way, but it is the top 15% or so that makes the difference, and i am not talking about people who went to stanford or yale or someplace. because the top 20% comes from all over the place. the top 20% in washington did not go to the ivy league. i did. it is still pretty much a meritocracy in this country, but what i mean by 10 or 20% or what the number is, it is where they are taking the generation, and that is the difference. there are some we would not want to use as an example if you had kids, but there is going to be a lot more people doing more things, and if you look at the overall change in the direction in which it is going, i believe

it is unbelievably positive. my biggest gripe is something i know can't be fixed and should not be fixed. we will go right at each other on issues. if somebody is a muslim and somebody else is a christian, they will go right at each other. hopefully they will listen to each other. you will not do them. -- do that. on campuses, i do not think there is enough discussion about gender relationships and gender equity and sexual harassment. i think people avoid having that discussion. i do not think there is enough discussion about race in your generation, but we had all of these discussions in my generation, and the reason i think you do not have those discussions, i think you need to have those discussions, but i think it is secondary to what you really need to do, which is to heal the wounds of my generation. now, what we did, the civil rights movement, how about that?

every generation has their things they can be really proud of, but we also have things we can do better. i have kids just a little older than you, and i am rooting for them because we are turning it over to you now. we are hoping you will do the things we did not do right, and you will fix them, and then your children will come along, and they are going to fix the things you did not do right. i'm not very critical of your generation. i can find some things i wish you did, or do i wish there was not as much of that, and all this kind of stuff, but i think in the broad picture of where you are going, america and the world are at a good time. i will leave you with a quote did one of the kids who tahrir square, and then morsi comes in, and he hijacks the

revolution, and then they get as much a hardliner as mubarak except younger and more vigorous, and i said to him, don't you get discouraged about all of this and all that you have put into this, and he said, i do, but they cannot stop us in the long run. first of all, the second generation of the muslim brotherhood we can speak with. they dress like us, and we can do business with them, which is typical. and then he said this is a worldwide movement. this is not about egypt or the middle east. our generation is not going to put up with authoritarianism anymore. our generation does believe in democratic, inclusive values. we are going to work on this together. if that is the credo of this generation, i think that is pretty terrific. we have a lot of work to do, of course. >> thank you so much.

i'm glad we're doing ok. hi, my name is kimberly and i was wondering how you think we could strengthen the economic recovery. >> where do we start? i do think -- well, first of all, i think we are in an economic recovery, so it is not necessarily an issue of economic growth and recovery. the problem is the inequality of distribution of the fruits of recovery, so you have to figure out how to do that. there will be some transfer payments. obamacare is one of those, have universal health care, so there is a safety net, but the problem is, transfer payments alone do not work. this is where republicans are right. you do have to refurbish the economy and make work pay.

i believe in increasing the minimum wage. but you also have to increase the ability for people to do entrepreneurship and not worry about business regulation and that, because it is a drag. there is a package if the two sides would sit down and work together that you can come up with, which is a little of both sides. it would actually make the most sense. now, with some of the bigger picture stuff, we have to do better on exports. i think we can. free trade is generally good, unless it in fringes on sovereignty, where, like equal rights, and an strong environmental protection. trade agreements are not a bad thing. you just have to be very, very careful with how you put them into effect. it contributes to political stability and economic stability. in the countries that partake. at this particular point, i think the deficit is a problem, but i do not think it should be brought down too drastically.

the great hero in the room resolution of this was ben bernanke, who took a lot of flack but understood that unlike what the europeans did, which was austerity and meyer in -- miring themselves in a serious -- but as we begin to recover, you do have to worry about the rings people objected to in the first place. their timing was just wrong, not their ideas, and then you have to ease into that slowly because you do not want a tremendous amount of inflation. the bottom line, this is a very long and complicated answer, but the bottom line is there is no perfect solution to this. the solution is not to just have unfettered capitalism, he can then you get 2008 again. the solution is to let capitalism work as long as it is as fair as possible.

that is where the political debate is, how do you make capitalism fair? and there has to be some resolution. there is no doubt in my mind that capitalism is the best assistant to have, the problem is when it gets out of control. so you have to figure out how to make that work. but it's really complicatedr, stuff. >> thank you. >> i am from the netherlands. i have a question about the debt problem. the past two years i have always heard about america having the biggest debt problem in the world. homeless does not sound very good for the debt. i always hear that democrats like to spend money, spend money and create problems. yesterday i heard a gentleman all grover norquist --

>> uh -- >> in my creating problem's? >> yes. [laughter] >> he called my country quite socialistic. so, my question to you -- should knowrquist -- you know how ignorant americans are about europe. had a veryands of conservative government for quite some time. he probably should know that. >> no, he doesn't know much. [laughter] the democrats want to spend too much and republicans want to cut taxes for people who do not need it. you have to look at the budget. you can increase your debt in two ways. spend money you don't pay for, because you do not raise taxes enough -- which the democrats

have done in the past. the republicans will cut taxes but won't cut programs. it is no different from a balance sheet point of view than spending money you don't have. but spending it on different people, at the top of the income bracket. you have to have reasonable policy. you've got to have a balanced budget. it really does need to be that. it is not true that america has the biggest debt problem in the world. that is false. we are around 65% of our gnp. european countries are in general significantly higher. the ones in real trouble are over 120%. so, we do have a problem. we don't want it to get worse. it will get worse. some things will go on no matter what. it will take us time to turn the ship around. we have to do it in a long-term way, in a thoughtful way. we will have to rehab things. medicare has to be changed. not because it is a bad program.

