conversation was sort of trying to steer some of our witnesses into saying that they're just absolutely too many programs and if they had more flexibility that they could do a better job. i certainly agree, for example -- and ms. reynolds, the case management approach. certainly agree with america works which recently came to milwaukee, some of the things that you do. but be clear, when they talk about flexibility they're talking about cutting the $299 billion medicaid program that you may need in order to help situational or generational poverty or the infermed or disabled people. the testimony you read for us, ms. tiller, the young woman -- i think she was probably still on medicaid after she got her job at the fast food restaurant. so you, you know, i don't want

you to be lulled into supporting, gutting this while we pay $614 billion in corporate welfare. i do have a question for you, ms. reynolds, about the mind set of the individuals. don't you think we have to change the mind set of the community too? an example i come up with. if you run into a client, for example, who found themselves in the county jail because they had a bar fight and when they come out, don't we have to get the business community to hire people who might have a public record, for example? >> we in fort worth have been very fortunate to work with the business community. we have developed a living wage tool kit at our organization. everybody we -- catholic charities fort worth makes a living wage. several of our local businesses have made a choice. >> ok. i don't have 10 minutes like the chairman did. it's not changing the individual minds. the community has to embrace it too. otherwise you have permanent unemployment. i'm so happy that people get

educational opportunity through your program because ms. tiller, you focus on work first programs. sometimes it's very difficult. we have skills match in this country. how do you deal with skills match when you don't allow education, one of my main critiques of the tanf program? >> well, it's not that we don't allow education. a lot of times we'll take the skill set that the individual can come in with, see if we can transfer it into some type of employment so simultaneously they'll begin to provide more for their families and attend educational programs. and we support college -- >> do you -- do you worry about -- the femininization of poverty? tanf is primarily utilized by women and, you know, everybody here is educated in this room. and we all know that an associates degree, bachelors degree is just necessary in this economy to have a job.

don't you worry about that? i'm going to ask you another question too. your model, your business model, america works, you've come into milwaukee and it's sort of putting the nonprofits in the public sector out of business. how does your business model enable you to provide services to clients that are adequate to get them out of poverty? >> we're able to turn around those profits to help individuals. >> you use profits back into the programs and not into the shareholders? >> both. we want to reinvest as well because we want to do more programs, do more research and help additional populations. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> thank you, all, for your time. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank all of you for being here.

you have wonderful stories. we appreciate you greatly. first of all, ms. reynolds and i call fort worth our home and we are both t.c.u. horned frogs. go, frogs. >> ms. reynolds, you've said -- we've been talking about a term you said which you termed generational poverty. do a lot of people you know trust government? not. iutely night -- believe each person is met with such unity and care. i believe they would rather come through our office than government offices. appreciate it. tell all the

may benship with people itter than the government. want to thank you for the work you are doing. you are really making a difference. i thank you for your testimony. i heard you saying government delivers negative incentives. in other words, the government says, don't have a savings account. don't make anymore than you were making. where it allows for growth and limited success. texted i say government or -- >>rkers? but i assume

i said government or caseworkers? >> i assume you were talking about government. i don't feel like i need somebody else to tell me how i should he spending my benefit. i don't feel we should go that way. charge of what is good for me. i should have a say so on what is going to affect me and my and so many americans. i don't feel the government should tell me i have this and this is what you are going to do with it and if you don't do it you will be penalized. >> you don't think the government should tell you that? >> no, i don't think the government should tell me that. i feel like if i go into an office and sit down across the table i should be treated like a human being. i should be looked at as a human being. i shouldn't be talked down to. i shouldn't be looked at as someone who just wants to come and rely on government programs

because that's not true. i'm very strong. i'm very independent. i'm very smart and i know what's right and wrong for me and my family. >> you sound like a private sector person talking. i appreciate that. back to you, ms. reynolds. what would you say are the biggest barriers that your clients are trying to face, and they're trying to come out of poverty, what is the biggest challenge? >> that leap. 80% are working. but they're just the working poor. they don't make enough to get out of poverty. yet they make too much to qualify for any governmental assistance. and too often the federal system incentivizes people not to work and to backslide because you've become -- it's financially better. they're more financially astute about how that should look. as the thing that would be more beneficial is an incremental decrease as well as losing benefits as well as the case

management that could more quickly work hand in hand with families to remove the barriers to get them where they need to go. i say that anybody that comes to services should be treated with compassion, dignity. i do believe accountability is incredibly important. i think support is incredibly important. i learned how to balance a checkbook from my father who's a c.p.a. a lot of our families who walk through the doors have no clue what to do, no clue how to get to the next level. we talk about pell grants. it's a great benefit. but at the same time only 10% of students -- low-income students who start community college nationwide ever finish. something's wrong. what often it is is a small situation, childcare issues, barriers, some families spiraling out of control. they need that support, they need that push, they need that push to make that leap out. >> you're doing that. with that being said, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. mcdermott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm old enough to remember george bush being sold to us as

a compassionate conservative and i appreciate five, six hearings about poor people but i'm not sure i really understand. ms. gaines-turner, you are someone we can learn from about how it actually works. now, everybody up here makes $170,000 a year. so we don't have much contact with what you go through on an average month. could you tell me what your education level is, how far you went in school? >> i graduated high school. >> so you got a high school education? >> yes. >> and the federal government describes poverty level for a family of five -- that's three kids and a couple parents, at $27,900. can you tell us what your income as a family -- monthly, after taxes, or yearly after taxes, can you give us an idea where you are? >> so my husband gets paid every week and he makes $8.25 an hour. after taxes he has about $170 a week. >> $170 a week. >> i get paid $10.88 an hour.

just recently in june my hours were cut down to 12 hours a week due to the budget. my paycheck was $222. for two weeks. for two weeks. >> for two weeks. that would be about $111 for a week. >> yes, sir. >> ok. so that's -- so that's what your plun is now. tell me about how the food stamp thing interacts with that. what level -- is that -- your salary, whether you get the food stamps or is it the family level? >> it's me and my husband's income. >> and you have to report each week or each month? >> you have to report each month. >> each month. so when you drop, you reduce yours and you get more food stamp money? >> that's the way it's supposed

to work. that's not how it always works. so in june my income reduced and i went into the county assistance office and gave them that information and my food stamps stayed the same. so it was supposed to rise but it didn't because the caseworker said she didn't get the paperwork so now that i'm back to my full-time hours in july, you know, my income now -- my food stamps will go back to $380 is what my food stamps will be. >> so we're looking at a family that right now is making about maybe $300 a week, that's $1,200, you're living on that amount of money. >> yes, that was for the -- yes, that was for the month of june. >> do you get cash money from any other source, from tanf? >> no, i'm not on cash assistance. >> no cash assistance? >> no. >> the only thing you have is the food stamps on top of that? >> yes.

>> and your rent, how much do you pay for rent? >> my rent right now is $277. >> so a quarter of your money -- well, not a quarter -- about a fifth of your money each month goes to rent, little bit more than that? >> yes. >> and then food -- do you have a car? >> no. i take public transportation to work, me and my husband. >> you're on public transportation -- >> uh-huh. >> and how much is your utilities? >> you would figure one month i might get a water bill for $230 and then you have to think about the gas bill which is maybe another $107, something like that, give or take. and then you have to think about the electric. like i said, i have three children with medical disabilities so i don't have a choice to turn on the air-conditioner to make my house

is cool in the summer months so my children don't have seizures. in the winter, i don't have a choice when temperatures drop, i have to turn that gas on. so, you know, i'm always -- i'm always -- we're always trying to climb up. climb up. there is a constant climb. and that is the one thing i think that's important for me being here today just for people to understand. you just broke down my whole everything. could anyone live off that amount of my like me and my husband do every day, every month, every week? it's difficult. it's not something we choose to do. of course we want to get a full-time job. of course my husband wants to go back to school. he has a masonary degree. of course i want to go back to college. i am a smart, threctual, independent person. but unfortunately my circumstances don't allow me to go to school and to also work and juggle our family, you know. i have things that i need to do. i want a tee ball program, volunteer. i'm an assistant girl scout coach. i do things to contribute to my community. >> i thank you very much for

