Panel. [ applause ]. Okay, so before we get to our key notes speaker, our second key notes speaker, were going to have our first key notes speaker, right . I wanted to count. So our format is that each keynote speaker will be introduced and then they give a talk. Then they sit down, we quiz them a little bit. And i think my quizzing may be a little more aggressive, but maybe not. And then we go to audience and youll have a chance to ask questions. So we have robert doar. I told people parming in the event we invited approximately 100 republicans, and probably none of them will come and members of congress and house and senate. So we decided to go with a brilliant genius whos not a member of congress. So ill hope you forgive for that. So robert is here. What is the title . Hes a in poverty at the american institute. Ive known him for 25 years at least when he was the head of the Child SupportEnforcement Program in new york, which was an Amazing Program and did a lot for kids. Ill tell you they really collected a lot of money in new york. Ask then he went onto run more Welfare Programs in new york city. Last seven years. Last seven years, okay. So robert, lets hear what you have to say. Sure. Thank you, ron. I really appreciate having the opportunity. Its nis to be here and saz seven who spent nearly 20 years, to help reduce child povery, 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. 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 support of their parents, their neighbors, and their communities . A universal child allowance paid through a monthly Cash Payments load on a ubiquitous federally issued electronic card will establish at birth a relationship between the government and every citizen. And in the process will undermine the rule 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 mid1990s when child povery was 28 . Its now 16. 7 . Thats a big drop. Why not focus on extending those gains through greater attention through increasing work and earnings . And given that i believe that expansions of nonwork tested components of the safety net, snap, medicaid, and ssi have led to reductions in work and earnings. Im pretty sure that adding this new benefit without a work test will increase the work net incentives in our safe net program. And its important to remember that the way it works is through the combination of several programs. And for those of us who want to reduce child poverity should be concerned about that. For a household of two pashts and two children, its still going to be poor. In fact, theyre income is still going do be below 50 of the poverty measure. But they may be enough off to not work even though work is available. So it is possible we may get more perv aty. My point is for low skilled parents to escape poverty you need both earnings and support. And 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 here i should say that im not persuaded and i think other fair experts are not also convinced that the main argument for why we should consider this, that deep poverty for children has grown for the implination of tanf has hold up. I think the data shows that thesis doesnt hold up at all. Yellow light to be clear deep poverty hasnt gotten worse because of tanf, but its still a problem. And i have said for some time that government case workers and 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, well, 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 as some by 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 absolute parent in these papers and that was in the paper. Theres also too well recognition that povery among children is most often related to singer parent households. Im not going to go into all the arguments why we should talk about that except to say 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 reducks if only they go along with one more transfer payment. Well, at least you start out by showing youll talk about this 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 paperers say nothing about that program. This once bipartisan supported Program Still brings thore 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 produce ways to ensure, especially if youre going to provide a new cash benefit, that the abspt 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 look to see expected spending for retirees and citizens in order to invest in programs for children. And this is place are leadership progressives would be especially helpful in striking grant bargains for children. Ive had this hope for a long time since i first heard bell sawhill talk about it here atbriccings. And 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 from disconnected men . We could do a lot more there with less money than what these proposals cost. Thank you. [ applause ] okay, so lets begin with this. I think theres a great area you thought some of it was a little bit hesitant, but there does seem it be an that we have done a lot to reduce poverty by encouraging people to work and subsidizing. So we have the most successful antipoverty ratings the nations ever had. Its to encourage work and to subsidize the work. And its worked very well as several people here have shown. And i think any people have said anything negative ability thacht all right, thats a victory. Thats good. It happened. It represents a huge change oon the left, because the left was really seriously in opposition to this back in 1996. And we argue 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 very difficult for a substantial fraction to hold down a job. 