. >> steven with basic income action, and i was pleased to hear you mention charles murray and the negative income -- income maintenance experiments from the '60s. want to see if you're following the discourse about basic income in europe and canada and many other places where this idea of a guaranteed floor is gaining enormous support. there will be a referendum in switzerland in a couple of weeks. there are pilot programs getting launched in holland and england and canada there have been pilot programs in indiana and namibia. i wonder if you could comment on the rest of the world and how they might provide insight into what we're doing. >> i think you're right. around the people, it's a sign of the wealth in the world. that we are at a point where we could even be considering a basic income for all citizens and that's wonderful news. we've looked -- phil has talked about it some but our concern is basically this -- it's sort of at war with our idea that people need to be working to be happy. if you just give them money -- they can choose, as phil said. four guys get together and gate beac

so, it's true that in a lot of communities, a lot of those that charles murray describes and a lot that you find not far at all from here, there are problems that aren't going to be resolved by someone on the outside just saying, figure it out. have a meeting. that's not what it means to have a little more faith in civil society. but i think that when you ask yourself how do i help, how do we make a difference? the answer needs to involve ways of building things up within those communities rather than ways of mailing checks to just the right address. and that is hard to do from the center. that just the difficulty you're going to have with a cash welfare state in a country as vast as ours. and so i think that the diversity of problem wed have requires an enormous diversity of solutions. when you think about welfare, you always think of the opening loin of anna could -- where toll toy says all happy families are alike -- and it's true that secret service has a certain look it to but that doesn't help when you're trying to deal with failure which has its own look to it and people who try

charles murray and i believe this is actually much more significant and one which we struggled very hard to get into welfare reform without a considerable amount of success. this goes back to 1940. the yellow line is the percentage of all births outside of marriage. the beginning of the war on poverty, it is around 7%. by the mid-1990's it is about 34%. one of the things i worked on in welfare reform was simply to create policies that would force a discussion of this issue. this is the underlying cause of welfare dependence. as well as child poverty in the underclass. it was difficult to get members of congress to talk about this. we owe a great deal of gratitude to senator faircloth who worked for years to try to even put this in public discussion with a considerable amount of the republican party saying the topic is undiscussable. what i would say is i think there has been a substantial shift. this is the illegitimacy ratio. senator moynahan often described that blue line as something drawn with a ruler going up 1% each year. i think that is right. around the time this reform begins sy

charles murray wrote a book called an analysis of white america. the divide in white america. donald trump is gointo win noncollege-ecated whites by a grter margin than anybody. hillary clinton will win college-educated whites for the first time in 60 years. >> right, right. >>ou're shaking your head. >> i'm shaking my head about the white voters not college educated because you're getting bamboozled. you can't have a guy talki about trade and the jobs and you what he actually says. so i get that people -- >> there's an understanding, of there's an understanding of why they're going to trump. they've been lied to a mndled by both parties. >> and i heard again and again, he's telling us what we want to hear. if i say, do you believe him? they s, maybe not. >> they've seen no increase in their pay for 40 years. through democratic and republican administrations. >> black voters say the same thing. latinos say the same thing. >> which is why hillary clinton should be spending her moneyal most exclousively on get out the vote. minorities and women. forget the tv ads. jeb bush, $150

temporary assistance to needy families caseload going back to the time of the korean war and charles murrayis already a center presented this, such as the same date he was presenting. what we can see is for a 55 year period, that red line did two things. it even remained flat or it went up. the black bars on the line are great the economic recession. and the light bars are pics of economic boom. so we have 10 periods of boom on that chart, and we can ask, notice them at times that redline comes plummeting downward during economic booms, right? over and over again. in fact, we've got 10 periods of economic boom, this caseload went down and how many periods? one. it goes down right here. what happened right here next we have welfare reform. as the caseload starts come down a little bit before the act is passed. why is that? i would say what does that caseload that are actually to affect. one i call the programmatic effect, which is resource have some waivers in this period which causes some stuff you write your we're starting to really get, polling welfare recipients in the office and make th

smart and some of that was returne it was writm back up but also i hear an attack on the bureau charles murray. did you get to that yet? i'm really appalled. they are the ones that are the superficial snob's? can we get beyond that? >> guest: the book in trump we trust." good evening everyone. how is everyone doing tonight? [applause] i am the host and the curator of the weekly reading series. i appreciate you coming together for a fantastic evening. before we get started. if you want to do a social media thing you can do that also. i want to let you k

and three years later, 1984, charles murray published losing ground which created a lively debate and no introduction to this group is necessary. professor larry mead who is with us today from new york university, just two years later, wrote beyond entitlement. arguingre doing for -- for a basis for welfare reform. as a group of important thinkers convened by aei, they published the new consensus on family and welfare in which a bipartisan group, one of our cosponsors, was a primary author. and suggested both sides of the left and right could coalesce around the idea of mutual obligation. again, in 1986, governor mario cuomo of new york brought together five future members of the clinton administration, he concluded that society should require work in exchange for public support. 1986, one of our panelists here today at wrote a -- wrote a long and influential article that became a book. he said a public job at a wage slightly below minimum is the only way to promote work as a condition. in 1988, harvard professor in future clinton official david a proposed a two year time limit after

that we were changing the attitude of something that kept people independent, the idea that charles murray had talked about in losing ground, the were moving away from that entire epic of welfare into something very different that was going to reduce spending, move people off the rolls, get people into work, the people chance to self-sufficiency and radical change what it meant in america. the reality i think is that neither one of those predictions came true. we have a couple of panels that are going to talk about this a little bit later. one that will look back on what happened in the past and sort of measure the goals of welfare reform against what actually has been achieved and then will take up another bill that is going to look at what we can do from here. what's the next up and welfare reform, what lessons can we learn from the past and apply them to the next generation of welfare reform. to really fantastic people whom you're going here for the what i'd like to take a few minutes before we begin to sort of come if i can can put some of this in context, maybe set some of the stage,