being open and willing to expose your financial situation to us. it takes great courage to come here and talk about what life is really like. >> thank you. >> i want to thank all three of you being here today. it's really interesting and an honor to be in front of you. what each of you do for your community and i appreciate it very much. i was very fortunate to be involved in homeless shelter and transitioning people -- transitioning people from situational or generational poverty and into success over a 20-year period and it was certainly a very rewarding thing. one thing i worried about in our particular facility called myrtle beach haven, in terms of the accountability aspect, we always saw that was important. we didn't want to encourage people to stay homeless. so we limited the time people could stay and said they need to be looking for work when they came in. that wasn't all -- always most success model but the successes

that we had we were very proud of. then in terms of the case management aspect, that's something that always worried me. the manager of the house took it on himself to take people around to apply for this maze and myriad of potentialal benefits that may or may not be aplickal to each person. i -- applicable to each person. i would love to get your advice on how we can better handle the case management at myrtle beach haven. you said something that intrigued me or made me curious. you said the federal programs -- well, you named them -- welfare and food stamps, you said they're not working. what did you mean by that? you said these federal programs are not working. what did you mean? had >> what i meant was the federal programs in which we have right now, they do work, but the problem is is that once you get

to a certain platform you are knocked back down. i didn't mean they are not working. what i'm saying is they need to be improved. i feel like we need to get a task force -- i'm stating here for the record. we need to get a task force that will pay attention to food stamp programs, to savings, to education and to medical. they need to be monitored. that's what i meant. >> not just a myriad of unrelated programs that -- you're saying more like case

management, right? when you say monitor you mean somebody needs to be looking at them? >> i think someone needs to be looking at them to see how we can improve them, to make sure they're not cut, to make sure there are not billions and billions taken away from a single mother or wake program or a head start program. >> more money spent ineffectively when there is such limited money to go around, we don't want money ton tob spent ineffectively either, transition people to being independent, is that correct? you want to make sure money is used effectively? >> of course we want them to be used effectively. >> i think you agree that the only path out of -- will federal programs -- if people rely totally on federal programs, does that take them out of poverty? >> no. >> will it ever? >> i think some people just naturally make it but over all a reliance on federal programs solely is not going to move someone out of poverty. >> mrs. tiller, do you agree with that? >> no. >> it will never take them out of poverty? >> no. >> mrs. turner, do you agree with that? >> sorry. >> people rely on federal programs -- the thing we're talking about, the generational

poverty, if they just simply rely on federal programs and they don't try to make themselves better and go out and get a job, will they ever get out of poverty? >> i don't think anyone relies on federal programs. i feel like people want to go out and get a job. >> do you agree that's the path out of poverty is they have to go out and get a job and become self-reliant? >> if they are capable of going out and getting a job, sir, and have the necessary things to do that, then, yes. but you also have to think about there are some people who are not capable of going out to find employment because where they live, there aren't any jobs. i mean, let's think about it. there is a recession right now. how many jobs are there? and good-paying jobs? let's keep that in mind. >> if you rely on federal programs, you're never going to come out of poverty. the om way to come out of poverty is to become self-reliant and find yourself a job. i got 20 seconds left and i want to ask you one other question. you mentioned earlier that the limit on hours in the affordable care act, you said there can't be the limits on hours, didn't

you say that? >> didn't say the affordable care act. what i said is the limit on hours is you have employers that won't pay and that's what you're -- i said employers won't pay their -- they won't pay their workers enough hours to give them medical insurance. that is a big problem. that is something we need to address. why is that a person can work for a company for 32 years and have to wait a whole year just to get a quarter raise? that is what i'm talking about. why is it that big companies and corporation ks only pay a person 30 hours and not giving them four hours to receive medical benefits? >> ms. lee. >> thank you very much. first, let me thank you, mr. chairman, and our ranking member

for this very important hearing and this very important panel and i want to thank both of you for inviting these witnesses, especially ms. gaines-turner, because it's so important that we hear from americans who are most impacted by the policies that we discuss at this committee. so i want to thank you very much for this. let me once again thank all of the witnesses. before i begin my questions, i want to mention, mr. chairman and to our ranking member, next tuesday, i'm co-hosting a bipartisan poverty simulation that will allow members of congress and their staff just a small glimpse into the lives of families who are living in poverty every day. it will be just a brief example of what this experience is like. we are trying to raise more awareness around the country as to what ms. gaines-turner, for instance, what her life is like, and so we're inviting democrats and republicans to participate with us. and we'll get you the information. we'd love your participation. first, ms. gaines-turner, let me talk to you.

we were just breaking down the numbers in terms of your salary. we figured you and your husband both make a little over $14,000 a year. and with snap benefits and your income, you're probably about $23,000, $24,000 which is about -- below, again, the poverty level of $27,900. now, you're living on the edge. that's very clear. millions of americans are living on the edge. you both are working -- you both are outstanding citizens and you're dealing with all kinds of issues in your life and i want to just commend you, first of all, for juggling so much. but -- and for your advocacy and for being here today. also, i want to just ask you how, you know, so many people view people who are on public assistance or who need government assistance, not that government assistance and relying on government assistance

is going to lift everyone out of poverty. it's a bridge over troubled water. i was on public assistance and food stamps and i thank my government for being there for me. but it was a bridge over troubled water until i could figure out what to do next and get my degree and take care of my kids and move on. what's your perspective people living in poverty -- below the poverty line and who are working and who -- some consider lazy or relying on public assistance to just get over? and let me ask my second question to ms. tiller. i want to do this. the federal ban on food assistance -- and thank you very much for your testimony. the federal ban on food assistance, which is a critical piece of the safety net, this ban for those convicted of a drug felony for life, lifetime ban on food stamps and public assistance, want to get your comment on that. and to ms. reynolds, let me

thank you again. i'm a social worker by profession. i understand case management. so important. but those clients that you serve, what happens if the safety net were cut in terms of case management and what happens if there's a reduction of about 30% of federal assistance as proposed in the ryan republican budget? ok. ms. gaines-turner. >> thank you, ms. lee, for your comments and thank you for your support constantly and pointing out how difficult it is. i feel like, you know, a lot of people don't know how difficult it is. i don't know one person, maybe in this room, that can juggle the things that me and my husband have to juggle every single day with having three children on medical disability going back and forth back to work, maybe having to take an underthe table job just to bring in extra money. there's not a lazy bone in my body. there are many people who live in the inner city under the poverty level that are not lazy. we want to be a part of the conversation. we want to have full-time jobs

and go to school and go to college and things like that. i actually believe that certain people just put that stamp of lazy on us, to put a smokescreen, not really see what's going on, to point the finger at us, to look down at us, to try to humiliate us or twist our words, you know. i feel like we are the most -- every day we wake up and cut coupons like everybody else and get up and go to work and strive for that american dream because that's what everybody strives for, right, the american dream. that's what we need to get back to is the american core and where if you strive harder and work hard and do your just diligence that you can get ahead no matter what race, gender, creed or where you come from, inner city or out of city.

>> second go round? >> no we don't have -- you have a lot of colleagues that showed up. >> well, i'll ask for a written response. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the fact you have taken on this issue of poverty and that we are really trying to get to the bottom of it. i have my own story of my own about poverty. i sit here today because there are a lot of folks who helped me to get to where i am. so i'm interested, ms. reynolds, because i have gone back and worked with a number of programs of the poverty and generational poverty in particular is what i'm going to speak to. i'm sorry i wasn't here for all your opening remarks. i did read the piece you gave to us. generational poverty has its own culture, hidden rules and belief systems. that's what i've run into as we've had programs that tried to help people get out of poverty. what we see and you say it here generational poverty need a deeper level of case management because it requires a mind set change. what i have seen in my experience -- and not in all cases, but some that have broken my heart, where some got an

opportunity to get a skill or a degree and slip back again because of just anxiety about, can i make it on my own? will the paycheck actually come? will i lose my job? so you say here you're happy to provide these examples to show how you've been able to work through that. can you give me a really brief idea how your casework moves to help people being in poverty and having that dependency and then the fear of being on your own? >> that's a great point because it is about getting jobs but it's also about making sure people who maybe grew up on federal benefits, people who maybe grew up in a situation where they never saw a parent go to work for a variety of reasons and it has nothing to do with lazyness or motivation. it has something to do with helping folks understand that they can rewrite their life story. and although i have never been in poverty, my family's been closely impacted by poverty and

