community, we have the potential using wireless technology along with a whole bunch of other stuff, genomics and other things, to virtually eliminate disease. now, talk about objective that's a lot more real than trying to get, be more spectrally efficient. the one that really excites me the most is what's going on in education, and i've touched on that before. we tend in almost everything we do to treat people as classes. people are not a class, they are individuals. and if we can have an educational system that is tailor made to each individual and the example that i give when i describe how this could evolve is the way children play games today. i don't know if you two are game players, but these games are intricate, complex multilevel,

challenging. and if you could visualize an educational system where a child is continuously challenged if they can't achieve a level they're shunted off to a different challenge or they're asked to do it over again. you now have education that's tailored to the individual. and i am absolutely convinced that that is going to create a class of smarter people. our children are going to be smarter than we are and their children will be smarter than they are. and is that a good thing? yeah, i think so. smarter people do everything better. ask we could solve some -- and we could solve some really important problems like eliminating war. so i've gone on a little bit from the spectrum issue. >> host: and finally, what kind of cell phone are you using today? >> guest: well, i, you know, i always have the latest cell phone -- >> you better.

>> guest: -- peter. [laughter] the difficulty with cell phones today is they are really aimed at techies. and i want to have a cell phone that anticipates my needs may ask me a few questions but actually examines what i do and responds to that and tailors itself -- sounds like a familiar view point? -- to my needs. so the latest phone i have is the moto x. i'm no promoting any manufacturer, you understand. but they've got some features that are move anything that direction. so when i talk my cell phone out and wiggle it, it becomes a camera. when i just take it out and look at it, it tells me what time it is without my doing anything. we're starting to move in the right direction. these are just baby steps, but i appreciate those kinds of things. >> host: marty cooper thanks for being on "the communicators." paul kirby, as always, thank you.

>> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> here are a few of the comments we've recently received on the 114th congress. >> the thing that really needs to happen is going back to what the incoming majority said is they need to get back to regular order. if they go back and pass the 13 bills that it'd take to fund the government, then everybody can see who voted on what, who put what amendment up, and then send it to the president and let him pass it or veto it. >> i hope it's a more mature, responsible congress that we will see merging in the next two years -- see emerging in the next two years.

i think emblematic in this situation of an irresponsible congress, we can see that reflected in this john boehner challenge today. it's time for both parties to put aside the bitter partisan battles and get on to the task that they're constitutionally required to do and that is to govern, to legislate. and i think what the more than people said in november of both parties is it's time to see that finally start to happen. >> um, i think, i don't know, this 114th congress, what can we expect of them, you know? the thing with citizens united it's like, you know, all the politicians are bought and sold really, i mean, who are they representing, us or what? i mean the first thing on their agenda is the alaskan -- not the alaskan, but the keystone pipeline. >> frankly the american people are prepared to get past the polished language, the false

promises. we need you to understand sir, that you work for us. we have seen nothing but foreclosures, people in the street and, frankly we're tired of the silly games being played, and we don't believe anything we're hearing any longer to include create jobs. that is so overworn out. >> and continue to let us know what you think about programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet @c-span hashtag comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now, from the sixth annual washington ideas forum a series of interviews focusing on race relations, food security poverty and other social issues. we'll hear from the author of the book "americana" which focuses on a nigerian girl

living in the u.s. then whole foods' ceo walter robb on bringing his store to urban areas of the u.s. such as detroit and new orleans. then author alex kotlowitz discusses his current project and shares a clip from his film, "the interrupters." this is almost an hour. [applause] >> thank you, steve. we're in for a real treat today. thank you so much for being with us. and i should say thank you for writing this book. if you have not read any of her books, you should dye in. particularly -- you should dive in. particularly dive into the book "americana a" which is so interesting and of this moment because it provides this window and at the same time a mirror into issues of race and culture and class in this country but also on the continent of africa. and i want to talk a little bit about your experience in writing the book, but also the experiences that led to it.

for people who haven't read "americana," can you just give us a quick sketch? >> "americana" is about a young woman who leaves nigeria when she was a teenager, comes to the u.s., spends 13 years and goes back to nigeria and in those 13 years many things happen to her. and it's also about her childhood love who leaves goes to the u.k. and then returns to nigeria. it's a novel about leaving home as much as it is about going back home and what home means and if you can go back home. >> and they go back home and they are very different. >> they are. they have been changed by leaving home, but i think they've also come to see home differently. i think that the -- i think we all change as we age, of course. >> don't we all. [laughter] >> and the hope is that we change for the better. but i think they've changed in a

way that's different from how they would have changed if they hadn't left home. and while "americana" is not really based on my experiences because my life is not just very interesting, her life is a lot more interesting than my life, but i -- and my life was easier, in many ways than the characters. but i was in the u.s. four years before i could afford to go home, and even then i had this feeling that nigeria had left me behind. you leave home, and you create home in your mind, and then you go back, and it's not what you built up in your mind. and there's a sense of loss because the we imagine that things happened and you weren't there. >> how much of home is also tied to identity? you were asked this question recently and your answer was sort of puckish. you were asked where is home and you said home is where my best shoes are. [laughter] >> this is true. >> in that case -- >> [inaudible] >> nigeria.

>> yes. >> but when you're thinking about identity and the identity attached to home, that's something you probably struggled with when you left philadelphia after college to go back home. how are those two things tied together? >> it's interesting. i think that identity's such an interesting thing, and i find that in my life my identity has had a lot to do with where i am. you know identity shifts based on where one is really. and so when i was when i came to the u.s., i found myself taking on a new identity. rather, i found a new identity thrust upon me. >> thrust upon you here? >> i became black in america. and i really hadn't thought of myself as black in nigeria. i think identity in nigeria was ethnic, it was religious, but race just wasn't present. in some ways i think it is in southern africa, for example, but not in west africa. and i guess for historical reasons we didn't have people take over our lives.

>> how did that happen to you? i mean, when you came here, how was it made, how were you made aware that there was a particular box that you were supposed to occupy as a person of color, as a black person in america in. in -- in america? >> i think of this moment as a defining moment. in class it was the first essay written for a class, and the professor or came in and said this is the best essay in class, and i want to know who it is. he called my name. i raised my hand, and he looked surprised. it was a small, fleeting moment at that moment i had been in the u.s. only a few weeks, but he hadn't expected the person who wrote the best essay to be black. so what it taught me at that moment was to be black in america meant something. and so discussing this identity it wasn't so much that -- i like to say i'm happily black so i don't have a problem at all sort of having skin the color of chock hate but it's like in this country i came to realize that to have that meant

something, that it came with baggage and with all of these assumptions and that the idea of black achievement was a remarkable thing. whereas for me in nigeria it wasn't. it was norm. and i think that's when i started to interimmize what it meant -- internalize what it meant, and then i started to push back. so for a long time i didn't want to be recognized as black. >> and how would that come up? >> i would say on those forms that have you pick what you are i would pick, "other." >> just write human. >> right. yeah. by the way right now i very happily pick black i just want to make that clear. i think, and then i remember this young man referring to me as sister, and i thought, nope i'm not your sister. again, it was my way of dispensing myself on this identity that i had learned had very negative connotations. but what it took for me was reading, learning, asking questions. i went on this self-styled

reading journey where i read a lot of african-american history. and american history. and i started to understand. i started to let go of certain stereotypes. i think it's very ease when when you're an immigrant, it's very easy to internalize the mainstream ideas. it's easy, for example, to think, oh, the ghettos are full of black people because they're just lazy and they like to live in the ghettos because that's sort of what mainstream thinking is. and then when you reads about sort of the american housing policies of the past 100 years it starts to make sense. and then it forces you to let go of the simple stereotypes. so that's what i did but it was a conscious effort, and it was an interesting journey but the still a journey. >> when you write about this in the book, you write about african-americans and africans and the way that they look at

each other. >> yes. >> and there's a lot of humor in this, but there's also some things that people will find recognizable. you'll of laugh out loud you'll squirm a little bit when you read this book. was that your intention, that you wanted people to do both of those? >> yes. [laughter] i was hoping people would be uncomfortable. it always makes me very happy, making people uncomfortable. [laughter] no, but really. i never set out to -- i think i that my, i'm not, i don't believe in provoking for the sense of provoking, just for the -- i find that not very useful. but i do think that the certain conversations and certain things that i think need to be said and need to be addressed and hopefully, need to be made better, and for those things to be done we need to get to a place where we are uncomfortable. and if squirming is a consequence of that, then i think that's fine. >> sort of leaning into discomfort. >> yes. i think discomfort is a necessary condition for a

