tv Today in Washington CSPAN January 14, 2011 2:00am-6:00am EST
there are citizens who are working hard who feel invisible. what happens? attached is the welcome. either you turn to the right. >> if the people who are suffering continue to be invisible in the next two years, that is going to be the major legacy of the obama administration. when you bring in bill daley as the chief of staff -- >> i want to be clear. you said that you could not disabuse me of my formulation earlier. >> no, i could not disabuse you. there is this misconception at the white house that the way for the president to get me
elected, which is increasingly prevalent in terms of how the white house is making decisions -- the way to get reelected is to go to some kind of medical medal -- mythical middle. i think all of these divisions are lazy journalism. to have the right policies for wall street is not left wing. to say that you want to leave afghanistan -- you have pat buchanan and george will who are against the policy. the media is calling them left wing because they are reflexively lazy about categorizing. >> that is the media again. that goes to the point of labeling.
labeling is a category of confronting chaos. labeling should be objects of our critical sensibilities. in the label we use is provisional and never captures the complexity of reality. >> i think labels are important. labels are going to be there. the question is, are they well thought out in the genesis of the process. >> they should not be used to get people down. they should be a means to understand what people are going through and why they are opting the way they are opting. i believe all people are brothers and sisters paid but i am suspicious of the tea party;s politics.
i will fight for their right to be wrong. but we are still contesting. >> let me ask a follow-up. you said something i want to come back to. i heard you put it this way to get to the point. i heard you ask a few days ago this question. what can a blues nation learned from a blues people? i raise that because i want to give you a chance to explain what you meant by that. you intimate it's something about what the country have to gain or a -- intimated something about what the country has to gain or learn from people of color. >> we have to begin with a definition of the blues.
the blues ain't nothing but an audit by -- and autobiographical story about what happens catastrophically. black people have been dealing with the capacity of slavery, the catastrophe of american --we have been dealing with the psychic catastrophe of being taught to hate ourselves, less beautiful, less intelligent. we have been dealing with spiritual catastrophe, which even in a country of liberty and opportunity, you work is late. you were redlined, you were locked--into -- you were enslaved. you were red light and you were
locked into the ghettos. do we want to enslave white brothers? no, we want liberty for everybody. black people's struggled had been the leavening in the democratic loath. we respond with a smile. not with hatred, but compassion. that is what a martin luther king is about. that is what curtis mason is about. that is what john coltrane is about. what happened in the reagan years is that the black freedom movement was consigned to be another special interest group. they tried to reduce our movement to our self interest as if the black struggle was just the negro. that has never been the case.
we start with the negro. that is delayed -- that is the legacy of martin king. anytime you talk about the black agenda, they view it as just a special interest. it is like the corporate agenda. is that just a corporation? in a democracy, was the label's began to -- labels begin to ossify, we cannot communicate. rush limbaugh would say stability wants to police me. you can say what you want. we just want to be fruitful. be fruitful, ambitious, and try not to lie. [applause] they are so polarized. it is difficult for us to proceed.
in a democracy, we do not have a high level of communication when it comes to public interest. it has to do with might and power. whoever has the power will define what is right. no society can survive based on that. did i answer that question? >> yes. you more than answered it. the american people thank you. maria, this raises a fascinating fallout for me. if dr. west is right that in this moment when we are trying to move this country forward and trying to get past these divisions, everybody calling for stability, what is the country losing by the voices of people of color being marginalized in the conversation?
this is one of my personal pet peeves of the black man on tv every night. i hate when i say -- when i see too many conversations that do not have ages in the compensation and do not have hispanics and women and african- americans in the conversation. burns me up. i do what i can to address that on the regular. i think the country is missing something in this critical moment when the voices of women and people of color in the media are marginalized. to that, you say what? >> this is where i tip my hat to arianna huffington. she has one of the most diverse online di platforms. [applause] what her work demonstrates is that we are --the online platform tis the rest of us.
we can have someone with a differing opinion or different boys in their rise writing and talking. in theiro- -- voice garage writing. it deals with the uncomfortable about where bill so i today and about where i am today, and i do not have anyone to talk to, it is easy for me to conclude that i am not at fault. there is a responsibility in the media. we need to hold people accountable. words do have consequences. >> i have some sympathy for what is being said here.
>> as a white male, we appreciated. >> i was on a television show and we were talking about rick sanchez being fired. i look around the room and i realize there were four jews talking about it. i understand where you are coming [laughter] from. -- i understand where you are coming from. i do not understand what the mainstream media we are talking about is. is's its -the washington -- it "the washington post." i think it is this whole forum. the point is, there is no mainstream media. it is entirely fragmented. there really is nobody. >> i want to give you a chance to respond.
let me give you two answers. the sunday morning talk shows exhibit a. i did not care with what you are talk, aboutcnn, fox, msnbc all day, all night, all white. [applause] that is what i am talking about. >> it if you take the sunday morning audiences, i do not have the viewers here in front of me. that is not as large as the not of people glenn beck and rush limbaugh are reaching on the radio. it is not as large as morning
edition or google or yarmuth. what we think the --as the -- google news or yahoo. >> it is not so much the size as the process and whether or not our democracy is missing something with these other forces are marginalized. there really has been an explosion of media peter -- explosion of media. there is an enormous responsibility on the media today to ensure that the media is giving us a fax. unfortunately, over the last couple of years, things have gotten blurred. it is not just facts and is not just news, but it his opinion.
