and women. what the hell does he have to say for it? i use the word unpredictable. we don't have any unpredictability anymore. general macarthur would not talk. theyal george patton -- would've thrown about his first year because he was efficient test was a vicious, violent guy, that used foul language. he was brutal. he cannot be a general today. [applause] he was too crude. but he was a genius, and his men loved him and fun for him. but he could not be a general. these guys are on television all the time. i don't want my generals on television. i don't want the enemy watching me. one little word and you are giving something up. i did a deal recently, and it was a great success. i called up my opponent. he cannot stand me, boy did i do

a number on this guy. he was honest. he told the reporter, mr. trump was really tough because he was so unpredictable. i didn't know if he was being nice to me or not. i said, what does that mean? he said we could not figure you out. i said, thank you. i thought it was a couple meant, but i had to be sure. we have no unpredictability. we have to get smart, and we are going to get smart. [applause] i'm going to leave it at that. one of the things -- did you have a question? i have to take care of my pastor. wait one second. one of the things you will say when you leave this room -- this is such an amazing thing that is happening. you are going to say we were here at a time that really was important. people have come together. but you have to go out and vote. with all of the talk, "this and

that group." romney failed. mccain couldn't win the first time because it was such a mesh. romney the second time should have been an easy victory. say what you want about obama. he was on letterman, leno, all of the place. i'm saying, when are you going to get on television? well, we don't think. i said, just get on television. he is killing you. he was on letterman, he is on every show. and romney didn't do it. he failed. if the people in this room who didn't vote, and if all the other people that would have never voted for obama, but if they had the incentive to get up and go vote. romney would have won the election. but they weren't inspired. we have to remember that. i have the big scratch anyone has ever seen -- biggest crowds

anyone has ever seen. [applause] i'm going to do something really not smart. i always like to end on a high note. i cannot say, make american -- i can say make america great again, and you will all cheer and i go by come. hillary goes to sleep and you don't see her for five days. she wakes up and comes to another event. and elton john would always say -- he is a good guy -- you always want to finish with a big bang. when did you the on court -- the 1 court -- encore and 80 -- the encore, and they do 1 songt , 2 songs. and after a while it's like, let's go home. the problem is that my pastor wants to ask me a question. how can i turn him down?

would you do me a favor? would you make it a nice question so i don't leave on a low note? >> mr. trump, i want to address this issue of black lines matter. black lives matter, no matter who kills them. more people killed with black and black crime in america than it has been with white people killed. [applause] mr. trump: it's true. it's a tremendous problem. from 2007 to 2015, over 3,000 black people were shot dead by black people. my question is, where was black lives matter? they weren't around. [applause] so true.: come question is, will you to address the black community

on what we're going to do about stopping the crime in the black community, on black on black crime. mr. trump: i would do that. i went to the wharton school of finance in philadelphia. he is a highly respected, a great man in philadelphia. the answer is yes. okay? [applause] i love it. ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank you all. you are spectacular people. doing this is easy. getting there was not so easy. there is such love in this room. we're going to make america great again, better than ever before. i love you. thank you. ♪ thank you everybody. we ain't gonna take it ♪ c-span takes you on the road

to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greets. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone. as always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website, www.c-span.org. voice my strong support for the courageous people of afghanistan. women and men who have suffered for years under the taliban regime. >each and every one of us as irresponsibility to stop the suffering caused by malaria. every life in every land matters. and all of us can do something to help. knowing some of these first ladies very well, like my own mother-in-law, or one that i admire very much, lady bird johnson. we benefit, our country benefits

by whatever our first lady's interests are. >> laura bush is the second woman in american history to be the wife of one president and the daughter-in-law of another. she became first lady after controversial election brought her husband to the white house. with less than nine months in office, the 9/11 attacks occurred. first lady laura bush helped convert the nation while continuing to pursuit interests long important to hurt, including education -- important to her, including education and literacy and health. 9:00 eastern on c-span's first ladies, influence and image. examining the public and private lives that fill the position of first lady and their influence on presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. onnext, a discussion inequality in america. after that, republican

presidential candidates speak at a forum hosted by the republican jewish coalition. then a house hearing on u.s. drug policy. now, former labor secretary robert reisch, former white house green jobs advisor van jones and others discuss inequality in america. posted by "the nation" this is an hour and 45 minutes. host: thank you, can you hear me? it is terrific to be in san francisco. so many supporters, friends, readers, i hope soon to be readers subscribers in this , gorgeous theater. this is the last stop on our trip. 2015 marked the 150th birthday of the nation. it is daunting. [applause]

host: this is our last stop in introducing a new generation to the next generation. some 3 million people come to "the nation" now every week in different forms, so we are proud of that. tonight we have gathered some of the great thinkers, activists on issues of fairness, fighting inequality. for a panel, i think that is vital at this time, at any time. it is a transcendent issue of our time. let me introduce our great moderator, and we shall begin. ladoris hazzard cordell is a retired judge of the superior court of california and former independent police auditor.

she is a long time advocate for repairing transparency when it comes to police misconduct. she was assistant dean at the stanford law school, where she helped develop a program to increase minority improvement. during her tenure, it went to first place for african-american and hispanic students at law schools. she has received prizes for breaking race and gender barriers. she was the first female african-american judge in northern california, the first female african-american superior court judge in santa clara county, california. please welcome judge cordell. [applause] host: looks like you don't need it. [applause]

judge cordell: thank you. thank you so much. [gavel clacks] [laughter] good evening, and welcome to today's special program of the commonwealth club of california. tonight's program is cohosted by the nation magazine. i am ladoris cordell, former judge of the superior court of california, former police auditor of the city of san jose, and your moderator for this program. 2015 is the 150th birthday of "the nation" magazine. to commemorate this historic anniversary, we are proud to present a conversation about our country's inequality crisis, a pressing issue impacting millions of americans, and a core nation issue on which the

magazine has long been sounding the alarm. the wealth controlled by the top tenth of the top 1% has more than doubled in the past 30 years in the united states, approaching unprecedented levels. san francisco most certainly symbolizes the inequality issue. the city has been wracked by battles over development, a homeless population that spills onto its sidewalks, rocketing housing costs, and increases in crime. with its gleaming new buildings and influx of silicon valley wealth, san francisco has the fastest growing income inequality gap in the nation. so what does this inequality mean for the political process?

