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 SupportEnforcement 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 mecha