>>, a look at the upcoming canadian elections appeared then putin's speech. after that, a forum on the u.s. economy >> sunday, a look get at the eggs and the constitution. then at 4:00 p.m., the daughter of george w. bush talks about her memories of the white house during both her bother's and grandfather's terms. working for the today shaow. that is sunday on c-span. >> elections for the canadian parliament are may 2.

down the canadian broadcasting corporation's nightly news program looks at the campaigns of conservative prime minister stephen harper, and other party leaders. early prime minister harper leads a minority government. he hopes to win a majority of seats in the house of commons. here is the highlight from thursday night's program. this runs 25 minutes. >> a quest for the ethnic vote. our senior correspondent has the story tonight. >> michael leonetti as said today that he did a bunch of interviews. but again trippet people up an embarrassing ways.

>> he did a radio interview with a well-known voice in the punjabi language media. he is part of the separatist movement. >> if you become a prime minister, what would you go on this front? >> he was an odd choice because three weeks ago he denounced the liberals for alleged defamation of the sikh community. he was nearly killed three years ago by an extremist. he has praised the attack on dosanjh and applauded the 1984 assassination of indira gandhi. >> if i was talking to the maters, why was a man who endorsed violence getting a one- on-one with mcnatt diaz -- with michael? >> there is no reason for the endorsement of political violence in any form.

i have been clear about that and i always will. i have no truck or trade with that kind of an polities. >> he will know the head with the interview by pointing out that everyone does it. he has also met with stephen harper, although harper's that said that it was just a picture not an interview. harper has also appeared on cbc. but trouble that ethnic associations are not that liberal problem. this man hosted a tribute to the tigers just last november. >> we have made them a ban group under the act. >> harper deflected questions about that but what about of other conservative that ast four people and ethnic costumes to provide i draft -- a backdrop for harper rally? did and that is bizarre and that is not our approach.

>> there was a counter demonstration. many of the so-called very ethnic writings are also set out for this election. notables and the ethnic communities are not always too picky about who they are. >> it appears the election campaign could soon be rocked by a massive document dump. thousands of secret files about what the harper government knew about the alleged torture of afghan prisoners. the opposition has been demanding to see the documents for three years. why now? our greg westin has the answer for us tonight. >> the election campaign trail may soon be as the third in thousands of top-secret government documents. on canada's role in afghanistan, at issue are more than 10,000 documents on the treatment of afghan prisoners captured by can

eat -- canadian forces and turned over to local party summit. opposition leaders have long accused the harper government of hiding the truth. for the past 10 months, two and supreme court justices have been deciding which documents could be released. but now there is a hitch. an agreement to release the documents to parliament which is shut down until after the election. that agreement was signed by stephen harper, and others. the ndp wanted no part of it. michael would gladly amend the document to get the documents released immediately. >> more informations about the afghan detainees. let the people judge. that is how works in canada, mr. harper. let the people of judge. >> was never necessary to make the affirmation public to parliamentarians, it is an

important issue and we recognize that. >> some of the most contentious documents in his recent history of. to be in the hands of a bloc leader. any of them are a potential political land mine. >> thank you very much. the prime minister offered his take on the campaign so far after delivering a speech in montreal today. it is as about how his party is doing this time around. >> better than expected. but, we will see after the day of the election. we have a good candidate. >> he took that good-natured david stephen harper. when asked about the prospects of a conservative majority. >> most in the countries in the world do not have a majority government. >> is a the nub of the debates

are out of the way, the real campaign can begin. as for last night's french- language debate, one big star a merged. not one of the politicians on stage but a woman from rural quebec. >> a simple question for the leaders. >> she wanted to know what they were doing to help her find a job. her name echoed through the debate. on twitter, there was talk of mugging for her. -- of voting for her. i assure you song. at one moment was night, she was one of the most twisted topics not just in canada but worldwide. she has been compared to joe that the was hailed for talking tough to obama. today at home --

madame paille finds it all ridiculous. >> what is it about the question that are so much interest? she thinks she might have the answer. she says it is a down-to-earth question and that of lot of people like her are out of work. the phone will not stop ringing. most our interview request, but now she has even the politicians calling her. what about the phone calls that she really wanted, a job offer? she says she has had several. >> that is unfortunate. a bit of an audio problem there. something else from the french- language debate, the hot topic of discussion. the english translation. >> can you really imagine an

arrangement between sovereigntists and centralist? in this is a great shame. this is why we're offering un alternative. it is time to choose a new approach. >> viewers commented on the accent's of the interpreters. the interpreters are hard to public works canada. they are not chosen by the parties or by the broadcasters. if you need help interpreting this it in politics, we have the same. a group will be by later in the show. it has been one of those campaign weeks were a lot has happened but what real impact does it all have? time for an assessment. i asked charlie sheen to come by but he did not make it. >> he is looking for place to

smoke. >> we are halfway through the campaign. where are we at aside from being a have a marker? >> it is like a one periods hockey game, where one team starts with two goals up. you have three teams on the ice on the english side, and four on the quebec side. it is a -- the chance of shooting the puck into the wrong has increased exponentially. health care is becoming an increasing is you. we have the prospect for a real race for second. if the ndp gets over 20%, then you have very difficult time for the liberal party or they have to fight on two planes, but the conservatives and the new democrats. then you run the rest of being marginalized with a strong

harper campaign, if it transpires in the last days. a lot of interesting stuff that could still happen. >> you look back to the debate. it is not uncommon for the ndp to come out of the debate with a bit of momentum. is it any different this time in terms of what they can do with that. >> yes, where the liberals discover that they are coming you can see that the parties are all wondering what they came out of and where they really are. once you see where they start going, if you go to places you would not go if you're not making gains, then you'll think that they are in mortal danger. and in the past campaigns, this was always going to be a dangerous campaign for the opposition parties. at the halfway mark, it is a dangerous campaign for the liberals and possibly the ndp. and bill one both of those debates when he was the

conservative leader in the last installment. he barely hung on to his official party status of 12 states. >> where you on all this? >> i am trying to sort out the metaphor. [laughter] we have looked to be tightening before the debate, particularly in ontario, and we do not know what impact it will have. we are flying blind shear. there is a remorseless logic to the prime minister's campaign about crime in this against the coalition. it puts the liberals into a box that they have been trying to break out of, and doing a good job of so far. but the problem of the center- right boaters' looking at them and thinking, if they get pulled left by the ndp, in ndp butter saying, why do they have to

respond to the traditional campaign? i can vote for jack. >> if a string of polls shows that there is a conservative majority, it could be good news for the liberals. that will help focus minds, especially in ontario. >> only if they had a good solid eight-point margin over the new democrats. >> until that happens, and as long we do not have that mushy environment we have had, they will go for number two. the liberals are not able to change the reality that jack layton as votes and others have votes. no longer do you have to look to the other leader. in the old days, you would have the liberals and the other party. and here are some new players

saying that you're no longer the alternative to the liberals. >> he is not have a majority and it is very hard in the current lineup. in 2008, he had a 12-point margin of victory and still cannot get a majority. before, you could always get a majority. with the spread of the vote among five partisan when you get the support for the leading party down into the 30's, you have to get a wider margin over the second party because you have to get a good votes to get their majority. you need to get the liberals down near the ndp level. >> there is a scenario where liberals could win as many seats as they did in 2006 with even less votes. all kinds of different scenarios. if you see movement in the past few weeks. >> i've tried to stay away from polls for a number of different reasons. but what i am trying to do is gauged from other things where the parties at least feel they

may be. they all came out with new ads in the last 24 hours and there are varying degrees of -50 negativity about each other. let's have all looked at them and tried it judge it tells us about what they are thinking about where they are. >> 2011 and michael wants to be prime minister. what has he done for you? he did not bother to show for two thirds of the key confidence votes last year. yet the worst attendance record of all members of parliament. >> michael is a problem with the truth. he told us he never voted in the u.s. election. but at the present, he told them he was a democrat and would vote in the u.s. election. >> stephen harper is demanding absolute power. can you trust him with your health care?

he said that the law that protect universal health care should be scrapped and is open to american-style private, for- profit health care. >> alan, you are the ad expert. what did he tell us about what they're thinking about where they are course a margin there positive campaign is not working. the conservatives have not been able to make any headway since the beginning. the easiest way to mobilize support is seeking people on michael. it and there has been a sense that the liberals may be backing off the hammer. >> not at all. they are not making any headway. off thatrals are moving al the notion of the conservatives are wrong. now they're trying to drag them into social policy.

these are black card account and said cannot be counted to do the right thing for health care. the difficulty is that i am not sure that the ndp does not have better credentials on this. the ndp is probably most interesting. there clearly signaling that they think they do have a shot at second. one of the ways of getting that is to move the levels down to below 20's. >> the easiest way for the ndp to hang onto its voters is to go for the no. 2 spot. that in this case is the best offense. >> so they are saying they cannot stop stephen harper and no one can. i pushing stephen harper factually because they need to beat the liberals. they have to stop their votes from coalescing behind michael.

the health care stuff, actually the conservative record might be better than the liberal record on health care. they're the ones who cut half of the provinces. stephen harper very skillfully was behind the health care accord and never tested. he is bulletproof in self in this campaign and said, i'm going to increase its 6% a year. it is very hard to find anything that could be construed as an attack on the health care system from leader harper. >> focus in on both the tory in the ndp adds, he is either a great asset or he is vulnerable. it is more the latter will. he came in as an ongoing quantity. he did not have a strong english-language debate. the liberals are trying to go after the tories. what they have been doing is

demanding absolute power, which is difficult to top. but they tied that autocratic tendency to what they hope will be the vulnerability on health care. but having said and that the first day when they'll announce that would increase spending by 6% per year, it may be bought politics. i don't think anyone sensible things that we will have to scrap health care because the tories are going to take $4 billion out. you can get $4 billion out of spending without scrapping the health act. the big threat is the aging of the population, the demographic bulge. that is the big threat that no one is facing up to. >> the advantage for both parties is that this is an issue of caring. on that front, they beat the conservatives every time. >> the i am puzzled about what is happened to the liberals. if you are right, it flies in the face of a lot of the

commentary of the first half of the campaign. >> they ran a good campaign. >> he looks better than a lot of people thought that they would do. he did not badly in the debate. questions about the english language debate but not last night. why is he in trouble? why is the ndp rising against him? why are there levels rising and his are either -- >> i do not think that they're running a bad campaign, but they are on a percussion of thin air. there's nothing to sustain it. frankly, when i look of those ads and i listen to what we have been saying, the liberals were always the big goose of federal politics and both of them are plucking it in front of our rise. it does not matter if we say that they were both so bad. in many regions of the country, there is no liberal and a structure. it is not going to win many.