for the environment? living wages and immigrant rights? and in turn, for civil society and the future of our democracy? tonight you will have a conversation with four prominent experts about key problems afflicting america, through the lens of the unprecedented wealth in the united states today. please welcome our panelists. robert reisch is at the university of berkeley and senior fellow at the blum center for developing economy. he served as secretary of labor in the clinton administration and was named by time magazine as one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. his latest book is "saving capitalism for the many, not the few."

please welcome robert reisch. [applause] sec. reich: oh, wow. [applause] judge cordell: ai-jen poo is director of the national domestic workers alliance. and codirector of the "caring across generations" campaign. she was a 2014 macarthur genius and was named one of the world's most 100 influential people by "time" magazine. she is the 2013 world economic forum young global leader, an author of "the age of dignity:

preparing for the elder boom in a changing america." please welcome ai-jen poo. [applause] judge cordell: van jones is an environmental advocate, civil rights activist. and he is the cofounder of four nonprofit organizations, including "rebuild the dream," of which he is president. he is also a cnn political contributor. van is a yale educated lawyer, and in 2009 worked as the green jobs advisor to president obama. he is the author of the new york times best-selling book, "rebuild the dream." please welcome van jones. [applause]

judge cordell: our final panelist, katrina vanden heuvel, is the publisher and editor of "the nation." she is a frequent commentator on tv and radio and the author of numerous books. she is a weekly online columnist for the washington post. her blog appears at thenation.com. please welcome katrina heuvel. [applause] judge cordell: we are going to start our conversation with a question i am going to throw out for all of you. in a 2014 pew survey, inequality was the top choice for greatest threat to the world.

all of the presidential candidates, democrat and republican, are talking about inequality. i give you a quote here, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty than ever before. those words are the words of mitt romney. [laughter] judge cordell: so panelists, are we finally at the tipping point? are americans left and right, rich and poor, all in agreement that our economic and political systems are rigged and have to change? has all of the anger about inequality become a great unifier, or are we about to tip? [laughter] jump in. sec. reich: no. [laughter] [applause] sec. reich: should i explain?

[laughter] the good news is that inequality is evil or talking about. -- is something for talking about. after years of seeing inequality widened, the median wage stagnates. getpoor and the rich stubbornly richer. finally we are getting to a tipping point, even among republicans, where it is expected to be fashionable to say something about it. but we are not anywhere near doing anything significant about it. there is one candidate who is talking seriously about it, and a few others who are being influenced by him -- [applause] sec. reich: but i don't want to make this into a partisan forum. [laughter] my biggest fear is that we may

be as a nation heading into a world war. war can bring out either the best or the worst in nations. it sometimes can lead to a great deal of social solidarity, and some very good things can come out of the horrors of war in terms of the issue of inequality, but it can also bring out some terrible ugliness. we have to watch that very carefully. judge cordell: anybody else? ai-jen: i think there is other good news, which is that everywhere i turn, i see low-wage workers in motion. i see incredible organizing along fast and workers, health care workers, domestic workers. you've all heard of the fight for 15. walmart workers, retail workers, even the baristas at starbucks.

people are coming together, and i think that combined with the vibrancy of the movement for black lives, there is a sense of collective self-confidence that people who are on the frontlines lines of inequality in this country are starting to express that we actually can turn the tide on this. we are going to come together and build the kind of movement necessary to do so. that, to me, is the best news in this situation. frances fox piven a great , historian of social movements told me not long ago that she does believe we are in the early stages of what will be the next great social protest movement of this country that will fundamentally transform democracy for all of us. she is right about a lot of things, so i am going to go with that.

[laughter] [applause] van: first of all, congratulations. >> i'm not 150, but thank you. [laughter] van: i think that you are right, there is an agreement about the problem, not the solution. but there are right-wing populisms that are very interesting now. in their willingness to take this on. they use terms different than those that are familiar to us, but you hear right-wingers now talking about what they call crony capitalism, and that is their way of talking about the way that the government has been captured to protect big corporations at the expense of working people. i think there is a growing agreement and, frankly goring

militancy on the right and left. the problem is that the solutions that might make things better or worse. i also think that when you listen to the orange guy, trump. >> not boehner. the orange guy. >> who do you have in mind? [laughter] van: when you listen to him, there is something interesting where there is a style of politics that could be a precursor to something. in other words, i just don't give a dad gum anymore. "i'm just not going to be polite." that you're doing that on the right. there is something that is happening where people who felt constrained, there is just not enough cookies on the table now for people to be polite.

the temperature is going up on both the right and left, so i do think the income inequality debate is something we should be very observant of for opportunities on the right. katrina: i think the rules are being rewritten in different ways on the left and right. at the heart of it, we are experiencing a failed status quo . this washington consensus of deregulation, of corporate trade agreements, of failure to make public investments, of mandatory sentencing. all of this is coming under scrutiny and questioning. you see it in bernie sanders campaign and donald trump's. the question is where will it had? this is no question a time of the people. -- a time of upheaval.

around the world, there are movements like you are describing, both hopeful and not hopeful, whether it is in spain or canada, where it will end will require political power and movements. judge cordell: let's pick up on the political power issue. first of all, this talk about inequality has been around for years. in the 1930's, supreme court justice louis brandeis once noted, we can have a democracy or great wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both. in 1956, "the nation" published an article written by w.e.b. "weid -- dubois wrote that turn over national resources to private profits and have few funds left for education, health, or housing." if we talk about politics, there is a boatload of money left in the lobbying industry. if we just talk about silicon valley. in 2013, apple spent $3.3 million in lobbying.