it is probably the best of all the programs we have. but the medical system is out of control. all the economic centers want to spend more money instead of less money. we have to deal with that. it is a huge issue. it is going to be a big problem. we do have substantial problems. one of the things barack obama has done well, although it created a stir for other countries because they are not used to it, we try not to lecture other countries as much as we used to. i think grover is a little behind the curve, lecturing you about europe. america has its own problems. right now we should work with people as partners, which i think obama gets. the relationship between europe and the united states has changed dramatically. i spent a lot of time in europe. they used to claim, obama has forgotten us. he never pays any attention to us. i was tell them, that is a good thing. you are not a junior partner anymore.

we don't have to worry about you all the time. you can take care of your own problems, your own matters now. we should be equal partners, not the senior partner telling you what to do all the time. i think the president has changed that relationship. that is a very good thing for the united states and europe, and we are working on that aspect of dealing with other countries. >> thank you. >> thank you. some but this is the last one. -- >> this is the last one. >> hello. i am lake and sanders. laken sanders. kind of going off what you said with our generation being the movers and shakers towards change, also having help in america with resolving issues like inequality and gay rights and poverty, do you believe that the more conservative party will in the future, maybe even in the next election, sort of the shifting and re-focusing ideas to be more appealing to the younger, liberal generation? >> great question. i think they have a problem. they made a deal with a certain group of people that is about

35% of their vote. why don't you just throw them over the side? it is much better for the country to have two strong parties instead of one that is reasonably dominant, which is where we are headed, i think. they say, i would like to do that but you tell me where i will get that 35% of the vote. so it is not so easy to turn on a dime. you can see, look, the smart people in the republican party know they have to change. then you get people like todd akin or richard murdoch running for senate, who should have won, and they said outrageous things and the whole country went, is that what the republicans stand for? of course, the democrats were only too quick to say this is the republican party. intel the republicans are willing to cast them aside, as bill clinton cast aside the left fringe of the democratic party, they will have a struggle. they can't just change on a dime because they built a coalition. throwing off one of the partners in the coalition, essentially.

the difference between europe and our systems is we build our coalitions before the elections. they build a matter because they have five or six parties. maybe we should have five or six parties. it would not be such a bad thing right now. but we don't. for the republicans or the democrats in the 1970's we had , to retool. for that to happen, it is not so easy. the quickest impetus is the leadership finally says, we are tired of losing. which is why i am really hoping for a democratic victory in 2016. we are tired of losing, we will make tough decisions, ritual or -- retool our message, and do some people not like it that is just too bad. we will make these changes. i think that is going on in the republican party right now. the pundits in washington say there is a civil war in the republican party. you should never believe anything written in washington. as bill clinton once said,

it upsets the staff and nobody pays any attention anyway, which is true. there is this tension in their party, and the leadership, the smart leadership, and there is plenty of smart people who want to do the right thing in the republican party, they understand they cannot be sunk by the far right you are so unreasonable and appear to your generation to be so far away from anything you are remotely interested in. that is not a long-term winning strategy. they know it. they are trying to fix it. it has been a long time that they have depended on that wing of the party. it is scaring the daylights out of them. i was on npr with a terrific guy who was a republican, conservative republican from minnesota in the 1990's. a woman from the tea party running against a guy in texas in the primary. this guy has a 100% conservative record. 100%, every time the most conservative rating organization has said, are you with us? he said yes. she is running against him from the right. because he is insufficiently conservative.

that is the problem republicans have. in a republican primary, she could win. so they have to sort this stuff out. we went through this in the 1970's and 1980's. we sorted it out and we are back in business pretty well. it is a struggle to turn around a big party in a country like the united states where there are huge demographic changes and people being left behind are looking for a way to express their fear and their anger. that is what the republican party has to deal with right now. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next washington journal, rich galen and maria cardona join us to talk about the 2014 and 2016 elections and the agenda ahead in congress. then they will discuss the legacy of president lyndon johnson's war on poverty and today's social programs.

our guest is our michael tanner from the cato institute and melissa boateach. eastern on at 7 a.m. c-span. maryland representative steny hoyer is our test this week on "newsmakers." legislativethe agenda for the year ahead and the 2014 elections. here is a quick preview. work oncan congress this year? what are you most confident about? that congressis can certainly get something done if the republicans are prepared ofput on the floor pieces legislation that will enjoy bipartisan support and will not simply be message bills, as we dealt with last year. insurance billt

-- we're very hopeful it gets done. we are very hopeful we will address comprehensive immigration reform. i think that's that can get on. i think that the evidence of that is it got 68 votes in the united states senate. it was not a partisan bill. i think it will enjoy bipartisan support in the house as well if it is put on the floor. we would like to see the minimum wage raised. as you know income inequality has been focused on iv president. we think that is wrong. we think that is a real challenge to america that the gulf between the rich and the poor is as large as it has been in a very long time. we think that's not good. pastuld like to see end up enda past.

it enjoyed bipartisan support. floor, weput on the see no reason why it would not be passed. we would like to see a greater investment in infrastructure and job creation. the american public believes that that should be our number one priority. these are just some of the issues that we would hope would be addressed and that we could accomplish in the second session of the congress. more of our interview with house minority whip, representative steny hoyer , sundayn "newsmakers" at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern. new jersey governor chris christie held a news conference on thursday to apologize for highway lane closures in new jersey. he also discussed firing his

deputy chief of staff for her involvement in the matter. a.m. that sunday at 10:35 eastern here on c-span. >> there is a language -- we have set up this impossible series of expectations, especially for our president, but for elected officials in general. that they will come in, swooping, save the day. expectations have to be lowered. quiteat is what is really amazing about the american founding. it is not that the founders themselves said, look, don't expect much from government. government is not going to be the main driver of our liberty. it will be civil society. the federal government will do

certain things and it will do them well. if it does not do them well, nothing else will be properly situated. but the main area of activity will be in the civil spear. in the election of local officers and the carrying out of duties at the local and state level. even in that, i think there is a measure of modesty, a record rising that it is not possible for a government and washington, d.c. to run an nation of three and or 10 million people. author ofobb, "q&a."ity," on several of next, senator marco rubio oaks about income mobility and poverty. from the american enterprise institute, this is 45 minutes. [applause]