today, given what arianna huffington is doing, it is very difficult to get away with it. immediately, on the internet, there is a correction. there is conversation. there are the people. the people are speaking. i like this is news for that reason because it can be measured engaged. there is not as much room for opinion. frankly, i do not want to turn on the news and hear someone's opinion. i do not care. i have my own opinion. [applause] >> i think the problem is not opinion. is it opinion based on fact or is it opinion based on fantasy? that is the distinction for me. i do not have a problem with opinion or faction. i have a problem with people making stuff up.
our fact checking process is completely non-partisan. we will get republicans, democrats and everything in between. this is not a partisan issue. whatever the opinion, we recognize our reverence for fact. it does not always to be found in the middle. sometimes the truth is on one side or the other side. the earth is not flat. [applause] [unintelligible] the object is to stay in the middle and state your views. >> you're looking like an
american tourist in london, exactly the wrong way. he mentioned at this cable channels. if he were to add all of them together, you get on a typical night, 4.5 million or 5 million people. that is out of the country of 300 million people. why are you concerned about how the information and the right to talk on television allocated to the worst of the country? americans are much better informed than their parents and grandparents were. the hundred million worse informed americans are much worse informed in the were a generation ago.
you had to get out of your chair and walked over to the tv set and turn it off until the entertainment programs began a half an hour later. if he wanted to know whether a chicken was on special, you had to go back to the news about what the mayor or members of congress were doing. the problem is not media bias. the problem is that the public has dropped out of informational me altogether. [applause] we talked about the dysfunction of politics despite the proven quality of people participating in politics. why are the lobbyists more powerful today than they were in 1965? were people better in 65?
i do not think so. was the media better? we had different roles. it was not worth hiring 26 lobbyists. power was more concentrated. what would we have done every pursued a series of fixes that makes the problem worse at every turn? the driving idea that we have on how to fix politics or the wrong ideas. it makes problems worse. it is a very common error to make that when you have a big problem you must have a big solution. sometimes the solution is as simple as changing the rules of procedure in the house of representatives. sometimes it is as simple as changing the balance of power. sometimes they are as simple as
making sure presidential appointees to get through the senate as fast as they did in the early 1970's and 1980's. we are not to look at our problems, but to begin focusing on our problems and asking what the solution is we are going to pursue. the solutions are available. they are embedded in the problem. our problems are not overwhelming. we can do this job. >> of want to spend the last bit of time we have not talking about this. people are starting to declare they are running next year. you talk about sometimes the solution is as simple as changing the rules. the new speaker, john boehner, talked about transparency. he would have you believe that republicans are going to change the rules and also all solved
the problem. >> that is a perfect example of what i mean. we had this bias. president obama has said they are going to publish all the laws of every visitor to the white house. the me tell you what that means. if i have scheduled a meeting with somebody from group a few has an opinion on topic one, i have to schedule a meeting with everyone of his arch rivals. i cannot have a meeting in the white house. i have to have 13 more meetings. even at the only reason is to look at my watch for 50 minutes so i can ignore him and get back to work. what the transparency does is it causes them to choke and suffocate. our government moved more rapidly when there was less
transparency. it gives the individual members of the house is more power than the committee chairman. you get bigger deficits and less accountability. those are not the ways to think about those ideas. if we are going to think creatively, more of the things that are not working -- and >> do not applaud it, yet. honestly. the idea that it has been tried and failed is so pathetic that i can not really begin to answer it. where do i start? you want to go back to afghanistan? do you want to talk about transparency? the want to talk about the fact that we tell the american people we would get out in 2011?
now they are telling us that they do not know when they are coming out. >> if they did it in a classroom, you would not like it. >> it was done in endless ways that the american people were kept out of. we did not know a lot of the stop the government was keeping secrets from us. this is just one example. we could give you thousands of examples. the same week the president went to afghanistan in a surprise visit and told the american people we were winning, which was an absolute and liked it why -- which was an absolute and blatant lie -- we are
turning more and more people against us. americans need to know every time of their elected officials are lying to us. [applause] >> it has to do with the difference between the democratic and the technocratic. if all you are after is the best deal you can't reach -- every empire uses secrecy to hide and it can sell decisions they do not think are in the public interest. >> we chronically have not balanced the budget. >> why is that so? >> why were we able to balance the budget but had a chronically unable to do so recently? there is one major reason. when you empower the 535 members
of congress, that is the mood that is wrong. when power is put in place, the people need to understand it. the transparency create secrecy. the way we create secrets in washington is by having such overwhelming detail that only a few specialists have the patience to follow it. this is not a city of secrets, it is a city of mystery. [laughter] >> if you have to break that down. >> it does the same thing as the mortgage contractor you're complaining about. every detail of the contract is there if you can read it. people would be better off if
they had better representatives saying, "here is the contract, read it for yourself." what of the ways we become more unaccountable is the diffusion of responsibility. nobody knows who to be angry at. the one person whose name people now knows it gets blamed for everything. if there is an oil spill, he gets blamed. you cannot blame the people whose names you do not know. a big government with little accountability and a little name recognition -- that is the formula for what we have now. >> you do recall dwight
eisenhower's speech when he talked about the military industrial complex. it is so expensive that is a form of theft. why? it reinforces the permanent warring economy, the pentagon is untouchable. the deficit tripled. they could not get hold of the pentagon budget and the military budget was expanding. >> it peaked in 1986 and then came down. >> a triple. >> that is when we took control the health care budget. look it up. the medicare budget -- the line
>> all we talking about the defense budget between 1972 and 1988? >> i am not defending it. since 1986, we went through greater balances than 2001. as the defense budget begins to shrink after 2013, which i expect it probably will, we will find our difficulties in balancing the budget remain as chronic as they are now. this is not because we spend too much to defend ourselves. >> it may be archaic for some of you, but let me come back to something you said a moment ago. all one it is segue from u2 david brody first. what is good to happen about politics over the next couple of years as we try to write this next chapter.