amazon, $3.4 million. facebook, $6.4 million. microsoft, $10.4 million. google spent $15.9 million, all to influence politicians in washington. don't we have to rein in lobbying to achieve income inequality, and if so, how do we do that? sec. reich: clearly we do, and we have to get money out of politics. we have to reverse citizens united. [applause] we have to make sure there is public financing of all campaigns and make sure there is full disclosure of where the money is coming from. it is easy to say what we should be doing. it is extremely hard to get the power to do it because it paints a chicken-and-egg problem. the people with power do not

want to lose power, and they fear that any fundamental change in how politics is financed would be a threat. let's go back to the issue of populism, because it is the core question. we see on the right and left upheavals and angry people, all across america and europe, and many other places around the world. this is not just an american problem. but how is that anger utilized? what political organization will -- what our political organizations going to do with that anger? this is a great challenge, it seems, because if we are facing a common threat in the form of m, whatever you want to call it, that anger can be turned into something positively creative, or it can be turned into fierce xenophobia

and racism, and ethnic exclusivity. we have got to take a leadership role in making sure that anger is channeled in a positive direction. everybody in this hall has to do exactly the same thing. judge cordell: anyone else? van: i want to say a couple of things. first of all, from an african-american perspective, the conversation about inequality starts with mass incarceration. it starts there -- [applause] van: and then moves to the rest of it. i think it is important to understand -- ai-jen mentioned black lives, i think this is the most important development of our time.

a lot of people got mad because kids grabbed some microphones, and that is their only point of reference, missing the entire movie. you now have a generation of african americans who are coming on the scene, they were 12 years old when obama got into office. 13, 14. they are not impressed with having a negro president. they are not impressed with having a democratic party that will say stuff. they are facing incarceration rates that are six time their peers when they are doing the same things. in other words, black kids and white kids do drugs the same amount, but black kids go to prison six times more than their white peers and no one is saying anything. -- no one has done anything about it.

and you have a view of the state that it does a better job of punishing than protecting, that they do a better job of hurting people than helping. see the violence from inside the u.s. borders in the form of mass incarceration. their peers see it at the u.s. border in the form of mass deportation. it beyondpeople see the u.s. border in militarization. you have a seamless web of violence from the government that does not protect from street level violence, it enhances it and nobody is speaking for them. and then you have a democratic itsy that wants to open mouth to talk about income won't speak of these issues as integral to the fight.

you can't have income inequality if you have been labeled a felon , for doing what you are doing this weekend. [laughter] you cannot have income equality if you cannot get a job, a student loan, a business license. so for those young people to hear a democratic party still . dealing with it. -- still not dealing with it. i was very impressed, by the way, the only force besides hillary clinton that both political parties had to address in their debate was black lives matter. black lives matter was started withree young women ,othing but pain and a hashtag and they forced both parties to deal with them. we should celebrate that.

[applause] judge cordell: it appears that race is the weapon of choice for those who want to maintain a status quo and draw attention away from inequality. if you look at donald trump and making america great again, that politics.g whistle isn't that code for let's make america a white again? so the question is, is the black lives matter movement focusing enough on income and wealth inequality? should it be doing more in that area? this is for anybody. sec. reich: no. i don't think they should be doing more. -- van: no, i don't think they should be doing more.

i think what has: emerged post occupy, post obama, there has been a war within the democratic party, the wall street wing, and the corporate establishment wing, which often both have failed to take that into account, though you could if activism carries sticks, the sticks apply rightly to bernie sanders. and consciousness raising done for senator warren, people are speaking in new ways. that battle goes on and it will determine the direction of the inequality discussion in this country. van: the way i see it is that the visible fight of the party is between the wall street wing and white economic populists, i don't mean white in a derogatory look at a rally, it

is a majority white rally. the problem you have is that at the end of the day, the republicans and right-wing democrats want black people to ,ell for trickle-down economics and the left-wing wants us to settle four trickle-down justice. in other words, can you shut up? we will not say black, we will not talk about your issues. just shut up. we will talk about taxing wall street, social security, and income inequality. you'll get years -- and you'll get yours, don't worry. katrina: and not schools. judge cordell: and not raising the slogans of mass incarceration. as a result, you have a third leg in the progressive movement, the racial justice leg, which has no home and no candidate. you are talking about the

dreamers on the latino side, the black lives matter movement, native americans, you have this third wing of the party with no candidate or voice to mask all of that, and they exploded into public view. i think they brought out the best in both wings. i have to say i was very proud of those young people and very proud of the way that bernie sanders himself responded with such compassion. i think these young people have brought themselves out in both wings of the party. i think this is a healthy thing that they have achieved. [applause] sec. reich: i think that what has happened, and again, i don't know precisely what is going on inside any campaign or inside

the washington precincts of the democratic party, but i think a dawning realization is occurring. if you have progressives and people of color, you can create change. that coalition is a winning coalition. what the democrats have done since franklin d roosevelt was to exclude african-americans, very consciously and carefully. that was fdr's coalition, that was the white working class and whoever else he could find to muster. exclusion of southerners.can that has been the policy of the democratic party up until bill

clinton. he tried to have a larger coalition, but the error of bill clinton was making alliance with wall street democrats, and that undermined everything else, making it difficult to create a new progressive movement. so the question for the democrats and for hillary clinton and bernie sanders and martin o'malley is whether they are willing to abandon the wall street coalition and join a new winning coalition with people of color? that is the central strategic question, and to my mind the only way we get any kind of change in america is if the democrats choose the latter, not the former. if we can actually get people together, voting is the bottom line. voting is critical to society and in america, low voter

turnout is the rule, not the exception. bernie sanders wants everybody to be automatically registered to vote at age 18, but that does not address the issue of getting people to actually vote. in australia, people are find for not voting -- fined for not voting. so given how low our voter turnout is in this country, should we do the same? should we penalize people for not voting or are there other ways to get people to the polls? it, ia: i would flip think the crisis we are looking coalition, the rising american coalition, the republican right sees that and they are doing everything to suppress the vote. to suppress this coming shift in

