Transcripts For CSPAN3 Robert Doar On Child Poverty Programs 20170501

Second keynote speaker, were going to have our first keynote speaker, right . Yeah. I learned to count. Our format is that each keynote speaker will be introduced and then they give a talk and then they sit down and we quiz them a little bit. I think my quizzing may be a little more aggressive than jareds but maybe not. Then we open it up to the audience and youll get a chance to ask questions. So we have robert duerr. We invited approximately 100 republicans and none were willing to come. Members of congress and house and senate. So we decided to go with a brilliant genius who is not a member of congress, so i hope youll forgive us for that. Robert is here. Robert is a mortgage what is he exactly fellow in poverty at American Enterprise institute. Ive known him for 25 years at least starting when he was the head of the Child Support Enforcement Program in new york which was an Amazing Program and did a lot for kids because they really collected a lot of money in new york. Then he went on to run virtually all Welfare Programs in new york city under mayor bloomberg and the last seven years. The last seven years, okay. So robert, lets hear what you have to say. Sure. Thank you, ron. I really appreciate being given this opportunity. Its nice to be here and as someone who spent almost 20 years working in new york city and state to make our 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 establish the principle that all children are entitled to public support. Sounds nice, i think. But to me and im sure to 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 their parents, their neighbors and communities. A universal child allowance paid through a monthly cash payment loaded on a ubiquitous federally issued benefit card would c establish a financial relationship between the federal government and every citizen and in the process will undermine the role of the individual, the parent, the extended family, and the neighbor. Point two, there is very little in the two papers on the impact on work earnings and Labor Force Participation in the united states. Despite the grudging and i might say very grudging recognition that our work and work support system has significantly reduced Child Poverty. I got into the social services in new york in the mid 1990s when Child Poverty as measured by the supplemental measure produced by chris was 28 . Its now 16. 7 . Thats a big drop. Why not focus on extending those gains through greater attention to increasing work and earnings. Given that i believe that expansions of nonwork tested components of the safety net, snap, immediate aid amedicaid a to reductions in work and earnings, im pretty sure that adding this new benefit without a work test will increase the work disincentives in our program. Its important to remember that the way work disincentives work is not through one individual program but through the combination of several programs. And those of us who 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 still going to be poor. In fact, their income is still going to be below 50 of the poverty measure. But they may be well enough off so as to not work even though 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 for low skilled parents to 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. I guess here i should say that i am not persuaded and i think other fair 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 too rigorous requirement of tanidentitanichlt f holds up. I think Research Shows that that doesnt hold up at all. Deep poverty has not gotten worse because of tanif. Deep poverty among children is still a problem. I have said for some time that government caseworkers in programs such as snap and medicaid, when presented with parents who say they have no earnings but all they want is snap and medicaid, should not say as they have been saying, thats okay, let me get you food stamps and medicaid and see you in a year. Instead, they should say, how can i help you get a job because you and your children cannot escape poverty on food stamps and medicaid alone. Point three, the proposals being discussed here could be seen by some as another maybe final step in our federal government saying that fathers are unnecessary. Not even worth engaging. Im sorry to say that. But i checked and theres only one word about the absent parent in these papers and that was in this paper. There is also too little recognition that poverty among children is most often related to singleparent households. Im not going to go into all the arguments of 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, two parents and marriage. Think of it as a credibility check. You want them to believe your models predicting future poverty reductions if only they go along with one more transfer payment. Well, 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 Support enforcement except to say that 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 we are 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 parents 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 with reduced or expected spending for retirees or Senior Citizens in order to investment in programs for children. This is a place where leadership p from progressives would be especially helpful in striking a grand bargain for children. I know there may not be a lot of hope for a grand bargain for children, but ive had this hope for a long time and im not going to stop hoping now. Finally, if we are 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 men. We could do a lot more there with less money than what these proposals cost. Thank you. Lets begin with this. I think some of you thought some of it was a little 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 nations ever had. Its to encourage work and subsidize the work. Its worked very well as several people here have shown and i dont think anybody said anything negative about that. Thats a victory. Thats good. It happens. It represents a huge change on the left because the left was really