encourage turnout at the polls. cofounderictory d michael beach will join us. we'll also take your phone calls andcomments on facebook twitter. it begins live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, a discussion on the and howeconomic climate cultural values are impacting inequality and poverty. foundation,itage this is an hour. >> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. i'm john. welcome you too our auditorium. we, of course, welcome those who website and those that will be joining us on c-span tv today. everyone in-house if you'll be so kind to see that

turnedones have been off. we will, of course, post our the heritage home page following our presentation today. opening our session is jennifer marshall. ms. marshall serves as our vice president for the institute for family, community and opportunity. oversees our research areas that determine the character of marriage,ducation, family, religion and civil society. andalso heads our richard helen center for religion and civil society. manages our familyfacts.org online source for the latest social science on those issues. joining us here, she worked both at empower directornd as senior of family studies at the family research council. please join me in welcoming marshall. [applause] >> jennifer? you, john.ank and thank you all for being here for this conversation about in america. we're really pleased to debut this index of culture and

onortunity, and here with me stage is david azerrad, my colleague at the heritage foundation. directs the simon center for principles and politics. and the reason we wanted to conversation here today is that david, along with our colleague ryan at hair taij, contributed to the index of culture and opportunity. before we got to the 31 indicators of culture and whether thosed indicators are opening the doors or closing the doors to the americans, well wanted to set the stage with what our concept and idea of was as a whole. and david and ryan did a really great job of that. about a few oflk those ideas today. david and i are going to take about ten minutes to do so before our main panel comes up. and i'm very pleased to have my colleague and coeditor for this project, rea hederman the moderator for that panel. rea is the executive vice

buckeyet of the institute in ohio. and he will be leading three of to this project in a conversation about what we cannity is and how grow it in this country. so let me start here with the with you, david, by asking, you've made the observation obviously that the ismise behind this index that we have the inner relation of economic and social issues. you remarked that's the first line of page 1 of this index. me a little bit about -- you're somebody who looks at the founding principles. me, from your percenperspective, how you thiny would have looked at this conversation today, that we sometimes have between economic and social principles? think they would have found it strange that people label a particularsed on subset of issues they care about, and say, this is what i care about, and this is going to be my governing philosophy.

founding members, their concern -- and they told us in what is without a doubt the most beautiful line in the constitution, the last reason in the preamble for why we have a constitution. secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and -- this our posey part -- to tear ti. when you'rencern founding a regime, not just that you will be able to enjoy your now, but thatt there will be a next generation, and more importantly, that this next generation too, they will also be capable of enjoying the lessons of liberty. this is how i think we should start to think about the i don't like the word social issues. i think the founders would have is a core the family political issue. and, you know, maybe to in d.c. terms, the social and economic issues in regard are deeply intertwined.

the core conservative project is size, scope and reach of the government. well, what's going to come in and take that place? you want to limit something. what's going to expand and fill in the void? self-governing individuals in a vibrant civil society. how do you produce self-governing individuals? what is the cornstone? it's families. serves thef marriage ends of limited government more intrusively,less and at less cost than trying to pieces of apron broken shattered marriage culture. >> so opportunity is not find onily a word we every other page of the founders. but you had argued that it is embedded in their writings. can you explain? >> you don't really see andrences of opportunity equality of opportunity, which has become the rhetorical linchpin. it's really a 20th century term, but it's not the language that the founders used. embedded rights there in the declaration of

independence. once you proclaim that all men created equal, you're in effect denying the fundamental of every aristocratic regime. saying that actually your lot in life is not fixed at birth. i all men are created equal, means you're free to pursue happiness as you see fit. that means you're going to need to pursue that happiness, to marry who you want, to worship god according to the dictates of your conscious. you need to open up opportunities for people to live their lives as they see fit. the a not necessary under list taristocracy, because you'n somewhere. you'll practice a certain profession. you don't get to move. embedded in the idea of equality is the source of opportunity. think aboutd we this? >> you know, some on the left will say it's government spending, that they like to say that we need to invest in