our country's democracy, destiny, politics. the money pouring into suppressing the vote is toggering and i can -- akin a poll tax, to jim crow. i think it will take movements to get out and vote. in favor of mandatory voting. but i am thinking, moral mondays in north carolina come they have made a commitment to get out and vote, multiracial, multi-issue, multi-justice and toward a three reconstruction -- third reconstruction. in the third reconstruction, rallying people not only in north carolina, but he will travel to speak about health minimums todatory mass incarceration. so there is something and that motion that we should be aware

of the money that has been pumped in. my last point, i think all contributions to super pac's should be 100% taxable and it should go to voter registration. [applause] anyone think: does that voting should be mandatory? sec. reich: i certainly don't. i think that people will vote when they have something to vote for. ai-jen poo: i think part of it is the question of agenda, if we could create an agenda for the future of the country where the full diversity of who we are as andtion and our interests how they are interconnected could be articulated and reflected back in a compelling agenda that is not imprisoned by the politics of the impossible,

but actually what people need in this country to not only survive but to thrive. and not just some people, all people. and i think when we have that agenda we will see a desire to engage in a different way. [applause] both of myll: grandmother's were the help. they had low wages, no health care, one day off a week. days.these -- lomnng includedomestic workers mostly women. ai-jen, your focus and van's as well has been a long grassroots organizing. some people think this is the wrong approach and the way to think about eradicating inequality is by looking down, not up.

so a conservative pundits recently said, the problem in america is not wealth, but persistent poverty. do not punish the rich, help the poor become richer. like the song we heard, make the idle poor become the idle rich. again, what is your view ai-jen, is grassroots going about it the wrong way? ai-jen poo: so, ever since the weres when our labor laws put into place as part of the ,ew deal and the deal was cut southern members of congress refused to sign on in the fair labor's standards act, including farmers and domestic workers, robert mentioned this. and those bills were passed

within those exclusions in place and concession to other members of congress, so for more than 75 years domestic workers and farmworkers have been excluded from the core foundation of labor protection and the only thing that has changed that over time, more than seven decades, the only thing that has changed that is domestic workers organizing at the grassroots level. [applause] ai-jen poo: yes. the first round was in the 1970's, a domestic worker from atlanta, a black woman, courageous, a national heroine. she led the workers union and one -- won minimum wage protections and this generation of domestic workers organizing and 30 cities today has one

domestic worker bills of rights in six states in the last five years. so we are indeed changing policy and the course of history through grassroots organizing and that has been the only thing that has worked. that is what i would say. judge cordell: van? van: first of all, i think that we should give ai-jen a round of applause for her work. [applause] wouldn't dare i to add to what she said. -- s not going to be even liberal elites like ourselves just don't have the fingertips for what is really going on all too often. so we are often trying to follow the wrong problems at the wrong

time. when you talk about occupy wall street or black lives or the new labor movement, breaking all the rules. not defending -- oh defending everybody, but you are not the darling of progressives a few years ago when young, brown immigrant women were coming into the halls of power. that was very weird. [laughter] people do not know what to make of it. they were patronizing and all of a sudden you one in three or four states and extended the rights of more people, your movement, quicker than anything else in the past 40 years with possible exceptions of the farmworkers. this is what happens when the people who are at the bootheel stand up. ofi think, we have a bunch

young people here from human rights and other places, young and kissed off and with dreadlocks -- pissed off and with dreadlocks, my ideas were much more militant. myselfm on tv and i find ,ind of in a very frustrating on the one hand, these black you. kids, they say screw i think there is something to be said for the contribution made by people who have a dog in the race. [applause] judge cordell: hillary clinton does not want a system that will provide free college education for everybody. she said, i do not want to take the education of donald trump's

children. is she on to something or should college and vocational education be free for all? other countries do it, why not here? sec. reich: i think it is very important in building the coalition that we're talking about and the grassroots we are ofking about, to seek a kind system in which not only is public higher education free, and i do not think that donald trump's children would go to public higher institutions, but single tier have a health care system. this is very important. [applause] sec. reich: we may not be able to do this next week or next year, but it is something to aspire to. it builds and enlarges social

solidarity. and it creates the kind of links between the poor and the upper class, blacks and whites and latinos, between americans generally that can support this kind of set of institutions. and the fight is going to be long and difficult, but building on something, i have just returned from several weeks in red america, red cities, red state. you may wonder what i was doing there. [applause] sec. reich: i was trying to flog a book. i did not do well in red states, but what i did discover, i had a meeting with some farmers in missouri who were organizing against some of the big agricultural businesses and factory farms. they call themselves republicans , but they were organizing

against what they consider to be and were in fact some of the forces that were systematically eating away at the profits and destroying the environment. i met a small business leader, not only in stature, they were tall. but they were small business leaders in cincinnati and they were organizing against big businesses, big franchisors, that were undermining their profits and monopolizing. and across red america, i kept running into people who were organizing against the powerful, the wealthy, the monopolists. and the fight for people that i met in st. louis and kansas city are doing the exact same thing and these people need to be linked up. people who iday met in raleigh, they are beginning to link up with groups

about the same issues of power and wealth. sec. reich: so i think there is a trans-partisan movement. judge cordell: you have been writing about it. katrina: there is so much about history we can retrieve, radical history, which is what when bernie sanders talks about denmark, but the idea of trust-busting, we need to revise that. if you recall years ago in the fight against media concentration and for media democracy, the fight the media -- central to, you had because both did not like bigness, they wanted diversity and local. bigness, soporate if the tea party had not been so racist, you could have found some alliances there. you have read about this -- written about this.