seriously in opposition to this measure back in 1996. And we argued about low income women and whether they really could work. A lot of democrats were 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 more difficult for a fairly substantial fraction to hold down a job with economic changes or changes in the job market. So a big argument on behalf of this kind of benefit is that it would be the opposite of work plus work support. We wouldnt expect there would be a group of people that wouldnt 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 was 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 they could be the true heros of welfare reform as president clinton used to say turned out to be correct. Based on jobs and Labor Force Participation by never married mothers in a way thats 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 snap and medicaid and is not working. We want to know whats going on with them. My view is is that they are not they have stepped away from work requirements and are not being engaged significantly. The other thing i want to point out i i just want to say one thing about si. Through most of the conversation today we have not said anything about ssi or disability. In the Welfare Programs i ran in new york city, one component of our approach was when people said they could not work due to a health or physical impairment, there was a path toward ssi that allowed 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 it doesnt. So im not and thats where i am. I think that and i would also say that if it wasnt correct but the sprob not worse, id be more concerned about it. But i dont see it. I dont even see it in the security numbers which should come up in the wake of a recession. Im not sure they had to do with, you know its a matter of principle. It doesnt make a difference. If it is the case that theres a group at the bottom that does not qualify for ssi or ssci and they cannot work consistently because of where they live, because of their personal habits, whatever it ought to be and we have a desire to protect their children, there is some rational for a benefit. And there is not dependent on that. There is some rational on the effort at some level, community, state, town, village, to assist those families, i dont know that rational is for federal universal benefit that may have unintended consequences for the families that went to work. Remember, whenever you want to adjust when youre providing, youre going to have the adjustment that will benefit that person youre trying to help but it also will send a message or provide assistance to a group that may not have needed that. And 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 society is that we have a zillion literature reviews including the person i think is most confident which is Robert Moffit and the effects are almost most inevitably smal. There is a large impact on those that are going to stop working in droves because they can get this 250 a month benefit. Here i am informed by my experience in new york city. We have strong work requirements. We have a modest recession in 2001. The Bush Administration and others expanded access to snap and changed the rules there. President obama continued that. And increased access to Public Health insurance, reduced application processes. There is no asset test. And our aim at reducing poverty stops in that period between the recession in 2001 and the grae recession in 2007. And i believe that happened because there was an ability for folks to knit together a variety of things that made them work less. I think thats unfortunate. Went through what about single mothers that starts increasing . It had. I think that is partly because the economy is finally come back and partly because people have begun to wonder about that a little bit. Even the Obama Administration began to send messages to the snap program. Hey, you know, we really should talk about work related help. I agree with you. It has come back. I think it is mostly due to the economy. No. But if they have insentive not to work and then jobs are more available and they go to work well, thats true. I should also point out. And this is long, long battle. And really taken way too long. But some wages have risen a little bit too. I think the work the fact that labor force 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 no work. So responsive to your concerns about nonworkers, what do you think of a compromise that would include some benefit at the bottom . But would also greatly strengthen the Food Stamp Program and Medicaid Program . You might want to leave medica medicaid out. Thats a hard one. One of the problems that i have is that i relate to my experience in new york and we had some protections with people at the very bottom. We didnt have a firm time limit. The transition people were in the program. We didnt have a full family sanction. And we had this sort of effort on people with disabilities who said they couldnt work. So i could id be interested in that. I mean, i dont want to be associated with people with anyone who wants me to say that the Current Program now as it is 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 is it in the big data . This is in the big data in a significant way. What is in the big data is that in 1993, Child Poverty measured by chris was 28 . And it really, really did feel like this is a problem that could not be solved. And now it is 16. 