we are at the halfway point of president obama's first term. we are just weeks away from a whole bunch of folks starting to line up and declare they are running for the white house. most all of them are going to be republicans. >> probably starting in march, you'll see some candidates get in like newt gingrich. you'll see tim pawlenty get in. sarah pailin is an open question. i think what you will see as relates to the republican field, i think there is an evangelical primary and a businessman primary. you have people like pukka be -- huckabee, mike pence, and some
other folks who will compete for the evangelical vote. they knew at the businessman primary. -- then you will have the businessman primary. i think as it relates to where the president may have missed that, most people will agree that this is a center-right nation. i do not know too many people who would disagree with that. you have a center-right nation and you have a president who went ahead and pass legislation related to health care. he was trying to shoehorn something. i think it woke up people -- it will cut these tea party people who were sitting on their couch
watching oprah and going to get a hot pocket. they were watching "all my children." [laughter] >> i am glad you said that. oprah was about to tweet you in about 30 seconds. [laughter] [applause] >> you are wrong about one other thing which is the center-right country. that is what i mean. the conventional wisdom kind of congeals and people begin to believe it. this country has been on a journey for a more perfect
union from the moment the constitution was written. every bit of progress we have made, they were all left-wing in his it is in a center-right nation? -- they were all left-wing ideas in a center-right nation? you are giving every progress that ever happened to the left. [applause] >> i think the polls bear some of this out. >> what impact -- you talk to the tea party tonight. we sell the impact in their -- in the midterm elections. what you think the and that will be in the presidential election? >> as it relates to the house of
representatives, they will make john boehner's live a real problem. he has 43 or so house republicans that are tea party yeariers. >> are you saying the deep -- the republican party made a deal with the double in the tea party? >> no. >> i am not being flippant. did the republican party make a deal with the devil with the tea party. they wanted these people to take over the house in november. >> here is the thing. they were with the tea party on the overall philosophy. they attended hundreds of tea
party events. to do a deal with the tea party -- it was there for the taking. the difference is in ideological purity. the tea party was ideological purity in the sense of constitutional roots and going back to the first principles. john boehner and mitch mcconnell are up there to cut a deal were to work on getting legislation passed. it is a much stiffer reality. >> -- it is a much different reality. >> this is always true. there's always a tension between what you have to do for your party to win the election and what you actually do when you are elected. a colleague was giving a speech in 2007 in which he talked about global warming and dealing with
the problem. the was a very intelligent and well informed person. this is going to be used to torment and torture him. this is a very difficult thing for him to get past. ms. romney is a very effective executive. he would make a fine, center- right executive. he supported tarp. the is like mr. death-panel now. we saw what just happened in the past 34 hours with tim pawlenty. the was the former governor of minnesota. he is a civic minded person. he is now saying it is going to
be a priority of this to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." david trimble is making eight -- >> >> you are making my case. if i am barack obama, i am thinking about your analysis right now. i am thinking myself, you cannot be somebody without nobody. >> i want to put that on record. >> that somebody is going to be somebody. i am thinking about who they are going to put up here. i am also say to myself, you do
not have anywhere to go. what are you going to do? [laughter] quite bear witness, brother. >> we have two years now. it is very clear that the two- party system is broken. you have both parties that are dominated by the same interests -- corporate and big business. you have physiological and racial groups that are relatively powerless. that can be the makings of a faction of we do not begin to come to terms with this. on the other hand, it also means the tea party is going to become more and more upset with the establishment and the republicans because the business
interests are getting more attention. at the same time, barack obama masterful, eloquent, charismatic in his language, in his policy -- you cannot bring in a geithner and call him martin luther king. he was anti militarism. he was against the american empire in terms of this -- of the presence around the world undermining the principle. that is why when he died, 75% of people were against them. he was to left-wing. when you love working people that much, that makes you the
most feared man in the country. you are also the biggest threat to both the republican and democratic parties. i can only call for it because i do not control history. the whole system has a rottenness running through it. [unintelligible] we are still working on this thing together. >> what is martin saying every day he wants in? >> what makes you think the war in afghanistan does not have the same set up as vietnam?
the problem is this -- these are part of the lines of the mainstream. people have reached the conclusion that barack obama is the fulfillment of king's dream. that is not true. [applause] it is a fulfillment of king's drain, he is not the fulfillment of king's dream. [applause] not just black people, martin was that kind of a dreamer. we have to be honest. >> if you get back and look at what the president of the campaign manager wrote about the campaign -- it was a campaign of audacity. in that book, you see again and again they talk about the middle-class.
they talked about the people being told there is a very clear foundation to the campaign. there are two quotes. the president said, "our task is to constantly widen the circle so that we bequeathed the american dream to future generations." that is what cornel is talking about. that is what america has always been about. including more and more people. this has to be a share, a national agenda. [applause] the second part is from fdr. the is releasing the same thing
in different words. he is saying debt of our whether we provide enough for those who have nothing. when newt gingrich gave his first speech in 1994, he said that fdr was the greatest american president. was the right or left? we need to stop this debate conversation. i was in brazil recently. i interviewed the conservative president of july. -- chile. he said his greatest priority was in an aching poverty in chile.