>> thank you for hosting this. thank you for hosting this. thank you for all of you for being here today. i am honored and privileged to have the opportunity to do this on this important day. my mother was one of seven girls whose parents often went to bed hungry at night so the children would not have to. my father had it even tougher. he lost his mother when he was about nine years old. he had to leave school and go to work at a local restaurant when he was the same age as my oldest son is now. my parents, like most people that have ever lived, were raised in a country where they were trapped by the circumstances of their birth. but just ninety miles away there was a country where, through hard work and perseverance, anyone could get ahead. and so they came here with virtually nothing. the first years in america were difficult. they worked long hours for little pay. but they kept on, and in time, their lives improved.

they never became rich. they never became famous, and yet my parents live the american dream. because like most people, for them happiness wasn't about becoming wealthy. it was about finding work that paid a livable wage. it was about a happy family life, being able to retire with security, being able to give their kids the chance to do anything they wanted. my parents' story, of two everyday people who were given the chance to work their way into a better life, is a common story here in america. it is a defining national characteristic rooted in the principle that is at the core of our nation's birth -- that every single human being has a god- given right to live freely and pursue happiness. this conviction has proven to be far more than just a line on a founding document. it has become the shared and defining value of us as a nation and a people. it has set america apart and has attracted people here from every corner of the earth.

the visionaries, the ambitious, the people who refused to accept the stagnant ways of the old world, they came here. they brought their ideas and they brought their dreams, and finally, free from the restraints of the old world, they helped build the most prosperous nation in human history. we are still a country where through hard work and perseverance you can earn a better life. the vast majority of americans today live lives much better than their parents. yet we are rightfully troubled because many of our people are still caught in what seems to be a pervasive, unending financial struggle. it bothers us because as a people we are united by the belief that every american deserves the equal opportunity to achieve success. fifty years ago today, president lyndon johnson sought to address the plight of poverty by waging a war against it. on that day, he stood before a joint session of congress and

vowed, "it will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won." his very next sentence served as a small window into his big- government vision for this war, and its future failures. he said that "the richest nation on earth can afford to win it." and with those words, he foreshadowed the belief still held by liberals to this very day, that government spending is the central answer to healing the wounds of poverty. today, the debate on poverty is primarily focused on the growing income gap between the rich and poor. from 1979 to 2007, income for the highest-earning americans grew by more than it did for anyone else. from 1980 to 2005, over 80% of the total increase in income went to the top 1% of americans.

these are startling figures and deserve our attention. but if we focus on that alone it does not give us a complete picture, a full view of the problem that is before us. yes, the cashier at a fast-food chain makes less money than the ceo of the company. but the problem we face is not simply the differences and the gap between pay between them, but rather that too many of those cashiers are stuck in the same job for years on end, unable to find one that pays better. and it is that lack of mobility, not just income inequality, that we should be focused on. for most americans, their primary asset ration is to -- primary aspiration is to achieve a better life. for some, that means becoming wealthy, and there is nothing wrong with that. but for most, they just want to live a happy and fulfilling life. like my parents. to earn a livable wage in a good

job. to have time to spend with family and do things they enjoy. to be able to retire with security and leave their kids better off than themselves. the good news is that even in the midst of our recent economic struggles, most americans have been able to do that. posted 50% -- for example, close to 50% of people in the bottom fifth of the income scale in 1996 had climbed into a higher income bracket less than 10 years later. many of these americans have children that have gone on to earn even more. 84% of americans have higher family incomes than their parents had when they were the same age. among all income levels, the current generation is making more and doing better than the ones that came before. the problem is that for some americans, this kind of mobility isn't happening. for example, 70% of children born into poverty will never make it to the middle class. the uncomfortable truth is that there are now a number of other

countries with as much or more opportunity than ours. in fact, more people in canada go on to surpass the income of their parents than in the united states. america is still the land of opportunity for most, but it is not a land of opportunity for all. if we are to remain an exceptional nation, we must close this gap in opportunity. so why are so many poor americans trapped at the bottom? why are so many working harder than ever only to find their dreams living further away? -- only to find their dreams slipping further away? why do so many suffer from a growing and nagging sense of insecurity, knowing that they are one bad break away from losing everything they worked so hard for? there are a number of reasons. our modern day economy has wiped out many of the low-skill jobs that once provided millions with a middle class living.

those that have not been outsourced or replaced by technology pay wages that just don't keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. even some of the middle-skilled jobs, white and blue-collar jobs, have also been lost to automation or shipped overseas. in till at least a few decades ago, our economy proved sufficiently dynamic and innovative to replace old jobs with new ones. but that hasn't happened in recent years. social factors also play a major role in denying equal opportunity. the truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. but it isn't a government program. it's called marriage. fifty years ago, today, when the war on poverty was launched, 93% of children born in the united states were born to married

parents. by 2010 that number had plummeted to 60%. it should not surprise us that 71% of poor families with children are not headed by a married couple. the decline of marriage and the increase in the percentage of children born out of wedlock is being driven by a complex set of cultural and societal factors, but there is an interesting impediment to marriage worth keeping in mind. a 2011 report by the pew research center found that 64% of adults with college degrees are married, while only 47% of those with a high-school education or less are. a lack of education is contributing to inequality in other ways as well. the jobs that have replaced the low and middle skill jobs of the past pay more.

