provide a vehicle for states and civil society to work on these issues. what you've described to us is a reminder that the un helps provide tools and a forum for discussion but we have to use some. there needs to be leadership to take advantage of those opportunities and we have to resource the un so that it can do its job particularly the technical organizations like the bwc support unit and the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons, atomic energy and others. we are going to count on you to help provide some fresh ideas and we look forward to working with you to help forward those that come from civil societies here in washington to help and elsewhere we appreciate all that you're doing for us. thank you.

[applause] >> this weekend, but tv is life from the 33rd annual chicago tribune lit fest in chicago. our coverage starts on saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern with author mary dearborn with her book, ernest hemingway a biography. at noon 16 national book award winner abram candy and his book stamped from the beginning, the definitive history of racist ideas in america. followed at one by michael eric dyson with his book tears we cannot stop: a sermon to white america. at 4:00 p.m. sidney blumenthal with his book, a self-made man: the political life of abraham lincoln 1809 to 1849. on sunday our coverage continues at 11:00 a.m. eastern with heather and thompson and her book blood in the water: the

attica prison uprising of 1971 and his legacy. at 2:00 p.m. author jeffrey stone with his book sex and the constitution: sex's, constitution and law from the americans origins to the 21st century. at 3:00 p.m. former congressman trey rado with his book democrat. a true story of weird politics, money and madness and finger food. at 4:00 p.m. thomas ricks with his book churchill and orwell, the fight for freedom. watch our coverage of the 33rd annual such chicago tribune starting saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span twos book tv. >> sunday night on "after words". new america president and ceo anne-marie slaughter examines the global networking in the digital age in her book, the chessboard and the web: strategies of connection and in network world. mrs. slaughter is interviewed by dennis mcdonald, former white house chief of staff in the

obama administration from 313-2016. what would strike me is that we knew there was a world of states and the state wraps. today if you think about north korea or iran or china and russia that world of state to state relations is very important and i think of it as the chessboard world. it's the world of how do we essentially beat our adversaries and we think about a move and we try to anticipate what move they will make. that world is they are and it's very important but equally important is what i call the world of the web, that world of criminal networks, including terrorist but also arm traffickers and drug traffickers. the world of business which is increasingly big network supply chains, global corporations and the world of nongovernmental organizations. i think of all those actors as

web actors as increasingly important actors but we don't have strategies for how to bring them together. >> watch "after words", sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span to the tv. and now to a conversation from the afton institute on the tax code and ways to change it. put your ideas on corporate taxes, the earned income tax credit and eliminating tax reductions. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everybody. my name is maureen. i'm vice president at the aspen institute. i am so delighted to welcome you to today's conversation and are working in america series. at the economic to the needs we do a lot of writing for ideas that will help low and moderate

income to thrive in a changing economy. in the working of america series, in particular, we look at a variety of issues that affect the shape of opportunity that working americans have considered ideas that can make things better for working people. we are actually grateful to the foundation and the credential foundation and the walmart foundation for their support of the working in america series. in today's conversation, as you see, we'll talk taxes. and what tax form could mean too low and moderate income workers in the united states. now, if you think about taxes you probably try not to but if you think about taxes one of the things we think about is the complexity of the american tax system. this is not surprising because this country relies on the tax code to do a lot of policymaking. so, when we think about low income workers and in particular one of the first things we think

of is the earned income tax credit. in 2015 roughly 27 million workers earn the earnings come tax credit. that came to nearly one in five working people. the tax system is a big deal for working people. tax code offers a variety of other incentives, we offer tax preferred for college, retirement, we offer home mortgage to encourage home ownership and their incentives to businesses and investors to encourage the creation and there's preferential treatment for capital gains and there's targeted crap's credit. >> so, in short, we do quite a lot of economic policymaking to the tax code. at the top of tax reform comes along is to think of the taxes not just for these but in particular how it affects working people in the united states.

so, today we go to talk taxes. at a couple of things to say before we get started. first of all, please do assignments your phones. were very thrilled to be live streaming as well as recording and were very excited to have c-span here today. please, do silent your phones but please do to our # is talk jobs. i also -- any other things? i want to introduce our palace. i am thrilled to introduce the palace and i will start from my far left and work this way from your front right. we have frank, executive director of american for tax fairness, next to frank we had maria, sarasota area president at united way coast florida, next to maria, we have alex, research fellow at the institute

and i am delighted to have right next to me jean, senior writer for cnn money .com who is going to be our moderator for today's conversation. dean, thank you so much and i turn it to you. >> thank you for having me. i just wanted to table setting for low and moderate income workers. right now for hearing from politicians is a lot about business tax reform. you have support republicans and support among business friendly democrats who really think that the business side could remain. [inaudible] they are also a sense -- to me, as i covered this sounds more like lip service. how will this affect the middle class it's going to be very hard for them to just do business tax forms without addressing the larger population. so, i'm glad to do this panel because i think will be talking on issues that should be

discussed in the context of overhauling the codes that is not currently being discussed. it seems to me that there are four ways it can affect low income metalworkers. you can talk about giving them new or expanded tax breaks that already exist but the other side to that is if other changes are proposed undercut the value of those new or expanded breaks that may or may not change the tax liability at all. another way is for economic growth. republicans are making the case that if you lower business tax rates and you reduce and lower their breaks, that will encourage investment and investments will create jobs and job will create higher wages. hopefully, that will work. if it doesn't work, we just blown to the deficit. a third way and frank will speak to this point, there's a lot of

people that thank you should raise the rates and high income individuals and make the tax code less beneficial to them and raise more revenue to support programs that create low and middle income families. there's an underside to all of those arguments. right now we have a pretty progressive federal 40% of filers and up owing nothing in federal income taxes so it's unclear if it would help at all. their textile is zero to begin with. as i said, as economic growth is worked out all we've done is reduce the amount of revenue we have available to us. so, i'm going to turn it over to these guys who are bringing excellent perspectives but very different perspectives to lay out what they think is working today from the tax code for low and middle income workers and what's not and will go from there. "after words", will pass it to you. alex, what's working today?

>> thanks for having me here today. one of the things that i noticed when i think about federal income tax with low and moderate income workers is the disparity to which the tax code affects different people within that population. that's always but particularly true among low middle income families. for example, as was mentioned the income tax rate is long largest welfare at the federal level is a very effective program and help raise people out of poverty and encourages work but not everyone who is lower middle income is eligible for that program. there are people who are eligible and not getting the benefits and there's some improper payments in the program but at the present family values and within the structure still a lot of people who are ineligible for that program.

the amount of taxes are paid either when you pay taxes and federal income taxes or all federal taxes which include payroll and various -- that inconsistently for complexity to uncertainty for taxpayers, taxpayer may have one tax liability when you're in a very different tax liability another year which makes it difficult to plan and prepare for their taxes. all of those things are inefficiencies, in my view in the system. when we think about what we could do to the tax code and when we talk about tax reform in washington is that discussion is about federal income tax both the federal individual tax and the federal corporate tax. we are not having a conversation and we could not have a conversation in washington about changing the payroll tax system. someone could introduce the topic but were not having a conversation about changes.

of course, washington is not having a conversation about how the state should gain their tax system. for the individual, low and moderate income households are making all sorts of taxes. but the taxable debate is primarily related to income tax. out-of-state two different things how how i think the two taxes affect the workers. with respect to the individual income tax, i think about tax policy in two ways. one, the average is marginal. on average what are people paying and what is their tax liability and for people who are low moderate income on average the federal income tax liability, not total tax liability, is negative. policymakers pursue strategy to make it more negative but is negative already. the other way i think about taxes on the margin.

individual taxes on the market. what happens the earned one more dollar? here we see wide disparities across among individuals who are low moderate income on average we see taxpayers facing marginal rates of 20% and on the federal level and higher when we start to bring in of their programs. that can create in terms. [inaudible] the other way i think in tax cuts in respect to these individuals is the effective taxes of indirect taxes. taxes that they don't pay that might affect their well-being or their livelihood. here it's an emergency in the corporate income tax that finds that corporate taxes that are paid have been impacts and an adverse effect on the wages of court wages earned and policymakers are motivated to pursue, i think, business tax reform is out of an understanding of those taxes

will affect the wages. >> i did meet mentioned the other way they could be helped by texas form and will check that out for you it's stunning, things you told me for this meeting. >> you need the whited united way is helping families is creating tax preparations and we believe that the by the program really provides families the mechanisms because the tax code is so complicated that families sometimes struggle that they don't understand their tax returns. the volunteers are trained individuals that have to go to an irs certification to be able to help the families their tax returns. a lot of ways folks will say just that the not paid a fee to have their tax returns prepared and in our united way be filled out 19000 returns for families about $25 million back in tax

credit for families. the prepares tax repairs charge let's say a $200 for those individuals who have their tax returns prepared, please save this family of the 19000 returns around $3.8 million. have to think about that because one of the reasons that ida is so important is that were not only helping the individuals filling out a tax return for helping them understand their tax return and were talking to them about how to build assets, how to save, what should you do with your tax return because if you think about it, families in florida, 44% of the families that live in florida just make enough for the basic expenses for childcare, rent and just having $400 in their savings account could help that one individual work history with their car breaks down we have to