not going to happen. >> where are you on this question are >> i think we might be in to the territories as a self-fulfilling prophecy. i think the liberals have a good couple of two weeks. but as much as we talk about the commitment and the motivation of the conservative base, there is a very committed and that as conservative base out there. it is looking for a home and away the stop for those who believe the conservative government is bad government. if it looks like the liberals are on the wane, that will look for someplace else. you may have this notion that nothing is happening with ignatieff, we better start looking around. >> levels are interested in going after the left-wing vote. they need to push the ndp way down. all of their platform is aimed at that. they did not succeed at that,

then it is bad news for them. much of the conservative campaign rests on the idea that the liberals cannot possibly form a government on the room. they're too far back. all let that happen -- as long as that is inevitable, and center-right voters think about shifting back to the tories. >> if they need to knock the ndp of early, it ain't over until it is over. three weeks is a long time. we will see what happens. thank you all. our interviews with national leaders continue next week. we offered them two options. traveling with them on the road or here in the studio. jack layton takes option #1 in the report will be seen monday. michael ignatieff picked up option #2 and will be in this to you on tuesday. stephen harper has agreed to take part. we're still working out the details. not surprisingly, rex murphy has

his own thoughts on the debates. what is on your mind? >> these are fairly straightforward. we do need in every region and national debate during our presidential campaign. that is coming up on open with the national." a choice between hauck your politics? i apologize for using a technical term here, a no- brainer. but the english-language debate attracted 4 million canadians to their televisions. there cannot be 4 million shut ins and can -- in canada so we have to conclude a fair portion watched voluntarily, deliberately. there were hockey games, most involving feet habs. yet many less than 4 million viewers.

the canadians are not the apathetic turned off from politics bunch we are often betrayed 4 million tv viewers, up there with the more civilized survivor shows. did canadians -- give canadians access to their politics and they will watch. they do care. but there is one major flaw in the process. most canadians, despite their bilingual nature, one debate is not enough. the french debate proved this very point. it was so much more substantive and particular than the english debate because essentially it was all about one region. none of the leaders could simply float above the issues, resting on a cloud of cliches and platitudes, launching a tight little one liners and put downs.

he had to engage substantively with the voters of quebec. why shouldn't every reason of the country have exactly the same benefit during a national campaign? there is no way one debate can attend to the complexities and particularities of british columbia, our great north, newfoundland, alberta, ontario and others. canadian elections short changed voters who want to engage by limiting the numbers of encounters with the leaders. they should engage in every region of the country what they can see to cut back, a debate on its territory and on its issues. the very size of our country imposes different patterns and dynamics on all its regions. how our federal elections are really five or six mini- campaigns.

they should debate at least once in every region. here in candid that they pop off there haven't little helmet heads above the trenches once in english, once in french, fiercely trying to stay on message for a bear two hours, then they go on challenge an uncontested for the entire rest of the campaign. it is also a matter of political equity. each region should have at least as much claim on its national leadership as quebec. we should not treat those regions or provinces outside quebec, which has no separatist party, with less consideration in our federal election than cutback which does have one. for the national, i am wreck's murphy. >> next, the russian mind -- the russian prime minister speaks to the duma. then a forum on equality in the

u.s. economy. and then three former secretaries of state discuss the value of diplomacy. >> now available, the c-span congressional directory, complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. new and returning house members with contact information including twitter redresses, district maps, and committee assignments. information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governor. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> in his annual address to the russian parliament known as the duma, prime minister vladimir potent spoke to members of the state of the country's economy. his entire speech lasted several hours and included questions from members. he praised russia's efforts to maintain stability to the global economic crisis and talked about increasing the country's defense spending and modernizing the weapons programs. he also answered questions concerning anti-government

programs in the middle east and internet freedom and security. here is a 50-minute portion of that event. >> the russian government is presenting its report on the work of the government for 2010. i believe that this is our common accomplishment, that russia and in this challenging period avoided serious at shops and risks. and those risks were real. they could have weakened the country, its economic and human potential, and the critical lowering of social standards. you remember that in 2008 the world prices started as a purely financial crisis, and then the problems led to structural

breakdown in the global economy. in many countries, those that imbalance of fiscal balances, literally a few days ago, you probably heard about this, portugal had to ask the european union for emergency financial assistance. earlier other countries asked for assistance -- greece and iceland still in challenging position. many of our neighbors in europe at to either raise retirement ages or freeze pension benefits and welfare benefits. in france, you perhaps heard about it, their retirement age was raised to 65 years. and equally applies to both males and females. , that passed a law

that would have a phase-in the raising up to 65. it would be deferred, but the decision was made. at the height of the economic crisis, some countries such as greece, poland, and latvia made the decision unfreezing pension benefits. the world economy is on the recovery right now. it could lead to social tensions in many countries and entire regions of the war. we see the consequences unpredictable. you have probably heard now that they lowered the sovereign rating of the united states and experts are saying the most likely this is just electoral gambling. republicans are implicated. nevertheless, this was negatively affecting the economy. the lesson for us is that

economics and governments and the weakness in the face of external shocks will affect the national sovereignty. let's be frank. in the modern world, if you are weak, there will be someone who would like to come over or fly over and give you ed buys on which way to move, which path to choose, and with policy to pursue. all this is seemingly kind types of advice. they seem harmless, behind them is a willingness to dictate policy and interfere into sovereign, internal affairs. we all low and understand that on this issue, all parliamentary factions take the unified position and i am thankful to you for this attitude. [applause] all like to emphasize, we have to be instant -- independent

strong. most important, we have to produce policies that meets the interests of citizens of our own country and then they will support you in our undertakings. over the years i've visited a lot of reasons, virtually all of them, and i have been to hospitals and schools and met with servicemen, teachers, and medical practitioners. this situation is a lot. in 2009 and 2010, a lot of people encountered a lot of difficulties. they dealt with the layoffs with the difficulties of doing business. all of us know that this crisis came to us from outside, but in the course of combating it, they would never use this excuse that

these are external situation is coming even though we cannot really influence and never tried to dodge responsibility, and took it upon ourselves in the full extent. russia is a social welfare state. in any situation, we will never reneged on our social commitments and the promises we gave to the citizens of the russian federation, and the government guarantee that. this is what we have accomplished. the country going through serious economic challenges and taxes at a large deficit. nevertheless it was able to buy

more than 250,000 apartments free of charge to service and war veterans. there was also a plan of rehabilitation of other housing. in 2010, an event -- benefit pensions were increased. high-tech centers were opened. that large-scale demographic program was continued. we adjusted for inflation all the social programs, including maternal capital, just as we -- just as we promised in the beginning of the year. in 2007, we increased 1.5 times the financing of education. it was financed and a volume of

two times before, science. starting in 2009, we started economic growth. in 2010, we were increasing hard gdp by 4%. this is the best rate in all of the g-8 countries. in the first quarter, we would have 4.4% growth. it would mean by 2012, the russian economy in the full extent will be compensated for losses during the years. we've heard the forecast of the russian economy will fully cover 2013-2014, and will do before that. this is not wishful thinking. this is based on sound economic analysis. but today we have to look ahead and concentrate our resources on reservations of our industry and infrastructure. we need to use the potential

that each region has. before the end of the year, the russian federation will approve long-term strategies for all of russia. it will give emphasis to qualitative growth and the development of the russian territory. we have specialized programs for development for particular regions such as the northern caucasus. today we have the projects in the far east up and running. we have quality of investments, and we will in our dependency on the exports of raw materials. we will suppress corruption that is pulling us back and demoralizing our society. russia's should become a competitive country. this is a basic requirement for government, for business, and the social sphere.

in 10 years, we have increased our productivity two times, and in some sectors of the economy, to three or four times. we should create a sense of innovation of to 35%. in previous years, we were able to increase productivity through 42% which is a pretty good figure. in gdp, russia should become one of the five leading economies of the war. in gdp per capita, we are trying to get a level of $35,000 per capita. this would be higher than today's indicators in such countries like italy and france. but they are not standing in one place. those are today's indicators. we need to stabilize the growth of the population and provide

access to quality health care and education. dignified pensions for a massive middle class. today with of the dissipation of a wide range of experts, we are finalizing our 2020 strategy. we talk about new reserves for our growth and properly emphasizing priorities. in its capabilities, and ability to self-reliance and self initiate. i am convinced only that this would be the foundation for high growth rate and inspired technological breakthroughs. the country needs decades of sustainable and tranquil growth

without tumbling around and going from one extreme to another and social experiments based either on extreme resolution or social demagoguery. we do not need either extreme. that will distract us from the steady course. of course we need to preserve our civil and enter ethnic accords and tried to impose rigid oppose any attempts to bring a split -- and try to oppose any attempts to bring a split. we need to find solutions that will allow our country to move forward and build strong innovative economies. each year, growth should bring real improvement in the life of citizens or the majority of russian families. this is the core ideal of our policies. dear colleagues -- in the

beginning of 2010, it was forecast that we go through long stagnation or a second wave of a crisis. they got it did not come true. -- thank god it did not come true. it and not just because of fate and destiny and the prices and commodities, but about 30% growth for our main our sport items such as oil and gas and chemicals, and the machinery really helped. all major world car companies are present in russia. right now we're putting up new demands on global sourcing. and of course, this is not a

simple dialogue with our partners, but in general they understand our demands and they are making a step forward and we have a good local sourcing at 70%. we should have an output not at 25,000 cars but at 300,000 cars. the numbers are important because when you have the numbers that i, it makes economic sense to relocate production. our counterparts understand that both on the engine and the other parts. high level of local sourcing is our principle approach to building investment and technological cooperation, and not just in the automotive industry, but heavy machine building, shipbuilding, and medical equipment. for example, we give a billion dollar contract to a foreign

company for medical equipment. we have to be adamant in our desire to have foreign partners be able to relocate their industries to russia. we're planning to establish 17 research and development centers for developing new pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. domestic and foreign companies in 2010 alone have already invested in russia more than 40 billion rubles for the production of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. we're setting up partnerships with leading manufacturers from

europe and southeast asia, building new shipyards and specializing in promising an area such as icebreakers and drilling platforms. in 2010, russian ship building grew at 8%. i will repeat again, our main goal is to have the entire production cycle over the territory of russia starting with research and development and the output. mass production of goods and products, very important to have this in russia and maintain higher levels of technological production and engineering cultures. the experience of recent years demonstrated that we're successful of modernizing and giving impulses to the entire

sectors of the economy. we worked out an effective and universal model including targeted support, using the finances of other development institutions, if necessary, form a strategic alliance with foreign partners. as you know, we have established a fund for direct investment in russia and and all large-scale project. we would funded in the amount of 62 billion rubles. we considered the highest priority of this project. we would suggest to transfer additional 10 billion roubles from oil and gas revenues. how will address this issue later. we have to be very careful about it.

