tv Democratic Agenda 2018 Elections Jobs the Economy CSPAN July 23, 2018 12:08pm-1:04pm EDT
across tundra, glaciers and mountains. then incoming president of the alaska collaborative for telemedicine and telehealth, christopher dietrich, on providing health care through telemedicine to remote communities in alaska. watch "the communicators" tonight at 8 eastern on c-span2. >> the group new democracy discussed how the democratic party can advance its agenda leading up to the 2018 and 2020 elections and also training americans for jobs in a future work force. speakers included former louisiana senator mary landrieu and several current members of congress. this is just under an hour. >> to the second part of this discussion which really is about the social compact, the new bargains we have to strike and get business, labor and government together on to underpin upward mobility for
working class people, people who don't have great levels of education and need more to get the middle income jobs and the better jobs. so to kick us off, we're lucky to have our good friend congressman john delaney from maryland. he is a entrepreneur and i think still the only member of congress to have served as a ceo of companies that are publicly traded. he's also built a reputation as one of our most creative legislators, has a really thoughtful array of bills on infrastructure, health care and others. unfortunately, he's here at a time when the republicans have outlawed legislation of any kind, it seems, in washington. nothing happens. so congressman delaney has decided to, instead, run for president and has spent a lot of time in iowa and new hampshire talking to people about that. so without further ado, thanks for being here and over to you. >> well, thank you. [applause]
[inaudible] oh, wow. i get the big mic. [laughter] okay. well, thanks for having me. well, thanks for what you do, thanks for preserving kind of what i call the intellectual center of the democratic party. and the conversation that that i had the opportunity to hear as i came in was really very relevant to what i want to talk about, because when i'm out there in iowa and new hampshire -- and i will talk about some experiences i had there -- the point that tim ryan made at the end, i think, is an important one. we have to remember that according to the federal reserve about 46% of americans, if confronted with a $400 surprise expense, in other words, something happens maybe to their car, to their house or maybe it's a health care issue, about half of the country if
confronted with a $400 surprise expense can't handle it. they have no savings, they have no capacity on their credit cards. and so when we talk the these voters, they don't really want a checklist of ideas, they want to know what we're actually going to do for them, how we're going to get some things done. and that's what i'm really hearing on the campaign trail in iowa and new hampshire. i've done 23 trips to iowa and new hampshire since i announced my candidacy ten months ago. and i've done 250 events on the ground. mostly with democrats. and what i can tell you, at least what i'm hearing, is they're interested in two things. they want to win, and they want real solutions that affect their day-to-day lives. and the good news is those two questions that they're asking, which is how do we win and how do we actually get something done that helps me either with
my job or my pay or kind of the things i'm dealing with on a day to a day basis or maybe the opportunities for my kids, the answer to both those questions is really the same, which is to put together a coalition in this country that includes progressive democrats who want change, centrist democrats who want solutions, independents who want to put their elected officials to put the country ahead of their party and disaffected republicans who don't like what the president's doing. if we could put together a coalition of those people, which i believe we can, we cannot only win every election, but we can actually create kind of that governing coalition that can get things done in this country. because that's really our problem. i'll tell you a story, i was in winterset, iowa, which is a small town about an hour outside of des moines. it's the hometown of john wayne. they have a big museum for john wayne there. and it was a saturday night, and i was meeting with the winterset democratic club which is about
15 people. and the head of the winterset democratic club was a union electrician, and my dad was a union electrician. i grew up in a blue collar family. so he and i were getting along really well. and the meeting started, and the first thing he did was announce that he and all of the people in attendance, all 15, were all bernie sanders supporters. i said, oh, that's great. he said, but i didn't agree with senator sanders about everything. i said, well, that's interesting, what didn't you agree with senator sanders on? he said, well, i don't like single-payer. i'm in a union. the ibw, the union my dad was in, and i like the health care i have from that union, and i don't want to give that up, which is what i'd have to do in a single-payer system. i said, yeah, that's right. i said what else didn't you like about senator sanders' policies? he says, well, free college. he pointed to his son, who was 10 years old, maybe he should do what i did. i joined the union, i learned a trade, i learned a skill, and
i've pretty much worked every day of my life. i said, let me understand that. you like senator sanders. he goes, i love senator sanders. i said, but that was his campaign, right? single-payer health care, free college, that's what his campaign was. and he looked at me and said, yeah, maybe so, but i'm not sure any of that would have happened -- which was smart -- and i really felt like he was going to fight for things that matter to my family. and the takeaway i have from this and so many other stories i'm hearing in iowa and new hampshire is that we often think these elections are about policy choices, specific policy choices. but what they're really about is what are we going to do for people what are we going to do to make a difference in the lives of these voters, and how are we going to do it. that's where i think the opportunity is for not only our party, but for the thinkers in this room about policy. because i think we actually have the answer not only to a lot of