think it's beyond saving the $400 finding fee that they may be charged but were providing an assistance and advice on how to spend those refunds that you're receiving but we also show them, teach them, this is what your tax return, this is what you're paying for, a better understanding. i think the confusion in white with white tax reforms peaceable by so that it's easier for families to understand. we are asked a lot of times, well, it's simplified to we still need fighter. yes, we still need them. any families need a place to go to to understand what their taxes are going to be and we have very many families that their average wage becomes families that come to a site make $22000 a year. a lot of the families may not have a computer at home and we currently have my free tax .com

to the irs that they can put their tax return but families like to come and talk to a tax preparer, just like all of us have the opportunity to go to our tax accountant and get advice and get financial advice on low-wage workers, they want to have the same opportunities. we believe that the program is a very important program that we continue to have by those low income workers. >> i'm happy to be here and i'll take part of a macro approach to the issue. we are in that kind of environment with text firm and what it's going to look like in congress and president trump has a proposal and house republicans just had a proposal -- we are working for what we call a fair tax system and we believe that wealthy big corporations are to

paint quite a bit more in taxes than their pain now. were not asking the middle class to pay anymore and what we want is to basically raise a lot more revenue so we can make the kinds of investments that we think are critical for an economy to create an economy that works for all americans. right now we think the economy is not working for everybody and there's a great deal of inequality in our country and the vast majority of the wealth in the country is controlled by the top 1%, very little is owned by folks at the bottom and we need to change that dynamic. part of it is to grow the economy and to grow the pie, we think the best way to grow the economy is to make investments. we actually think that we have what we call a revenue gap in this country. i'll use a little bit and is not the easiest thing to understand but revenue is about 18%,

federal revenues but 80% of our economy right now but are spending is at 21 and a half percent. the difference is what's the deficit. that's what i call the revenue gap. that revenue gap will go up to 23 and half% versus 18%. the gap the spending will go to the. have and why because folks are retiring we had a big baby boom generation and we have a choice. we can cut things, cut retirement insecurity, cut medicare, cut social security to close that revenue gap working to raise more revenue. i believe if yes i questioned the public to ensure security by raising revenue to rebuild our roads and bridges, to put our kids in college, we recognize a

critical need to rebuild and the structure and new medical research, all of these things cannot happen now unless we raise significantly more revenue and the only place to get that revenue is from the benefiting from the economy currently. if i can just give one concrete example the affordable care act is an example of what i'm talking about. the legislation that president obama got asked to provide health insurance to 20 million people. that was paid for by taxing the richest 2% of americans and putting an investment tax on them, minus and by adding a .9% to their medicare tax. now, were talking about making 250,000 above, the top 2%. also insurance companies will have to pay a little more to get more business. those taxes are what enabled us to provide health care coverage to 20 million americans.

the problem right now is the trump care legislation they want to wipe out those taxes which is why 3 million people will lose their health insurance. that's how we advocate using the tax system to create more opportunities for everybody. >> like to play devil's advocate to alex and frank. would you agree that corporate taxes have a big impact on low income families? but for very different reasons. frank, you believe that higher taxes to corporations provides more money. alex, you believe that if you lower corporate rates corporations will create more jobs, more investment, pay higher wages. both of those things seem clearly reasonable except as a cynic, now, i don't think my company is going to give me higher wages if the tax rates are cuts. i'm dubious. i also don't think if you raise corporate taxes that companies will stay in the country. that's the hope of corporate taxes.

you two can go right at it. [laughter] i truly don't understand how the two will come together. >> what are the corporations pay now the top line rate which is 35% that's called the top tax rate in corporations. then there's lots of studies that have said that tax rate is essentially less than that. were talking federal taxes. not talking the entire state, local and all that. were just talking federal taxes. government accountability office which is a nonpartisan entity they looked at the first five years, 2008-2012 and you don't want to look and they looked at profitable corporations and they said their pain 40% tax rates slept more than half under what the effective tax rate is. there's lots of studies that have shown that essentially what

alex is talking about trickle down that if you give more profits to corporations they will then spend the money to invest and that will create more jobs and grow the economy. first of all, most academics don't believe -- study show that trickle-down actually works. we've gone to that before. bang for the buck you get more depth greeted if you invest in infrastructure, three times as much jobs in infrastructure as you do with tax breaks. that the cbo study and it's a mark sandy study. we don't have corporations are very flush with profits right now. there higher than they've ever been. and yet, you don't see this massive amount of investment going on. why? friendly, because what drives investment is much less about tax cuts it's about consumer demand.

what people have the money in the pockets to drive things. remember 70% of our spending in the country is consumer's findings. so, if wages are depressed and are too many people don't have work, that's not going to drive the economy so this is an ongoing investment in this case. very high profits for corporations and their taxes are the lowest they been for decades as -- companies are not overtaxed. i think they're under text. >> after you pick i agree. i think that the amount of taxes paid is certainly less than the tax rates of 35% and that indicates not just because it has to do with the base of the tax system. the federal tax that are paid are paid by us multinationals and a lot of their earnings accrue abroad so, the way our

taxes work is that it's due when that income they are earned in the united states or returned to the united states and investing in tech strategies or tax planning strategies to minimize or avoid the federal tax liability. [inaudible] the question is not one that i would categorize as a trickle down to the question in my mind is what the incidence of the tax. we know in public finance that you can ask the question who writes the check? sent the money to the irs and you can ask the question who bears the burden? if you take a tax that we know well, one is easy relate is the cigarette tax. smokers don't write a check to the irs when they buy a pack of cigarettes.

it's the manufacturers that pay the tax but we know the consequence of the cigarette tax is that cigarette prices are higher and it's by design. when we think about things like income taxes is more difficult to try to -- we know write the checks, the corporations are the tax but it's more difficult to trade through to find out who bears the burden. for a long time the assumption in the public finance literature that the burden was born by the owners of the corporation that the tax bill on capital. in theory it to fall on anyone of number places or in combination took on workers and in terms of lower wages and could fall on the owners of the firm's in lower stock prices or it could pass through into higher prices for consumers. for a long time the assumption by organizations like the congressional budget office and others was a large share of that not entirely but large share was born by the owners of the

capital. then the simple fact is that we have new evidence of last two years that have dozen or so empirical research articles are starting to question that. it's not a theoretical argument but an empirical question and compile anywhere and empirically what we have been learning in last three years is that a large share of that burden is actually being born by wage earners. the types of studies that are being conducted are the following: we look at companies around countries around the world over many decades we look at how tax policy and in those countries and how wages changed in those countries and what we find is mutual relationships between corporate tax and wages. none of these studies find really huge effects, they almost seem unbelievable like a dollar change in corporate taxes more than a dollar change in wages and some of the results are less than that then dollar change in a dollar increase in corporate taxes might be.

>> those stats though, do they measure wages overall? in other words, are they paying a ceo morris left with a dollar for dollar comes in? >> is not being picked up by the 20 people at the top. those people are already making an enormous my money. >> at this point in time, alex, the congressional budget office that contributes 80% to the corporate tax to be born by the owners and the corporations and why 20% by the workers. i want to clarify that. the vast majority of the taxes that are paid by corporations are being attributed to the owners of those corporations and the owners of the corporations are overwhelmingly well-to-do folks. >> if that's true, if what cbo

is saying is true then we should think about corporate tax in one way right? that the tax born by rich people and then we can make decisions on how we want to tax them. if that's the case that it's not true that the new evidence is actually right and that a lot of the burden of this tax falls on workers that we might think about tax. [inaudible] you might not agree with that literature and is not uniformly agreed to by not taking unanimity in the provision that the latest evidence suggests. >> i'm in the middle of this. [laughter] >> with any of your clients understand or care? would they give a hoot work it's important but do they think -- if i said to them will cut corporate taxes and that will be great for you, mr. and mrs. smith because eventually, your wages will go up. is that going to help them pay for dinner, pay for childcare,

will it translate to them? >> it will translate them as they get a wage increase but the reality is that they don't have the certifications and the training meeting that warned that wage increase just because of corporation get tax breaks and those entry-level workers and mid-level workers, if they don't have the skills to be able to earn that higher wage it's not going to present to them. a lot of times we see out there is our employer's and were investing in a lot of daughter dollars into job training and certifications because we are trying to rise. pathway and the workers at the company to move out. companies will spend more on the job training to be able to certify employees because of their entry-level workers and they go to work and they may be only have a high school diploma. >> it's job creation is based on

do we have the skilled workers to be expanding our business and grow our markets and be able to it ends up being a part of the workers are the ones that are going to dictate if that company will expand but we see more and more employers that the wage increases that they're not giving them just because will raise everybody's salaries. there is this talking to was on the ground and was. >> the underground matters. >> i like to check up on that point. i'm a tax guy and i think the tax policy matters in the different decisions people make. so many other things matter and the skills is one of those things. you have the best tax code in the world but if people don't