opportunity and that means more money into the economy to create jobs. i think the proper way to think right, ison the twofold. one is it will be no use to anybody, free markets. i think everybody knows that already. createee markets do is these opportunities for you to hone in on a particular product that doesn't exist, a service betteresn't exist or a way to do something. that's not very controversial. the other thing i would like to and i guess to remind the conservative audience, is that opportunities not only come markets, they also come from the rich network of human connections we have. they come from the people we from the communities we belong to. and one very source of people's lives is being part of thriving communities. and one problem we have in many areas -- for people who have a deficit of opportunity, is not are there few economic opportunities available to them, civil society has broken down it really becomes a society of disjointed individuals,

rather than interconnected individuals. >> so we have heard the metaphor of a ladder of opportunity quite bit. one of the words that comes up in the conversation that i've had with you about opportunity bit, that ituite a takes something more to grab hold of that ladder. talk to that issue a little bit? theo we love this metaphor, american dream is about a ladder of opportunity, that you need to climb. well, what does it take to climb ladder? i would appeal to one of my favorite americans, who i think greatest apostles of upward mobility that this has ever seen. he gave a famous speech. what was the recipe to the success of famous men? his answer was work, work, work, work. transient and fitful effort but patient, enduring, honest, in defatiggable

work. as franklin put it, in a letter to aristocrats, he said america the land of labor. here we work. i don't know if any of you watch abby.wn there's a famous scene where the says, a job, what is a job? if anything, you may say we work enoughd, don't take vacation. work has to be a cornstone of an opportunity world view. areother things that important are obviously character, grit, and determination. in i'm rather encouraged this regard to see that the left is starting to talk about these things. time, thereest seemed to be a divide that conservatives would talk about virtue, and the left was more interested in solutions that dealt with programs and transferring money. find it encouraging to hear more and more voices acknowledging the importance of character. of course, and rather obviously is education and having a solid education with the skills you'll acquire to climb that ladder of

opportunity. but i would prioritize them in that order. work, character, education. >> opportunity doesn't necessarily have the same ring to everybody who hears it. what do we do about that? conservatives and libertarians for that matter have made opportunity the rhetorical linchpin of our governing vision. it appeals to many people and it much is in keeping with our traditions. i think we should remind ourselves on the right to also once in aecurity while, that the opportunity message will appeal to many but something's unsettling about opportunity. there's something unsettling about markets, about the they produce. and the left is very good at the concerns of people who feel insecure. and i think we have much to offer in this regard. in a strongelieve safety net. we recognize that people fall on hard times and that they need to be taken care of. i think conservatives and libertarians need to remind themselves to keep opportunity remindforefront but

ourselves once in a while to speak of security and to address these concerns too. so much, david, for joining me here to kick this conversation off. >> thank you. stagere going to exit the and ask the next panel to come up. while they do so, i'll make a couple of other comments. you can see, david azerrad and ryan anderson's essay helped shape on outlook on opportunity. looks at it as the capacity to enjoy the blessings of liberty and to be able to pass them on to the next generation. a critical goal for us in the institute for family, community and opportunity, which heritage inhere at june of this year. the index of culture and opportunity is the flagship publication of that institute. and it was launched in july. the contributors, the panelists see here today, were all contributors to that. and my former colleague and good friend, rea hederman, who is now executive haven't of the buckeye coeditor of the whole project with me. very glad to have his

partnership in it. to lead agoing conversation with three of our contributors to the volume. rea.er to you, >> thank you, david, for that great introduction, kind of for whate groundwork we hope is a provocative discussion on why culture and linked and why it matters. on my immediate left is steve moore. the current chief economist at the heritage foundation. heritage. stint at he was back there in the 80's catoe he decamped to the institute. senior economist. recently he was on the wall street editorial board. heritage is glad to have steve back. in the middle is heather macdonald. the thomas w. smith the manhattan institute for policy research. and a contributing editor of the city journal. he is also the recipient of the 2005 bradley prize for outstanding intellectual

achievement. many different issues, homeland security, immigration, policing, homelessness, education policies, families and business improvement districts. left, last bute not least, is another former heritage colleague of mine, donovan. charles donovan is the president of the charlotte lozier institute. before that, he was a legislative director of the national right to life committee. a speechwriteras for president reagan and helped lead the family research council nearly two decades and previously was the senior thearch fellow here at heritage foundation. as jennifer mentioned, they are all key writers and contributors index, taking a look at an indicator and saying, what does this indicator mean? it fit into the overall scope of culture and why is ity, and important? the index focuses on two things. culture and opportunity. culture?e mean by we're laying out, saying, let us