you have the conservatives this policies were more progressive. why? because they realize you cannot have a successful, a thriving country if you have people falling out of the middle class. [applause] >> if you notice, tavis, both cornell and i danced around your question. there is nothing they can do about it. tuck with this president. they are going to support him. there were not be any serious challenges to the president. -- there will not be any serious challenges to this president. at the same time, you see the
potential for some real fratricide in the republican party. i think it is fair to say that this president reached his low point on november 3 and the republicans to reach their high point. -- and the republicans reached their height point. we are looking at the 2012 election with a 2010 mind-set. once they added millions of jobs and people are feeling better, it becomes a very different equation. you have a more satisfied electorate, at a less angry electorate. quite the thing that is likely to happen? >> of course. you never know what is likely to occur. >> where are these jobs coming from? >> last month we added 100,000
jobs. >> there are massive amounts of foreclosures in the pipeline and massive amounts of shadow inventory. >> if the economy does not broke, all bets are off. >> if my hon. had went to college, he would be my aunt. [laughter] the economy is not improving in a way where working people and the middle-class -- larry summers has convinced the president that the economy had turned around. larry summers has convinced the president that when et came to the midterm elections, unemployment would be down to 8%.
i remember being with them on a television show. he said there would be growth in the spring like chancey gardener. [laughter] >> all this conversation does is take us back to the issues. i want to press this once more. for those who support president barack obama when he ran, who bought into this hope and change, to believe things were going to get better and that there was another way, why should we believe that anything is going to get better if you have nowhere to go on the one hand, and on the other hand,
this is divided government means there is going to be more compromise, or capitulation, anything to get points on the board. you are not going to get what you thought you're going to get. you do not have anywhere to go anyway. what are you going to get for the next two years? >> you are absolutely right. the is much to let you down. he is going to betray you. i would also say, i was there for conversations like this in 1982 with ronald reagan. what conservatives thought of ronald reagan in 1982 -- he is a
sellout, he is not delivering. presidents are compromises. that is what the political system does. you take what you can get and decide what you like a little bit more. it goes back to my point about judging these things by the wrong metrics. people need to understand the way people do their work in the assembly. the people who will make john boehner's life a misery, -- if he is able to bend the curb on government spending, prevent tax increases, major new regulations are not imposed -- those will be used tryouts. if the does by what any
reasonable definition is a huge tryouts, people will see him -- people will see him as a sellout. >> we get so caught up in barack obama acting as an independent to get the presidency. what this is about is the message, whatever that message is. it people believe his policies or not centered -- are not centered, he has to convince the american people that they make sense. the conversation of the ideas in this country -- that is what republicans will have to do to win the white house. whether be met ronnie, tim pawlenty, or whoever, they will have to get down and dirty and explain why free-market principles of the right place
for america. you cannot just go on talking points, you got to go deep in the playbook. explain it.o if you do not explain it, it will not work. >> we make the tea party as this use movement. they are the squeaky wheel. they did an excellent job of making sure that they put in the congress. it is not what barack obama is going to do for us, but the majority will hold barack obama accountable. it creates a space that make sure our representatives are ready to be accountable. i do not want to pick up my marbles and go home. it is our accountability to make sure we are putting pressure on our government. [applause] >> it is a powerful point.
i wrote a book on accountability. my question is, how do we hold the president accountable and help push him into greatness? specific in the black community -- and give you an example -- everybody knows that the most loyal constituency in the president's stage are black folks. they are the most loyal constituency. the enthusiasm, excitement about barack obama at two years ago brought people al that had never voted in their lives. he was on every black radio show. he was talking and begging black
people to vote for him in the midterm elections. what happened? all the excitement of two years ago disappeared even amongst the faithful. he needed them to do that to move forward his agenda. the excitement and the symbolism is not going to do it. iraq to accept it. but how do you do it for the next two years? >> i do not think this is going to be worked out in washington. i think we have too much faith in what people are doing around the country. it is important to talk about that. as i travel around the country promoting my book, i am asked again and again by the people who may have given up on politics, but they have not given up on progress.
they are using social media to come together. there are fascinating examples. a concierge in portland, ore., could not get another job. the brought together and other unemployed people -- unemployed lawyers and unemployed accountants were helping each other. they were taking their passions and their hobbies and turning them into a way to make a living. they are swapping things they have and they need. they are not talking about his role or promising it. it is not just what is happening in washington, but what is happening around the country. we are bringing these people to prominence and encouraging others to get involved.
for me, that is really the battle. there are forces of cheer and forces of tremendous economic anxiety. people are demonizing and turning on each other. >> once we perceive the limits of the electoral policy, people either disengage and just followed the weapons of mass destruction -- television, video, internet -- it is a world of make-believe. you organize poor working people, those who love them and what their situation to be
better, and put pressures on the political system. it is so broken that even the organization does not have and that, then we are in a world of problems. >> it reminds me of allen barnett. the first time people organized said they did he not want people to compare slaves in america to the people of israel. that is the blues. what they said was, do not think that just because you have been emancipated they will not come get you. do not think that because you elected a black president that after his eight years, we will not have more black residents. i am not just concerned with
black people, but i start there. what that means is, how do i deal with the desperation? do with their hopelessness? -- deal with their hopelessness? we almost lost it in the 1860's. >> if you go back to march 1965 and the famous meeting that dr. king had in the white house with lyndon johnson, lyndon johnson told him about the voting rights act. a. basically went al and staged the selma -- he basically went out and staged the selma march and then we had the voting rights act.
instead of constantly looking for the leaders in washington -- they are not there. [applause] >> to invoke john mccain for a moment on this stage, the straight talk here is the president has invested in political capital. you cannot just at an event. we had the beard summit. that was pretty much the media highlight in the first two years. it did not address anything as it relates to the african- american community. unless the president is going to invest political capital -- what happened to the responsible fatherhood initiative? that could have brought evangelicals from the moderate and conservative standpoint and the african-american community together on something like that.
it was pushed to the side. >> if you say that the highlight for black votes was the beer summit -- >> i am talking about the media perspectives. >> black folks celebrate the health care package and "don't ask, don't tell." i do not think that the black folks think that the highlight of the past two years was summit.beethe beer >> the media portrayed it as a black issue. health care was not proven as an issue for african-americans. >> tell me why, given all that
has happened since to the obama was elected -- the tea party, people showing up to rallies with guns, losing the house in november -- tell me why i should not believe that all of the top in this country about stability that this is not going to be the ugliest massive campaign for the white house in the history of this country. >> i would not be able to do it with any confidence. we just had an announcement this evening before we came up that democrats the republicans are going to sit together during the state of the union address. [laughter] >> are they going to hold hands?