i dedicated my life to poverty and studied it quite closely. i think what is so needed with generational poverty is helping with that mind set shift of you can rewrite your life story. this does not need to be where your life story ends. we can look at something different because often when you're in survival mode, basic human theory tells us you're focused on surviving, focused on today. and our case managers lift heads up and help people see a tomorrow. >> so thank you very much. i appreciate that. i'd love to off-line have a little more conversation with you. talk about some of the programs i'm involved in back in my community. ms. gaines-turner, thank you for being here today. thank you for sharing your story. thank you for helping us have a glimpse about what's happening in your family. i respect the fact that you and your husband are raising three children together. family i think is something we have forgotten about as an equation in this poverty situation. we know the number one poverty

independent cadors -- indicators is a child being in a single family home. thank you for what you and your husband are doing. >> thank you. >> i just want to ask you. do you think if there were casework involved, as catholic charities is doing with the people that they're helping to pull up -- and i think ms. tiller, you are doing the same kind of thing. you're working beyond just the job piece but helping them with all the other life situations. either in your situation or those that you know and you see around you that are in that situation, do you think if we did a better job at the government level with nor casework and helping people to find the jobs, understand how to balance the budget and that kind of thing, would that help? >> yes. it definitely would help.

it would help. it would help a great part. i'm not saying that case management doesn't work and i'm not saying that all caseworkers are nasty and all people that work for the government are nasty. that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is we need to make sure we support the programs that support the people that do work. that's what my colleagues -- >> thank you -- >> not colleague but other witness. >> found something that is very common in what you all were saying in the casework because i've experienced in in getting people to get from that defensey to the independencey. it's very difficult, the anxiety that's produced and i think that's one of the nuggets we ought to take out of this and looking to help people. thank you all so much for this. >> mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chair. i thank the ranking member, both for your leadership on this issue. we know that 50 years ago, january of 1964, i believe, president lyndon johnson came to the floor of the house of representatives for a joint session of congress and declared a war on poverty. that war on poverty has largely been successful in helping

millions of americans lift themselves out of an impoverished condition and set on a pathway toward the middle class. of course, there's still a long way to go. although it does seem in this town there are some more interested in a war on working families than a war on poverty. but that's something that we're going to ultimately have to overcome as well. in the context of this present hearing, i thought i'd start with ms. reynolds just to kind of explore the perspective that you laid out. i believe, i guess in your experience, you've laid out three broad categories of poverty, is that correct? >> correct. >> and those three categories are chronic, generational and situational? >> correct. >> now, i guess your view is with respect to each category there is a different preferred strategy in order to arrive at a successful resolution is that true?

>> correct. >> and i think you testified that you believe generational poverty requires a mind set adjustment, correct? >> situational -- sometimes situational poverty can require that as well. >> ok. and can you elaborate on just sort of the mind set you believe exists as what you describe as generational poverty and what you believe needs to be adjusted? >> sometimes people in generational poverty has been beat down in a lot of things. they tried to get up and fallen back down. in addition to that, some people living in poverty have maybe never seen a different side of life. have never seen what opportunities exist or frankly never believed in themselves they can get there. >> if i could stop you there. individuals trapped in generational poverty are beat down by what would be an example of something that has beat them down to create this type of mind

set? >> can be a whole series of things. it can be a lack of opportunities. it can be observing others. it can be a family member. we see that often sometimes too. >> is it fair to say that those trapped in generational poverty is not affected by a mind set but a mind set that is brought by substantive barriers or obstacles they confronted in their life? >> absolutely. >> one of those substantive barriers -- you define success in three different ways. making a way to support the family, correct, was one. three months of savings, a second definition of success. and then no debt. >> no public assistance. >> no public assistance. ok. with respect to sort of the current minimum wage that exists in america, $7.25 per hour.

now, is that a wage that enables a family or an individual to lift themselves out of poverty? >> no. >> in your view? so based on your own practice, i believe, where you support the concept of a living wage, do you think it's good public policy in america to have a wage that exists to allow individuals working hard 40 days -- 40 hours a week throughout an entire year to actually be able to support their families? >> sir. you know, being in fort worth, texas, and being with catholic charities fort worth and i'll speak on them, our focus has not been on policy reform at the federal level because there are multiple complexities for us. we make sure that clients are trained in jobs that pay a living wage, that's our focus. and encouraging corporate responsibility which we have great partnerships with businesses and support our mission in an incredible way. >> but a living wage is a good federal policy, correct?

are are a living wage is and important element to get a client to. >> i think you also mention the in your testimony the importance of a college education in addressing poverty, is that correct? -- ot just college he had education, no, sir. associate's degree can help. an aviation mechanic at $50,000 a year is moving families out of poverty. >> in terms of a past way out of poverty, a college education is an important component? >> education is always important, yes. >> do you think a $260 billion cut in higher he cation funding is a responsibility way to address poverty in mark. >> what i am concerned about is the results that happens with those dollars. any money we are investing in college, pel grants or anything like that, that is having a large return. that is why we have invested in

case management to ensure graduation. for are spending money ucation and it doesn't get past that point, nothing everything happens. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i wanted to follow up a bit on mr. jeffries. let me make a couple of comments. one of the things to keep in mind is that while in theory the motion that many of the federal programs -- at least as i understand some of the theory that has been presented from folks on the other side, that some of the federal programs may have the effect of prop gating or somehow supporting what has been referring to as a it causes me rlt,

it cause me rty, that what are the factors cause folks in chronic or generational poverty to feel like they are beaten down. the sense i get is that is manifest in the belief that there is no hope, there is no way out, that there isn't a path forward for them. i think we have to acknowledge that there are places in this country -- in fact, i represent a couple of communities where this condition is present. there are places in this country where many of the folks in poverty, everything they see around them reinforces the lack of hope. i represent two communities, flint and saginaw, that have experienced incredible job

loss, high rates of poverty, concentrations of poverty. , in some of the urban communities with half of the population having left in the last few years. there is a deterioration of the landscape, empty houses, empty buildings. the notion that those individuals would feel beaten down and sense a lack of hope is one that is clearly understandable, right? so the question is, in part -- it is an interesting question -- as to whether or not there is a culture that surrounds folks within generational chronic poverty, but the challenge before us is so what do we do about that? i fully understand and embrace the notion that supportive case management, which the way i view is, is the way to help individuals in poverty navigate

a system of support and opportunity, ladders of opportunity that can create a pathway for those folks, which are comprised of a couple of things. we need to focus on both. one is sort of the method, how the engagement occurs, whether it is through active case management or whatever. but also it really does also come down to resource toss a certain extent. so i'm curious. nd mrs. -- and ms. reynolds, programs you can comment on this. individuals, particularly in chronic or generational poverty, the difficulty they have in achieving educational outcomes, 20% of those in poverty that choose to enroll in higher education are successful, which means the

vast majority are not. i am curious as to whether or not you think the simple act of decreasing pel grants, for example, would increase the success rate for people in poverty? do you think that would have a positive effect on those in poverty seeking higher education? >> i think we need to measure the success of pel grants in terms of those who complete their education. that is critical. what we have seen from a ommunity college standpoint, the national average is 10%. oftentimes the reasons students drop out is because of very simple things, child care issues, traps takes, a health care crisis going on or something like getting a bad grade and not understand can't how to cope with that. although it can cost a little

bit more money, bringing case management along with this education is starting to prove up to actually work. then in the future you can reduce some of the other benefits that you are moving people out. >> the point i was make in active case management -- you help the individual -- >> thank you time. mr. huffman? >> i would yield my time to barbara lee. >> let me think the gentleman for yielding his time. i appreciate that. wanted to ask you to respond. you have mentioned the owe tance of attaching feppers to work. in the fell wear reform bill, dempsters and republicans.