but it is an absolute priority in forming new structures of our economy. as an exception, we suggest to transfer 10 billion rubles of oil and gas revenues into this fund. and along with the measures, we think barriers for investment in our strategic sectors will increase the flow of capital in russia. we believe to get at the level of 60. dollars are $70 billion of foreign investment investment, in 2010 the influx to russia was at $40.5 billion. we're planning to modernize and perfect in order to stimulate high-tech production on russian territory. on the other hand, not to create additional barriers of the importation of high-tech equipment not produced in russia.

we should priorities right. it is more efficient to buy licenses and technologies abroad, it will give a fast return. and we can create our own breakthroughs. we need to invest into r&d. i know that the deputies made suggestions in this regard and we will certainly take them into account. the government is planning to support innovation activities for our users. expenditures for r&d, and subsidized loans for this purpose. last year more than 70 billion rubles were provided from the federal budget. a prospective model of a public/private model a partnership would be these they join interest of government,

business, and science are brown the new manufacturing. -- or round of the new manufacturing. there will also be benefits of quitting special economic zones and technological parks. the government has invested 60 billion rubles and to these enterprises. this year we will spend another 17 billion rubles. i would remind you that today in russia there are 24 special economic zones. in the 12 regions, we have technological parks in the high- tech industry. in these clusters, we already have 600 resident companies registered. and the range is wide. from madison to consumer electronic, from nano-technology to construction materials, and they're planning investments there of about 300 billion rubles. i like to attract your attention to this. we're not principally focusing on what is going on in moscow. this is going on throughout the

entire russian territory. a singular breakthrough, in particular, dealing with projects that should go toward massive wide range support of domestic companies with their trail brazing in trying to find ways -- trail blazing. we need to ensure exports. and that this company will take part in financial risk and will let our exporters build our capacity. to provide guarantees and insurance, about $1 billion. we are planning up to $14 billion. in the interest of the development of our industry and economy, we are using expenditures of integration.

2010 was the year of the birth of talks of union between russia, belarus, and another country. we have a unified customs code. this is is appreciate these opportunities. i think this is an historic event. for the first time in the post- soviet space, we have a real genuine integration. [applause] in 2012, within the customs union, yet the unified system of technical standards and regulations. it will be an important element of industrial policy. through the renovation of standards, it will put best this is rich -- he will push businesses toward modernizing. including our partners in europe, and from customs, we

will make a step toward a unified economic space. starting january 1, 2012, we will have unified markets with unified legislation and the free flow of the goods, services, and people. in the near future, we will have important economic policy in key sectors of the economy. it will be genuine integration and a break there. it will radically change economic and geopolitical configurations of eurasia. i will emphasize, the custom union and the economic space is open to other countries. i believe that this initiative and our suggestion to our european union could create a harmonized economic space and will eventually be supported.

i know that the reaction is generally positive. we're talking about dialogue and economic partnership and possibly have sons of free trade. and more and advanced forms of economic intervention. we have something, and strive for because we have a market worth $3 trillion euro -- 3 trillion lire. we ask our partners to remove some bottlenecks that they have to create infrastructure. the third point would be canceling entry visas to europe. and we talk about it a lot. our dear colleagues, i like to point to a situation under defense industry and aviation

industry, considering the fact that there were a lot of request from deputies in this regard. in a time of crisis we reneged on our commitment and support of this industry. between 2009 and into a dozen 11, we invested many rubles and we were able to promote projects that have to do with civil and military. we were to consolidate our aviation production company with convoluted legislation. we were moving very slowly and there were a lot of special interests and provisions there. but as a result the entire conflict skimmed over board. we will be reviving production

of cargo planes. a superjet 100 is being readied for supply. 160 orders have been received. they will release at least 10 of these aircraft this year. they could receive the first airplane. i was pleased to see how they work to progress. east, oname to the far as one side people are misspeaking italian, on the other side russian. this is the first russian aircraft designed entirely in digital format. this is a positive event. know, theay's no first 100 landed.

it is symbolic that it bears the name of ernesto. -- of our national hero. 21,e still working on ms our breakthrough project. this is mid range aircraft with a new engine and a new composite wing. and we have a new generation of fighters and we are building a new centrifuge. and we have a good foundation there in the previous decades and primarily is soviet times. they will manufacture experimental materials for a new generation aircraft. i believe that at the foundation of our aviation industry is being laid down very solid and

we will meet all interest in demands of russia both in military and civilian aircraft. renovation of aircraft systems and weapons systems was one of the priority for russia. aircraft brigades already received new weapon systems and in the near future, there will be production of new weapons systems for s-500 possible be able the miss jimmy to military tasks. >> be able to meet to military task. this is starting in 2013 and the production of strike missiles will be doubled. in 2013, we're planning to

start flight testing of a launcher, light and heavy. by 2015, the launcher would be finished. it will be launched from a national civilian launchings site. construction on now will start this year and it would be fully independent. we have only one launching site in existence now was real quick for civilian purposes. there was no dedicated launching site. going back to defense issues, the very first time in the history of russia, lifestyle appropriation, 3 trillion rubles

will be promoted for the development of the russian navy. this is part of the program of modernization. we're planning to expand a scary rubles.20 treblillions this is a threefold increase. it has to do now with our desire to have a military-heavy budget. the thing is that a lot of weapons systems are now obsolete. they need to be replaced. of course we need to replace them with a new highly technological weapon systems. we're planning to modernize the entire defense industry. we can make new weapons systems and new hardware and equipment. in 10 years, we will spend more than three trillion rubles.

more than 200 billion rubles will be spent on regional development, there will be dual use them because of that, the increase in our military, we will see a formal organization of defense industry itself and the entire continent of russia. military contractor in has to be done rhythmically and timely. we certainly have issues and problems there. our deputies were appropriately pointing out these issues. we will keep an eye on it. but we accomplished a lot. compared to pre-crisis 2007, the military and defense industry output increased 1.5 times.

in 2010, 75% of investment in the defense industry. it was for procurement of equipment. up to 75% of investment for new equipment and hardware. now we are observing the process of accelerated formation and foundation for manufacturing new weapon systems. we have young people going into the defense companies. & d,verage age in our indiar 41.5%. not%. years, of course. next year we have a targeted recruitment of 50,500 students

required by the industry. during this year, we will play bonuses to more accomplished engineers. in the recent years, many children were born. the increment was 35,000 children. one of the best-selling indicators is average life expectancy. today, it is 69 years. in 2000 yet that in 2005, it was 65 years. a good increase. four years. who is getting free apartments? please carefully follow the process. it is pretty good growth.

at the same time, the results of defenses demonstrate how fragile and unfavorable -- we have many sore point. it is evident to us that economic policy has to be pursued and continued. we will continue pursuing regardless of the difficulties. we will do everything to a force of the demographic trends and support families with children. all aspects are important, creating jobs, flexible tax busty, housing issues, it up and up our health care and education system, big government. there were tax deductions initiated for people with children. there was assistance with registering for land for families with more than three children. i will have to go back to the

address of the president last year. it was focusing on the rejection of the total health and child health and improving the market. this is our common strategy for preserving nations in the russian penetration. between 2011 and 2016, we expect the project to receive 1.5 trillion rubles. what we are hoping for, what we're trying to achieve in 2015 is the increase in life expectancy up to 71 years compared to 2006. the death rate would be lower. looking at the trends that we have now, it is an achievable results. the thing is that we keep up

the pace. russia and brought the city is often criticized. it is quite justified. today, we are talking about a substantial improvement in public administration. we are talking about fighting corruption. try to make people responsible and eliminate any conditions for seeking bribery. we need to clean our regulations and laws. we started procedures from googles and big areas. the new law on licensing has been lowered by half. licenses will have no expiration date.

starting in 2012, licensing procedures will be put -- will spare businesses from going door-to-door. and now in the about cert. this is an important aspect. it seems monday, but it is where we have 78% of all government services. now it is only 46%. we will further lower this bar. in many cases, producers will self-declare compliance. i will give a short reference. in the past years, more than 600,000 small and medium-sized

businesses were launched. this was serious growth in wake of the crisis. local authorities are supporting entrepreneurship. it should be more open. we should have rankings of the effectiveness in the russian federation. despite differences in the budget and crisis measures, we are going to support small business involvement. innovation and technology in the defense industry for entrepreneurs who work in the social sphere. we will also with financing. we will provide services by the

government at the local regional level. we are talking about integrated communications and regional and agency based data banks. from june 2011, all necessary coordination of inquiries will be done by the agencies themselves and will use citizens as messengers. the citizens would prefer a traditional forms of preceding government services in the person. that can be done. the entire procedure should not be too cumbersome. there will be multi functional centers that will be based on the principle of a single window. we have 170 of those. in two years, we will have 800 of those.

by june of 2012, there will be a schedule for government services. fees will be charged based on the tax code and the charges by the government. additional payments above those schedules will be illegal. the government will suggest a new initiative. we would like citizens to be involved in the governing process. we would like to arrange for public hearings of all socially significant bills and drafts of laws. this could be done and balding the widest range of experts.

recently, i was talking about the deeds of health care. we talk about it everywhere. i realize that people do not know about what is being done. it makes suggestions. i think we should not just laid out the drafts and put them up on the website so that people can look at them, but also have public deliberation of them and use the system of electronic voting so people can describe which is more appropriate and important for them. a lot of leading countries in cooperate more and more the system of open government. they and about the citizens in the decisionmaking process. we should have acted civil engagement and recommendations and advice given by independent

experts. we will lose on speed, but equality will be improved. please allow me to conclude by saying three years ago, here in this chamber, we laid out a new program for the parliament. we had more challenges than anticipated. we had to move forward and by the crisis and protect the citizens from the crisis and the fans every accomplishment in education and health care. we had to increase potential for growth. i can say that this was a successful-forward.

