the drivers themselves. we talk about the sharing economy and the owners get paid in cash. it's not a sharing economy. the way to solve our political problems over the next few years is not leaving government alone but to partner with each other. >> the initial question was about immigration reform and metal skilled wages. if anyone is hurt by massive waves of immigration it ain't very much. if anyone at is hurt its people at the lowest end of the wages those busboys and people like that. the evidence they have offered is not very much. everywhere else immigration is a net positive. we just don't need to debate this anymore. the researchers to clear. >> i want to go to a further

looking question. we all agree that robards or coming and it's a question as to when. this question is inevitable and i want to expand on that. at some point when androids can make other androids are there new jobs that are created or do we need to fundamentally reevaluate whether work is something the something you are doing? we work to build purpose and during doing, and that has served us well. does that change in a world of massive automation? >> i think this is the key question. i like everything that andrew was saying and i think increasingly having the expectation he is talking about

will be the key to the whole thing. i love what he is doing. the way this is going to come down, the middle class itself, the strategy was how do you get a middle-class wage with a middle-class job in a middle-class wage is how you get to middle class. i think it's going to be very difficult elites in this country to your point about things arising but here the expectations we have is getting bigger. people thought they were living this way and they are not and we don't see a lot of those people in our conferences. when i go on the road i see them everywhere. it's about having a middle-class life not necessarily middle-class wage. there is going to have to be three strategies, not one to get to a middle-class life. wages will keep fighting for jobs and fighting for wages. i think that's a losing battle. i think we are going to be

losing more jobs in the united states, good jobs then we are creating. to keep fighting for the wages i think you are going to have to have some kind of redistribution at the government level and there's going to have to be some kind of -- something that is done to help people. the middle class cannot collapse into poverty and it's not going to be a happy outcome outcome. 2 inches point wages. the government has to get involved and then there's got to be a neighborly nest. some far-reaching approach the idea that we are in this together. it's not do it yourself. it's do it together. that a sick ethic of doing it together and using technology to find ways to solve problems those three v. do it right you might find out with a good lifestyle and if you are using social capital more than relying

on financial e. might have a better quality of life. a middle-class life experience could be better even if you have less jobs. we have to come to some kind of consensus that if that is the world we are aiming to win and we have to start bigger at how we make it work. if we keep telling people that you're going to be able to get a middle-class wage and if you don't it's because the government is run by some crazy socialist person or you are lazy or because of something else, the stress gets to the place where people start to turn to each other on each other. there's a way for us to turn to each other using technology to solve the problems. >> the robots are clearly coming. we just don't know how quickly and i think the absolute wrong strategy is to assume that day is going to comment to start planning for it right now.

instead i think the absolute right strategies to look at and say for the next decent chunk of time our economy is recognizable. we still need people inputting into the economy. maybe 50 or 75 years down the road that isn't the case anymore. we talked to the entrepreneurs and innovators out there and they say you have no idea what is coming. what we have seen so far to drive those cars and computers, that's the warm-up act. we are about to rollout some heavy stuff. even so that's not going to happen in the next five or 10 years. i completely agree with what andrew and van said the reiki come playbook is to try to do everything we can to have economic growth because we are still adding jobs to the economy every month. we don't yet have a situation where we can grow the economy and shrink jobs. that's not what's going on to the right playbook is to grow the economy faster and to put in policies.

making sure people are properly prepared to incentivize work instead of penalize it with our tax system. i will speak from an economics policy perspective. that's absolutely what we should be doing instead of trying to do white were planning for the world where the robots are taking care of everything for us. i think that world is coming within the lifetimes of most people in his room but is not what we should be spending our energy on right now. >> another major structural problem which is we are creating massive amounts of wealth by the small -- but they're so much wealth. what are you going to do with $19 billion? and whatever they want to even if they wanted to give it a way they probably can't because they don't have the infrastructure to give it away. let me tell you a sad fact they claim they will give away half their money before they died

