mind my telling you this. when i got nominated, you go through and they are ordered in this rant kind of way. never written the first person i spoke to was senator reid and the majority leader of the senate. i walked into his office and he said to me, "delighted to meet you." i told the president "i need two things in a supreme court justice. you are one of them." i said all, hope that isn't all that important. i said what are the two things. the first when he said we have to have somebody was never in a court of appeals judge. i was not a court of appeals judge. check your -- check. he said, i told the president will do have any more harvard or

yale people. i definitely do not make that one. [laughter] >> you didn't say i am a christian person? -- a princeton person? right into the center. >> last one. make a. -- make it a good. >> i am a masters student. i want to go back to the issue of health care for a minute and just ask you about the process around it. there were so many different opinions, different source of coalitions and justices joining can you talk about the roles that justices, a will or in dealer within the court of informing these coalitions and how it works? >> i was not talk about that case. -- will not talk about that is.

but often, things and do not break down neatly. sometimes, as i said a lot of the times, we all agree. but when we do not agree sometimes it breaks down easily and sometimes it don't. sometimes it breaks down particular issues. sometimes we fracture so there is no -- we try very hard not to have that happen because when that happens, we do not spend good a coherent signals to lower courts about what they should be doing. there is a lot of trying to prevent that sort of fracturing. if the chief justice is exceptionally good actually to figure out when we are not altogether and trying to figure out how to get five people to say something so we can actually speak coherently in a case and

the judges dependent on our guidance. but, that's sometimes hard. offered in these cases have a lot issues into them. often people things different things -- think different things about different issues. trying to figure that out does take work. it is work that we engage in in conference and out of conference as well. sort of trying to guess to at least a majority. >> i speak for everyone here is that we have high expectations for this event if you waited better than we expected and we hope you return frequently and we welcome you back with open arms. >> it feels absolutely wonderful to be here. >> great to have you. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on the next washington journal, stephen moore will talk about the legislative priorities for the new congress. and then, initiatives to stop sexual assault on college campuses. part of the nonprofit organization. later, a look at some of the issues but trade and editorial session portrayed and editorial cartoons. you also take phone calls and look for your comments. washington journal slide every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span -- is live every day at

7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. now, a discussion on the future of conservatism. a panel at the university of chicago this into a politics discussed how conservative principles could be used to solve some of today's problems. they look at the challenges facing republican presidential candidates in 2016. this one hour, 15 minutes. >> republicans won a sweeping electoral yet many americans struggle to identify with an affirmative party message. the most sought after conservative policy wonks tell us how they think the republican party can close this gap. the leaders collaborated to write a manifesto for a reformer con agenda that conservatism work for the middle class. commentators refer to the resurgence of the political party and they'll referring to our guests today. you will soon see why. our first panelist is andrew

kelly. he is a prolific author. he holds a host of senior positions. for he served on the -- and earned his phd at the university of chicago. april ponnuru. she has served in both senate and house leadership including a senior advisory. previously she served as executive director of the nonprofit rational review

institute. her husband, ramesh ponnuru, is a senior editor and columnist and visiting fellow. he is one of the most prolific commentators and his work can be found in the new york times and many other places in he served as a fellow 2013. last but not leas,t our moderator will be megan mcardle, she writes about economics this and public policy. she is currently completing her term as an ipo fellow. [applause] >> i'm going to start off by asking you a question, ramesh. 2014 is a great year for republicans.

a decent, sizable wave. why does conservatism needs to be reformed? >> first, it is ok to say your are republican. i think that one thing that republicans should have learned in recent years which is very different from the presidential electorate. you can be very good [indiscernible] that's for a couple of reason. it is easier to get people to let you apply the brake pedal to get control over the steering wheel. presidential elections, the people think of steering wheel

elections and they need to know the republicans take them somewhere they want to go. >> the obama metaphor. >> the other thing that's always been a demographic distinction between midterms and also turnout in presidential elections. for example, the midterm electorate is older and wider. in recent years, that demographic distinction has tacken on a much more partisan cast. it is easy to keep the house majority is a little harder but still quite doable to give a -- take a senate majority. you have to reach a little further. >> april, i will go to you.