certain kind of justice a certain kind of progress yes. >> when you write a book and you put a story out there, and in some ways this was also your story, when it's so personal, those stories come back to you. and i'm interested since you wrote a book that touches on so many sort of hot button issues, you went there on these issues, what came back to you now that you've been traveling not just throughout america but throughout the world talking about that book and talking about these issues? how do people -- >> i love that you said you went there pause actually a number of women, black women -- >> girl, you went there. [laughter] >> i can't believe you went there. which, for me is one of the loveliest compliments i have received about the book. people who, you know, there are people for whom i think the novel then becomes a kind of not so much a validation of their own experience, but a -- i think that as human beings we want to

see ourselves reflected in stories. and i think that that novel for many people is the reflection of a story that's theirs but hasn't really been told, they haven't really seen that reflected in contemporary literature. i think also there are people who are uncomfortable. there are people -- and i find it particularly in the u.s., i find that for british readers british readers are all very happy to say to me, oh, isn't racism in america terrible? [laughter] so we say well, you could look in your backyard, you don't actually have to go -- i find that american readers there's often sometimes a defensiveness where people will say to me, well, what about racism in nigeria? [laughter] and i think, well, but that's not what the book is about. it's sort of like saying let's talking about mongoose and somebody says well, let's talk about rabbits or something really random. but i also find for a number of people it's also learning. there are people that say the book made them think differently about things and i really value

that. i find lately i've been thinking of the idea of storytelling as social utility, how we can actually through telling stories start to understand one another better. so people who said to me i read your book and i'm starting to think differently about some things, it makes me happy, and i hear that quite a bit. thinking differently about race, for example, but also thinking differently about black women's hair. >> you spend a lot of time talking about hair in the book. >> i spend a bit of time, yes. [laughter] i think that hair, i think that black hair in particular, i think, is a very interesting subject. and i think that whole novels have been written about -- [inaudible] so why can't we write novels about hair? [laughter] it seems to me. >> is that one of the things american women comment on in particular? >> yes. >> a lot of what happens, i'm going to let you in on a secret, there are things that happen in a beauty shop that you're not supposed to talk about outside the beauty i shop. it's sort of like what happens

in vegas stays in vegas. but you take that conversation and put it on the page for everybody to see. >> i do, yes. [laughter] hey, not everything. [laughter] no, but i felt -- i think, yes, it's the story of the hair salon, but i think it also in a larger sense it's a political -- >> yes. >> the hair is a political space. i think it is. and the conversations that there -- >> it's about agency. >> when yes, it is. very much so. so i think it was important for me, i don't think i could have told that story, and it's also a story of the central character coming into her own in many ways. kind of a happy expression, but it's still true that she becomes fully herself. and that journey involves the hair salon as a political space. >> you talk a lot about the danger of a single narrative when one story defines an entire class of people an entire

community. and right now one of the things i know you're a little bit concerned about is the relationship between america and africa and a single story sort of overtaking that narrative. and right now the concern that that single story might be something that we've talked quite a bit a lot about today is ebola. >> right. ebola seems to be the latest -- i suppose every, there's kind of an ebola panic in this country. i was in nigeria, you know, i've been here the past month so i was in nigeria when we had ebola in nigeria, and watching the american reaction has been very interesting to me. because one of the things -- i've been happy to observe that watching all sort of the fumbling and the mumbling that's been, that's around that subject has made me realize that not dealing well with this sort of thing is not the exclusive preserve of nigerians. [laughter] which has been a nice thing to

learn. but also i think the way that it's been covered in the mainstream american press has been very troubling to me. >> the way that -- >> the distinctions are not made, so it just becomes this africa. so people will say you've come from africa therefore you're likely to have ebola. and i don't mean fringe reporting, i mean mainstream, ostensibly, you know, responsible press. and the way that even nigeria has been called it, and nigeria has been ebola-free but it's been attributed with everything but nigerian action. so the u.s. newspapers will say it was because the cdc sent experts, and it was because so and so and it was because, you know cookie monster came down. [laughter] but the thing is the reason that ebola was contained in nigeria was because of nigerian action. it was largely because of nigerian action, but that hasn't been told. and i think the reason it bothers me so much is, i think is because it feeds into the same old narrative of africa is

a place with no agency. you know if anything good happens there it has to be attributed to somebody else that it's somehow not of that place. and it's not even so much about offending me or offending anybody, it's also just untrue. it's factually wrong. and i think that the american readership that's been served that kind of garbage, a disis service to them. because they're -- disservice to them. because they're not being told the truth. and so yeah i mean, the whole ebola coverage and the way that it's been, the way that the african presence has been turned into a kind of scary other thing is very worrying to me. there's no humanity. >> when you wrote in this book, you said that you very much wanted to encourage people to become more curious about africa and more curious about race and about storytelling, and i think you have probably achieved all of that and more. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause]

thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. i read i wept, it was a wonderful book. thank you michelle. whole foods, which blazed a trail for organic and locally-grown food has recently invested in store fronts in neighborhoods in chicago, new orleans and detroit. in an effort to bring healthy foods to underserved communities. the man behind this effort is our next guest, walter robb. he's led the chain's foray into some of america's poorest enclaves. today robb is here with the atlantic's james beard award-winning food writer corby i kummer. [applause] >> and done deny it. [laughter] we'll turn the mic on, we hope. everyone in this audience shops

at whole foods, and don't even try to deny it. [laughter] in my own jamaica plain, a neighborhood of boston massachusetts, a few years ago whole foods decided to come in as it turns out, down the street from walter's brother, a neighborhood, and the two years of community protests that greeted it, how awful that you're going to bring up property values in the neighborhood. we hate you. the main reason being because jamaica plain had been a mixed neighborhood, there was great concern about what would happen to the lower income people who might be priced out from what would otherwise be viewed as a salubrious development for the neighborhood. it was fascinating to watch this because it was really, in jamaica plain and we're going the talk about other conflicts, we're going to go right into detroit. but in jamaica plain, at least it was largely extremely well-men meaning --

well-meaning, liberal food people like myself who were saying please think about the consequences, please think about the latino produce because it had been a latino market in the space that you were going too. >> that's right. >> and you must think of preserving this neighborhood. mayor made sure there would be bodegas. but when i would talk to people, i've lived there a while, and i would talk to people who have lived there 35 years as urban pioneers, they would say we're counting the minutes until a whole foods opens. and so there's this great conflict and dichotomy about everything whole foods represents now. just now when we were talking about the fact that whole foods is about to open in a poor neighborhood of chicago englewood -- >> right. >> there's tremendous attention to this. and someone directly challenged mr. robb and said well, how do you expect anyone to be able to afford to shop there? so detroit. how does anyone afford to shop

there, and what was your idea in going into detroit, chicago and now a third store like that? >> well, good morning everybody. let me start with three ideas. number one is there is a disparity of food access in this country that is startling and stunning and is morally repugnant. there are 6500 communities in this nation that do not have access to fresh food in the way that many of you do and take for granted. number two is there's an idea that a company and a community there's an ideology around what that looks like and how those conversations go that needs to be challenged and changed and creates new possibility for all sorts of communities, whether it's us or any other company, i believe, can happen. number three, this idea of diversion and inclusion and cultural diversity and the idea of cultural relevance matters in these conversations in ways that i don't think gets the attention it deserves. so in detroit, for example i think we just really started with instead of saying we're coming, we started with a year worth of conversation. at the invitation, by the way of the secretary of agriculture and some other folks in the community who said would you please take a look?

we do not have food access in this community. you know the story of detroit two million people down to 700,000 people a city flat on its back, and yet when i went there as a entrepreneur for many years seeing the community in the making. >> uh-huh. >> and so we started with a year's worth of conversation, what's important to you, what matters to you, respecting and meeting people where they were. so by the time we got to the decision to announce the store we took another year that have to build it out, and during that time we had a conversation with the community. there was a group, an activist group that was formed that challenged us on hiring, on investment, on all these sorts of areas. and we took them on a bus out to the open county stores, have had them give us feedback on what worked and what didn't work. ultimately, we lowered our gross margin lowered our prices, broadened our selection and as a result i think we've been able to give some choices to the community that they haven't had heretofore. >> request i wonder if in detroit there was the same, in jamaica plain there were many

calls for whole foods to begin a subsidized housing fund for the people who would be displaced by the higher income. was there such an idea in detroit? did you have polls like that, you have to make good by actually paying people money for the increased property values? >> so here's the issues that surfaced racism, elitism and gentrification, and not being examined at a deeper level which need to be if these challenges are going to be met. so yes, people challenged us around that. the best way to go at that is to start, again by respecting people where they are respecting the fact that there's a community there. you are joining a community. you are not, you are not, you know, a white stork dropping in with some sort of great regalia from heaven. you are joining a community that's already this formation. in the case of detroit, this is an iconic american city. so you start with a respect for that, and i've honestly forgotten your question, i'm so sorry. [laughter] >> did anyone --

