got to have access to foreign markets. too often they are denied access and that hurts jobs. host: from minnesota, democrats dawn,don, good morning -- good morning. guest: why aren't you bringing up the fact that if you google melania trump, she was a nude model. the rest of the world is looking at them and people are going to be laughing at this country even believeause they don't we have morals in the united states and that is actually going to hurt our country even more. why isn't this being brought up? going to comment on donald trump's wife but i will say that i share your concern that donald trump is bringing about or helping divide and destroy certain

qualities like common decency in the way that we treat each other and a way that i think damages our culture in a serious way that needs to be opposed so i agree. go on to north carolina, grace is on our republican line. go ahead. call,l go to the next delano from missouri, democrats line. like to knowld what you would do about flint michigan's water condition. guest: thank you for the question. these wein crises like have to make sure that local governments have the resources -- in thein case cases where they don't have them to ensure that people's immediate needs are met. it is unacceptable that the

people of flint, michigan would be drinking water that is unsafe to drink. we need to -- the states need to issue. on this also, federal government agencies failed as well. there needs to be accountability. in these crises as president, i would ensure that local governments and state governments have the resources they need to respond immediately. then we have got to look at reforms that ensure that these things don't happen again. the reforms should happen at the .ederal level too flint was a disaster across all of of government, federal, state, local. we need to make sure those fixes take place after we take care of the immediate needs of the people of flint. part of the cia and also worked with the investment banking division at goldman sachs.

he is evan mcmullin. what do you see as deficiencies currentrrent -- in intelligence gathering? guest: the real problem is our national security policy. our intelligence services are capable of doing great work when they are allowed to do it and when they have a strategy in place that involves them. right now, with the case of isis and elsewhere in the middle east in terms of challenges we have that don'tdictators have the best interest of their people in mind, these are challenges our intelligence services should be leading the way on. don't have a comprehensive strategy, nor do we have the commit and required. -- commitment required to defeat isis.

that shouldlan involve a heavy intelligence our servicesllows to go out and recruit sources and support friendly forces on the case of- in syria, moderate syrian groups that have struggled under a lack of support that they have wanted from the united states. in the process, isis has the case of syria, moderate syrianexpanded s contrasted in different areas. services -- i have a lot of confidence in them, i spent 10 years working at the cia, i have a lot of confidence in what they can do, but it is not a lot about that. they can do what we need them to do as long as our strategy and leadership in the white house will allow them to do what they can do. has promotedtrump an idea of extreme vetting for refugees.

he is promoting a whole thing from migration from certain parts of the world. guest: to be more clear about what he has suggested, he has suggested that we block all muslims from coming to the united states and i think that is destructive and runs counter to our ideals. we are a pluralistic society. we are a nation of 330 million people, we come from all kinds of different backgrounds, religions, ethnic, racial, the idea that we would just say that a group of people based on their religion can't come i think is a terrible thing to suggest. certainly, the policy would be terrible. it would have negative consequences for our national security is of the reality being that we depend on our muslim partners to help us be effective in the war on terror.

muslim governments, individuals who decide they are going to work with us and help advance our efforts, and that is on the battlefield. in terms of fighting the ideology, we also need their help, we need their help even more. going tothat we are treat all muslims as though they unwise terrorists, it is and damaging to our national security. silly policy idea because how do you actually administer that policy? it presupposes that a terrorist coming to the united states knowing this restriction on was looms traveling to the united states would admit that they are muslim. they could simply say they are of a different faith and what would we do? just an of idea from limitation perspective but also in terms of its violation of our

ideals. good morning. i have a practical question. for 20been a libertarian years and i'm planning on voting for gary johnson. i know the struggles the libertarian party has had to get on the ballot in all 50 states. weon't know the details that have only gotten on the last couple of election cycles. there are a number of states where i think the sign-up date has been passed. how many states do you think you can get on? point if there is no possibility? ballot,re not on the and you want to get a message out, great but i don't get it. guest: there is a lot of how aerstanding about

candidate can appear on the ballot. it is difficult and in many states the requirements are designed to take third-party candidates -- prevent third-party candidates from being on the ballot. that is a problem we need to as 42% of americans consider themselves independent theyou can petition for ballots, you can get on through third parties who have ballots or presidential ballot lines. .here is also a legal option we plan to challenge the requirements in certain states and also there is a right in possibility. only seven states don't allow the ballot.n for those states that deny it

all together, we think that is honorable to legal challenge. there are a lot of things that can be done. in onen as many states way or another way as much as we can. there is no doubt about that. we are in utah, colorado, iowa and louisiana and we are already on those first states. we will be in as many states as we can. our goal is to earn as many elect -- electoral votes as possible. .com is an mcmullin website where you can find out more about our guest and his bid. policy papers, is that on your sites? out a we will be rolling series of policy speeches in the weeks ahead and more information and we have been very active in the press and you can see many

interviews online if you search and hear more about what my views are and we will talk more today. host: don in florida, democrats line. caller: i wonder if the candidate has any idea about changing the federal election law. it is the federal election law of 1871 that says you have to take a lot of bribes and become incorporated to be a candidate. that is why we have two multimillion dollar bride taking candidates. what are your thoughts about changing the law so that the constitution is involved, not just excluding? guest: i would say that i agree with the general idea that we need to open up a system so that third party candidates, independents and others can be a part of the process. wherenow we have a system

we have two major parties that exclude and have control over debates in many states at the state party level. they have succeeded in advancing laws that make it very difficult to get on the ballot. i believe we need to make so that there are more voices in the political system, not less. i wouldn't say that if 70 to 82% of the american people did not feel like the country was on the wrong track or 42% didn't consider themselves independents or if the two major candidates in this election cycles were not so historically disliked by the american people but all of those factors i think make it clear that the american people want other options and we need to respond to that collectively as a country.

host: greg from north carolina, republican line. wondering, none of the presidential candidates so far has mentioned about the where obama has taken it all away, the wages away. you give them back? will say that i'm in favor of ensuring that our seniors have what was promised to them and what they need in their senior years of life. there is no doubt about that. we need to make sure that we are meeting our obligations and commitments to seniors in that way.

i understand also there need to be some reforms so that on a long-term basis, social security and entitlements are solvent. now, they are headed to insolvency. this, weand we can do can ensure that our seniors have the support they need and that has been promised to them that they can pay into during their and still in her in the solvency of these programs through gradually phased in reforms that put these programs on a sustainable path. that is where i am on entitlements. host: what is chief among them? guest: i think in some cases, as life expectancy extends -- which i think thehing -- retirement age needs to gradually increase. i think we need to ensure that lower income seniors -- that

they are protected first in our programs. of medicare,e case i would like to see us go to a premium support model in which seniors get to decide whether they go out on the open market and get private insurance plans or if they can go to medicare. these are some of the reforms. host: floral city, florida, independent line. jim, good morning. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i have a couple of things. first, our biggest problem is not terrorism or immigration or any of those. our biggest problem is the growth of government. second, i just heard mr. mcmullin make a statement about donald trump saying to ban all muslims.