they are probably not going to die because they are going to figure some technology that will keep them alive for 200 years. our philanthropy in the 20 century industrial age has figured out how to edit risk out of its portfolios. we have fantastic philanthropies in the ford foundation, rockefeller foundation and now gates and others who are giving money where they can but they are not putting it a massive amount of risk behind communities, behind people like hank who could maybe lose some of that and make some mistakes and learn along the way. we need a new generation of philanthropists who understand the digital opportunities were going to leapfrog the philanthropy industry and start funding the projects because our government is not going to fund it. our media wants us to tune in but not tune into each other. we still need capital and young

leaders who understand potential technology and realize they don't need to solve problems for the first will but to sell poems for the second and third world. >> i don't disagree with what they just said. if you look back at american history where the favorite things i studied and talked about was how did this country come to be and the famous battle was a battle for the british army coming down from canada and they were going to cut the country into. they would cut new york and divide the country into. they have the most powerful army in the world. the americans kept fighting and they kept picking them off and they slowed them down and slow them down. it was the first time one of the army's have been fought by a ragtag rebel force in this happened in my congressional

district upstate. the europeans came to america afterward and said how did this happen? we never had an army like this lose to a colony. what happened to the british when they sent alexis de tocqueville. he came here 25 years later looked around and maybe it wasn't quite that long but looked around and say what happened here and what he defined in the american spirit? it's exactly what andrew is describing. what allowed this country to come into existence and fight off the british army was local community groups the town square in new england, the folks that came together as a little community and militia of 10 guys around the times square where they had been solving their own problems. it was the community coming together and solving problems. they armed up and they went and they fought and they just kept coming from massachusetts and vermont and upstate new york. ..

>> that was fascinating. if you are interested in one of the from our volunteers will be back here at the entrance. you will get a copy of this new

book. we are going to be discussing future topics and our goal is to have serious and thoughtful conversation on how this works including a really awesome conversation. so thank you and we hope to see you again soon. [applause] >> we have a tv in prime time on c-span2. tonight we started at&t's turf with heaters are on establishing the first american settlement in the pacific northwest. then an interview on all americans, documenting the history of spanish colonies that became a part of the u.s.

and zebulon pike and the mountain later named pikes peak. and then a debate on the safety of genetically modified food. here is a brief preview. >> of all the independent scientist in about 40 countries, they all agree that it doesn't matter. they all agree it was released long before based on economic interests and political interests. and contrary to itself, i don't agree that it is relevant. because the politics of genetic engineering create massive collateral damage. and they don't value it. so we look at this after it was on the market in that gene produces an allergen. you might have an allergic

reaction from eating corn that is genetically engineered unlabeled as containing and allerton. and it can change 43 other teams. the world health organization, no problem. are all of these part of the conspiracy that a person had suddenly a uncovered this? and is that is not enough, there are other organizations and these are real medical and protective organizations. europe has these very anti-jam hours and we pay attention to this when it comes to global warming or something like that.

they say that it would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. i could come up with dozens of things. the food safety group. we have identified no safety concerns and is this reasonable that we have extraordinary equation here. this is fear mongering nonsense. all of these other organizations are just ignoring it reminds you to see all of that tonight on our companion network, c-span, at 8:00 p.m. eastern. here at c-span2, booktv on prime time in this is over on c-span3, american history tv focus in on the confederacy of the civil war. >> c-span2 provide live coverage of the u.s. senate and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv carrying out for 15 years the

only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, brought to you as a public service by your local cable satellite provider. like us on facebook and foulest together. you are seeing right now is we have complication of capabilities more and more. some technologists disagree but i consider it a trust fund that we all carry around to be a trademark example of this. we are becoming human sensors because we are all part of this complicated system. and this includes the form of radio frequency when we access this on the new jersey turnpike. it takes the form of other sensors that are around us.