this was a bipartisan fiasco if ou ask me -- president clinton signed it into law, but there snap and ime ban on ublic assistance on drug owe fins convictions. i have had legislation for years trying to lift this. fortunately, states can opt out, and my state just opted out this year. what work that you do as it relates to formerly incarcerated individuals with felony drug owe offenses, how would their transition be into the work world? would it be easier, harder, , p reduce resip vicks

recidivism, and what would this do? >> let me ask mrs. reynolds one more thing with regard to the federal grant and safety nets. what would happen to your clients if there is a 30% reduction in the safety net while you are trying to help people through the case management process become slfl sufficient and live the american dream? thank you. >> thank you for your question. while i am not familiar in its entirely, we can't deny the individualism. i could only hope that if it were lifted out the nation, it would ease the transition for an ex-offender. we don't want people to resid videogate because they need to feed their family. i bring them into my office,

and listen to them, and creating resumes, kill profiles and introducing them to employers, where potentially this may never effect them. something i have heard repeatedly is reference to building relationships. i do that with every participant that comes in, but equally important with the community. without the employer partners, without the community based organization, without the government, without having those strong relationships and strong ties, regardless of my legislation, we might not be as successful. > and regarding safety net services and clients, as a fellow social work, we would agree that a strength based approach about pulling a client out of poverty is really what our profession is all about. rarl safety -- regarding safety net cuts, we are not here to

talk about the budget. >> not this current burget, but were there a 30% reduction. >> we need to case manning clients to get them out of poverty differently. >> if we cut snap benefits by 40%, does that make your job easier, or if we cut maid medicade, or section eight, or those services, the safety net that offense prince gaines-turner talked about, until they can find a good paying job? what does that do to the clients that catholic charities service? > i think we do need to have a seventh net throughout our country. >> let me ask you one more question about the safety net. n terms of the safety net, the client who you see -- and again, i know catholic

charities very well. are they clients who want to stay on the government safety net through their lives? are they looking for a job? do they want to live the american dream? >> yes. >> what is their life like? >> that is a great question. some are, and some are not. some of them don't understand what living the american dream ever would look like because they have never seen that in practice. and so for us, yes, some of the families who come through our or on public benefits see it as a rather there. but unfortunately, some of the have been on public benefits for life and others as well. >> mrs. grab am? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am probably going to repeat some of the stuff discussed i eady this morning, but

want to follow up on my colleague, ms. lee. the big issue that we have in discharge planning, there is no place to discharge anybody to. you don't have any of those supports, whether government focused or familial. they don't exist. when we talk about the safety net, i am not sure most people under what that means anymore. most case managers are effective at the think you do for that client. maybe it is food support. maybe it is housing. but it is access to specialty medical care or transportation. when you have to be broad about all of those things, and they differ from state to state, it is a very challenging circumstance for the person doing that case management. i don't think it is very effective because it is not sbet greated, and you have to

work with private and public sector benefits and support, getting them to work together, even getting their rules to work together on behalf of your clients is chappinging. want to hit something, mrs. reynolds, you just said. there are generations of poverty, and it becomes very difficult to change that dynamic. when there is ly a crisis, and we don't stay. the cries we can't do transportation, food or health care, but we can do housing. then we walk away. we go back when there is an tective service issue, and then we walk away. >> the 1% of all the entitlement, benefit spending

-- less than 10% of federal spending on any of those programs goes to individuals who could in fact work. we focus on that 9%, talking about how we should do it. we need to realize that we have a population that is going to need generations of support and a whole new dynamic of what it means to be a working household and lifted out of poverty. so really, i am hoping that you might with whatever time i have eft, i am going to ms. gaines-turner. drawing on the experience of folks who are working and the decisions between caring for a sick child or paying a utility the policy makers in general assume that once you are working, your financial issues and issues with poverty

disappear. but that is not an accurate statement. >> thank you so much for your comment, and yes, that is not an accurate statement. just because you have a job and you have two people in a household like me that are working, that doesn't mean that everything is solved. that doesn't mean that you don't still need assistance, whether it be food stamps, medical, section eight housing, which we live in section eight housing, which in philadelphia i was on the waiting list 10 years, homeless twice with my son who is now 10 and my twins. there are so many different things to go along with hunger and poverty. you can't pinpoint one thing and say this isn't working so this is going to work. that is not true. once you get your foot in the door and you continue to work

there, is something else that comes up. generations and generations, it seems like if you are constantly as you said beat down and pushed to the back of the lean, and told you are not worthy and there is no hope. home people walk to your door and say i am going to actually apply for a job, i am going to look, and then be told you don't qualify. or they get sent out to the job themselves, and they can't compete because they don't have any work history. so they are not giving an opportunity to get their foot in the door. >> or they got the foot not to the right door. >> or they get to the threshold and knocked back down. i got some rd and nods, mr. chairman with your

patients, the safety net may not really accurately reflect what is needed to support families to get out of poverty to, actually live and have the american dream. >> ladies, wane to thank you very much for sharing your mornings with us. this is is very helpful and informative and the members got a ought out of it. thank you for sharing your stories and experiences. this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> put this in context of why people can come to different conclusions on the same topic. republicans generally have a view of the purpose of an election which is certainty. the purpose of holding an election is that we know who won and that we are clear and confident and there's no questions as to who won. o anything that in a sense

clings up, that -- cleans up, that gives us that certainty is a burden worth paying. democrats generally believe that leanltsy in election involves participation. that anything that limits the participation of all those who could vote from voting undermines the legitimacy of the outcome even if that means that the results may be a little messy on the edges. these are both leaget positions to take. this is a perspective towards the purpose of the election of voting. but each focuses us on a different answer to the question of what is a legitimate burden for the state to impose upon voters? of course underneath this is that not so secret dirty little secret that of course each side takes the position that is very comfortable with outcomes that will help them. the broader the electorate the more generally the better for

democrats. the narrow, the better for republicans. that's not saying necessarily they're doing it for that reason. it's just always easy to do the right thing if the end result is what you want. tonight at 8:00 eastern.

>> the head of the congressional budget office says the federal deficit will continue to fall through next year but starting in 2018 the deficit will go up due to increased social security outlays, health insurance insbzis, and rising interest rates. this briefing on the economy is 40 minutes. cbo director douglas

elmendorf. morning, i'm director of the congressional budget office and thank you for coming. up cbo has just released and date to our previous budget and economic projections. i will briefly summarize the projections beginning with the budget and turning to the economy than my colleagues and i will be happy to try to answer any questions you have. the federal budget deficit has fallen sharply during the past few years. it's on a path to decline further this year and next. later in the coming decade under current law, the gap between spending and revenues would grow again relative to the size of the economy and federal debt would climb. thee specific, we estimate deficit for this fiscal year will amount to $506 billion.

it's about 170 billion dollars lower than the deficit in 2013. at 2.9% of gross to mystic product, -- of gross to mystic object -- roddick, it will be much -- of gdp, it will be much lower. we can see what happens if current laws remain unchanged. the baseline projections are designed to serve as a benchmark for policymakers to use when considering possible changes to laws. updatedg to our baseline projections, the deficit will remain less than three percent of gdp through 2018 but will grow thereafter reaching nearly four percent from 2022-2024. federal outlays we boasted in the coming decade by four key factors -- the retirement of the baby boom generation, expansion of the federal subsidies for health insurance, rising health care costs per person, and increasing interest rates.

given those factors and under current law, spending in three key components of the budget would grow faster the the economy. those components are social major health care programs including medicare, medicaid, and subsidies and net interest payments. in contrast, spending and three other broad categories which ranked markedly relative to the size of the economy. that includes so-called mandatory spending other than that for social security and health care as well as defense and nondefense discretionary spending. outlays in those three categories taken together would fall to the lowest percentage of gdp since 1940, the earliest year for which comparable data has been reported. of the total projected increase in spending over the next kate, the major health care programs, social security, and net interest account for 85% and all other programs account for just

15%. the total outlays would reach about five to percent of gdp by 2024, a little above their average for the past 40 years. total revenues would also be above their historical average relative to gdp but to a smaller extent. revenues are projected to jump i about nine percent next year because of those provisions of law that have recently taken effects such as the expiration of certain tax provisions and the ongoing economic expansion. after 2015, we expect revenue would change little relative to gdp under current law because of various offsetting factors. outlaysths for federal and revenues would push federal debt relative to the size of the of economy even higher. we expect federal debt held by the public will reach 74% of gdp at the end of this fiscal year, more than twice what was in 2007 and higher than in any year since 1950.