donald trump never said ban all muslims. that is the line that the media and the washington elite has promoted over and over and over again. ban he said was an them -- them until we get a way of vetting them and that isis stole all of syria's passport information, printing press, codewords, paper, everything. there is no valid visa from syria today and they should be banned until our leaders figure out what is going on. we don't have leaders that know what is going on. we have leaders that give away everything the united states has ever had. they don't negotiate for america. a negotiate against america. guest: thank you for your call and comments. i certainly agree that one of the major problems, and perhaps

the largest problem the country faces, though it is hard to between thee various problems we face, but the size of the federal government is certainly a serious challenge to this country. it is a challenge in terms of what it does to our budget. the tax burden that then results on the american people. the interest payments on our debts are growing so quickly that in 10 years we will be paying more on our interests then we will be on defense. power andoo much money in washington. ofneed to decrease the size the federal government and transfer that power back to states where it is more accountable to the people. we need to make reforms to entitlement programs, mandatory spending that is on autopilot right now and reviewed on an annual basis by congress. we need to make these reforms

actually atrump is candidate who has said nothing actually a candidate who has said nothing about serious reductions in government spending. he is somebody who i don't think is being honest with the american people. we must reform entitlements so that they don't bankrupt this they protecthat the interests of current seniors and people like my parents who are approaching retirement but so we are not drowning ourselves in debt. as far as donald trump's ban on muslims, he did say that he wanted to ban muslims. he then clarified that it would be until we could figure out "what was going on with them." it away, that is what he intends to do, ban muslims. it is a terrible policy. it file its our core ideals. the ideals that give us great power and opportunity of across this world. we need to push back when

leaders or would be leaders like donald trump violate these principles. for: what is the plan improving the economy and job growth? guest: there is so much to that. needf the first things we to do is lower the corporate tax rate. it is inspiring companies to base overseas. we use most of the world's largest companies in the united states and so many have left because of the super high tax rate. also, you're going to inspire more companies to invest their capital in better equipment that improves worker productivity, which then allows companies to pay their workers more and allows companies to want to be here, to hire more workers and that is a very important thing. from my time in the private sector, over regulation is a huge problem but it is not just over regulation.

we need to rethink how it happens. now, the executive branch is violating the article of the constitution that says legislative powers rest solely with congress. regulatorys uncertainty that comes from an administration that isn't friendly to business and therefore friendly to jobs. presidency, the business community and workers also would understand that i am -- we are going to be open for business. we are going to have policies in this country that make it the best place on earth to start and manage a business and hire people to work. that among many other things, education is another piece of this. we have an education system that was meant to help us transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy and we are so far beyond that -- it is 100 years old -- we've got to make

reforms so that we can compete. there is a range of things that need to happen. host: some parallel to donald trump? the tax rate? donald trump says there needs to be a moratorium on regulations. we need to go deeper. when you simply declare a moratorium on rulemaking, than once that moratorium is lifted it all comes back. we've got regulations that are impeding the growth of the economy now. we need structural reforms on how regulation happens. there is a bill in congress called the reins act, which i am a supporter of which basically says that if the federal government is going to make a major rule, a ruled that the omb says would impact the economy or have an impact on the economy of over 100 million dollars, that

needs to come to congress for approval. i support at least that and other reforms too. the threshold is a good one but there are rules and regulations that also should have thatessional approval don't necessarily make that threshold. the point is, americans elect their representatives to legislate and they are empowered solely to make the laws of this country. so over time, that power has transitioned to a variety of laws that congress has passed decades ago and through decisions and court decisions. tot power has transitioned the executive branch in a way that i think is inconsistent with the constitution and harmful to our economy and to the american people whose voices are not being heard by this government.

let's hear from donny in kentucky, democrats line. .aller: i would like to comment say he woulddid ban all muslims. my ears don't live for me. -- don't lie for me. he needs to watch the news. donald trump, everything he has done or said has been bad. host: do you have a question for our guest? -- in't understand know you are running but i don't know much about it. guest: thank you donny. live, madison wisconsin,

independent line. caller: my question is on the tpp issue. going back to nafta, one of the things in the agreement was that each country in nafta was able to sue the other countries if they took jobs away. the united states -- our , their jobs had been moved to the united states. the united states has not sued any other country. , whichorward to the tpp is supposed to be evolving from the nafta, is that agreement in there and are you allowed not only to sue but be able to sue the companies that leave the united states under this free-trade agreement. guest: thanks for the call. that --free-trade is the reality is that i don't

think the idea that we are going to sue other companies or countries as jobs transition from one to the next -- it is just not a part of how trade needs to happen. we also have the opportunity to win jobs. we will gain more jobs by being able to reach more customers overseas. consumers areld's overseas, beyond our borders and behind tariff walls that we can't get to or make it hard for our american companies to sell their products to these people. these trade deals we are advancing break down those tariff laws and allow us greater access, which improves our opportunity to produce jobs in the united states. thated to make sure companies stay here and we need to lower the corporate tax rate.

other reforms need to take place in concert with these trade deals. that is the advantage and the opportunity for us. i want to make it very clear that there is a reality that some people, jobs have left and gone overseas. that is a reality. another thing that is happening and something nobody talks about that needs to be talked about more is that due to automation and technology advancements, other people are losing their jobs and there has been a shifting from one place to another. that is part of the challenge too. in this dynamic economy, we have got to be better about helping people who lose their jobs transition into those new jobs. programs have been very effective in helping people who have lost manufacturing jobs get

experience in another type of job. that is what we need to do. we failed miserably in helping these people as the economy grows and develops, helping these people who face challenges as a result transition to better opportunities. presidency we would make that a focus. host: steve from new york, independent line. caller: i would like to ask in the context of your support, your stated support for reforms that reduce the size and overreach of the federal government, if you are aware of the grassroots movement called the convention of states, which seeks to use article five of the propose and to ratify amendments that would

limit the scope and power of the federal government and require a balanced budget? if so, would you be willing to state your support for such a movement. what i will say is this. i believe the states need to have more power. our founders envisioned a country in which states would have far more power than they do. they would carry the bulk of the power in this country rather than the federal government. right now it is totally lopsided. it is a really important issue, far more important than most people realize. our country was founded with the purpose of allowing its people to presume that -- pursue happiness which means they need a say in their government. their voices need to be heard. you've got a centralized government in a country as diverse as ours, it is hard for

individuals voices to be heard and the government is so unaccountable to the american people. im in favor of a variety of things, their ideas out there and i have heard some that you have mentioned. --re are ideas that would one that i am familiar with and that i have done work on that would give states the right to , for example, an executive order from the president if they voted by two thirds to oppose that executive order. that that would overturn that executive order and the same could apply to a rule. that would give states additional power. i am in theory support of those ideas and its practices. and of many others but i think the states need to be much more empowered so that the people in this country are empowered. host: our conversation with evan

>> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy impact -- issues that impact you. coming up tomorrow morning, scholar with the american enterprise institute. it will discuss aetna's decision to reduce the exchange plans next year. of thee director national association of consumer advocates look at the consumer financial protection bureau's recent proposal to overhaul debt collection rules. c-span's washington journal live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. party candidate jill stein talks with reporters. topics include climate change, energy policy and the november election. on c-span uptown discover --

discussion about river basin management. live coverage from the stimson center beginning at 2 p.m. eastern. >> up next, a discussion on welfare. we will hear from one of the architects of the 1996 welfare law. and a look act at the debate the whitears ago at house bill signing. american history tv airs on c-span3. yep introducing you to programs you could see every weekend. including lectures in history, visits to college classrooms and hear lectures by top history professors. american artifacts looks at the treasures.