what is reform conservatism? is it a bunch of different ideas? is that we need to reform conservatism and let's do it? >> not offering anything new the principles has been around for a long time certainly over the last few decades, principle we are comfortable with and feel we need to be expanded upon her -- what reform conservatism is apply those principles as we face today. republicans often had no agenda on breaking down thought

marginal tax rate which was pre-reagan confiscatory. a 70% rate. there was a real urgent need at the time to bring that rate down. we need to bring it down and he did and he was effective. partly because we were successful, a lot has become rather outdated. we have not been responding to the challenges of our day. reform conservatism is trying to bring to bear the principles that we believe in the particular policy challenges that we face as he mentioned today. >> can you talk about core policy changes that republicans are not addressing and needed to be? >> it is important, i think, as

reform conservatism. our target is not conservatism but the government and the nation's challenges and what is required to address those is reform of our institutions. it is applied conservatism and what that means in practice if it seems to me is a modernization of conservatism's understanding of the challenges. it is not a change in how we as conservatives need to think about solving problems but what we understand the problems to be. if as you say in 1981 were a lot of conservatives, the problems have to do with hyperinflation and high marginal income tax rates. today, the challenges have more to do with the consequence of globalization for working americans and more to do with stagnating wages.

more to do with the pressures that middle-class families confront to the extent we want to talk about tax reform, the tax burden is especially heavy as a result of payroll tax and not the income tax for most americans. it means thinking about how conservatives ideas need to be applied to contemporary challenges. the most difficult thing for both parties is to look beyond the to do list of what they have for such a long time actually think about what the country needs to do. a lot of democrats like to live in the mid-1960's and republicans in the 1980's for it seems like they had something real to offer. the economy does not live there and you cannot pretend like it does. the reason they are trying so hard to pretend is the reason -- >> i looked at some the things

that reagan got done. so, i went to go to the end of our -- that there, hi. talk about republican anti-intellectualism. they are sort of rather than having an education policy and -- is that true? is it fair? >> i think about the well-worn talking points on higher ed. lefty faculty. this is reagan's take on berkeley. >>

which serve as a recruiting device. >> precisely. that is always been at work to this discussion and rightfully so. you look at a college campus and see these departments under enrolled majors in women's studies and so on and that will be something to a mainstream conservative that will be not something they're interested in or interested in subsidizing. that's one of the traditional talking points on it. for me, this is symptom of a much larger problem. that is a market that doesn't function effectively. that sense, consumers say i do not want to learn or a professor that is going to fill my mind with all sorts of nonsense and things that will make make my parents blush. but instead, your only choices go to a four-year college.

enroll in a place that is populated with that type of faculty. but again, there is a function of a market that rewards kind of behavior and that kind of product because there is not a broader array of options. we get bogged down in the politics. this sort of hand to hand combat over liberalism and lose sight of the fact that is a symptom of this broader problem. >> yuval, is that preventing republicans from having the sort of resources, and policy advisers that democrats have versus republicans who have a small handful of conservatives?

>> the question whether it's a intellectualism is very complicated. it is not as simple as a lot of people make it out to be. the conservatives are more intellectual and their thing about politics. at the same time, there is the attitude of the academy and the actual academy. >> in fairness, i do not think reagan was wrong to say - >> not always here in chicago. i wrote a quarterly journal of essays about policy and a lot of the people who write for us are people who ought to be at the -- academics but are not. people working since who would rather be teaching the people who are on wall street when they were rather be. they think they cannot be academics because they are

service and in some cases they are right. that is an attitude that is public on the right. it is why they tend to rely more on think tanks. there is a huge advantage. universities seem to offer more credibility than a think tank and that's understood. my own attitude about the academy is different from a lot of conservatives. i think there is an enormous amount of very valuable work being done in social sciences . what it is not in today's academy in a way he used to be -- in the way it used to be. the learned intellectually even through the 1960's and the 1970's. that person is really hard to find. that the fault of the university. it is not any better. there are a lot of great specialists. it's not right to see the