the policy questions, but also the answer in terms of how we get things done. because what most americans want is not to be divided. they don't want to be divided. they want us to get things done. right? they want solutions, but we've given them gridlock. they want this form of kind of principled compromise that has been associated with every great piece of legislation this country's ever done. and we give them more partisanship. they want us to get real things done that affect their lives, and we've largely done nothing. and in my business career i had an expression that i would always use which is the cost of doing nothing is not nothing. and we have paid a huge price in this country because of our political system has failed to actually respond to the changes that have occurred in the world. the fundamental responsibility for all of us as elected officials is to look at what's happening in the world, think about the future and do things, do real things that make a difference in people's lives so
that their future is more prosperous, more secure and more just. and we have fundamentally failed that test. we've watched the world change dramatically over last several decades because of globalization. completely reshaped our economy and every aspect of our lives. it's been enormously positive. globalization has lifted billions of people out of poverty. you all know this. it's fundamentally improved the lives of americans. but it hasn't been good for everyone, and there are real things we could have done. chad talked about a bunch of them. real things we could have done to make this transition much more successful. we didn't do it. a lot of people said and they're basically questioning everything we've done for 50 years. and it's going to happen again. this time it's not going to be globalization, but it's going to be technology, automation, artificial intelligence, machine learning. things that will fundamentally improve the condition of human lives. outside of government everyone is obsessed with these things,
business, the nonprofit sector. they're talking about how these things are changing the future of work, the structure of our society, our demographics, our security risks. but is government doing anything -- people like roe, -- like ro, they're thinking about these things. but are most elected officials thinking about how these things are going to change and world and preparing tour -- our citizens for it? no, and that is the fundamental problem. and there are real things that we can do. i mean, chad talked about a bunch of them. if you look at parts of this country that have been left behind, there's a fairly obvious agenda. we should create incentives for private capital to invest. and actually the tax reform bill, which unit support, but it did have a good provision in there that creates a tax incentive for investors to invest in communities tar left behind. i think that will be transformative, actually. but imagine if that was coupled with more infrastructure investing, imagine if that was coupled with things like requiring our government contractors to have a certain percentage of their work force
in communities that are left behind. it's fairly obvious that we could have an agenda and a strong agenda to talk to people about what we're going to do to create jobs. and the private sector is actually fairly focused on this. "the wall street journal" said the other day haha start-ups in the midwest have about half the burn rate as start-ups on the coasts. that's actually a pretty big opportunity for the private sector, right? to take some of these commitments that have been left behind -- communities that have been left behind and invest in them. it'd be good for them and for these communities. this is obvious things we need to do to create, effectively, a new social compact for our young people and our workers for the future. if we were sitting here with a whiteboard talking about the future, we would say how kids need different skills than they're getting in school. we talk about wouldn't it be amazing if every kid started a pre-k anded had something post-high school for free. we talk about how in the future people are going to have five,
six, seven, ten jobs, not one. my dad had one job, the union electrician, so it made total sense for his health care and his retirement to be tied to that job. but in the future if you're going to have five, six, seven jobs, that doesn't make sense, right? those benefits should be portable. we need to do things to help working families like massively expanding the earned income tax credit, which ro has pushed so effectively in the congress. there are obvious things we need to do both to take care of these communities that have been left behind and to actually have an a agenda to prepare the country for the future. but we're not going to be able to do any of these things unless we start bringing this country together around a sense of common purpose and unity. the kind of things that have basically been the cornerstone of the american experience forever. and this is the opportunity for this group of thinkers, because not only is it a matter of substance, the policies that we put forth, not only are they the right answer for the country
from a policy perspective to actually deal with what's going on in the world, look at the facts, look at the future and do things to prepare our citizens for this future, but from a political perspective the opportunity to build a coalition of democrats, independents and republicans who are actually focused on what's happening in the world, thinking about the future and coming together with solutions that both parties can agree with, that's how we can start getting real things done for the american people. finish and that's what we should be running on. we're going to bring people together, and we have real solutions. and these solutions are responsive to what you're dealing with in your life. half the country that can't handle a $400 surprise expense. whenever we think of a policy we want to put forward, we should be saying to ourselves what does this policy do for those people. and that's the opportunity with