railamerica availing the 20th century through archival films and newsreels very at the civil war, where you hear about the people who shaped the civil war and reconstruction and the presidency focus is on -- andses on president first ladies. on c-span3. can watchan.org you our public affairs and political programming any time at your convenience. on your desktop, laptop, or mobile device. go to our homes -- our homepage and click on the video library search bar. you can type in the name of a speaker, sponsor of a bill, or topic. review the list of results and click on the programming you might like to watch or refine your search with our many search tools. if you're looking for armors -- most current programs our homepage has many current programs ready for your asediate viewing such

today's washington journal or the events we covered that day. c-span.org is a public service of your cable or satellite provider. if you are a c-span watcher, check it out at c-span.org. 20 years ago president bill clinton signed the welfare law which consolidated many federal programs and created the temporary assistance for needy families program. next, public policy researchers talk about the effect the law has had. the cato institute hosted. >> we are going to get started again. those of you who thought you were lucky enough to get rid of me, i am back. i am not talking this time around, i will moderate this panel. we have the people who are real experts on here who are going to turn this over to because you will enjoy listening to them. the second panel we want to build a little bit on what you just heard. we heard a little bit of looking back at some people got some

ideas of how they would make changes. we want to focus this panel in particular on not just what we have done but what do we do now? welfare reform is 20 years old. entire generations of people in college who do not remember welfare before welfare reform. it is a question now when we talk about how to we deal with the poor, how do we fix things, how to make things better in the future that people are not looking back some much as looking forward. i am hoping we have discussions know about what are the next steps for welfare reform, what is the next version of welfare reform. i think it will look different than in the past. the panel will help answer that question and i will read everybody off and we will move one into the other and keep it moving switch the along. we start with donna betty -- pavetti. in termsa sharp group

of this. i read their research all the time myself. she analyzes poverty trends and assesses the income support programs including 10 of -- tanf. she spent 12 years for the mathematic and policy research institute which is a good group in terms of number crunching and data. she also worked for the urban institute, the department of health and human services on d.c.m issues and for the commission on social services. levels some practical experience which is important. we will hear from michael strange who is the resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. i stole some of their survey data earlier today. he works on labor economics, applied economics, and social

policy. he has been published in a wide number of peer-reviewed journals and policy journals. and of course most of the major newspapers. and has done a great deal of work on welfare reform and poverty issues for aei. [indiscernible]an.or she worked for they national organization of social security claimants. on disability which is another issue we have heard addressed here. of is very prolific in terms --

we're looking forward to her as well. and a visiting scholar at claremont mckenna college is, -- college plus henry salvatori center. he should fit in well here is work has appeared in a wide number of newspapers and peer-reviewed journals across the country. we expect a lively discussion here so i will get it out of the and turn it over to donna. >> thank you. ok.

what i want to do is i want to start with just a little bit of background because i think it is under -- important to understand where i come from. i have spent -- and involved with looking at welfare reform since it started. i have been mainly doing work in the field looking at the infiltration of welfare reform tanf.rticularly you hurt conversations about the work that kathy even did on how people make ends meet and i was one of the interviewers who did work on that book. afdc.work on one of my key focuses is on work and think about how we do a better job of helping people who have trouble entering the labor market. i think on welfare reform it is a good time to take a step back. what i want to do is i think one thing that we really -- that is important is my experience of being in the field is there are three distinct periods since

tanf was implanted and i often think that we have a positive story that comes from the early years. 1996e first four years, through 2000 we had a booming economy. states really changed and shifted their welfare offices toward work. we saw work programs being developed that had not been before. we had lots of job opportunities for people including people who had more barriers to employment. we also saw the beginning of people using full family sanctions, which is people losing benefits who could not comply with work requirements of the caseload declined that we saw in the early years was not on because people were getting work. some of that was because people were being cut off and could not comply with those requirements. then we had this second period, and that is when we had the first recession hit. we started to see the shift and we started to see more movement

of the money away from the core purposes. states had so much flexibility, they had budget holes they needed to fill during the tanf became a slush fund. we started to see much more movement away from those core purposes. and then what happened then is in 2005, tanf was reauthorized hadwe had the dra and we declining work opportunities, we had what came to be impossible to meet work standards which i will talk about in my recommendation. we had the great recession hit, we had even bigger budget holes and money out of tanf's core purposes. very quickly i think what is also important to me in thinking about what are the facts that i subscribe to that my

recommendations come from. one is that heather mentioned is nf serves very few people. it serves 28 for every 100 people in poverty. below 10.r is in louisiana, there are about five families out of every 100 who receive assistance who are in poverty. that number is very low. benefits havehat gone down dramatically and we have not had -- benefits have not increased and in most states benefits are extremely low. morning,heard this this slide is an important side which really does show the employment trend and why i think it is important to keep those in check.riods that gaphis gap betwe and

was closed in 2000. what you have is two groups of women who have similar levels of education who have almost identical employment trajectories. what i take away from this is that there was this movement, we are on a downward trajectory for almost everybody who has a high school diploma or lesson that is a labor market issue we have to start paying attention to. here think is another thing that is important is what this does is to look at the number of single mothers who are not employed. we've seen a lot about people who are -- we saw that go up but you also see the number of single mothers with our employment during the year going up. the bottom line is to show what is happening to tanf. we have 2.4 times as many mothers who are not employed at all during the year that we serve on tanf.

we have a group of women, single moms were not in the labor market and are not getting any help. that is something we need to be worried about. is have heard before there eight cents of every dollar of tanf goes to work programs. there is a lot of people who could be helped by that but are not. go fory does it not work, it does not go for childcare and it does not go for basic cash. so given that set of facts what tanf need to do to change so we can focus on the facts that we have for today, not on the history but on today. i think what we need to be doing is we need to focus on two goals and ron mentioned this in his presentation this morning. we need to be focused on how to we provide an effect of safety net and how do we create effective work programs? that is important for two reasons. one is that we do have families

who hit on hard times and it is their kids who suffer. heather mentioned this at the end of your presentation. we know a lot about what happened when families, kids grew up in poverty. if they do not have access to a safety net they end up in a very precarious situation. he may use some of the strategies that really allow them to make, have more income but they end up in very unstable situations. that is one reason why that is important but the other reason why it is important is there are not a lot of resources available to help people who need help getting into the labor market. if they are not getting help they're not likely to get help from other places as well. we have a poorly and a climbing funding stream that goes toward , weforce programs so tanf have not provided a safety net but we also have taken away the wasrtunity to do what tanf

intended to do which is to help families get into the labor market. the other thing that ron talked about earlier if you cannot make progress in each of those goals unless you really address how tanf understand. what are the changes we could make that would make a difference question mark first is that states are not held accountable for serving families in need. states could serve, those numbers are going to go down. we will see more families who are serving five out of 100 families. we need to create an accountability measure. we need to hold states accountable for providing assistance to people who need it. if it imagine that could be coming up to the national average over some time or setting some minimum standards. the other is sitting minimum benchmarks for benefit levels and elves ability requirements. one of the things we have seen as states needed the money is they have made the eligibility requirements tougher. examples, one thing that

indiana did is they made a much harder for families to come in the front door and have a very stringent work requirement which many people cannot meet. their caseload has plummeted. arizona has over the last several years gone from a 60 month time limit to a 12 month time limit. they did that for budget reasons. right now people in arizona can only receive assistance for 12 months. we think we need to set some minimum standards there so that we again have a safety net that can help families. and finally we feel it one of the things that is important is creating a recession response fund. we had extra money during the recession because of the tanf emergency funds and states were able to do with providing more cash of people needed it, they were able to provide subsidized jobs, we had to it at 60,000 jobs that were provided and we they could be used for emergency assistance. we need to have some that kicks in quickly when we hit the next recession.

this has to do with how do we create effective work programs? you have to have people in the program in the first place to help them. so when -- this is probably the most controversial recognition i have but from being in the field, the one thing that we have to do is we have to replace rate which is the accountability number. if we do not we will not see change. what i see is states are tying themselves in knots trying to meet those rates which are meaningless and i will give you an example of what i mean. the chart that i showed you of the number of women, single mothers not employed. in indiana 1995,ent from 59,000 in 1996, it is at 97,000. it has almost doubled. we have almost 100,000 single moms in indiana who are not working, had no work in 2014. on their caseloads they served