that the antiestablishment and establishment, within -- sec. reich: there are two antiestablishments now. workwe are finding in the i do, the green tea movement. [applause] [laughter] katrina: is that right? i have heard about the coffee part. van: the coffee part is liberal. [laughter] van: no, there is a group, the green tea movement and the argument they make is very compelling. shouldn't every american have the right and liberty to power their own homes with their own power, without being dictated to by companies that will tell you, when you are going to pay your -- howbill, it will cost

much it will cost, and yet you do not have that right in america. so people are saying we are tired of being dominated by power companies telling us that homes andhave our own to sell power on the grid. it is important to understand this. we are working very closely with the far right on criminal justice issues. newt gingrich and i told -- p ulled together a summit. we said if we can get 100 liters -- leaders together for one hour on criminal justice, we could change of name. we got -- change everything. we got 700, this was in march, including 10 congresspeople, to

cabinet secretaries and others. in march this happened, so in february people said this was impossible, but as it turns out as -- there is a critique that bureaucracyent gobbles up money. in a christian view, they do not treat -- with respect. and a libertarian point of view, they are the enemy of liberty. so, you say, i do not trust these guys. who do you trust? i can point to three republican texas,rs, in ohio, in closing prisons. democratnot think of a governor in the country that is closing prisons. and screaming, a

compromise that would have been leadr if he let on it -- on it. even jerry brown. my point is, i'm just going from earlier, there is -- in the temperature is rising. the liberty and justice for all moment here, liberty, that is andblicans, the liberty justice for all moment is coming. judge cordell: so you are listening to the commonwealth program, this is presented by "the nation" in commemoration with their 150th anniversary and --are discussing any quality inequality in america. jones a former white house adviser and commentator.

the and and -- van den heuval. on the can hear programs radio, catch up with us on viewook and twitter and a us on the youtube channel. we now want to go to questions submitted by the audience, but before that, we will do a quick inequality jeopardy round. i will give a quote about inequality to you all and you tell us who said it. and remember, you need to answer in the form of a question. [laughter] if you do not know the answer, take a good guess. first quote, a republican is for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict, the man

before the dollar. >> ted cruz. [laughter] carnegie. judge cordell: abraham lincoln. >> almost ted cruz. judge cordell: next. he cannot get rich dealing with politicians, then there is something wrong with you. >> willie brown. [laughter] judge cordell: willie brown he says. be careful, you know what city you are in. judge cordell: donald trump. majestic equality for bids of the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges, bending on the street and stealing bread. >> anatole france's. judge cordell: bingo.

-- those are my principles and if you do not like them, well, i have others. [laughter] nixon.ard judge cordell: groucho marx. [laughter] judge cordell: now we will turn to questions from you all. how do we give individuals enough power to be effective but not enough to be corrupted? can we give a lifeline? van: we should give a round of applause. [applause] judge cordell: who is the academy of justice -- that

itimy of justice. .an: it is all in balance this is ending and make -- dynamic system, people want to 2008e out -- i voted in and everything did not get fixed , i quit. system this is a dynamic we will continue to interact with and learn from and hopefully for another 1000 years. there is no single answer, even if you fix it today, with new notnology tomorrow, it is in interstate. judge cordell: you write that it really is not corruption, it is people making rules? sec. reich: the new form of corruption is big institutions,

large corporations, wall street, and also some very wealthy individuals who are buying their way into american politics in the form of changing the rules the way that the market functions. they do not think of themselves as corrupt, they think of themselves as the way they have to lobby to maintain themselves of they obey rules obligation, but it actually undermines the system. but back to your question, your honor. may i call you your honor? judge cordell: i appreciate it. sec. reich: well, why we -- are handing out appreciation. you have been exemplary.

[applause] van: and you are both great artists, i didn't realize that artist,an accomplished so maybe the left brain and the right brain are working together. judge cordell: back to our question. ai-jen poo: i think if you look at the healthiest democracies around the world one thing may have in common is vibrant social movements. one thing, one of the most important things we can do is add oxygen to social movements, because that creates the context for good governance in my view. sec. reich: i think you're absolutely right and the greatest enemy of social movements is cynicism. [applause] sec. reich: and every single time anybody detects a degree of cynicism about politics in our

democracy to function as it , they are it can contributing to a self of filling prophecy -- self fulfilling prophecy. judge cordell: it is tricky in terms of media coverage. katrina: we do a lot of investigation and you expose corruption in the hope that wrongs will be righted, but it can also lead to cynicism so there is a balancing act. is only is it cynicism, it cynicism about the role of government. i have heard so many people and they are right, the government is not working on behalf of the people. but to throw it out is the wrong way to go, you want to take it show thean it up and most important thing you can do, movement in politics, to show that you can improve the condition of people's lives.

years,agnation, 40-50 you know, african-american communities, it has been brutal and not much attention paid until the last years. that turned people away from politics and government, from a belief that the government can work on behalf of a too often cited common good. out i think she is holding on us. we were talking about right and left stuff. you have been able to get people to come together on your issues in a way that i think is shocking a lot of people. insight?ou have any ai-jen poo: i did, i was actually going to say, i have been so inspired by all the work you have been leading on mass incarceration and i think that

we have to get smarter and more creative about how we are connecting the dots between and across the kind of pain people feel in this economy. and one thing that we think that a lot is the fact this country is actually aging, the baby boom generation is reaching retirement age at a rate of a person every eight seconds, 10,000 people turn 55 per day. some people call it the silver soon on the -- tsunami. sec. reich: i regret that. [laughter] ai-jen poo: um. [laughter] sec. reich: why did somebody give me a microphone? [laughter] ai-jen poo: so. in, alsois resulting

because of advances, people are living longer, so my grandmother's demographic is the fastest-growing in the country, 85 and older. so we will have the largest older population we have ever had in the history of this country. [laughter] >> yay! [laughter] [applause] ai-jen poo: it is a good thing. living longer is loving longer, learning longer, connecting longer, if we have the right support in place and because of the huge demand, the need for caregivers is going through the roof. and we represent caregivers, the fastest-growing occupation in the nation is home care and the average annual median income for them is $13,000 per year. so you have a situation where millions of people, 27 million