academy as a sea of useless inanity. there is a lot of good work being done. >> i will throw out a list of issues that are the big issues health care, immigration, family formation, climate change -- which of those does this address effectively and which doesn't? >> one dimension of conservatism is an attempt to supply politically effective answers about the issues the most americans care about. in part that involves reorienting the conversation to the issues. an interesting list you put out there and if you think about the conversation in washington, d.c. over the last two years, how

much has been about immigration or inequality or climate change? issues that on a good day will get a combined 6% of the american public saying that is the top issue that congress be thinking about you the issues that americans really want to focus on are these bread and butter concerns about the cost of living. about wage stagnation. health care is one of them. they don't think about the issues in ideological terms. they like smaller government. they don't like inequality and not at all a high priority. what they really want is a rising standard of living. i have my own views about each

and every one of issues that we discussed. >> you are kidding. >> it is very easy for political activists and actors to get caught up in the issues that animate us and lose sight of the issues that our foremost concern of the people. >> why do we end up focus on these things? >> partly the folks that scream the loudest get the most attention. you have big parts of your base that are concerned about certain issues that the general public is not that worried about. i think is the case with the inequality issue in particular. i want to say is around 3% of the public says is a top issue for them. i've seen certainly more than 3% of the news coverage on that issue. the kind of thing that inside

the beltway types tend to respond to each other a whole lot. >> if you are a journalist making a modest sum, a very pressing issue. have you ever tried to get your child into a really good preschool? >> not rich yet. >> income mobility, is that a big issue? is it distinct? >> one of the more interesting things will see over the past year or year and a half is a pivot on democrats away from some this rhetoric around inequality and toward rhetoric around opportunity. it's a much more appealing frame. you cannot have a conversation about it without education.

>> i feel like we are pounding in getting more kids through college electors graduating from high school. what do we do now that is different? >> both parties have been guilty of that of this problem. democrats' natural inclination is to solve from washington. they can't do that. they can pass laws that ask the bureaucracy to write rules. george w. bush fell into the same trap with no child left behind act. a prescriptive attempt to fix schools from d.c.

my colleague and i tried to lay out is a different way of thinking about the federal role and it is the antithesis of centralizing power over decision-making and it is to default out to actors folder to the ground who can actually solve problems. in his wonderful chapter, allow people through trial and error figure out better ways to solve the problems they face in their local area, in their school district, particular school. have washington retreat from it but bear in mind create space for problem solvers to do their work. >> you've said some great stuff about this, leaving more space between the federal government for local government institutions that are not the government. we tend to view either the big

federal government and a little state government and everything is individual sphere and almost nothing in between. republicans have long talked a great game about the decentralization. you look at the iraq war and no child left behind. why don't republicans put their money where their mouth is? >> part is thinking about devolution. the subjects you pick up. in some ways, the place would be more useful is not thinking about the subject that can be picked up and in need of a how to approach public problems. this is great difference between the left and right in america. the question of how to approach

-- this inclination on the left and it is rooted in progressive thinking that is very interesting and a lot of contemporary progressives do not wrestle with the very much in it suggests we ought to think about american society as consisting of individuals and the state. the role of the state is to enable those individuals to live the life they want to leave. it's a very appealing idea. conservatives mphasize what happens in the space between the individual and the state, where our families are, our civic institutions, where the market economy is, and where levels of government are. we emphasize that not just because we do not like the federal government, but rather because it seems to us and that is where people thrive. that is where you solve problem is hand to hand face to face. is going to have to be able to address people's concerns where they are. it means there is an important

role of government but a supporting role, enabling role. to enable able those institutions to help people solve problems. if you think about how things happen in that space conservatives often talk about this in terms of market oriented policies and irt turns some people off because we put one in the middle of it, it is not about money or works in that is. but work is as problem-solving mechanisms. we think about how you saw problems from the bottom up, you allow people to experiment with different solution if i people who need help to choose between the options allow the options chosen to follow way.