7 . And thats a pretty big drop that we need to be careful about going backwards on. You were involved in it. You said you were yeah, i got it. We agreed thats because more people work and they get Better Benefits when they work. My position is if a social work kerr say if you work even at 9 an hour, youll be better off. One one more thing, i very little discussion in these papers about the implications of a federal limit. You know, i think chris said that ssa administration would run it. In new york city in terms of sort of client relationships or dealing 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 were going to address this program entirely through the federal government. There ought to be some recognition that we have this apparatus in the state that isnt purchase pr but maybe a better way to address the situation. Okay. I would like to see an alternative to hsa, too. It gives them another enormous job like this. The point is about im not sure hsa is the greatest answer although it may be the best. Okay. Lets talk about fathers now. We want fathers to play a role in this. Ironic will in the same reform bill, it is really tough requirements on fathers. And they by and large work pretty well, especially if you 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 theyre flat now. A lot of fathers, especially the probability that you have a father who pays Child Support for this group that were concerned about is very low. Relative to other fathers. I think the progress was very solid in the late 90s and early 2000s. And then it in a reaction to a problem which was that the program could be excessively harsh on a poor and struggling group. It adjusted. And in addition, single moms decided not to apply where there was a clear requirement that they cooperate. And i actually think that were not doing as much as we could to draw in these nonresident parents who could pay something. But i talk to somebody in a major city and they in an effort to be careful about getting, you know, overly harsh orders, 50 of the new orders were for zero dollars tlachlt is not hemmihel money in households. That is going through a bureaucratic process that meets a performance standard. Its not really helping. So my view, what i said is that for single parent households who are applying for snap, we ought to have a required referral for Child Support when he or she says, no, i have no agreement and im get nothing Child Support. We ought to ask them to go and work with the Child Support program to help get them something. And i associate myself with those who said earlier when you pay Child Support, youre more likely to be positively engaged with your child and motional and parental attention is important, too. I want that. I dont think you get that. When you can get Child Support as another mechanism to fill that problem at the bottom, youre going to get fathers for not cooperating. I was hoping you could say we could have a much stronger work program for fathers. We could work much harder on. That we have ten states or eight now, if you want to response yort university of wisconsin, it is one big study, to figure out if there are ways to get the fathers to work. They were very encouraging. A significant portion of income that comes into poor single parent households come in the form of Child Support when they get it. We should help that happen more often. One way we should have it for often is doing a better job in establishing and collecting dollars at an appropriate amount. And another way is to allow the Child Support Portion Program to have Work Programs that engage noncustodial parents. I think we should have a targeted noncustodial parent. I think there are ways i want to get more money into the households. I think running to the university r universal benefit is the first answer is premature. Okay. So now if we were talking to republicans on the hill, i think big issue would come up immediately which is 200 billion . Are you kidding me . 200 billion a year for this program . Who could possibly support that . Were not going to support a 200 billion a year program. Even in the offsets you get it down to 96 billion. Down to 96 i mane really. What do you think the practical chances are that republicans on the hill would accept a program of this magnitude . Well, im very bad at predicting what republicans force. We all are. I think its not good at all. I think that its, you know, crazy. The only way it might happen is if you traded in, you know, the collection of programs that work pretty well and some which dont and said well close all these and well create this money. But the democrats are never going to allow that. So, no. I dont think there is much of a chance at all. So id rather focus on other things. Let me ask you a more difficult question. What do you think the chances are the Democratic Congress should figure out a way to get 100 billion . You know, they i dont know. I dont yeah. I guess you are trying to get me to say that there is not much chance of it at all. I could say that. But i do want to say that i wish we could have an effort to find more money and investment for children by reorganizing our Safety Net Program and our entitlement programs that are overly generous to the upper middle class and im all for that. But i want to do it in a way that is successful. I mean that really is anyway. Okay. So one more issue that has to do with the money. Because i want people to really reflect on what were asking for here. And that is even though congress refuses to deny it, even four, five, six years ago we had a Huge Movement to try to do something about the nations debt. And we had some very good proposals on the table. And for one reason or another we could never reach any compromise. So we really have not done anything serious about the dechlt it continues to grow. It will be bigger than the debt after world war ii, 15 to 20 years from now. And all the major institutions in washington that are responsible, crs, omb not only im sorry, crs, commercial Budget Office and other organizations are really concerned about the debt. So leaving alone how you spend the money, can you imagine asking for increasing the debt another 100 billion or 200 billion a year . Well, i should have amended my comment on republicans. There is one way that republicans would make a significant increase in transfer payments for poor families. And theyve done it. And it is when the democrats go in and tell them its just a tax step. The itc expansion is a tax cut. Its the way to make your big tax cut plan look a little more fair to lower income families. Theyve done that several times. And it works for republicans. So the one way that that could happen is if somehow we can make