>> i can got kind of wound up there. >> did anyone in detroit say -- >> ah, yes yes yes. they did because they were concerned about what was going to happen to housing, and that was the first -- i can tell you that conversation's a little different in chicago than it was in detroit because we didn't really know what we were doing. the conversation surfaced more after the store was open as people began to see, okay what's happening with housing? there were some developers that were moving folks out of fed income housing, and units were beginning to change, and i could see while they didn't lay it at our feet they did say that our coming in was a change so we should talk about gentrification, about the fact that neighborhoods do change and how are we going to talk about that conversation differently than just saying, okay whole foods comes in, it's gentrification. do you want to do that now? >> i'd like to do some of it, and i'd like to, say, pull us back. you had a year of conversation -- >> we did. >> you wanted this cultural sensitivity or understanding of the people there. >> yeah. >> -- better. same thing with jamaica plain.

it was like you were forced into that conversation, but you can't tell us why you wanted to go -- jamaica plain is not an underserved neighborhood. whatever people would like to believe about the way it was. you're going into underserved neighborhoods as you will be doing englewood. what's behind that decision in the first place? >> you know, honestly, at this point i've been doing this over 30 years and our mission as a company, we started out when no one knew what natural food was was to bring healthier good to the world. that's why we did it then, that's why we're going it now. and at some point if you look at the life expectancy in detroit it is 12 years less in the city than outside the city. if you look at the statistics in englewood, in chicago where we're headed now eight years less. that is human potential. and for me as a grocer, at some point it's moral it's a moral question, it's a moral challenge. how can it be? we didn't start a business to serve some communities. we didn't say we were going to serve healthy foot -- food for

some people. whether it's us or any other grousers -- grocers, i want to see that change. for me, for whole foods, it's about fulfilling a greater mission. >> i think a lot of people have the idea you're going to underserved neighborhoods, it's like a mirage. it's like a vision of the gates of paradice and, in fact no one will be able to afford it and you'll actually be bleeding them dry of their almost nonexistent disposable income with your extortionate prices. [laughter] so what do you answer to that? >> how do you really feel about that? [laughter] how i answer that is this: first of all, detroit's now been open for 16 points, and i will tell you that, you know, it's the greatest, the greatest standard i set for that store is i'd like to be able to walk in and feel the community in the store feel that we're serving the broader community. that's what we set out to do there, and i think we're succeeding so far.

so the fact that it's a voluntary decision. people do not have to shop there. they can choose it or not, i think they see it as something very positive. so the evidence is in, at least in that community, that people like what they see, they find it affordable, they're able to use it. our food stamp usage in that store is six times the company average -- >> that's six times zero? >> no, it's not. no, no no, no no. >> what was food stamp usage in the other stores? is. [laughter] >> i'm not playing funny with you, seriously. we haven't given out those numbers just because we're a public company. no we do take food stamps and food stamps are redeemed, but in this particular store in detroit, the usage is six times what happens -- i'm simply pointing out that the broader community is being served. yes, we've lowered prices broadened our selection, weave used this as an opportunity to learn about how to take our quality standards which we have not compromised in the offering by the way, and this is quality

food that's offered at any whole foods and make it affordable, select my in different areas by making sure they have the better range of choices, and that's what we're doing. >> did you actually -- i love snap, and i love snap usage, so i'm glad to hear about that. did you have to change any of your accounting systems to anticipate rise in snap usage? p.m. p.m.

doubled for food stamps 30 years for fresh produce. >> what they found is the sort of suggestion was, if they won't buy fresh produce. the data is now in. this is in ann arbor michigan. it's all up on the web. the data shows very clearly with those incentives in place the produced usage goes crazy. they do buy it. so there it is. >> that's great you're going to these neighborhoods. isn't a part of a much broader push toward kind of smaller stores more geared to neighborhood? >> i wouldn't call it a broader push. we built all sides stores all over. we have 400 stores, building another 41 next year. this is part of an effort around pushing ourselves into the inner-city communities to make a contribution. i'm under no illusion we are the

solution, but i think our efforts have been contributory towards a better environment. encourage other companies to come there. i hope this idea of how a company thinks about coming to a community has huge potential. so this idea of respecting and meeting people where they are, recognizing you are joining a community. it's already in process. you are thinking about it differently, what your responsibilities are in that joining. i'm passionate because this is what's happening in new orleans. we've done our store there. also in englewood, which is everybody, everybody knew inglewood on the southside of chicago? and there has been a fantastic job focusing on these questions come increase farmers markets. >> we are allowed to name him here. >> my friend and your friend rahm emanuel has done a very wonderful job. he personally called and asked if whole foods would come to the southside of chicago. he's done some great innovative

policy things with farmers markets, with bus stops with urban gardens, with reproducing newsstands with mobile buses, all this is happening under his watch. is brought a number of approaches to the southside. the north side, we are there the choices. southside, no choices. i will tell you that one of the community meetings, i share this with you i'm sitting with a number other community members and one of them looks at me and says walter, and around the table, walter, we want some of the choices other communities have. he looks at me this is reverend bishop dukes and says walter, lift us up. lift us up here and again i'm a crucial, but here's the thing is you're talking about human potential. you're talking human spirit. so look, we are just part of something that's happening. 6500 areas in the united states that need some sort of additional access whether it's

us or anybody else and needs new fresh thinking about companies responsibilities. communities have to shift. they will sit down and look at you and say you guys are trouble. you guys are not going to do this right. signed a benefits agreement because we don't trust you. that's when i realized in the first meeting in detroit that i looked across the table it was no trust. without the currency of trust there's no possibility. unless you're willing to change how you think. >> i'm asking another trust question, apart from all these questions were talking about, trust another produce has been raised and the fairness, the workers. there are many systems that i personally am fascinated by rating systems and welfare standards. whole foods has decided to go it alone and create your own system of standards. just two weeks ago you released something. i wanted to ask you about that and why he decided essentially to create your own rather than going with any other established

criteria? >> there simply is no standards for conventional produce. there's nothing that exist. you buy organic produce or conventional, what is that courts you don't know what it means. no transparency, no visibility inand that the produce has been raised, including offshore and now it's been raised there and we know from many reports of the usage of pesticides is far more indiscriminate overseas than it is here. this system called responsibly grown produce which we did announced as a whole transparency into domestic produce and it is come you can read all about on the web but they give you a much wider view in how it is been raised. we have 65% of our growers now on that portal. it's a broader sustainable index. the customer you when you look at this it will be rated good, better, best. you can track the standards have that the visibility. we did eliminate the most noxious organic phosphate chemicals better in the dirty dozen so speak. those of in a limited six or

seven in this go around. if you want to get the ranking. those things have been related to child disorders and that sort of thing. there are some concerns out there that think the system begins to really address. plus the transparency. what do you have died? you are selling something be clear and visible, accountable. >> we are grateful to you because what if whole foods does, the rest of us in this world have to watch very carefully. it influences everyone else in the community. thanks for sharing some of it with us. [applause] spent thank you walter robb and corby krummer. >> now, how many of you read the reparations cover story in the atlantic? hands up. everybody. even if you didn't read you should put your hand up. make sure your reader. ta-nehisi coates cover star the

case for reparations at a single day traffic record for a magazine story in theatlantic.com. ta-nehisi coates made his case for reparations for deeper reported investigation and systemic racism america, and america. he is now on stage today with a good friend from the author of there are no children here, the story of two boys growing up any other america. it is earned him a reputation of one of america's most important social critics. ta-nehisi coates and alan kotlowitz. [applause] >> alex is great. i just wanted to get -- i've had the opportunity to the atlantic to interview a lot of people when i was a much younger and less. i have aspirations for what sort of -- i wanted to meet certain names that were bandied about. darcy, kathlyn come at the top was alex kotlowitz. his book there are no children here, i don't know if anyone has read it, but if you have not you

should. one of the things that makes his journalism so incredibly, a lot of talk among people like me report is right, pundits of several about the issues of poverty and race in this country, and i think we can get mystified by numbers statistics and 70% people living with his, 50% people lived like this. what alex excels at is putting a human face on those numbers and i know when i was coming up and even now it's one of the things i have taken as a lesson. we will have a conversation about storytelling, how we go beyond those numbers how we put human faces on human problems. we are going to start with a clip from the film alex did the directors, which is about a group -- and directors -- to go to some of the roughest areas of the city into this. that's to interrupt conflicts that usually result in a murder or a homicide. it's a great film.

alex? >> very quickly just to understand this three and half minute clip come what we're about to see is one of the interrupter scum he is a phone call from somebody he spent time with in the county joe a guy turns out some call the police on him. they told the police get he had guns in his house. the police came to his house, they end up arresting his brother and hand cupping his mother and flame-o' was enraged and he wanted revenge. so about see this clip i just want to tell you there's some rough language in it so be prepared. >> no, kids, right? cover your ears maybe. >> language i'm sure you've all heard before. so let's play the video. >> first say the message. >> what up? >> i got a call from a guy i met in jail. >> call me back and he said the

police kick his door in. locked up his brother. three handcuffs on his mother. he did not present the police to his house. lucky for him. >> what's up? >> what's up, what's up? >> my man flame-o makes them laugh. but if you mess with him -- >> my brother handcuffed. my mother handcuffed. took him to jail. you've got to leave that alone. get them. >> that don't make it better for me. >> i'm sorry to hear about your brother. don't make shit know better though. can you grab my phone? >> man, you crazy, man. i ain't selling that, none of this shit.