measure the help of american the education system, our religion and civil institutions. suchtunity looks at things as what type of educational achievement are our students likely are you to find work? what are the chances of starting your own businesses? and will you still have the opportunity to be successful in business as you were in the past? to take you back in time to about 20 years ago, when quaylece president dan was embarked in a dispute with a named murphyacter brown over the role of single motherhood. this is considered a key part of cultural wars. you had a sitting president of the united states in a silly debate with a television character. but now you're starting to see a little bit more of a consensus, maybe the murphy brown wars about single motherhood shouldn't be lumped cultural war argument. but there's a very important economic component as well. right,r the work on the somebody like charles murray,

a look and says family breakdown is occurring upon people who didn't go to college, while college educated very stableage is a thing, by comparison. recently,a look most the brookings institute wrote a book entitled generation unbound, looking at how the rise of single motherhood is harming prospects for a lot of young women. and now, just monday, the post, there was a piece taking a look, saying, economic problems that are arising as we see the breakdown of family and culture. guess, you know, my question is, are we coming to a cultural where maybe issues are impacting economic opportunity? is the left coming on board, david alluded to? what has changed the discussion since murphy brown to where you about theings talking breakdown of the family?

>> well, ms. sawhill has been a leader in understanding the rise ofphe that is the single parenting. she'son't think that necessarily indicative of a change. and i think we've still got a ground to conquer in spreading the understanding as widely as possible of the relationship between family breakdown and poverty. story onee the classic the new york times complaining and the difficult that poor families are having getting by. almost never pointed out explicitly that what they're about is single mothers. and i'm also concerned, on the arer side, that republicans starting to talk about single they were if anti-logical categories.

hearmpaign speeches you the pitch to single mothers as if they simply exist by some kind of fiat as opposed to being the product of choice. is i think that the real key personal responsibility, and we thatto make the message gets harder and harder to make, that fathers are absolutely their children and feminism makes that very difficult. a constant battle. know, robert rector in the index,k, about the course of welfare over years.t 40 the argument to the question of self-sufficiency, rather than an increase in poverty. and we tend to talk about single mothers. think the instinctive reaction

i have is, is that a bit of finger pointing and blaming? this is the person who has stayed with the situation, which who is raising the child. isn't it a case that she's the single mother present, and yet have a single father too, who is absent? we have to begin to account, i think, for the full picture of why that single father is absent. i think certainly radical feminism is part of that. you could even say to a certain movement,e pro-life which provides means for single their children. we basically, though, have a i think atity, and the end of the day, we are not only damaging self-sufficiency, we're damaging a deeper notion of resilience. certainly they, one we have now, where there are ups and downs, we've had a recession, growth under a liberal administration, we have policies that punish success, that punish enterprise. i think we have a spreading

pessimism. of otherin dozens indicators about the future. and what a family gives you, an sense thatly, is a whatever comes, you've got layers of resilience that can rebound and also help you achieve your goals. but i think we can spread the widely for this attitude of diminishing responsibility and diminishing hope. >> so, steve, you're our economist. federal friday, a reserve board chairman mentioned inequality in a speech in boston. you hear elizabeth warren and a lotent obama has talked about income and equality, where it is a huge threat to that middle class are struggling to get by and we're not seeing, you know, the achievable for a lot of people, particularly born at the bottom. it i mean, are we looking at as the economy. is it an economic problem? here?s going on >> let me first point out that i

think there is a lot of reason for optimism. i think a lot of these positions that we've been taking fact that know, the thinkhood matters, i that's becoming more accepted. whathen, you know, you see hillary clinton said on friday, where she said a statement that businesses and corporations have done great jobs. that -- >> maybe we're not making the progress we thought we were. way, that is related to this, because one of the things you found in your is that we have seen a decline in -- [inaudible] maybe that's because there's a war against business, that i extremely destructive. so i wanted to get that out, because it -- you know, it just few days ago. look, i am an economist. i deal with tax rates, as you rea. and i deal with the labor force

issues and things like that. i read the entire speech. entire speech that jan gave, and she talks about and equality. you know what's interesting? she never brought up any of these issues of culture and family. and, you know, as i look at the data and the evidence, obviously that tax rates and all these other things matter, but two things that really are the key to reducing poverty. a free enterprise system, which is -- i think we'd all accept that. a noneconomic is factor. marriage. ha! antipoverty best program out there. it's much, much more effective than the hundreds of billions we've spent, you know, trying to combat poverty with welfare programs. kind of come to the

