Transcripts For CSPAN2 Robert Doar On Child Poverty Programs 20170504

So before we get to our keynote speaker, our second keynote speaker, well have our first keynote speaker, right . I learned to count. So while format, each keynote speaker will be introduced and then they do the talk and then they sit down and we quiz them a little bit. I think my quizzing may be a little more aggressive but maybe not. And then we go to the audience and you get a chance to ask questions. We have robert door. We invited approximate one had republicans and none of them were willing to come. So we, members of congress and house and senate, so we decided to go with a brilliant genius is not a member of congress, as i hope you will forgive us for that. And so robert is here. Robert is dash of what is at the title . Federal in poverty at American Enterprise institute. Ive known him for 25 years at least, starting when he was head of the Child Support Enforcement Program. In new york which was an Amazing Program and did a lot for kids i would say because they collected a lot of money in new york. Anyone and went on to run virtual all Welfare Programs in new york city under mayor bloomberg editing for both the last seven years. Okay. So robert, lexi what judges say. Thank you, ron. Id really appreciate being given this opportunity. Its nice to be a and do some who spent almost 20 years working in nick city and state to the car programs work to reduce Child Poverty. Im glad were having this discussion. But having said that, let me start out by saying that the universal child allowance seems to me to be another step to make the federal government the source of all things. It would as its authors contend quote established the principle that all children are entitled to public support. Sounds nice, i think. But to me and it should other conservatives there has been some damage done by this widespread belief that all things come from the government. Especially the federal government. What about the principle that all children are entitled to the support of the children, their neighbors and their communities . Id universal child allowance paid through a monthly cash payment loaded onto a ubiquitos that are issued electronic benefit card would establish at birth the financial relationship between the federal government and every citizen. And in the process will undermine the role of the individual, the parents, the extended family, and neighbor. Point number two, there is very little in the two papers on the impact on work, or exempt Labor Force Participation in the united states. Despite the grudging, and i might say very grudging come recognition that our work and work support system has significantly reduced Child Poverty. I got into the social services in new york in the mid1990s when Child Poverty as made by the panel member produced by chris was 28 . Its now 16. 7 . Thats a big drop. Why not focus on extending those cranes for greater attention to increasing work and earnings . And given that i believe that expansions of nonwork tested component of the safety net, snap, medicaid and ss i, have to reductions in work and earnings, im pretty sure that adding this new benefit without a work test will increase the work incentives in our state that program. Its important to remember that the way work distances work is not to one individual program but that a combination of several programs. So, and those of us want to reduce Child Poverty should be concerned about that. For a household with a single parent and two children, a child allowance plus snap and medicaid and without any earnings is to going to be poor. In fact, their income is still going to be below the of the poverty measure. But they may be well enough off so as to not work even the work is available. So it is possible that we may get more poverty by providing a benefit and encouraging less work. My point is that the low skilled parents who escape poverty, you need both earnings and support. I think the balance has already tilted too much away from work and this will take it still further which will make Poverty Reductions harder to achieve. And i guess you i should say that im not persuaded and i think other experts are also not convinced that the main argument for why we should consider this, that deep poverty for children is grown because of the two rigorous application of tanf work requirements really holds up. In fact, i think a fair reading of the data shows that that thesis doesnt hold up at all. I want to be clear. Deep poverty has not been worse because of tanf. Deep poverty has not been worse because of tanf, deep poverty among children is still a problem. And ive said for some time the government caseworkers in programs such as s. N. A. P. And medicaid, when present with parents who say they have no earnings, but all they want is s. N. A. P. And medicaid should not say as they had been saying, thats okay, let me get you food stamps and medicaid and see you in a year. Instead of a should say, how can help you get a job . Because you and your children cannot escape poverty on food stamps and medicaid alone. 