heard from many of you about a promo by me running on this network. haven't seen it? well, here it is. >> we have never invested in much in public education as we should have. your kid is yours and totally your responsible. we haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children. so part of it is we have to breakthrough the private idea that kids belong to their parents and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the households, then we start making better investments. so what i thought was a relatively benign statement about the need to invest more resources into the public education system has caused quite a conservative motion. as we trace the fish tail back that has garnered thousands of responses in the form of tv segments, e-mails, tweets and phone calls started as a short item on a conservative blog's weekend traffic. it wasn't enough for sarah palin to find the spot un-flipping-believable. conservative host rush limbaugh, glenn beck and several on fox news devoted considerable air time to this 30-second ad run by and for another cable news network. >> do your children belong to you or do they belong to the government? now according to nbc news cable operation it's not you. >> according to msnbc your kids belong to the community. >> msnbc melissa harris-perry say kids don't actually belong to you. >> she claims that, quote, the community owns your children. >> what this is she's passing the buck. >> the nuclear family hads always been under attack by communists. by leftists. >> this is the intellectual love child of the great society. everyone but no one is responsible. my own inbox overfloweth. even though my lean forward spot has been at the center of the storm it's not ian about me. i doubt the angriest doubt i personally want to take their children into my household. i assure my 11-year-old would not take kindly to me adopting 11 siblings for her. rather than felt hurt or angry, i felt curious about what is causing this very strong reaction and what this is exactly about in terms of this lean forward ad. i've done a bunch of them. why did this one get so many tongues wagging? >> we have to breakthrough the idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families. >> i stand by that statement. families have first and primary care for their children it's a great deal of difference between policy and practice. only in extreme circumstances should instances remove them from families. but i believe our children are not our private property. they are not just extensions of ourselves. they are independent individual beings. they are the son and daughter ov lifelonging for itself. and though they are with you, they belong not to you. this is an argument of which reasonable people can disagree. and one more influential in poetry thean policy and remote philosophical debate rarely drives news cycles unless, unless it's the core philosophical issue of our entire history. the balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities. this isn't about me wanting to take your kids, and this isn't about whether children are property. this is about whether we as a society expressing our collective whether through our public institutions including our government have a right to inhinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good. and that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years. even in the last election when underneath the layers of a we built this was the question of who we are as americans. are we a loosely affiliated group of individuals or are we a people tied to one another, the collective responsibility to care for our young, our elderly, our poor, even our infrastructure? it's an old question, but one that gained renewed meaning after the financial collapse of 2007 left many asking whether the invisible hand of the market was enough or whether we need the joined hands of a ro bust social safety net to catch us when we fall. so this debate is not about me, but it is about us. it is about all of our major issues currently on our political agenda. what is a budget debate is not a conversation about finding the balance between rights and responsibilities. our ability to do our very best for our our children and the imperative that we use some of the resources to support children whose households have less than ours. the need to preserve the promise of the american dream for future generations because our kids who will inherit our nation belong to all of us. and we have a collective responsibility to them. i hit a nerve with a 30-second promotional ad and the nerve that i hit is connected to the central nervous system of our democracy and the synopsises of engagement is the electric cold current that forges our more perfect union. rather than lash out at the offense, allow me to welcome the debate. with me at the table this morning, matt welch one of my favorite libertarian sparring partners and editor in chief ot "reason" magazine. and mya wylie. matt, i want to start with you because it feels to me like this is a negative/positive freedom. a libertarian versus big state question. where do you fall on? >> well, i know you're not going to steal my daughter because you didn't do it when you hads the chance. my problem with what your statement was was that from my perspective the premise of it was wrong. right? we don't lack for spending mur on public education in this country. we spend three times as much per capital per student as we did in 1970 with the same results we had in 1970. so we already have a social contract where we said everywhere every kid has a the right to public education. that exists and yet public education is not performing. so a that is what we need to con front. not some notion that it's our overly private sense of our children that we have to somehow breakthrough. no, we've broken through that, actually, but what we haven't done is translate that to better education. >> it's interesting. we're going to get into education more concretely in the second hour. i