to be precise, by the year 2050 will need care just to meet basic daily needs and you have an incredibly counted but overstretched and undervalued workforce. if we could connect the dots where we actually invest in a new care infrastructure and the ability for people to be able to afford the care they need to they can live independently, remain connected to communities, and a workforce that can support that gets invested so that these jobs become good jobs. it is a win-win. people get to age in place and people get good jobs. win-win, right? [applause] this is the kind of agenda that create -- connects people across generations and

we need that any conference of way. ai-jen poo: so that instead of becoming increasingly polarized along the lines of race and generation, we are turning towards each other and finding solutions. judge cordell: why do the working class, the working poor, so often vote in defense of the 1%, against their best interests and how might we change that? van: i want to say something about that question. i think that this is a question that i went at, one favorite question among -- and i do not like it. i will tell you why. there are people who vote against their economic self-interest.

room,e people in this liberals voting for higher taxes to help poor people are voting against their economic interest, but nobody calls them stupid. they say, it is because we care so much about our values. great. up on southerner, i grew the edge of a small town, went to church every sunday. i am much more comfortable in red state america than anywhere else. and that white guy that looked against our liberal programs is voting against his economic self-interest and for a set of values. if you listen to what he says, he will say, i know that this may wind up hurting me, but i do

not want you taking somebody else's money. and trying to bribe me with their money so you can undermine my parenting decisions, i want my children to be independent and i do not want you taking money to bail them out. respect and i of do not like you stealing people's money to undermine my parenting decisions. that is value. it is not hope you with china -- healthy with china. but when you come to people and say you are too stupid to know your own interests and us smart liberal folks are going to tell you what your interests are -- it also makes it impossible to if you insultse somebody, do not matter if you

are right or wrong. if you have offended them, i go the other way. i understand and i believe you are making decisions that both reflect your economic interest and your value. so let's talk about values and how we can make the family stronger. i will tell you, the one thing you can do to somebody is tell them they are stupid. the liberal elite, i cannot tell you how many times, i will go on about this. this is important. [laughter] 2004 i had aer, in he was little at the time. i was with other progressive folks, they had just reelected george w. bush and they had

called the middle of the country, dumb. and everybody laughed. dumb --led it done -- and i knew in that moment that i was not part of some important thing on the left. [applause] katrina: as a nation i remember that moment, but blaming the people is a politics dead on arrival. people are not the ones to blame. you are absolutely right, but we have seen a moment, there is the gop crackup where you have the country club establishment republicans not clear about what is going on with the populace base. you are talking about social values, but i guarantee that donald trump can go to ohio and

talk trade and do well with a whole set of people, right, left, center trans-partisan, it is an interesting moment where there are people within the republican party who would vote against self interest who are waking up and saying, wait a minute, i am not getting my share from the country club republicans. i agree with you, politics blames people first. it is not going anywhere. van: i do not think -- this is painful for me. i just don't think you can lead a country you do not love. and there is a part of the left rhetoric that does not love the middle of the country, does not see them in their pain. out in at cast them way. and that is painful. katrina: ok. s and are different leftt a different rights.

my husband is from kentucky, we went down there couple of years ago, owensboro. of cars at the museum and i was worried. part of what happens, very briefly, as we talk to people you find common interests. the idea that everybody has to agree on everything i have never believed in. you are able to talk. so much of media does not talk to people. it makes them spectators, it makes them feel cynical, it cuts them out. i am saying there is a lot swirling around in this issue. was told the reason i got a microphone is because my mic was not working, so you have not heard anything i have said this evening. [laughter] sec. reich: i would like to

introduce myself. there are a few things i want to get off my chest. van, i would like to speak on behalf of coastal liberals. [laughter] [applause] sec. reich: because i am sure there are some who feel better perhaps ban people -- than people in the great middle, but actually my experience is there is a widespread sense, whether coastal liberals or southern conservatives for midwestern tea partiers, are powerless. and that sense of powerlessness is almost universal right now, except for a small elite. i would also like to put in a good word on behalf of the baby boomers who have also come into discussion tonight. i was born in 1946. [laughter]

clintonch: so was bill and george w. bush, so was donald trump, anybody who is anybody was born in 1946. [laughter] [applause] sec. reich: and a lot of the boomers'political learnings and political leaders were not about powerlessness, they were about power. we learned that through organizations, the civil rights movement, we could actually make change. and i think that what americans need more than ever before and it certainly sense in 1960's, is can make athat they difference. i have been teaching young people between ages of 18-25 and i have never encountered a young generation that is more determinedand more

to give back to this country than the current one. [applause] so i am very optimistic, but i think we can build the coalition we have been working around, but it needs to be based on a sense of mutual interdependence, the need for us to have a voice, to overcome a power structure that is becoming completely unconnected. disconnected from almost everyone, including coastal liberals. [laughter] sec. reich: did you hear me? [applause] sec. reich: sometimes i feel like i do not have a voice. judge cordell: another question. of successe metrics that you look for in tax reform? for example, ted cruz's proposal

for a flat tax. [laughter] sec. reich: go for it. there are a number of tax proposals out there, any time of raging inequality, so extraordinarily stupid that almost words fail me. [laughter] sec. reich: the idea of a flat tax. a flat tax necessarily means that a high income people will play -- will pay less and low income people will pay more. so do not have anybody tell you differently, that will aggravate any quality. it is as bad as trickle down economics. doo-dooother version of economics. [laughter] [applause] [laughter]

sec. reich: have i found my voice? [laughter] katrina: i think on the more positive side, i did love it when bernie sanders said that president eisenhower was far more radical than he was when you consider the tax rate on people, making over $400,000, the equivalent of $3 million today. i and passionate -- and i and passionate about the -- tax, it is not new. tax ona of it is small speculation, stocks, trade, currency and take that and reinvested in mainstream, rebuilding the middle class. work,e other thing, tax