the work that will and his team is doing and other democratic groups who are focused on the center intellectually, focused on the policies that are really responsive to what's actually happening in the world and where the future is going. and putting forth these policies in a way that can actually build a big coalition. because when i listen to what people who pride themselves as being strong progressives care about and i compare that to what i think people who consider themselves centrists focus on and when i compare that to what i think a lot of independents in this country talk to me about and when i listen to what people who are disaffected -- they're republicans, but they're disaffected by this president -- when i listen to what all these people are saying, it's actually pretty darn similar. and so the opportunity is there to find a long list of things that we agree with each other
and put forth some real solutions, real solutions rooted in where we have common agreement. and that, to me, is the opportunity for the democratic party. and that, to me, is the opportunity for this group. because, again, we have of the right answer as a matter of substance, but we also have the right answer as matter of politics. and we should be running on that. we should be running on that, building this cohesion and getting -- coalition and getting things done for the american people. that's what i find in the 250 events i've done in iowa and new hampshire. you know, when i met a woman the other day in humboldt, iowa, and she had aids -- she's had aids her whole life, she's about 50 years old. but the first time she's been able to engage in her community, in her opinion, was when she had health care. she had health care through the affordable care act. she has a job for the first time, and she's actually
volunteering in her community. she said i just want to make sure the health care system works. she doesn't care if it's a single-payer system or ten universal health care systems we could all come up with. she wants us to get something done for her. and that's what most democrats and most americans are looking for. and i believe the opportunity for this coalition of thinkers and activists is enormous. and so i'm really grateful, will, for the work you've done. i'm grateful for the fact that everyone is here talking about these ideas. i appreciate you giving me the opportunity to say a few words and, again, i want to thank you all. thank you very much. [applause] >> [inaudible] to keep moving along here, i want to hand things over to senator mary landrieu, our great friend who was present at the creation of new democracy, but a
longtime battler for a big tent approach for the party. so, without further ado, senator landrieu. >> well, will, thank you so much. it's been the privilege of my life to be part of this organization. and i was struck by, just listening to the extraordinary comments and thoughts and insights and ideas just in the time that i've walked in this morning, i thought my brother's address was spectacular. i thought congressman tim ryan's talk was spectacular. i think congressman delaney captured so much of what we need to be doing and focusing on as a party, as leaders. and you're about to hear three or four additional members of congress and mayors sitting right next to me that are in the trenches every day making our economy and our government work for the people that we love and we try to serve every day.
finish it is so refreshing to be here, to be in a room and have people joining us new the internet and video to hear something positive and hopeful and inspiring for a change. living in a city that doesn't do any of that any day, any hour, on any station at any time. and i'm spending half my time in washington, half my time in louisiana -- as i always have, having represented our wonderful or state for 18 years and still work on many projects in louisiana and the gulf coast and spend my time here in d.c. i'm not any longer in the senate, but i am a true champion of the people around in this table, and god bless you for working so hard and thinking so
hard about how to make the greatest country in the world better and how to make it stronger for every single one. we don't win if only a fourth of our people win. we don't win if only half of our people win. america was created out of the failings of the old world. the whole idea of our country is created out of the failed, miserable, horrible situation that existed in the western hemisphere and the eastern hemisphere of governments that just didn't even have it in their mind to help every person. it wasn't even their goal. and they didn't think anything of it. if only a fourth of the people ate well every day, they were happy.
and in some countries if only king and his family ate well every day, that was perfect. that is not our country. it is not why we were founded. and to listen to what washington talks about, it is mind-boggling. will, thank you for inviting me. because i'm kind of the person that doesn't like to give up, but i'm also kind of practical and i think, well, maybe it is time to give up. [laughter] i mean, you know, you just don't see anything. but anyway, i'm reinspired, so thank you. and these conversations are spectacular. we're going to continue them. we have two amazing congressmen and a mayor, and we have some very bright scholars that want to add to this discussion. i'm going to ask jim himes, who was born in peru, moved back to america, went through public school, got his way to harvard, rhodes scholar, expert in cyber policy and other things.
he has some great things to say. i'm going to then turn it over to mayor sly james, up through kansas city. an amazing leader, may i say, in education reform. we've talked about how important it is to reach every child, every person, every adult with education and training that allows them to be the greatest person they can be that god has in mind for them and created them to be. he knows a lot about that. representative ro khanna who has some spectacular ideas about helping everyone. and if we cannot have a country where everybody succeeds, then let's just start another one, okay? because that's the whole point. it is the whole point where everybody can be free, everybody can be great, everybody has a chance. and if we can't figure that out, then let's just start again and try again. so we are in a very tough place in america right now, very tough.