certainly those that collect data and send it somewhere else. this is all part of the internet experience to. >> on "after words", the deputy editor of the futurist magazine. on a world that anticipate your every move saturday night attendance eastern on sunday night at 9:00 p.m. an online tomorrow a close election, we would look into whether this option at booktv.org. and then look for our next in-depth gas. a former gang member turned author and poet. his work includes always running and is 2011 release that called you back curdle tv on c-span2. >> the thomas before him

institute on security live everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and right now on c-span2 from this morning's "washington journal" from a discussion on the justice department's plansn. for changing prison sentencing guidelines. >> we are back with the authorht who is the senior: policy analyt joining us from austin, texas,, to talk about reform. let's begin with what is rightor on prime. can you explain that for our viewers? reddy, >> sure. it is a project which is a think tank in austin, texas. it's a think tank like any othe think tank that the viewers may know of.s a think ta like any the cato institute, the brookings institution. we focus on state-level policy and we focus on things like and health care and educat uniquely and criminal justice.

so for many years we have been working on finding ways to improve criminal justice in the state of texas to get better results and to spend less andsud improve public safety overall. we've been very successful, i'm happy to day. fed that has caused us to launch a national campaign based on the texas model of criminal justice. and that is what it is. our national campaign to getmod. conservative thinking people back to principles when it comes po.criminal justice policies. >> there are high-profile supporters were on board withile supp this. >> yes, we have statement of principles. people can find it at ournt of pr website.find o it has beenur signed by newt gingrich, grover norquist, bill bennett, jeb bush and americanni conservative over the last and several years.

>> what are the principles that you're putting forth here when inputtes to crime? >> well, since frankly i think that the principles are that weo need to get back to basic ideasd of accountability and transparency in criminal justice in the same way that we do in every other sphere of governmenf nmending. incentives are terrific abouten holding government to the fire t when it comes to things like f education and health care. so for many years there has beel a keyju approach. u this notion that you don't really care where the money is y going.govern bed that has never really fit ae squarely within the conservative philosophy.ithin and i think the result has beenn counterproductive. to let's take a look at the federal prison population from the bureau of justice statistics. in 2012 there were 218,000

prisoners between 2011 and 20120 been increased by 1500. between 2002 and 2012, that500 0 decade, we saw an increase of ad 54,000 or 33%. what has been happening in the federal prison population? poput >> what has been happening is the exact opposite of what has been happening in the states. in many states it has been decreasing. in texas over the last two years ars,ave close to three prison facilities. we ha and this is part of a vephenomee or many are part of central policies. but the federal government isn't quite as successful. >> it declined by 29,000 to to 0 2012. california accounts for 51% of the decrease. louisiana has the largest increase with over 1000.

at what are the states doing?wh >> well, what the states are doing, they are finding ways to supervise nonviolent offenders. prisons are important and necessary. and so you have people that can find ways to appropriately supervise them through probation and parole and electronic monitoring and a whole host of ways rather than behind bars. b. in texas, foreseeable, locking an offender up for one day costs $50, having the offender on probation is a little over $3. it is a difference we are willing to pay when it comes to a murderer or rapist.

when it comes to a low level caughtfender, a youth with marijuana or one who stole something out of his next-door neighbor's garage, maybe someone who has bounced checks. people like that come out of prison worse than they started. we have to be careful about how we treat those offenders. host: what is your group proposing? guest: we are proposing taking funding that would be going into very heavy-handed incarceration and instead putting a portion of that into improve information, improving -- improving probation, improving drug courts and committee supervision. host: is this gaining traction on the federal level? guest: i think it is gaining traction at the federal level because it has been so successful at the state level. there is a quote from the supreme court justice louis brandeis who said, more or less,

the states are laboratories of democracy. they should learn from one another's best practices. it is also true that the federal government can learn. the government has look at states like texas and georgia, ohio, pennsylvania, just this past week, mississippi and kentucky all have passed very significant criminal justice reforms. the federal government is now saying at the states can do this, there is no reason we should not be able to also. done by the this be obama administration or should this go through congress customer ? throught ought to go congress, we are talking about significant reforms. we have been traveling in one direction for 20 years. so much of our law has conformed e approach, this will require changes to law and

statutes. it is something that covers has to lead on. reportede l.a. times" that the senate is preparing legislation. what would this do? guest: this legislation would tackle the problems of mandatory minimums. we have, at the federal level in particular, really taken away judicial discretion to handle offenders the way the judge feels is most tailored to that particular offender. tohave taken the authority punish offenders and given it to congress. congress has set up mandatory minimum sentences that judges have no possibility with. impose. required to this legislation would scale back some of those mandatory minimums and restore much of that judicial discretion so judges can say this is a uniquely dangerous offender, for the sake of public safety they need to be locked up.