the government will do everything possible to make sure the economy is following the trajectory of positive growth and the well-being of russian families will grow. we are guided by the principal, listen to people. we are not planning to step away from the principal line. support of citizens always helped us. we used it as a support in making important decisions. we will do everything to learn this trust. thank you for your patience and attention. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. recent political events in our country and in the world proved that the internet played an important role in mobilizing people. we have an opportunity of formal and free communication between the people. users are not afraid to express their ideas. and upcoming parliamentary campaign in russia can lead to a crackdown on this issue. there is a possibility of blocking access to internet sites. our action is convinced that this is impermissible. we do not want to go back to 1937. we believe these actions will

lead to discontent and will destabilize the situation. this is something that bureaucrats are trying to fight against. we would like to hear the principle position of the government in censorship of the internet and would like to hear your personal opinion. >> i do not recall that they had the internet in 1937. it was a joke. what is the difference between the central committee and the secret police? in the central committee, they are clicking and in the secret police, they are clapping. the internet is just a tool. it is a tool for solving important economic and social problem. it is a tool for communications and self expression.

it is a tool for the quality of life and getting information. the main internet resources are not owned by us. they are across the pond. in our own the overseas. they cause concern. there is the potential for using these important resources for purposes that go against the interest of our society and our country. as far as i am concerned, i do not believe there is a need to restrict anything. >> the wave that rolled across the moslem and arab world. there are other peoples and civil disobedience that affected the world economy.

the question is, what does the government do? it is no secret that we had large contracts with these countries. our companies were working there. there was distribution of the financial blow and the migration flows. right-wing parties come to power. they want to restore borders between countries of the european union. what does the government do in order to be least affected by the changes brought by those revolutions that are happening and how we will happen in the near future? >> the main guarantee to avoid social of people is a social economic policy in the interest of the russian people.

with mandatory positive results in our joint work. if people see that we are working and defending their interests, we yield positive results. their living standards are improving. i assure you, there will be no problems that have to do with maintaining civil court in our country. of course, there will always be isolated elements that will be attempting to destabilize things just like in any healthy body. there are some harmful bacteria there.

but they are suppressed by the immunity. if the immunity starts to deteriorate, there are plans to stabilize it. we have a multi-billion contract in defense and other sectors, transportation and energy. of course, they are now up in the air. in some areas, we already provided services and the work has been done. it is not paid for. it has been suspended in some parts of the world.

we had plans to supply weapons systems. this is a huge problem. our companies produced according to the contract large amounts of weapons systems, but there is nobody to take it. what do we do with this inventory? it was not requested or commissioned by our military. they do not need it. resources were spent. we need to support these companies. we will find ways to do it. it will require additional resources from us, maybe direct support from the budget. it is not pleasant, but it is not terminal. we will solve these issues. >> up next, a forum on equality and the u.s. economy. later, a discussion on the

regional impact of the middle east protest. >> all this month we have been between the winners of c-span student video documentary competition. now meet the top three winners and see their videos this monday, tuesday, and wednesday mornings. meet the winners live during c- span is "washington journal." >> now, discussion on long-term economic goals for the u.s.. economists and business leaders discuss how to achieve economic growth that is racially class inclusive. this is just over two hours. >> if you would just take your seats, we are about to start.

thank you. >> good morning, and in as vanessa cárdenas, the director of progress 2050. we seek to discuss the implications of the democratic change in our nation -- demographic change in our nation. by 2015, our country will become an increasingly diverse nation. -- 2050 our country will become an increasingly diverse nation. exports and implications of demographic change by identifying a promoting ideas and policies inclusive of people of color. promoting a message and from works for the focused on the promise of diversity by developing new leaders in collaboration between mainstream institutions and organizations that work with communities of color. we're very pleased to co- sponsor this event with policylink, a national research institute that seeks to a dance the economic and social equity. we will hear from noted experts

to discuss the relationship between economic inclusion and long-term economic growth and about policy changes that create an economy that works for all americans. we're looking forward to the discussion. with that, i would like to welcome angela glover blackwell, founder and ceo of policylink. [applause] >> i am delighted to be here and thrilled we're having this conversation because i think it is a conversation that is long overdue and we need to really explore in depth what it is that is going to be required for us to create a society in which everyone can participate and prosper. we are an organization at policylink dedicated to equity. what do i mean? just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate and prosper. as we think about the future and

think about the future of this nation and what the challenges will be, equity looms as one of the things we're going to have to understand in depth, develop strategies to pursue it, policies that support it and measures that allow us to know how we are doing as we go along the bank why? because we think the future depends on what we do about equity. let me say a word about what i think some of the major challenges are we're going to have to confront as we go forward. one of those is going to have to -- will have is focusing on the middle class. the middle class is will rubble and at risk. the middle-class is one of the things that all agree has absolutely made this country strong. you can identify any poor country in the nation. what makes it port is not the absence of rich people, but the absence of a middle-class. so many people who are low income. the united states does not want to become one of those places.

we have to figure out how to have that stable and secure middle-class that has been the hallmark of the nation. we will have to focus also on how we remain competitive in the global economy, how do we have the work force we're going to need to actually be a continuing force. we're going to have to come to grips with climate change and with this nation is contributing to it. all of those challenges, i think, will be tied to how we deal with the nation's changing demographics. the census data coming out is telling us what we knew, but telling us what we thought would happen is happening even more quickly than we expected. we are a nation now in which 46.5% of those under 18 are people of color. we know we will become a nation in which the majority of people of color by around 2019. we thought by 2050 we would become a nation which the majority of people would be of color and now expect that will

happen 2042, possibly earlier. as we think about where we are in this nation, changing our demographics, we have to come to grips with the things we have not come to grips with at all. those are even more important than they have been in the past. for example, we have not ever dealt with our racial divide in this nation. we have made progress, made a lot of progress, but the racial divide continues. that divide is turning into a generational divide. we are a nation in which 80% of those who are seniors are white. we are a nation in which 46.5% of those who are under 18 are of color. california is already to the point where those over 65 are 60% of those over 65 and older are white.

as we look at how we have failed to embrace the other, the well-being of the other, to become a nation that is one, it is clear our racial divide has become a generational divide because the lack of support for education and for help the communities, because we have not really thought everybody deserves that means that even if you are quite in this nation in dependent on public education, you're facing a public education system that is failing you. our racial divide is becoming a generational divide. even if you are white and lived in an urban area, suffering from years of disinvestment, you experience being in a community that does not have the support you need in order to thrive. our racial divide is becoming a generational divide. if we think about how we go forward, how we secured a middle-class, how we develop the work force we're going to need, how we deal with climate

change of getting out of our cars and moving around on public transportation -- which requires we're comfortable sitting next to the other, if we try to start this problem out board and begin to use the infrastructure investments we have already made, begin to return to cities, return to the older suburbs, we have to make those places people will want to go to. people will not return to communities where schools are not good, no pressure stores, amenities that are required. -- a grocery stores, do not have the amenities that are required. we need to invest in places that we have not been investing in for decades. it seems when we step back and the about the demographic shifts happening which are inevitable, that we are obliged to actually ask ourselves -- how do we grow? how do we remain competitive? what is the future hold? those of us who have been

talking about equity, just and fair conclusion, have been talking about for decades as something that we should do because it is the right thing to do. we have been talking about it often from the standpoint of communities that are latino, african-american communities, and thinking about morally, how we finally meet our obligation as a nation to make sure all are included? and while the conversation has to continue because it is the right conversation have, i think we have gone to the point in our development that equity is not just a cry from special interest groups, not just a crowded to the right thing, but equity has become the imperative.

equity, it is in fact, the superior growth model for the nation. we want to think about that today. is it true? does it have merit? what do need to know before we can pursue it? i think american can see its future. it is a 5-year-old latina, 7- year-old black boy. what we do for them will determine what we do for ourselves, that we know where the future lives, what the future needs. we just need to step up and do the right thing because it is the best thing to do for the nation. thank you. i want to introduce the panel that will begin this discussion and start off by introducing the president of the center for american progress, john podesta, will moderate the first panel. it is equity the superior growth model? [applause] >> are we in the house? yes. i invite the panel up.

thank you. welcome to the center for american progress. thank you vanessa cárdenas for leading our progress 2050 and angela glover blackwell, a great partner of ours. we worked on tremendous work together on trying to actually produce results to try to alleviate poverty and try to provide policy ideas that come in fact, found their way into some of the recovery provisions. it is great to be back in partnership with you. with a great panel to explore the link between a strong economy and broadly shared growth. frankly, a linkage i think that is short shrift in washington, d.c. i look forward to getting into this in some depth. i will start with a couple of framing comments and at a little bit to what angela said, who did a tremendous job. the principle that greater

opportunity for all results in greater prosperity for all. i believe that lies at the heart of the american promise and the promise of american experience. it drove millions of people to come here. it still does today. people come here in search of greater economic freedom. it allows the united states to emerge as the world's economic powerhouse, and the clean middle-class nation. the american dream in the 20th century was not just aspirational. it really was the operating system for a tremendous engine of economic growth. unfortunately, i think the tides have changed. we seem to have rejected 100 years of economic history and experience in order that the conventional wisdom, i think, now has become that in order to fairly sure the fruits of the economy, we have to sacrifice growth in the united states.

i think that is an assumption that is not borne out by our history. but you see it, i think, embodied and economic theories pushed ford in the u.s., particularly, in the blueprint for the federal budget which has been passed by the house of representatives which would shred the social safety net to provide even more tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest americans. yet our experience tells us an equitable growth does not make our country or economy stronger. we have had 30 years i think of trickle-down economic policies. quality is worse today than it has been since 1928. we will get to the statistics and a bit with our panel. we are releasing a paper today at the back of the room that focuses on the linkage between

equity, diversity, and growth in our economy today. i you'll permit me, bill and served together in the clinton administration. sometimes i think we have attached the conducted an experiment in america between 1992 and 1993 and 2008 for two different visions about the way one needs to drive economic policy, one focused really on investing in people and human capital vs one i think i would characterize as sort of trickle-down between the eight years of clinton and eight years of president bush when he cut taxes for the very wealthiest americans. we have some results from that experiment. just to tick off a fruits -- a few, we have a little booklet or hold out that we give you the comparison between those

approaches. growth was twice as strong during the eight years of clinton as to meet eight years of bush. job growth was 10 times as strong during the eight years of clinton. that was even before the great recession. household income went up by 6000 or $6,500 during those eight years, dropped by $2,500 under bush. i guess i need to get to the fact we left the administration with a $300 surplus that turned into $1.20 trillion deficit by the time president obama came into office wages were up, poverty went down under clinton. i think that is a mine experiment about what is produced just not more equitable distribution of

income, but a stronger growth model. that is why we here at the center have begun to explore this relationship between middle-class, the support for the middle class and economic growth both globally through our network and domestically through our progress 2050 initiative and other work of our economic team. we're lucky to have three of the world's leading experts joining us for the discussion. and introduced them. -- let me introduce them. one of dr. manuel pastor, prof. of geography and american studies and ethnicity at the university of southern california. he has extensively researched economic, and terminal and social conditions facing low

income, urban communities in the u.s. -- environmental and social conditions facing low-income urban communities in the u.s. welcome. he worked closely with our california office. we're glad to have you here in washington. next, emanuel says, director for center of equitable growth and the morris cox professor of economics at the university of california berkeley. measuring changes in determining how taxation affects income savings. his theoretical and sites are greatly enhancing our understanding of the relationship between income and tax policy, in particular, and reinvigorating the field of public economics. it is an honor to have you join us today.