people have turned on each other, we're scapegoating everyone. and what i love ared about the conversation -- loved about the conversation, i think it was congressman ryan said there's a mountain right in front of us. and if we think, and it was also said if you think the cost of doing nothing is nothing, that is not true. the cost of doing nothing is losing and getting worse and worse and worse. china is organized, that is true. everything i heard about that is true. we have a job to do, so let's hear some great ideas. i'm going to turn it over, jim, to you, who's one of our inspiration alleyeders. [inaudible conversations] >> well, thank you, senator. i'm congressman jim himes of connecticut, and i'm here apart from the fact that i'm a big fan of will marshall, i'm here in my capacity as chairman of the new democrat coalition. many of you will know that the new democrat coalition, we get called the centrists, the moderates, the pragmatists in the house. we actually prefer a different definition. we like to think of ourselves, because we are probably younger
than average because we probably have more private sector experience than on average, we like to think of ourselves actually not as left/right, but as really trying to figure out what the future of progressive politics looks like. and that's what i'm here to talk about for just a couple of minutes this afternoon. we are now, there are 68 of us. we anticipate being a lot larger after november if things go as we anticipate that they will. we imagine that we will puck up people in the kinds of purple districts that lots of new democrats come from. so we have really engaged ourselves on a lot of things as we do, but we have really devoted a lot of time, energy and resources to what we call our future of work project. and there's a whole bunch of good things about the future of work project. first of all, it jives with everything you just heard my good friend john delaney say and the theme that has permeated these presentations -- [audio difficulty]
[laughter] >> i'm sorry, i hit the wrong button. >> when i was a kid, there was a gong. [laughter] anyway, we -- the problem, and the senator just said it, the problem is now obvious. the rate of economic change, what economists call disruption which is a terribly clinical word for lots of people in places like ohio and illinois and michigan, my city of bridgeport, connecticut, having their livelihoods obliterated by economic change. yes, by globalization, yes, by trade and, yes, by automation, it is a profound problem that is not just a human problem, it's a political problem. this is not the moment to go into this for 20 minutes. i think we are where we are today with the complete delegitimization of both parties because both parties have failed to address the unbelievable economic anxiety that lives all over this country driven largely by economic disruption and the
factors that lead to it. so we as new democrats get very, very excited about thinking about what's coming and how do we make sure that we are the ones who are there before the disaster strikes with legislation, with policies, with partnerships with the private sector? i think that's really important because, like it orbit, we're going to be under divided government for probably some time. with solutions that create, that do away with that economic anxiety the. what does that mean? let me give you the examples that you all know and the numbers that you all know but that we're doing nothing about. 3.5 million truck drivers in the country. i know you've heard this a thousand times, and i'm using this because you've heard it a thousand times. 3.5 million truck drivers, 9 million whose jobs are -- they're not drivers, but they're associated with truck drivers. pick your number, but the folks in ro's district who work hard on this stuff will tell you sometime in the next 10-15 years
there will be no truck drivers. trucks will be automatic. i'm telling you a story that you hear a couple of times a day, and what is the congress of the united states doing about it? nothing. we know the story. most of us are optimists. when truck driving jobs go away, lots of other jobs develop. so therein is the challenge. how to we, in advance before people are devastated, before communities are ruined, how do we put in place the structure that if you add the truck driver the plus the folks associated with it, you'll probably make life better or livable for 10 million people? for our future of work project, that means things in three categories. number one, completely rethinking our system of education. john's got a great line about this. our system of education was created for an agrarian society over 100 years ago. all of our children are off today because 100 years ago they would be bring anything the harvest. my kids are not bringing in the harvest this fall. so figuring out how to structure
a pervasive, lifelong educational apparatus that probably rethinks things like four-year college as the answer to everybody's problems that gets us to a world where education is truly something you do every month, if not every week, that is the future. how can we help. number two, our entire benefits structure, of course, the also built for a totally different world. one of my grandfathers worked his entire career atman kodak, a company which no longer exists -- eastman kodak. that was typical 50 years ago. today as you all know if you're just graduating college, it's likely you will work for a dozen different places in 20 years. by the way, some of those will be for yourself or in the gig economy. how do we get away from a world where it is the employer providing health care, disability, retirement plans? why don't you carry those things around regardless of where you go and what you do? and, obviously, all of the legal structures of being an employee were built in a different era. so how do we work through the fact that maybe ten years from