>> that school. but screw that. i'm not with these. why would they taking my door in? >> you've got to look at it like -- >> you can't erase what happened. you can't predict what i'm going to do. spent we've got to work this out out. >> they're trying to take my stuff. they come in my crib and kill everyone. >> they ain't going to be doing nothing but hurt your mama. how many kids you got? >> i'm claiming 4. >> that's the thing, god will take care of them. you've got to take care of me, too.

spent on 32. i've been locked up 16 years my life. what does that mean? that's what i grew up in. ain't no shame, ain't no secret. that ain't the police isn't? trying to kill me. how can you help me? right now. how can you help me? >> only thing like is a component thing i can do is try to get to know you more trying to work with you. >> so that makes you will take me out to dinner then? >> we can go to lunch right now. >> i'm going to hold you to that. we can go out. we need to go out now, right now. we will just see.

make sure though you ain't got shit on you. >> i think that none. >> that's one of the first ones i had. [applause] >> go ahead, you can applaud. [applause] >> i saw that clip and i was kind of cringing because when i watched it i watched it with my wife along with both african-americans and both very different african-americans but to disaffected anyone in the ground. much more private moment and without ourselves laughing as we're watching it. which i mean i was watching it again, is there something wrong with laughing? i think laughter is very important because india is the actual humanity is how you get away from the statistic. i wondered how you felt when you are right there? >> is interesting we felt it was a lost cause. it was clear this guy we went from your computer to a restaurant or he was on the telephone trying to get bullets

for his fiscal. he was really out for revenge. -- for his pistol. it makes you squirm. it's unsettling. but what i like about it is it speaks so much to the single narrative that you think you know this narrative from this moment effectively know very little. in fact, i thought i knew flame-o in this moment. he was this angry young black men and filled with rage. as they came to know and i don't want to give the film away and juicy as kobe into end up spending time with him and gets to know him and you get to know flame-o as a full, rich, competition being, you realize the decency in them, the generosity any. historic takes a remarkable turn in the course of the months that we were filming him in a very good way. and so for me this is a reminder that, not to think we know people when, in fact, we know very little.

chimamanda talks about how shall people one way over and over again and that's who they become. so it's important for me spend time with people and really get to know the the but the other thing i love about this moment kobe do something so simple it's almost laughable. he takes him out to lunch and the ultimate takes them out to dinner down the road. you realize in the end all that flame-o wanted was someone to hear his story, someone to acknowledge his grievance which is what kobe does. >> did you start a daily newspaper's? >> i started at an alternative newspaper but it did work at the wall street journal. >> you been involved in media at this point and when which is as the obstacles toward allowing people more than a single narrative, and particularly in the area that you work in, the african-american, poor african-american. >> part of the obstacles in our profession is time. you go into communities and have very little time with them. if i were a daily newspaper reporter or tv reporter i would

go catch this moment and think i've got this great piece of film, great clip, go back and show it without understand who it is behind this flame-o. the other thing to keep in mind, we kept flame-o at this moment where he is been drinking. he is filled with rage at it speaks to this idea that people become, special in communities like this, become defined by a single moment in time. >> you have to have a certain sensitivity. day chew gum when you're coming up as a journalist, were you aware of this? did you have this in had i want to develop more complete presentation? was that something you came to? >> it was there in so much as a low fiction and the love storytelling. so somehow and this is nothing new, this is part of what the new journalism was in the 1960s with tom wolfe. but it wanted to somehow try to

figure out, to get as close to writing with the style and quality of fiction and get it be nonfiction to get at the soul of human beings. it's not easy and i realized when i started i do know what i was doing. it's an incredible intrusion in people's lives. it can be. and it can be really discomforting for them and for me as well. >> to do this kind of journalism you end up having to spend a great amount of time with people. how do you get them comfortable with that? >> sometimes it's hard. i do go in until people, i'm going to have to come back over the course of weeks months, even sometimes years. i've had the extremes were even though i tell people and warn people, those to get upset at some point along the way and say enough is enough, why do you need all this? i think in the end what what you are trying to do is come and this is the force of storytelling is to try to find the.

the only way to find empathy is really spent time with people, to really get to know them as deep and as rich a way as you can. >> you've been reporting in chicago for a number of years. chicago has been in the news over the past few years for some not good reasons. i wonder how you feel the country at large and national media, maybe throw some politicians in there, arguing in developing that kind of giving a full portrait of the city's? >> we are not doing a good job. i remember when president obama first began his run for president. he would give these speeches about the empathy gap and people would roll their eyes. i don't think people knew what he was doing. he knew enough to stop talking about it but what he recognize and a very fundamental way is empathy is what creates community. the ability to spend time to imagine yourself with somebody else, to take that leap of faith and try to measure what it's

like to be an american going up in inglewood. not too far from the whole foods are what it's like to be gay or an immigrant. we are a country that despite the fact would like to think we're all in this together are really pretty disconnected from each other. so for me, storytelling is one way to find those connections. >> are you aware of having to do that for the reader? having to get the reader into the world? even writing about chicago. you thinking of chicago, but you don't, you don't really spent i'm always thinking about my readers about distant and disconnected they are and also the assumptions they bring to the table. i think that's really important to i think the other part of it is, which you did in your piece is to understand context understand history, how it is you get to a certain place in time whether it's how flame-o gets to the small townhouse neighborhood has gotten to this moment in time. it's essential i think as writers, storytellers, as

journalists do we try to make an effort to understand how the past has so influenced the present and vista with the spirit we were having a conversation backstage about personal responsibility. i want to finish up asking you in terms of journalism, do you feel like there's an appetite for the deep portraiture? journalistic institutions are not doing what they need to do or is it the audience is not that large for its? >> i guess i'm the eternal optimist like to think there's a real appetite for the. it's why do go to the movies but it's why we read fiction. it's why we tell each other stories, try to get people to understand who we are. i think in some ways it's not the only way but the most direct way to get people to spend time in places that otherwise would not venture. i mean stores all about trying to understand who we are but also try to understand the other's. people unlike ourselves.

>> i'm going to finish averages were started and that is that alex is great but you should see "the interrupters," you should read the arno children here and has other projects coming up to i don't know if i can talk about them or not but you should be on the look out for the. this is one of our great american journalists. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you so much. in some ways we've saved the best for last and you'll be richer for saying and hearing from "the new york times" david brooks. is best loved work plumbs humanity, our morals and in the steps can what plagues us and what motivates us. the washington ideas forum has considered these things with some of the sharpest minds around. it is fitting to me conclude with a look inward. here to explore character is david brooks. [applause] >> thank you. i am the anti-climax the only

thing standing between you and the metro. not that any of you actually ride the metro. listen, there's been a bunch of topics the last couple of days. there is one its undergirding it, which is who we are and how we behave and whether we have character or not. the way i frame it a few times, is we have two sets of virtues. the resume virtues in which michael the eulogy virtues. the resume virtues are the virtues you bring to the marketplace, the skills you have, but it business or accounting. the eulogy virtues of what they talk about after you're dead. what you're capable of great love. we live in a society where everybody knows the eulogy virtues more important but we also talk about the resume virtues a lot more. we talk about public life a lot more than private life even though i would say they don't have the private solidity, then your public life falls apart.

we are to morality with the twins were 26. we just overcovered a euphemism and yet we understand character is destiny. if you don't have character, whether you're talking about ebola, trade policy, it all sort of falls apart and have your scandal, you're watergate, and your system doesn't work. the people who have been good at the government, good at writing, that some essential character qualities. abraham lincoln suffered from depression and out of that had a sense of providence that led them through the civil war. franklin roosevelt was a shallow fly guy until he had polio. that experience of having polio changed in a deep and him and gave him the apathy needed to be a great president. we all know this, but we don't think about exactly what character is. and so i thought for the last three minutes here i would try to think through what do we mean when we use the character, what

exactly do we mean? the first thing we need is some constancy. that the things that lead us astray our short-term, like fear vanity, gluttony the things that we call character our courage, honesty and humility. long-term. the people we sent character, they have the consistency of action over time. even in good conditions and bad conditions. the second thing we would say about character is somebody with your does not a free floating lone wolf. they have a series of connections, connections to something, things that are big and anchor them and make them stable. in the realm of an intellect, those people have a set of permanent convictions about fundamental truths. in the realm of emotion to have a web of unconditional love's. in the realm of action they have permanent commitment to things that transcend a single lifetime. projects that transcend a lifetime.