do want to in part put a finger on what you just said. we have already broken through that. that is the part that i thought would be noncontroversial. i thought there was in fact on the left and the right the sense that look, kids are a part of our collective responsibility. no child left behind. it is -- it really has been surprising to me to discover that the sort of angle of the debate this week wasn't about public education funding which to me is debatable. but instead whether or not we do have a private owner ship stake in our kids. >> one is the attack on what you said was taken grossly out of context by those on the attack and weren't talking about what you were talking about which is a debate about are we funding enough for public education or are we not, which is a legislate conversation. so i think we should acknowledge that was not either fair or intellectually very legislate. legitimate. but i do think you're raising an underlying point that what is the context? and we have seen it shifting. we have also seen arguments about the fact that it should shift, which is what you're pointing to. so, for example, in mississippi, where there have been tremendous end roads in changing the education formula for a state that has one of the lowest performing public school systems in part that reform was to try to ensure that funds were going to the its who needed them the most. now mississippi has slashed the budget for the reformulation about how it spends. so it does have impacts on whether we're all taken care of each other's children. >> it's interesting that you bring up mississippi in part. as i am trying to think through the response, it's a place where i felt some sense of agreement with people on the other side of the reproductive choice argument. right? so people who have a position on pro-life typically also understand that the child is separate from the parent, right? it's for me that child begins with birth and for them child begins with conception. but they're based on the idea that the child does not belong to you. in the first part of 2013 we've seen states post 694 new provisions to address unborn children. i was shocked the right would say to me your kid is to dispose of as you want. >> they need to recognize that there is a community responsibility for handling children or having public policy that affects children. kids and parenthood is kind of a sensitive topic. >> it is. no doubt. so when you say we have to get over the notion, people say hold on. this country accepts those not allowed to home school their kids. they have a private notion of it. we have acknowledged as a country that you should be able to do that. >> i want to get into the policy questions of hows and education and we're going to stay on the top ib of sclektive responsibles. i want to listen to somebody else who said something different than this. my not so much ideological twin, collin powell. >> where the family is broken up not up to the task, the rest of us should step up to friend. kids who need responsible adults to show them the way. tens of thousands of our neighbors have stepped forward. they are a gift to us all. we are all responsible for them. 1942. [ all ] fort benning, georgia, in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve the military, veterans, and their families is without equal. begin your legacy. get an auto-insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve. what that's great. it won't take long, will it? no. okay. this, won't take long will it? no, not at all. how many of these can we do on our budget? more than you think. that didn't take very long, did it? this spring, dig in and save. that's nice. post it. already did. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. dig in and save with miracle-gro potting mix, a special buy at two bags for just $10. it shows. we don't run like that. we build john deere equipment the way we always have: the right way. times change. our principles don't. you don't just have our word on it. you've got our name on it. that's how we run. nothing runs like a deere. discover the full line of riding lawn equipment at johndeere.com/howwerun or your local dealer. for the last 40 years a bipartisan congress has kept low income families from becoming homeless. the section 8 voucher program offers a subsidy for families with children living below the poverty line. the elderly and people with disabilities who are able to afford housing without help. it's a policy decision that puts into action our collective understanding that every american has a right to safe, affordable place to call home. for the most part that policy has had solid support from both sides in congress. ing in now. after congress dropped the meet cleaver of sequestration on march 1 hacking away on domestic spending, families like those will soon be the ones feeling the cuts. they will e limb that housing assistance for up to 140,000 families. this human cost is detail in a new report from the center on budget priorities. he joins us here today at the table along with lisa cook, assistant professor of economics and relations at michigan state university. greg, i want to start with you because you wrote passionately about this. >> well, we are just moving in the wrong direction. if you think about the people receiving housing vouchers, the average income is $12,500 a year. half are people with disabilities or seniors. the other half are families with children. only device did we not renew the vouchers, did we cut them down. thouz voipers have not come back. if we go in this direction, $140,000, 140,000 lost we cannot count on them coming back any time soon. even though the demand for them is rising. so this is about expanding eligibility. even at this moment one in four receive them. we were looking at how it will create a funding shortfall. you can see the little cuts and then there's a huge cut that happens when sequestration hits and all the sudden you see a big dramatic drop. yeah. there's the drop that happened