have the training needed and the work ethic and they don't know basic soft and hard skills about how to get to work on time and how to be responsible it won't make a difference. >> we just relayed a corporate tax issue and tax on wealthy folks. the analyses that have been done, the truck tax plan and house republican plan -- can we just say the trumpet tax plan is still a? >> the trumpet tax plan that he put out in september the analysis of that plan is that 50% of the tax breaks in that plan go to the top 1% after ten years the vast majority go to the top 1% and that's because corporate tax rates is cut so

deeply so that large benefit can go to the top 1%. the republican tax plan is put out by paul ryan last year is hard to believe that 99.5% of the tax breaks are attributed to the top% after ten years. 75% first year but then it rises to over 99% and the reason is because it's not that the top individuals are cut so much but because of the corporate tax rates in that business tax rates in these plan. >> your assumption about -- that suggests that it really is a tax born by rich people. meanwhile, my job is so hard help me out. when i was talking about doing this panel and having discussion

with these folks i would say the supposition is the best way to help middle income people and one answer i got was good god no but it's the only people think people are willing to talk about when you're talking about job training and it seems like the support for low income middle families is such a multi variant problem but maybe it starts with revenue so much of the programs that support those families under government spending it's discretionary and it's what lawmakers want to do in any given year. it fluctuates. can you speak to that issue? do you have that experience in other areas when you're helping? >> yeah, absolutely. i believe that the tax reform gives us the opportunity to really look at ways to look at low-wage workers when we talk

about whether to divide a program or we look at job training and eic. eic is a very important component for the working families because it's one program that really has encouraged working and families can work towards good job skills and growing and it's one of the programs that occurs that as they make more than the tax credit that they get to start going down but they see the advantage because they see a higher wage. it's very important and we in florida had an appropriations provide that was 500,000 that we received last year and florida was the only state this year that returns were up 9% because we were able to really focus and put a lot of site and reach out to the working families but we partnered with employers in bringing the tax returns where the workers are working because a lot of times it's the barriers

that when you think of a low-wage worker moderate, they have barriers. some of them have two jobs and they have families in bringing provide them prepares to a place of employment and eliminates one thing that they don't have to the open sites on saturdays. having appropriations and we talk about wanting to be its be permanent that we see in the tax code because it's so important and so useful for families as well as job training and one of the things aic is a number thing that we want to preserve. we want to keep the aic in the '90s when eic was expanded we had more single moms going back to work because it encourages work over well for reform. these programs are very important and looking at what we've put i believe that the reform is an opportunity for us to look at how do we help our

low-wage workers. were talking about families with children and their working hard but they're not there because they want to hand out in the easy way. i believe some of these folks work harder than we do because they are trying to support their families in the tax code sometimes it does not help them because yes, they may pay a lower tax rate but their paid sales tax and their pain other ways that it affects their daily been able to support their families. >> to give a concrete example how much does the they spent on job training but let me give you a different comparison and we call it tax trade-offs. we spent -- the government spends on the earned income tax credits about $63 billion a year. this is the income support system that she was talking about that helps low-wage workers. it gives them the incentives to work. they get about $3000 in their

pocket through this program, 27 million people get it every year. that's probably about half of who is eligible for it and this huge number aren't even making it available to themselves. >> remind us why they are taking advantage of it? they don't understand it? >> so, one company, apple, half the people in this room probably have apple phones and they have $235 billion in profits that are offshore that are untaxed. she was talking about that. they are taxed -- they are taxed offshore, their pain is 6% tax rate on the profits that are offshore because apple has told the externally exchange commission that if they were to bring the money back they would owe 29% tax on that money, rate is 35% so 35 minus 6% offshore

is 29%. that 9% is $75 billion so that one company owes about $75 billion in taxes. that's more than what is being spent on the e itc. that's the kind of comparisons that we need to think about and i would say that we need to change in order to afford the kind of investments that are going to make a difference in the lives of working people. >> let me ask you on the corporate tax on. what's in the corporate tax rate be do you want -- right now we have a worldwide system which means that wherever you are you are in your dollars that the government will tax them on it. the question is when you bring it back is when they tax you. businesses only pay taxes on the profits where the profits are earned and there's a proposal

with republicans to change the united states into a territorial system so do you want worldwide or territorial? >> our organization is in favor -- we haven't taken a position -- by and large the system we have now we want to end the loopholes called deferral that lets companies avoid taxes on those offshore profits. we think that just like we pay our taxes every single year the corporations are to pay their taxes every single year, they should be allowed to defer taxes until they quote unquote bring the money back. let's be clear, most of the money they have offshore is not really offshore, is booked offshore in their subsidiaries but most of it invested back here in treasured bonds and other corporate bonds.

they just can't bring it back to the parent company and use it. we haven't actually as a coalition taking a position on what we think the top tax rate is because we want to see where it ends up being. our problem with territorial taxes is right now we are losing about $100 billion every single year by corporations that are shifting their profits offshore through patents and intellectual property, it's mostly high-tech companies and drug companies and some finance companies. they are able because of the loopholes shipped their profits offshore and avoid paying these taxes. these are profits earned in america that are just making their earned in the subseries of source we want to close that loophole and read these in the end for us is determined by how much money we need to raise in order to have the kind of economy that is going to make the investments that we need so we can take care of seniors in retirement et cetera. so, that number is a little hazy. it depends on what individuals. >> but it will also talk about the -- what's your favorite top

rate for short i assume you want to go to territorial spec i think that a lot of the income that earned by corporations is on gettable by the irs. we can observe the income that's been merited but actually been able to capture that money would prove very difficult. the reason is because were in a competitive environment. fifty years ago when the united states economy was more closed and we were less engaged in trade and financial markets were less sophisticated it was easier to capture the money. [inaudible] there engaging in the strategies i mentioned earlier. they will continue to do that. they will continue to optimize their taxes and we can think of

that as unfair and unjust and on right but we also need to think about having a tax system is operational. so, the incentives for firms to engage in these practices and i'm not saying they don't, i'm agreeing with frank that they do engage in these practices but in large it's when the difference between our tax system and the tax system of our trading partners is large. we haven't tops rate of about 35%. >> is by law that they pay -- >> on the margin when they have a conditional dollar they generally would pay that amount of taxes if that dollar was subject to tax. if they engage in the same activity in france or germany or spain or portugal or ireland where the uk for sure, for canada and mexico or anywhere else they would pay far less. so, again, if we can say that's

not fair or right but it's operational for them. so the question is. >> because their obligation is to their shareholders not to their country. >> that's right. there complying with the law and those are their obligations. they are truly running money around the world and paying taxes and offshore and they are also engaging in strategies to maximize the extent to which it looks like they're earning money offshore. they are doing both. i don't think we can capture that money. certainly not by raising the corporate taxes. the question is is there another way that's less distortionary that when an inquiry encourage them to play these games where we could collect an appropriate amount of money. some people have suggested that might actually that there be less game and shipping rates were lower if it was more competitive. if you have a rate like other countries rates in the 20s instead of in the 30s and

companies would pay tax for they truly earn it and when they truly earned it in the united states they would pay their taxes in the united states and wouldn't have the same incentives to offshore their profits. republicans for a rather unpopular proposal that i think is quite elegant that we would go at the heart of this issue and ensure that they would pay that tax does make the other thing i would know is that when we think the other magnitude on things about 10% of the federal tax comes from the corporate tax. where does the federal government get the money that he gets, the 80% of the revenue it gets respect generally, from individual income taxes. if you noted that low income taxpayers no or low taxes, most of the money that's collected today in our system to pay for programs that we offer are from

the income tax system. when we think about reforming the tax system we want to reform the tax code in a way to raise more money, it would seem that we would want to do that if that was the goal we would go where the money is we would go to broaden the tax base and collect more money from individuals. >> we should also make the point that a lot of business tax, it's coming from the individual code now because we need a choice to incorporate or become what's up ridiculous term does make the business profits get passed through to you and you pay the tax on your individual tax return. over the last 30-40 years a lot of business income tax has transferred to the individual tax system. >> in part because of the inefficiencies of the system back frank. >> most of the money that is offshore 75% of it is owned or held by 50 corporations.