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 thered 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 with that in just a minute. Whats the diagnosis to that diagnosis of the problem . Well, the basis of it is we have this argument whether moms could work and those who thought they could ask could be the true heroes of welfare reform thuurn out to be correct. In a way that no one every 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 is not working. We want to know whats going on with them. And my view is that they have not they have stepped away from the work requirements of tanf and not being engaged to the skin. I want to say one more thing the single mothers. I wanted to say one thing. Yp i think through most of the conversation we have not said anything about ssi, the disability. And the Welfare Programs i ran in new york city one conponent of approach when people said they could not work due to health or physical impairment, there was a path towards ssi that lowed them to have support. And 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 doesnt exist, but it does exist. And so im just im not and thats where i am. I think that and i would also say that if squaut wasnt correct, that the problem has gotten worse, i would be more concerned about it. But i dont see it. I dont even see tt very low Food Security numbers. Im not sure they have to do with it doesnt matter, principle. It really doesnt make a difference if theyve increased. If it is the case theres a group at the bottom that does not qualify for ssi or ssdi and cannot work kantly because of where they live because of personal habits, whatever ought to be and we have the desire to protect their children, there is a rationale. There is some rationale at effort from some level, community, state, town, village to assist those families. I dont know what the rationale 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, youre going to have the adjustment thats going to benefit the person youre trying to help, but it also will sentd the message or provide assistance to the group that may not have needed that. And thats what i worry about. If you have an intitle system that allows more people to work, not work, more people will not work. And i think thats good. I dont the issue is the size of that effect. We have a zillion literature reviews, and effects are always considerably small. I dont think you can show a low impact, especially concerning the mothers they are going to stop working in droves they can get this 250 a month benefit. So here i am 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 snap and changed the rules there. President obama continued that and increased the access to Public Health insurance, reduced application processes. You can sell the test for income in the country. There is no asset test. And our gains in reducing poverty stopped in that period between the smaller recession in 2001 and the Great Recession in 2007. And i believe that happened because there was an ability of folks to knit together a variety of assistances that made them work less. And i think thats unfortunate. Then why are more of them working now . The working force of single mothers has started increasing now. It has. And i think its partly because the economy has finally come back and partly because people are wondering about that a little bit. And the Obama Administration sent messages to snap programs. So i agree with you it has come back, but its mostly due to economy. If they have an incentive to work and jobs become more available and then they go to work. Well, thats true. And i should also point out this is a long, long battle and really taken way too long. But some wages have risen a little bit, too. So i think the work the fact that the labor force is finally coming back is due to a variety of factors, and i like it that way. I want that continue. I dont want to stop it by providing another benefit that has no work test. In response to nonworkers, what would you think a compromise that would include some benefit at the bottom but also increase the Food Stamp Program and Medicaid Program . You might want to leave medicaid out because yeah, thats a hard one. One of the problems i have is i relate 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 transitioned people to the state program. And we didnt have a full family sanction. And we had this effort on people with disabilities that said they couldnt work. So id be interested in that. I dont want to be associated with anyone who wants me to say that the current tanf program now as its administered in the states is perfect. Its not. And that may be contributing to the fact that some families are being left behind. But, again, i keep going back to where it is in the big data. If it was in the big data in a significant way what in the bag data is that in 1993 Child Poverty as measured by criss was 28 merse. And it really did feel this was a problem that could not be solved. Now its a pretty big drop that we need to be careful about going backwards on. We agreed that thats because more people work and get better benefits. If you work even at 9 an hour, you are going to be better off. And one more thing. Very little implications about the federal level of this. I think chris said the fsa administration. Its not one of the great programs of alltime. It is perfect. Okay, well. As you say people are busy and make mistakes. To the points of this, im not sure its the greatest answer. Okay, lets talk about fathers now. You want fathers to play a role in this. Ironically in the same law in the reform bill for increased work for mothers, we put really tough requirements on fathers. And they by and large have worked pretty well especially say in the last 8 to 10 years the Child Support payments have increased quite a bit. What would you do now to increase Child Support payments. They seem to be flat now. And there are a lot of fathers especially the fathers that would pay Child Support for this group is very low, relative to other fathers. Well, i think the progress was very solid in the late 90s and then reaction to the prab which was that the program could be especially harsh to particularly poor and struggling, it adjusted. And in addition single moms decided not to fly to tanf where there was a clear requirement they cooperate. And i actually think were not doing as much as we could to draw in these nonresident parents who could pay something. But i