>> hopefully they will hold hands. >> sing "kumbaya" and all that. >> it feels like these might be different. just from experience, i find it hard to believe that will occur. i did a column recently on the person in charge of the budget for house republicans. he wanted to take it and litigate it in the next election. we every state point where everybody has basically given up on the hope that they can stop each other from doing anything. there is not much they can do. they cannot actually achieve anything affirmative so they have given up and are throwing themselves into a bitter, nasty campaign. >> i want to check back in about a year, david frum, and ask you
the same question. democrats and republicans are saying this is not about republicans and democrats, we are all americans. tell me why i should not believe this will not be the ugliest, nastiest, maybe even the most racist campaign for the white house ever. >> you are going to have 55% to 57% of the population of voting. when you have a bigger electric, you have a less partisan electorate. i struggled in 2008. it was a personal election. not everything is controlled by the campaign organization. there was a lot of restraint shown.
mccain should have sent signals about barack obama's race. that did not happen. it did not happen partly because of the character of the people involved. john mccain is a man of very high character. pragmatic strategist working for both parties will not work. negative advertising, especially on the democratic side where you grab younger voters, negative campaigning is going to be counter indicated for years. all the republican side, if anything has any a trickle -- any attributable, that will be radioactive. they will be super careful about it. >> there are a number of people in this country that have
alluded to this conversation that if between now and the election in 2012, the job picture in this country turns around massively -- we do not think that is going to happen -- but if it changes significantly, barack obama will win. people say that because we vote our personal interests. it the economy turns around, there is some reason to believe barack obama will be reelected. do you believe that, number one? and, is there anything related to the meeting with china this week that the president can do to aid and abet that particular effort? >> first off, i now understand the definition of moderate. [laughter]
that said, if the jobs it turned around dramatically and any history of any regime has told us that the president -- that the present administration will continue. it will be easier to talk about the future than bringing up the past. that, i think, favors the incumbent in this case. if i were in the administration, the most important thank for american business -- american business does over 50% of revenue in general. this is now the biggest country with a fixed economy.
our issue is, we do not always think that way. i'll put it in simple terms. we have to make sure we leave the invitation open. in order to do so, we need to reciprocate. we also need to help them to create more jobs. right now, policy lies an attitude lies on both sides, it is preventing free [unintelligible] our allies are getting their fair share plus some more. the first thing i would do if i was president obama is to make sure we have sell policies to open up the markets, selling policies to integrate ourselves -- sound policies to open up the
markets and sell policies to integrate ourselves. we decided we're going to buy all the solar panels made in the united states. that is not the most helpful thing. we may be buying solar panels from france. i think we should let the product and the technology and the pricing and the market when. -- market win. >> i believe it will be about the economy. if the market turns, it will be a shoe in. -- shoo-in. people who are operating businesses are feeling that they had a lot of expenses coming out because of health care. they are unclear about the
regulatory environment. they do not know how deregulation will look. they have new regulations coming at them. that is keeping them handcuffed in terms of adding new heads into the payrolls. that will be an issue for the president. 50% of all mortgages are under water. we need to see policies in place that will encourage businesses to create jobs. the extension of the tax-cut plan could be a game changer for entrepreneurs. small business managers who may see it as a positive to create new jobs -- >> it is a purely political, partisan point of view -- if marie and john r. wright that this election could turn on the -- if maria and john r. wright,
this election could turn on -- john are right, this election could turn on the economy. >> my biggest concern is not that. my biggest concern is this white house is prioritizing jobs. i am writing a column -- >> you are telling me that the white house still does not get that it is jobs, jobs, jobs? >> if you go back to the last state of the union, he actually said, "jobs are going to be my primary focus." that was the last state of the union. that is for me, the fundamental problem.
the white house is not looking at the urgency of the job market. i was hoping there would be somebody coming to the white house to single-minded priority was the creation of jobs. when i say that, i mean that there are so many tools in the toolbox we have not used. we have changed from something small -- right now, we are not allowing foreigners to come into this country with ideas and money to create jobs because of this instinctive anti- immigration visa. -- view. >> if we believe the situation for working people has the same sense of urgency and sang state of emergency -- the same state
of emergency -- that is a state of emergency. what if we really believe that the situation is a matter of national security as it is in afghanistan? >> americans have such intelligence and ingenuity, the public sector and private sector will come together and say the future of american democracy depends on treating people with dignity. >> it is more than just jobs. i do not think a turnaround in the job market is necessarily a shoo-in for the president. people want to feel the freedom and the independence and the aspiration to move out the economic ladder that they
believe america can provide. >> how will they do that if they do not have a job? [applause] i am not being very simplistic, but i have two daughters in college. so many other friends are graduating and they cannot get jobs. [applause] these are kids to read all the right things. they went to college. they are graduating from college. that is the sense we need to bring to our national conversation. >> as you mentioned, one of the biggest issues that president obama has in his back pocket to stimulate the economy right now, today, is immigration. the way you do it is you have individuals who can actually compete on the global scale in the technology sector, but you also bring out people that raised the level where they are
competing for fair wages. these individuals have to pay taxes to ensure that they have a path to citizenship. we talk about the dream act. it allows citizenship for individuals who have graduated high school who are ready to go to college or go into the military. we are the only country that thinks about deporting a valedictorian. that is absurd. [applause] there is the issue of national security. we actually need to know who is living within our borders. we do not know right now. >> we have one minute to go. you and i talked often over the years about the difference between optimism and hope. we have to write this next chapter, even for those who have
no reason to be optimistic. there is something we can see, feel, or touch the issue a reason to believe in hope. even when people are not optimistic, why after all this can we remain hopeful about our future as a country? >> because as a people, anyone who has not lived with despair has never lived. we are wrestling with despair in the midnight hour. i wrestled with despair everyday when i look at people's situations. i do not hate these folks. i know they are doing all right.