finally, my friend bill spriggs, assistant secretary policy at the u.s. department of labour. he has worked as an educator, researcher, advocate for working families and low income communities for over 25 years. we're pleased to have you here today. both as a representative of the administration and really a longtime expert an advocate on these matters. i want to begin by doing something that is unusual in washington, which is, let's start with the facts before opinion. maybe we will set a new president and washington. maybe i'll start with you, emanuel. i described a little bit about what is happening over the past 30 years. where do we stand today with respect to distribution of income and equity in the economy? >> thank you, john. this summarizes most of what

has happened in the united states. this chart shows to the fraction of total income went to the top 1% families of almost a century in the united states. the last part of the graph shows a dramatic increase in the share of total income going to the top 1% with less than 10% back in the late 1970's to a peak of 23.5% in 2007, just before the great recession. what is striking in this graph is and come was also very high in the pre-great depression period. the second peak is just before the great depression. then you have the great depression, the new deal

policies, world war ii and the u.s. was transformed into a society that was much more economic equality. that was associated with the very high growth level. in contrast, in the 1970's, growth and income concentration has increased dramatically. why is that relevant? the numbers here, the surge in incomes is so large that it forces us to reassess how we evaluate a macroeconomic success or macro economic growth. we often hear the u.s. is growing faster than continental europe. that is true, but if you restrict yourself to the bottom

99%, exclude the top 1% i am showing, it is no longer the case that real income per family is growing faster in the u.s. than in continental europe. effectively, the top 1% here is capsuled over half the total economic growth and the income measure of that time. you have to divide by two to know what is happening to the vast majority of american families. >> bill, can you drill down a little bit on this from the perspective of the racial wage and wealth gaps in the country? that is an overall picture of what has happened in the u.s. economy, but take it down a level to the racial complexion that underlies that data. >> we had to be experts in movement toward inequality toward equality. -- we had two big spurts. around world war two, and the 1960's with a civil war ax bridge both close the gap, but stalled. we have had sort of a persistent gap by gender, by race that is pretty much stayed the same in terms of wage gaps

since the 1970's. of course, we have been plagued by this persistent unemployment gap where, for african- americans, it is typically two to one, and his bare-bank hispanic americans, 1.5 to 1. we have not seen those things close as much as we would up hoped. the gaps i'm speaking of after control for education. i'm not speaking of the movement or progress we have made because of educational improvement, both in the latino and african-american community, or for women as well. so those things are in issue. the problem from a policy perspective is how to reach folks when you want to try and address something like the downturn the had, and kind of an oxymoron to say the bottom

60%, but the bottom 60% of families control about 20% of income. so when the bottom 60% controls 20% of income and a major fiscal policy tool is used taxes, well, they do not have the income to drive a major tax confusion. these problems then become very serious. >> was the recession and equal opportunity recession or has the affects on wage growth and household wealth been concentrated itself at the bottom? >> on the wealth gap, more persistent gap even an income,

we really have made no progress. we had a small bump up in homeownership for latinos and african-americans during the 1990's and into the housing boom. that has gone away. while all americans have lost equity in their homes, this has been far more severe for african-american and latino families where the foreclosure collapse, those neighborhoods have been hit severely. perhaps the more serious thing going for it is this persistent wealth gap. >> manual, thing for a little bit and reflect on what the country is going to look like and what these trends looked like from the perspective both of equity and growth. we have dubbed this project project 2050 and probably thought about calling the project 2042 when the country's projected to be minority. that did not seem to sink.

angela went over this in some detail, but with the country becoming more and more built with immigrants and racial minorities, what are these trends pretend for both growth and equity? >> i think it recalled "project tomorrow." by 2042, probably a few years before, will be at a majority minority nation. or as i like to think of it, all minority all the time. that means everyone will be a minority. one thing the new census data

suggests is a rapid growth has been in the latino and asian community. 43% growth in the latino community and 43% in the asian community between 2000-2010, about 11% of african-americans, 2% for whites. when you look at the youth coming on line, there was a 4.3 million decline in white children, those below the age of 18, 4.8 million increase in latinos, about 7 million increase in asian. what is driving that is immigration is people's perspective. but really, it has tapered down for migration. the recession had an impact and increased enforcement but also an impact for the long-term trends that were headed down as well. we're really dealing with second and third generation population coming on line. it is a much younger population. angela pointed out to the gaps between the old and young. if the look of the median ages, for whites, it is 41. asians, 35. african-americans, 32. the team as, 27. a much younger population. -and latinos, 27. a much younger population.

we need to make sure the work force is ready. the evidence suggests we are not. a lot of that has to do with the generational divide or disconnect that angela was talking about. angela and i have been talking quite a bit. in fact, she gave my entire talk. when i think about the future, i think of a 24-year-old latino musician, my son. i hope he has a future. generational divide really does have an impact. when you look at the states in the united states that have the biggest gap demographically between old and young and you

kind of line them out by who is the biggest gap, you find the level per-capita state capital spending, investment of the future, is the lowest. with the older generation, does not see themselves in the younger generation. investment is the lowest. if you look at which metropolitan area of the top 100 metropolitan areas in the united states has the biggest gap between the old and young demographically, it is phoenix. is it any wonder if they're having the kind of conflicts they're having around immigration and also around investment? healing the divide generational leap is really important. the very famous tea party sign, "keep your government hands off my medicare," it was looked at as sort of a joke. it was a signal to this in regeneration, the older generation lifting of the drawbridge is just as the younger generation is arriving. the racial gaps have not closed much. about half of that is still provoke-and probably discrimination for african- americans. when the different strategies for different populations. -- we need the difference

strategies for different populations. >> what about the growth capacity for the economy if we do not get these policies right? maybe all three of you speak to that. what is it going to mean if our human capital is under invested in an educational attainment follows the same patterns for the capacity of the economy to grow? >> i think that is why secretary so these has made such an effort that the training funds we have from the recovery going to make sure we did everyone, that we trained everyone. when you look at that wealth gap between latinos and whites and african-americans and whites and you look at differences in child achievement, wealth is such a better predictor of the problems the child will face an even in come. it takes well to get a kid through college.

it is not just income. so the real threat we have is bad -- when you look at half the next college generation is today, being under resource on the private side, and you think about what it takes to produce that college graduate, we look at the tip of the iceberg when we are looking at public expenditure. it is the private gap, the gap in the household where there is even more investment in the child at the household level. so those gaps between what families can do and what we know needs to be done is a huge gap. it is important for us to raise because we looked at this as a bean counter exercise of what does the government spend, but

what do we as a society spend on these children. then you see the gap is getting bigger. >> emanuel, from the perspective of macro growth economics, what happens if we have this changing demographic, under investment in human capital, what is the potential for the u.s. economy to grow? can it continue to put a big growth numbers in the context where it is human potential is kind of being under invested in? >> yes. >> what do we know? >> the me say a few words on that. probably all of you have heard orthodox economic argument that any quality is good because it generates strong incentives to work and succeed, therefore, equalizing incomes might be detrimental to growth. that is true if you believe

imperfect market. the issue is not the obstruction does not apply to the real world for a simple reason. john alluded to it, the markets are in perfect. the key idea is simple. pork,'re talented, but that is, you do not have the wealth or family or background resources, he might not be able to get a good education or double up your business ideas because you cannot access credit to borrow against your future growth prospects. it is this problem of credit market imperfection that makes inequality potentially very detrimental to growth. redistributing resources is done in large parts to the

government that finances these high quality education can give a boost to economic growth. the evidence is disputed. i wanted to come back to the chart i'm showing. remember the simple fact, economic growth in u.s. was the highest during the timeframe where income concentration was at its lowest and where the u.s. was really expanding, especially on the education, and gi bill, and the other policies. >> there is an increasing body of evidence that has emerged first on the developing world and recently from studies on america's much regions that suggest in fact more equitable society is to produce more rapid economic growth. in the developing world, the whole series of studies which basically made the argument that more equitable society invested more in basic education and lifted up human capital and

also created the opportunity for people to feel like they may benefit from growth. as a result, would be more supportive of policies that would promote growth in the median voter would gain. with a body of evidence that has emerged from the developing world. recently, people have taken a look at this and america's metropolitan regions. we found regions that have less disparities in the distribution of income, regions making more progress on reducing poverty, regions making more progress on reducing racial segregation in fact produced more rapid economic growth, even if you control for the effects of growth and reducing party itself. i know you're looking at me, a professor from the university of southern california. maybe he is making this up, right? do not believe me. the cleveland federal reserve did a study on 120 metropolitan midsize regions. they found the usual suspects predict economic growth.

whether you have investor university, a number of things. they found more unequal regions, more racially segregated regions, regions that have higher levels of poverty concentration reduced or had reduced economic growth. this is something really emerging in the literature. i think it is a little like the way we had to shake our mind about the notion they're raising the minimum wage would cost a lot of employment. in fact, there's a big myth about equity and economic growth. if there's one thing to take away from the session, there is the possibility to deal with equity and opportunity and a way that will promote economic growth. when i look at the rate charts, fantastic job of collecting data, i think to myself -- we became so unequal as a nation that one group of people was forced to speculate with their money while another group of

people was forced to borrow just to keep their standard of living at a certain level or to buy that one last house before the american dream disappeared. we were so deregulated that we had derivatives for the wealthy and subprime mortgages for the lower incomes and middle income folks. we were so disconnected demographically that when the first group of people to lose their homes for black and latino home owners in stockton and riverside and las vegas, people said, that cannot happen to me. we were disconnected, deregulated and unequal. until we make equity one of the central elements of our economic growth, have some reasonable regulation and really deal with the story of connecting us across communities and across generations, we really will not deal with the data that emanuel has so successfully documented. >> i am a lawyer and not an economist.