the third thing we was about somebody with character is that there's something solid inside them. that you have a central spot inside yourself a place where you make your decisions from especially your big moral decisions, and that core piece of you is now available to you. if you make disciplined loving choices you slowly engrave some permanent discipline on that core piece but if you make fragmented this organization selfless decisions you degrade that core piece and you become fragmented. so i think will remain character, we need consistency over time. then if you look at people like lincoln and franklin roosevelt how do they get the character comedies a couple of trades and a trajectory of their lives. first, those people are capable of great love, chart imagine somebody we sent character is not capable of great love and love humbles you. to remind you you're not even control of your own brain. you don't choose to fall in

love. you have fallen in love. it remind you the riches in your life are not in yourself to they are in somebody else. that it elevates you. you want to serve your beloved. we become what we love. it to be centers you and then it lifts you up. second thing we know about something, it's true of roosevelt and lincoln was that about character is that usually in the people of been through some suffering. suffering has the same sort of shape of love in the inverse. suffering humbles you because you can't control your own brain. you can't decide to suffer. you can't even get out of suffering when you feel it. second it hollows you out. the 1950s theologian paul tillich said that suffering drags us beneath the busyness of life and reminds us that we are not the first person we thought we were. the metaphor was suffering extend to the basement of your soul and carves through the

floor of the basement revealing a cavity below and then carves below that revealing a cavity below, carves below that repeating a cavity below so you're into doubt. but piniella that you. people have been through great suffering, don't just want to party. i have some friends in town lost a child a son, and they didn't say we been set for two years, let's go out and party so we can get a little happier. they wanted to turn a suffering into something transcendent so they created a foundation to other boys wouldn't suffer the way their son had. so suffering of the page up until the realm of -- you're chasing something transcendent. one of my heroes is samuel johnson, one of the greatest essayist and journalist ever. he was born nearly dead. he developed smallpox as a young boy. he was nursed with milk which had tuberculosis to make them permanently blind in one eye the smallpox scarred his face.

they get an operation on his throat which it took a part of his job. they kept his arm open for six years. he had a miserable childhood. and invisible young adulthood he was ugly, start, nearly blind, tourette's syndrome horrible fits of depression suicide attempts. so really dragged down from something. and relevant to the ideas festival, he wrote his way to character. he came to london worked as a freelance writer for 20 years getting nothing published under his own name but a lot of brilliant stuff published anonymously. he could write 1800 words an hour, 30 words a minute. a friend of his was named law professor, didn't anything about the law. johnson wrote for him for free law lectures. what johnson did was write his way to the stability of the truth. he just tried to describe accurately the world he saw around him, and he tethered

himself to that. and many of his aspirations contain that stability realism, intense, honest realism. one is that a amanda genius is seldom ruined by himself. it's was an impressive struggle. that's the final thing we say about solitude. i mean about character. the people who have character are not people who climb an external client. if you've seen this book oh the places you go, dr. seuss' book, it's about the climb to success. the eulogy virtues is not about external struggle it's about an internal struggle against the things you fear in yourself and johnson each of the things he feared in itself is in the he wrote about them head on and named them and grabbed them and they went away. so whether it's love or suffering or self defeat, it's

that same shape that's falling down and coming up. i think the people of character that can be good leaders, good writers, have all gone through that. there's a passage, a favorite passage of mine which captures some of this the rich way people who are admirable really develop. he wrote nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime. therefore, we must be saved by hope. nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history. therefore, we must be saved by faith. nothing we do however virtuous can be accomplished alone. therefore we must be saved by love. no virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe. as it is from her own standpoint. therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. so thanks very much. [applause]

>> tonight on "the communicators," martin cooper commentator of the cell phone on spectrum issues and efforts by federal agencies to provide for the growing needs of mobile phone service providers. >> the ultimate in the spectrum efficient technology is what's called dynamics the trump access. that includes a whole bunch of things but it includes cognitive radio and i know you've heard a lot about that. and it includes some new technology that is just starting to become laboratories available, where we can use satellites to actually create a model of the world so when somebody transmits, they will know whether they're going to interview with somebody else your you put all these things together. i hesitate to tell you how much more efficient we're going to be because you would laugh me out of this room, but we are talking not about tens times improved or hundreds or thousands but

millions of time improvements. that's not as crazy as it sounds because of a ton of marconi and john malcolm we are a trillion times more efficient than we were in marconi's time. so the thought of being a million times more efficient in the next 20 or 30 years is not as crazy as it sounds. >> tonight at eight eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> and live now as maryland democrat and house budget committee ranking member chris van hollen will unveil what his party is calling a paycheck bonus credit that would shave 2000 or to europe tax bills of couples earning less than $2000 a year, along with the nearly tripping of the tax credits for child care or vote for people who say the least $500 a year. center 4 and progress is hosting this discussion live on c-span2. it should get underway in just a

moment. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> again waiting for house budget committee ranking member chris van hollen, democrat of to come to talk about what the democrats, senior temperature calling an action plan calling for a massive transfer of wealth from the superrich and wall street traders to the heart of the middle class from an article

in the "washington post" said the cities of the proposal which is set to be unveiled today by congressman van hollen is a paycheck bonus credit. it would shave $2000 a year off tax bills of couples earning less than $200,000. other provisions would nearly triple the tax credit for childcare and reward people to say the least $500. the windfall of $1.2 trillion over a decade would come direct from the pockets of wall street highrollers. >> good morning and welcome to the center for american progress action fund. my name is neera tanden and i'm chance or to the transfer action fund it is my pleasure to welcome today keynote speaker, congressman chris van hollen of maryland, ranking member of house budget committee. as congressman van hollen knows the federal budget is more than about dollars and cents but it's about our nation's priorities. although it's true the budget is a blueprint of how the nation will spend its dollars, it's also a blueprint for the type of nation we want to see.

would be a a nation that invest and support a middle class, or won't we? here at c.a.p. believe our country's success depends on growing an economy where every american can share in our countries prospers. last year we -- we looked at a typical american than a look at how they've been doing over the last decade. we found a family that makes $80,000 a year, two kids, two parents working, has really faced middle-class squeeze, what we call middle-class squeeze because their incomes have been stagnant over the last decade basically no ricin, from 2000-2012, and they have faced height cost higher education costs, higher child care costs. at $5000 in less disposal income today and had a decade ago. if you wonder why people are

still a little angry i think that's part of the reason that they are. in a world where we have promised the american dream, if you're actually falling behind it doesn't feel that way. so that's why we are so excited to have congressman van hollen here today to actually discuss ideas about what to do. and these ideas i think will contribute critically to our nation's discussion. later this week c.a.p. will be releasing and purporting inclusive prosperity commission report which we will discuss as well, how to raise incomes and wages had to grow the middle class but because we believe that those ideas are critical for economic growth over the long term. the congressional budget committee has a vital role to play in charting a long-term economic course and that's why we're excited to have congressman van hollen here today. since his election 2002, chris van hollen has worked to advance

job gratian economic growth and shared prosperity. recently he played an instrumental role in framing his constituents who had been imprisoned by the cuban regime for years biggest also thought the cleanup the chesapeake bay critical investment and capital areas if research, public transportation, education. he has been a leading voice on having budget policy priorities that really address the nation's challenges, and a key fighter for the middle class. so we are very excited to have him here to detail how we can never economic growth agenda that expands opportunity and invest in the middle class. congressman van hollen. [applause] >> well, good morning everybody. thank you. thank you, neera. and i want to start by thanking you, neera, governor strickland and the entire team here at the

center for american progress for the opportunity to be with you this morning, and most important for the contributions that c.a.p. makes a great public policy debate of our time. you're a great incubator of ideas, and just as importantly, how to implement those ideas in the real world. many of the proposals you will hear today have their roots and ideas that have been percolating here at c.a.p. for years. today, i want to present an action plan to respond to what i believe is a defining economic challenge of our time. how america can lead the world in sustained economic growth in a way that provides for more broadly shared prosperity. we must ensure that all americans who work hard and play by the rules are reported with a fair share of a growing economic pie. there are of course competing

ideas for how to do this, and as a neera said we are going to have the budget season shortly in congress, over the next couple of months. so in the next couple months the president, the republicans democrats in congress will put forward their budget blueprints for the nation. and while these budgets are loaded with the numbers at their core, to reflect the plans for the future direction of the country. and out their best they should reflect the priorities and values of our nation. so after i discussed the major economic challenge that we're facing, i want to review the highlights of the budget plan that republicans and democrats have put forward to date come and see how they measure up against the challenge we face. and then i want to propose a new action plan for your consideration and the consideration of my colleagues an action plan to grow the

paycheck of all americans, not just the wealth of a few. so this will be the order of the presentation economic challenge, how current budget proposals stack up in meeting the challenge, and then an additional action plan that he think we need to better meet that challenge. so the economic challenge we face was well captured in the jobs report released just last friday by the department of labor. first, there's the good news part of the story, and it's very good news. the economy has continued to grow and more americans are finding jobs. last month our economy traded 252000 jobs capping the best year of job growth since 1999. the unemployment rate fell to 5.6% which meant the unemployment rate fell faster last year banking year since 1984.