>> markets create enormous economic incentive. the consumer has a lot of power to choose among options. and things that do not work go away. government programs do not work this way. regulation does not allow for experimentation. the people receiving services do not choose among options and failures never go away. we just vote for head start again even though everybody agrees it doesn't work. it is not about markets in the sense of money but a way of solving problems that enables those institutions to function. allow him try different things and people to choose from among options that allow failures to fail. that's what our approach to higher education looks like and a lot of our welfare reform i

deas look like. if you think about how that would apply to space x whether to solve, it seems like it is for us. >> i think this creativity and the markets you started talking about, it is much more in depth -- step with the time it interesting that liberals are really out of step. these technocratic, top-down solutions do not seem to yield the creativity and flexibility that american consumers can enjoy from the private sector, from civil societies. the rest of our lives have become more customizable and leaner and much more responsive to individual concerns. government continues in this sort of nonresponsive, sort of

top-down way that is really interesting that conservatism is where there's room for creativity. >> let me ask, shifting gears a little bit not entirely. the big movement of conservatism that has been noticeable is the tea party. how much do they contribute to this? is it about this opening up space? experimentation? >> i think that -- i would not say reform conservatives or myself fall into the tea party or establishment camp. each has elements of the truth

but neither is quite there. >> which group has which element? >> tea party seems to be more realistic about the means of achieving. you've got a reverse set of virtues and vices for the team -- tea party. i am stuck by the extent to which the division between team parties and establishment does not have -- tea partiers have a healthy reaction against the idea of the republican party that just solely about keeping fortune 500 happy. they do not have a lot in the way of ideas about, what exactly are we going to do about health care, higher education? the establishment doesn't either. the reason i've been so hopeful the one reason i am hopeful is i think at some point candidates particularly presidential candidates have to run on something.

nobody else is offering something so maybe some of ideals will catch on. >> i'm going to you because you are the education guy and you know what the kids are up to. the youth. this has been a big thing, what ramesh was talking about earlier, democrats are the party of the young, minorities, in single women. republicans have everyone else many of those people have a very low, rapid mortality rates. so, is there hope, is this the sort of thing that speaks -- my understanding is you pick up someone when they are 24 and the first time they vote and you're likely to have their vote forever. what are the issues that speak

to the kids these days? >> on the higher ed side, it is tough for republicans now mainly because democrats have turned this into student loans in particular, student debt as a campaign issue. it is at the center of the agenda, elizabeth warren, sousa -- her refinancing student loan bill went down, didn't make it through, she went to kentucky to campaign against mitch mcconnell is that he is siding with millionaires over students. democrats are giving young college-educated people subsidies. this is a strategy we've seen for two consecutive elections. we want to give you low interest rates and allow you to refinance your loans. that is stimulus package.

it is a tough thing to answer on the side of the republicans. there is a population in the middle, not necessarily the youth vote, but early 20's and mid-20's, people who have some college and no degree. they often have debt and have been let down by this system. they need something, some option that is not as time-consuming and as expensive as a full college degree. they need something. that's a segment of the population and it is big on 20%-25% of the country indefinitely be wooed by some of the ideas we talk about. that we talk about in the book. those ideas are very compelling and can be very compelling to

the group. >> to the broader point, there is a mistake a lot of people think about politics which is to slice the electorate into demographic groups in a misleading way. after the 2012 election, there was a lot of talk about how republicans were doing poorly among 3 or 4 groups in particular, hispanics, single women, and white and educated workers. when you do that, there is a group specific reason that needs to be addressed. the contraceptive mandate, immigration, same-sex marriage. those play a role, absolutely. the thing that people often underestimate is that each one of those groups is more economically insecure than the national average. each of those groups is having trouble getting good jobs, having trouble affording health

insurance, in many cases, having trouble paying off student loans. each of those groups, when you survey them, they put economics at the top of their list. even if you are to solve those group specific problems, if you don't have a compelling message on the bread-and-butter concerns, you will underperform with each of those groups. >> is interesting to look at fdr, to the african-american vote which had been much more republican and despite the fact he did nothing on civil rights he picked up huge proportions of that the vote by picking up economic needs. the feeling he was doing something about their needs. >> the one thing i would add to that is especially on the higher ed side, a lot of proposals the