conclusion that when you look at thele at the bottom of income scale, those people on the bottom, that we call poor, a huge bottom 20%, percentage of them come from broken families. thing that's interesting about people at the bottom, rea, is a point that you to earlier, is that when you look at those people in the 20%, over half of those working.s have no one ha! so if no one was working in the canehold, how in the world they get out of poverty? i mean -- now, you could just them money, which the government does, but you're not really doing anything to lift their lives. the circle byre saying it goes back to what david and jennifer were talking about, about getting on the economic ladder and climbing up it. working in the household, you're not on the ladder.ng of the that's why work is important and

marriage is important. >> and i would say, again, we need to find the language again to valorize fathers. it's boys who are hurt the most, they don't have a father in the house. of course, there's wonderful are doinghers that the best they can. and many of them are raising --y heroically raising children. but on average, males and different gifts to raising children, and boys do need their fathers. and what they learned are some other virtues that we don't always talk about, which is so important to being able to which is opportunity, self-discipline, deferred gratification, being able to realize that you've got to study hanging outher than on the streets selling drugs. and so i think one of the

chapters in here talks about drug use. sobriety is also a very virtue that is necessary for building the civil that david and jennifer spoke of. harder andit gets harder to find that language to no, women are strong but they can't do it all. we need fathers as well. something tot add thin this. there is this great chapter on drug use. a libertarian. i feel what people do in their own houses is their own business. but i've been doing a lot of guy who runs the biggest employment agency in america. people aploys 400,000 year. so he probably employs more than any private sector employer in country. he's been telling me consistently that, look, there are jobs out there.

there, this idea that aren't jobs, there are jobs out there for people who have skills. but he was saying, just as an example -- he had a recent opening at new factory and they like 6,000ng applications. and out of those 6,000 people, he said over half of them couldn't pass a drug test. well, if you've got half the people who can't pass a drug test, they're not going to get employed. they're not employable. that's an example of this being anultural problem, not economic problem. >> the meth problem is very scary. thingk that's the one that charles murray didn't talk about in his book. the's what's happening in stratum at this point, is very scary spread of meth use. >> a company that was located in ohio, we've seep a lot of the

business -- seen a lot of the business reports, saying that blue collar america, you have a do want toanies that hire. you have a lot of people out of work, but because of this cultural factors, businesses aren't able to hire somebody for of drugthy jobs because use. when we did the index, we tried thealk through kind of three different sections. the first takes a look at pure culture, to more personal responsibility, and then opportunity. so my question is, is there a egg?en an -- chicken and do you need a strong culture to be able to build strong opportunities? vital is that to keep our strong civil institutions, to of the economic roads and prosperity that enjoy?ns >> let me give you an example of affects our economy p. you're right.

there are millions of jobs out there that are being unfilled. is a -- kind of a new dimension toral the idea that blue collar work is not acceptable, you know. blue collar work is for immigrants and other people. look, blue collar work is tough questionthere's no about it. but we have millions of jobs that could be filled, you know, ofpeople with two years junior college, getting some apprenticeship, getting a vocational skill. things,e good at those you can start as a welder, carpenter, electrician, and you become a foreman. these are not low-paying jobs. sometimes $100,000 a year. unfilled.re going american workers, you don't get your hands dirty anymore. we need workers who have skills, who can make things, and fix things, and i

think the reason those jobs aren't being filled is a kind of cultural issue that it's beneath the american worker to do that. >> i would say there's a the right.ia in we occasionally hear people as steve does, absolutely accurately, about the kinds of work. same time, they are stuck in the mantra that everybody should go to college. well-meaningy philanthropists in new york who are running programs for kids, and their measure of success is they'rely how many kids sending to college. obviously it's a good thing to go to college, especially if out of a passion for learning, and when you're there, it's a good thing if you realize that this is your best

opportunity to read the greek tragedies and shakespeare and elliott. but it is not necessary to go to college to have a productive life. and the more we have this idea that you are a failure unless you've gone to college, we are going to water down the academic of college so much, as is already going on, that it's virtually meaningless. think that we have to get our message straight here. not -- >> this is almost more prevalent on the right than it is on the left. >> it is. >> i think there's the whole motivation for work as well. and i believe theologically and in the value of work andthe nobility of labor the need for a drug-free work place. the first thing you see on a a ladderion site is leading down to a pit, and next