40% of it is held by ten corporations. so, there's a small number of corporations that we are talking about that have a vast amount of this profit started apple, microsoft, ge and pfizer. apple has 10% of those profits offshore. were talking about a very small number of companies. a lot of companies are paying the 30%, 31, 32% and those are domestic companies. the tale leg and the dog here is this multinationals that aren't paying close to their fair share. the second closing i make on this is most of the money is not in france or germany or britain, countries that are true competitors of ours. most of the offshore profit is being moved in tax havens where there is a 0% tax or only one or 2%. we will never compete with that. you create a territory attack system to meet the tax rates

that they will pay is where they took their profit. it's just going to make -- i say it will make the world a tax haven spec we killed the territorial, right now. in the united government, what are you going to do? >> i'm not a corporation. [inaudible conversations] is the function of the race. i'm not ducking the question. >> 25% rate, lower it but no more deferral. >> as opposed to the 20% mark great, 20%. >> i don't know. when the rate is low enough the importance deferral diminishes. it's the same with the full spectrum of other provisions. [inaudible]

when the rate gets low the distortions in the code get small and that's one of the reasons to have a low rates. when we have a low rate none of the other things matter less. it also matters last and it matters in a budgetary issue is whether we have a referral or not at the rates that we seem it doesn't matter as much as when it seems to have referral. >> okay. let's touch the specific tax breaks for individuals. we won't resolve corporate taxation, as much as i was hoping to. earned income tax credit. what do you think needs to be done to improve on that credit so that it has better target for the people who need it most? >> i think some optional take-up rates and not everyone is entitled should be using it unless they're aware and everyone who should be getting

it should be getting it. we also have a problem with improper payment. a lot of people were not eligible are successfully claiming benefits and we need to figure a way to tackle that problem while making the other problems go away. >> so two things lawmakers anti- abuse in advertising. >> yes connected first of all smack. >> we also have where a worker without children they get a smaller credit but if someone is under 25 or over 65, they are not eligible. we see a lot of seniors that have to work, it's not that they are just working a little bit because they want extra, if there over 65 are not eligible to get a credit so maybe looking at how can we expand that because if we look at that worker or that under 25 that

there may be 23 years old and they're not getting a credit they still could be in poverty because maybe they're only making 16, $17000 a year spec and applies for single parents under 25. they don't get their taxes set of credit. >> track. looking at the both of those and been able to examine expand the eligibility not increasing but expanding it to the hits under 25 and parents after over 65. >> ve itc, it's one of the best mechanisms that we have to encourage work. if we think about corporations that need to have the demands, the family that are receiving the tax refund that they're using to pay down their debt and using to pay down a down payment on a car, they are using it

during times that maybe they're not getting a paycheck. >> if they are not working because they cannot afford to go to work, we are not going to be able to do what both of you are talking about. >> just your point, i believe for individuals, they are not eligible above $15000 per year they do not get any -- singles, single but not married. >> so you're saying that you can

you make it help some help up to minimum wage but beyond that you will not get any. now a lot of people cannot live on minimum wage. >> so single parents under 25 generally in people over 65. >> and i was in the grand scheme of things when you look at where you want to make your vestments this is an important place. obviously in the end you have more money to invest. >> overall. >> childcare costs are big in the news. we have gotten a lot of suggestions at the trump administration is interested in helping people pay their childcare costs, but how it's done makes a difference.

broadly and tell me if i'm wrong, even though you might have the best tax break in the world if it doesn't come to someone who has to pay their daycare costs this month; it come for 12 months or more, is there a way to make that more available to them? and same with the subsidy that the affordable care act offers. stairway to do that could come out on a quarterly or monthly basis, slightly higher costs and there's an issue they don't really know until the end of the year what your annual income is going to be so if you think you're eligible for a program for the first six on that benefit, it turns out you not eligible for that program how do you recoup those costs.

there are mechanical issues to wrestle with. >> are you happy with the child care tax cut as it is today. >> i think there always could be improvements to everything. that is one of the biggest challenges for workers, a lot of families are pain as much as a mortgage or rent for child care. when they're making 12 or $13 per hour and is costing them if they have two children, close to $1000 a month for child care, is one of the biggest reasons employees say they have high turnover because they cannot afford childcare and some employers are working at putting childcare the place of work because it's such a challenge. >> president obama had made a major proposal to expand the

child care assistance grants it cost $1 billion over ten years. [inaudible] that would've helped 2 million families. i cannot remember how much each family would've gotten but it would made it more viable for them to work. >> one of the tax form discussion that we have heard, what makes you look hopeful if lawmakers are able to get it over the finish line, in particular have you heard anything at washington that makes you think, oh, good. anything. >> that is not a fair question right now.

i'm hopeful they're talking about tax reform, that there is an opportunity with tax reform that maybe we can look at whether were looking at the eac year preserving the charitable deductions for families, i'm hoping they will look at that. i cannot say right now i really can't think of something but i'm hopeful, they are talking tax reform. >> one thing we talked about is that she's said i hope they keep the charitable deduction and assembly think they are and then i remember they want to kill the estate tax and a lot of people give to charities because they want to avoid the estate tax. >> i talked to some financial planners and they brought that

up as a concern the charities might suffer do agree with that? >> why it's so important is the work that we do in communities to help families with financial stability and raise families out of poverty. a lot of the burden fall on the not not-for-profit to provide services. as we keep hearing a programs that need to be cut that means we are going to have to step up as an up for profit to do more work to help families because we want communities to thrive and we care about everybody in our community. if the chair don't deduction is reduced but it's almost like were getting double whammy it is however getting hit because the program is cut in federal funding will not come down to us. at this time we start thinking what are we going to do, it's very important to us however it

happens it's something we are watching closely. is very important to everyone in our community. >> some of the charitable dollars come from the state, overwhelmingly they come from individuals and many people make charitable contributions and don't get a tax seduction. >> because they don't itemize on many people claim a lot of high-income martyrs are getting a very large federal tax cut message that seduction is. when individuals do give more because of the charitable deduction. if it were to be curtailed that would have adverse effects. going back to it trump said during the campaign he had a proposal on itemized deductions

that policy would've had adverse effects. mice of suspicion is that it would had less of a fact but it would certainly have an effect quite frankly the proposal would make few people itemize. >> so even if they never killed the estate tax and pushing more people onto the standard deduction you think that help the negative. >> what i would say with the chairman brady said, they're very clear on the importance of charitable giving. certain elements have not been fully fleshed out. they intend to ensure that people continue to have

incentives. >> the first question about to want tax reform, is this something to look forward to in tax reform? as an organization we need to raise more revenue from the system, the proposers out there going in opposite direction from our point of view. we're much better off trying to stop tax reform at this stage of the game with president trump in the white house and congress controlled by the republican party on both sides that will not get what i'll call a progressive tax reforms that benefit most americans. >> one more question that i'm gonna turn over to the audience. we also talked about benefits on tax breaks which means they are certain amount i lose benefit

from social welfare program that i need to sustain my progra fam. is there something we can do to appease that effect? a parent can think well, maybe i won't work because he way the horrible options because i won't work as i will lose benefits of iron this much. >> the macro answers that those issues can be mitigated and it's expensive to mitigate those. c can mitigate those by phasing out the benefits by people as their incomes rise to make the programs available to people at higher level of income and doing so expands the cost of those programs. there is a tension between targeting the benefits of people most in need of this assistance and not providing these programs to higher income individuals.

and then add the rules that give it to people are slow to phase out, you can take away some of that. >> we talked about training employees and career edge is one of our programs that we raise private funding amounts to invest in the loan to mid-level workers to provide training dollars to the company to be able to upscale their workers and lift them up. we often run into the employer's saying to us, help us because our turnover rate is in the 90% with the low wage worker and they asked where we need to get arms they don't quit. what happens is they now report

their making less a $12 an hour and three months later they have to report for child care assistance at the receiving food stamps and they get cut. at that point the parent has to make the decision, i cannot afford to go to work and this is why we believe in the eac because that's more of a curve. as employees earn more the tax credit is lowered but their wages are going up. but now you're making this much money and you don't need those services. that is the true economic power of lifting people up. the benefit is a very real and i believe that employers suffer a lot because of employees quitting because they cannot afford to go to work. something we talked about on the state level we have to look at how do you have a gradual staging of process as workers or training to make the higher

wages so they are out of the benefits situation. >> i think raising the minimum wage is critical and i think that's more important than anything we can do on taxes. then the question becomes if folks are $15 per hour, as are still going to be that cliff? probably depends on the region of the country. is that cliff going to be there and if it is obviously we have to change the eligibility criteria for food stamps on the itc. but the most important thing is to get a solid minimum wage there first. there than working and making a living that they can afford to survive with their family.

>> i think you'll be passing a microphone around. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> this may sound like an off-topic question, but i'm wondering, has anyone done studies on the impact of promoting birth control on the budget, for example what were looking at now is a total -- a plane parenthood and that has impacted all the budgetary stuff we talked about, childcare, people having kids they don't want them losing their jobs, and job training and it goes on and on. is anyone doing investigation?