in our baseline projections, that debt reaches 77% of gdp in 2024 and is on an upward trajectory. such large and growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences including increasing federal spending for interest payments, restraining economic growth in the long term, giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually increasing the risk of a fiscal crisis. our budget projections are built on our economic forecast which anticipates the economy will grow slowly this year on balance and that a more moderate pace over the next few years. the gaps between the nation's output and his potential are maximum sustainable output will narrow to its historical average by the end of 2017 we expect largely eliminating the underuse of labor that now exists. real gdp, adjusted for inflation, grew at an annual rate of only one percent during

the first half of this calendar year but we expect stronger growth in the. second half we estimate that real gdp will increase by 1.5% from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the fourth quarter of 2015. after this year, we anticipate the real gdp growth will pick up to about 3.5% next year and the year after. growth will strengthen for a few principal reasons -- first, in response to increased demand for their products, businesses will increase their investments in new structures in the government at a faster pace and will continue to expand their workforces. second, consumer spending will grow more rapidly spurred by recent gains in household wealth and with an improving labor market. third, fewer vacant housing units, more rapid formation of new households and further improvement in mortgage markets will lead to larger increases in home building. the faster growth of output will reduce the amount of underused, productive resources or slack in

the economy. we think a significant amount of slack remains in the labor market today despite notable improvements in recent quarters. it will be largely eliminated in the next few years. slack in the labor market consists of a few main elements -- first, the component rate is elevated. second, the participation rate in the labor force is well below what we estimate would be achieved at the demand -- if the demand for workers with stronger and third, the share of part-time workers who would prefer full-time work is significantly higher than it was before the recession. that slacknt signal remains the labor market is salaries continue to grow slowly. to assess the impact of the weakness in the labor market, suppose in the second quarter of this year that the unemployment rate had returned to its pre-recession level and labor force participation rate was up at the rate we think could be achieved more jobs were available --

then, according to our estimates, about 3.75 million more people were employed them actually were. we emphasize in our report the measuring slack is quite difficult and the current amount of slack could be a good deal larger or smaller than we estimate. by the end of 2017, we expect the gap between gdp and potential gdp will have narrowed to this -- to its historical average rates between 2018 and 2024, real gdp should grow by an average of 2.2% per year, rate that is notably less than the average growth of output during the 1980's and 1990's. that is slower projected pace reflect a number of factors including the retirement of members of the beatty -- of the baby boom generation, relatively stable labor force participation rate for working women after decades of strong increases and the effective federal tax and spending policies embodied of the current level. the gradual elimination of slack in the economy will eventually

remove the downward pressure on the rate of inflation and interest rates that has existed in the past several years. we anticipate the rate of inflation as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures will move up during the next several years to achieve the federal reserve all of two percent. we projected the interest rate on three-month treasury bills will remain near zero until the second half of next year and that will increase substantially reaching 3.5% in 2019 and later years. we project the rate on 10 year treasury notes will continue to increase reaching 4.7% in 2019 and later years. let me conclude by returning to the budget -- last month, cbo extrapolated its previous baseline projections beyond the standard 10 year period showing that under current law, it would be a substantial imbalance in the federal budget over the long term. by 25 years from now, rising budget deficits would push federal debt held by the public to more than 100% of gdp, level

seen only once before in our history, at the end of the second world war. federal debt in 2024 under our current is fun is very similar to what we had previously projected for that year. the long-term outlook remains about the same. under current law, debt would be quite high by historical standards and on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, trend that would impose significant costs and could not be sustained indefinitely. thank you. i will stop there. my colleagues and i are happy to answer your questions. please start by saying who you are and who you work for. yes? >> in terms of your economic forecast and comparing it to back in february, for 10 years, it is a little weaker than it but is that because it is weaker in 2014 and the

same for the rest of the decade? >> we have revised down the growth rate per 2014 a bit and as you know. we have not change the growth rate of subsequent years for a much. that way,ut the issue it's house like most of the action is this your but that's not quite right. we also revised down our estimates of the level of potential output, maximum sustainable output, in the later years of the decade. if we had not revised down that potential output, we would have thought eventually the economy would make up for weaker growth in the first half of this year by stronger growth sometime later. to downward revision potential output later in the decade was not very large, about one percent, and it reflects weaker business investment thus leading to somewhat slower growth of capital services than we previously suspected and a change in the labor market side. those are pretty small differences. to theic reaction

unexpected weakness in the first quarter of the year was to see that by the second quarter, growth seemed to be stronger across the board, across the major components of spending and the labor market improvement continued during the first half of the year despite the week gdp growth in the first quarter. although this was certainly disappointing relative to her take ations, we did not great signal from that for the longer-term prospects of the economy and the changes we did make were small and stem from a collection of factors. yes? >> would you discuss if your gross projections for the coming year are overly optimistic as they have for recent years? what is the impact likely to be on the federal budget and the federal deficit? >between interest rates and revenues -- >> we have expected upward

growth to pick up for a number of years now beyond what has happened. that is thent of shadow of the financial crisis, the housing boom and bust, the damage to househol balance sheets and confidence -- that shadow lasted longer than we thought it would. a verynally, there was sharp reduction in budget deficits over the past several years. there was a reduction in the stimulus fiscal policy provided for the economy. at this point, underlying financial conditions have improved. the fiscal stimulus is no longer being withdrawn so we think there is a stronger case for the pickup in economic growth we have written down. of course, notwithstanding that stronger case, it could -- we could turn out to be wrong for

overwriting of reasons. if the economy grows more slowly than we expect, that is probably a negative factor for the economy -- for the budget. it's directly a negative factor in that weaker output growth means weaker income growth and means lower tax receipts and somewhat higher payments for some benefit programs usually. as you noted, if the economy is weaker than interest rates may stay low for a longer both because the federal reserve may react by holding rates lower but also because financial market would seat with a weaker economy less demand for laonable funds. for a time. that reduction of interest rates by itself would be good news for the budget because the federal government is a large debtor and makes substantial interest payments. effect of therect

weaker economy on tax receipts are likely that way than the effect on lower interest rates but it would depend on just how interest rates responded to other changes in the economy so it's hard to give a clear and specific answer. in our february outlook, we offered rules of thumb for changes in key economic variables and their effects on the budget. in that report, we looked at the effect of lower growth in different interest rates separately. we did that separately because it is hard to know how much interest rates would go down in response to weak economic news and it would depend crucially on how market participants judged the weakness in the economy and what sort of signal or interpretation would the given to the weakness in what signal they took from that. >> you are predicting lower than expected corporate receipts for this year.

can you put a finer point on that? is it because the economy is slowing down or is it because companies are avoiding taxes? >> corporate tax receipts are coming in lower this year than we had expected. a pickup inted receipts but we are getting one but not as large as anticipated. it's hard to know what to make of that because we don't have detailed data at this point. after a few years, there will be detailed data available about corporate tax returns that our analysts can look at to understand better what is going on and we don't have it at this point. we have the overall receipts. the interpretation we have put on this unexpected weakness is mostly that companies have put up paying some of the taxes that they owe in legal ways.

with the expiration of various tax provisions at the end of last year, corporate tax burdens would be higher this year but companies don't have to pay those bills right now. i can pay some of them next year and there are complicated rules that i cannot summarize for you. we think what is happening as there has been more deferral of the tax payments to last your than we anticipated. more broadly, our projection of corporate tax receipts over the coming decade incorporates erosion of the corporate tax base through a variety of tax reduction strategies. one factor there would be corporate in versions but another factor is the shift over time of business income from c corporations that are taxed nder the carpet tax codes tos corporations. it has been going on for some time but it's quite consequential. there are a range of other tax

avoidance strategies. we think there has been and will continue to be some erosion of the corporate tax base. to think that effect is not as significant and our projection of corporate tax receipts as the factors we talk about in the report and we note there is some increasing corporate tax receipts next year but then a decline relative to gdp later in the coming decade. we think that decline is driven by some of the macro economic factors. we think there will be faster growth of labor income and wages and salaries. that will weigh on corporate profits. there'll be increased interest rates we expect and that will way on corporate profits and some changes and appreciation allowances will further reduce taxable profits. we wrote about those factors and we think the most important ones and we think there is some