the private sector has not added jobs for 58 consecutive months, 11.2 million jobs total. gas prices are down the stock market is up, and the deficits have fallen rapidly. this is all very good news, and it would not have been possible without the tough decisions president obama made right after he was first sworn in to stop the economic freefall that put the nation on the path to recovery. but i think everyone here knows there was also a sobering side to last friday's jobs report. one economic indicator remains grounded. workers paychecks. in fact, after a pretty solid increase in november, average hourly wages actually went down a little in december. and captured in "the new york

times" basis section headlined picking up the day after the jobs report, job growth fails to help paychecks of workers. that tells the sobering side of the story. but what i want to emphasize today is that this is not a new story. let me show you the first slide here. this shows what's happened in the recovery since the year 2010. the red line is the jobs increase, see a steady. the blue line there reflects real wages. flat, very stagnant. but what's more surprising to many people is that this is not even a new story from last month or the month before, or even from 2010 which is where this particular slide starts. this is a story that's been

going on for much longer period of time. now, if you look at this slide right here you will see that the dark blue line on top -- i don't know if everyone can see the charred -- but that line shows productivity growth in the economy beginning in 1950. you should all have handouts if you don't. the light blue line which is the bottom line at the and reflects a typical workers compensation, wages and benefits. and if you look at the far left of the chart, beginning that's 1950, you will see that the productivity growth the line is rising, and the typical workers compensation is rising with it. those lines are joined. that's the kind of economy where

the high is growing and everyone is getting a bigger slice. but since the 1970s, you can see those two lines diverging and there's been a troubling trend ever since. productivity which is that top line, continues to go up and up. the stock market has gone up and up, i paychecks and compensation for most americans have been very flat in real terms. and as you can see this has become a chronic problem dating back to the 1970s. there's a disconnect between the value workers are creating and what they are taking home. so it's no wonder that so many americans feel that they're on a treadmill or falling behind. so if those productivity gains that top line have not flowed into real wages and compensation for workers where have they

gone? where have they gone? well this chart tells the story. the income gains from increased productivity have gone overwhelmingly to those at the very, very top of the income scale. the top 1%. the after-tax real income of the top 1% grew by 200% between 1979 and 2010 five times as fast as the income for the 60% of people in the middle. the middle class. and these are numbers from the nonpartisan congressional budget office. now, i think people have seen the growing body of economic evidence that shows that the lopsided distribution of income, not only hurts the middle class and those working their way into the middle class it also slows down over all economic growth.

a steady stream of reports from economists at c.a.p., the oecd, standard & poor's, imf and many others, show that when the rules of the game are rigged to channel all the gains to the very top it slows down the pace of economic growth throughout the economy. so this is not just a question of economic fairness. it's a question of economic growth, a pro-growth strategy is one that promotes broadly shared prosperity. giving working americans a larger share of the economic pie can make the entire trend to grow faster. and even the wealthy can be better off with a smaller slice of the more rapidly growing trend to. had -- pie. henry ford understood this. he doubled the pay of this auto workers and as a result they became customers who could afford to buy the cars that

they're making on the assembly line. higher wages resulted in ford motor company selling more cars and everyone was better off. henry ford and his workers. so our challenge is to government a strategy to rapidly grow our economy in a way that creates greater prosperity for all, not just the wealthy few at the very top. now, as i said, the upcoming budget debate would give the american people an opportunity to be are very different approaches to this challenge it and i look forward to that debate. so let's look at the budget plans republicans and democrats have proposed to date. there is no simple solution. we all know that. but one thing is clear the tired republican mantra of cutting tax rates for the very wealthy will only make this problem worse.

the approach of cutting special interest tax breaks to invest in expanding economic opportunities for all provides a solid foundation for an economy that works for everyone, not just the well-connected. so let's quickly take a look at each plan starting with the republican budget. republicans in congress, not necessary around the country, but in congress, continue to cling to the trickle-down theory of economics, right clicks the idea that cutting tax rates for very wealthy people will give them even more money to spend and invest, and that will trickle down to the masses and lift all economic boat. in fact, republicans sometimes argued that these tax cuts for the wealthy will not increase will not result in larger

deficits because they will generate so economic activity that the lost revenue on the tax cut will be mostly we can. i think we all know the problem with this trickle-down theory. it has already crashed miserably in the real world. right in the aftermath of the 2001-2003 tax cuts, we had a sluggish economy and stagnant incomes for most americans. the only things that went up were the incomes of the already wealthy, got an additional tax cut, and the deficit which went through the roof. but here's the thing. our republican colleagues in congress remained undeterred by these real-world experience. here are the tax highlights from their last budget proposal. they would cut the tax rate for the folks at the very top by a

whopping one-third. they would take it from 39% today down to 25%. you can do the math. when you give very wealthy people, when you give millionaires a big tax break they are going to do a whole lot better. in fact, as this slide indicates, the average tax cut for millionaires, at least $200,000 a year. and hours after the new congress was sworn in last tuesday they changed the rules of the house to make it easier to disguise the deficit impact of such tax cuts for the wealthy. since the real world math didn't work, they want to invent a new congressionally imposed creative math. far from lifting all boats this tax cut for the wealthy will further squeeze middle-class taxpayers.

the well respected and nonpartisan tax policy center has estimated that a similar deficit neutral plan offered by candidates mitt romney and paul ryan would have increased average taxes on middle-class families with children by more than $2000. you cut the top rate at the top obviously you've got to recoup a lot of income. you say you'll do in the deficit neutral and get rid of their deductions, well, you can drop into but they are not enough deductions to recoup all of that lost revenue slate got to go after deductions and tax benefits for people in the middle and down the ladder. and that's why their tax proposal mathematically increases the tax burden on middle-class families according to the nonpartisan tax policy center. so what else do they do? well, to add insult to injury, the republican budget dramatically reduces there is tax benefits for middle-class

and lower income americans right? it fails to enhancements to expand enhancement to the child tax credit, to the earned income tax credit, and the college tax credit called the american opportunity tax credit. the republican budget also wipes out the tax credits that are helping millions of americans afford health care under the affordable care act. taken together, these budget choices will cut tax benefits for millions of working americans from single parents earning the minimum wage, to families of college students with incomes up to $180,000. all while cutting tax rates for millionaires. republicans have also so far refused to join us, the democrats on the hill, to close tax loopholes that have led a growing number of them led to a growing number of what are called corporate conversions, a

maneuver used by some corporations to move their addresses overseas, change the american identity in order to escape their tax responsibilities to american taxpayers. and by the way, when they pay less, everybody else pays more. meanwhile, the republican budget plan absolutely slashes the heart of the federal budget used to make strategic and national deficits in education, and scientific research and innovation and our vital national infrastructure. investments that historically have helped power our economy and build ladders of opportunity, essential for a driving middle-class. here's the chart. now, this shows the amount that we spend on the nondefense discretionary part of the budget, the part we used to invest in education and

scientific research has a share of the economy over time. now, when i said i would slash comply to use the word slashed in that part of the budget likely. you can see that red line below the straight line across, that's what they're budget does to this investment portion of our budget. as a share of the economy the republican budget cuts the domestic discretionary budget almost 40% lower than the lowest level in the last 50 years. take the lowest level in the last 50 years they get this part of the budget by 40% lower than that. if you apply the proportionately we'll have a devastating effect on investment in education and scientific research. now, i think most americans would agree that that combination of policies, cutting tax rates for the wealthy

increasing the tax burden on working americans, and cutting vital public investments will not result in sustained economic growth with more broadly shared prosperity. in fact, it will stack the economic attack even more heavily in favor of the very wealthy and very powerful. so let me just briefly hit the highlights of the current democratic budget proposals. which are aimed at growing the economy and growing opportunities for all americans. so i don't know if you can read this. i'm just going to tick through them. i do think it's important to understand that this is a description of current policies that put put forward by the president, by democrats in congress, which should go a long way to lifting our economy and opportunities for more americans. and if you look at this you'll see the infrastructure