i draw fans will connections from just a few evidence points. -- fanciful connections from just a few evidence points. [laughter] i want to come back to the observation that the highest datapoint inequity and u.s. economy occurred just before the crash. now we go to this next peak, just before the crash. your drawing some linkage between those two things, an economy that does so distorted and the equity side that it actually fueled or put in accelerant on what was a problem. i wonder if you agree with them, the possibility to least explore? >> both the great depression of the 1929 and recession, the

cause of both of those was a credit boom with a runaway finance. it is striking to also see those two things happened at times where finance was completely deregulated. actually, an important part of the new deal was to regulate a finance which we ushered an era of prosperity and when finance started to become deregulated again in the 1980's, we observed a growing share of total profits and economic going to the financial sector, an increase in concentration that is a substantial part of that trend is due to the growth of the financial sector. and in an economic catastrophe. >> if you look at the asian

financial crisis, you see similar run-up and income equality? >> typically, a credit boom will tend to concentrate in come. the financial sector is very concentrated. you can get enormous profits from leveraging and from expanding credits, yes. >> we seem to have no problem lecturing developing countries about the need to produce policies. maybe there is no answer to this question, but to reduce policies that are going to do what manual describes, education, putting girls in schools and trying to produce a growth model that will benefit all their citizens. whitey imagine it is so difficult -- why do you imagine it is so difficult for people

who are used to lecture in developing countries to adapt that and apply the same thinking methodology in the u.s.? >> >> what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. we do that. the columbia free trade agreement went very far in trying to make sure unions were protected in colombia. we lecture them quite a bit about why it is important to have freedom of association and free labor movements. >> [unintelligible] [laughter] >> yes, i think there is that tendency and within the debate here in the u.s., the president push for the huge vision of getting this back to being number one in producing college graduates, making sure we're doing the investment to make that happen, making sure we're doing at the k-12 level which is a big challenge to get our public school systems to raise

the ante themselves. so the right kind of investment will take place to lift them up. it is there, but it is the subject of great debate in the u.s. some people want to call it spending. we're spending too much when we make these investments, making the program program accessible to more children, making sure the grants cover the cost to enter the college. that perspective of "spending" is the way you look at it, they are not your kids. you look at it as investment when is your child. as a parent, all of us think of it as an investment when we put our children through college. it is the irony that we all say

the children are our future, but when it comes time, too often, americans think, it's ok. it stops being our future and our children. we have to raise ourselves to see that as investment and not as spending. >> at the beginning i brag a little bit about the clinton economic performance in terms of producing strong wage growth, strong job growth, strong economic growth, strong business investment. you saw quintiles of the population growing at about the same rate, but when you apply the same rate against more income, you still get that big spike in run-up both in wealth and concentration at the top. i guess my question to the panel is is it enough to look toward in point-bank and put that is going to produce strong

economic output for the middle class that is wage growth and some wealth, even if we are seeing that concentration continue at the top? or is the concentration leading to a bubble and a bust? >> what do you think? >> i think the only way you can remedy this income concentration is by very strong policies. probably, the education sector is given the opportunity of getting a good education to all americans is central. so those government interventions will require spending. if you want to spend, you need to get the money through taxation. lemme talk on the tax side briefly. at least the increase in income concentration gives us an

opportunity that is effectively a fiscal capacity double up at the top of distribution that could possibly happen to to try and implement policies that would be favorable to a more equitable growth. it used to be the case that people were saying the rich are rich, but there are not enough of them or they're not rich enough to make a big difference fiscally. that was probably true in the 1970's, but no longer true today after the surge in top income. to give you a statistic, the top 1% pace about 22% of their income in federal taxes, yet they pay 3% of gdp. with only a 22% tax rate, he raised 3% of gdp. you could crank up that number from 22% theoretically, say

your to double it, which is an extreme policy, but a tax rate of 44%, it would raise three% extra of gdp. $4.50 trillion over a decade. those are numbers as big as the cuts described in the ryan plan. keep that in mind. the u.s. faces a fiscal imbalance. most of the economic growth has gone to the top. if we do not see the trickle- down coming into the market to, the government has the opportunity to implemented by readjusting fiscal policy. a lot of the work i have done, do high taxes on the rich hurt the economy? we have good evidence of how you need to change the tax system to make sure actually the rich would end up in the higher

taxes-and paying higher taxes. from pretty good evidence past tax changes, how the rich does not respond that matched the level of taxation compensation is really only a small part of it. >> what about on the investment side? we have been on a crusade, i guess, to lower taxation on wealth and investment, state tax, capital gains differential, dividends differential. any real hard data on what the impact is with respect to investment? i mean, the theory is, if you drive rates down on investment income, then you get more investment and the economy will

grow stronger. >> that is possibly true for businesses that are constrained, a business with great credit opportunity but cannot get funding so they have to use their profits to invest and grow slowly. definitely, you do not want to tax these. i think the solution to the problem is we should disconnect the taxes of businesses from the taxes of individuals. what you want to do is tax the rich, but not necessarily tax businesses that are growing. the best way to do that, something u.s. has never done but other countries have, is have a corporate tax that is considered as a prepaid tax on future profits. and then credit back those that corporate tax to the profits are distributed to individuals. that we can play on the corporate side and give tax breaks to growing businesses,

but make sure the profits when they officially reach the rich shareholders, you have a progressive tax. >> if i could talk about it from the reverse. one of the problems with trying to kickstart the economy with the recovery, any talk about equity, again, because the bottom 60% or 20% of income, it is hard to have a tax cut big enough that can really address those at the bottom, the bottom 60%. now, the recovery act achieved that. president obama engineered it so when you look at where the tax cuts went, about 40% of the benefits from the make work pay tax cuts went to those of the bottom 60%. but it is very hard if the end, so unequally distributed to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. it is not just on the growth

side, but even the recovery side when you come to troubles. how do you balance it out when you look at what the clinton administration achieved by regularly expanding the and earned income tax credit, balancing the tax level at the higher and, and restoring productivity by putting -- you had a total system that became more aggressive and more equal. we're having something similar with our regional investment clusters the president obama is using his own strategy in this administration. the other problem is the bottom 20% of americans account for less than 1% or a little over 1.5% family income. that means that even if they have the worst of times, almost a 10% loss in income, almost a month lost in wages, which now can afford, that means it is

less than one-tenth of 1% of gdp. that is not even noticeable from the gdp perspective. when 20% of your country can be having unbelievable pain, but you're using a measure that says -- we are doing fine. then you have a real problem. that is part of the disconnect. >> i think you need to be thinking about -- emanuel is focusing on what we need to do it right the as far as the tax policy, but also the impact on private investment. also, how come these are public investment in a way that is more equitable pretext distribution of income more opportunities? i think the investment in education are incredibly important. one of the things very, very important is investing in the community college system and tying into these regional clusters in ways we begin to work with the metropolitan

regions, understand where the holes of growth are, and make the community college systems be generating the workers of both young workers that fit into that and young workers that can be retrained and moved through that in successful ways. the second thing we need to do on the public policy side is facilitate unionization, which is really important and changing the distribution of income. there is a lot of good evidence on union workers being more productive in part because they tend to be more loyal at work and those kinds of things. one thing to do is think about the aspects of public policy that might also affect the pretext distribution of income. i think one of the big things we need to think about -- interesting in the conversation. usually when people talk about equity and try to affect distribution of income, the

argument being made is somehow to put more money in the hands of lower income individuals there will spend more and stimulate the economy. that is a short-term thing. all of what we're talking about here is affecting the long term supply side of the economy by impacting incentives to work, by impacting how fair people think the system is, impacting the investments that will be there. these are long-term strategies and need to make this kind of an argument. >> great point. come back on the regional point of use cited the cleveland fed data. are those -- those are not federal based policies that are affecting regions. maybe a little bit. r&d spending might be concentrated and academic communities of excellence, etc., what are governors, mayors, others to into actually address this question about creating a more equitable economic

perspective or economic direction for their communities? what differentiates the good from the bad? >> an interesting thing that has emerged about the u.s. economy, increasingly common market of metropolitan regions in which there's a lot of heterogeneous performance and regional performance in clusters. i think you're seeing the best mayors and governors and even metropolitan planning organizations as they get into this helping to coordinate the work force investment effort, to help tied together the community colleges with the regional economic clusters. begins to erode the divisions between cities and suburbs that lead to sprawl, separation, and under investment. there's one important thing.

something i hinted at in the policylink paper. policylink's first big points in the paper that were done with is the idea of framing the conversation. you can say, my, god, that sounds were really big. but we have a new book coming out next year -- which you should buy. it is a little play on the notion that people think this problem will be solved by just growth. in fact, we need just growth. things that purposely inclusive. one thing we found that is used an approach to identify regions in the u.s. during a better job of producing economic growth and sharing economic opportunity with wide swaths of the population. we found interestingly, those places -- and some more unusual like jacksonville, florida -- or places that had mechanisms that brought together people, could develop a shared understanding of their regional economic problems and some kind of sense of shared understanding about what the solutions may be. they may wind up difference. this may never support a living

wage. but if you say it party is a problem and it could -- and the quality is damaging, you can share the understanding with the debate is about the method of how to address it weather than it is a problem at all. i encourage that refraining, bringing business into the room, understanding the needs of the market is an important way to begin to think about how we address this issue. we might be able to do this region by the region than we are as a nation as a whole. as a nation as a whole, we are very polarized. people get together face-to- face, race to race, a place to place and realize when they under invest in each other, they cursing in the whole metropolitan region. >> i think that put something in the water in washington, d.c.