the democrats are putting forward are regressive. that reward the higher educator. that doesn't go to students who need it most. it goes to the flagship campuses. these ideas, there is a window for republicans to sort of call that out and say it is not right, we're going to do something different. >> i will ask april 1 more question, how much headway isn't making in washington? -- is it making in washington? do we have a reform conservative presidential candidate? >> i certainly hope so and one of our goals i think is to affect that field which is bigger by the day. you know, there've been a few champions on the hill we pay particular attention to. mike lee in the senate has been a phenomenal idea generator and is talking about everything from higher education to taxes to health care and he is a really

phenomenal talent in the senate. marco rubio has been outstanding. he does a lot of legislation. they are teaming up on a tax proposal we are looking forward to. paul ryan has been doing good work in the house. i named two potential presidential candidates there. we have guys that have been around for a long time that are interested in this stuff. i think that some the most talented, some of the more talented politicians in washington are paying attention because there's been a vacuum that those really interested in trying to come up with an agenda, there are frankly not a lot of places to turn.

we are happy to fill that vacuum. a lot of interest generated with this book and it was remarkably successful. that's what you get when you get smart guys like this working together on a project. >> on that happy note, i will open up the floor. there's a microphone that will circulate and please speak into the microphone and please raise your hand. >> [indiscernible] specificly about paul ryan. an article, i cannot remember, it is titled "is paul ryan too smart to run for president?" [indiscernible] and i guess my question is, is that a real trap that these were

-- reform conservatives can fall into and how do they come back? >> i will say one thing quickly. my sense is that the smarter guys will be running for president know that they can't keep doing more of the same, it has not been successful. the last presidential election there wasn't much of a conservative agenda offered. that is fair to say. i think those looking at -- how many cycles has it been that we haven't won the popular vote? >> five or six. >> you cannot continue this. the formula is not working. the smarter ones will realize there is something in common here and we need to develop an agenda.

the other thing is, i think it's really important that conservatives -- because we believe in limited government and we are sort of often for trades as being antigovernment there's a sense that a lot of folks do not want to get to in the weeds of policy. it is a non-conservative thing to do. i think that is wrong. we have got to confront that. paul ryan has an excellent reputation among colleagues, they recognize something in him and he's taking the hard work of policymaking and understanding the problems that we face today and the situation we find ourselves in which is a bloated government full of a gazillion programs that need reform. somebody's got -- if you want to dismantle or change or reorient that, you have got to understand it. i think ryan is a popular

guy nationwide with the conservative base and so i think that intellectualism doesn't concern me. >> so no plans to grow the pop-up book? [laughter] >> slide show. >> anyone else -- i think it's a good question. it seems to me that there are a couple of questions it brings up. i think first of all that part of what we're trying to do is not so much define the candidate that will be a clamp onfor these ideas exactly as a whole but to enrich the policy conversation in general. so different candidates can take different ideas from among these and can take this way of thinking and try to approach the public with it. i think that it's very strange that the model line has not been followed by the member of the

house. it's been incredibly successful for him. it got him on the presidential ticket. that's what he did. it's not that hard. he picked an issue. became an expert. it took them a while. and he's very smart. but plenty of people are smart. he decided that he was going to make a name for himself by offering concrete policy ideas. it got him very far very quick. he's about to become the most important chairman in the house way out of seniority. i could become an expert in this or in that. it's not happening a lot. >> you have camps that are really on the committee.

you've got tim talent who offered welfare reform. so it's been done. it can be done. i disagree. i think it is hard. it is hard work. but not for you all but for the rest of us. it certainly is a path of powers. >> i've been personally very impressed by his work in education in particular -- and i think to make it's exactly right, a suspicion of understanding the details. it seems to me that a critical ingredient of effort to reign in the federal role in a way that's productive. and if you don't -- if you don't want to make a blanket claim and not go anywhere, we're not going to get very far. >> you know the first two years of the obama presidency, there's