the foundation was laid with a lot of writing from charles murray, alice rivlin, harry meade, a lot of people, and i think we all kind of got together and i was -- obviously i was a second term congressman. i did not deal directly with the administration. it was mostly republicans in the house, but we talked about clay, but santorum and camp and nancy johnson and tim hutchinson -- there are so many names. people were really trying to figure out what would work. from our perspective on the republican side, and i think a lot of democrats felt this way, too -- the two best anti-poverty programs that have gotten americans out of poverty for generation our work and marriage basically. what we have done is hinge assistance to poor people are >> "washington journal" continues. that's an oversimplification, but we felt that was the problem and we wanted to fix it. so many policies never got off the ground cause of cbo or omb. ok? i'm sorry if you work for one of those organizations. this is an example. when we did the community renewal act, which was the follow-up to this, and the president si

. >> steven with basic income action, and i was pleased to hear you mention charles murray and the negative income -- income maintenance experiments from the '60s. want to see if you're following the discourse about basic income in europe and canada and many other places where this idea of a guaranteed floor is gaining enormous support. there will be a referendum in switzerland in a couple of weeks. there are pilot programs getting launched in holland and england and canada there have been pilot programs in indiana and namibia. i wonder if you could comment on the rest of the world and how they might provide insight into what we're doing. >> i think you're right. around the people, it's a sign of the wealth in the world. that we are at a point where we could even be considering a basic income for all citizens and that's wonderful news. we've looked -- phil has talked about it some but our concern is basically this -- it's sort of at war with our idea that people need to be working to be happy. if you just give them money -- they can choose, as phil said. four guys get together and gate beac

charles talked about, this is the illegitimate ratio, and both charles murray and i believe this is actually a much less significant variable and one which we struggled very hard to get into welfare reform without a considerable amount of success. this was back in 1940. they don't like is the percentage of all births that are outside marriage. the beginning of the war on poverty, it's around 7%. by the mid 1990s it has risen to about 34%. one of the things i worked on very strongly in welfare reform was simply too great policies that would force a discussion of this issue. this is the underlying cause in my mind of welfare dependence, of child poverty, and of the underclass. they're very difficult to get members of congress to talk about this. we owe a great deal of gratitude to senator faircloth and then had been jim talent who worked for years to try to even put this in public discussion with a considerable amount of the republican party saying this topic is just an discussable. please go away. what i would say is i think there hasn't that been a substantial shift. this is the same illegit

charles murray and i believe this is actually much more significant and one which we struggled very hard to get into welfare reform without a considerable amount of success. this goes back to the 19 -- -- back to 1940. the beginning of the war on poverty. it is around 7%. by the mid-1990's it is about 34%. one of the things i worked on in welfare reform was simply to create policies that would force a discussion of this issue. this is the underlying cause of welfare dependence. as well as child poverty in the underclass. difficult to get members of congress to talk about this. owe a great deal of gratitude to congressman who worked for years to try to even put this in public discussion with a considerable amount of the republican party saying the topic is undiscussed double. discussable. i think there has been a substantial shift. this is the legitimacy -- illegitimacy ratio. the blue one is something like something drawn with a ru ler going up 1% each year. around the time this reform against symbolic weight when we talk about ending welfare as a lifetime entitlement, the line does move

illegitimacy ratio and charles murray and i believe this is a much more significant variable and one that we struggled hard to get into without a considerable amount of success. of yellow is the number births outside of marriage. at the beginning, drowned 7% and i been 1990's, it risen by 34%. one of the things i work on strongly in welfare of them was policies thate would force a discussion of this issue because this is the underlying cause of welfare dependence, child policy, and the underclass. we only date -- a great deal of gratitude to then congressman jim talent who worked for years to try to put this in two public discussion with a considerable amount of the republican party saying this topic is not discuss the ball, throw this away. i think there has been a substantial shift and this is the same illegitimacy ratio starting in 1965 with senator moynahan describing this as some drawn by a ruler, going up by one percentage year. beginstime this reform symbolically and we talk about does toelfare, the line go over. at the prior rate of increase line, in the red dotted we have ov

charles: data. robert murray, thank you very much. rooting for you because rooting for you means we are rooting for america. thank you very much. see you soon. stocks up to record highs. this is the right time to buy or should people be selling. we are going to debate that next. your insurance company won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. charles: oil dragon markets down today. it is time to buy, but david scranton says not so fast. eddie, give us the reason why we should be still buying this market. >> well, i had no doubt we are going to be in continued vol

i d like to quote a line from bill murray movie called meatballs, when it comes to interest rates, charlesit doesn't matter. i don't think if we raise them or not raise them is going to change significantly. but ultimately, we are only talking about a quarter and a half and that's not the real problem. the real problem like i said before is going to be taxes and regulation and sort that out which we are not going to until we see a new president. we are going to be in this for a while. charles: the markets done okay and done extraordinarily well despite taxes and regulations, of course, we were coming off the major selloff, how much longer can this happen particularly when businesses aren't investing money? >> well, you talk about the earnings recession, we could talk about bad things. know that we are creating jobs. i have a question, we keep creating jobs from 10% but all the while the economy has been shrinking. look at what the gdp is doing. last year we had productivity numbers that are horrible. we have home ownership with 51-year low. when we do get good news we don't see the market