ongoing erosion of the corporate tax base. the 26 billion dollar decrease from your april taxes,ion on corporate i'm trying to understand how significant that is or not. you ifely, i want to ask there is any sense of the budget cuts to discretionary spending and if that is having an impact on demand overall? >> the surprising corporate tax but not was notable particularly large. relative tax receipts to domestic economic profits -- some have talked about an effective corporate tax rate -- has very tremendously, over

time, is a volatile series and has been volatile over the past few years. this is a category of tax receipts that is quite difficult for us and others to forecast. i think the revision we have made and the projections today are not particularly unusual given the volatility of that category. think second question, we the reduction in budget deficits over the past few years from increases in taxes and restraint in spending has been a drag on economic growth over that time. constraint principal on economic activity has been no weakness and the demand for goods and services and increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending 10 to reduce the demand for goods and services. we think the tightening of fiscal policy has been a substantial headwind and economic growth through last

year but we think that affect has mostly dissipated so we don't see much effect of changes and fiscal policy under current law of the changes in fiscal policy that are unfolding on demand for goods and services over the next few years. the run-up in debt through the large budget deficits, although have provided some stimulus to the economy in the short term, if that debt is left outstanding and as the economy recovers and expands in the future, that imposes ongoing costs. it crowds out right investments and reduces output and income -- and the cost and mentioned. >> can you talk about the growth rates of the medicare and medicaid and why they are different than what that means in terms of dollars for the deficit? >> medicare spending this year we think will of will be about

two percent above last year which is slower growth in the growth in the number of medicare beneficiaries. average cost per beneficiary is actually falling. that is a striking phenomenon. we wrote at length about that in the long-term budget outlook in the middle of last month. there are a number of factors holding down the interest spending and we think it will be held down over the next decade. is a broad slowdown in health care costs per person that we have seen in the economy as a whole and in medicare over the last few years. part of the slow growth in the next decade in medicare is slow growth and the payment rates to providers under current law. aret from the way doctors page which is a separate complicated issue, payments to other will grow very slowly in the future and that some other source of restraint.

it's also true that as new people come in to medicare in great numbers and the beneficiaries will rise by 1/3 over the next decade because of the aging of the population, and those people come in, they come in as fairly young older people. they're less expensive than the average current beneficiary for that reason. a number of factors are holding medicare spending down this year and will hold it down we think over the coming years. is growingending much more rapidly this year, about 15%. that is driven importantly by the expansion of medicaid coverage under the affordable care act. we expect that expansion will continue to produce rapid growth in medicaid spending for the next few years. our view is that under current law, more states will adopt the medicaid expansion under the affordable care act and more

people will take up medicaid and the states that have already expanded availability under the affordable care act. we think another few years of rapid growth in medicaid spending because of that expansion will happen. there is also the question of underlying growth for beneficiaries medicaid. that depends importantly on the actions of the states as well as the actions of the federal government. states have a lot of latitude setting coverage on who is covered and latitude in setting what particular services are covered and they have a lot of say in how providers are paid. we do project there will be continued growth in medicaid spending -- in federal medicaid spending per beneficiary for the underlying reasons but not at the rate we see this year because we think once the expansion has phased in,

medicaid spending growth will revert to more traditional rates. when you say that cost control, are there other laws that attribute? >> the way i would put it is the payment rates and mechanisms for providers of medicare based on the accumulation to date including what happened under the affordable care act. the affordable care act is lowered those rates relative to the law in early 2010. there are a whole collection of rules that have been put in place by the congress over time that affect the spending rates and we don't have a decomposition at this point of what is attributable in medicare to the aca and what is not attributable. you guys have talked about

the sluggishness of growth since february and the 2018-2024 period and it seems to be attributable largely to the slow growth in the labor force. how much of that -- is 2018 seen as an inflection of current trends or is that more for those you guysle of years have presented where these trends are? is it an inflection point or more of a projection? >> let me go back to the picture of potential gdp. this is the maximum sustainable output. but is not have a very strong inflection point. the growth of potential output varies a little over the 10 years in our projections. rates mainly because the of business estimates changes

and thus the increments of capital services changes and there are other factors. there's -- there are some changes over potential growth but that is not the biggest factor of what is going on. oftly it's that by the end 2017, we think the gap between actual and potential output will have closed so that gdp will have finished catching up to potential gdp. be on that point, it will grow with the growth of potential gdp. think why -- after we output is largely caught up to potential output, we don't try to predict beyond that on the ups and downs of the economy. we think there will be but we cannot project them so we focus on the factors that influence this. years,last couple of it's less of this factor the serving more general ideas of what the individual --

forecast upke your through 2017 is more about the individual ups and downs -- >> we are trying to predict the next few years what is the demand for goods and services in these individual sectors and how that will interact with the labor market. beyond that point, beyond the point of return, we are just looking at that underlying factors. the slowdown in the growth of labor force for demographic reasons started a decade or so ago. this is not something which is happening in 2018. it is not starting today. the participation rate has been falling through 2007 before the financial crisis and the severe recession. it fell more sharply but had been falling already because of these underlying reasons.

is, i don'thing want to make it sound like once we predict potential out but, it's easy to predict what will happen. analysis still for uswith challenges and other analysts in trying to get the forecast right. example, we have a view that there are a lot of people out of labor force now that will come back in as employment prospects improve. underestimated how people will come back, we will have underestimated potential output. wewe over estimate, equally, will overestimate potential output. we think the productivity growth which has been week will pick up a little bit but still to a lower pace than it had on

average earlier but will pick up a little bit from where it's been the last few years. that,have overestimated we will have overestimated potential output or underestimated it. it is not easier to predict the underlying determinants of the productive capacity although the aging of the population is by itself pretty straightforward. how people will react and whether they will retire at the same age is less clear. driver of growth is the slow growth of the labor force. we will have strong growth until 2017 and the implication of 2018 seems like a cliff. >> there is a.

of catchup over the next few years and then it will level out. can you explain the big reduction in net interest payments over the next kate from your previous forecast? what is driving that? >> we have revised down our projection of interest rates paid by the government, interest rates and the economy in general. we did that in response to a very careful reevaluation of interest rates that we did as part of our long-term budget outlook. we reported last month. we started by looking at interest rates during the 1990-2007 period which was a fairly stable inflation expectation and no significant economic downturns on the scale of the one we have been through. we tried to assess with various factors in the future would look like relative to what they look

and in 1992-2007 period there were a number of factors that suggested interest rates would be lower in the future than they were in that past period. one of those is the slower growth of the labor force. another is a larger share of income going to high income people who tend to save more and thus provide more savings available and less pressure on interest rates. the third factor pushing down interest rates slightly slower productivity growth going forward than we had seen in the past. the fourth factor is we think there will be a somewhat larger risk premium. people who hold treasury securities are holding a safer asset than if they hold private investments. given the events of the last several years, and some underlying factors, we should get a larger risk premium. treasury rates will get pushed down relative to other securities.

there is a set of factors we think will cause interest rates to be lower than in the past but the other side of the ledger is that some things will push up interest rates. one of those factors is higher federal debt that we had seen in the past. another one is that we expect somewhat smaller capital inflows from abroad than we have seen in the past. some of the rapidly growing foreign economies are making greater use of their savings for investment at home and send less of their savings here. a third factor pushing up interest rates we think is the greater share going to capital although we think there will be some rebound of the labor share of income from the levels it has fallen to. we think the labor share will be smaller than in the past. there will also be fewer workers in their prime saving years as

baby boomers move from the years where they save a lot to where they are drawing down on their savings. we have a set of factors pushing in different directions. in our assessment, we wrote about this last month, the factors pushing down interest rates relative to a few decades ago, we think will be stronger than pushing up interest rates. on balance, and the second half of this coming decade, we think rates on treasury security returns will be 3/4 of a percentage point lower than in the 1992-2007 period so more 2.2 5%. that reassessment we did earlier this summer and applied in the long term we are now applying our tenure projections. by bringing down interest rates on treasury securities, we have brought down the government's

interest payments. i would emphasize that the interest payments are still quite large and still growing very rapidly. we think that annual interest payments by the federal government will be nearly $800 billion by 2024, more than three times what they are today. i want to be distinct. if we have a downward revision, the contour of interest payments are still very strikingly off. you can see interest payments as they -- as a share of gdp rising to three percent. dramatic increase than would be the case if interest rates rose more sharply than we have projected. so this is neither a negative or positive for the american people?