a lot of talk about a subsequent issue that republicans are the party of no. i was all for as the republicans becoming the party of no. it was far superior asing with the party of me too but maybe a little bit less. i think what it became more important to develop an alternative agenda and present it in 2011 and 2012. but it was not right for other people to think you're running against an incumbent president who is con tever rare liberal personified. i think that was a mistake. i think there's a lot of evidence that that was a mistake. it would have been a natural tendency to turn toward the positive agenda as he got closer to the end to a two-term. i think you're going to see that happen, for example, with some

of the crews that are by the way are extraordinary in terms of sheer power. i've been arguing with them for 20 years. and i expect that he and other people are going to develop a positive agenda over the next couple of years because it's just bizarre in 2016 without one. >> the last few months have been very different from the last few years. there's a lot of policy -- there are more politicians getting to the point in their speeches thinking i should offer something. [laughter] >> other questions. how much do i have to worry about rand paul on foreign policy? pew did a study that found conservatism has never been more popular than it is today. as a republican my theory is you

can't stop talking about the 1980's. it's all rigged. and i don't know how you win younger voters when you can't stop talking about days before some of them were born. you wonder when we're going to move on? >> kids love that one. >> i think there's an enormous generational difference among conservatives now that's becoming more apparent. in some cases it's a real philosophical difference among lawyers. people over 40's are very, very different with people under 40 with the constitution and the role of judges. even more han that, there's a difference of people who remember the reagan years and people who know stories about the reagan years. and on the poll, not in every way i think conservatives are more inclined to think about

policy and the ways we're talk about it here because they're more inclined to think about the president and less inclined to want to repeat the end of the sentences that people started in the 1980's. the beginning of the sentences were great. we should have the same principles. we should have the same commitment in the constitution, the same belief in america, the sasme optimism but there has to be a response so what -- to what 's happening now. that's changing among some younger conservatives. >> i don't see how we're going to gather the younger people -- >> nature has a way of dealing with that. are you saying it's going to be cold? >> evolution is now -- look i

think that a generational ship takes time. that's what it is. but the fact that it's the younger people who are thinking more creatively and the younger people are not. but among the democrats, the opposite a happening. new democrats are necessary and why they are in that mold still. younger liberals tend not to be that way and they're a lot less realistic and constructive. i rather be in the situation of conservatives looking to the future. >> i was just going to add to that, i think that there's a dimension to that sort of crony capitalist corporate welfare side of this debate that i think could appeal to people who would normally stay to the left. thabbed has been a big talking point. >> i want us to get to that. >> tim carney is all over and jim, our colleagues and that to

me is just this natural issue for people who are sort of suspicious by nature of big business, right, to sort of line up behind some of that stuff. so i don't -- i'm not a pessimist. >> i'm an unapologetic of reagan. he was the most successful republican president of the last century. political successful than any president in the sense that our last three presidents have taken office with congress in control. and completely out of control of congress and the white house as well. so we should mention -- we should mention the real reagan and not the mythological reagan. one of the points that steve hagan has written -- he's written a two volume history of his times is that reagan rarely made it a big selling point with the public at large that he had a program that conformed

conservative philosophies. even though it largely did. he had a program that developed conservative philosophy but he advertised on the basis of its practicality. you're not going to face bracket and so on and so forth. reagan and boeingers don't follow his example. they just drop his name. >> they're much more concerned with ideological clarity and sort of -- i think maintaining you know, the standard. >> right. and it also goes to what? we're talking about whether, you know, this difference between the tea party and the establishment. i mean, so much of this is tactity cal and, you know, at tidtude -- attitudenal. the people who once came up with many of the ideas that we ran on are much more concerned with

these tactical fights than they are developing policy anymore. it's an interesting -- that's how you end up with the debate season we had in the presidential primaries last time where a lot of times it's a competition who can say it louder. >> the party of goldwater vs. the party of reagan. teaches about liberty vs. the party of talking about people and how all of this affected them individually. >> it was really uninteresting i think for people who are interested, it wasn't creative. it wasn't -- >> 999 was the biggest policy proposal -- [laughter] >> not a good sign. >> other good questions. >> i'll keep asking. we've got plenty over here. yes. >> thank you. >> the book mentions making tax cuts for families where they need them most. what would that look like in practice? do you think there's any room with maybe incentives for mothers who want to stay at home