3, point number three, the proposals discussed could be seen by some as another may be final step in our federal government saying that fathers are not necessary. Not even worth engaging. Im sorry to say that, but i checked and is only one word about the absent. In these papers, and that was in this paper. There is also too little recognition of poverty among children is most often related to singleparent households. Im not going to go into all of the arguments and why we should talk about that, except to say that if you want conservatives to support greater efforts to help poor children, and i want them to do that as well, one place to start is to acknowledge forcefully and without having to be asked the role of the family, to parents and marriage. Think of it as a credibility check. You want them to believe your models predicting future Poverty Reductions if only they would go a long with one more transfer payment. At least you could start out by showing that you will talk about this issue of family formation in a way that makes them believe you. I dont have time to talk very much about child enforcement except to say the papers say nothing about that program. This once broadly bipartisan supported Program Still brings more than 1 million children out of poverty every year, and yet one reason were considering a universal child allowance is because absent parents are not providing enough. Why not at least address ways to ensure, especially if youre going to provide a new cash benefit, that the absent parent at least provide something . Finally, cost. We are already overcommitted in our government, but i would say that more spending for children, if the pay for was a true facing up to our longterm fiscal problem. I would prefer to see reforms which reduce our expected spending for retirees or Senior Citizens in order to invest in program for children. And this is a place for leadership from progressives would be especially helpful in striking a grand bargain for children. I know that there may not be allowed to hope for a a ground bargain for children, but ive had this hope for a long time, since i first heard bill talk about here at brookings. Im not going to stop hoping now. Finally, if were all going to do one thing, just one thing, is this it . What about training and education, subsidized jobs programs, reentry assistance for people coming home from prison and employment for disconnected ben . We could do a lot more there with less money than what these proposals cost. Thank you. [applause] so let us begin with this. I think theres agreement here, you thought some of it was a little bit hesitant, but there does seem to be enhanced for at least a decade now that we have done a lot to reduce poverty by encouraging people to work and subsidizing work. So we have the most successful antipoverty strategy the nation has ever had is to encourage work and subsidize the work. Its worked very well as people who have shown and ill think any negative about that. All right, thats a victory. Thats good. It represents a huge change on left because the left was really seriously and opposition to this major back in 1996. Measure. We argued about low income women and whether they really could work. A lot of democrats worried about that. I think it was a legitimate concern. It turned out most of them could work and did work. Now because of the characteristics of some single women, some men as well, many men as well, its much or difficult for a fairly substantial fraction than to hold down a job with economic changes for change in the job market. So a big argument on behalf of this kind of benefit is that it would be the opposite of work was work support for we wouldnt expect there would be a group of people that would work and we would give them a free and clear benefit. Thats the idea. It costs quite a bit. Well come back to that in just a minute. Whats your problem with that diagnosis of the problem . Well, the basis of it is that, we had this argument about whether moms could work, and those who thought they could and it could be the true heroes of welfare reform as president clinton used to say turned out to be correct. Big jump in Labor Force Participation by never married mothers in a way that no one ever expected. They showed that once asked they could do it. But there is a group that right now appears to be on s. N. A. P. And medicaid and is not working. We want to know whats going on with them. And my view is that they are not, they have stepped away from the work requirements of tanf and are not being engaged significantly. The other thing i want to point out but i want to say one more thing about single mothers. I wanted to say one thing. I think the most of the conversation to a way of not said anything about it as a society, disability or the Welfare Programs i ran int in yr city, one component of our approach was when people said they could not work due to a help or a physical impairment, there was a path toward ssi that allow them to have support. I sometimes think in the rhetoric up here when people say there is no floor for people who cant work, there may be some misperception that that doesnt exist. It doesnt. Im not, thats where i am. And i would also say that if it wasnt correct, that the problem has not gotten worse, i would be more concerned about it, but i dont see it. I dont even see it in a very little security numbers which have, hold of it in the wake of the recession, but im not sure they had to do with, you know its a matter of principle. It really doesnt make any difference if it increased. If theres a group of the bob that does not qualify for ssi or ssci and they cannot work consistently because of where they lived, because of the personal habits, whatever it ought to be, and we have a desire to protect your children, there is some rationale for a program like a universal benefit that is not dependent on welfare. There is some rationale for an effort at some level, community, state, town, village to assist those families. I dont know that the rational is for a federal universal benefit that may have unintended consequences for the families that went to work. Remember whenever you want to adjust what youre providing, you will have the adjustment that will benefit the person youre trying to help but also will send a message or provide an assistant to a group that may not have needed that. Thats what i worry about. If you have an entitlement system that allows more people to work, not work, more people will not work. I dont think thats good. The issue is the effect, we have a zillion literature reviews including by the person i think is most confident, robert moffitt, defects that are almost a