talked to someone in one of the major Child Support program in a major city. And they in an effort to be careful about getting overly harsh orders had almost 50 of their orders were for 0. Thats not helping Child Support clecks, not helping get money into households. Thats just going through a bureaucratic process to help meet some federal standard, and thats not helping. So in my view i have said that for single parent households that are applying for snap, we ought to have a required referral to support when he or she says i have no aagreement and im getting no Child Support. And we would ask them to go, to work with the Child Support program to help get them something. And associate with those that said earlier, when you pay Child Support youre more likely to be engaged with your child. And that emotional and parental support is good, too. I get that. But to use that as a mechanism to fill that at the bottom i was hoping you would say we could have a much stronger work program for fathers. We could work much harder on that. Weve got ten states or eight now. In fact the universe of wisconsin are figuring out if there are ways to get the fathers to work. The studies are very encouraging. Maybe thats the way to do it. We should try to help that happen more often. And one way we should have it more often is doing a better job in establishing a collecting dollars at an appropriate amount. And another way is to allow the program to have programs that engage in chirp. I also agree we should have a targeted noncustoedium parent benefit. There are ways i want to get monies into these households. I think running to the universal benefit as the first answer is premature. Okay, so if we were talking to republicans on had hill, i think that the 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, and even with the off sets you get it down to 96 billion. I mean really, what do you think the practical chances are that republicans the hill would accept a program of this magnitude . Well, im very bad at predicting what republicans well, we all are. We cant let that stop us. I think its crazy. The only way it might happen is if you trade in the programs, some of which worked, by the way, pretty well and some of which dont and say well close all these and create all this money but the democrats are never going to allow that. So, no, i dont think theres much of a chance of it at all so id rather focus on other things. So what do you think the chances are democratic grs is going to figure out a way a to get a program like this for 100 billion or 200 billion . I guess youre trying to get me to say theres not much chance at all, and i could say that. But i do want to say i wish we could have an effort to find more investments for children by reorganizing our safety net programs and tanf programs that are overly generous towards the upper middle class. And im all for that, but i want to do it in a way thats successful. I mean that really is okay, so i want to raise one more issue that has to do with the money because i want meme pooreally reflect on what were asking for here. Even that Congress Seems to deny it, even four, five, six years ago we had a huge moon to do something about the nations debt. And we had prow poseles on the table for one reason or another could not reach any compromise. It will soon be bigger than the debt after world war ii, 15, 20 years from now. And all the major institutions in washington responsible crs, the commercial budget office, and other organizations are really concerned about the debt. So leaving them alone, how you spend the money, you imagine asking for increasing the debt another billion or 200 billion a year . There is one way that would republicans would make a significant increase in transfer payments for poorer families, and theyve done it. And it is when the democrats go in and tell them its just a tax cut. The itc expansion is a tax cut, and its a 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 with republicans. So the one way that that could happen is if somehow we can make refundable, universal allowance, and democrats will love this. And they will be very happy to let republicans callout a tax cut, but its not. Its hard to believe you could pull i worked with the committee for 14 years, and saw very little republicans who saw the itc is not a tax cut. Its like a spending program. Yeah, but i also saw the documents that came out. And when it looked at benefits for families at the bottom, it included the dollars and still called it a tax reform. If you were going to make a recommendation to help this group at the bottom, because you now, scott was the only person i think an argument that the group there isnt a group at the bottom. But he didnt argue there was a he said if they were in this room, hed want to help them. So would i. But i think its more than 20. So what is your solution . Tell me what you would do to help this group . So i talked about bringing a little more work focus to snap and medicaid. Lets be very clear about that, cathy and everyone agrees theyre on snap and on medicaid. So we have an avenue to at least talk to them. We know where they are. As an admin start i would walk into my snap off and say i want a list of every house held of a single parent and kids that reports no earnings on snap and is not an tanf. And then i get it a day later and give it to the snap administration and say what are we doing about this . Isnt there something we can do . Were full employment. So what are you going to tell these guys that are uning these programs . Im going to say pay more attention to employment and track it, let us know. I think there was an earlier chart cathy did put up that showed the number of recipients with no earning. And thats a problem. And i think to run to universal credit is the answer when we have a program that talks to these families once a year at least and provides important assistance, i dont get that. So strengsening work requirements is one. The other thing is i would