a it is a sign, this is drug-free work place. but i do think, for the vast majority of people, certainly from the era of 1950's to 1970's, low tax, high employment, a democratic president cutting taxes, family formation through the roof, at least postwar, the motivation to work, while it's noble make a good jet engine for g.e., soaps noble to make good at procter & gamble, but most of to work,e who went went to work because of what happened at 6:00 at night. paycheck to home a a spouse, a family, and they viewed their work lives as serving these almost hired guns. they may be hired guns of of church, of community. when a community likes this kind resilience and obviously we have communities in the country where the single out-of-wedlockhe

plus, the is 70% question of, what are you oneing for becomes a subtle of inspiration and motivation. i think the tradition for most i get is my other life, what i bring home to it. >> you mentioned kind of the of whaties and kind ties communities together. i think one thing that's been kind of on the news a lot -- and i think heather you wrote about this as a crime -- you think in many different areas but you don't think about what the reverse of crime is, neighborhoods. if you want to have good communities with opportunity, safety. a place for i see writings again, people on the left saying great social program. what's the story on kind of crime? isthe story on crime absolutely mysterious, puzzling,

because it, contradicts both the liberal and the conservative means about how to fight crime and how society works. the liberal story about crime is that it's a product of inequality, of poverty, of racism, and that you cannot solve crime. you cannot lower crime unless racism rid of poverty, and inequality, and therefore we need large social programs. left is always pushed back against law enforcement, wanting instead. government as myself,es, such will say we cannot expect to live in safe communities when have this catastrophe of family breakdown, when you have raised without any expectation that they will be expected to show the basic, most

fundamental aspect of personal responsibility, which is raising their own children. both sides were wrong. had, since the early 1990's, the largest and most on record.rime drop nobody predicted it. defied every criminologist's expectations. not change radically was the level of inequality and poverty in this country, nor did family breakdown improve. so both liberals and conservatives were wrong. changed? primarily, in my opinion, what made the difference was effective policing. this was a revolution that came of new york city, that held police commanders accountable for the crime in their neighborhoods. they studied data, every single day. they made policing efficient. after crime patterns when they were breaking out. of quality of life, which is civility

offenses. what's happening on the city that make people feel like they're living in a disorderly environment? and we did have a prison increase. now, this is a very topic now.al there's a lot of discourse about negative effects of mass incarceration. jumping on there bandwagon here. i would caution them, because i incarceration buildup did play a very significant role in dropping by incapacitating criminals. the way this plugs into you havety is now businesses that are able to open up in neighbors without safety of theirgabout the employees. restaurants opened up. transformed. was and the crime drop is what preceded the economic activity. conservativesthat are right about, it's not that you need the booming economy to

crime. of you lower crime, and that allows flourish.ctivity to and that's what we saw in new york and that's spreading in other cities as well. of point ofkind clarification. you know, you're right. rethinking of fighting crime on the right. that's a big deal now. seems to me that has to do with nonviolent criminals. there's a kind of thinking about, should we treat a drug user differently than we should, you know, a robbery? someone invading your private space? interestingn debate, that it was really emerging on our side, whether is criminal justice system creating a class of criminals, people who are 19 years old, who, you know, were involved in some kind of nonviolent offense. jury is out on that. but i agree with you. when it comes to people who are a violent crime,

put them away. the best ways of cleaning up the streets. i wonder if you would make that distinction, nonviolent versus violent. >> prison remains a lifetime forevement award persistence in criminal offending. hardave to work very before a district attorney says, okay, i'm actually going to slammer. in the it's extremely disturbing, as a to hear the world view of district attorneys and and they consider serious nonserious offenses. the nonserious ones are the ones prosecute, going to such as stealing a car. now, i submit if your car is serious.hat's kind of but in the district attorney's eyes, it only becomes serious if gun to stealuse a it. in other words, hijack it with the car itself.

is, isfact of the matter that the vast majority of people in prison are there for violent and property crimes. the increase in prison population, for at least the last ten years, has been andusively from violent property crimes. and i would also just bring up sort of -- sort side, is the idea that thatlaws are racist and they're responsible for the inproportion of blacks prison. blacks are 37.5% of the state prison population. if you remove all drug offenders prisone state population, the percentage of black offenders in prison drops 37.5% to 37%.