negatively small. I dont think you can show that theres a huge impact on low income, especially concerned with mothers, after going to stop working in droves because they can get this 250 a month benefit spirit i am informed by my experience in new york city. We had a strong work requirement. We had a modest recession in 2001. The Bush Administration and others expanded access to step and changed the rules of there. President obama continued that and increased access to Public Health insurance, reduced application processes. There is no asset test. Our aim in reducing poverty stopped in that period between the small recession in 2001 and the Great Recession in 2007. And i believe that happened because there was an ability for folks to knit together a variety of systems that made them work less. I think thats unfortunate. Why are not more working out . We single mothers start increasing again. I think that is partly because the economy is finally come back, and partly because people havent begun to wonder about that a little bit, even the Obama Administration begin n to send messages to s. N. A. P. Programs hey, you know, maybe we should talk about work a little bit. I agree with you, it has come back. I think it is mostly do the economy, not due to the changes in the underlying program. No, but if you have an incentive not to work and then jobs are more available and they go to work. Thats true. I should also point out, and this is a long, long battle, really taken way too long, but some wages have risen a little bit, too. I think the work, the fact the Labor Force Participation is finally coming back is due to a variety of factors. And i like it that way. I want that to continue. I dont want to stop it by providing another benefit that has to work. Responsive to your concerns about nonwork, what would you think of a compromise that would include some benefit at the bottom, but would also greatly strengthen the work performance and the Food Stamp Program and the Medicaid Program . You might want to leave medicaid out because people are still very thats a hard one. Thats illegitimate, i mean, one of problems i had is unrelated to to my experience in new york, and we had some protections for people at the very bottom. We didnt have a firm fiveyear time limit. We transition people to the state program and we didnt have a full family section and read this effort on people with disabilities that could work. I would be interested in that. I dont want to be associate with people come with anyone who wants me to say that the corps tanf program now as it is administered in the state is perfect. Its not. And that may be contributing to the fact that some families are being left behind. But again, i keep coming back to where it is in the big data . What is in the big data is that in 1993 Child Poverty as measured by chris was 28 . It really, really did feel like this was a problem that could not be solved. And now it is 16. 7 . Thats a. Thats a pretty big drop that we need to be careful about going backwards. You recall at the beginning i said we i got that. We agree thats because more people work and they get Better Benefits when they work. My visit was always a social worker can look a mother in the eye and say if you work even at nine dollars an hour, youre going to be better off because well make sure you get the eitc, yada, yada. One more thing. Very little discussion in these papers about the application of a federal limit federalization of this. I think chris said s ssa administration would run it. In new york city in terms of sort of client relationships or dealings with people, its not one of the great programs of all time. I mean, im not comfortable with that. Social security . Im not comfortable with saying that were going to address this program entirely from the federal government. That ought to be some recognition that we had this apparatus in the state that is it perfect but may be a better way to address this issue. I suggest you write more about that because i would like to see an alternative ssa. The people are busy and did you make mistakes and given them another enormous job like this point is about im not sure hsa is a gratis and although it may be the best. Perk lets talk about fathers. You want others to play a role in this. Ironically in the same reform bill, increase work required from other, it puts tough requirements on fathers. They by and large work pretty well especially i to look at the first eight to ten years the Child Support payments did increase quite a bit. What would you do now to increase Child Support payments . They seem to have been flat now and theres a lot of fathers especially the probability of her father to pay Child Support for this groupware concerned about is very low, relative to other fathers. I think the progress was very solid in the late 90s and early 2000, and then in reaction to the problem which was the program could be excessively harsh on particularly struggling and poor parents. It adjust. In addition, single moms decided not to apply for ted or theres a clear requirement they apply. Nonresident parent to convey something, but in, i talk to someone in a major Child Welfare program in a major seat at the edit effort to getting overly harsh orders had almost 80 of their new orders were for zero dollars. Thats not Child Support collection. Thats not helping get money into households. Thats just going to a good credit process to meet some federal performance standards. Its not helping. So my view, what i have said is that for singleparent households who are applying for s. N. A. P. , we ought to have a required referral to Child Support when she or he says no, i have no agreement and im getting no Child Support. We ought to ask them to go and work with the Child Support program to help give them something. And i associate myself with those who said earlier i think that when you pay