refundable universal allowance and democrats will love this. They will be very happy to let republicans call out a tax cut. But its not. Hard to believe that can you pull i work in ways and Means Committee for 14 years. I saw very few republicans dwhonlt realize any itc is not a tax cut. It is refundable and you give them money. Its like a spending program. Yeah. But i also saw the public documents that tried to show the benefits. This and it would have looked at benefits at the bottom and included the dollars that socalled tax reform. If you were going to make a recommendation to therapy this group at the bottom, because you x scott was the only person that made an arguement that the group there is a group at the bottom. Did he not argue that there isnt a group at the bottom that has a lot of trouble. He said he would want to help them. Right. So would i. I dont think he seeshgs i got it. So what is your solution . Tell me what you would do to help this group . Well, so i talked about bringing a little more work focus to snap and medicaid. Where all this group s lets be very clear about that. Kathy, everyone agrees. Theyre on snap. And theyre on medicaid. So we have an avenue to at least talk to them. We know where they are. And as a former administrator, you know, i could walk into my snap Directors Office and i could say, i want the list and zip code of every household with a single parent and kid that reports no earnings on snap and is not on payment. I want to get it by the day later. And then i give it to the snap administrators and say what are we doing about this . Isnt there something we can do . Right. Thats one thing. What are you going to tell them . What are you going to tell the guys running this . Im going to say pay more attention to employment. Track it. Let us know. We want to noechlt i think there was an earlier chart kathy did put up which showed the number of snap recipients with no earnings. Thats a problem. And i think that run to a universal credit is the answer. When we have a program that talks to the families once a year at least. And provides an important assistance is, i dont get that. Thats one. The other thing is i would have an add mt. Mgs that is a little strong. It may not be totally fair. But i think that there are problems in it and i think we can do more to get the dollars directed and focused on families that are below the poverty line. And i think we could work on that without giving in the work requirement. Questions of this young man. Tell us your name and then ask the question, please. Im morgan dolan. I work for cd america. I have a quick question about data that came out saying there is can you hold the mike a little closer . Sorry. Is that better . Yeah, thats better. Saying that there is a Racial Disparity in wealth between minority families and families that are white. So if there is a focus on work and things like that, training and education but the rate of return of an increase in a dollar in income isnt necessarily equivalent to the increase in wealth. So, for example, minority family who has an income increase in a dollar, the wealth increase does not equate to a dollar. For a white family, it may be more similar. So training families who are on snap or majority, minority families, how would that equate for you . Because giving them a job may 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 is not as strong for africanamericans or hispanics as it is for white families. I dont know what you would do to ensure that balance is fixed by the welfare system. In new york city, we had recipients and applicants who were white and who were black and were latino and asian. Its very hard to run a Welfare Program that has the work focused. How do i get this to best support the children of the parents that are not working . Yep. Thats it. Okay. So, you know, one thing about work requirements is that people want to say that the way work requirement exists is if you dont have a job you dont get the benefits. And thats really not the right way to implement a work requirement. Really the work requirement is on agencies to focus on employment. That they need to ask about earnings. They need to talk about a program or a place that someone can go to to get prepared to for work. They may be have an obligation to find a job that they can offer. And then only when a person declines that opportunity is a sanction come into play. And my general view is sanctions should affect the benefits associated with the parent not with the child when youre talking about snap. So my view is that were actually more likely to help families when we address issues of employment and the abscent parent, financial contribution than when we just ignore them. We organized a group on how to solve poverty and we had a long a lot of people that were on that group. And they had a long discussion about what happens if we have a work requirement and 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 end peoples benefits. This would solve a big problem. Unless you have offered them an actual job and they turned it down. This would put the government, they would find jobs and offer people. Fwhaut would be the only condition. And i have a feeling thats going to be a part of the debate if we want to strengthen work requirement thanksgiving any other program. You would agree with doing that . In the context of snap, i would. But i think and i know that there may be people here that are going to find this shocking. But it happened in new york. And there are people who when you offer them a job, there is reasonable transportation. And you say, you know, we want to do snap. And snapple continue with you because its support. This tl are people that say, no, im not taking that. So i dont want to say anything, but i view this as a concession to the compensation. I view it as a concession from progressive acknowledging that the government had a responsibility to have a consequence when someone who was offered a job declined. Thats the answer to the gentlemans question, right . A question over here . Wait. Your opening