but they require a high level of professional, technical, or management skills. and we simply have too many people who have never acquired the education needed to attain those skills. what's worse, children from lower income families are the least likely to get an advanced education. the result is a vicious cycle of intergenerational poverty. these economic, social, cultural and educational causes of opportunity inequality are complex. and they are overlapping. and they are interrelated. and they will not be solved by continuing with the same stale washington ideas. five decades and trillions of dollars after president johnson first announced the war on poverty, the results of the big- government approach are in. here is what they are. we have four million americans who have been out of work for six months or more. we have a staggering 49 million americans living below the

poverty line. we have over twice that number, over 100 million people, who get some sort of food aid from the federal government. meanwhile, our labor participation force is at a 35- year low, and children raised in the bottom 20% of national income have a 42% chance of being stuck there for life. our current president and his liberal allies, they propose to address this. their proposal is let's spend more on failed programs and increase the minimum wage to $10.10. this is their solution to what the president has called the president has called defining issue of our time? raising the minimum wage may poll well, but having a job that pays $10 an hour is not the american dream. and our current government programs at best offer only a

partial solution. they help people deal with poverty, but they do not help people emerge from poverty. the only solution that will achieve meaningful and lasting results is to provide those u.s. with low-paying jobs with the real opportunity to move up the better-paying jobs. to do this, we have to focus on policies that help our economy create those jobs, policies that help people overcome the obstacles between them and those jobs. the war on poverty accomplish neither of these two things. but we can achieve these two goals. first because we have the single greatest engine of upward mobility in human history at our disposal, the american free enterprise system. real free enterprise isn't wealth accumulating in the hands of a few and leaving everyone else behind to live off the crumbs and leftovers. real free enterprise is not corporatism, where those with the power to influence

government win at the expense of everyone else. real free enterprise is about a broad and growing economy that creates opportunities for everyone to get ahead. real free enterprise creates the opportunity to become wealthy. it creates the good and stable middle-class jobs, like the one my parents had. but instead of fostering a vibrant free enterprise economy, our federal government is a major impediment to the enterprise and ingenuity of our people. an expensive tax code, burdensome regulations, and an unsustainable national debt are suffocating our economy's ability to create enough steady and good-paying jobs. that is why poverty and inequality have only gotten worse under the current administration. instead, we need policies that make our country the easiest and best place in the world to create good-paying jobs. this means removing the uncertainty created by a dangerous and growing national debt. this means an simple and

affordable tax code reforms that incentivize investment. it means eliminating regulations that prevent employers from expanding and prevent our energy sector from growing. but we can't stop there. allowing free enterprise to flourish alone is not enough. we also have to address the complex and interrelated societal, cultural, and educational impediments that are also holding so many people back. a child born into a poor and broken family, living in a dangerous and violent neighborhood and forced to attend a dysfunctional school, that child is in all likelihood going to not have the same opportunities to succeed as a child throwing up in a stable home in a safe neighborhood and attending a good school. an unwed mother with a poor education, abandoned by the father of her children, faces significant challenges to a better life.

the poverty found in rural areas has some characteristics that are very different from the poverty you find in urban areas, in inner cities. these are complex problems. our current collection of overlapping government programs ignores and sometimes even exacerbates them. instead of continuing to pour money into our existing programs, we need to reform them through innovative and highly targeted solutions. here is the problem. that is not something the federal government is capable of delivering. washington is too bureaucratic and to resistant to change. its one-size-fits-all approach to policy is not conducive to solving a problem as diverse and complex as this one. therefore, what i'm proposing today is the most fundamental change to how the federal government fight already and encourages upward mobility since president johnson first conceived of the war on poverty 50 years ago today.

-- fights poverty. i'm proposing that we turn over washington's antipoverty program and the trillions spent on them to the states. are antipoverty program should be replaced with a revenue- neutral flex fund. we would streamline most of our existing federal antipoverty funding into a single agency. each year, these flex funds would be transferred to the states so that they can design and find creative initiatives that address the factors behind inequality of opportunity. this work in the 1990's with welfare reform. in that case, congress gave the states the ability to design their own programs, and interned the states enacted policies that promoted work rather than dependence. in the years that followed, this led to a decline in poverty and welfare expenses. however, despite the success of welfare reform, washington continues to rule over the world of anti-poverty policymaking, with beltway bureaucrats picking and choosing rigid nationwide

programs and forcing america's elected state legislators to watch from the sidelines. as someone who served nine years in the state house, two of them as speaker, i know how frustrating that is. it is wrong for washington to tell tallahassee what programs are right for the people of florida. but it is particularly wrong for it to say that what is right for tallahassee is the same thing that is right for topeka and sacramento and detroit and manhattan and every other town, city, and state in the country. a nation as large and diverse as the united states, with a problem as large and diverse as this one, should have a menu of state-level policy options as large and diverse. already, we see evidence that when states can manage the resources necessary to experiment with such programs, the results are dynamic and transformative.

for example, while washington debates how and whether to fund the existing unemployment insurance programs, states are finding innovative approaches to get people into good-paying jobs. in utah, in order to continue receiving an employment benefits, the long-term unemployed were required to take online training courses that focus on skills needed for modern professionals, with topics spanning from resume-building to career direction to interview skills. the state track the progress of participants. here is what they found. before the courses of professional preparedness they were at an equivalent of d+. on completion, preparedness had climbed to a b+. what began as a requirement turned into a sought-after tool. 36% of participants found the course so helpful that they voluntarily completed more training than what was required. it also helps him find a job