rselves for being a part of this. -- by thee in late way, thank george washington for having us -- and missed any part of this, next week over three nights parts will repeat on pbs. 18, 19, and 20 of january. god bless you. have a safe ride home. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
continues. host: want to introduce you to michael fitzpatrick, the executive director of the national alliance on mental illness. our goal is to discuss some of the mental health laws and issues in the united states today. michael fitzpatrick, if we could, let's start with the national alliance on mental illness? guest: it is an organization that was formed largely by families originally predicted it is now a very diverse
organization that focuses on the needs of people with serious mental illness. host: given the current laws and what happened in tucson, could jared loughner had been stopped from purchasing a gun or been treated at some point given what we have learned about him over the last week or so? guest: arizona has one of the broadest civil commitment laws in this country. it is very easy to get someone evaluated in arizona. the standard for getting someone before and mental health professional is actually a broader and simpler process. mr. jared loughner could have been evaluated by a crisis program. host: in arizona?
guest: in arizona. the college police could of called in a crisis team to evaluate him. at some point, the university could of taken that responsibility. we see this incident as a failure to intervene early and a failure to get treatment to mr. jared loughner when he needed it. we understand that universities and community colleges are very busy. they see hundreds of thousands of students every day, but this -- he was involved in the campus police five times, numerous instructors knew he was having significant mental health problems. in arizona, it is relatively easy to pick up the phone and ask for intervention. host: where about his parents? he was 18 years old. guest: we are not clear of the role of his parents.
the reality is, at any given day, half of the people in this country who have mental health problems received no treatment. the lack of knowledge -- in some cases, parents, friends, and acquaintances have no idea what they are seeing. again, if they understand is a mental health problem, they have no idea where to get treatment. host: we have talked about this during our last segment, where you draw the line. let's say the professor had called this mental health team. what if this was an eccentric student who asked all the questions? at what point -- you know where i am going with this question. guest: part of the challenge in this country is a cultural one. very few people grow up with a
psychiatrist. the issue is really early intervention, getting people help when they need it. there is a line. you do not want to have people evaluated all brought into the system prematurely or unnecessarily. when you see situations like this, you see missed opportunities at a number of points of being able to intervene early and get this individual and help. host: michael fitzpatrick is our guest, the executive director of the national alliance on mental on this. ron is a democrat from vermont. caller: good morning. i was just wondering, if there are millions and millions of people undiagnosed with mental
illness, why are there not exponentially more shootings? all want to say is stolen and hitler also agreed that gun- control works. i really have a problem with restricting gun laws. host: if you would, take that and tie it to mental illness and the purchase of guns. guest: there are two answers to that. the vast majority of people with mental health problems are not violent. having said that, there are horrific incident that we all know about. there is a lot in this country that requires the reporting of individuals to the fbi, a national background check system. in this case, it would not reject it would not have
impacted mr. jared loughner because he had never been evaluated. the issue for us is not gun control, per say. the issue is to identify and get people into treatment early when they need it before these incidents occur. host: if someone has been institutionalized, are they allowed to purchase a gun? guest: under the laws, their name should be reported to the fbi. they would be stopped from purchasing a gun. postcode do you think people who have mental onus should be allowed to purchase a gun? guest: the challenge is getting people into treatment. our concern would be, whether it is policeman, returning veterans, or individuals treated for mental health and recover, they would be stopped from purchasing a gun.
the current law that we have in place, if implemented, is restrictive enough. again, it is not guns. it is early intervention, getting people into treatment when they need it, and having a degree of public discourse in this country or individuals like the jared loughner family, neighbors, acquaintances, and friends understand mental on this. host: minnesota, carol is on our republican line. caller: good morning. i have a lot of questions to ask about this. number one, the fact that this very, very mentally disturbed person shot a gun when he was under the influence of drugs,
which i understand it to be marijuana. i would like to know if you could talk more about that and how people with drugs. i think you are missing the point that a lot of the shootings -- i don't know if there are studies on this, but have these people been on drugs? were they on drugs because of their mental illness? with using drugs like marijuana, cocaine, whatever? guest: if you look back at the number of incidents that have occurred in this country, in many cases, the individuals were just very, very ill. if you combined psychosis with substance abuse, there is a heightened risk of danger. as i said earlier, the research indicates over and over again, the typical person with mental bonus in this country is no more prone to dangerous than the
average citizen. having said that, if you combined mental onus, psychosis, with substance abuse, there is a higher risk. there is a number of people in this country with serious mental illness who have no insight into their mental illness, so there is a challenge to get them the treatment they need. what you need is a more pro- active system that intervenes early. host: as far as treating mental on this, what has the past 10 years brought this country? guest: i think it has brought a realization of what treatments work. there is a general understanding of what the ideal system would look like. if you look in 2009, during the recession in this country, i can give you a couple of examples. after virginia tech, the governor and the assembly passed legislation that brought as much
as $43 million into the system to build up the system and make it more accessible and more robust. since then, because of the recession, most of that money has been cut because of the realizations of states and counties to run the mental health systems in this country. arizona has the same problem. we do it report periodically of all of the states in this country. arizona had a 'c' last time. much of that money has been cut since then. that is part of the challenge in this country, making state and local governments accountable to the systems that they develop. citizens need to reach out to during times of difficulty. host: a federal law for health insurance parity for mental onus -- is that correct?
