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