we have trafficking risks with this individual. or they can say no, this is 70 would benefit from treatment. public safety would benefit from having this person go into treatment and kick this addiction they have and get back on the streets and earn money and be a taxpayer and take care of his family and kids. something the-- obama administration can do? we saw stories about clemency this week. clemency guidelines, the administration starting to move on this as well. guest: i think the most important thing the obama administration can do is provide leadership. and large, the actual work, the nitty-gritty has to be done by congress. it is congress that has to pass the legislation. they have to understand the problems and hold the hearings. they have been doing all of this. these things are proceeding

really well. i think the administration should be careful not to get in the way of a good thing. in thehis is a piece huffington post with the headline law enforcement lobby quietly tries to kill sentencing reform. it says president of the national narcotics officers dssociation coalition conten that state and local governments could end up bearing some of those same costs to compensate for the federal government's softer approach. states and counties would be compelled to log of more people than they do now. guest: vikrant reddy, what is your response? uest: the evidence we have shows that is not the case. in texas, because of this texas made to reduce incarceration in 2007, all these burdens would have been picked up by the counties and you would have a

host of new problems shifted to a different level of government. that is not what happened. what happened in texas in 2007 is that a state agency cut the legislative budget board told state legislators that because of growth in texas population we would need 17,000 extra prison beds. they had a budget surplus but did not want to spend all that money, they said let's find a way to do this in a cost-effective manner. 0hey took a smaller amount, $24 million, and put it into improving probation and parole. thatpanded the drug courts we have to handle drug addiction among criminal offenders. the years went by, when 2012 rolled around and we were told extrald need 17,000 beds, we did not need them and were able to close down three prison facilities. one in 2011 and two in 2013.

the number of offenders in prisons has dropped. most importantly, the texas crime rate is at its lowest point since 1968. reason that you would see the same kinds of significant gains at the federal level. is seniorant reddy policy analyst for right on crime. here to take your questions and comments on sentencing reform. on twitter, "louisiana senate decided not to lower sentences for pot possession yesterday." "incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, a waste of money." kentucky, independent caller. caller: good morning. i think people who use cocaine and heroine every day of my life -- i am a police officer.

i want to ask the gentleman you have on the program, he is talking about low-level, nonviolent offenders. there are a lot of them who get arrested. where do you think they get money? cocaine and heroin cost money. almost every single day of their lives. where do you think they get the money to buy this cocaine and heroin? they do not go to the bank of america. they rob, they steal, they processes, and a whole bunch of other things they do. many do not get reported doing this but you just think, where does the money come from? have a lot in we common. we agree on many of those points. it was be a grave mistake to reduce sentences across the board and do nothing any further. we have to take the savings and

put that money toward drug treatment. the caller is right. if we do not address the we are justoblem, going to see criminal justice issues. >> a tweet -- guest: that is the argument that was made whenever mandatory minimum sentencing was pushed. what you are seeing is something nobody expected. it turned out to be crap -- counterproductive. ship against politicians. the reason was to say you would make it one year longer and then

somebody comes along a few years later and runs for office is as they would make it longer. then you have this endless ratchet and things get higher and higher over time. completely disconnected from what we would say is the basic principle of the punishment needing to fit the crime. it become an economic issue for republicans like yourself and others who signed up or your group? didn't just stop making economic sense? to some degree it is an economic issue. we had a terrible economy since 2008. corrections spending has been the second fastest component in state budget in the past years. that is something they can really find savings of a confined areas where they cut and they could take money and get budgets back in order.