>> you have a great chart here demonstrating the relationship of economic growth. >> i wish i could just go like this. we do in a couple of books. we tried to -- you can really take a look at the relationship between economic growth and equity and we try to do a little bit of simultaneous modeling of it. the distribution of income itself, which is one of the frontiers of research, to begin to understand the simultaneous

relationship between the two. the relationship has probably changed over time. >> i guess john podesta touched on this, but i would like to get straight to the politics that we are experiencing and ask you very pointedly, the wealth gap, the racial gap is all creating gap we have in this country with people not wanting to invest, thinking about it as expenditures as opposed to investment. then just now, maybe the conversation all has to be at the regional level. i would like all of you to talk a little bit about what is it that the policy community here in washington, i guess most of

us are on the progressive side, can do to try to change this conversation so that we can address any of these policy issues, because at the moment we cannot do anything. >> i think we are doing some of that in some of our policy choices so that not only the regional investment clusters the president has the agencies working across each other to make sure that we are pulling a vision that we can have people in the local committed to responding to, but our trade adjustment assistance we are doing the down payment now to community colleges to make sure they are understanding the needs of displaced workers and diffusing the way they are strategizing about those displaced workers with the business community as a way to i think that part of this is the

right policy solution to in figure eight new efforts that we see at the local level -- to reinvigorate new efforts that we see at the local level. >> i would add, thanks for the very easy question. i do think that we play a lot of defense -- have not called offense, but framing the narrative. part of what we're doing is showing how inequality has been bad for economic growth. and that dealing with this will be an important part of generating economic growth. it when you talk about it, it becomes obvious. the second thing is a tough thing and i have been thinking about it, but the politics of

aspiration. the tea party has done three well at the politics of an anger. -- has done very well at the politics of anger. it feels like it is losing america. it feels like it is losing its place. the politics and of anger really works for them. so we try to do the same thing, getting hacked off at paul ryan, which is totally legitimate. [laughter] but when you go to the younger generation into polling, latinos, african-americans, they have -- they are really optimistic. they do not have a lot of reason to be but they are optimistic about being able to solve our problems and moving ahead. in order to really motivate

them, we need to practice as a politics of aspiration. all little bit of the tit-for- tat that happens in washington what politics of anger, responding with politics of anger does not move us forward with a demographic that will be important in the future. we won a more inclusive society, part of the middle class, investments in college that will help them get ahead. we were short change ourselves if we move too quickly to the anger. >> ok, one. >> linda harris. but question is, apart from the real important need for heavy dialogue and bringing the conversation together, during the period of time when you actually saw the more equitable distribution, it was a time when there was much more work in the

area of affirmative action and the linking of economic development in more formal way. is there more aspects of the role they can be played in any of those arenas as we move into this greater diversity in need for equity? >> i think that there is. thehen you look at how president reinvigorated the equal employment commission. i think that people understand that the five has to be crossed -- the divide has to be cross. will the make sure that we can make things as equitable as we can. that discussion needs to be part

of what we're doing. our furniture work force is right now. it is not 2050. the work force is graduating this year. it looks very different. we have to be able to reach all of them. >> to add one thing to that, this growth in metropolitan regions. what you should not been surprised that in our case study and we went back and tested it, because what total nerds. we wanted to do a logistic and regression to figure out to get equity in the same package. one was the size of the black middle class. we said, that is a population which has an accurate -- and interest in economic growth and a memory and history and connections. so much more disenfranchised

that needs to be part of equity. that is part of the era that you're talking about, that era in which people were achieving more positions but with close connections to the communities, right? and they consider that those things are together. i'm heartened or we see a second and third generation latino population continuing to raise issues of immigrant justice. these are important elements of generating more inclusive growth. >> what about the direct input that supports in comes for low- wage workers? raising minimum wage, the stuff done in the recovery at, refundable child credits. do we know anything about the effect of that? we know the effect on individual households, but what about in the economy?

basically tried to raise wages at the bottom among low-wage workers, what is the affect on the economy overall? >> i was going to say, when you look at this recovery, the expansion of unemployment insurance, raising the benefit side for all workers by $25 which had a disproportionate impact on low-income workers became unemployed, the access to food stamps come amid that for the first time we pump enough money so that rather than the black unemployment rate stayed at twice the rate of the white unemployment rate, it never reached that size when the money was being pumped into those communities. when you look to the 1980's when the white unemployment rate reached 10%, black unemployment

rate was 20% to read it never reach 20% this time because the communities remained more viable. >> the minimum wage, a great example. it can only increase unemployment and not really help low-wage workers? we have shown that actually the effects are much more complex. increasing the minimum wage, workers at are more motivated to stick to those jobs. at the end it is good for productivity. i would say that you really need to look get all of the policies that have been implemented, study them carefully and figure out what works and what does not work. you want to get the best possible policies for money in growth and equity.

>> you get the last question. >> scott byrne stain. between john's question about what local government can do in your observation about the rich got the revenues and the poor got subprime mortgages, the data shows that beckon 2008 when gas prices by eight, foreclosures followed six to nine months later. especially concentrated in the places that were most automobile-depended. we can expect to see that again as we are at the $5 a gallon gas raid. perhaps increasing spatially efficiency is more durable on the urban level. in studying the recovery act data, those regions that spent their money on mass transit created twice as many jobs for dollars spent using the same

data bases those who spent their money on roads and highways. maybe those places were more shovel ready. i'm wondering if that is not part of the solution, to make spatial efficiency part of that strategy. the economic cluster projects applying for the administration grant money right now, we have been talking to, they had -- they do not be -- they do not seem to be connected to the spatial efficiency. and gas prices rising is not theoretical. >> that is a great. may. it is something i had written down to it as a policy suggestion, dealing with our urban areas. the climate change legislation and also the waste, that you're talking out, the way that people go out to the -- sprawled out to the suburbs to buy a home. part of what happened with

people moving further and further away is to some degree of fear of the other, either by race or class. it has to do with the failure of public schools which induce people to move as well. and as we deal with these issues, we will not get to the special element as well. if you think of inequality as ofu-shaped curve. you have too much, it takes away all the incentives. i think that we can move very much in the direction of more equity and more growth, and that should be a part of not just how we do our recovery, but how we do a long-term rebuilding of the u.s. economy. >> i think that this was a tremendous example of the fact that washington does not need to live in a tax-free zone. -- fact-free zone.

the kind of work that these three people are doing to actually study and break down the methodology -- mythology of what passes for economic thought an american today, and what will produce both the best outcomes for the american middle class and the strongest growth model, and in keeping with italian- american moderator stuff, i am going to turn things over to people from the rockefeller foundation to take up with the second panel. please join me in thanking this wonderful panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we are going to do a

microphone swap walleye introduce what we will talk about in this next panel. and the people will talk to about it. i guess i would say for the cheap seats back there, we had a sobering, stimulating, clear right conversation about on one end of this u-shaped curve, extreme policies are bad for democracy. if you can be understood about talking about the bottom, then there's something wrong about the american dream. we started talking about tax policy, what we could do in the way of public investment, will talk more about those things, how you engage in private investment, and also very importantly, how are you engage a larger group in your

conversation. particularly if you have 1% of the population enjoying close to 25 percent -- 23.5% of the income, we have work to do to have a common conversation about this. i take pleasure in telling you all about the people about whom we will have this conversation. the first is something we have been turning to twice a week since 1993 in your "new york times", bob herbert, writing about urban affairs. in march, he wrote his final column for the times called "losing our way." while he retired from the newspaper, he is not retiring in any sense of that word. we were joking that bob has

doubled this is just changing uniforms. he is working on a book and i hope you will tell us about that shortly. what he has described eloquently as a kind of misplaced party and a kind of collective acceptance of an unacceptable and fairness in this country. we're also joined by mary next to bob. she is both an expert analyst and a very skilled communicator about the wealth gap in this country, particularly when compared to men, and others. her book is titled open quite short changed -- why women have less well than what can be done about it."

to niehs their child is the president of the emerald city, many of you know and respect admire her and have the pleasure of working with her. it pulls together your 30 years of experience and expertise and helps low-income communities really reach their potential in terms of the enterprise development, economic growth, their housing in this country, and we will talk more about how we can pull these things together and make it work in this country. and then last but not least, we're joined by dawn, who works at the ford foundation. he may be focused on these integrated approach is in real places, public transit, of affordable housing, community and economic development, but he learned all those ingredients and how they come together by doing it. don is the founding inspiration

and a leader for smart mode -- smart growth america. that is our panel. i will take his seat over here and i will start, bob, by asking you, the first panel talked about this generational divide. and so it collective lack of empathy, and if we cannot connect, how can we get out of a cushion or >> we will not get out of it. that is one of the biggest messages that i've been trying to spread as i go around the country speaking on college campuses. it strikes me that the u.s. isn't a lot deeper trouble than you might guess, the king a mainstream media or listening to the politicians. we've been talking today about the extreme levels of economic

inequality and we're facing a host of very serious problems. so when you look at what is going on in washington, it seems we are moving in exactly the wrong direction. you hear all this stuff about budget, the deficits, and you wanted to deal set rigid seriously with budget deficit, how can you do that when you take tax increases of the table, or the democrats are only talking about modest tax increases on among small portion of the population. and you have these very debilitating war is coming in afghanistan, iraq, and you're going to tell me we're going to bring down the budget deficit? that will not happen. at the same time, they will stand up there and tell you with a straight face that their top priority is jobs, jobs, jobs. excuse me. we have austerity on the one- handed we're going to increase jobs and the other? it is not going to have them.

there various programs that will be a drag on economic growth, they will cost jobs. the first thing we need to do if we are really serious about the problems facing the country, i think, is to tell the story straight and get the story out there to the american people about how serious these problems are, and then face off about the proper ways to deal with these problems. to add your question about getting together, it seems to me that part of the biggest problems is that we bought into this idea of the past 10 to 30 years about extremes of individual responsibility to the point where everyone is out there on their own and they are now working collectively toward those things that would help individual americans and the country as a whole. what i would really like to see is more and more people talking

about the importance of civic engagement, people coming together, about alliances between organizations that are of similar mind and have compatible goals and that sort of thing. and if i get a chance in a little while, i will talk more about that. but if there was a simple slogan or message that i would like to get out today, it is that we are all in this fix together. the problem is deeper than we think. and we will not get out of it unless we figure out a way for all of us to pull together. >> one of the traditional ways in this country you give up an album build a better future for cells and our family is education. one thing that came through clearly in the first panel, if you do not have the money, you cannot get the education in this country. for what does that mean for women, particularly women of color that are so far behind? >> it is a pleasure to be here.

i will talk about the women's of wealth gap, particularly women of culture. with respect to education, this hits home. my oldest daughter is a senior heading off to kahne -- college at some unknown place. she will know by may 1. [laughter] in terms of economic status, we're used to thinking about how well people are doing economical in terms of incomes are wages or salaries. however, wealth is what really matters, especially in times like these economic crises in which people live access to their incomes. welt here is net worth or the value of your assets minus your debts and would include things like the menu of your savings account and real-estate businesses that you own, and that would be the mortgage, a credit card debt coming any loans that you have. we've heard a lot recently about

the staggering racial wealth gap. for every dollar of weld typically on by the white family, the typical family of color only owns 16 cents. a staggering as the says, we've heard less about this little long for the one for women of color. first of want to address a misperception, we do not need to worry about so much about the women's wealth gap. most men and women marry and presumably pool resources. that is the necessarily the way that we would go. however that is a topic for a terrific day. -- a different day. if you assume that they pulled resources, the women's wealth gap is still important for various reasons. about half of all households are not married households.