initiative the president has proposed closing a lot of the tax breaks that perversely incentivized american corporations to move jobs and capital overseas. close those to use the savings to invest in infrastructure here at home and establish an infrastructure bank for public-private partnerships. we also know that investment in early childhood education are critical the president has a $76 billion initiative in the budget to do that one that was adopted by immigrants in congress. we increased our investment in scientific research which has showed huge dividends to the country over the years. we provide suppressed or if we're going to do on the defensive we should on the nondefense cited we make permanent a number things like the cdc, the itc and the college tax credit. we increased that eitc for childless workers, something that paul ryan to his credit has

also embraced, but it's not in their budget. we make permanent the r&d tax credit for businesses small business expensing, clean energy initiatives, increase the minimum wage, $10.10 in our, equal pay for equal work. student loan relief a number of initiatives we put forward, earned paid sick leave so people don't have to lose the means to support the family when a loved one gets sick. comprehensive immigration reform which the congressional budget office indicates will help grow the economy, and modernizing regulations to ensure fair payment of overtime work and the administration just came forth with a proposal the other day. so those are some of the foundations that the budgets provide right now. now, i think those policies will absolutely help boost the

economy. they will absolutely help provide for more shared prosperity. it's a strong foundation, but i believe that in order to tackle that decades old problem of chronic, stagnant wages and very flat income for most americans we need to go further. that's what want to talk about today. which is an action plan to grow the paychecks of all, not just the wealth of the few. ..

>> now, i just want to briefly go over the concept of spending through the tax code. now, economists call these tax expenditures because using these mechanisms to shelter income from a tax that is due is simply another way of delivering an economic benefit. just as you could deliver that same economic benefit through direct government spending, right? if the government provides any of you with a tax exemption worth a i thousand dollars -- a

thousand dollars, it's the same economic benefit as if the government gave you $1,000. and take a look at this chart. what it shows is more is spent on spending through the tax code through deductions and tax exemptions each year than on social security. that's the next bar over. more spent through the tax code through these exemptions than on medicare and medicaid combined each year. more spent through tax breaks than all our defense spending and all our nondefense spending. now, a lot of these tax expenditures have sound public policy purposes, right? like promoting savingsing by excluding -- savings by excluding retirement promoting savings by including money we put for retirement savings.

like in the business world providing the research and development tax credit to promote investment and innovation. on the other hand, there are some provisions in here that are only in here because powerful elites with well-paid lobbyists have succeeded in getting themself special breaks. like the tax advantages for corporate jets or hedge fund managers. and so when you look at the distribution of these tax expenditures, who they go to on the income scale, this is what you find. that red piece on top of that bar on the far right shows that according to the congressional budget office 17% of these tax expenditures go to the top 1% of

income earners, right? the top 1% gets 17% of the tax benefits in the tax code from deductions or tax exemptions according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office. that's $150 billion in tax benefits through the code every year. now, what makes the top 1% have that huge disproportionate share? well, one reason is they have a lot of income from sale of stocks and the tax code imposes lower tax rates on the kind of unearned income than it does on much income earned through hard work. indeed, the current system allows billions of dollars of capital gains to pass tax-free to heirs of multimillion dollar

fortunes. so not surprisingly, because the tax code favors those who make money off of money, the disparity in wealth, right, the accumulation of income and assets over time has grown even faster than the disparity in incomes. take a look at this chart. and, again, interestingly you see back in the 1920s huge wealth disparities, but it came down and down and down during that period of time when worker productivity was matched with wages. but, again beginning around the late 1970s you see this wealth disparity taking off. and now the top 1% wealthiest households own 42% of the wealth of the country. that's because we have a tax code that reinforces this preference for wealth over work. let's just go back to those that early chart where we began

to tell the story of that separation between worker productivity and flat wages. so the proposal that i'm making today to reform the tax code begin from that premise, that we need a tax code that rewards those who earn their living through hard work and rebalance it against the fact that it's tilted today in favor of people who make money off of money. and it attacks this chronic problem of frozen paychecks and stagnant middle class incomes from both directions, right? first, it's designed to promote bigger paychecks. and, second, it lets middle class workers and those working their way into the middle class keep and save more of what they earn. so let's start with the incentives for higher paying growing wages. look, my goodness, if the tax code can be used to provide preferences for corporate jets

and for racehorses surely we can use the tax code to incentivize corporations to give their employees pay raises or invest in apprenticeship programs that result in better skills and bigger paychecks. and in the next few days i will introduce the ceo-employee paycheck fairness act which is designed to encourage corporations to give their employees fair pay increases when their top executives are getting big bonuses. it's very simple. it says that corporations cannot continue to take unlimited tax deductions right? we saw those tax expenditures? unlimited tax deductions for their ceo and executive bonuses unless they're giving their employees a pay raise that reflects worker productivity plus cost of living increases. you saw that chart earlier. you saw that beginning in the

late 1970s productivity kept going up, worker, average worker compensation flat. let's see what happened to ceo and executive compensation. here it is. this chart shows you that back in the late '70s ceos received 30 times the compensation of the average worker. thirty times. today ceo compensation has skyrocketed to almost 300 times compensation of the average worker right? the average ceo compensation at the top 350 firms is over $15 million a year. and between the year 2007 and 2010, corporations claimed a total of $66 billion in deductions for ceo and other

executive compensation. now, under the bill i'm introducing corporations could still deduct up to $1 million for their executive salaries. up to $1 million. but, but they would not get to cut their workers' pay or lay people off and then take those huge tax deductions for their multimillion dollar bonus. right? if a corporation is doing well enough to give its executives big bonuses, it should be giving its employees a raise. so this bill's very simple. no raise for workers, no corporate tax breaks for executive bonuses. it's a common sense step we can take today to help make sure the economy works better for everyone. we're also looking into a variation on this incentive,

linking the corporate tax deductions for executive bonuses and performance pay to the available of similar profit-sharing plans for regular employees. as studies by c.a.p. and others have shown, there is solid evidence that giving workers a stake and voice in the companies they work for not only benefits workers, it makes those businesses more competitive as well. i also bereave we need to support -- believe we need to support those businesses that invest in building the employee skills that lead to higher pay. apprenticeship programs are proven pathways to successful careers and higher incomes for workers while making those businesses more competitive. yet apprenticeships are underutilized here in the united states compared to our economic competitors. here about 150,000 people start apprenticeships each year.

as has been pointed out, if we launched as many apprenticeships per capita as they do in germany, we'd have about two million more here in the united states each year. some states like south carolina offer tax credits for apprenticeships. we should adopt these successful models to incentivize more businesses to invest in apprenticeships and other proven job-training programs that allow employees to earn while they learn. and that is part of this action plan. now, here -- the first two elements of this plan are things i just talked about, ceo employee paycheck fairness act and business tax credits for apprenticeships and training programs. those are using the tax code to try and incentivize higherrer pay for workers -- higher pay for workers and more skills that lead to higher pay. but as i said, we have to address middle class wage and

income stagnation from both sides. we need to boost wages and use the tax code to do that but we also need to allow middle class workers and many of those working to join the middle class to keep more of what they earn. and so the next item on here begins in a very important way to address that to try and boost the take-home pay of middle class workers and those that seek to join the middle class and allow them to save more of what they earn. again, as i said, the current tax code is skewed in favor of people make money off of money. we want to make sure the tax code works for people who make money off of hard work. and that's why i propose a

paycheck bonus tax credit of $1,000 per worker or $2,000 for a two-earner couple to boost the after-tax take home pay of middle class americans. i also intend it to be at least partially refundable, and we'll look at ways to do that. this paycheck bonus credit would be indexed to inflation and phased out at incomes of $100,000 per individual $200,000 per working couple. now, as we shape the tax code to give hard working middle class americans more take-home pay, we should also encourage americans to save for their future. this is another area where c.a.p. has done much good work. not surprisingly, americans who are struggling to pay their bills don't have a lot of leftover income to put away for their future needs. and while the current tax code

provides for such savings vehicles like 401(k) plans or individual retirement accounts, this can be difficult to access or set up, some employers don't provide them, and the top 5% of income earners get more tax relief from these savings plans than the bottom 80%. as a result, the typical worker nearing retirement age has only saved up enough in an ira or 401k to provide $500 a month in retirement income. so i propose to build the savings of typical workers with the saver's bonus of $250 each year that an individual directs at least $500 of his or her paycheck bonus tax credit or earned income tax credit into a tax-preferred savings account. studies show that even small financial incentives can

encourage many more people to participate in these savings plans. we also need to make it much easier for people without access to those plans through their employers to set up these accounts. last year president obama took a major step forward by providing an easy way for employers to allow their workers to deposit some of their paychecks into designated myra accounts that the treasury department will be rolling out. as part of this action plan, i propose to allow taxpayers to use their tax returns to immediately direct their $500 contribution which would earn the $250 saver's bonus and do it right there. direct their funds in the matching bonus to the savings vehicle of their choice. right there on your tax return check off you're going to do $500 or more direct to your savings, get $250 saver's bonus