10,600 families. 2200 of them were subject to work requirements. 687 of them actually met the work requirements. 612 of them were in subsidized employment so they were working. indiana served of those 100,000 families, single parents did not have work, they in their programs were able to engage 75 of them. is aboutot what tanf and it needs to change. we haver is that what seen in our workforce system is a movement toward much more education and training because of the change in the labor market. thishave stayed in workforce world and it means that we are constraining tanf recipients from me to get the education and skills that will allow them to succeed in the labor market. states do not coordination and

collaboration as a possibility because it is too hard because constraints make that difficult. this is one of the things that ron said is that we really need to encourage states to identify effective strategies for helping individuals with significant employment barriers find employment. when welfare reform was debated there was a lot of concern about the families who were on tanf for long periods of time. many of them had significant kids withdepressions, special needs, histories of the mystic violence and that is a very group of families that have been left behind. if you look at 10 of -- tanf programs, there are requirements without a lot of help to help people overcome those barriers and help them make those transitions and we need to think about what are the pathways that would work to help that group of families get to work. i think ron's ideas of waivers

was the start. we need to figure out ways to integrate them more fully. i want to talk about -- is the funding. as i said to start there is no we can accomplish anything if you do not change the way state can spend their funding. some of it is taking away some of the flexibility they have. we have two recommendations. one is requiring states to direct more of their tanf funds to tanf score purposes. nationwide it is half. you will find states that are all over the map. and really trying to think about how can you push states in the direction so they are spending more on those core purposes and the other is we know that the block grant has lost its value. it is 30% less than it was when he was initiated. it is thinking about how can you add funding and how you can you do that targeted to those core purposes and not an increase

that allows states to spin that anywhere they want. one of the lessons we learned, a model for other programs. we have an argument about do we leave people behind or some people -- are some people worse off? one of the previous presenters that looked at it, there is 10% of single moms who were worse off than before welfare reform. that is 2 million kids. millione too many -- 2 kids that we are putting in precarious situations. if you look at the next 2 million they were even and then there is some increase. you lead you see this difference between some people who were helped and some who are worse off and we need to worry about this kids who are worse off because they are the ones who have the least likelihood of succeeding in the future. the other is one thing we have a recognize is that we put

lot of stock in what states would do and the did not live up to the promise. of ways inwide range which they could use their funds. whated to think about would happen if you gave states more flexibility with other programs, would we have worse outcomes or where would we end up? i think it is important, tanf was about work, and states never took that seriously. in the very early years they did shift the message and the culture. any were lucky to have incredibly robust labor market but after that they have moved away from that. they are struggling to figure out how they can do the right thing and we need to think about whether or not we know enough and whether or not states are the right ones to come up with the ideas in this flexible world to move people to work. [applause]

>> thank you for having me. it is an honor to be included in such distinguished company. the subject is going forward, what should welfare look like? i will construe welfare very broadly and argue we need welfare reform for men. if you look basically at what is happening among men in the workforce, you see that their workforce participation rates have been going down dramatically. adult highn 10 of school dropouts have a job. the labor force participate -- -- participation rate has dropped from over 97% when these statistics again after world war ii. today that is 88%.

that is a tremendous decline in the share of prime age men who are working. unemployment among minority high monthockingly ranging from 25% to 50% depending on the business cycle. a lot of that is concentrated among men as well. there is a problem of men working particularly low skilled men, men without a lot of experience. why is that happening? there is a mix of supply and demand factors. roughly the left gets is half right getshe this half right. there are barriers that keep men out of the workforce. specifically or if you look at programs like social security,

you see -- you get a good sense of the problem. there are also demand factors. globalization is extremely important in reducing employment among men. competeinesses have to -- when labor markets are globalized so businesses can choose to take advantage of workers in very different parts of the world, different labor markets, that pushes down wages for low skilled men and that pushes many low skilled men out of the workforce. technological change is the most important demand-side factor that is affecting male unemployment. businesses not wanting inhire as many people certain occupations, in certain industries. those employment losses are

concentrated among lower skilled workers. think about a bank and imagine the bank has a ceo, cashier, and custodian. technology comes along, we do not have cashiers anymore, we have atms. as technology continues to advance we're going to find a way to clean the buildings with fewer people. the ceo becomes more valuable. and so it is those lesser skilled workers that are being replaced, the same thing is happening in factories. you can argue that manufacturing is a white-collar profession because you sit behind a computer and tell the robots what to do as opposed to the idea that most people have from after world war ii. the labor market is experiencing many changes. are brought,nges big, global changes and those changes are related to policies here at home.

what is the most important? if you think about a simple economics 101 test, we know that the number of men who are working has declined. by supplys driven change, by men just not wanting to work, you would expect to see wages increase. if that is primarily driven or in large part driven by demand change, business not just wanted to hire as many lesser skilled men you would expect to see prices decline. but we have seen are significant clients in inflation-adjusted wages. mene 1979 real wages for with only a high school degree have declined by 20%. one of the things we learned 's research isship

it is more competent than we often understand. the general story that wages for lesser skilled men have been falling, wages for college graduates have been rising, and that is due in large part to the changing nature of what firms are looking for in workers. in addition to being affected by public programs and supply-side issues i think is correct. i think it points us in the right direction for welfare reform and that's why first century and what i am focusing on, welfare reform for men. what should we do? i think we need to remove harriers to employment. we have a serious problem with occupational losing things. that occupational licensing is a good thing. you probably would not want a

have surgeon who does not some sort of license. there are some libertarians who would argue otherwise. that is broadly speaking a consensus view. as michael mentioned in the introduction occupational lysing hairdressers and things are designed to keep evil out and keep people out of jobs. reform of public programs, social security disability insurance is an obvious candidate for reform. there are likely a large number of people, a large number of men enrolled in that program that could be working at least to some degree. we think of disability as we used to in a manufacturing economy as a binary condition. you are either disabled if you cannot work or you're not disabled and you can.

that makes sense in a world where disabilities are caused i factory accident, if you lose your legs, you cannot go back to work in the factory, you are either disabled or you're not. in a services economy we can think much more of disability as a continuum and if there are some jobs or some amount of work that disabled americans can perform and the they would like to perform in public programs should not be keeping them out of that even if it is not 40 times -- 40 hours week. think are only going to become a larger problem going forward. as a consequence, those changes in the labor markets that are pushing down wages for lesser americans, especially lesser skilled men and as a consequence of the direction the left is taking with minimum wages, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is reckless and irresponsible. it is an increase that is far

outside of what current economic estimates of employment impacts can confidently forecast. that might help the middle class but will leave the most vulnerable members of ,ociety as a consequence removing barriers to employment might be stopping barriers from presenting themselves is important. in addition to removing barriers we need to incentivize work. the gold standard here seems to be the earned income tax credit. an earnedwe have income tax credit that offers over $6,000 for single mothers with three children, a lot of this depends on family size and what year you are talking about. roughly $6,000 for single mothers with large families, single adults without

children at home. a lot of them are men that it is appropriate i think that we give more assistance to families with dependent children than not we could expand the earned income tax credit for childless adults while maintaining a comfortable gap between childless households and couples with children. that would based on test evidence serve to important purposes, pull people into the workforce, we know that previous expansions have pulled people into the workforce from nonparticipation into jobs. everybody -- there is every reason to believe that would happen if we expanded the childless eic. targeted unlike the minimum wage, it goes to low-income households, it does not go to the middle class.