faster, by the way. among the test group, unemployment duration was reduced by 7%. the program has been taken statewide in utah, and a 7% reduction in the duration of benefits is expected to save $60 million annually, not to mention the boost to the state economy and culture from a more engaged labor force. a similar program was attempted in mississippi. in that case, participants increased preparedness by a staggering 31%. another in kentucky found that workers spent 2.2 weeks less on unemployment insurance benefits when required to take training courses. these are the kinds of innovations we are looking to unleash. not just with unemployment insurance, but throughout the entire web of government assistance programs. right now, these kinds of innovations are difficult, if not impossible to pursue, because washington controls the money. but i know from my time in the florida legislature that if states were given the

flexibility, they would design and pursue innovative and effective ways to help those trapped in poverty. as we've seen, they could put in place programs that give those currently stuck in low-wage jobs access to a job training system. they could put in place relocation vouchers that will help the long-term unemployed move to areas with more jobs. they could remove the marriage penalties in safety net programs like medicaid. they could enact a nearly infinite number of other nimble and targeted reforms to address the needs of their people. allowing the states greater control doesn't mean washington gets to wash its hands of the problem. there will still be a role-play for the federal government. for example, we should pursue reforms that encourage and reward work. that is why i am developing legislation to replace the earned income tax credit with a federal wage enhancement for qualifying low-wage jobs.

this would allow unemployed individuals to take a job paying 18,000 dollars a year, which on its own is not enough to make ends meet, but then they receive a federal enhancement to make the job a more enticing alternative to simply collecting unemployment insurance. unlike the earned income tax credit, my proposal would apply the same to singles as to married couples and families with children. it would be a preferable means of distributing benefits, since it would arrive in sync with a monthly or biweekly paycheck rather than a year-end lump-sum credit. it is a better way of supporting low-income workers than simply raising the minimum wage. an enhancement like this will have to be widely targeted so it avoids fraud or abuse, and the amount will depend on a range of factors. but we know that by supporting work over dependency, this will increase workforce participation, especially in struggling communities. that in turn will have numerous social, economic, and cultural

benefits to areas hardest hit by the great recession and our recent economic challenges. ultimately, however, any reform effort would be incomplete if it failed to facilitate the ultimate wage enhancer, skills training for those in low-wage jobs. many people in these jobs don't have the time or money to pursue a traditional education. we can help them by bolstering and reinvigorating our nation's existing job-training system. while our workforce delivery system must be driven by states, the federal government can help address the shortage in many skilled labor jobs by creating more pathways toward obtaining those certification credentials, and by encouraging alternatives to the traditionally accredited college degree. unlike our current programs, targeted reforms such as these address the causes of opportunity and equality, not just the consequences.

as a result, they will help move us closer to a day when widespread poverty is a memory. and equal opportunity is available to more people than ever before. this erosion of equal opportunities is among the greatest stresses to our exceptionalism as a nation, but it also provides us with an exciting and historic opportunity to help more people than ever achieve the american dream. the millions trapped in poverty and despair are a tremendous untapped resource for america. just think of what it would mean for our country to gain the full use of the talents and abilities of all people. they would develop new innovations to improve our lives, help build the next great american company. they would be doctors in our hospitals, scientist in our labs. customers for our businesses and partners in our investments. leaders in our government, pastors in our churches.

we are a great country, despite the fact that we have over 40 million people stuck in poverty. imagine how much greater we would be if they were not. imagine how much greater we would be if the dreams and talents of over 40 million human beings were unleashed into our economy and into our lives. now, i haven't been in washington long, but i have been here long enough to know everything here gets analyzed through the lens of electoral politics. upward mobility and equal opportunity is not and should not be part of the issue. it is our unifying principle. it has always been a focus in my public service, going back to my days as a state representative. for me, this issue is deeply personal. i am a generation removed from poverty and despair.

where would i be today if there had never been an america? what kind of futures would my children have of this was not a nation of opportunity? what if my father had been stuck working as a bar boy his whole life instead of making it to head bartender? what kind of like would i have now? in all likelihood, i too would be on the outside looking in, forever frustrated that because my parents had no power or no privilege i was unable to achieve my full potential. our status as a land of equal opportunity, it has made us a rich and powerful nation. but it has also transformed lives. it has given people like me the chance to grow up knowing that no dream was too big and no goal was out of my reach. the earliest memories are of my father and grandfather instilling in me that i could achieve any kind of life i

wanted. even though they had humble beginnings themselves. now there are those trying to access those same opportunities. working in this very building, there are struggling parents trying to give their children what my parents gave me. within walking distance of this very place, there are children growing up like i did, with dreams just like mine. whether or not they get the chance to improve their lives will determine whether we remain a special country or become just like everybody else. for 50 years now, we have tried big government. yet too many people remain trapped and despair. now we must try a new way. one that addresses the things that are keeping some the people from the better life they want. the idea that everyone deserves a chance, that still binds us together as a people.

despite our many challenges and our differences, this is still who we want to be. that is why i know, like those who came before us, we are going to solve this problem. because in the end i believe we will do what americans have always done, whatever it takes to keep america special. thank you for the chance to address you. [applause] >> we have time for a few questions and answers as well. if you are called on, please stand and introduce yourself. i would like to take the prerogative to ask the first question myself. you have been working not just on policy, but doing a lot and communities in florida, including miami. what are you doing in communities for people on the ground experiencing poverty?