so there's not much effect there. an inner cityo to police community neighborhood, this is what you will hear every time. we want the drug dealers off the corners. you arrest them. back the next day. why can't you keep them off the streets? the reason the police are the drug laws is because that's what the community wants. mei will say, though, to it's pretty plain that most parents will want their children thevoid having to have police be their source of inspiration to abide by the law. the homeeally where functions, with both a mother and father, in agreement on not being outlike at 2:00 in the morning, because nothing good typically happens morning.n the and we want children to rules.lize the so to the extent that my children were involved i with te what tothey were told say to the officer. please and thank you basically.

they didn't have their rights violated. they had to internalize the laws before the encounter. that is what you want to have happen. in too many communities, that father and mother is not there in the home when the moment of inspiration to possibly commit a crime happens. >> let me touch on a point, talked about the idea that you had a breakdown in communities, a little bit of economic opportunity. hear a lot about this. if there's more economic opportunity, you have more males, that the family broke down because there wasn't enough economic opportunity. a fair kind of critique economic pos patient of the nation -- prosperity of the create that we didn't enough jobs and that's the cause of the breakdown of the family? >> there are a number of jobs but they're at a skill level where the individuals are not able to take advantage of it. i think it's a question of too

few chickens and too few eggs. the ability to seize an opportunity is about resilience, i say. it's also about a little bit of push. not to get too personal again, but the idea that we could spend a day out of not have done something useful or that it would be reported back to them that we had been rude to the person at the local community grocery store, they wouldn't about that hear directly from the grocery store. they would have heard it from the other seven customers in the who knew the children and got the word back. the community has to have a kind -- unity. they say, among soldiers, that out on the battlefield, nobody dies for country. they fight for the guy next to them, because they have that

bond. and we're asking people to become these insular individuals who somehow see achievement in the work place as thing they can self--- as something they can self-generate. i don't think that's how people work. >> not working is a learned behavior, right? so we see that, you know -- we this. second-generation children of parents on welfare are more on welfare. and dependency is a kind of learned behavior. justhe one thing that i had to get out there is, you know, for those of you who know me, you know i'm very critical of barack obama, very critical of his economic programs. but there's one thing that is extremely admirable about barack obama, which is by all accounts, husband.eat father and and i just -- i get so frustrated that he doesn't -- we more role models, especially we know that family prevalent much more in the black community than it is in the white community.

presidenth that the would play that role of the role than here effectively does, because i think he can change lives in a very would doe way, if he that, whereas our culture kind holds,lorifies single family hoe and that does have an impact. question on the ofument that it was the lack economic opportunity that led to thee and other problems in inner city, i think mr. donovan has started to rebut that. what we sawadd that in the great depression was an economic catastrophe that still have not repeated to that full extent. joblessness, worklessness, poverty, and crime whereas in the 1960's, you had a very robust

economy. started going through the roof. so crime really is a cultural issue. it's about the rule of law, givenr people have been the values to respect the rule of law, whether they have the orientation of that, deferredrol, and gratification, and the family structure that will say, you not steal just something. want so, you know, we're all agreeing very heavily on this panel but i still think the message is not out there enough, that family structure is the most important thing. and america is suffering from it more than other european countries. and i think that unless we can rebuild the way to family at all income structures, have a very hard time with our economy.

>> before we conclude and leave, want to leave time for questions. let me just ask one question for each of you. take a look at one trend that highlights a cultural opportunity, what do you think of you'd like to put your finger on and say this is a good going,ion of where we're and are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future? to go with labor force participation, which is something you touched on, because i think it does get to the issue of people not whole concept. we talked about it, but the dignity of work. i just want to put a fine point this. you know, i think it would be a good thing if younger people worked more. you know, and you -- it's interesting, if you say this -- maine, thein republican governor wanted to make changes to the work rules, make it easier for young people to work. i'm talking about teenagers. left went crazy. oh, my god, he's trying to repeal the child labor laws, so