now the two divisions -- a w2 employee versus a 10 99 employee -- maybe there's more to it than that. so we are putting legislative ideas on that front, again, to try to get to the place we all know we're going to to try to address the economic challenges and also the politics in this country. that brings me to the last point. we think that is a good mission in and of itself. we think it is the mission, both economically and politically. it has some side benefits which is bringing us together, because that message -- getting to a world where people are are armed with the resources they need to be middle class -- that appeals as much to the white guy in youngstown, ohio, that tim ryan drinks beer with as it appeals to the puerto rican and african-american be communities in my city of bridgeport, connecticut. that is a unifying message, and that's really, really important. and for us democrats, and i'll close on this point, i could not
with happier to be sitting up here with ro khanna who is a real leader and visible leader of the progressive wing of our party. this is something that we all agree needs to be done. the media, unfortunately, and others like to create this sense that there is a, quote, civil war within the democratic party. that is not true. ro and i are establishing sort of informal partnership about making sure we have a big tent, celebrating different points of view. and there are some. you would find that the new democrats collectively are in a slight arely different place on trade agreements, perhaps, than the progressive caucus. that's a strength, not a weakness, because it creates a debate that leads to learning and good outcomes. so ro and i are doing a lot both for intellectual intelligence but also for political unity, trying to make sure that we understand that as we move forward with a rethink of the educational system, with a rethink of the safety net, with
a rethink of the legal categories that these are unifying ideas within the party. i'm the only house member here who has tasted the majority, and the majority looks like a place where there are folks inside your majority that disagree with you. and so we're working hard to make sure or that we have that kind of big tent, because if we don't have the majority be, all of the ideas that we're talking about up here are just academic. >> thank you so much. mayor, and then we'll come back to you, ro. >> well, thank you. thank you, senator, and thanks, will, for inviting me. i'm honored to be here. i'm going to be a little bit different, and i have some staccato things to say. first of all, i think that we need to recognize that entrepreneurs are not limited to private business. there are governmental entrepreneurs, and they're usually called mayors. [laughter] [applause]
secondly, you know, one of the things that in my notes we were going to discuss was inclusiveness. so i ask this when i go to meetings like this in kansas city, so don't feel like i'm picking on you, but i say it, and every time i walk into a room full of people that is, first of all, look around. who's not here, why aren't they here, and what do you plan to do about it. it's kind of hard to talk about inclusiveness when the meeting's not inclusive. secondly, if we're talking about making the economy work for everybody, we have to recognize that as we have this discussion about unemployment rates being so low, we are really talking about unemployment rates for white people. because the unemployment rates for brach people are about twice with -- for black people are about twice as high as white people. in one of the neighborhoods in kansas city that is 86% african-american, the unemployment rate is 17%. in another african-american neighborhood of 96%
african-americans, the unemployment rate is 26%. so when we hear unemployment's so low and we're at full employment, to the people who aren't employed in those communities it's not even close to the unemployment. there's, like, 18% of the african-american population that's paid at a poverty rate compared to, like, 8% of the white population. so if we're going to be that big tent party, we ought to start recognizing that there's four corners in that tent and that not all of them are pristine and clean. we have to do something about that. if there was one thing i could do on a broad scale that i think would help this party to actually chart a course, i would do something that we to in kansas city, and other cities do it as well because it is absolutely essential to how we govern. we like to govern based on facts and data and citizen input. i would conduct a nationwide citizen satisfaction survey --
not a poll, a citizen satisfaction survey -- where the citizens actually get to tell us what they think is important. and it can be colated by geography, by race, by socioeconomics, all sorts of different things so the that there is a map. now, the benefit of doing things like that is once you know what the citizens actually think is important, you can govern to fulfill those promises and actually do things. and what we've found over the times that we've been doing that is, is that as we move forward with our survey and we start literally addressing the needs that the citizens identify, what happens? the satisfaction with city government, the satisfaction with election leaders goes right up with it because we are geared to do things that actually matter to the people that we're supposed to serve. so we sit in rooms like this with people who are inside the bubble and talk about what we