skills, thisild one is much harder to do from the federal level. there seems to be some promising work based learning programs that could be targeted at lower income adults, lower income men as a way to mary classroom training with what businesses and their local communities actually want in a way to increase in a way to increase implement and wages. the nice thing about these programs is that the skills that are taught are determined by local businesses, not by bureaucrats. if a business wants a worker to do something they post a vacancy and then the local apprenticeship office or the office placesng someone. it is the business that is determining what to be done, it is not a bureaucracy attempting to divine what skills the workforce needs and teach this

to people. there is a lot of promise there. finally as part of welfare reform for men there need to be changes in our culture. this is the hardest thing for public lc to do. many on the right, many libertarians specifically might argue it is and it -- and inappropriate thing for policy to do. a culture that supports marriage, supports family, that supports fatherhood, that supports providing for your kids and being a role model in their lives, and meeting your obligations i think is very important. that is an uncomfortable thing to talk about today. but i think it is important, it is only becoming more important and i think if you're talking about the unemployment among men

and nonparticipation among men it stands to reason that if we had a stronger culture around being a good parent and meeting your obligations, to your children that you might see an increase in participation, that is a conjecture. what chemicals does public policy do about that, that is a separate issue. cultural leaders and public leaders can do -- can make some progress in that area. i will close by addressing why this matters. there are economic reasons why we should be concerned about low employment among men. i think you can justify a lot of policy on purely economic grounds. the growth of the overall economy, the growth rate of gdp and of income, and of living standards is tied to the growing workforce. the extent to which men have

been pushing down the workforce. increase inat the workforce participation in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, that increase was driven entirely by women entering the workforce and at the same time as the overall workforce participation was increasing, the workforce participation rate among men had been declining that whole time. ,e do not have a third gender not that we can bring into the workforce. -- theres the genders is no equivalent of what we saw in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. that means that if we want to have a growing workforce participation rate we will need men to reverse that trend or at least have it level off. enough that provides justification for many policies. there are reasons if you're concerned about society, if

you're concerned about the health of civil society, if you are concerned about creating a society where individuals enjoy a mutual dependence upon others and have mutual obligations to others, if you think that is important as a matter of social justice, it is hard to have that kind of a society with men not working, with men not participating in the workforce men.ially prime age this matters on a human level. as we have heard many times, people who are not working or much more likely to be in prison, people who are not are much less likely to meet their obligations to their families. more than that, if we care about dignity, and if we care about forle living a full life, men, a lot of times, that means paid employment. that is how a lot of men

contribute to society. it is the numerator but that does not change the fact that what is happening on a fundamental level are people who are applying their skills and talents to society to contribute. if you believe as a normative matter that those contributions confer dignity and if those contributions are in some way in some sense for most people necessary for a full life and if you care about people living for lives and people enjoying that dignity, then taking steps to increase workforce participation among men and taking steps to increase implement among men become of paramount importance. thank you. [applause] >> good morning.

i am the managing director of the poverty and prosperity program and i have to say it has been a lot of fun to be listening to this conversation so far this morning because there has been a lot of bipartisan, really transport is agreement. i am hoping to continue that as we continue this morning's thoughts about where we go from here. andnd it incredibly useful having a conversation not just about poverty to start with a realistic snapshot about who is poor in america, poor"? "the nearly 15% americans -- of americans living alone what we consider to be poverty, one in five children by that measure living in poverty but less often discuss is how the measure does not capture the much larger share of individuals in this country who are struggling to

make ends meet. that is because that official measure is set at such an offer to level. $24,000 a year for a family of two parents with two children in 2014 and when you look at what experts consider to be the cost of living, with it takes to maintain and adequate but basic standard of living, we are that family of four needing $50,000 at least to meet their basic needs. twice what we are currently using as a measure of poverty. when you use that standard, we find is one in three americans, 33.4% are struggling to make ends meet today. this is consistent with survey data from the federal reserve word when you ask people, are you getting by, are you having trouble to make an's meet, one in three americans are facing that dilemma. i would add that it is a widely held misconception that poverty is about us and them create a binary.

poor" are stagnant class of 47 million americans who are stuck for life and some arbitrary line. poverty is musical chairs. half of all americans will experience at least one year of poverty or of teetering on the edge of poverty at some point during their working years according to careful research. and that number rises to four out of five americans when you count one year of being unemployed or the head of household being unemployed or of needing to turn to the safety net. meanwhile, very few americans live persistently below that federal poverty line. when you look at census data between 2009 and 2011, fewer than 4% of americans work for all three years in a row. this comes as a shock when you hear these numbers until you

start to think about what are the most common drivers of poverty in this country. according to hhs, the three leading drivers of poverty in the united states are jobless, having your hours cut back, birth of a child, and disability or illness. are experiences that incredibly familiar to americans are probably many of the people in this room. in short, for most of us, poverty is not a lifelong identity. it is a common experience. i will throw another number which might sound credibly high until you think about all the facts i just laid out. americans will need to turn to the safety net at some point during their life. i am not talking about social security and i am talking about supplemental in -- income and social security. makes strengthening our

safety net more important than ever to help individuals and their families whether the this institute's of life. and to get back onto their feet when they fall on hard times. i do find it critical to start from a place of understanding poverty in america before we go to policy. we're not talking about a class of broken people. we're talking about a broken economy. tanfnna pointed out while was hailed by many as a success, the booming full employment tooomy of the late 1990's, often the narrative stops there. that is why i am so glad that we are having this conversation this morning because 20 years on, the evidence is clear that nf represents a cautionary tale, not a model for other programs you heard from donna how it reaches rushes to families in need, fewer than one in four for families with kids

down from two thirds in 1996. compare that to now. the food stamp program which reaches 80% of eligible families in their time of need. the program is woefully unresponsive to recession. it barely budged in the recent rate recession and even declined in some states. again compare snap which to -- expanded dramatically to meet the rise in need. less accountability is a concern. helping participants getting to jobs is not even a measure outcome nor is poverty reduction. as you heard at length, no accountability on where the money goes. compare 95% of snap funds go to help families purchase food. i will also note that it does a marriedr job serving and cohabiting families. that is especially concerning if you are someone who views one of

tanf's core purposes, encouraging the maintenance of tupac -- two parent families. the program does not serve to her and families, just 1.3% of two parent married households with children receive help from tanf today. it is an effective at cutting already and hardship in addition to reaching a small and declining fraction of struggling families with kids. benefits are so maker that even the lucky few who receive tanf are still unable land large to meet their basic needs and that is because in no state does tanf provide benefits of even half the federal poverty line. we are talking about $10,000 a year for a family of three. even counting snap, and from -- toome from tsnap is on left bring a family to the poverty line and it is not enough to help you afford rent in any

state. in light of this, proposals to model other programs after tanf, something we hear a lot about these days whether it is housing assistance, nutrition assistance, health insurance, would be nothing short of a blueprint for exacerbating poverty and inequality in this country. one additional quick note on work requirements. continued calls for extending work requirements to other programs is somehow a panacea are not only unsupported by the evidence with these -- what these policies achieve, they are missed on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the individuals and families who find themselves needing to turn to public assistance are experiencing, what their lives look like. more than 90% of households who receive public assistance are elderly, disabled, or working households who are not kept out -lowoverty by the too minimum wage and that is one area where we will have a friendly disagreement.