have administration this may not be totally fair, but i think there are problems in tanf. And i think we could do more to get tanf dollars directed and focused on families that are below the poverty line. And i think we could work on that without giving the work requirement. Questions for this young man . Right in the back, theres the first hand. Tell us your name and then ask a question please. I work for feeding america. I just have a quick question about theres been some data that came out that says saying theres a Racial Disparity in wealth between minority famomies and families who are white. So if theres 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 whereas for a white family it might be more similar. So training families on snap or tanf or majority minority families, how might that equate for you . Well, im not familiar with the studies youre referring to. And it may be true. I take it that its true, that that effect is not as strong for africanamericans and 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. In new york city we had welfare recipients and welfare applicants who were white and black, latina, and who were asian. And its very hard to run a Welfare Program that has a work focus or not that can make adjustments based on race. Other questions . Theyve had enough of me. Either that or beth of us. Its me, ron. I promise. Oh, there we go. Thank you. Give that gentleman a microphone. First of all, thank you for your time. So my name is deandre jones, and im a fellow at the Food Research action center. And so my word on work requirements is it inharptly punishes children for the decisions of the parents. And the children are one of the most vulnerable populations and the target population for this proposal. So how do we as a Society Support the children of the parents who are not working, and yeah, thats it. Okay, so 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 bet. And thats really not the right way to imp element a work requirement. Really the requirement is on the agency to focus on employment as they serve the person that theyre seeing, 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 declines that opportunity is a sanction come into play. And my general view is the sanction should affect the benefits associated with the parent, not the child when were talking about snap. So my view is that were actually more likely to help families when we address issues of employment and the absent parents financial contribution than when we just ignore them. When you recall that we organized a group, a Workings Group on how to solve poverty, and we 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 there should be graduated reductions in benefit, but you could never end beefls benefit, this would solve a big problem in tanf, unless you have offered them an actual job and they turned it down. So this would put the government i can hear you talking right now in finding jobs and offering them to people. But that would be the only condition. And i have a feeling thats the going to be the debate if we want to shrink work requirements in other programs. Would you agree with doing that . In the requirements of snap i know people there are going to find this shocking, but it happens in new york. There are people when you offer them a job thats within reasonable traption and say well provide you with nap, and snap will continue with you, there are people who will say no, im not taking that. So i viewed it and i dont want to upset you jane, but i viewed this is an old consession this is referring to old times. But i viewed it as a consession acknowledging the government had a responsibility to have a consequence when someone who was offered a job declined. Thats essentially the answer to the gentlemans question, right . Question over here . This is before someones dancing up here. Wait. Im not upset. Robert, your opening comment was about the federal role versus state and local. So back in massachusetts, there was something called general relief or general assistance who were state and local programs who provided cash to individuals with no work requirement. And that was just some time age. 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 sayingimably we could have a program like this but at a state or local level. So it made me think about these state programs. Public assistance they were called in some places. I think the northeast used to have them. Do they still exist and in how much of the country . Well, i dont think they exist in much of the country. Thats definitely true. Thats not to say there arent other vehicles in communities around the county to provide assistance to families outside the benefits of the local programs or state programs. So, you know, the answer to that, states i acknowledge are not perfect. And blue states are states are often just as bad as red states. And so i guess i i guess i would say that i do have some while i like the federal government, federal gofrms fiep, i have theres certain history with the federal government, i have, in some areas, i like state responsibilities because theyre closer to the problem. But we have to be active in the states. And one of the criticisms of some of the speakers weve had earlier is that they they why didnt they take this argument to the states, to illinois or to places where there was this walking away from families in need. Maria, in the back. Robert, id like to dispute your characterization of tan any of just a little bit to say i think both the left and the right were wrong so i would say the left, myself include, 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, like, have employment and that would lead to the next thing and they would suddenly be middle class. And i think what we found was that a substantial proportion of people can go to work and that work isnt enough. And so two questions about pushing work in place 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 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, you