>> my name is carl, mr. project called the centering capital and social equity which is trying to include everybody in our economy. i know some background material there's a lot of emphasis on tax exclusion and deductible when savings accounts up to half a trillion. for example on retirement accounts more than 100 billion is gone and taxes and excluded from income. what if we rearrange those a little bit so have the people have no retirement account and you reduce the tax advantage at

the top will provide a tax credit at the bottom for everybody. everybody would be a capitalist and you could say 40 or $50.000000000 a year. you could just raise the corporate tax. there stuff like that that needs discussion. >> so if i save hundred dollars i get hundred dollars from the government? >> will be a once and for all gift. every year the government would put money in everybody's account, you would have to keep it, you could opt out. so small amounts to establish the account so they have somewhere to go have a job you have an account. >> i think the challenge, you focused on retirement security because there is this crisis

around that for a lot of the population. what you're referring to is his tax expenditures and they are spending by another name, what this is his tax breaks for money that is put aside and pensions there's tax breaks for money put aside in your 4o1k if you're like enough to have income you can put money into one. i think the two combined costs are about $150 billion per year. it's a lot of money we think that helping people save for retirement is quite important. the problem with the way the tax expenditures are designed is what you're racing, most of the benefit are able to be taken by folks at the top of the income scale because they're the ones

who have the disposable income where they can put it in a 4o1k or they have a great job for the employer's doing that for them. what's happening is folks at the bottom cannot say for retirement because they don't make enough money, and two or $300 a year probably is not enough to do it you need to do to have that nest egg. i agree we need to revise how these programs are structure so more of the benefits are going to the folks lower down i think the problem people disposable income, $50000 here you probably don't have that much money to save away every year, you're just living. >> there's a program which

encourages -- a middle course the social security program where people are paying in other get in a relatively high return. that's not unstable ground going forward but the components of that program provide income replacement and we need more relative to people's retirement income. >> but the point that i don't make enough money to save if there's a sabres credit i can't take advantage of it so do you have in response to the idea of a government infusing a few hundred dollars with the cash even though it's not very much. >> livers are quick to attack a decade or two and put money people's accounts but there are

those ideas. >> patrick brown a graduate student. wondering if anyone could talk about the discussions around the universal child credit and some of the proposals from senator rubio, to raise the amount of refund ability of the child tax credit and drawbacks from the. >> there are very few proposals at the moment that are popular congress to increase the child tax credit. it was created in 1997 a $500 credit the president clinton and they created it for the first time in the 2001 tax cut that

president bush pushed through the eligibility has been extended somewhat over time and is refundable, partially refundable. cost about $45 billion per year in phases out for modern income households. the only thing i would say that if you were to increase that credit you'd also be increasing the disparity and tax liability among low and moderate income households. so the tax relief that only goes to parents. i'm a parent so i get it there a lot alone moderate income households that are ineligible because they're not parents. so you want to think about what the distribution of those are.

>> i work with frank but i've also been a volunteer and i was always impressed by people even with very low incomes were concerned about making sure they pay their taxes come is very impressed by that. i want to go back to the first discussion asked alex and not only are corporate profits that record highs but corporate cash offshore and onshore that are at record levels and borrowing is very cheap. if companies have access to all this money why are they investing that went instead spending half of it on stock buybacks and dividends which helps their shareholders and executives rather than opening factories in making more product.

>> that's a great question. i don't know why at any moment in time they hold cash. the holding cash could be anticipating the cash reform the lower the tax burden if it's held offshore. so the fact that a decade ago or so we provided a temporary tax break that occurs them to take the tax back we said you bring it back the next six months to get a tax break on it. what happened after that window closed everyone said this is great. said had an adverse effect of holding the cash offshore firms that may be retaining onshore for a bought variety of reasons.

they may be hoping for a lower tax which means they completed dividend at the lower break. some point to distinguish between the moment in time analysis from the long run analysis so we need to think about both. in the long run firms must return their cash to their shareholders. that's a really long run. the question is why are they not? i don't have a good answer to that. >> in the opening remarks and later when he said the big problem with the accc and you talked up the number 50%, my senses that's wrong and if it is that low it's only among people who are eligible for very low

credits, primarily workers without qualifying children. i'm wondering if maybe the answer to problem is when your co- panelists suggest witches increasing the childless ea tc said similar what families with children get in the 3 - 5000-dollar range. >> i did not come with that -- i may have repeated frank's comment. i think your fix is an interesting idea. >> hello. with university of michigan, i'm wondering, you mentioned earlier the tax on the possible solution to what we see corporations

engaging in that have profits offshore, my question is about the border adjustment tax and the way you mention and speak about it talk sounds like an import to. could you explain the difference if there is one between those two? >> might be an academic question. it does feel in many regards like an import because the way to propose that one is to disallow them to deduct an expense of the private imports so the tax repaid on the imports what's important to understand on economic of this policy it's not that alone. this also seems to bother some people they need to understand the way they work together, the other port of it is an exclusion for the resident revenues associated with export.

sun import tax and an export subsidy. people in uniform measure. it is that factor the symmetry of this policy with respect to import and export that finance will tell you that the effect is a wash and the reason is because the change on both sides of imports and exports will result in excess investment of the value of a dollar. whether it will occur whether it will occur immediately, the theory is simple and elegant, that it will adjust. there's reasons to think it might not adjust perfectly but that's the idea. as a result if you buy that theory, then imports become cheaper so they are taxed but

there also cheaper in your back to where you started in terms of that cost. some people do not buy that theory or think the market works that way. they don't think there is a liquid market for currencies in our concerns it will result in higher prices. >> and others in issue with people in america with income volatility and it's a big issue. from what i have heard people fall for that in a lot of cases by going into the retirement accounts and taking a hefty penalty for taking that money out and wondering if there has been any talk about relieving some of that pain may be getting

rid of that are having an income -based penalty? or what the effect of that penalty is for people based on their income or if there is a way to help people with that issue. to me it seems like an issue of their not making enough money they're trying to do things that the tax code is encouraging but life gets in the way and makes it hard to do that. wondering if there's a study. >> you're talking about the 10% penalty. >> exactly. >> out for getting the rules now it's a hardship withdrawal. you aware of that? >> other waivers? >> if it's true hardship and you have certain you're not in yes and you look for smart someone ago with yes, to your broader point, people should access to

their retirement savings at all times without penalty. >> yes, if they have a really rough year. [inaudible] i think that tax code is meant to punish people. >> an interesting idea. >> something i'm knowledge about. i understand people's circumstances change year to year. it will be helpful to split that out. >> to your clients have retirement savings they've used in that way? >> i'm not aware of any, but i'm sure they have. that's why were trying to work with financial institutions to help build assets and open up accounts that they have as a

fallback. one thing where find a most successful is helping our clients build credit but i am not really sure about that. but they need money and we have some employers that are setting up accounts with credit unions that if they have an emergency they can go and get a short-term loan and it will be deducted out of the paystub to pay that back while at the same time their building credit, they're trying to find different alternatives to help families because it does happen in there trying to keep them away for places where they need to pay high interest. >> i'm an entrepreneur.

curious if we look at the budget of the earned income tax credit because he of the credit there's the incentive to work they don't see immediately versus if the minimum wage went up. it increases the panelists can save you had this pot of money and wanted to create an incentive to work might you invested in a different program? maybe increase in the low-wage so you could create a stronger incentive to work or have an effect that would be larger than what it is now? to mean transferring the money that we go to minimum wage? >> something like that like if you had $60 billion of a minimum wage job and get the money at the end of the year, i don't see

that money immediately versus i'm looking for a job that i see a 7-dollar wage versus a 10-dollar wage the incentive is much stronger in immediate, i would think that maybe the low-wage consumer is sophisticated enough that they see the money down the road and that's incentive enough. >> i don't know the answer, but thinking through that winner thinking about $80 an hour and $10 an hour you have to think about that, that's barely making it been able to afford things in your so thin that wage for the earned income credit we look at also has a savings account you to get it at a certain point and say four, instant gratification is one of the things that gets

people in trouble. you're right, the main objection is that we want to get people trained with certification so they can make higher wages. preparing a workforce is were talking about companies that hire folks, a lot is we have job openings that we don't have the skilled workers to place. it's a matter that we have to train our individual so they can make higher wages if we don't get that the wages are higher and you also have to look at are the employers willing to pay higher wages where we know the eac is a credit and the worker and that money, but you have a point you needed every month and want to have that money i don't how we do that.

>> i think the most important thing is to raise the wage. that will actually give people the incentive to be working and put more money in their pocket than there getting now. the e atc is a successful program, it's helping six and a half million people the lifting murphy out of poverty right now. i don't think there's an advantage to reducing the funding there. it's leveraging. the key question is how can we raise people's wages across the board. >> any other questions? thank you so much teacher the panelists. you did a great job.

>> it's been a great discussion i learned a lot. thank you for being here please join us again for next conversation. thank you. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> this weekend book tv is live from the chicago tribune lit fest in chicago. our coverage starts on saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern with author, mary dearborn. at new, 2016 national book award winner the book, stamped from the beginning.

that's followed at one by michael eric dyson with his book "tears we cannot stop" and then a self-made man, the political life of abraham lincoln and then it continues with heather and thompson. at 2:00 p.m., author jeffrey stone with his book "sex and the constitution" then at three the former congressman with a true story where politics with money, madness, and finger food. and then it for, the fight for

freedom. watch our coverage of the 33rd annual chicago tribune printers road lit fest starting saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern book tv. >> this sunday, q&a is in hyde park new york at the franklin d roosevelt presidential library and museum where we go inside for a rare look at fdr's personal office collection of artifacts. >> this library open in june of 1941. he was president of the united states. this became the northern oval office. fdr had an inquisitive mind. there are 22000 books, 914 books in this room alone. every book was selected by fdr to be in this room. it was a most identical the way it was the day fdr died. nothing has changed. >> watch q&a from hyde park new york, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> senator bernie sanders at down discussion recently with jimmy carter about human rights, american leadership the world of the trump presidency. is our this is about 50 minutes. >> maybe this is our nation's great transition. we are living in a difficult time as we been hearing the last three days. from all over the world we have human rights activists from 31 countries, from every region of come together to consult about what we do in these difficult times. how do we breathe and push forward together. it is our honor and privilege to have with us tonight two of america's most admired leaders. [applause] were having a conversation about how do we stand again for human rights in the world?