mentiong apart and to is the inclusion of counterproductive penalties that prevent families from having even modest precautionary savings. assetreferred to as limits. not only does this policy keep families from building the savings they need to get ahead, making it more likely that they will need to remain on assistance for longer or return to it in the future in the event of a future economic shock but this policy is also the evidence shows incredibly wasteful from an administrative perspective. and given recent research findings nearly half of our americans do not have even $400 in savings, this means states are wasting taxpayer dollars effectively hunting for a needle in a haystack. setnted to make one click of from -- one quick set of remarks with respect to social security disability insurance is that has come up a lot today before i turn to where we go from here. i will let the commissioner correct me or jump in if there

is anything i get wrong or leave out. there is often a lot of discussion about perceived declines in the labor force participation rates. the declines are real but the perception that somehow everyone is going on disability. and for anyone in this room who easy tohat it is qualify for social security disability benefits, i would urge you to speak to someone who has tried to access the benefits they have earned or someone who has handled or still handles those cases. that is what i did as a legal aid lawyer for years before he entered the public policy world. so just sit with me quickly as i what it means to be disabled for purposes of social security. -- benefits. you have to have a physical or mental impairment that is expected to last at least 12 months or to result in your death and you have to have that impairment in such a way that you can document that you cannot do any job that exists in the

entire community. the entire national economy insignificant numbers, at a level where you could earn even $1090 per month. that is what we are talking about. the vast majority of people who apply for these benefits despite the fact they earned them do not qualify and do not receive assistance. and thousands each year die waiting for those benefits because it is so hard to document that disability. that is something to keep in mind as we think about this perception that people are moving on to this other desirable program. i would urge you to look at research from the white house counsel economic advisers examining that question as to whether declines are attributed is virtually no relationship. i would urge you to look at that and i am happy to talk to anyone who wants to hear about what it takes to qualify from this --

for this program. where do we go from here? 's 20th anniversary offers an incredible opportunity to reflect on where we go from here not just where it comes to income assistance for families shouldengthening tanf, be a priority moving forward but it is also an opportunity to keep tanf in perspective as one part of a larger poverty -- anti-poverty policy agenda that we could be embarking upon in this country. i think that is particularly important given economic instability now being such a wide spread experience due to decades of flat and declining wages and the gains from economic growth increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few at the top. other priorities we need to think about in addition to the tanf strengthening agenda that

donna laid out this morning and i would echo wholeheartedly must include job creation and wages. if we are having a conversation about how we want to move people we wouldfare to work," be missing a huge piece of the puzzle if we did not think about jobs and wages and particularly for folks who have been left out of the labor market. we have heard over and over again about 68 straight months of job growth since october 2010, something to celebrate, but certain groups of workers continue to face elevated rates of unemployment and underemployment particularly workers of color, opportunity youth who are not in school and networking, between the ages of 16 and 20, people with criminal records, people with disabilities, investments in infrastructure and research would yield evidence when it comes to creating jobs, pushing the economy to full employment but we need to focus on pathways to good jobs for those who have been left behind. i would hope that we would be thinking about apprenticeships, about national service, it also

about subsidized employment. we learned lessons from tanf, one lessons we should learn is from the tremendous success of the tanf emergency fund which put 260,000 americans back to work and helped them get something on their resume and hope that he could move forward in the labor market. ansing wages, this is not area of bipartisan agreement. we can agree as to the facts which our federal minimum wage has become a poverty wage because it has been stuck at an anemic seven dollars to one five cents for over six years. when you think about what it takes for a minimum wage worker to earn the same in real terms today as he or she did in 2009, they now need to work an additional 244 hours to have the same real earnings, that is what we are talking about when we talk about the loss of juicing power. raising the federal minimum wage to $12 would not only lift 4.5 million americans out of poverty, it would also yield

substantial savings and public assistance programs such as the food stamp program. we would see $53 billion in savings from snap over 10 years if we were to raise the minimum wage in that way. i would just add that it is great to see bipartisan moments in growing for expanding the eitc for workers not caring for children in their homes. this policy needs to go hand-in-hand with raising the minimum wage. we need work-family policy so that working parents are not needing to be making choices between work and caregiving area that includes paid family and medical leave particularly thinking about the birth of a child being a driver of poverty, a leading driver of property in this country. the right to request flexible and predictable schedules are researcherork by a takes a look at how the ragged edges of the job market are one of the reasons that people need to turn to public assistance and particularly tanf and that is something we did he -- need to

keep in mind. to their opportunities harness the child tax credit as a tool for investing in the next generation. we need to strengthen tanf but we should be looking at other company entry policies that can increase income particularly for children in the first few years of life. this is something the center for budget and a number of groups have been looking at as a real opportunity. i wanted to echo what michael said about investing -- removing barriers to opportunity. among many of the barriers that occupational licensing is critical. we need to think incredibly broadly about the relationship between the criminal justice system and poverty in this country. research has shown that if not for the trends that we have seen in mass incarceration between 1980 and 2004, our nation's poverty rate would have dropped by 1/5.

you cannot ignore the intersection between the two. and on the flip, the back and of that puzzle, what we have now is one in three americans have some type of criminal record. not only does this impact families but to the tune of nearly half of american children now have at least one parent with a criminal record. because of the barriers to housing, to employment, education, and more, those children find their life chances severely limited. we cannot ignore the need to ensure second chance policies, virtually for children. finally i would echo donna's message that we need to be careful as we think about the lessons learned from tanf. in extending any thoughts that this program might serve as a model for other effective programs whether it is snap come a or housing assistance in the middle of the national affordable housing crisis or health insurance, we may have real opportunities in a new administration to think creatively and even bipartisanly nspartisanly, it would be

a huge mistake to with the other hand weaken what is left of the safety net for families that are struggling to get by. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. good morning, thank you, ladies and gentlemen. thank you preceding and concurrent panelists. thank you, cato institute for having me here. policy expertise in general to offer and certainly none that would account for a marginal improvement of what you have heard today. i will speak today at a much higher level of generality about political purposes and premises that shape the debate over welfare. years after the

love we are discussing today was enacted, the new york times ran a front-page story denouncing the state of idaho for having reduced its welfare rolls by 77% over the preceding 3.5 years. according to one academic expert quoted in the article, idaho has effectively made itself the worst lace in the nation to be poor. in the nation to beep or. that is and was a contestable assertion but also a clarifying formulation, the clear implication is that the goal of welfare policy is to make a state the best place in the nation to be poor, and the nation the best place in the world to be poor. the times argued that the hallmark of the jurisdiction where it is bad to be poor is that government strictly limits the amount spent on welfare programs and the number of

people enrolled in them. follows that increasing welfare spending and enrollment is key to making up is good for the poor. -- making a place good for the poor. also all -- arriving at a different conclusion about the imperative's meaning. an alternate account would hold that the best place to be for is the one we are most likely to be poor briefly as opposed to securely and respectively. two attributes that would make it easy to get out of poverty and hard to fall into it are, one, a dynamic economy with numerous opportunities to begin and switch careers or start and expand enterprises, and two, powerful social norms that offer the poor sympathy and

encouragement, qualified by the tough love that reproaches people for choices, habits, or dispositions that increase the likelihood they or their children will become poor and reduce the likelihood they or their children will escape poverty. in theory, these two approaches to optimizing the poor's circumstances and prospects seem mutually exclusive. triedctice, america has to synthesize them. much of this ambiguity reflects the nature of the american experiment, which values both inclusiveness and individualism. pluribus in them -- e don't tread on me. franklinecting

roosevelt, the american most response will for shaping our welfare state. like bill clinton, fdr rejected. economies so emphatically -- rejected false [indiscernible] economies [indiscernible] his advisers presented him with two drafts of a campaign statement, one advocating lower tariffs and the other calling for higher tariffs. response was to turn to the speechwriters and say, we've them together, boys. -- weave them together, boys. president roosevelt could declare that continued dependence on relief and uses a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. he went on to call welfare a narcotic welfare a narcotic and subtle destroyer of the human spirit.