Child Support, you are more likely to be positively engage with your child and that emotional and parental attention is important. I want that. I dont think you get that when you but the extent we can use Child Support as another mechanism to fill the problem at the bottom, father said that been cooperative. I was hoping to hear you say we would have a much stronger work program for fathers. We could work much martyr on that pic with ten states much harder. To figure out if there are ways to get the fathers to work. There are studies in texas that were very encouraging. A significant portion of income that comes into poor single parent households does come from Child Support when they get it. And we should try to help that happen more often. One way we should have it more often is by doing a better job in establishing and collecting dollars an appropriate amount. Another way is to allow the Child Support Enforcement Program to have more programs that engage noncustodial parents. I agree with that. I think we should have a targeted noncustodial parent eitc benefit. There are ways, i want to get more money into these households, and i think running to the universal benefit is the first answer is premature. So now if we were talking to republicans on the hill, i think that the big issue would come up immediate, which is 200 billion, are you kidding me . 20 200 billion a year for this program . Who could possibly support that . We are not going to support a 200 billion a year program. Even with the office of the proposals, you get it down to 96 billion, down to 96, really . What you think the practical chances are that republicans on hillwood except a program of this magnitude . Im very bad at predicting what ever republicans we all are. I think its not good at all. I think that its crazy. The only way it might happen is if you traded in the panoply collection programs, so much work by the way, pretty well, and some which dont and we will see it will close all these and create this money come by the democrats are never going to allow that. So no, i dont think theres much of a chance of it at all. So i would rather focus on other things. Let me ask it more difficult question of the same type what you think the chances are if a Democratic Congress can figure out to get 100 billion through for a program like this or 200 billion . You know, i dont know. Yeah, i guess your turn to me to say that is not much chance of it at all, and i could say that. But i do want to say that i wish we could have an effort to find more money and investments for children by reorganizing our safety net programs and our entitlement programs that are overly generous towards the upper middleclass. Im all for that, but i want to do in a way that is successful. That really is, anyway. Let me raise one more issue that has to do with the money, because i want people to really reflect on what we are asking for here. And that is in the Congress Denies it, even six years ago we had a Huge Movement to try to do something about the nations debt. We had some very good proposal on the table and for one reason or another we could leverage any kind of compromise. We really have not done anything serious about the debt. And it continues to grow. It will soon be bigger than the debt after world war ii, 15 or 20 years from now. All the major institutions in washington that are responsible, crs, omb not omb, crs, the Congressional Budget Office and other organizations are really concerned about the debt. So leaving them alone, how you spend the money, can you imagine asking for increasing the debt another 100 billion or 200 billion a year . I should have amended my, on republicans. There is one way that republicans would make a significant increase in transfer payments to poor families. And they have done it, and is when the democrats go in and tell them its just a tax cut. The eitc expansion is a tax cut and a way to make your big tax cut plan look a little more fair to low income families. Theyve done that several times. It works with republicans. So the one way that that could happen is if somehow we could make refundable, the universal allowance, and democrats will love this. They will be very happy to let republicans call that a tax cut, but its not. Its hard to believe that you could pull that judgment i work in ways and Means Committee for four years and has a very few republicans who didnt realize in eitc is not a tax cut, its refundable, and youd get the money. Its like you spend a program. But i also saw those public documents they came out and tried to show the benefits of this taxable that included an increase in eitc and a look at benefit for them at the bottom and included the dollars, still called a tax reform. If youre going to make a recommendation to help this group at the bottom, because, scott was the only person that made i think an argument that the group, there isnt a worse off group at the bottom but he did not argue there isnt a group at the bottom that has speedy he said they really truly want to help them. Hold on. I dont think i got it. Its more than 20. What is your solution . Tell me what you would do to help this group. Well, so i talked about bringing a little more work focused to step and medicaid, where all this group is. Lets be very clear about that. Everyone agrees. They are on staff and on medicaid. We have an avenue to at least talk to them. We know where they are come and as a former administrator, i could walk into my staff Directors Office and i could say i want the list and zip code 11201 every household with a single parent and kid that reports no earnings on s. N. A. P. And is not an tanf. I would get it by, a day later. And then i would give it to the step administration as a what do we doing about this . Isnt there something we can do . Right. What are you going to tell them . What do you mean . What are you going to tell these guys