be part ofat would it but i do not think that would be the entire story. were example, in texas, we had our significant moves that in 2007 when we had a budget surplus. i think other things are happening. maybe another thing we are being is a lot of social comes to reduce who really picked up on the issue because they drew a clear link between high levels of incarceration and the breakdown of the american family. in a lot of cities, families are being racked because so many young fathers are serving extremely long prison sentences. they're not out there earning money and providing for their families and children, paying restitution to whatever victims they may need to. social conservatives have really picked up on that. you have a fusion of social conservatives with traditional alsol conservatives, and

libertarians concerned about the size and scope of government power. they have all come together to strongprovide leadership's. religion plays a role in this? main issue is government policy needs to be based on evidence and principles and ultimately on the core function of government, which is securing liberty. we are at a place right now where a lot of those goals are being undermined because of the sheer amount we are spending on how we areon and averaging families with incarceration. host: on twitter -- guest: california has been a

really unusual case. ways, a case study in everything you would do wrong in criminal justice. by and large, we do not have mandatory senses. in california, they have some of the most notorious in the country. a lot of your viewers will be familiar with the three strikes you're out law. that is a law which was pushed by many prison guard unions in california. was almost a maximum employment bill for them in the mid-1990's. over time, we have seen at the third strike, regardless what the offense is, however low level it may be, you see people get locked away for many years. the prisonguard -- yard is terribly overcrowded.

level of told this overcrowding flat-out violates the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the eighth amendment. they have to let people go immediately and they were not really in a position to do it in a more tailored way where they can determine using more risk assessments who really needs to stay in prison and who can be released. all of these were matters that should have been handled 10 or 20 years ago and not waiting until there was a supreme court mandating. host: democratic caller. caller: i respect your opinions, i am not in agreement with some of them. for instance, we have a republican house which has done years, this entire two

the time our president has been in office. therefore, legislation is going nowhere. your group has good intentions regarding crime. said this particular issue should be left up to the congress. that is when you have a working congress. we do not have a working congress. housee a speaker of the who refuses to present legislation on the house floor because of politics. i will bring up an issue regarding your group. it is mostly conservative. i think it flies in your and everyone else's face to think if you are anticrime, your only conservative care that is a

ridiculous way to present an issue. i think everyone is against crime. we have a huge drug issue in this country. it involves heroine, it involves -- i cannot even pronounce the drug. host: oxycontin? thank you. senior moment. it involves so many of our young people. even inside some of our older groups. so, i respect your opinion about wanting to do something about something. i think we all want to do something about something. qwest we will leave it there and get a response. i think i have more

confidence because of the things i am seeing out of congress. the main bill we have discussed, the one that would reduce mandatory minimum sentences, that has been proposed by mike lee and by senator richard durbin. i think michael he is is that -- about as conservative as they get in the house and senator durbin is about as liberal as they get. they both manage to find common ground in this area. at the state level, i have seen that kind of thing and it does not surprise me. we commissioned a poll on peoples attitudes toward criminal justice reform. what was fascinating is we saw came fromest support self identified liberals and self identified to party republicans. this has been an interesting alliance. it is the tea party and the left that has come together and they're pushing real legislative

change. another thing to keep in mind is that you can get real legislative change whenever both sides feel like they're doing this for reasons that are important to them and important to their principles and philosophy. of why it is part a conservative issue. people care about reducing crime and having a better correction system, but both sides think and process in different ways and our goal is to talk with conservatives because we are conservatives and we are eighth and the reuters group. that is the framework we are most comfortable in. >> will similar legislation make its way through the house? guest: similar legislation is being reviewed in the house. task forces have been set up to review some issues. it has been voted out of the senate judiciary committee. rock tomid in little

arkansas, republican caller. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. we went through this process in arkansas in 2011. we adjusted many for crimes, we heard the rhetoric talked about in terms of the people we're afraid of and not the ones we are mad at. those are great platitudes. they sound good. do act, when you prostitute is in law enforcement and parole officers and victims of crime and families, those platitudes do not go very well. we saw an enormous uptick in parolee crime, ballot crime. a lot of times, these drug crimes people are ultimately charged with, those are charges that are played to.