and so forth. i've been looking at the statistics and it turns out that someone starts working, it's a pretty good lead theyator of how successful are over their life. so this idea that we shouldn't have 158-year-olds and -- 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds working, that's crazy. it's a good thing to get them of in front ofd a computer screen or a tv screen. and it gets to the idea of why such aimum wage is horrible, horrible idea, because you're actually denying, you know, the work opportunities of who are young. and just one last thing on this. i've said this a million times, important, because i think everyone can -- the of the most important jobs that i had was my first job, you know. wage job, a minimum you know. and you learn basic skills. you learn how to show up for time, how to be nice to your boss, how to run a cash register. those things stay with you for life. so this cultural idea that it's a bad thing for young people to

work is completely wrong. a good thing. parents out there, get your kids out there working. will pay off in life in spades over time. >> and the minimum wage, and the newst on youth employment, already came out, the bureau of economic research. heather? >> i would keep on eye on crime. extraordinaryis crime drop that has freed up in poor innerties city neighbors, and we should be able to keep it going, as long as we keep policing strong. we're living now in a moment of scary delegitimacy of policing, with the idea that rejecte racist, which i entirely. there are bad cops, impolite an attitude that need constant retraining, but by going wherehey're crime is, and they're going to

where people need people. now shootingsng across the country against cops the reign of al poisonousnd a rhetoric out there. when people start shooting at real worry sign for the -- >> you mean shooting at cops literally or figuratively? >> it's happening both ways. >> right. that being said, just to repeat myself again, i think if we reverse the rise of out-of-wedlock childbearing, that would be the most important thing we could do for our culture. be just unstople. but if -- unstoppable. get more people to say -- more mothers to say the best thing i can do for my give him his father, and more fathers to say i have a responsibility to raise my child, that would be the best

that could happen for our country. >> to me, it's absolutely the marriage rate. it's screamingly clear there's been a 10-point reduction in the marriage rate in the last decade. looking atshed me, the numbers, is it has been 50% 1970's.e era of the and we all talk about out-of-wedlock childbearing. childbearing is not the problem. we are below replacement birth rate in the united states. of the last 42 have we been above replacement, even with the influence of the country. it's the out-of-wedlock thing. point.ave one last out of personal experience, when young people come out of they're doing what we consider pursuing the american dream in the right way, their initial experience is a debt that's larger than the parents, wetheir have a problem. that is not the only reason that

i think the -- i think the romantic and cultural ones are bigger, but it's one reason why marriage is becoming a more proposition and it's forcing people to consider they theirght have to make it on own, when in truth, we make it a lot better together. every drama ends with a marriage. >> i want to open it up to the audience. are there any questions? >> i'm general counsel for united for life. thist to thank you for fine publication and focusing on the connectedness between the economic opportunity in america. readingruck when i was the index, by what i believe to be a root cause of the moral experienced in america over the last 40 years, and that's america's extreme

aabortion policy. think it's error by omission if we don't look at what's happened with respect to our and see theicy unintended consequences to undermine the family unit, to united mine what we -- to we consider to be traditional american values. i would ask you to comment on whether or not you think changing the abortion policy -- and chuck, thank you for writing trends onabout abortion -- specifically whether or not that can help strengthen family, strengthen our culture and thereby lead to in america?sperity >> look at the statistics in the book. and i think you came up with some of these. know, the abortion rate has been declining, and the number of abortions has been declining. think -- obviously i think everybody would agree that's a very good thing, that the number the decline.is on

and the point i would make about laws haven't changed much really in the last, you know, 25 or 30 years with respect to abortion. i think where conservatives are winning, and you may disagree we're winningt this kind of moral fight, but i think it's because, as steve say, the way we're going to win the abortion fight is to change the hearts and minds of the american people. changing thee hearts and minds of the american people. the whole idea of abortion, it a beating heart. i think that is a message that has resonated with people. was the campaign a number of years ago, life, what a beautiful thing. i forget how it went. showing pictures of babies. and maybe i'm wrong, but i think where we areea improving culturally, because we have changed the minds of a lot of people. i don't know. am i wrong on that, heather? >> chuck, you wrote the indicator. the indicator shows a 20% decline over the last period. in the report, it's a itl littlt

bigger than that over the longer term. it's obviously a good thing. we have a radical abortion isicy in the united states, your question. we are one of four nations on the planet -- you can include north korea and china to get a that of the kind of regime endorses it. it's a policy of legal abortion until birth. influences the judgment of men not to take up their responsibilities, because after all, the woman has a nine-month period where she can relieve him of this responsibility. life of a human being, which hangs in the balance, is barredder and debate.ter and beginning,at the about securing the employeesings of liberty. secures made us less than abortion on demand? what has made relationships women, lessand secure, less significant, than