to raise their children, incentive for families to operate economically in a way that they see fit instead of punishing women who want to stay home and have single incomes family. >> well, you know, the cost of raising families has increased. the tax code does a very poor job of recognizing the extent to which raising children is an investment in the future. we say that as a kind of rogue sentiment but it's financially in part the future of the country and our future tax payers. and the tax code recognized that fact. i don't think we should be providing incentives for mothers or fathers to stay home with the kids. i do think we should be enabe ling families to make the decisions they want to make whether that is -- you know a

lot of government subsidies in the childcare area flows towards commercial daycare. that is something that a lot of families like to use. however, it is in general the least favorite form of childcare for american families and i would say if you expand the child credit which is a very popular proposal with almost every group in the american public you are allowing people to make these decisions. does one parent want to scale back to part-time work and spend more time with the family? do they want to use it to purchase childcare? do they want to purchase supplementary usages? you provide them with tax relief. that is in a sense a very traditional conservative answer and it ought to be provided in this form now. >> it's an example too where a traditional sort of answer is not being directed to the right question where the problem that exists now is different from the problem that existed 35 years

ago and when you think about how to provide people with tax reliefs today. what is middle tax relief look like? it doesn't look like lower marginal tax rate. for most people the payroll tax is a huge tax burden. and for many americans it's the only tax burden they have. they don't have an income tax liability. but conservatives do not talk about the payroll tax as a target for tax relief and try to kind of shield it off some conversations about tax breaks and tax reforms. it should be right at the center of those discussions. >> the child credit would be a form of payroll tax relax. >> exactly. you have to talk to people about problems they face not just about an abstract economy out there that if it's doing better than by some magic they're also doing better. >> exactly. >> it's a better incentive to get rich.

well ok? there's a tendency in general for conservatives to talk about the economy in very abstract terms. it's not crazy. it does matter. economic growth has to be there as a foundation for everything else to workout. if we don't have economic growth then a lot of the other problems become much worse and a lot of the other problems become insufficient. we also need to help people understand what we're offering in terms of the problems they face. >> y.g. network commissioneding on -- commissioned polling on extending child credits. not only was it overwhelmingly popular with the public. but so many demographics that people wring their hands about and strategists wring their hands about it did really, really well. for example you might not think that single women would care that much about expanding the child credit for you know,

which -- you know describes for being for families but would be applicable for women two have children wildly popular with single women. very popular with minority groups. you know, it's one of those questions that gets to those economic concerns that underlie a lot of -- underlie a lot of these insecurities that we worry nant the electoral politics. >> we have two questions in the background. >> this is about the conservatives intellectualism you were talking about earlier. so excuse my interpretation of what you were saying. but what i heard was that sort of the market encouraging students to go off to college dominated by little bit cal thinkers and getting degrees that aren't very important. what would you say the

correction is whether or not is an accurate depiction of what's actually happening? >> there's this fine paraphrase of what i did. i would only add to that. but i think part of the problem is that people can't tell what the value of degree is and what -- whether it's going to pay off in the long run partly because we don't have that information readily available to them. you know markets are such that you're always -- they're always going to be people who want to buy that -- who want to buy that silly major, right? people are going to just do it. i think republican governors, for instance, tpwhun florida comes to mind has sort of made a mistake of making this we want more stem majors and we want less anthropologists. to me that sounds more like central planning and -- in bucharest than it does like a

market based response. but whey would say is what i think the federal government should aim to do is to inform consumers in a way that allows them to make judgments about the products that they're investing in and simultaneously to lower barriers to let in new provider who are offering a different product. right now the accreditation system has come to a credit in chicago. they will probably give you a credit in chicago state. they have both the same seal of approval. at the same time a -- it keeps out something who -- somebody who wants to compete. they may offer something different. it may not be staff by traditional faculty. these are examples of the policys that have been in place for a long time that are