and i hated good some of my conservative friends are buying into this myth, because some are more worried about tax cuts than serving public safety, our first obligation, i think mr. reddy look across the country and see every state is not texas. in arkansas, we were suspending a genetically lower level on corrections. what happened in arkansas has gone through the process in the we3 legislative session. fixed a lot of these problems. we have begun to get a handle. first and foremost, stacy to make sure they have an extreme -- states need to make sure they

have exhibited robust -- and not letting people out of parole that they should not be. that is what mr. reddy's group ignores. they talk about slipped sanctions, but most of them is is put on lessening the sentences and clearing out resins. there are enormous costs to people committing crimes. a lot of the folks we are mad at, they drive the cost of the criminal justice system, law-enforcement, and they do drive up the cost for counties. there is an enormous human cost and a cost to increase crime rate. we have had seven homicides in the past five days. texasddy works well in and the governor is a good friend of mine. but it does not work in every state area those principles have done great harm for us and i hope my conservative friends in the house and senate do not i

into the myth. if you want to learn about what happens in this process, come to arkansas. what do you do it arkansas? caller: a state senator. a little county -- it is a significant area. host: go ahead and respond. if i understand his point correctly, he is saying you cannot just reduce sentences and completely ignore the parole and probation. if you were to do that, that would be a terrible mistake. that is what he is saying and i think he is completely right. any state, or the federal government, that choose to do that is locking down the wrong road. you have got to take some of the savings that will be realized

from reduced incarceration and you have got to apply them to making the systems better. you have to be sure offenders are being held accountable. that is the real tough on crime philosophy when you get down on -- down to it. it is not tough on crime to tell somebody to just sit in a cell. if you have a drug addition, you're going to get passive and we will force you to get treatment. will force you to pay restitution to victims and require you hold a job and we will monitor you and we have the right personnel in place and are using the right technologies. i think that is tough on crime and that component is absolutely critical. that is what i understand him to be saying and i entirely agree. host: let's go back. caller: it sounds good, but often times, what happens when you look at states that go through these processes, you can look at new hampshire, mississippi just went through this, what he says is what we

should be doing first. robustsure we have a probation system, one that punishes individuals. in arkansas loan, we would have people, violent criminals, people who should be in prison who are let out on parole who would violate the terms of parole and even commit new crimes, and were not sent back. spending hisd be time doing, instead of talking about reducing sentences and having these wonderful little platitudes about dealing with the people we are afraid of and not those with whom we are mad, what he should be doing is focusing first on the parole and .robation system talking about nothing else. int: you are a state senator arkansas. mr. reddy talked earlier about

the cost of keeping someone in prison a day, $50 a day, versus probation, parole, three dollars a day. said there are costs for law enforcement, for the city, for the justice system. xplain those costs? caller: it is what we do. people ask what you do and it is to try to understand the true cost. it is true you could take an excel spreadsheet and take some college -- columns and cells in them, you could show and say there is something between someone being on parole and being incarcerated. the truth is, a lot of the things we talk about in terms of monitoring, in terms of stepped-up probations with a certain sanctions, those rarely happen. what we have seen in arkansas, the experience has been that you

see in enormous number of the same repeat offenders committing the same crime over and over again. they go through this process and we have these wonderful laws. a great example in arkansas was, -- a lotthe threshold be watching the show, criminals pay attention to the law changing. we have seen it skyrocket in our state and the fact of the matter is a lot of times theft and robbery, those are violent crimes waiting to happen. there are a lot of nonviolent criminals who just did not have someone get in their way. the truth is, a lot of the folks, we hear a lot of this is because the drug habit, and we have had a lot of people in our prisons serving because they were caught with an ounce of marijuana or a joint.

it is a happen. those types of stories are used to sell reforms. >> ok. i will jump in and have mr. reddy respond. guest: we agree more than we disagree. this comes down to drawing real distinctions between violent offenders and nonviolent offenders. i'll pick up on one thing he said that i completely agree with. there is a myth that people are terms becauseong of marijuana sentencing. he is right that is not happening. what is happening, and what is individualsg at, with marijuana will be arrested. they will spend time in jail as they await their trial date. we have that problem in texas. in 2007, the legislature looked at the problem. thernor perry let that problem.