believe based on our conversations in our own neighborhoods or our own states, in our own regions about what americans need. but that doesn't translate to somebody in alabama that has a totally different view of the world or to somebody in kansas city that may have a totally different view of the world. so we ought to the start doing things like that where we gather data. the other thing that it does is the that it makes us partners with our citizens. because then as they tell us what they need and if we start to actually address those needs and show them that we're doing that, then all of a sudden they kind of like it. and they become our allies to get other things that they want done. so those are just a couple things. but when we talk about inclusiveness and jobs in this my city and in my head, i'm talking about things like higher kcus where i recognize that the unemployment rate amongst african-american young males is ridiculously high. and you can overlay all sorts of
maps on that. you can overlay the underachieving education map, you can overlay the crime map, you can overlay the poverty map, you can overlay the wage and salary gap map, and it all comes out the same. there's just not jobs for a whole lot of people in a whole lot of areas if you're not a educated white male or female. and females lag behind too. and they especially lag behind in advancement in pay and other areas like that. so our kc youth is a jobs program we have where we basically serve as a concierge for employees to get youth employed. we don't limit it to black kids or white kids or latino kids, we limit it to kids who want to have a job, an internship, and is we get them in, we hook them up with employers through a jobs fair, we teach them how to do resumés, we give them $100 clothing allowance, we give them bus passes so they can get to wherever they want to work or a
$50 gas card if they happen to have a car, and we pay them about $2040 a summer. not a huge amount of money but, you know, we pay what we can. and those kids come back summer after summer because of the experience that they have. we also include a couple of days of training, we include some public service so that we're trying to create a holistic citizen. they love it. they come back. one thing that we talk about in terms of jobs is transportation. if we're going to talk about equity and inclusiveness, then we have to recognize the difference between equal and and equity. equal is we all stand up. there's a 6-foot wall in front of us, those over 6 feet can see above it, those below 6 feet cannot. that's equal. we're all standing on the same ground, looking at the same wall. equity is when those of us who are not 6 feet tall have something slid under our feet so that we can see that the 6-feet
cover guy or woman sees. and we have to talk about the things that have a real impact on jobs; housing, transportation. one of the main pillars of economic equity is transportation. marley first mile, last -- particularly first mile, last mile. getting to a transportation node and getting from that transportation knolled to your job. -- node to your job. if you can get to the transportation node, you cut down the distance. but you've still got to get from there to your job and from your house to the transportation knolled. transportation is huge. we're not doing much in this country about transportation, and is we're not doing much about it in a way that affects people who really need transportation help. those who are burdenedded by student loans and really would be better off not having to pay a car note or insurance or gas in order to get to a job so that they can pay off the loans. frankly, it'd be better if they didn't have the loans in the first place. >> [inaudible] >> okay, sorry. and the other thing we have to do is recognize we have a whole
lot of people that have not been able to keep up with the current technology in this economy. and they're too young to be out to pasture. so what do we do with them? we have to retrain them. so we use tech smart. tech smart is a training program for people who have some understanding of what a computer looks like, and they want to get back into the job market. we train them, put them through a shark tank-like connection where they go and do an internship at a company, the company and them -- and the employee -- make a unified decision as to whether or not they stay. so those are my thoughts at this point. sorry it took a while. >> no. excellent, excellent, excellent. [applause] congressman? >> well, thank you, senator landrieu. thank you for your opening remarks about the extraordinary nature of our democracy, belief in the individual. ultimately i think that's why we
will outstrip china. i mean, we have a model that believes in distributional decision making as opposed to authoritarian decision making. when you look at baidu, which competes with googling, one of the things that always makes me confident in the american system, is you'll have reports of people paying baidu to rank their search, rank corruption because of the state-owned control. and i think our belief in ordinary americans, as you put it so eloquently, is what's going to give us the comparative advantage. also want to thank will marshall who has welcomed new ideas, new vision. we always don't agree on every specific, but i'm still a liberal in the john stuart mills sense which is that if you debate ideas, ultimately you get better ideas. and i think the worst thing liberals can do is to adopt a group think, which is what republicans have done. i think what it means to be
liberal is to believe in a robust debate of ideas, and you have really been committed to that. just quickly if i could recognize my two colleagues, john delaney was very helpful in crafting the earned income tax credit legislation and helped to get a coalition behind that, and the real force, of course, is your wife who everyone in washington knows. so i appreciate that and appreciate the friendship. and jim, i didn't know you were a rhodes scholar. [laughter] so now i -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> but jim often comes on the house floor, and we talk about the future of work and what it's going to mean in a changing economy and really understands technology, and i look forward to continuing to exchange ideas and work together. let me be brief. there is a mckenzie study and bain study which i found very