-- on the other, he could introduce the second bill of rights in his 1944 state of the union address. the eight entitlements and .ndorses can be divided the first four concerned individual efforts to fend for themselves while the second are prerequisites for a decent life whose possession in fdr's telling has no obvious relation to individuals conducted activities. you are on your own when it comes to food, clothing, recreation and feeling useful. --

there isn't much point after all in declaring a right to welfare benefits unless you also insist that the needs of some, give them a decisive claim on the wealth of others. the welfare state we built to pursue these objectives now accounts for nearly three fourths of the federal government -- the office of management and budget human resources super function comprises these six functions meant to achieve the goals fdr laid out. i include in today's discussion grams described as middle-class entitlements such as social security and medicare, because assisting those who are not poor is a feature of america's -- as theate,

principal architect of our social insurance system, wilbur cohen says a program that only deals with the portable in the being a poor program. in his view, the political viability of a welfare program, of the whole panoply of the welfare state, request dispersing benefits throughout society rather than concentrating them on the poor. the political logic is to black in the sky with crisscrossing dollars rendering possible that which is mathematically impossible that an anonymous but still finite amount of wealth can be taxed and transferred in such a way that nearly every household winds up as a net importer, rather than a net exporter of governmentally redistributed income. 2014, the government spent

$7,933 per american on human resources programs. adjusted for inflation and population growth, that figure was twice as high as federal spending for those purposes in 1989. three times as high as in 1970's for -- in 1974. nearly four times as i is a 1971 and five times as high as in 1968. in our federal system, state and local governments also pursued the objectives laid out in the second bill of rights, assuming in 2013,eau numbers -- government at all levels spent $10,000 per american on welfare state for rams. --adly -- state programs roughly $2000 for a family of

four. this cancellation excludes state educationoutlays on which amounted to $877 billion in 2013. in addition to money the government spends to promote -- it also fashions tax incentives that subsidizes private spending for such purposes. federal tax exemptions promote medically insurance and care. homeownership and economic security, costing the federal government nearly a half $1 trillion in foregone tax revenue. significant a harder to quantify archivist date -- quantify part of the state -- some citizens to assist others. examples would include the

americans with disabilities act, minimum wage laws, rent control laws and regulations requiring real estate developers to incorporate low income housing into new apartments and subdivisions. in these 72 years since president roosevelt proclaimed the second bill of rights, efforts to realize its goals have grown dramatically. over the past half-century, they have become american governments central concerns. to recapitulate something michael said earlier, we're left with the most interesting, boring graph in american politics which argues that all of these outlays, incentives and regulations have done very little to reduce poverty, reasonably the purpose of the whole endeavor. -- presumably the purpose of the whole endeavor. a portion of the americans who are poor or nearly poor has

fluctuated in a narrow band from 1/6 of the national population when the economy strong to 1/5 when it is weak. it is hard to see with the less official to take the trillions throughrs now directed april bewildering array of government endeavors and simply distribute the money randomly, by taking sacks of $20 bills up in helicopters. wasting money is bad, but for an exceptionally affluent nation, probably not fatal. our welfare state has grown faster than our economy, but both have increased a great deal. thewn consolation is that trends since world war ii would have to continue for the rest of the 21st century before america's welfare state becomes

scandinavian in size and scoped. occurventuality may never and may not be all that dire if it does. i personally would rather live in america than denmark, but i did also rather live in denmark than most places in the world today, or in most times and places in the past. also ways assets that may not be so chemical -- so amicable. one is the lives of people who could make viable social contributions if we did a better job of lifting people out of poverty and preventing them from falling into it. another is the confidence americans feel about our republics governmental competence and integrity, like the wars in vietnam or rock -- andraq, wars on poverty

gender -- engender corrosive cynicism at the risk of being hosts, my cato institute i would describe myself as a conservative who is no more than an equivocal libertarian. i do not consider self evident that the welfare state that .elfare's least and best decreed if deceptive of capitalism is integrally creative for some and particularly destructive for others. a problem that cannot be ignored if self-government is to be sustained and vindicated. it is not enough for the welfare state to mean well for its heart to be in the right place, and it is not enough for it to do things. the point is to accomplish things. the contrast between large and growing efforts to end poverty and neck civil reductions of --

negligible reductions of property that -- does argue that a welfare state divided against itself cannot stand. much of the overstates operational chaos results from a theoretical coherence. rather than choose between individuals fundamental inponsibility but on lives governments responsibility to prevent things from happening to them -- in a mixture not alternatives. the results have been a mess. fdr to the contrary it appears there are some things we cannot weave together. thank you. [applause] >> we are going to take some questions from the audience. if you would wait until the microphone comes down, we have them now. if we could wait until they come

down and take them. i am going to start off and ask the first question or two. one of them goes back to a question i asked at the beginning during my remarks and that is what is the goal? in terms of welfare reform? in terms of poverty programs? is our goal simply to reduce the deprivation in which people in property are suffering? -- in poverty are suffering? is it to enable them to get out of poverty? or some, nation of them -- or some combination of them? where should the impetus be? why don't we go down the line. >> i do think it has to be both. them.ot sure i can weigh i think where we fall short is a bignot know how to make

gain in moving people out of poverty and really changing their life trajectory. i think some of it goes back to, when you talk this morning about we focused our program on changing individual behavior, much more than we focused on changing the structural issues that lead people down the path they take. betweenistention personal choices and sexual choices. i don't think that when -- and structural choices. -- i't think that when don't think that is a fair choice when they have not been given opportunities. i think we have to think about the structural issues and what we have to do to fix them. until we know that we can move to help people substantially forward. i think we have to be able to provide a minimum level that allows people to buy food, housing and to meet their basic needs.

>> i think it is a hard question. i think it helps to postulate some normative statements to see if people agree of them. can you not hear me? is this on? .> yet -- yet >> ultimately we are a democracy, and we can decide on these issues and should be debating them. we should have as a basic standard that no one who works full-time and has a household should live in poverty. i think that is something i personally believe. i is something -- it is something i would hope we could all agree on. if someone can get a job for seven dollars an hour and a person has some kids at home, that the rest of society kitchen

to make sure that that person and those children do not live in poverty. that person is doing the right thing and society should reward them. that is one normative statement. another statement that i would support is a nation as wealthy as ours, there should not be extreme poverty. the matter how badly you screw up, you should not start to death, no matter how that your choices are coming children should not start death. that perhaps is a more contentious statement, but i think that is the statement that should be a debated that should be debated and one i agree on. what kind of safety net do we want? it is a useful way to go about answering the question. >> thank you. so, i think there are a few ways you can think about this.