with the short fall. we could make an ethical or moral about about the need to help people without needs find housing. but what is the economic cost? is this homelessness is the first thing we should be concerned about. we should be concerned about the economy. so what we have is housing recovery. we have housing starts increasing. we have housing starts increasing. we want to keep this going. this is still a fragile recovery. one more knock, this could be death by a million cuts. >> so matt, i know that section 8 is exactly the kind of sort of market intervention by the government. that will create a lot that you don't need to be creating. >> let's pull the focus back here and talk about them as a whole. barack obama's first was #$.6 trillion. so we have spent a lot more money as a government. so every government program, military, everything has been goosed for the last ten years. when you cut this much and have these terrible outcomes, you have to ask what we did do with that money before? you're competing for different things. that money is not going to section 8. so everyone needs to look around. why is the cost of government going through the roof? >> yeah, you're definitely not going to get me to support it. like, yeah, let's get rid of it. that's the kind of giveaway that is problematic. the one thing i wonder about is the way that you foorm youlated that. you said there's a zero sum gain which also assumes a fixed pie. the other possibility is you can ask wealthier people to pay a fairer share. >> that's right. of course part of that increase in spending matt is talking about went to try to re-energize the economy to the tune of over $700 billion, which the exact same thing that george bush did. so there's no question that there are times when we must spend, we should spend. we also have to look at what we're spending on. the reality is we've also been cutting rev new. if we don't think about how we have corporations who are getting public dollars to make private profit are also often paying very little to nothing in taxes, so they're not part of investing in our children's future collectively the way the rest of us are. >> and also while i agree that we need to look at how money is spent, obviously, there's still the issue of these 140,000 families. and this is already starting to take effect. i'm not trying to pick on northerly. >> go for it. >> they have given vouchers to 700 families on the waying list. they said, hold on. we need those back. and that's not just new orleans. that's happening in a lot of places. normally say i have a voucher and then i get a good job so i don't need it anymore. they're not giving them out. san diego said no more voichers until 2014. 30,000 people are on the waiting list. so ultimately -- and they're writing people who have vouchers now saying you're good, but by the end of the year you may not have it. and all of these things by doug rice who did a phenomenal job, they suggest they will drive families to neighborhoods with higher crime, lower performing schools and less access to jobs. >> and the impact then on children is a lifetime impact. so children in deep poverty in their young years end up having lifetime -- 70% likelihood that they will also live in poverty. there is another side that we will continue to talk about. that's the piece at the top. before we go to break, it feels like a good time to mention it. my book is now out in paperback. just saying. up next. we're going to continue to talk about the housing issue and how you may still lose your house. [ male announcer ] it's simple physics... a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. arrival. with hertz gold plus rewards, you skip the counters, the lines, and the paperwork. zap. it's our fastest and easiest way to get you into your car. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. are proven to be effective pain relievers. tylenol works by blocking pain signals to your brain. bayer advanced aspirin blocks pain at the site. try the power of bayer advanced aspirin. the act of soaring across an ocean in a three-hundred-ton rocket doesn't raise as much as an eyebrow for these veterans of the sky. however, seeing this little beauty over international waters is enough to bring a traveler to tears. we're putting the wonder back into air travel, one innovation at a time. the new american is arriving. what i'm holding in my hand is a detailed list of the abusive practices of 11 big banks that led to million home fore dloe sures. this is a joint investigation between the comp controllers office and the federal reserve. it shows the extent of the errors and wrong doings that were features, not bugs f the closings. the numbers are staggering. more than 1,000 members of the military with completed foreclosures, which means they were convicted from their homes in violation of federal law. the banks agreed not to go after foreclosure. more than 250,000 people who worked out a plan and had their homes taken by the banks anyway. and then there are the 679 people whose loans were not in default. who never missed a mortgage payment. 53 pk of those people lost their homes. yesterday checks went in the million to the first of 4 million people settlement for the banks. with with the vast majority receiving $300 each, it will be cold comfort after the loss of their homes. mercedes is the deputy mayor of housing to the los angeles mayor, the general manage of the los angeles housing department and former department of housing and urban development assistant secretary for community planning and development. talk about this. it feels like it's a lust rative that the banks have, that there's not one standard. >> i think that's true there wasn't one standard. we all thought there was an industry standard and somewhere there was something like a clipboard, and everyone is following the same script. but we're finding it wasn't engineered to hold the scale of problem that this was. >> let me ask you this, and this is a tough one that ma