unearned income at the same rate or higher than work. it is in saying that you have hedge fund tax loopholes still in the system. bob could come forward with a manifesto, but quickly, we all know what the solution is. it is the inequality of political power that holds back what could be done to make this a far more rational and fair system. judge cordell: we have received a number of questions about capitalism and a capitalist system. is income a quality -- any quality just the unfortunate result of a capitalist system? at some level, but you can get to a level where the system evens out and you can have --

that probably is where we are. i want to say that something is happening in northern california that i think we have not discussed. we are moving into a digital age now. ,nd it is not unusual to see talking about millennial's, it is not difficult to see these 23-year-olds, 26 euros, multimillionaires wandering around here. in the district. [laughter] van: for people who are listening on the radio, that district was a working class latino neighborhood or i was in where i-- or i was -- was in my 20's. now it is not. so there is this technology dimension and i do not think that our construction of the

liberal conception has caught up. i still think we primarily think of the state as a redistribute or -- redistribute her, that we are thinking like the industrial age capitalism like production is in the hands of a certain set workerse and there is and the environment and the state will step in along with popular movements to redistribute wealth. and i just look at what is actually happening in the economy and the one thing i can say is that the future is not being written in laws in washington dc, it seems to be written in the code of silicon valley and it is shipped very fast. the ability of the state to catch up and keep up is dubious. so the popular movements become

much more important to me and how we actually get change. i do not mean popular movements to elect candidates, i mean popular movements to deploy technology on a daily basis, to connect on a daily basis and compete inside the actual moment where changes coming. i do not think that the left should say, we are trying to make change. we sound weird when we say that. silicon valley is making change, you have revolutions happening in biotech and nano tech and smart screens, you're going to be able to pick you -- prick your finger and put it on a slide and print out your liver in four years. change is coming faster than we know. our goal should be, making change work for our people.

to find a way where we can use the government or not, whether we can get the government on our side or not, to find ways for popular movements to make change our friend. i do not think we should lead communities to the tender mercies of the market or the state in an age like this. [applause] the talk about capitalism makes me think about why bob has been going to the heartland. your book is about capitalism, so i would love to hear your thoughts. many kinds of capitalism, so -- thatreich: the point is there really is not a division between government and free markets and if we accept that division we have given away most of our pertinence. government has created the

market. if there was not a patent system that is enforced by the government, where trademarks and patents continue to get longer and it is harder to litigate against them. where intellectual property is a central subject of the transpacific partnership, where the power over networks in terms of standard platforms and standard software portals is getting larger and larger and in the hands of a smaller number of companies and antitrust is not being used, these are all very central questions that have to do with the structure of markets. so i do not draw this tension between government and markets and part of empowering people is understanding how government is shaping the market and it is not a question of the size of government, a large or small

government, is whether the government is working for us. or it is working for a smaller minority of people who have a greater power over it. judge cordell: does that mean lobbyists? sec. reich: this is a big piece of inequality, because lobbyists and also political contributions and also the power of a relatively small minority, to get experts, university experts and think tank experts to substantiate whatever they want in congressional hearings and elsewhere. that power, all of that has a compounding effect on the way that the market is organized, it tilts the market in the in theon increasingly direction of the wealthy and wealthy institutions. consequence is

for the wealthy to have even more power and a large institutions, corporations, wall street again even more power over the market. and that compounding gets worse and worse, it is a vicious cycle. unless we understand it and attempt to reverse it through countering that power, we are not going to accomplish much. i could not agree with you more, all of you about the importance of grassroots organization, but that is no substitute for recapturingg and the central institutions of our society. [applause] judge cordell: so one of the questions follows on. corporations united, i mean citizens united. [laughter] judge cordell: so one of the questions follows on. corporations united, i mean

citizens united. [laughter] judge cordell: we have a couple of questions about what is to be done to reverse that decision, do we need a constitutional amendment? is the possibility of getting support from republicans to overturn that decision? so john nichols argues that the movement to appeal citizens united is one of the most vibrant movement in the country. katrina: many states and countries have issued repeal to amend citizens united. obviously we need a different supreme court. [applause] isrina: and this election critical, the next president will have power most likely to appoint justices and john nichols writes we must move immediately. i said, john, we need to give people points along the road.

,n my city, public financing 6-1 has not only elected a mayor ambitious agenda, he is having trouble, but he has done good things. an the city council has african-american woman leader, there are several women, radical voices who would not have been elected -- and so i think public .inancing empowers people it empowers people who may not be able to run. sheriff,s in maine, a not a sheriff, but people from movements in anticorruption trust funds, those running with gavelittle money and andrew como a run for his money.

the citizens united decision, others that have now compounded and dismantled what remains, has left us in a place where 150 halfies have contributed of the campaign funding so far in this election. so power inequality, you need to begin with public financing. and i think there are many states in this country that can chip away at citizens united. van: our opponents have one strategy. big money in, little people out. that is the approach. where you havet one part of our movement that talks about big money and the other part talks about voting rights. we do not talk about -- if anybody what to go see the movie selma, that legislation is based

on how it was destroyed by the supreme court. so you have us marching for our basic right to vote and others talking about big money, we have got to pull that together. bighould have one agenda, money out and little people in. [applause] [applause] the supreme court, remember we are talking about the time of nine justices who have been response before the shameful shelby decision you just referred to, for citizens united and let's not forget, not many years ago -- where the supreme court found money is equal to free speech. to conceive that corporations about the, talk

triumph of big corporations over little people. , weave got to get one vote have to get one vote changed. this is not impossible. you are 100% right, the next president, one of the big issues in this election is who is going to be president, i don't tests that yourt can only be a supreme court justice if you stand for this one thing or promise this one thing. but i do believe that the next spring court justice has to repeal citizens united. [applause] let's talkll:

minimum wage. are you in favor of raising minimum wage, and if so, what should it be? 15.poo: nation ofell: a interns making $15 per hour. hillary clinton side with alan krueger in the debate. regional debates about numbers. i don't know your latest thinking. i think 15 is the way to go, and we see it moving. and we have not talked about the power of cities and states, at a time when washington is in gridlock. the coalition in seattle and other cities, it has moved like wildfire. statesich: cities and are moving on minimum wage, and

they are also moving on public financing. maine, ohio, connecticut, they are moving on anti-gerrymandering. california, one of the great things we did in california was get districting out from under the politicians. i'm proud to be the chairman of a national organization called common cause, which has done a lot of work -- [applause] sec. reich: and is now focusing on the states on many of these issue. with regard to $15 per hour minimum wage, let me just say this -- i understand the position that says, well, cost of living is different in different parts of the country. but we don't make that kind of distinction when it comes to worker safety, minimum standards, or child labor minimum standards, or any other moral issue with regard to minimum decency in america.