how does america, as a perk t imperfect as it is bring back human rights to the centerpiece of our lives? i like to start with you senator carter. if you could just summarize what you've heard today, where are we a much we need to do now?, >> i think the best, i heard today that summarizes a is that we're struggling now to keep going what we achieved in the past. we have slipped backwards and human rights all over the world. one of the key reasons is that other countries days to use the united states of america as aa beacon light of truth and human rights and justice and freedom, they no longer can see us as a beacon of light of hope about the future. quite often government that is inclined to violate human rightn

when they say the united states abandon that is one of their key elements of foreign-policy. they say it's okay for us to do it now. they've seen her world slipped backwards and honoring, promoting and championing and fighting for human rights and holding it as a key guide to all of us. >> senator sanders, how do you see this problem now going forward as america hopes to be a leader in human rights? where a difficult time. what is our priority now. >> before i respond to that, let me express my joy being here at the carter center with a man who not only is respected by the best majority of the people of our country, those who made

group him politically, those who disagree. but he has lived his life in mrs. carter and amy, with incredible dignity and we are also proud of what you have achieved as president and after. on delayed it to be here. [applause]saying let me answer your question byna saying, not good to same thing that will shock anybody, i don't think the leadership of this country today, in fact leaves struggling human rights. that's not what they believe inc we are in a new moment in a pivotal moment in american history. we have a president, again i do not mean to be disrespectful to anybody, least of all the s president, but, he is in contrast to the gentleman here. we have a president who lies all of the time.

it is very hard to deal, i don't mind people disagree, we may disagree, people disagree with each other, that's called democracy. i'm often asked about what president trump said yesterday, it's hard to answer because he will be different tomorrow. very often factually what he says is not h h correct. it's important that we do not allow the normalization of the situation in which a president basically says that all of the media in this country, the new york times, the washington post, the lot of them, blame you have problems with the media, but to suggest that all of the media are provided fake news on the only person in america, the only source of information that we can get ten trusts comes from the tweets of president trump. how crazy is that? then he have attacks on the judiciary, so-called judges who disagree with the decision,

thank god they ruled against some of his executive orders. then you have him with a very positive relationship within mr. putin has moved his country into a very authoritarian direction as well as other global leaders who do not believe in democracy.cr that is where i see us today. >> how do you both explain the rise of authoritarianism? wears a coming from? >> i think the root of it is something i have not heard discussed much. i told the group today that a 1999, at the end of the last millennium and beginning of 2000 i was asked to make speeches and i was in norway and taiwan.my my subject was, what is the greatest challenge to be faced by the next century. i said there's disparity between

rich people and poor people. i think that is the case, not only between people who live in the country but also between nations. i believe the roots of a downturn in human rights preceded 2016. it began earlier than that. i think the reason was the disparity in income which hase been translated into the average person these are hard-working, middle-class people feeling they are getting cheated by the government and by society. they don't get the same elements of healthcare the docket the same political rights there's as unlimited amount of money going into campaigns. as rich

but now with politics the choice of our candidate to be president, governor congressman or whatever it is not the same as a rich person's. also once it gets into office, if it's successful, quite often the average person feels they are repaying their contributions with legal bribery.wi and it is legal. in the justice system is als going down. while before we had this last election, what i left the white house out of a thousand people were imprisoned. now, seven out of 1000 are in prison. seven times as many people. so, the feeling that the average person ought to be treated fairly by the justice system is missing., status

basic human rights, income, status in society, healthcare, education, participation in politics, justice, the things in which we used to have complete faith has been distorted by the rich people getting richer and the poor people getting poorer. when the rich people get a candidate in office they can be sure the tax laws and everything else will keep them getting richer and richer while the average person suffers. i think that dissatisfaction with the existing system of politics resulted in the outcome of the election in 2016 in the united states. people were willing to take a chance and abandoned democracy and what we know about the basi principles. >> one of -- said market fundamentalism is a driving

force behind this. senator sanders, how do you explain? >> i agree with everything the president carter said. the, here's the situation.n. you got all over this country, tens of millions of people who are extremely angry and they arw disappointed. now, we all know that as a result of technology, workers are producing more today than they did 20 or 30 years ago. yet, despite that your seen people working out 40 hours a week, 50 or 60 hours a week, their wages are actually going down. how would you feel if you are 50-year-old man or woman workint in a factory work to work one day and they said oh by the way, our company can make more money by going to channa, good luck to you. you go out and have a job at half the wages you make. how do you feel is apparent when

you know that your kid who you love so much and he will want better things than you had, that's the american dream, the cake can't afford to go to college or find a home for himself or herself. or maybe leaves school with 50000 or $80000 in debt. i think president carter's right. if you're going to look at human rights you the term i use is the growth of oligarchy in america what that means, and the present touch on both issues, it is not just the unbelievably grotesque level of income and wealth it inequality. one family in america owns more wealth than the bottom 42 inmonn america. but, these guys are not putting their money under their mattress, they're using it politically. we live in a culture where people thought diaper democracy. then you have the coca brothersm and and billion hairs able to

spend hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent the wealthy and power, and this recent bill and everybody is breaks familiar with this terrible bill in the house last thursday, theo media describes it as a health care bill. it's not a healthcare bear. it's a bill designed to give $300 billion in tax breaks to the top 2% and hundreds of billions more to the drug and tasurance companies. the rich get richer, they get more tax breaks. the middle class shrinks and some people live in desperate poverty. in the midst of all that desperation, anger and pain yes somebody who says you know the source of your problem is is that muslim over there, splitting over there, you're supposed to hate that person.k i think that has a lot to do in this country and internationally with what we're seeing today. >> i'm relieved to know that

senator sanders agree with me. i feel much worse for what i said now. [laughter] thank you. >> of course, the rise of the neoliberal liberal orthodoxy that we have lived at they promenade decades now that we have been told the rising tide would lift all has failed. so how do we, and we hear many testimonies today about this problem, from the congo's in pakistan, everywhere says united states exerts its influence in the world and we take a broader view of human rights, these are in turn linked, we see in our country is your describing this the police are expanding their powers, people protest we have increasing prison populations. we have police using military

equipment to control the protest, we have our atlantata leader of the black lives later movement, we see all over the country standing right, there is a rising movement but these are interlinked. so when these policies lee people behind them people rise up, even in the united statesr, heard today from india, heartbreaking testimony that in the last 23 years their great democracies going away. we see the linkages between it. how can we use our influence inu the world? this question is for you both. president carter you put human rights at the center of foreign policy. it was not easy to do that. and senator sanders here in the senate, you have one of a hundred seats really were

there's only power left in the country aside from the courts. but how do we get the united states to face its own problems but then become a leader again? >> color you go first this time. [laughter] that, this is what i think the bottom line is that i do not think the real change that weak need it's going to take place in the u.s. senate or in washington. it's going to take place what are very brave guess you're doing over the world. it will take place at the place grassroots level from one end of this country to the other. [applause] what i mean by that comment as ' have said i don't mean to get

into into chrissy's, in many ways donald trump to not win the election, the democratic party lost the election.s, whi that means we need to revitalize the party and make it a grassroots party, bring together black workers, white workers and latino workers and asian american and i think we can do that.ff consent a lot of my time recently not going just to blue states but going to conservative states because if you go to states like kansas like nebraska which are all very strongly states and u.s. people do you believe it makes sense to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut back on social security, medicare and medicaid people look at you like you're crazy.we of course not. so our job is to go into 50 t states in this country to bring people together around aol progressive agenda which has the

courage to do what democrats historically have not done. point out there is wall street there's insurance company there are the fossil fuel industry,, these are the people who are ripping us off of these are the people who are donating money to candidates who represent their interests and not the interests of the middle class of this country. - i think we need to revitalize american democracy. we have one of the lowest voter turnouts on earth. you may have noticed in the french election, almost 80% of the french people voted. if we had 80% of the people voting, the republican party would be a significant minoritya [applause] we have got to get people involved. you do that by being honest about the real problems they face and come up with real solutions. >> to chelsea when i voted for

him. >> will, i think the thing we need to discuss is a trend downward in the things in which we have faith. and on which we can depend. we sat faith in democracy. these have faith in the truthn reset have faith in our fellow human citizens and in our public officials. but we have basically lost that element of faith. my high school teachers said we must accommodate changing times but we must cling to principles that never change in one of those principles is the truth it and freedom. i think one is freedom of speech, another freedom of religion, to are negative, freedom from want and freedom

from fear. i think now permeating the entire world the freedom or lacr of freedoms to combat want because the disparity in income which is getting worse every year and also freedom from fear. that's a long way to go. in some cases we celebs freedom of speech and freedom of religion.another so we have freedom of religion, but sometimes it's constrained.n but anyway we still have that big obstacle to overcome. one of the things we need to do now to see how this small group of human rights heroes can have their contributions of thought and experiences together and form a tight coalition in the small group and then expanded to washington some of you will be going up there to meet with

members of the senate and house maybe some parts of thee administration and then expanded to the world, but never give up. and united together which i hope we will be be champions of human rights and freedom and the lack of fear and the lack of want ouo voice can be expanded on a global basis. so this little job for people compared to the rest of the world can have a great influence if we speak together forcefully and courageously.er jus >> and president carter just open the door to not let you off the hook that easily. yes we have a people's movement for sure. but you have a very huge platform from which you can speak, we heard today from russia about the danger of silence, that we have to speak about what is going on around the world. we have to give voice andon

highlight this regression of human rights that's happening globally even in our own country. i know there are members of the senate, your colleagues who are looking at ways the senate can bring the power of the senate, after vietnam we had the church committee that made report and if reforms in the cia. i realize it's an uphill battle right now but we need to think ahead. can we rely on the leahy amendment to challenges where some of our people are coming from nigeria, kenya, this is something the united states could do? couldn't it? >> theoretically could. those of us who believe in those values are a minority. . . said, that even though we might be in the minority our voices have to be loud and clear. the united states should not be funding military dictatorships around the world.