know, i think the idea of very expensive, you know, subsidized child care, get coaching, you know, create the job, 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 theyre going to be fine. But the evidence that we have is a lot of these folks stay at the bottom and so then how is this a yeah, thats a really very good question and one that i struggle with a lot in new york. And the way i aim to resolve it was various institutions in society have different roles. And the antipoverty fighters can, for who sometime failed, but could, through this combination of work and work supports, help people get over the poverty line and we acknowledge the poverty line is low. Other institutions in American Life are responsible for the next step. I just not because i dont want to help with that, but because i think that if you make the poverty fighters responsible for middle class wages, getting people middle class wages, they wont get the middleclass wages and they wont get them above the poverty line. Theyll fail at both. So i absolutely agree and i 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 . 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 think for a second. Will you give us one sentence or two sentence about why we should Pay Attention to other countries . What specific issues are you thinking hes ignoring . Lessons are that in canada, in uk, which are like us, theyre English Speaking but you can go to more Foreign Countries like sweden, the Poverty Reduction comes from government benefits. Yeah. I i have to say youre absolutely right that i give that line of rhetoric very little credit, and ive heard it, jane uses it very effectively and with great humor. But i shes fighting here. She is. But i have to say that so i but i dont really know why. I need to study that a little closer, i acknowledge that and i want to and i will. But i want to say one more thing. And that is if you think that receiptoricle be helpful with ron and 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 and i guess id have one other question, and this is really unfair and i dont know the answer to this. Where do lowskilled people from other countries go when they want to go some place to have a better life . I think a lot of them come to new york city. And i dont know that was when you were running the welfare department. Yes. Okay. One last question, samuel. I knew that was a bad comment. That was a bad one. I just want to point out that republicans have no problem comparing other countries when theyre talking about the Corporate Tax rate, right . Very good point. Thats a very good point. So i come from canada and right now if you get the child benefit for lets say have you two kids under 6, youre going to be taking home unconditionally 12,800. And we have, nonetheless, a higher top line Labor Force Participation rate than the united states. So i get this feeling that theres a part of the pa rokkalism both geographically but also temporally with welfare reform we have this thinskinned view of the labor market where you pick it and it falls apart. But thats where his point comes in, people respond to incentives and its not like workers in the u. S. Are dramatically different, they have a different dooind kind of psyche or rationality and when thats excluded i think it narrows the kind of debate we have. I need to work a little harder on non nonunited states policies. I dont know the answer. I think about that. You know the sessions about wanting to get out of here. Yeah. So join me in thanking robert. [ applause ] in the indistinct conversations ]. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up friday morning, julie rofer in of skieser in health news discusses action by the house of representatives on healthcare thursday. And what consumers can expect going forward. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern friday morning. Join the discussion. This weekend cspan citys tour with the help of our Charter Communications partners explores the lit rear scene and history of redding, california, saturday at noon eastern on book tv author and former california fiche and game warden steven cal len on his book the game wardens son. Watching my dad learning the little tricks to being a good wildlife officer, you know, like dont slam the door when you get out of the car, that kind of thing, because they hear you and then its over. And all these thil little things, so i wouldnt wait when i got old enough and i graduated from college, you know, i wanted to be a fish and game warden myself. And hear about reddings writers forum. Coming up next month we have the craft of we have elements of fiction and after that the craft of writing a memoir and following that a presentation on write a biography. We keep it as broad as bobble so we touch on any potential writing interests. Sunday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv tour the shasta dam. Its 602 feet tall, its twothirds of a mile from one end to the other. Its 883 feet thick so its actually thicker than it is tall. So from here when we look up at the dam, we really get an idea of just how massive shasta dam is. Like a 60story building standing in front of us, weighs 15 million tons. Watch cspans citys tour redding, california, saturday at noon eastern on cspans book tv. And sunday at 2 00 p. M. On cspan 3. Working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. Tonight on cspan 3, Homeland Security secretary john kelly talks about immigration enforcement. Thats followed by a Senate Armed Services hearing with the head of u. S. Special operations command. Then ahead of this weekends french president ial election we will show you a recent debate between the candidates in that race. At an event today Homeland Security secretary john kelly suggested that lawmakers should change immigration laws if they do not like how they currently exist. He made the comment while talking about u. S. Policy towards Central America at the Atlanta Council in washington, d. C. This is