actually prep venting consumers from making informed choices and from competition and preventing competition from taking root in a way that drives cost down and quality up. >> this question is related to that one. you said in earlier on that part of the problem with higher education is that students are often choosing to -- force to study things or study nonsense -- fill their head with nonsense. i guess part offer my question is how is it that students starting out distinguish with things that are nonsense and ideas that really matter particularly in the liberal arts , social sciences and to be able to make those kinds of distinctions to begin with. so i guess my worry is that

conservatives take a market-driven approach. you talk about making investments in majors to see how they pay off. but i was wondering if there was anything with conservatism that recognizes intrinsic values and that having market driven solutions could degrade and devalue the very important market values that come with higher education? >> speaking of an english major i really want to hear that. >> i was a history major and took plenty of classes that didn't really equipped me to be a think tank wonk like i am now. i'm not one who chose super rationally what they were going to do with their time in college. what i would say that i think there was a distinction. so where i draw the line is there's a distinction between

what the government is going to z and spend money on and especialfully case of student lones -- loans. as learned the federal government wants to insure that the money they're lending out gets paid back that's a fiduciary responsibility of the taxpayers. i think above and beyond that a market would award a lot of the nonbenefits that you're describing because people will have that. as a taxpayer, the question that i have whether i'm zing and subsidizing and lending money that i'm going to wind up being on the hook for when they default. that's where i draw the line. taxpayers have a slightly different interest than students themselves. i think you raise an excellent point. and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that -- that education is about more than just earning power. it's about creating an educated

citizen. it's about creating art and music and all sorts of wonderful things. i just get concerned when the federal policys that we have currently encourage investment in any program at any price and don't, you know, and don't distinguish between things that have value in the market and don't. >> i have a slightly perspective but one that is complimentary. >> i think the biggest problem is that we essentially tell people that if they don't go to traditional four-year collegiate institution they're losers, especially economically. they're not going to be successful. and i think that it is a misguided inefficient and just plain cruel approach and one of the secondary problems that have

arisen, i don't think it has done no service to the liberal arts education. i think not only do we need to keep in mind that knowledge reflection are intrinsic goods. i think in a way view coupling the economic imper tiffs from these -- the institutions actually ends up helping. >> let me state, i entirely agree with that. and i think that -- it's important to see that people who want to defend the liberal arts and i would say i studied political philosophy in colleague and then went of the university of chicago. i have a lot of experience of people calling things nonsense. i don't think that academics who worry about liberal education think enough about the fact that the insanity of the business model of the university is a huge problem for them.

the fact that we now have a system that is economically unsustainable and under constant economic pressure means they're the first to go. because they -- the fact is liberal arts education is upped by our society as something like a luxury item. that's a mistake. it's not entirely a mistake. i think even if you think properly about the place of a true liberal education in the life of a democracy i'm in agreement that it is something that will interest a few and it is sprornt that those few have access to great education. it is not what everybody will be interested in and that's ok. the question is how are you going to have access to great liberal education? and i don't think it's going to be in a system that's under the kind of pressure that our higher education system under now. part of what we're talking about is to make the system more sustainable by making it answer people's needs and wants better than it does now. some of those wants are going to involve higher education and

liberal education. and the kind of liberal education that you would get here and other places is very important to some people. that means it is a market that will be served. we shouldn't simply think of it as as a market in economic terms. i don't think of markets in general in purely economic terms. markets are ways of allocating resources and allowing people to find what they want and some of what people want is this kind of a in educating and access to things and beauty that a lot of people in this university see. i think a higher education system is the enemy of those people and they need to see that. they're going to be the one who is have to go first. and the kinds of solution andrew offers i think could be very good for liberal education. they don't involve injecting that an as option. they allow people to see what they want and make it sustainbility economically.

there's no getting away from economics. >> last question and since we haven't -- sir? >> here in cook county we had the lowest voter turnout in about 70 years. this was echoed in other places in the country especially when we're talking about a market approach. how do we know what citizens want if so few of them are prartiss pating in the process? how can we really make accurate statements about what we're going to do in the future or where we're going to go if so few people are interested in participating? >> would we know even if they did participate? anyone want to -- >> it's a great question. i think our democratic system is a way of legitimatic power which is essential. it's necessary. it's why our government is a legitimate government. it is one of the ways to figure out what everybody