should not be giving support to leaders who torturing and in prison thousands of their people. somebody has got to -- you know -- what is very, very sad -- again, the president made this point. there was once a time in our lifetimes, not 200 years ago, when people thought about the united states they did think this is a country of freedom. this is a country that -- of upper unity. this is the country in the world that believes in truth. and, it is very, very, very sad that wehat the values once were respected for all of the world are now being diminished, especially in the last few months. moderator: a small group of us will be in washington later this week meeting with a few senators. we will be seeing senator corker. >> bob corker.

moderator: has. >> chairman of the foreign relations committee. moderator: we know it is an uphill battle. aboutear we talked a lot diverting the resources from the machinery of war into the machinery of peace. it into -- the machinery of human rights that is in front of us. do you see opportunities to race this -- we know there's a new budget coming up, the president has asked for an increase in military expenditures. any chance for the people to be heard to question that? >> the answer is, of course.ha mean, if you think about what needs to be done, then look at the trump budget and it's exactly the opposite of where we should be going. [applause] can you imagine at a time we need to focus on diplomacy and poor people all over the world

must know or should know that the united states is their ally, that we are there to help them with food, we there are to help them with education, with new technologies. we their allies, what president trump wants to do is substantially reduce foreign aid, substantially reduce the staffing in the state department, but add $80 billion more to the military on top of already very, very bloated military budget, and then domestically, having done that, he wants to take that money, that 80 billion he is spending on the military by cutting head start, cutting pell grants, putting the wic program for the low income wage and children, and cutting the meals on wheels program, providing nutritious food to seniors.

in otherin other words doing exe opposite. my job, 24-7, is to ask the american people is that your "eater? 80 million on defense, more than the next 12 nations and tremendous waste within the department of defense. do we need more while we are cutting domestic programs? need not to be supporting poor people around the world rather than leaving them prey to terrorist ideology. >> president carter last year you talked about in the new generation of nuclear weapons. do you think this is -- this trillion dollars we're about to spend is a wise use of resources? >> of course not.re i don't think there's any way for anyone, even in your own personal mind to separate peace from human rights, because one of the basic elements of peace, of human rights, is to be living at peace, and only then can you have other human rights, like

freedom of speech and religion r and also a chance to have an income and an education and health care and a house to live in, things of that kind. when war comes, the abuses of human rights which we no about and have talked for the last tee years about the number one human rights abuse, women and girls, that becomes much more serious.. every human right that we talk about and is listed in 30 principles of human rights, aree exacerbated or made worse under the cloud of war. when a nation decides to go to war they basically drop any feeling of love or absence of hatred or aversion to killing, and the united states has been at war almost full-time since the second world war. we have been at war now with 30 different nations. only four years we didn't have any conflict.

won't say which four years that was. whi [applause] >> and i think the or two inseparable. so we need to do what we took let the u.n. honor its basic purpose to preserve peace in the world, and the united states can do its part if it ever will. think now we're moving measure toward a military attitude. this derives not just from politicians, not just from the military industry, who manufacture weapons but delives from the attitude of mesh people, who forget about the fact we are in nation of peace and most of us in the united states are christians. we worship the prince of peace. not a prince of war. and we are supposed to reach out and understand each other, not hate each other. that's a basic principle we need remind ourselves about and that

is connect peace all as human rights and that's two things the carter center tries to concentrate on without deviation. promoting peace whenever there's a choice, and human rights, and sometimes neither one of those things are very popular.ery >> yes. and since 9/11, we have put ourselves in a permanent war frame, on a permanent footing for war. the bush administration started us on that path, and thank goodness that president obamaed did avoid war with iran and he normalized relations with cuba. two fantastic, wonderful developments, but at the same time he didn't change the basic framework with which we're dealing -- on 9/11 there was a small piece of territory to find al qaeda on the border between pakistan and afghanistan. very small. a handful of guys. now the ideology has spread globally. so obviously hasn't worked.al and just as we're closing, we

only have a few more moments -- any thoughts about how can we get out of this mineset of the public? we have to change the minds of the mesh people that this -- of the american people that his is a pathway that will lead to more security? how do we get the american people see that investing in peace and human rights is a better investment and make it more sure. senator sanders, what advice do you have for us? >> well, just two points. we do have -- going back to somebody who proceeded "quarter, dwight d. eisenhower. you remember what he said in is farewell remarks, in so maybe word, be ware of the military industrial complex and if you think the military industrial complex was strong when he left in 1960, it is far, far stronger. do not kid yourself. when we expand military spending and when we develop new weapons systems, there are corporations that are making huge amounts of

money, many billion offered dollars in profits. the oversight of these defensei. contractors is million mall. they -- minimal. they have massive overruns, corruption going on there. i think -- get back to the point i made earlier, but what thisi country is hungering for is a vision which says no, we're not going to spend $700 billion a year on the military when he have veterans sleeping on the street, when kids can't afford to go to college. when 28 million people have no health insurance, when there are senior citizens trying to make on $13,000 a year, social security. we need a vision that talksye about an america which works for all people, which involves people. i do not want to see this country continuing as we did in

2014, the election, almost two-thirds of the americanhe people didn't vote. they've given up. they don't believe their voices matter.th in all of these things -- i learned in politics is offering is related to everything. you can't ice laid these thing -- isolate the this. have to vitalize the economy, take on powerful big money interests and need a progressive agenda that will in fact speak to the needs of the working people of this country. >> one other thing i'd like to add. that is that a lot of people think it's a choice between security on the one hand and human rights on the other, but the best way to have our country secure is to honor human rights. they're tied together. that's one of the basic messaget i can put forward.sh [applause][a going for human rights and

freedom, and equality, it's the best way to avoid a lack of security. it makes our country stronger at home and makes our country stronger on the global basis as well. so we should remember that human rights and security are tied together. if our people aren't to live securely -- if our people want to live securely, let them honor human rights and the choice ought not be a divided thing in politics kirk often is. conservatives, many of the republican candidates say when you go to those things like peace and human rights, you're abandoning american security and it's just the opposite. >> we talk about that this week. have to do a better job of explaining to the public that these thing goes together. senator sanders, were you going to say something? >> i just was thinking in my own mind when we talk about freedoms and fear. that it is not just being black in this country and walking the streets and being afraid of

being picked up or shot by a police officer.ic but also increasingly -- this is just a whole discussion above and beyond everything we're doing today -- is the kind of surveillance that exists through information technology. i mean, the fact that there are. resources and nobody knows exactly what is going on, but we have reason to believe that the government can easily track anything that you read on the internet, any e-mail you send can get into your phone calls, and corporate america knows morp about your purchasing labs -- habits than you know. in 2017 there's no question to my mind that we are moving toward a surveillance type of society, and we need public policy to confront that exploding technology. [applause] >> that's right. >> we're going to wind up now.

senator sanders has agreed to take some questions but president carter needs to leaven right at 7:00.ak anything that we have left unsaid that you want to -- >> if it's a hard question, ask him. >> save them for tomorrow. >> thank you, president carter, for being with us. >> i didn't wear a tie itch can't tie a tie. my wrist is healing up quite well. i explained that to you today and wanted to -- thank you very much again.to see [applause] [cheering] >> now, we have to -- we have some microphones set up for you to -- if you want to pull the microphone out to the front here so people can come and ask questions. so if you want to ask a question

of senator sanders, come right up to these microphones right here and we're grateful to you. i'm sorry. where are they? somebody wave and show people where to line up. i can see. the lights are too bright. okay. stand up and go to the microphones. and -- hard to see. is there someone there? i see doug. introduce yourself. >> i'm doug residentson from the international senator for nonprofit law. senator sanders, you talked about folks who have to work 50 or 60 hours a week, their income is declining, they don't have health care, and they have endemic poverty. how too you explain to a u.s.eo citizen why it's important to invest internationally in humant rights?