what is your experience? >> first of all, let me go back to when i first began to deal with the issues in 2004 and 2005 when i was in the florida legislature, on the path to becoming speaker of the house. we undertook a project called the 100 innovative ideas for florida's future. getting ideas from everyday people -- what would you do in our position? the number one answer was resign, but all kidding aside we learned about the needs out there that existed. from that, you start to have a better understanding of the diversity of causes keeping people from a better life. what i tried to continue to do is remain engaged in those communities by coming face to face with challenges. some i interact with on a personal level. some of you may have heard me talk about this. i am proud of what we achieved this year, but i was a coach on

two of my former high school's football teams. you see the background of many kids we were coaching. these are challenging circumstances. children, many of whom are raised by grandmother's because they never met their father, and their mother is working two jobs, or might have a drug problem, might be in jail. these kids are in dangerous neighborhoods and sometimes lack access to positive role models other than what they might see on television. these kids are going to struggle to succeed. some of them will. but some of these kids face very significant obstacles to a better life. every year that goes by is a year you can't get back. let me address those things that are happening. unless something dramatic happens. you start to understand what intergenerational poverty is caused by. we also have the issue of people who cannot help themselves. the safety net has to be there for people in those circumstances. in miami-dade county we have

many poor seniors who cannot be expected to go back and find jobs to support themselves. you have people who are disabled, people who have addictions they need to break. the issue is complex. you go to rural areas, particularly in the homestead area, and you have people dealing with poverty, but the causes and characteristics look different from what you may find in the inner-city urban areas. even inner-city urban poverty looks different in miami and jacksonville or tampa or other parts of the state. all these have to be dealt with in creative and innovative ways. the frustrations you often hear is we have no flexibility. we are forced to provide services within the constraints of government mandates and government requirements that you not allow us to tailor our programs to the individual, to the locality we are trying to serve. hence some of the problems. the other complaint you get is the extraordinary amount of paperwork involved every single year in accessing these funds in these programs. that is problematic as well.

my biggest concern i have learned from is that we have antipoverty programs that help us to alleviate the pain of poverty, but they do not do nearly enough to help people overcome the causes of it, the things that are keeping them from getting ahead. unless we address the structural causes of poverty, we are never going to solve it and are never going to create the kind of upward mobility we want in our country which we expect from our nation. >> you were first. you are up. >> thank you very much. from "the washington post" >> my faith teaches me we have a biblical obligation to take care of those who are less fortunate. my country, whether we want to a knowledge or not, was founded on spiritual principles much more than political principles. the idea that every being was created equal by god and endowed with certain rights is founded on a certain spiritual principle. one of the rights is an equal opportunity to pursue happiness,

as you individually define it. certainly plays a role in that regard. i think the spiritual component probably plays a greater role in me as a person in terms of my private philanthropy, how we dedicate the time and the blessings we have had. it plays a role that the government, but in fulfilling our spiritual obligation it should influence we do in government, but should particularly influence will be when our private lives. just because the government has a program to help those struggling, doesn't mean that outside of that particular individuals don't have that same obligation to also look for ways to serve. service to others, charity, this is a term that is often used, is a key component in living your faith. >> a washington team unity activist. you made a point about marriage

and young children out of wedlock being a root cause of most of the things you see. we have something in d.c. that needs to be dealt with. we know. what about policies that would increase the amount of young people -- helping them grow families? in these public housing complexes in d.c., what policies can be put in place to help empower people? a drug dealer. someone who cooks crack cocaine, they could be a scientist. they braid hair, they cook food, they wash cars. how can we teach these people to be businessmen and businesswomen

and grow? >> on your second point, when i talked about this issue, we often deal with this issue of a burden in our country. we have 50 million people in america struggling. certainly it is a burden on them. it is more than just a burden. human beings are not a liability. they are in asset. if we can unleash their potential, their god-given potential to help our country, it would enrich every single one of us. i have no doubt that stuck today somewhere with a lack of opportunity is the next brilliant scientist or innovator or someone who will improve our lives and essentially change the direction of our country. you ask me about marriage. it is a complex issue, largely societal one. where government can play a role, because much of the role has to come from individuals in society, but where government can play a role, make sure policies do not punish marriage. we have safety net programs that discourage marriage. medicaid is one example.

you can lose medicaid if you get married. suddenly your income goes up and you have been disqualified. the other issue is that government is always a valid platform to talk about these things and create awareness about the importance that marriage phase in children and the well-being of families. the impact marriage has is the title, but it also has a practical impact. a married couple has two paychecks, an unmarried couple probably only has one. it is tough to get ahead with just one paycheck these days. there were instances where both my parents were working when we were growing up because they had to. if my mom or dad had to do it alone, things would have been different. the reason why it is so important to push these programs down to the state and local level is because it is there where the kind of innovative governmental policies can -- to the extent the government can have a role in promoting marriage and family formation -- it is there really where you would see that innovation. to think that washington, d.c. will design a program that works

just as well as washington, d.c. as it doesn't does in topeka, kansas, i think we are fooling ourselves. the federal government is not structured for that kind of thinking. i think the answer to that problem, innovative policies that will help address it, will come from your level, not from mine. but i do think government has a role to play in incentivizing that to help make that possible. >> thank you. on several occasions in your remarks you mentioned the broad and growing economy. isn't that the difference between how private sector creates jobs and the government creates jobs? wealth creation, which is another word for profit. creating sustainable jobs.

whereas government programs are largely transfer payments. they may alleviate the short-term concern but they need to be sustained by continued income flow. they don't sustain themselves the way wealth creation does. if that is true, then what -- these the solutions to encourage people to focus on growth. not just jobs, but economic growth? if you can do that, then you can have sustainable jobs, and that requires an understanding and appreciation for the role of the profit in job creation rather than income distribution. >> in my comments i said the only way to solve this problem is to do two things. number one, foster a vibrant free enterprise economy that creates these jobs, and number two, address issues keeping

americans from accessing these jobs. that is where i talked about the debt and things of these nature, because they do have an impact. you bring up a very important point. it is important remind ourselves of how jobs are created. it is not a competition formula. basically, someone who has money or access to money decides to risk it, to start a new business or grow existing one. the idea works, and they start hiring people and make a profit and decide to take the profit they have made and reinvested back into the business to make it grow and create more jobs. that is for you create private-sector jobs. why did my dad have a job as a bartender? because somebody had access to money and opened a hotel. other americans had enough money left in their pockets to take a vacation to miami beach or las vegas. they are interrelated. now we have governmental policies that make that harder. why? because if you reinvest the