second, if any financial protection offered by marriage disappears for large groups of women since half of all marriages end in divorce. even if they remain married, they are more likely to outlive their husbands. widowhood is really a time of economic downturn for many, about one in fine with those live in poverty. -- one in five widows live in poverty. so to look to the extent of the wealth gap for women and women of color, i use data from the 2007 server and -- survey of consumer finance. i wanted to point out that this data was collected just prior to the severe economic downturn. so this actually paints a rosier picture than what the current situation is likely to be. but the general patterns are still likely to hold.

i conducted detailed for whites and african-americans and hispanics of any race, but other racial groups were combined into a single capped or -- category. i have in the chart. that is not mine. [laughter] i like it. this shows median wealth by household type and genders. married and cohabitating couples are in green, single men are in blue, and single women are in pink. right away you can see that marriage and cohabiting couples are by far the wealthiest. there are many reasons for that. there are economic benefits to marriage, but also high income people are likely to vary.

what i want to. your attention to today's the wealth gap between men and women. the typical man hundred 65 has just over $31,000 of wealth, where is the median wealth for the typical woman is about $15,000. that is half of what it is for single men. we see even more staggering statistics when we break things down by race. the typical single black man has about $8,000 and well. the typical single black woman has about $100. the number for hispanics is similar, hispanic males have close to $10,000, but the median bettina is $120 -- latina is 120. they have a penny of wealth for every dollar of wealth owned by their male counterparts, and a

fraction of a penny of wealth for every dollar of wealth owned by white men and white women. this is -- these are absolutely staggering statistics. women of all races experience a motherhood wealth penalty. you can see here that the penalty is much greater for women of color than it is for white women. black and hispanic women with children under age 18 of the median wealth of $0. in contrast, white women with children under 18 have a median wealth of close to $8,000. one of the things i want to argue today is that even though income is important, we need to check -- turn our attention the well. even if men and women had the same income, they would still be a wealth gap between women and men, especially between men and collar.

-- women and men of color. as a custodial parent, the bear larger financial responsibility for the raising of children their income has to go farther to feed more people. also because women and especially women of call -- women of color are less likely to have access to what they called well escalators. they consist of a variety of mechanisms that help people raise their income -- turn their income into well. what are employer-based fringe benefits, favorable tax cuts, and valuable government benefits. if you have access to these things, your income is going to go a lot farther, if you might have mechanism that help you build wealth along the way. i'll let go over each of these mechanisms in detail because i know that i am severely time-

limited. i want to give you an example of fringe benefits. they said that types of things you would be likely to receive from your employer, employer sponsored retirement accounts, that sort of thing. for those of you like us lucky enough to receive these benefits, they can build our wealth and one of two ways. one is directly so that things like matched employer retirement savings-with its wealth into the hands of people directly. there is also in direct. if you have things provided by your employer that you had to pay for yourself, that is more money left over to save. it is not that some people do not have access to these days. it is that women and people of color are less likely to have access because of the types of jobs that the work in. for instance, if women and

people of color are more likely to work in the service sector. that is the least likely of all the sectors to provide fringe benefits to her -- to their employees. they're more likely to work part-time. part-time employees are often ineligible for benefits. usually at this point in my talk, people wonder what is being done about this. i will ally in some policies on suggestions come of things that are in place now that can take game at different levels. burris, thinking about policies that will help people build wealth and not just income, we need to think about ways to help them build access. a successful strategy thus far has been individual development accounts matched savings accounts. for every dollar the people say, they receive a match of $1 or $2, whatever the particular matches. this can be used for higher

education, to start a business, or also to buy your first home. but we also need to give people access to the fringe benefits that are often distributed to employment, things like paid sick days. this is received a lot of attention lately in the media. things like that help the family act is really important to ensure that people have access to those types of benefits. and the tax code is important by helping to redistribute money. things like the child tax credit and the dependent care tax credit should be made refundable because currently low-income women are less likely to benefit from them to conclude. the wealth gap in the united states is detrimental to our nation's future. today the top 5% of income

birders -- earners on more wealth than the bottom 95% of the population. current programs are adequate, but they're not sufficient. wealth guarantees that you can pay your bills tomorrow and for generations to come. so to conclude, i look forward to working with all of you as we continue to bring about a more equitable future for all americans and for the nation. thanks. >> we will talk more about what we can help individuals wake up. i want to turn now to thinking about that from a computer do -- a community perspective. reasons that some areas have a more economic structure are faster producers of economic growth.

i know in fact several cities is behind a lot of that. what does that look like what it all comes together? actually take a page from some of those books and make this the more a standard order of business rather than a happy accident. >> emerald city is collaborative is a collaborative of major national organizations representing a diverse coalition of labor and business and community-based organizations and you-based organizations. i am looking for it to transform america and make it more equitable. how we transform metropolitan regions from a sprawled fossil fuels suburban economy to a clean energy economy. and to do it in a way that is at scale and will fundamentally change this go of what this regional economy looks like.

there probably did things they keep me up at night and wake me up early in the morning. we are in a very profound state of america, where structural changes are taking place in our regional economies. and the impact of this is to be recognized within the context of other economic transitions that have occurred. how we of move from an agrarian economy, how we move from an inter shrill to a suburban economy, and where we are right -- from an industrial to a suburban economy, and where we are right now, moving to a green economy. that type of transitions that have taken place in each of those phases has changed our lifestyle, our values, our land uses, our infrastructure -- to think about from the railroads, the agrarian era, to the highways of the suburban communities, to the kind of information highway in information economy.

these types of infrastructures are taking place in the educational system is important as it changes in the transitions that took place as well as the financial systems. every major institution in the united states is in transition to this bring the economy. it is not a question of it is going happen. the green economy is happening to the question is, how fast, at what scale, and how we shape it to be more equitable. it is a profound in it means that we have engaged in making certain that those systems work well for communities that have been left out of the mainstream in the past. the second issue that i worry about is that when you look get though -- at the entire economic era that we were in, there is

considerable inequities. those economies grew over 50 years, but it is very clear that the agrarian economy grew out of slavery and indentured servants. there is considerable inequities in industrial economies, with workplace standards that did not exist before we have labor unions, and the suburban economy grew because of inequalities and certain people cannot live in the suburbs were investments were taking place. how do we make certain that in the screen economy, it is able to support -- in the green economy, it is able to support all societies. this is in a paper being produced. we are reclaiming the kahne superstation. -- we are reclaiming -- reclaiming -- reframing the conversation.

what is the problem? is there a problem? and how do we fix it? that is the most challenging but probably most rewarding work that we are doing, to really begin to figure out how we open up the labor unions to low- income communities of color, how does the business community engage with labor unions, and accept the fact that we're going to rebuild the middle class and take people, pay them a decent wages that support families, give them benefits, and help women with non-traditional careers. we are in that conversation not only at the national level, but doing it at the local level. we are placing it out. if we do not have those -- we are fleshing it out. if we do not have those conversations, we're just recreating the inequalities of

the past. we're missing the boat and it will not be any different. we're also addressing the policy and making certain that people have access to the skills and careers in this green economy. the last thing i will say is that investment in developing collagen career pathways into this new group -- college career path was into this new group, how we make certain that we are lifting our young people out of the communities in which they live and placing them in the pathway that is going to be the future? and it is their future that we're fighting for, not ours. in 10 or 15 years, i am out of here. [laughter] it is going to be the work, a place where they can have a natural environment, a healthy environment, and the future. and the community college is a

place that brings all that together. it is a place where we do the remedial work because our k-12 systems have no word, and so that people get the skills that are not going off to four-year schools, and that ultimately it is a place where we can actually transfer the people into higher education and take the economic pathways. i am concerned that -- the academic pathways. i am concerned we focuses specifically on the come modernization of education, the development -- commoditization of education, and i hope that when we talk about colleges, as we develop a work force of the future, that we also build the conversation, the leadership,

the kind of social engagement that is needed, the civic engagement that is needed to really address questions of inequity. i taught at community colleges for 15 years. i am very clear where this is communities happen. i had young people in my classrooms with the older people trying to get rescheduled. -- reskilled. we have had the conversation, black, brown, asian americans, and white all in this conversation about what is community? we have talked about what is equity, and we are preparing the future, not only in terms of technical skills, but leadership skills as well. there's one good thing and i will leave on this note, and i recognize this a week ago.

california, they passed a resolution to increase training in democracy at the community colleges in california. and it is the place where we can make certain that we're creating a new future. and that the in people and people of color are part of that. -- and that the young people and the people of color are part of that. >> i want to ask you, you are a practitioner and a student. these different economies, the public infrastructure investment fits our does not fit with private commerce. what show would be looking for? what are the pieces that make it work? where should we be trying to repeat that? >> implementation is absolutely critical and i want to commend

you for bringing this together. bringing this set of topics to our attention. i does want to add a dimension to a lot of the points raised by our previous speakers. if you look at the slide, is critically important understand that the dimensions here an important one is and how this plays out by geography. how is a look within cities come between cities, between suburbs, among different types of severance, the findings are quite startling. thanks to a set of research coming out now about census 2010, we have many more people in poverty in the cities. we have an increasing spread of low-income people of color into several locations. one of the current trends is

that we're seeing the inner ring older suburban people looking more like cities in terms of their demographics and levels of poverty. on top of that, we have what some call the resegregation of our public school system. it is important thing about as we leave the conference room here and go out into the real world and look at how this affects people where they live. regarding your question, there is a weird echo here. one of the things that is so important in terms of a multitude of players coming encouraging all of us to refrained the way we argue about these things -- encouraging all of us to reframe the way we are

you about this these. most of all we report out in the media is about more things. we focus on these things mainly arguing on points of fairness and talking about equal opportunity. and those are critically important themes, they resonate with the american public. but what also resonates is a stronger economic argument that really makes the case not just at the macro-level policy makers thinking about national policy, but to people who really are thinking about economic sources at the local level. as we start to make that shift, before we start to talk about affordable housing, and also

economic advantage, i think we're making progress. the word for many years and the commercial sector. we have problems with a transmission here. [laughter] there is a group that has worked with the commercial club. it consists of business leaders, the biggest, most influential leaders in chicago. over a decade ago, they collaborated on employer- assisted housing. we really need all hands on deck on this set of dishes. they saw lot of