informative, and they made -- the mckenzie study had basically three points. between 2005 and 2015, 81% of american households have had their wages stagnate. 81%. and mckenzie looked at this, and they surveyed people and they said what do you blame for that stagnation. and you could have basically written donald trump's campaign from the responses. it was immigration, trade and corporate elites as the three answers of what people blamed for the stagnation of wages. now, when you look at bain consulting, and this is where i want to -- they said what is the biggest threat to america's economic growth. and the answer, this was mitt
romney's firm, may surprise folks. the biggest threat that bain argues to america's economic growth is inequality. why? because it's going to hurt consumer demand, that we may not have people who buy our products. you could be a ph.d. economist to come to that point, or you could be henry ford who paid workers so that they could buy his products, and we had economic growth. here is what i think all democrats should do. we should not concede economic growth to the republican party. they've been running the same flawed script since 1980. we're going to cut taxes, then we're going to increase defense, and how is it all going to work out? magical 4% economic growth, right in and then it doesn't grow, and then we get a democratic president who has to end up balancing budgets. and then we trot out economists who say, no, no, the economy
isn't going to grow at 4%, it's going to grow at 2.2%. and donald trump says, well, you don't believe in the greatness of the american people. i think we should say, no, we're going to grow the economy at 4, 5%. here's how we're going to do it. we're going to do it the way americans have always done it, by investing this people. they believe in the greatness of the elite. we believe in the greatness of ordinary americans. we're going to invest in ordinary americans, and that's going to get 4% economic growth. and that's a message i think all democrats should agree on. so i don't know what we could call it, demand-side economics, robert wright calls it rise up economics, innovation economics, but we need an answer to supply-side. two final points. the eitc expansion can be explained that way. if you look at donald trump's 1.5 trillion tax out cut, you can say, look, here's how it works. even concede his numbers that he
says $1,000 is going to average workers. so you say you get $10,000, here's what he's doing. he's giving $9,000 of those dollars to corporate executives and investors. and if you believe that that is really what drives america's innovation, that that is what drives america's success, then maybe you're for that plan. what we would have done instead in the earned income tax credit is if you make under $100,000, if you're a nurse, if you're a machinist, a firefighter, a teacher, then you would have gotten $9,000. maybe $1,000 cough gone to the corporations. so now you pick. we're not saying you don't get up to -- 1,000, you'd get $9,000 in ours. we believe in the greatness of the teachers and the machinists and the nurses. the best in this -- the bet in this country is who is going to drive america's economic growth. we believe ordinary people are. they believe the elites are. they're the party of elitism. the final thing i would say is
we've got to get the sense of future and aspiration in places left behind. when i had my nephew came out to silicon valley, he's a huge cleveland are browns fan, you know? he's in cleveland, and he wanted to go, i got him tickets to the 49ers and the a, but he really wanted to go see google. and he wanted to see apple, and he wanted to see facebook. now think about this, how many kids in this country grow up dreaming to play professional sports? how many get to do it? some maybe a thousand in the nfl? be a thousand in the nba? but they're all bought in. they are sports fans for the rest of their life. we've got to get with people dreaming about -- get people dreaming about the possibility of going into tech and innovation. when john f. kennedy went to west virginia, the coal miners -- there's a famous picture of the coal miners chanting, mr. kennedy, we want you to go to the moon.
i believe technology actually will offer more choice, more opportunity in these places. and the best contrast to the president is a contrast of the past versus the future. we're going to bring the future to these communities to give them more choice so that their kids are actually going to have more opportunity in the 21st century. thank you. >> thank you, representative. [applause] all right. with other going to close our panel with closing remarks from congressman delaney and kim and paul and paul weinstein, just two minutes each. just closing kind of summary. will says one, but i'm in charge, so i say two. [laughter] two to minutes each. and let's start with you, congressman. >> so 70% of the kids in this country live in a county where there's no evidence of any upward economic mobility. that means the jobs getting created are worse than the jobs that used to exist.
that's 70% of the kids. yet last year 80% of the professionally-managed venture capital in the united states of america, the smart money, went to 50 counties in this country. that's 1.6% of counties. so that in many ways is the root of our problem which is the world has changed, there's been enormous benefits for humankind and society generally, but huge amounts of our citizens whether they be in urban america or rural america have been left behind. so the great economist from ro's former employer, stanford university, raz cheti says if you were born in 1950 the chances of earning more money than your parents was 90%. if you were born in 1980, it's down to 50%. they estimate that if you're born in 2010, the chances of you earning more money than your parents are down to 20%.
