with our best ideas from the aspen institute on how to go forward and getting the deficit under control in addressing our

priorities. first of the rationale i want to talk about growth, savings and investment and some progressive tax reforms. first, growth. we have a deficit because we have a huge crisis and recession and this is the demand constrain the economy. it means we don't have enough growth if we could speak at gdp growth we wouldn't have this deficit in one year, so - one thing we should be looking at is where are the drivers of growth? where do we create the jobs the would drive growth? i think the first principle revoking the remaining 40 billion in direct spending as part of the stimulus proposed by some of the house republicans was a dumb idea. it would only exacerbate and i need you know it but i would state of course we've got to

grow in order to get the economy moving. that's the first week to reduce the deficit. that i want to reclaim the the term investment. it's gotten a bad rap. your colleagues across the iowa or cleaning it is just a silly word for more spending, but i want to link the word adjustments to savings at the initiative on financial security we talk a lot about how to create a new culture of savings a nation can only invest with the saints, and in this country we have the need to generate true savings at all levels of the economy but because the second title of the gathering we have a huge wealth gap and also we need the savings and i think the true savings tax policy is the place to do this so we need some serious credits that rebuild the savings system and i

want to give you my rationale to fold. it's both for households over indented and vastly under, do not have sufficient wealth and it's great for the economy. if we can increase household wealth and by talking about stockholding this, real net worth and i know my colleagues will get to this the net worth we have a home-equity we will in fact increase be putting something in the economy that is vital. we need more growth, but the savings side of investment and to do this because it's good for households and the economy. let me say a word by getting back on the right track. i think we know we cannot cut our way to true surplus. deficits, yes, but if we cut it's like my dad overprinting my

mother's flowers, they will just die. so i love the presidents engine and algae. we can't take the engine out and wonder if the plan will fly so there is a caution that there are investments to stimulate growth and this is the way. another caution is that it's a difference between cost reduction and cost shifting. what we have seen the last decades are shifting burdens and costs to individual much more risk, proposals like voucher programs for medicare are huge risk shifting. i know you know that and this will hinder growth, and finally, the real driver of the deficit are the costs of health care, not social security. they are the drivers, so i want to encourage you to stay on the track and not falling for a mistake in place of where to look for savings and do focus on where we can gain health care

cost efficiencies. so what are my best ideas? i have three of them. first is in our retirement system that i believe we will see the smartest tax credits we could use it they will be right on your desks as you head into this budget season. the president proposed in the last budget $30 billion or for something called and expanded savings credit. it would literally be the first time that the tax credits went to the account of lower and middle-income americans to build their wealth i see it is a breakthrough policy and a vital to rebuilding mistakes so it is a refundable tax credit and 50% match if you save up thousand dollars $500 to your long-term savings account. it's powerful and i hope we see it in the budget as we have the last few years and i think it is a big one.

second, we should be adding the children, adding the kids read this is the moment in this budget, and they did this time to create accounts for all children. let's start addressing of the wealth chapter. we can do we did a very modest way with $500 carper account that would essentially be a number ira and let the children grow these accounts over their lifetime so they would be arriving with things more valued at 20,000 but they would have done it through growth matches and their own efforts and that would be a powerful addition. to add 2 billion to a 30 billion-dollar tag that's already in the budget seems to be to be a very modest revolutionary change. finally, and i know by copay analysts will also be speaking on this, but since we have had

such a huge loss of wealth through foreclosures and the crisis and who motorship, i believe this is the time to start investing in the down payment in the actual equity side should get the americans bring to the ownership, so our group is recommended a national system of accounts. again, this is matched monday to become money for people sitting for a down payment. again, it's another savings that to build net worth to be able to come right back into homes and rebuild what is arguably the most important asset in america. so jamal, i am going to hand it back to you. those are my ideas for the rationale to get back on the right track and how to get the deficit out of control but also address our priorities.

>> [inaudible] -- thank you. i guess i will start by talking about the context of racial equality in the legacy of the and i am going to talk about what i regard the transformative policies and then decide areas and our budget which i think are very regressive in the approach towards either of two big funds. the u.s. is characterized by longstanding patterns of racial equality to deepen further of economic downturn for a simple white unemployment rate is 8.5% while the black rate is nearly twice as high as 15.8%. over the past 40 years it's been less than five years in which the right to a white racist superseded 8% and contrast only one year in which the black race has been below 8%. also covered nearly 90 per cent of the u.s. occupation can be classified as racially segregated even after accounting