there are how we feel morally, economically. if you care as i think michael articulated about the basic principle that no one in this country should -- i would go -- if you think that no one in this child -- in this country should be poor. any child born into the situation should be homeless, you have a moral case on why we should offer protection. there's an economic case when you look the cost of child poverty in this country, $672 billion per year in lost gdp even if you're not persuaded by the mode case, there's a strong economic case for providing something that is a more basic safety net. i would add in addition to the argument that we need something that can protect all of us from a situation that might befall

almost anyone in that four out of five number hammers that home. about mitigation of deprivation, there is a burgeoning body of research making it very clear that we are talking about programs that boost economic mobility in the long-term for the children who benefit. you can look the earned income tax credit, child tax credit, food stamps, even very small amounts of money in the hands of poor families during the first two years of life can translate into dividend when it comes to improved health, improved educational outcome and increased employment and earnings in adulthood for those children. i think we have a lot of arguments that we can look to for how we want to structure this program. i would also add, and i hope the q&a takes is there a little bit, a program that i neglected to mention in which really needs to be discussed hand-in-hand with

the tandem conversation is unemployment insurance. we don't like to think about the next recession been on the way, statistically it is likely that we are going to see a new recession not that far off. i apologize for being the bearer of doom and gloom. who you look at unemployment insurance reaches in there, joblessness, we are at a historic low of just one in four jobless workers protected .y uis that needs to be a hand-in-hand conversation with kenneth, because it where talking about programs that protect people from joblessness and programs that can help people get back on their feet and into the labor market, we need not leave out ui. >> i would put my meager recommendations into context of the overriding purpose of sustaining the american experiment itself government

which i assume to be precarious. whatever policy ideas we ponder must be considered alongside the perspective for collateral, political and social damage that quietly implicitly broadcasting the notion that if you've got a problem, we the government has a program -- we the government have a program jeffersons -- unlike and the people who wrote the declaration of independence said -- mean what they say they mean. they can be rights to anything you think you ought to have. given -- in line with my more or less prepared abundance given the of our efforts, our policy efforts already in the direction

anditigating poverty preventing people from falling intobed circumstances -- bad circumstances, our focus should not be on innovations or augmentation but on simple fine and streamlining and consolidating, don't fewer things, doing those few things better than we currently are. my final thought would be i believe once the government addresses its role or responsibility in mitigating challenge of the helping people out of poverty, of giving them the resources, practical and moral, to fashion good and admirable lives for themselves is largely a social rather than a governmental and political function. i believe the most -- there is

not anything that any candidate can offer, but something that will work from the bottom up rather than the top down in america. by voluntary groups, by churches, by people concerned --ut neighbors and coworkers and co-worshipers. and who will reinvigorate the social capital required to help people along when they hit a tough patch. >> let me ask about one issue that is being debated. it seems the big debate right legislatorsme state with the idea that will keep the social safety net intact but we will make life as miserable as possible who utilize it. you cannot use food stamps to buy seafood or you can only take $25 a day out of an atm if you're on tennis. are you cannot spend money here.

we treat poor people as if they are three-year-olds getting their allowance. to some extent, i also think there is on the right. there's also the idea on the left that anybody who is poor we cannot expect them to take responsibility. went to give them -- we had to give them welfare but we can i give them cash. to extent do you find in the --ate today -- should we be the poor need more guidance and direction in their behavior, making correct decisions? or should we be giving people more responsible the, saying it is your life, we are going to help you but you need to run? anyone want to jump in on that? >> i will take a crack. it doesn't stop there. there have been proposals appeared i am thinking about a town in maine to create welfare database so we can track people, complete with their names and

addresses who are these welfare recipients. thankfully that has not gone into effect because that would be illegal. what we are seeing in this era of really incredibly aggressive bureaucratic this entitlement because that is what it is, is not just something that is in conflict with both libertarian and i would say conservative values. i would take issue with your characterization and a family left --hat folks on the i will return it in kind -- there is a sense on the left that people cannot be trusted with their money. i think there is been a sense that proposals and policies can popularity and actually be feasible to move forward if they are in kind -- i think that is why we have seen that tendency. the broader, both cause and

consequence of this movement in this direction, has been to further -- people who experience hard times. not only does it make it hard for us to make political and public will to ensure a robust safety net that is in everyone's laborsterest, but it under misapprehension who is it that struggles to make intimate. i think that is where a lot of the comes and she needs to head, the velti of the face of poverty, as opposed to apologies newsyone i offend, the fox concept of the poor person eating bonbons on the couch. >> the piece i'm struck by is how little emphasis we face on the labor market and what that means for people in terms of their own choices. because a lot of constraints and tough love sort of policies assume that everybody could go out and get a job tomorrow or get help from a church.

that in my 20 years of doing this is not the reality. i think people face. i think the reality is that if you have one little blemish on your record, or whether it is criminal, or whether you have mental health issues or whether you have disabilities, all of those things lock you out from the labor market. give you some statistics, there a program in new york city that rigorously evaluated. and try to take people with the most significant barriers and provide them with a conference of set of services to help them move into the labor market. they had significant impacts in what they did was they moved the percentage of people who were able to find employment from 27% to about 33%. that means two thirds never were able to find employment. the labor market has a role to play in that. until we can struggle with how do we -- licensing is one, but i

think there are many more things that go into employment decisions that we do not take into account. we assume that people have much more control over their ability to earn their own income than they do. >> i am going to say that cato's long work in the criminal justice reform aspect to this, the money market -- i also wonder to what degree can you have a foxing labor market when you put more regulations -- a $15 minimum now and you have to carede families and health and vacation. at what point does that say, there is no moral labor market with people with minimal skills does it cannot provide the productivity. this seems to be a contradiction in those policies. >> i agree with that. i agree with the thrust of what donna said which only highlights

the need for public policy to make it easier for people to get jobs, to reduce barriers to employment. that we have an expectation that people are in -- are choosing between working and not working. create an economy that are able to absorb those workers. in answer to your question, we should never dehumanize a class of people. we should not dehumanize the poor and think of them as characters that are inaccurate. to my friends on the left, i would say that would apply to the rich. the humanizing the top 1% as an income generating mechanism of all of our photo -- preferred social policies is distasteful. at the same time, it is the case that the money that is spent on low income programs, it doesn't

come from the money tree, it comes from people who earn that money. the people earn that money to somesome right to exercise paternalism. stopping people from buying seafood or whatever is on pretty silly -- is on face value pretty silly. to say you cannot use this money on alcohol, yet use it -- maybe we don't want you to use it on coca-cola. on a minimum, use this money on food. i think that is pretty reasonable. part of the reason why i think welfare reform works is it combines paternalism and a little bit of hassle with help and assistance and reward. thinking about going forward, i think it is appropriate to try and create a balance. >> let's go to the audience. i am sorry. go ahead.

i chimending to -- can in on this? if the question is the concern into a barrier to reentry the productive america and that under the current regime, they now 20-year-old regime, it is too difficult, there are too few opportunities, the walls are too high, i go back to the framework about the entirety of what we are doing to promote welfare. about the premises of whether welfare is or is not a right. theuestion would be to center on budget and policy and the center for america progress, if your organizations were given as are like powers over american policy would say rough a proximate on where we be -- where will be in january.

1 -- [laughter] -- and richt rid of -- has areintroduce much higher floor to guarantee sdc no one who is on afs has nothing other -- a reasonably comfortable life peer >> we still have a divide in congress. we get it all? >> you are running the show. >> i am going to go to the audience. >> we will never know. >> we'll keep that a secret. i am going to start with right here. >> i want to pick up on the conversation we're having about what you need, having been

responsible for welfare reform on the state level, what i found is that all of the things around the job. it is the flexible work hours or the flex ability when you have childcare issues are you have school issues that you have to deal with. it is the lack of court knitted transportation and many of our communities where they welfare mom cannot afford a vehicle it all of those kind of things i have found that poor parents are not -- we want the best for our children. there are a lot of conversations they have with a lot of assistance that we do not provide. many of the middle class have. >> yet to move to a question. respond? >> io agree. i think it is. when we think about core purposes, we include childcare as part of that because i don't think it is just preparing for work, but it is also helping

them to be successful at work. everything you mentioned is a part of that. >> i would agree. one quick point is i think it often gets articulated as though they leave is something nice to have or even permission to have a sick day, that is something it is nice to have as a cushy benefit. your job is on the line if you miss a day of work, if you call in sick, if your kid is sick. that is what we mean when we say making choices between work and caregiving. it is not just about do i go to work today? oh maybe i will work from home, maybe i will take a sick day. you will lose your job, if you take care of your family. >> it is a cost. >> i am not saying it is not, way withy -- -- but we the cost is. >> what ideas does anyone on the panel have on what policies we can