profit in another country you pay less taxes because of our corporate tax rate. if you are a big corporation or a large multinational, you may not like the large rules and regulations but if you really want to deal with them you can hire people to navigate that. if you are somebody trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of your home, you cannot afford to hire a lobbying firm, accounting firm, and a law firm to navigate that. it just never happens. hence you see where government action becomes an impediment. the last thing we have not done enough of is look at the impact the national debt is having on economic growth. people realize the debt will eventually lead to massive increases in taxes or disruptive changes in government, and discourages them about making long-term investments. when you are not making long-term investments in the future of your business, you will not be treating jobs and opportunities for others. doing all that is quickly

important. by itself, it is not enough. we have to take the second step. the second step is that is great for the economy to create jobs, but we do not have the people for those skills because those jobs require a higher level of education than ever before. if you are a 35-year-old single mom trying to raise a kid and working full time you just can't leave your kids behind and go to college for four years. we have to figure out a way to deliver skills and technical capabilities to that person so they can improve their lives. not by minimum wage, but by getting a degree that allows them to find a job that pays 4, 5 times what they were making. we have to do both. we can't just do one or the other. >> fast-forward a year from now.

by washington standards -- how would we measure the success of what you are posing today in terms of legislation, reform -- how do we assess? >> start working on implement in things. the first phase is to convince people that this approach, i think the first step is to convince people that we are not dealing with the right problem. we are not dealing with the right problem, even as early as tomorrow the president will give another speech on inequality. he focuses on inequality of income, which is an issue. but the bigger issue is inequality of opportunity. as i said in my speech, of course the cashier at a fast food chain makes less than the ceo, but the fundamental problem, is that person stuck in the job the rest of their lives, or are they getting the opportunity to get better pay?

the primary impediment, and i mentioned a number of them, one of the primary impediments is they do not have skills allowing access to better-paying jobs. the other impediment is the economy may not be producing enough. we are not treating the causes of poverty. we are only treating the pain caused by poverty. that is a valid thing. if you are only feeling the pain, the symptoms of poverty, you're not dealing with the causes, you're not going to cure it. that is with the current programs don't do. the second phase is convincing people we need to act on it. that this is a critical issue. something that threatens our exceptionalism as a nation. if we can do that entry coalitions that extend beyond party lines, that will be important to restarting this conversation. i honestly believe, not only is this a critical issue to keep america special, it is in issue that provides a tremendous opportunity to grow exponentially in ways that we

perhaps cannot even envision. when you think that there are 40 million people out there that right now do not have full access to the american promise, what would our country look like if they did? it would be phenomenal. a huge, untapped potential that we have. first phase is convincing people this is important enough to be revolutionary about. >> can you provide more details on this flex fund? what federal programs do you see going into that? >> we are beginning to prep the details of it. it is originated by an economist who did a great job. now we are turning it into a piece of legislation. we are going to be introducing the legislation. that is exactly what we are looking at right now. which programs would fit in, how the money would be transferred, how you would deliver benefits.

there has to be some level of accountability from states to ensure the programs are delivering on what the money is being given for. that is what we are working on developing, those details of what it would look like. by and large, it would take your existing funding, your levels of funding that you have, and transfer them to a single agency who would then fund innovative or grounds of the state level meant to address what is going on each of those states individually. you would do it in the revenue-neutral way. the first idea is not to save money, though we think it will save money in the long term. you will turn more recipients into taxpayers. you will get more people out of poverty and become active members of our economy. you will see that not just in a reduction of expenditures in these programs, but they will become vibrant participants in the economy, customers and business partners and taxpayers, all things that provide not just a better life, but everyone a better life. >> the current debate here, one

of the issues is food stamps. the proposal is to cut back on food stamps. >> at the end of the day, i would envision that maybe one of the programs transferred to the state level, because perhaps they best deliver that. i would say to you that these programs have a utility. in the past i have said that. there is a worthy place for the safety net. it is hard to go to school and acquire skills if you are not eating. they serve utility, but they are incomplete. they are dealing with a symptom of poverty, hunger, but don't help you deal with the cause, a lack of skill attainment or other implements in the way. anytime we can find ways to go after inefficiencies or even worse, fraud, things of that nature, we should examine that. but if we were to transfer these to the state level and allow them the flexibility to design a way to deliver food assistance to individuals through creative and innovative programs that meet the real demand in

individual localities, i think that debate would no longer be necessary. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end about time. i would like to thank the american enterprise institute, thank all you for coming today and doing your part for our shared movement to help those in need. please join me in thanking senator marco rubio. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> you hear more about income you will -- inequality on monday. remarks at ther brookings institution and we will have live coverage on 9 a.m. eastern on c-span2. paul ryan will speak about the economy and social mobility.

watch his remarks live at 4 p.m. eastern on cspan3. >> we bring public affairs offense from washington directly to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service. we are c-span. we are funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd. follow us on twitter. in his weekly radio address, president obama called on congress to extend unemployment insurance or over one million americans and outlined his plan for economic growth and got -- job creation. the senator from mississippi had the rubble -- the republican response.