he said, what we could do is issue citations for those people that require them to come to court for their court appearance. what is the point of paying for their time in jail if when they finally get to court, they're just going to be given probation anyhow. that was a very sensible move. was a really smart way to handle the marijuana problem in texas. it does not necessarily mean we have a lot of marijuana offenders serving long prison sentences. it is a't knowledge component. to twitter -- guest: it is a question of

violent offender versus nonviolent offender. agreeeople would probably some white-collar criminals, for example, need to serve time behind bars. bernie made off, for example. we're basically looking at finding some ways to distinguish between those people we are mad at and those people we are scared of. host: democratic caller, edward. caller: i'm doing fine. i want to tell him in florida, when you get out of prison, when you get out of prison, you go to a work release program and the findam actually helps you

a job. once you are out of the program, once you're out of the program, they do not help you find a job anymore. it is better if they get hired at these jobs, actually get paid, at the end of the year. we are listening. caller: they get paid at the end of the year. what i'm saying is, they are not, they are not, -- i am nervous right now. -- rison -- i cannot host: we lost him. independent caller. caller: how are you doing this morning? agree onto say i do what you are speaking about. a moreve we need to make

prominent, distinction between actual defendants that do pose a .hreat to the public if we could actually go back and rewire, the psyche and or focus on the rehabilitation of those western offenders, we could stop the problem right at the roof of the problem. host: on twitter -- guest: actually, that kind of ties into what the caller from florida, who hung up, was saying. i think what he was getting at reentry difficult

processes are. we have to find funds to do that. if we could find ways and take a portion of savings from that and from that, and making it easier for sex reenter society, , thehe research out there number one factor is making sure x offenders stay afoot. democratic caller, jennifer. caller: thanks for having me on air. i am a texas president and i have been personally touched i this issue.

for the past 10 years, he is a repeat offender and has had four felonies. texas does not have an effective system. i have personally gone to his andings on a monthly basis i have had to pay the full fees. --y throw away his dirty texas does not have drugs within the prison system or outside the drugn system for these addictions, especially methamphetamine, and powerful street drug. is an issue with domestic violence as well associated with this. it is not being addressed or funded here in texas. are not any opportunities for jobs, if you have a felony record.

you have to pass a background screening. where are the jobs for people who have a felony? i do not see how you are dressing these issues. just by reducing the sentence, is not solving the problem just because it is costing the taxpayers money. it ruined my life. he's still doing the same things he is always done. fiascoou pay the parole -- fee? caller: yes. he gets out, and by sheer

>> the way that we have managed to work this out is something that the other states can work from. and i think that we are absolutely right. but there is much more we can do

to show our assistance. another thing that she spoke about is how difficult it is and there are a lot of things that we can do to attempt attend that problem. one thing that i will mention is taking away at the look that we handle occupational licensing in this country. so much licensing going on that you can obtain if you have a criminal record. so let's say you committed a criminal offense when you're 19 or 20 years old. and then you get a license to do any number of things. you want to be an auctioneer, you want to be a high school ball coach. a referee. all of these things are subject to licensure. so for some of them to which it is probably relevant and

necessary, we ask why this should be a barrier to obtaining now. and we have done a little bit of a roof or mom that and we could do more than folks across the country could do more as well. tonight we have an independent caller on the line. two hello. good morning. we have talked about previous offensives and why are federal incarceration so much more expensive than state incarcerations. >> well, i think that that is a fantastic question. and the way that it would be handled is at the state and local level and as time has gone by we have seen the federal government approach in more ways

in every sphere of american life. criminal justice is no exception. and so i think that this really would be better handled at the state level and that is something that i think a lot of conservatives have talked about. and so we have a very strong question and they have picked up on how this has happened in american criminal justice and we call that over criminalization. it's kind of a species of that and we really need to start understanding more. >> we have a senior policy analyst. you can follow them on twitter. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> on the next "washington journal", a conversation on the common core standards for k-12 education. our guest is from the thomas

institute. and then we have more on the social and economic ramifications on than security. today's headlines, your phone calls, they spoke, and and tweets. ..