comment was about the federal role versus state and local. So way back when when is with a social worker in massachusetts, there was something called general release for general assistance. So these were state and local programs that provided cash to families or individuals with no work requirement. And that was some time ago i was doing that work. So what happened to those programs and do those still exist in much of the country . Some of the country . Whats been the trajectory . Because implicitly youre saying maybe we should have a program like this. I think it would be better at a state or local level. It made me think about these old state programs, whether you call them gr or ga, public assistance they were called in some places. They used to have we have a safe knit program. How much of the country . Well, i dont think they are theyre very much of the country. Thats definitely true. Thats not to say that there arent other vehicles in communities around the country to provide assistance for families outside of the federal benefit program. So, you know, the answer to that is i acknowledge were not perfect. And blue states are often just as bad as red states. So i guess i i guess i would say that i do have some like the federal government. The federal government is fine. I have a there is a certain history of the federal government. I have in some areas i like state responsibilities because theyre closer to the problem. But we have to be active as a 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 to places where there was this walking way from families in need. Maria in the back . Robert, id like to dispute your characterization just a little bit. To say i think both the left and the right were wrong. 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 those jobs. So we had this vision about how many people would get jobs and then they would have employment and that would lead noechlt thing and they would be middle class. I think what we found is that a substantial proportion of people can go to work. And that that work is not enough. And so two questions about pushing work in places of one is what makes us think that we have a labor market that is structured in such a way that is going to provide the kind of consistent and sufficient income the family 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 i think the idea is very expense i. Subsidized childcare. Get coaching. You know, create the jobs. That makes sense if you have an argument that once somebody gets a job they get launched. And then in year two, three and four thashgs going to be fine. But the evidence we have is a lot of the folks stay at the bottom. So then how is this yeah, thats a really very good question and one that i struggle with a lot. And the way i resolve this was various institutions in society have different roles. And the antipoverty fighters can for which sometimes failed but could through this combination of work and work support help people get over the poverty line. And we acknowledge the poverty line as well. Other institutions in american lives are responsible for the next step. I just its not because i doan want to help with that, but because i think if you make the poverty fighters responsible for middle class wages, getting people middle class wages, they wont get the middle class wages and they wont get them above the poverty line. So i absolutely agree. We got people up above the fairly low starting line. And they are still struggling. But its not 28 . Robert . When i listen to you, it sounds like you give absolutely zero weight to evidence from other countries. And my question is why . I dont get that. Im going to give you time to thichlt will you give us one sentence or two sentences about why we should Pay Attention . What specific issues are you thinking hes ignoring . In canada and the uk which are like us, theyre dlish r english speaking. Can you go to more Foreign Countries like sweden. Pafrt reduction comes from government benefits. I have to say youre absolutely right. I give that line rhetoric very little credit. But i yeah, she is. But i have to say that i dont really know why. I need to study that a little closer. Not that i want. To and i will. I want to say one more thing. En that is if you think that rhetoric will be helpful with my friends in the republican conference, you if you think i dont like as much tlaeshlgsy dont like i ive seen it. Its not something they want to hear. And i guess i have one other question. And this is really unfair. I dont know the answer to this. Where do people from other countries go . When they want to go some place to have a better life . I think a lot come to new york city. Thats when you were running the welfare. Okay. One last question. Samuel. You know that is coming. I just want to point out that republicans have no problem conquering other countries and talk about the Corporate Tax rate. Thats a very good point. If you get the child benefit. Lets say you have two kids under of 6, youre taking home unconditionally 12,800. And we have nonetheless, a higher top fine labor rate than the united states. But i get this feeling that theres partst geographic thing is that we have like this thin skin view of the labor market where you pick it and it falls apart. But thats where the point comes in. If you look internationally, i think people respond to incentives. Its not like workers in the u. S. Are dramatically different because they have a different psyche or rationality when it comes to labor force could be census. And when that evidence is excluded, i think it really narrows the april tour on the debate we have. I work harder on nonunited states policies. I dont know the answer. Thank you for joining us, robert. That was a rousing ending there. Thats a good point of the international group. I appreciate what robert stled about wanting to learn more about that. You dont see a lot of cab drivers from denmark, for example. So im here to first introduce rosa deloro, my friend and a congresswoman representing connecticuts Third District in the u. S. House for over two