had one of these programs . Pay more attention to implement, track it, let us know. There was an earlier chart that kathy did put up which showed the number of s. N. A. P. Recipients with the earnings. Thats a problem, and i think to run to universal credit is imagine when we have a program that talk to these families once a year at least and provides an important assistance is, i dont get that spirit strengthening work requirements. The other thing is i would task and administration with a little strong, this may not be totally fair, but i think that there are problems in tanf, eddie think we could do more to get tanf dollars directed and focused on families that are below the poverty line. And it think we could work on that, without giving in to work requirement. Questions of this young man . Way in the back. Theres the first hand. Tell us your name and then ask a question, please. Im morgan, i work for cdma. Quick question about, theres been dated that is, saying that speedy can you hold the mic a little closer . Sorry. Is that better . Saying that theres a Racial Disparities in wealth between minority families and families who are white. If theres a focus on work and things like that, training and education, but the rate of return of an increase in a dollars in income isnt necessarily equivalent to the increase in wealth, so for example, a minority family who has an income increase in a dollar, their wealth increases not equate to a dollar were asked for a white film that it might be more similar. So training family so on s. N. A. P. And on tanf for majorityminority comes to how would that equate because giving them a job might not necessarily pull them out of poverty the same way it would for a white family, for example . Im not familiar with studies that youre referring to, and it may be true. I take it for granted that its true, that that effect is not as strong for africanamericans or hispanics as it is for white families. I dont know what you would do to ensure that this balance was fixed by the welfare system. The new york city we had welfare recipients and welfare applicants who were white, a black and who were latino and who were asian. Its very hard to run a Welfare Program that has a focus or not, that can make adjustments based on race. Other questions . They have had enough of me. Both of us. Its me, i promise. There we go. Thank you. Give that gentleman a microphone. Worst of all, thank you for your time. My name is Deandre Jones and im a fellow at the action center. My worry on work requirements that inherently punishes children are for the decisions of the parents, and children most wonderful populations and the target population for this proposal. How do we as a society best support the children of the parents that are not working . Okay. So one thing about work requirements is that people want to say that the way i work requirement exists is if you dont have a job you dont get the benefits. Thats really not the right way to implement a work requirement. Really the work requirement is on the agencies to focus on employment as they serve the person they are saying. That they need to ask about earnings. They need to talk about a program or a place that someone can go to get prepared for work. They maybe have an obligation to find a job that they can offer, and then only when a person declined that opportunity is a sanction come into play. And my general view is sanctions should affect the benefits associated with the Parent Company with a job we were talking about s. N. A. P. So my view is, is that we are actually more likely to help families when we address issues of employment and the absent parents financial contribution, then when we just ignore them. You recall that we organized a group on how to solve poverty, and we had, several people in this room were on that group, had a long discussion about what happens if we have a work requirement in people dont work . And after a lot of discussion, we got to the idea that there should be graduated reductions in benefits, but you could never and peoples benefits with would result and leisur i should or them an actual job and he turned it down. So this would put the government i can you talk about no, business of finding jobs. But that would be the only condition. Either feeling thats going to be a part of the debate if you want to strengthen any other program. Would you agree with doing that . In the context of s. N. A. P. , i would. But i think, i know that there are many people here are going to find a shocking, but it happened in new york. There are people who come when you offer them a job, within regional transportation and you say we want to staff will continue with you because the work supports s. N. A. P. Will continue people will say no, im not taking that. I do want to upset you but i view this as a concession from progressives acknowledging that the government had a responsibility to have a consequence when somebody was offered a job job declined. Thats essentially the answer to the gentleman question, right . A question over here. Jared, was that you . Wait. Im not upset. Bob, youre opening, was about the federal role versus state and local. So way back when when i was a social worker in messages of something called general relief or general assistance. So these are state and local programs that provided cash to families or to individuals with no work requirement. That was some time ago that i was doing that work. So whats happened to those programs, and do still exist in much of the country, some of the country . Whats been the trajectory . Implicitly come youre saying maybe we could have a program like this but i think it would be better at a state or local level. It maybe think about these old state programs, whether you call them gr or ga, a look assistance they in some places. I think new york, the northeast you to we have a safety net program. Do