>> well, because at the end of the day, and in fact at the end of the day, if all that we do ir grow a military and engage in wars all over the world, from simply -- forget the morality and the humanity of it. from a dollars and sense perspective, that is a very expensive proposition, which takes right back to trump's budget of 80 billion more for the military and cuts in programs that the worker will depend upon, that worker may need food stamps. it will be cut. that worker, when he or she gets old, will go on social security. they're going after social security at the same time just cut medicaid by $80 million over a ten-year period. gets back to the argument of whether we can afford to spend e

huge amount of money, getting involved in wars and adequately take care of working families in this country. i think it's a straightforward explanation. >> senator sanders, i'm with the u.s. human rights network. thank you for being here this evening. i come to the human rights work from the aftermath of hurricane katrina and the bp oil drilling disaster, and one frame that i hear mentioned sort of subtly but not as in front as i would hope is the issue of climateho change, and i wonder how you see the fight for human rights and the climate reality connected. >> well, if you are talking about the survival of the planet, and the lives of billions of people, i guess we're talking about human rights. and if we are talking about the fact that the people most immediately impacted in thisis country, and around the world, would be lower income people,

you are talking about human rights. i am furious at this fossil fuel industry today that is doing exactly what the tobacco industry did 50 or 60 years agoy and that is that they are lying. you may recall or read -- i read 60 years ago that the tobacco industry was telling you howg good it was to smoke for your health. well, what the fossil fuel industry today is denying the reality that the scientific community has almost unanimously come to. climate change is real. it is caused be human activity, is already doing devastating harm, and the people most impacted will be for people in this country and poor people p around the world. on top of all of that, if we look at a world of more flooding, and more drought, andd rising sea levels and mass

migrations of people to find a place where they can grow their crops or live in a peaceful way, what you're going to see is with that mass migration, more tension developing within the global community and the potential for more wars.it of all of the embarrassments of the trump administration, the fact that they are rejectingents what the scientific community almost unanimously agrees to is really quite pathetic. the good news is that you're seeing in state after state and around the world, a quite rapid movement to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. the price of solar is plummeting. our job -- i just work with senator jeff berkeley in oregon on legislation. mastiff investments in sustainable energy and energy efficiency. that's the direction we have to go. a a human rights issue.

>> good evening, senator sanders, let me first say -- i'm from bahrain, and i was one of your many, many supporters internationally when you were running for election. my question to you dish want to challenge you on this. think many of us, your sporters in the u.s. and outside, were quite surprised when you signed ton the letter about israel to the secretary general of the u.n., and my question is why? i mean i statue saw your very view where you made the comparison about saudi arabia, which i understand begin i'm from the dcc, but i guess the comparison would be as would the same senators would have -- would they have signed on to a letter if it had been about the apartheid government of south africa? thank you. >> the reason i signed on to this letter, along with every a maybe of the united states senate is simple. the thrust of the throat my mind was not to defend israel. that is what was the media

picked up on. or not to suggest that israel does not have serious human rights violations, but to suggest if the human rightsts commission or committee at the u.n. will be hon, maybe you have to look at egypt where there are tens of thousands of anymore jail, many being tortured. saudi arabia -- i'm not sure if women can drive a car yet, nor russia or other countries. so the thrust of the letter was not per se a defense of israel or denial of i'm rights. it was to say why just israel? let's look at human rights all over the world and human rights violations, including israel but not just israel. >> before i call on rodney, just to say i think the human rights council -- we were very much involved that you're talking about, the reform. would say the human rights council is actually much better now -- jameel is nodding his

head -- there was back problem with the paster on sole focus on israel but that's changed the last few years, so i applaud the question -- not to criticize you, senator sanders, you're in our house and wouldn't do that. opening up discussion on this. great resolutions on egypt and many countries where there are problems. sew the council is gettingtr stronger and we should acknowledge that. but rodney? is that rodney? >> yes. thank you. my name is rodney -- liberia, west africa. aid i'd like to speak to somebody that affect everybody in this room indirectly. the bug for the state department been cut drastically and most countries with human rights organizations like us benefit from the funding. for me, personally, think about women who are being raped every day in liberia and they go unpunished.

victims victimized, and they can't speak out because there's no awareness and everything. i wonder what you as the senator can do to advocate for increased funding -- >> look, understand that most of you know, the way the budgetary process works in the united states is that president makes a proposal. i think its fair to say that his proposal -- not just in the area of the state department but in general -- is going to be dead on arrival.[applause] i think you'll have people in the military saying that, you know what?: from a military perspective, you have got to continue foreign aid. we don't want to fight terrorists in every country in the world. we want people around the world in developing countries to understand that the united states does know that they are problems with hunger, withey doh

education, with women's rights. trump brought forth his budget bit will undergo major changes and i'll do my best to make sure the state department and foreign aid are adequately funded. >> thank you very much. >> senator, i am from pakistan. i am brown and no muslim ban can stop me to come here. i am so glad that you are raising issue of surveillance. it's not happening only in america. but countries like america are setting bad precedence for countries like pakistan, who always get excuse to do mass surveillance. however, also want to raise the issue of not only the muslim ban but also the laptop ban and i call it muslim lapton -- >> what ban? >> latino. >> laptop.

>> it's not only the laptop. >> laptop. >> it's the muslim lapton ban because all people coming from muslim countries cannot carry the laptop in their hand-carry luggage. also asking for their passports regarding their social media condition at the immigration. all these practices being set by america is setting bad precedence for countries like us, and i would like you to lobby around that, that the precedence that america is setting are really not good. >> thank you very much for your remarks and i agree, it is why this particular president wants to create a situation where he is giving ammunition to al qaeda and isis is beyond my comprehension. why do you want to show the world that you are at war with muslims you hate muslim inside it is incomprehendible to me so

we'll do our best to oppose those policies, and i think as you mentioned earlier, thank god we have some good courtli decisions coming down that say that we cannot discriminate against people coming into the country based on their religionl maybe just two more questions. >> there's andrew. >> my name is andrew anderson itch work with an organize called frontline defender but want to ask you about sudan. one of the last things president obama did was to ease sanctions on sudan which are coming up for review at the end of may. sudan continues to wage par -- want on its anytime darfur and new nile and continues to jail human rights defenders, including our friend and frontline defenders, who in the last couple of days had his -- the order for his release

rescinded, and he remains ind prison after five months without charge. i'm hoping that you can use your position in the senate to continue to question the human rights record of sudan and the context of the review of the satisfaction situation -- the sanction situation there. >> thank you very much for your work and something we'll definitely pursue. maybe last question. >> hi, senator sanders, pleasure to speak with you. work here in the carter center's democracy program on our human rights house project for the congo. i should say the human rights struggle in the congo, not the project. i would just like to recognize and it's a pleasure to ask you this because you're in such a position of power, as an ally on the hill, i think we can all recognize that as democracy in the u.s. is threatened, we

certain of see it echo around the world. something we have been talking about all throughout this forum, and so particularly in the u.s., as democracy is compromised, as it deteriorates you see that women and girls, especially women and girls of color, feel it most strikingly, that health threats, economic rights, every facet of life, women and girls of color are really suffering as democracy deteriorates. so i'd like to ask you how in your position of power, in the senate -- >> i wish i was as powerful as you think i was.: if i was we wouldn't be in these straits. >> i read everything you post on facebook. all of my friends do. when you say something, people think about it and they really prioritize it. >> thank you. that makes me very happy. >> they talk about it.

you're talking about it. and so i would like to appeal to you and ask how we can prioritize rights for women and girls of color in the u.s. >> what is going on now -- again, it is so important that we not allow ourselves to accept this as normal. all right? right now, as you know in health bill, that was passed on thursday in the house they want to defunded planned parenthood, taking way the choice of 02.5 million women. trump is thinking about aid to historically black colleges and universities, they're going to try to -- we don't know what he reap percussions are but thekn thinks that kind of funding may be unconstitutional. we have jeff sessions as our attorney general, who thinksat

that maybe we haven't been aggressive enough on the war on drugs, which has been devastating to minority communities all over this country. so, you're quite right. not to mention that the -- there is a war against women's rights to control their own bodies. there will be cutbacks if trump has his way and we'll do everything we can to stop him. there have been -- many of you are part of organizations that are doing your best to protect girls of color around the world so they get good educations, right? so they can good out and find jobs in a nondiscriminatory environment and they want to cut back on those things. so we're in a war on all of those issues, and we need to rally the american -- i certain ly do everything i can to fight for those issues. we can go on and on.

all of you know to this room and not from the united states know something about american history. you know about the struggles. just talking to president carter, in his youth what the south was about in this country. segregated societies. we have struggled for so many years and so many people have went to jail and some have died to try to end this racism, to end the sex -- sexism. think about the struggle of the women -- women didn't have a right to vote. i was a big deal when i was younger, the first woman police officer. what a deal? we have made progress and we have a president who wants toyo rescinds and overturn so much of what has been done in this country across the world. we have to stand united and say, sorry, mr. president, you're not going to get away with that. [applause] >> so, with that, --

>> thank you. >> thank you all. [applause] >> coming up next, results of british parliamentary elections, a look at the recently concluded session of australiays parliament, canada's foreign minister discusses u.s.-canada relations and housing and urban development secretary ben carson talks about helping first-time home buyers. you're watching c-span2. >> in yesterday's elects, britain's ruling conservative party lost 13 seats in house of commons, forcing prime minister teresa may to partner with a minority party. for more, we talked to the "new york times" london bureau chief. >> joined live on the phone with steven erlanger, the londonh us.