>> hi, everybody. yesterday we learned in 2013 our businesses created 2.2 million new jobs, including 87,000 last month. our implement rate -- our employment rate is the lowest it has been since 2008. our manufacturing and housing sectors are rebounding. our energy, technology tom and auto sectors are booming thanks in part to the affordable care act, healthcare cdosts eat up less of our economy. we have cut our deficit by more than half. of theto the hard work american people, our economy is growing stronger. we know we have more work to do together. our success is the country depends on more than the success of our broader economy, it depends on the success of the american people. it depends on your ability to

make ends meet, provide for your family. and with hard work, feel like you can get ahead. we have to keep our economy growing and make sure more americans have the opportunity to share and that growth. bid to keep creating jobs to create more opportunity and make sure those jobs off the wages and benefits that let you rebuild security. we have more kids to educate and families to get covered by health insurance and an immigration system defects fix. we have to make sure this recovery leaves no one behind. this will be a year of action. i will keep doing everything i can to create new jobs and new opportunities or american families. own, andress, or on my with everyone willing to play actionart, that should begin by extending unemployment insurance. this vital economic lifeline

helps people support their families why they look for a new job. it advance responsibility in return but requiring they prove that they are actively looking for work. before the holidays, republicans and holiday -- democrats let the expire. it would hurt 14 million americans if this does not get fixed. we took the first steps to making this right earlier this week, but congress needs to finish the job. more than one million americans will feel a little hope right away if they do. working folks are looking for this stable, secure jobs that went overseas in the past couple of decades so next week i will join companies and colleges and take action to boost manufacturing. business owners are ready to play their part and hire more workers and so next week i will be joined by college presidents as we lay out specific steps to

let more young people go to college and graduate with the skills they need. later this month, i will host ceos at the white house. month, at my the state of the union address, i will mobilize the country around the national mission of making sure our economy offers everyone who works hard a fair shot at opportunity and success. as americans, that is what we should expect, and everything -- and never it -- and after everything you have done in hard work and sacrifice, that is what you deserve. thanks. have a great weekend. >> hello. i am the united states senator from mississippi. the beginning of the new year is a time when many americans decide to make positive changes in their lives. it can be a time we decide to adopt healthier lifestyles or take a fresh look at the family

budget. unfortunately, as this year begins, many people are worried about how the so-called affordable care act also known as obamacare is affecting both their health and personal finances. republicans in the senate think we should repeal or defund the program because of its cost and complexity. the affordable care act was supposed to be fully operational by january of this year but here we are two weeks into 2014 and the administration continues to struggle to implement the laws. the law is not living up to the promises made by its supporters feared it is questionable whether the law will be its fundamental purpose to significantly expand health coverage. 5 million americans have been kicked out of the health plans that they liked and were promised they could keep.

some of my constituents have discovered that the new insurance could cost twice as much as they have been paying. many others are being denied access to doctors with whom they were perfectly happy with. the administration's enrollment numbers do not paint a pretty picture. they don't tell us how many of the enrollees have luck -- have lost existing coverage and were forced into the exchanges and the numbers do not tell us whether applicants have actually paid their premiums and received coverage. ampleis ample rebirth -- reason to be skeptical that those numbers will improve. if the law cannot keep its most basic promise, it should be repealed. we have introduced legislation to do just that. we should go back to the drawing that and grab common sense will work better for all americans without spending billions of taxpayer dollars to

support these failing policies. in the spirit of the new year, we should resolve to help make our health-care care system more user-friendly and affordable. thank you. coming up on c-span, the inauguration ceremony for the new league -- newly elected governor of virginia. followed by hard book notes program. the prime minister died today after eight years in a coma. then, remarks from howard dean. later, florida center marco rubio speaks about income it would -- income inequality. on the next washington journal, republican and democratic us tocal strategists join talk about the 2014 and 2016 elections and the agenda had in congress. legacy ofed the

lyndon johnson's war on poverty in today's social programs. we have guessed from the cato institute. liveington journal" is every morning on c-span. >> by 1895, 9 that the railroads were terminated. that created quite an economic base. every railroad had a switching yard or repair shop. it was a great terminal in the southeast. all that employment, all that money turning over by the workers provided economic stimulus to the growing city of chattanooga. movetoday, railroads still

an amazing amount of tim tonnage through chattanooga. train after train loaded with seaboard's on the the atlantic coast. there is still a lot of commodities that moved by rail. they have to, through chattanooga. weekend, i look at the history of literary life of chattanooga, tennessee. >> democrat terry mcauliffe was sworn in today as virginia 72nd governor. he defeated the republican state attorney. cochaired president clinton's 1996 presidential reelection campaign and hillary clinton's

2008 presidential campaign. bobre the ceremony, mcdonnell presented his successor with the keys to the governor's mansion. the operation ceremony runs about an hour. >> it was our privilege to work with terry and make this transition. you are in for a great privilege. >> we know that. thank you. and you have been welcoming and everything, so thank you. >> oh, no, we are glad. >> absolutely. >> we really appreciate you coming to my inauguration. >> that is how it should be. your team is great, martin -- >> did you hear that, martin?

you are spectacular. >> you remember all the kids, of course. >> i do. >> good to see you. >> sally, ok, and mary. hi. you are the oldest, and you up in new hampshire? >> maine. >> the maniacs. it is beautiful up there. whereabouts? waterville, north of portland. >> welcome back. beautiful family. >> this is mary mcauliffe. >> hi, mary.

>> i wish you well. >> keep the cell phone, we will keep calling. i really appreciate that. >> i texted him at 1:15, he texted back at 1:24, so he is on the ball. terry and dorothy, i want to present to you the key to the governor's mansion, something you will never need, but it will look great on your coffee table or wherever you decide to put it. it is a commendation of a beautiful sterling silver little plaque here that says the executive mansion and key. you will be followed by the next four years by police officers, so you do not have to worry about that. i have the privilege, governor, and you enjoy it and do great things for the people of virginia.

it has been an incredible honor and privilege for more rain and i to do this. i'm glad to send it to another irish catholic family with five kids. there have been no catholics for 500 years and now there are three in a row. god bless you, and may the lord shine his face on you and the mcauliffe family. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> my pleasure. >> thank you. >> anything i could do.