i think that given the minimum wage -- 1968, adjusted for inflation, would be $10.60, and that is not adjusting for the increased productivity. dramatic increase in productivity, including low-wage workers. if you adjust both inflation and productivity, the minimum wage would be far higher than $15 per hour now. be a nationally minimally decent wage for americans. [applause] ms. poo: there are still some workers were excluded from minimum wage. 2 million health-care workers were excluded from minimum wage protections because of the

1930's legacy of racial exclusion and the labor loss. this department of labor actually moved forward on a rule change that brought those 2 million workers under protections. [applause] ms. poo: i think it is one of the most important victories for low-wage workers of the obama administration, actually. but there are still workers, people with disabilities who are working who are essentially still excluded from minimum wage protections. there is a little clause called 14-c which allows for some nonprofits to pay people with disabilities below minimum wage. and we have a tip minimum wage, which i don't like as increased. i believe that's $2.90. so there are still lots of ways

in which we need to also fix the swiss cheese of what is minimum wage and secure it, in addition to raising it to 15. is a campaign led by the restaurant centers united called fair wage, to remove the tip to minimum wage altogether. [applause] judge cordell: katrina, there was some reference made to the transpacific partnership agreement, for which president obama is campaigning. you have called it anti-american. why? ms. heuvel: this is a question robert reich should be addressing. i think one of the un-american aspects in the way the treaty

was sold was how secretive it was. this is how trade treaties have been sold through time. secretive, nontransparent, the incentives for corporations to be non-patriotic and move out of this country. alwaysroot what i have fought against is the view the progressive left is anti-compensation. it's not. we covered seattle, we covered the fights against a beauty oh, we covered the fights for fair globalization. it is for whom, whose behalf, how. bob referred to the patent laws. the intellectual property protections, the arbitration secrecy, the lack of access for ordinary citizens to know how they are being shafted by these trade deals that have contributed to the stagnation of wages over the last, 40, 50 years. i don't know it's anti-american, but is the worst of america. it's not the best of our traditions.

i think the fight still goes on, but this was a case where we saw its street exerted strength, its power, and the present worked hard and over time to sell it. and got into a fight, with i if bernie sanders is contending for this title, the leader of the populist wing of the party for stop senator ren did not back down and spoke articulately and effectively about the reasons why she could see other kinds of trade agreements. judge cordell: we have time for one last question. we have come to the end of the program, so i will pose one last question. if you were elected the next president of the united states, within your first 100 days, name one thing that you would do to and/or wealth

inequality in america. who wants to go first? bob? sec. reich: get big money out of politics. [applause] judge cordell: you have to give us a little more. sec. reich: oh. [laughter] sec. reich: the key to all of this, from the standpoint of what this nation can be and what we want, whether we are talking about a coalition of populist, left, right, whether we are talking about a new set of grassroots initiatives, or whether we are talking about reclaiming our democracy, we can only do it if we get big money out of politics. this is the keystone. it is not the be all, end all, but it is the first preliminary step. if we want to do anything on the orher issues, single payer

free public education, minimum wage, whatever you want to begin looking at, you cannot do it if the game is rigged, and it is rigged. i've been there. i've seen the rigging. i've tried to fight against the rigging. i started out in 1967 as an intern for robert f kennedy. there was not all that much rigging then. washington was a rather poor and seedy place, but it has gotten progressively wealthier. of the five counties surrounding the district of columbia, three of them are among the wealthiest in the united states. when i started in washington, ofy 6% of retiring members congress went on to become lobbyists, because there was not that much money and being a lobbyist. now 50% of retiring members of congress, half of them, become lobbyists because there's so much money. washington is a glimmering emerald city. we have to get egg money out of

that city and out of every state capital. -- we have to get a good money out of that city and out of every state capital. [applause] judge cordell: if we could hear from the rest? ms. poo: family care. a new system to support the families that of would allow them to be more affordable and also improve the quality of caregiving jobs. [applause] judge cordell: van? mr. jones: i know we only have one minute left. incarceration is the most important thing, i think, that could be done to make it for 40 million african-americans to even have a shot. we have not spoken as much about it as i think we should in these

discussions about the economy. --i just have to say this you hear over and over again, 5% ofwth in appellation, 25% the world. that means one out of every four people on planet earth are locked up tonight. onlye united states, we have 5% of the worlds population. those are disproportionately at --non american, latino, african-american, latino, minorities. innocent.better to be those numbers do not tell the full story. one out of every four african-american men now is predicted to have a prison record by the time they are an adult. it's actually one out of three. that is a repeat of the dehumanization, of enslavement,

of jim crow. the idea this could be happening in our country and we continue to act like it is ok or normal i think is something we have to dialogue opposition to. there are safe, smart ways to roll back mass incarceration. this has become -- i want to be ther -- this has become signature, defining issue for the african-american community, period. ad you are talking about population, if you are a democrat, in order for any presidential candidate to win as a democrat, african americans have to support that candidate 60%. no, i'm sorry, 70%. no, i'm sorry, 80%. no, i'm sorry, 90%. 4%. i'm sorry, 92 to 9