for educational differences. with blacks more likely to be crowded the lower learning occupations and out of the haulier and occupations so the current crisis is not something that is a one-shot deal for blacks like we are in a perpetual state of crisis. nonetheless it is a paramount indicator of the social well-being and perhaps paramount indicator of racial equality although there still exists the disparities of income and education this big reductions in the income gap until around the mid 1970's it continues to be reductions in the education gap albeit the flow as measured by the scores and high school graduation rates. in contrast despite these improvements in both education and become the wealth gap remains exorbitant and persistent. before the current crisis, the typical black family had less than 10 cents for every dollar of wealth of the typical white

family and the racial wealth that exceeded one madrid thousand dollars. the disparity is so pronounced that the media and latino a black household would have to save 100% of their income for close to three consecutive years to close the racial wealth gap. furthermore, 85 present of black and latino households have a net worth below the median white household. so regardless of age household instructor, education, occupation or in come black households typically have less than a quarter of the wealth of otherwise comparable white households. perhaps even more disturbing the median wealth of families who had graduated from college west of the median wealth of white families who had dropped out of high school. so why is wealth support? orloff your families are the positioned to finance the lead in dependent schools and college education access capital to start a business, finance expensive medical procedures, reside in the higher the birds

come exert political influence through campaign financing, purchase better counsel confronted with the legal system to withstand financial hardships color resulting from in the number of emergencies. a commonly held belief is that in search of immediate gratification blacks are less frugal when it comes to savings when it's not historically been the case nor is it now the case that blacks are more profligate than whites economists region from the conservative milton friedman to marjorie to the recently deceased founder of the black caucus found that after accounting for household income blacks had slightly higher savings rates than whites. more recently also find blacks have a slightly higher savings rate advantage once in congress controlled. careful economic study actually demonstrates inter family

transfers account for the racial wealth gap than any other demographic and social economic indicator including the education, income and household structure. these transfers to the primary source of wealth for most americans with positive net worth are transfers of more on merit resources. so why do blacks have less resources to transfer across generations? well, apart from the failure to in doubt his promise of the civil war, the blacks were deprived systematic property especially land and the accumulated between 1880 to 1910 by the government complicity fraud. during the first three decades of the 20th century prosperous black communities and associated property literally would destroy communities ranging from north carolina to also oklahoma. the historical use of the

restrictive redlining in the general lending discrimination were also factors that inhibited blacks from the two leading wall. furthermore, oliver and shapiro in separate studies document exclusions of blacks in depression and world war ii public policies that are largely responsible for the asset development of an american middle class. the treatment of blacks in the market is not limited to the past. for the civil the recent report on mortgage lending conducted by the institute of race and poverty at the university of minnesota finds the black residents of the highest earning categories such as those earning above $150,000 or twice as likely to be denied home loans than the whites of the wording categories below $40,000. it's also the case among those fortunate or on fortunate enough to actually get a load of your earnings lack three times as

likely for this of primm loans to the lower earning whites. all of this is to let us know that private action alone is insufficient to address these racial disparities. the most efficient way is to carefully target rate based policies. if it indicates this policy is becoming increasingly politically unfeasible, that we need a shift to more dramatic policies to lead to economic securities, mobility and sustainability for all americans. i am not optimistic about the public will to directly address the racial welfare. despite persistent racial disparities, public sentiment continues to move strongly away from race specific social policies, but all is not lost since the distribution of wealth as i mentioned also is so racially disparate, 85% of black families have households below the median what family the wealth can be an effective

bonnet rate based instrument to eliminate racial inequality. .. which guaranteed federal jobs for all willing and able idea americans would achieve some of these goals. the child development accounts with that address for 50, 75% of all newborns who average accounts of $25,000, but

progressively rises to $60,000 for newborns born at the most poor families. the accounts would drive a federally guaranteed 1.5% to 2% annual interest rate and could be a day when the child becomes an adult for some absent enhancing endeavor which is purchasing a home. financial data facilitate their ability to identify financial monitoring advances by the irs, service examples of the public site whose ability to measure financial acid. further, many localities are engaged in home values, electronic or appraisal based on market valuation of area home sales provided another example to measure individuals. to avoid savings card outcome of the transfer program could be structured in a manner similar to the earned income tax credit program, which uses the phaseout

schedule and work incentives. finally, you may be a concern that program may influence the economy in which, grandparents or their relatives might make transfers to their offspring so that the child -- children of these offspring can increase the federal bond support in which they follow. in order to address this concern, the government could reserve the right to tax future transfers to baby bond recipients in order to avoid potential moral hazards. does the public sector have the resources to tackle the racial wealth gap? the answer must be a resounding debt. the federal government's ability to raise $70 billion to t.a.r.p. along with the additional 2.5 trillion financial systems by april of 2009 is indicative