guest: the parity of law from february of last year, the regulations were promulgated. we anticipate over time, millions of americans who currently do not have access to mental health care because they can't afford it or because their health insurance companies are denying them coverage, will have insurance to allow them to buy mental health services the same way you would buy services for any sort of medical condition. we think it is a game changer and make a tremendous impact on velocipede boat in this country. host: according to the national alliance of mental illness, over 50% of students with a mental disorder drug out of high school. one-half of all lifetime cases of mental illness began by age 14. --
how do you get that figure? guest: is staggering. these are federal figures. host: where does it come from? guest: the impact of untreated mental on this ripples across the workforce, families, ripples across having to spend money on jails and prisons in the communities across the country, homeless shelters, so it touches all parts of the community. on treatment onus is devastating for this country. the tragedy is we know what works and we know if you get someone into treatment, they can return to their lives in their community, and people can begin to spend the money in their
communities the right way. host: david, please go ahead with your question. caller: good morning. it is nice to be on c-span. i have a little bit of experience with mental health issues because my wife suffers. my major question is, you have to be a danger to yourself or others before you can be committed. it took a long time after i realized my wife was mentally ill until she was able to be committed and get some help. now, i am unemployed and she does not have health insurance, but fortunately, we have caring people who make her medication possible to be afforded. my main point is we should figure out another way to have people committed before they
become violent. that just does not make any sense to me. thank you. guest: you make a tremendous point. i have two thoughts. i hear about your situation and think people around the country with serious mental on this are being cared for by their families. it is very important -- education is important. that is an essential issue. the issues are around commitment have been talked about for years and years in this country. the standards in pennsylvania are the standards in many states. i know many states have talked about broadening of the loss. as i said earlier, the arizona outlaws are very broad. a person can be committed to be dangerous to themselves or others or persistently disabled
war on willing and unable to accept treatment. the challenge for us in arizona was that you had both inpatient and outpatient capacities, and no one used it. it is really two things. this is a robust discussion in every state. i think of the arizona incident will bring this forward. also, pay attention to finding those necessary early intervention services to get people treated when they need a. it takes years and years for people even with the most serious mental honest to find a treatment that they need it. host: yesterday in the wall street journal, the founder of the treatment advocacy center wrote an op-ed to come at a predictable tragedy and arizona
-- an op-ed, "a predictable tragedy in arizona." do you agree with that? guest: i think it was a disaster. what we find is if we fast-track it to 2011, much of the money spent on state hospitals is now spent on prisons and jails. the specifics you talked about earlier in terms of juvenile facilities being populated with a very high percentage of children and adolescents with mental health diagnoses. if you look at the jails, in prisons, you will find it is significant population of people who have very significant mental bonus diagnoses. you can build a community system. we know how to do it. there needs to be a will.
in this country, it is too scattered. we have to find the necessary services. you need continuity over time, accountability for government to fund the necessary services that work for people. host: you are not a fan of state hospital systems. guest: one of the challenges we have since 2009, 4000 inpatient beds have been done away with in the country. you need access to inpatient beds. we see people stacked up in emergency rooms who need to be admitted to care. they then transitioned to the community, and too often the system is not there to treat them. host: laura, you are on with michael fitzpatrick.
please go ahead. caller: i really want to thank you all. this is a major issue i feel it is behind what happened in tucson, the lack of any follow up and medical treatment for this young man. i have experience, like the color and pennsylvania, my husband, in and out of the west virginia mental health system, because he does have some income, although he is now qualified and competent but those over $60,000 in medical bills. it is $750 a day when you are committed to our state mental hospital, so he is right now in a facility in ohio that is a therapeutic community.
he is doing the best he has ever been doing. in shows the difference in treatment. when he has come back out into the community, there is no follow-up care. he goes back onto his medications and start drinking, etc. he has had a lot of animosity toward public officials. that lack of anybody at that college, you know, making any recommendations or follow ups, letting him fall through the cracks, something like this could be averted in the future if people could keep their eye out on individuals like this. host: we will leave it there. michael fitzpatrick? guest: absolutely. i think your situation, unfortunately, in too many communities is the norm these days. it is too hard to find the treatment that you need it.