you say is harder to a gym late wealth and save money? >> it's a complicated question. , that ispremium distinctive to treasury securities. are rates thatrs would affect interest rates on a variety of securities. whether one wants those rates to be high or low depends on who one is and where you are in your life cycle. if you're trying to buy a house, low interest rates are good. if you're trying to save for your retirement, higher rates of return are good. there is no simple correlation between interest rates and what's good for people. we generally think more output is better for everyone who gets it because they get a share in that. interest rates, there are winners and losers from rates being higher or lower. whered like to add that

this picture comes from, the gross interest payments is growth increase in interest rates. relativeebt as a share to gdp will be a little higher in 2024 than it is today but not that much higher. we think interest rates will be a good deal higher. that's the main factor driving the interest payments relative to the size of the economy. any other questions? we don't get you in public too often so forgive me but, your term expires next january. do you want to return? >> i have nothing to say about my personal future. i love doing this job. i'm very focused on doing it. i'm going to worry about what happens at the end of the year only get to the end of the year. sure you will be the first in know but you will be relatively early. [laughter]

i'm really not focusing on that right now. we have a tremendous amount of interesting and important work underway here and that fully consumes my attention and i am enjoying doing that and i plan to keep doing that this year. >> going back to the corporate tax receipts, that is related to certain tax breaks expiring at the end of 2013 and more tax breaks will be expiring. assumesenue projection that the tax breaks that expire will not be renewed and the tax breaks that will expire will not be renewed. -- in fact, they are renewed i don't expect an exact figure here -- but if they are renewed, what kind of affect does that have on the deficit? >> you are correct that the baseline projections assume the tax policy follows current form. we do provide at the end of chapter one the section on

alternative assumptions about fiscal policy and look at alternatives on the spending and tax side to give policymakers a sense of what might happen if they made different choices. if all of the expiring tax , thations work standard would reduce tax revenues by about $900 billion over the coming decade. if no otheron, changes were made to taxes or would then generate about $200 billion of additional debt service. if all of the aspiring -- expiring tax provisions were extended and no other changes were made, deficits would be almost $1 trillion -- sorry -- almost $1.1 trillion larger over the coming decade than $7.2 trillion would rejected. anything else?

ok, thank you all very much for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> on the next "washington journal," u.s. response to the militant group isis, with former sbi special agent clinton watt of george washington university. our look at political

campaigning. political strategist rob jesmer and celinda lake discuss how campaigns manage a crisis. is live on journal" c-span everyday day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. tell youife events to about. beginning with an american political science association panel on nsa surveillance programs. that is at 10:15 a.m. eastern. at 12: 30 p.m., the center for the study of islam and democracy hosts a forum on isis and radicalization. later, the cato institute looks at public opinion and war at 2:00 p.m. eastern. "sundays a great read, at eight," a collection of stories from some of the nation's most influential people. knew there was a

risk in the bohemian lifestyle. i decided to take it. whether it is an illusion or not -- i do not think it is -- it held my concentration. andtopped me being bored stopped other people being boring, to some extent. it would keep me awake and make me want the evening to go on longer. to enhance the moment. if i was asked what i do it again, the answer is probably yes. get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say. not very nice for my children to hear, it sounds irresponsible all thati would do again to you. it would be hypocritical for me to say i would never have touched the stuff if i had known. everyone knows. containediet union the seeds of its own

destruction. many problems we saw at the end began at the very beginning. i spoke about the attempt to control all institutions and control all parts of the economy and political and social life. of the problems is that when you do that, when you try to control everything, then you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artists they have to pay the same way and one artist says i want to paint another way, you made him into a political dissident. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country and we want to talk about and the populace agrees it is something we should subsidize, put it on the balance sheet and make a clear and make it evident. make everybody aware of how much it is costing. when you deliver it through these third-party enterprises -- fannie mae and freddie mac -- when you deliver the subsidy to a public company with private shareholders and executives who thatxtract a lot of subsidy for themselves, that is

not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. >> christopher hitchens, anne applebaum, and gretchen morgenson, a few of the engaging stories at "sundays at eight. come -- new york times reporter matthew rosenberg was recently expelled from afghanistan by the karzai administration because of on an interim government. mr. rosenberg spoke at the national press club for a little less than an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome to

the national press club, the world's leading professional organization for journalists. i would like to give a special welcome to those of you joining us today on c-span. my name is myron belkin, president of the national press club and host yesterday's news conference. , here are a few guidelines. after our speaker's presentation, i will open the floor for a q&a. questions will be from credentialed media and club members. when you are recognized, please identify yourself and your organization before asking your question. no speeches, please. just a question. our guest today is "new york times" reporter matthew rosenberg, who was expelled from kabul by the government of hamid karzai government last week. but whom, the two presidential candidates in a rare show of

unity, said they would allow him back. the afghanistan government attributed the expulsion to an article mr. rosenberg had written reporting that high-level government officials were discussing forming an interim government as a possible solution to the country's current electoral crisis, an action that would effectively amount to a coup. mr. rosenberg will discuss his own situation and the outlook for afghanistan based on his many years of reporting from the country. he has been covering afghanistan since 2008, first as the south asia correspondent for "the wall street journal," and then for "the new york times," which he joined in november 2011. he did a stint in afghanistan in 2002 when he was a reporter for the associated press based in nairobi. the national press club released a statement last week first criticizing his expulsion by the karzai government and welcoming the statements by the presidential candidates abdullah abdullah and ashraf ghani saying they would rescind the order. matthew, thank you for accepting

our invitation to be a guest. i hope you have had a chance to get over the jet lag. we welcome you here today and the floor is yours. >> thanks, i appreciate that. i can't really promise i've had a chance to get over the jet lag, so i will apologize in advance for any incoherence. one of the things i've been working a lot the last few weeks is unrelated to the story. we have been trying to track down these villagers for a bigger project we were working on that was taking forever. day after day we would get people to come down and we would sit for hours, having their guys dump their phones for us and track down everybody they knew to try and track these specific people we were looking for. some of these guys, we would drive them up or fly them up and they would just sit for hours and our house, tea and coffee and bread and then more tea and lunch and then talking.

i learned about an expression in pashto, and if anybody speaks pashto, correct me, and it is "how are you," and after four hours you run out of things to say and "how are you," and keep going. afghans are pretty good at talking and negotiating for quite a long time until they reach what a good negotiator does, a solution that nobody is particularly happy with but sort of works for everyone and keep things basically ok. right now what we are seeing in kabul is a total breakdown in the process. i know this morning the abdullah camp pulled out of an audit that was to untangle the vote and the deal that john kerry had brokered. and now ashraf ghani's guys have been told, well, you guys go home, the u.n. will continue this without you. it is beginning to feel like where do they go to from here?

the election is not working, president karzai is leaving next week -- to where, who knows? if he really is. you are approaching a situation that is approaching what is beginning to feel like the worst-case scenario for afghanistan, and i don't say that lightly. i know a lot of the western press can be or is perceived to be unduly pessimistic about a place like afghanistan. i think in this case, i know personally we have tried to take it at face value and be optimistic to a degree. with each round of the election, we say well, people are voting. this isn't a failure. sure, that's got problems, what country doesn't? now we're at the point where the process seems to have broken down in a way where it does not seem you can walk it back, that the capacity to sit and talk forever is being dried up. partly it is that these are a series of imposed deadlines set by president karzai himself, set

by the americans. we have got this 2014 date coming and in nato and they have got to that this deal done to keep the troops there. what do you do if there is no president? president karzai doesn't want to sign it. that is where my story came in. over the summer, as things have not looked to be going on a good trajectory, people within the government -- these are very senior people, people who are close to president karzai, people who have been around for years, began to think, well, we need another option. we need to think of a plan b, because the u.s. and the u.n. are married to this political deal that kerry brokered and the candidates seem unable to compromise. what do we do in case we get to september? and there is no compromise. that discussion began as early as june, and it really intensified about the middle of june, when you had afghan

election commission kind of preliminary results they gave mr. ghani of 1.3, i think, 1.5, about a one million vote lead, substantial lead. by most accounts, some of abdullah's supporters -- when i say "abdullah's supporters," i do not want to confuse the masses amount of people who have gone out in protest and voted for him. we are talking the discreet operate north of kabul end up near maz ar-i-sharif. people we spoke to said that they were maybe 24 to 48 hours from taking action, saying, you know what, we are going to declare our guy president, we are going to walk into the house and the ministries and