so that's basically across a period of 60 years the american dream -- which was alive and well for every every single citizen in this country -- has basically evaporated across most of the united states of america. this has happened in the past when we'ved had great periods of innovation. but there was always a response to that. and the response was to build institutions and a set of kind of structures in society to make sure that everyone has an opportunity. and i think the comments you heard today about the kind of policies we need to put in place really get at that. and if we talk to the american people about how we want to do real things to help them and, importantly, increase opportunity for their children -- which is something so many americans are concerned about -- i think we have the makings of not only the right policy answers, but also the right political answer.
you know, i just wrote a book -- let me just finish real quickly. sorry. the book's called "the right answer," and it gave from a speech that john f. kennedy gave that said we shouldn't seek the democratic or republican answer, we should seek the right answer. we should own our responsibility for the future. the speech was given right after sputnik. ro mentioned the moonshot program. and he was able to unify the country around a vision for the future, and that's what i think the opportunity is for our party. and the ideas that were discussed here today are so central to that approach. >> amen. anne, two minutes, paul, two minutes, and then we're going to break for lunch. >> thank you. so what i'd like to do with my two minutes, congressman delaney challenged us to think about the specific ideas we might have. what are we going to do to improve americans' lives. i just want to highlight two ideas that were released in the week and pick up on some of the themes raised by harry, pete and
others that would broaden opportunities for workers by insuring lifelong access to education and training. congressman himes mentioned this as well, but we really need to discard the idea that college is something that needs to happen over four years in a residential setting at a dorm between the ages of 18-22 and that everyone should do it. it's been said earlier this morning and i'll say it again, free college for all is not going to be the right way to go. it's skills. unfortunately, our federal public policy is heavily tilted toward traditional higher education, and so one of the things that we're really going to need to do is elevate skills. and that means a few things. it means in particular the building of robust system of work force training that is on par with traditional higher education both in terms of quality and prestige and then also, very importantly, insuring that all workers have the chance to purchase smaller chunks of education when they need it, as they need it and at an affordable price. nearly half the jobs in our
economy are so-called new collar jobs that require postsecondary education beyond high school but not a four-year degree. the paychecks that these workers get which puts you solidly in the middle class prove that career technical education is not a lesser path. and we need public policies to reflect that. so very quickly, two specific ideas. number one, we need to expand the federal pell grant program which is pretty much only about traditional higher education to high quality occupational training program. 70% of students are so-called non-traditional students at this point. it's actually very difficult for you to access the pell grant program. if you are an older student with a job, with a child, you're not going to have the time or the money to go to college. and maybe you don't need to. maybe you need a certification in i.t. or something like that. pell grant program right now can't help you. we propose that it should. the second thing that we need to do is that we need to really expand higher education
opportunity in rural areas. recently the urban institute put out a report finding that 41 million americans, 12% of americans live in what are called higher education deserts. they're 25 miles away from the nearest college or university, or there's only one community college nearby. three million americans also do not have broadband internet access which means they are completely cut off from online education as well. for the rural communities, this means a few things; people have to leave to acquire skills, and the communities have a harder time upskilling the talent that they have because they cannot grow a work force that can compete to attract businesses. the obvious answer here is rural broadband. one specific idea we mention also is to do more of what states are doing, which is building rural higher education centers in some of these places. these are free-standing facilities that bring in college, community college and work force training all under one roof. they combine online and in-person training, and they're
really making a difference in places like rural virginia, rural pennsylvania and rural maryland. i think that they are worth expanding. >> thank you, anne. >> i'll be very quick. america's broke, and we have to stop subsidizing everything and telling people that we can subsidize their problems away. but we can help people keep more money in their pocket. and part of that responsibility lies with institutions in this country, and our leaders need to challenge them. i work in higher education at johns hopkins university. america's colleges are simply charging people too much, they're not rethinking our curriculum, they're not redoing what we need to redo. it's $20,000 on average to go to a public college in the united states, that's $100,000 for a family. that's ridiculous, okay? it's ridiculous, and it needs to stop and basically the way to stop is to start challenging these institutions. the accreditors and also government needs to simply start subsidizing colleges and universities allowing them to
raise prices continually. .. cost of college that's $25,000 at a public university. go to a three-year model, redesign the curriculum. the the curriculum has been designed for today. we need to start challenging those in two shins and get behind real change. and i aligned with hyperion >> thank you. great come assisting presentations. sorry we didn't have time to hear more. thank you so much for steering a good i know you've got votes today in john delaney to be with us. we really appreciate that. we are running a little behind.
we are going to break quickly for lunch. go get some grub and make it fast because we have to be back here at about 12:50 to get started on tremendous discussion on 21st century schools. thank you for sticking with us. thanks to all the great panelists from the first session in the second. [inaudible conversations]