aabortion on demand? her problem. the statistics are grim. rates.eat abortion brought to aen place of peace or prosperity by this policy. a place ofbrought to irresponsibility to that posterity. >> there are other questions. yes, sir, here in the back. >> this question is for steve moore. well, it's for the panel. as an a libertarian, economist, the drug war, when you look at -- when you hear confrontation talk about, well, if we just increase more drug know, that will take drug dealers off the street, do

you kind of see it as kind of right?sy on the the same way we can say that gun laws aren't going to stop gun violent crimes, and we kind of laugh at them for that, do you see the same case in the confrontation when they say to increase the drug laws, that going to reduce the drugs we have in our society? question.tough i am kind of libertarian when it comes to drug laws. strongly supported decriminalizing drug use, although i have to say, what's colorado has given me some pause on this. i mean, it's not a good story, in colorado.ing more and more young people are it's drugs and, you know, disrupting their education and so on. foran, look, i am still decriminalizing most drug use. look, the one thing i would say when heatherow, described what happened in the great depression, the fact that

the crime rate fell dramatically, well, that's in part because we had the prohibition, right? prohibition had a huge impact in reducing crime rates the united states. so i'm actually quite of a mixed go with this we right now. there's a number of states, in going to beat are voting on, you know, marijuana.n of and i'm kind of undecided. how about you guys? >> well, i'm -- this is a cop-out. agnostic aboutof mostcriminalization and police chiefs and officers who i know are not in favor of it. that's because, again, they are channeling what they hear from their communities. the libertarian can always say, well, the reason people live with open air drug

trades feel that it is so them, and they want the dealers in prison, is because we've criminalized it. can just decriminalize it, everything will go away and that will solve the problem. not so sure. and i also do not buy the that somehow we are poor minority men to sell drugs, because that's the only opportunity available to them. that's simply not the case. people --insult to the many thousands of residentsg inner city who are opting to work in the legal economy rather than the economy. and, again, it's a matter really, as far as i'm concerned, and self-control. do you believe in work? do you believe in pulling through the proper channels, which are still available? a greatnk that's question, because in my research

on economic mobility for the foundation, there's two things that cause people in the to falllass or higher down. why are you climbing down the speak.c ladder, so to those two reasons are drug use family.kdown of the opportunity and culture do go hand in hand. figure outforward to how we can create more economic inortunity, through reforms the tax codes, labor laws and sure that we're not doing any harm to marriage and have we encouraged people to form new families with the institution of marriage and obviously continue the ke succes we've had? i thank you all for the first annual index of culture and opportunity. we look forward to hoping to see how things improve and change newthe next year for the 2015 report. thank you to chuck donovan of institute.te lozier heather macdonald from manhattan and steve moore, chief economist

at heritage. all! you [applause] >> the midterm elections will be the focus on tomorrow's newsmakers. our guests are stewart rothenburg, editor of the rothenburg political report, and walter. they talk about the toss-up races, current trends and the possible scenarios that could occur on election day and afterwards. >> i think some of these democrats in difficult races are races. good mark is running a terrific race. positionedwas better initially and he saw what happened to her, and he made sure it didn't happen to him. still think he's a clear

underdog and i think he's going to lose by more than a couple of points. but he's running a pretty good race. niceemocrats have done a job localizing a number of these contests. north carolina certainly, georgia. so give the democrats some credit in the -- i don't think hurricane, but it has the potential to be a pretty strong republican storm. of that discussion from newsmakers tomorrow at 10 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> throughout campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country, in races that will determine control of next congress. and this tuesday night, watch c-span's live election night see who wins, who loses, and which party will control the house and senate. at 8:00 p.m.begins eastern, with results and analysis. see candidate victory and concession speeches

in some of the most closely watched races across the country. we want to hear from you, with commentss, facebook and tweets. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. >> next, the funeral for former editorton post executive ben bradlee. then, some of the speakers from this year's washington ideas forum, including commerce secretary. that, a discussion on the impact of next tuesday's election on congress. on wednesday, family and friends of the late benjamin bradley washington d.c. for his funeral. he passed away last week at the age of 93. former washington post editor is famous for leading the watergateduring the scandal and challenging the nixon presidency. broke theers who