provincial capitals and kind of dare the security forces to shoot at us. had that happened -- they were a bunch of guys backed by serious muscle and weapons -- that would've inched the country close to that -- what has always seemed like the chicken little scenario, "the americans are leaving, we will get to civil war" -- but that would've gotten it close to that. it took a phone call from president obama to the candidates to walk that back. then john kerry rushed over there. then they create this deal. but within a few days the deal is falling apart. the audit, which was an incredibly complex process that the u.n. and the election commission and partners in the european union were trying to spin off while moving it forward, and the political deal -- which nobody released for about a month -- and each candidate went around saying whatever their constituents wanted to hear, and it is like they were talking about 2 totally different deals, because we did not have a copy, so who knew what was really in it? in this environment with a

dangerously close march 2 and -- in this environment with a dangerously close march in an attempt to take power by one group of supporters and continued uncertainty with the election and everything else, you had a number of senior officials who stayed out of the election publicly, although they definitely have their likes and dislikes among the candidates. they begin to think we need something different. we need a plan b unless this doesn't work. these guys are the elite, they have prospered in afghanistan. these guys have done well in the last 13 years, and the last thing they want to do is see the famed -- see the thing get blown up. what invariably came up was world war i. nobody wanted world war i. it was going to destroy everyone, but it still happened. that is what they were intensely worried about, and are still intensely worried about in kabul. this was brewing there, and it wasn't really a big secret. the political elite, everyone is talking about this. it didn't take a lot to get

people to open up. even people who said they did not support it, like the names we quoted in the story, were happy to tell us who was talking about it. so we put out the story. you know, i think whenever you are working abroad, it is very easy to be alarmist, use the word "coup" lightly, and those are the stories that get you thrown out of countries. so we were careful with this. we tried to be as measured as possible, present this as discussions, and the people we spoke to said that their first option was to have ashraf ghani and abdullah to make a deal. and if the threat of a third option gotten to understand that they needed to cover from eyes, then great. but if it didn't, here is plan b. we presented it like that. i figure, honestly, before the story came out, that president karzai had to have known what was being said around him. too openly discussed.

apparently, he did not. ad-inently he was not as red i as one would think. what we heard since is that he hit the roof. he called in his cabinet, threatened to fire half of them, threatened to put people in jail, said to cut it out and stop talking. then we got a phone call from the attorney general. it came from one of our afghan reporters, who is the sweetest guy. he is a bit obsequious. we were having lunch and he said somebody has been trying to call you. i said could you give me a few minutes. his phone rang him and he said they are trying again. who is it? "it is the attorney general's office." i said i had better take that. they said come in for a 10 minute chat. we want to talk to you a little bit about the story. me and my colleague, our bureau chief there, we discussed it. we have a kind of safety advisor as well. we said ok, we're going to go over there.

casual, they are giving us all kinds of assurances. and this wasre afghan independence day so the whole city was shut down. we were told we would have a chat with a mid-level official. we get there and it is 2 senior officials, plus an advisor to the actual attorney general. it is definitely not casual. they sit us down in a room with bulletproof glass and steel doors. they immediately start asking who the sources were, they want to verify who wrote the story. i said of course, my name is on it. they want us to sign documents saying "i did write the story, i , am matthew rosenberg, i'm refusing to reveal my sources." and we were not going to sign anything right now. is there a criminal charge, an investigation? they wouldn't tell us any of that. they kept leaving the room to to consult with a confidential source, as they put it -- hard not to notice the irony, they are giving us a hard time about

anonymous sources and then they consult with somebody and they won't tell us who he is. we were there about an hour and a half and it was apparent we were not free to leave pretty quickly. they eventually did let us leave, and said "you have got to come back tomorrow with a lawyer." the next morning, fearing arrest -- we were not really sure, we didn't know -- we sent them a letter, partially because our lawyer was not in the country. saying "we want to come back, we , want to cooperate," and we meant that, "but we want our lawyer there." we have a right to a lawyer. i realize my jet lag is kicking in. i missed a point of the story. after we left the attorney general's office the first afternoon, they didn't say anything about me not being able to leave the country, no investigation, don't worry about it. we get back to the bureau and we were writing a memo for our bosses in new york, and we see a tweet from an afghan news

station saying that the attorney general has banned matthew rosenberg from leaving the country. huh? they didn't tell us that. then we start getting phone calls. it took us a few hours to confirm that that was the case. they had banned me from leaving the country. the next day we obviously didn't go, we send this letter. again, they went to the news media to say that i was being thrown out of the country. they never told us this straight. we had to found out on our own, later. what really struck me here -- i will go off on a little tangent here -- was also, one of the problems, problem with this election, problem with, i guess, the state that has been created in afghanistan, is that it has laws, very good laws, detailed laws. they have been written by afghans and numerous experts very well paid from the west. but they are not very respected very often. this is a pretty good example of it. there is a process in afghanistan for if you want to go out and investigate a reporter or throw out a foreign reporter. you have to go to this media

commission at the information ministry. you have to serve a notice to this reporter and the media commission would recommend it to the attorney general's office and then under afghan criminal law, if there is a criminal investigation they would have to send me a letter three times before they could compel me to show up at the attorney general's office for questioning. the attorney general on his own does not have the power to throw out a reporter. it is a country of laws, or it is meant to be. but in this case, president karzai wanted, from what we were told, action taken, so action was taken. that is part of what goes to the problem with the election as well. you had an incredibly well-designed process to elect a new president. a very senior senior u.n. guy said that the level of transparency there is unknown in most of the world. it makes the u.s. elections look completely corrupt. but those roles have to be

followed. and the officials in place have to be willing to respect them, and that has not been the case to date. you had a senior member of the election commission caught on tape planning fraud in favor of one candidate. you have an incredibly partisan environment. you have, by all accounts, the president helping support one candidate as well. throughout the process, both candidates have known that the winner ultimately has control of a vast government, and the constitution as it is written, the one that the u.s. helped the design and really help force through over the objections of players in afghanistan and some of our european partners, is an incredibly centralized government, where the president has near dictatorial powers. he hires and fires everyone from school teachers to cabinet ministers. there is vast systems of patronage that, because he is in charge of all this, he basically presides over. it is completely winner take all, there is no room for a loser to kind of gracefully step

down, because regarding who -- because everybody who supported that loser, the loser of an election, their jobs, their security, the physical safety of their own family, is in many ways dependent on their man being in power. in a weird way -- i don't want to present myself as a horrible victim. i got thrown out of the country. it is unusual, but it is hardly -- it is not a tragedy that one cannot recover from. but it is a pretty good example, a stark illustration of how powerful that executive is in this country, 13 years after we set up a democracy that on paper should work. he wanted me out, so i am gone. the laws, they weren't the issue. they were not followed. nobody even pretended to try to follow them. a government official called to apologize. saying they try to stop it but they could not do it. it is something that we need to, we in the united states to lead

this effort, need to reflect on. why is afghanistan at this point after 13 years? getting an actual estimate of how much we spent, $600 billion to $700 billion in total prosecuting the entire war. a letter that was spent here, obviously. we have got over 2300 soldiers and service members lost. other civilians, far, far, far many more afghans killed, tens of thousands. this, you find yourself for four months before the nato combat mission is supposed to end, there is no deal there to keep the troops to train. and then the election that was supposed to cement afghan democracy is in shambles. it is hard to look at that and think we are leaving at the right time or this was the plan all along. and i guess what i am trying to figure out going forward is what

role can the outside help play with afghans, and what role can afghans play to move past this? i'm not sure i see -- i always see a way forward when i look at what is going on there, because there is so much progress that has been made. all the statistics you hear from u.s. government officials are totally right about women educated, the availability of cell phones or whatnot, and the gdp per capita is gone up four or five times. i was in kabul in 2002. i remember driving around the city with these satellite phones, these little handheld things, out the window of a car trying to make a phone call. now our cleaning lady who does our laundry and cannot read or write has a cell phone. there is tremendous progress there, but it depends on a stable central government, and that government is i