they still exist . I dont think their existing very much in the country. I think that is definitely true. Thats not to say that there are not other vehicles in communities around the country to provide assistance to poor families outside of the federal benefit program for the state program. The answer to that is, states, i acknowledge, are not perfect and blue states are often just as bad as just as bad as red states. I guess i would say that i do have some, well, i like the federal government to the federal government is fine. Theres a certain history in te federal government. I have in some areas, i like state responsibilities because they are closer to the problem, but we have to be active in the state. One of the criticisms of some of the speakers weve had earlier is that they, why didnt they take this argument to the state . To illinois or two places where there was this walking away from families in need. Maria in the back. Robert, id like to dispute your characterization of tanf just a little bit, to say i think both the left and the right were wrong. So i would say the left, myself included, was wrong about how few moms would be able to get jobs. I think conservatives were wrong about the implications of the jobs so we had this vision about how many people would get up and then have employment and that would lead to the next thing and they would suddenly be middle class. I think what we found is a substantial proportion of people can go to work and that work isnt enough. And so to questions about pushing work in place of, what is what makes us think that we have a labor market that is structured in such a way that its going to provide the kind of consistent and sufficient income that families with children need . And i would say that most of the ways to try to move in that direction coming from wisconsin are very expensive. So why, i think the idea is very expensive, subsidized childcare, get coaching, you know, create the job. That makes sense if you have an argument yo once somebody gets a job they get launched and then in year two, three and four there will be fine. But the evidence we have is a lot of these folks stay at the bottom. So then how is this a yeah, thats a really very good question and one that i struggle with a lot in new york. The way i came to it, resolved it, was various institutions in society have different roles. And antipoverty fighters can, who sometimes failed, but could do this combination of work in work support help people get over the poverty line here we acknowledge the poverty line is low. Other institutions in american lives are responsible for the next step. Its not because i dont want to help with that, but because i think that it makes the poverty fighters responsible for middleclass wages getting people middleclass wages, they wont get the middleclass wages and they wont get them above the poverty line. They will fail at both. So i absolutely agree, and want to be clear about the successes of welfare reform. We got people up a little bit above a fairly low starting line, and they are still struggling, but its not 28 . Its 16. 7 . Right here. Robert, when i listened to you, it sounds like you give absolutely zero weight to evidence from other countries. And my question is, why . , why . I dont get that. Im going to be time to think. Will you give us one sentence or two sentences about why we should Pay Attention to other countries . What specific issues are you thinking is ignoring . The lessons are that in canada and the uk, which are like us, englishspeaking, but you can go to more Foreign Countries like sweden, the Poverty Reduction comes from government benefits. I had to say your absolutely right that a give that line of rhetoric very little credit. And i heard it, but i [inaudible] she is. Might have to say that, but i really dont know why. I need to study that a little closer to acknowledge that, and i want to enter will, but i want to say one more thing, and that is if you think that rhetoric will be helpful with my friends in the republican conference, if you think i dont like it much, they really dont like it. It is just, ive seen it. Its not something they want to hear, and i guess i have one other question, and visible unfair unfair and i dont know the answer to it. We have to do low skilled people from other countries go where do when you want to go someplace to have a better life . I think a lot of them come to new york city. And i dont know that was when you are running the welfare. [laughing] okay. One last question. Samuel. I just want to point out the republicans have no problems comparing other countries much like the Corporate Tax rate, right . [laughing] very good point, very good point. I come from candidate and what if you get the child benefit, lets see if two kids under six, you will be taking home unconditionally 12,800. We have nonetheless a higher topline Labor Force Participation rate than the united states. I get this feeling that theres part of the parochialism both geographically but also temporally with the welfare reform we have thinskinned view of the labor market where you print it and it falls apart, but thats where it look internationally, people respond to incentives and its not like workers in the u. S. Are dramatically different because different different kind of psyche or rationality when it comes to labor force incentives. And when that evidence is excluded, i think it really narrows the aperture on the candidate debate we have. The kind of debate we have. I need to work hard on nonunited states policies. I dont know the answer. You know what this session was about. Join in thinking robert. [applause] cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979 cspan was created as a Public Service by americas cabletelevision companies, and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. The u. S. Senate about to gavel in to start their day