and do it right there on your tax form. if a working couple were to each direct $p -- $750 of their paycheck bonus credit which they'll be getting which will be new income to that household in a sense, or someone receiving their eitc were to do that, after 40 years they would save $300,000 under reasonable growth assumptions. this plan also recognizes -- so i talked about the saver's bonus at the top of the list there -- the next item relates to take-home pay for two-earner families. and this plan recognizes that the current tax code creates a disincentive for second earners in a household to join the work force, because the first dollar earned by that second earner is

taxed at the rate on the last dollar earned on the household member who is already in the work force. and this marriage penalty is especially pronounced for families with young children or elderly live-in dependents who face large childcare or adult daycare costs if the second spouse chooses to enter the work force to support the family. so to address this, we should provide these families with a 20% tax deduction on up to $60,000 of their income. this rewards work, reduces the marriage penalty and makes the tax code fairer to second earners and their families. in addition, we should modernize the child independent care tax credit. the cost of childcare has increased dramatically since 2001, but cap on eligible

expenses has remained the same. it's remained stuck at $3,000 for one child. this is eligible expenses. and 6,000 for two or more children. in addition, this cap on the child and dependent care tax credit is incredibly poorly designed. it phases down starting at lower income levels meaning virtually no one can access its higher level of benefits the way it interacts with other parts of the tax code. we should modernize this credit by significantly raising the amount of the eligible credit, indexing it to inflation so it doesn't get stuck again and making it refundable so that millions of families that struggle the most to pay for childcare will be able to benefit from this credit. and the details are in the handouts that you have. we estimate that over the next ten years the elements of this plan will provide over $1.2

trillion in tax benefits that are aimed directly at boosting the take-home income of working middle class taxpayers and those working to join the middle class. more than 150 million americans will benefit in some real way from this effort to raise flat incomes experienced by so many. and this plan to reward work is fully paid for but changing system some of those ways that our current tax code is wired in favor of making off of money instead of earning money from hard work. so it's paid for with a combination of two sours. first, it curves the tax breaks that favor portfolios over paychecks. as i discussed earlier the top 1% of income households currently receive 17% of the benefit of major tax

expenditures, the spending in the tax code. a total of about $150 billion a year or more than $1.5 trillion over a ten-year budget window. without increasing anybody's top tax rate, we can reduce this disproportionate share of benefits and dedicate the revenues to tax relief for hard working middle class taxpayers and those working to join them. second, we should adopt a high roller fee to curb financial excessive financial speculation. by acting in coordination with the european union and major financial markets, the united states can reduce the kind of market gambling that creates no value for the economy by placing a tiny fee on trading in the financial markets. we already place a very tiny fee on stock transactions to fund the securities and exchange commission, and many other countries including the u.k.,

france singapore and hong kong have some form of these financial trading market fees. the e.u. is moving toward a trade aring fee of .1%. ten basis points. on a broad range of financial market transactions. for comparison purposes, the united kingdom already applies a fee that is five times higher than that on their stock trades .5%, 50 basis points. a .1% financial market trading fee would be virtually imperceptible to average investors who already bear transaction costs on every trade that some estimate to be three times higher than that. at the same time this fee would rein in the kind of computerized high-speed trading that skims value from regular investors without adding value to the economy. american financiers and high rollers have claimed that such a fee would push financial trading

overseas, but if we do it in concert with others, we can curb unproductive financial speculation and replace it with a source of revenue to support the action plan to grow the take-home pay of 150 million americans, and in doing so, grow the whole economy. as i said at the outset this proposed action plan builds on the already-strong foundation of the budgets president obama and democrats in congress have proposed in the past. those budgets which steadily reduce our deficits over the next ten years, strengthen the ladder of opportunities to help americans achieve the american dream. this action plan which by itself will not add a penny to the deficit, will further help us meet t the economic challenge of our time. a rapidly growing economy that works for all americans, not just those already at the top. in closing let me leave you with this final comparison of the tax differences between the

republican approach and this action plan. what it would mean for a family in the real world. as i indicated earlier, the truck l-down tax cuts -- trickle-down tax cuts for the wealthy in the republican budget result in an average tax cut of over $200,000 for million yeas. -- millionaires. and at the same time as you saw earlier, the tax center found that a comparable republican plan presented by mitt romney and paul ryan would have the effect of raising taxes on middle income families by an average of $2,000. now, at the outset when the introduction was made she mentioned that c.a.p. had looked at a family at the $80,000 income level and said that over a period of time that family had lost about $5,000 as a result of the forces i've been talking about in my speech. let me show you what this plan

would do compared to the republican plan for a middle class family. as i said, the romney-ryan plan which is very similar to the one on the republican budget would increase taxes by $2,000 on a typical middle class family with kids. this plan, and we took an $80,000 family. we did not coordinate in advance. this is a typical working family two-earner couple paying for childcare for one child on an $80,000 income. and under in this -- under this plan they would get a $4,400 tax benefit t allowing them to keep more of what they earn to help their family. so i look forward to this debate going forward. we need an action plan that addresses this problem from both sides, as i said. we need to encourage companies

and businesses to give their employees a fair wage, and we need to allow middle income families and those families working their way into the muddle class to keep more of what they earn. and in doing so, we need to build a fairer tax code that rewards paychecks for work and not just money from making money. and i look forward to this debate going forward, i thank you for your attention and again, i thank c.a.p. for all their important contributions to this debate. many thanks. [applause] >> thank you so much. for laying out so many critical new ideas. i think we have time for just a few questions, so as people are thinking through their questions, and billy will be here to give you a microphone let me just start with one brief

question. you know, there's a debate in washington, that seems, about fairness versus economic growth. and i just thought it'd be helpful to you talk a lot about how the tax system could be more fair, how we could have a more fair economic system. how do you see that relating to economic? >> well, i think that's a great question. as i indicated in my remarks the economic evidence indicates that our entire economy will grow faster if more people are earning the benefit of their hard work and productivity. when you have that big gap between worker productivity and income it doesn't just hurt the middle class families with flat income it actually slows down overall economic growth. so if you want a growing pie for all, we need a pie where everybody can get a little

bigger slice. and as i indicated earlier even the folks at the very top can do better with a somewhat smaller slice of a larger pie. they will end up ahead of the game just like henry ford was ahead of the game. >> great. over here this the middle. with the tie. could you just identify yourself? >> yes. peter rosenstein with the american academy of -- [inaudible] congressman, i think the plan is great. >> thank you. >> obviously, the problem is when democrats controlled both houses and the presidency, we couldn't do this. we have clearly not gotten this message across because you have the largest majority you have now of republicans. most of this we think, will most likely go nowhere. how do you convince voters in very simple language that this is good for them? because clearly, they don't understand it by their votes.

so we've just heard an hour of a discussion that's very complicated using a lot of federal legalese. how do you put that into an ad of 0 and 60 -- of 30 and 60 seconds so that the average middle class voter understands what you're talking about and will vote for democrats to get this done in 2016? >> so, first of all, i think the average voter out there, the average voter is one of those voters who's feeling the squeeze we talked about right? and that squeeze didn't begin last year or the year before, that squeeze has begun over a period of time. and as i indicated i think that a lot of the proposals democrats have put forward in the past will help address that issue, but i don't think they address it with the full force that is necessary to move that graph that we saw, the one with the rising productivity but flat wages. and so that's why i'm proposing this new action plan.

and i believe when you go around the country and just show, you know working americans what the differences in the plans will be that the republican plan that was put forward in the congress last year that mirrors the romney-ryan tax plan will squeeze middle class taxpayers and that this plan will provide over $4,000 worth of new income to a typical $80,000 two-earner family with a kid, that that tells them we're actually focused on things they care about; their pocketbook and the economic squeeze. so, look, i see this as the start of a conversation. we want everyone to participate in this debate. but i do believe that this action plan will, you know, in time get the attention of the american people, and i look forward to the continuing discussion. >> over here.

this side. >> hi, congressman van p holden, rob schroeder from market watch. just wanted to ask about the financial fee. what transactions in particular would this apply to? would it just be stocks? would it be retail investors? and you talk about the timing? why now? you mentioned the market's up. >> sure. well, this is, this would apply in secondary markets, it would apply to, yes, stock trades. as i indicated, we already have a very small fee on stock trades to help fund securities and exchange commission. and the u.k. already has a 50-basis-point fee on stock trades. what this proposes is a fee one-fifth that size, right? one-fifth of what the u.k. has on stocks, but on a broader range of market trading. so in equities in derivatives. which really matches the kind of