my heart goes out to you. it is unfortunate that we hear these stories too often. we need to continue to educate college officials, police -- they are on the front lines in these cases treatment on this appears in many cases between the ages of 18 and 22 or 23. we need to be more proactive to get that early intervention. " the next call comes from baltimore, our democrat line. caller: good morning. i like to thank god for 30 seconds of the c-span microphone to be able to say what i am going to say. i think if anybody can hear me,
we need to invest -- since we have been talking about investing in solar power and electric cars, why can't we get some people together and create some jobs for non-lethal? if it was non-lethal plasma gun, or if we could create electric guns, to shock a person and he is in a coma for two and three days, but as far as shooting somebody's head off, i think that is crazy. my question to you, though, you have columbine, virginia tech, and there is probably going to be another one. i live in an urban neighborhood and we are tired of guns. we would rather place and our guns with education and books. host: any response for the
caller? guest: i think the issues -- i sound like a broken record, but really getting treatment to people when they need it. when people become isolated, they become very ill, they are not treated or medicated, they are not in the mental health system, no one knows, there are times when we run into situations when horrific incident occurred. we need to take responsibility in this country to give services to people who need it. we know which services are affected. host: they paranoid schizophrenic is obvious, someone who is depressed, and an alcoholic. is that guest: in many cases it is. the when you go back and looked but horrific incident, you can point to the fact that people
have said to my new they were very ill. i knew they needed help. mental illness scare people. there is a lot of mythology around it. and we need to make getting treatment for mental illness really as simple as a cardiac problem or a broken arm. the reality is that mr. leffler was essentially thrown out of loughner was- mr. klausne thrown out of school for this behavior. he should have been evaluated. host: next phone call from rick. caller: i am mentally ill and i was once admitted to the psych ward in chicago. i made a verbal threats and i was serious. if i would not have been in the
sideboard, -- syed wardak i would have been in trouble. because -- if i would not have been in the psych ward i would have been in trouble because i made threats. host: and you said that you meant it. caller: yes, because i felt it. i became irritable and aggressive and the next thing you know, i started thinking these thoughts. i told the doctor and the doctor let me get out of the psych ward. host: are you under treatment right now? caller: have a mental health nurse and doctor i am in contact with everyday. and host: are you medicated? caller: yes. host: prescription drugs, deneen. caller: yes. host: you are living in florida now. are you happy with the care
there? caller: i am at the v.a. psych ward. it is in the -- it is the best in the world. host: was your diagnosis? caller: schizophrenic or bipolar. i can remember. host: thank you very much -- i cannot remember. host: thank you very much. guest: this is what we have been talking about. finding the treatment, the nurse, the medication, if necessary. sometimes it takes 10 years for people to find a treatment that will work. host: why is that? guest: a little bit to do with a pervasive stigma of around mental illness. it is hard for people to go forward and get treatment for the first time. sometimes it is the lack of the ability to pay for it. our expectations of the parity bill, and sometimes the language in legislation will help solve that.
the last piece is the availability of effective treatment. many states and counties have the treatment available and others, it is simply not. it is simply hard to find effective treatment that works. host: you said that you gave arizona a "c." who got an "a" or an "f?" guest: nobody got an a." the states that have shown leadership, who did that seesaw that i described where you invest millions of dollars and then spend the next three or four years the funding those programs, a number of states. we had a number of states that got "b's."
host: such as? guest: connecticut, wisconsin. there were a number of states. you can find a good mental health system in one county and move to the next county in the same state and find a system that does not look like the one you just left. host: michael fitzpatrick is the director of the national alliance on mental illness. in pennsylvania, kerry, good morning. caller: i am a part of a great organization for families. i urge anyone with a mental illness to join. at what i am calling about is a lot of the stuff that you have been talking about. for many years, has been and i mantelshelf line and the two problems that our -- manned the
health line and the two problems that our families had was a not getting enough help when someone recognized they were mentally ill. the other thing was housing. many times when some one estimate -- and up on the street, it is estimated that one-third of the homeless are mentally ill. we have been trying to get a patient treatment program in our police departments throughout the county. we are a very large county. ourawe are working to train police officers because many times, the first party that our mentally ill family members encounter are the police. and too often, it is not the fault of the police. they do not know how to handle a mentally ill person. we are moving forward quite well in our county with the program.
host: michael fitzpatrick. guest: absolutely, the police are the heroes as far as i am concerned, because they are on the front lines in dealing with people more and treated, and medicated -- and and medicated. it is very difficult to manage of many times. thank you for all that you do in helping to get police trained of and understand how to manage. as i said earlier, many states will look at their civil commitment laws. i think that is important in situations like this. it takes too long to get people into treatment, no question about it. there needs to be early intervention. it is dangerous of all particularly for the person with the mental illness. if someone is psychotic, not realizing they are ill and on the streets.
and finally, too often, when people are building their mental health programs, they forget that housing is what underpins the system. if you do not have a place to go that is affordable, safe, and something that you can live on potentially for the rest of your life, moving your to the community is not going to work. moving into a homeless shelter or a single occupancy room is not going to allow you to recover from mental illness. thank you for the work that you do. host: 3 quick e-mails. this is mike in minnesota.
guest: that is very powerful. host: + cruses, new mexico, bob, republican line. caller: gentleman, thank you for being there today. first of all, jaret, there is no excuse for his actions. he should be in jail for the rest of his life. and michael, asim thank you. you are not quite clean shaven enough, in my opinion, for a director. my question is, do you believe that shock or electronic,
chemical therapy is a sin? the reason i ask the question is because here in the loss chris as we have been ranked as one of the best cities in treatment. electroshock guest: there be, there is a large -- guest: electroshock therapy, there is a large body of research. for a number of people it has been a lifesaver. host: it is making a bit of a comeback. it was and is used in the 1950's and then outlawed in the 1960's as cruel and unusual and then it has come back into vogue, hasn't it? guest: recently, there have been a number of high-profile individuals that have come forward and said it made a difference. it is a treatment of a laugh -- last resort, but it has been a lifesaver. as for the beard, it is cold out. host: [laughter] and mr. fitzpatrick is from
maine. guest: that is right. host: next phone call. caller: i would like to know if being an atheist is considered a mental illness? host: why do you ask that question? caller: i just want to know. host: no. wausau, wisconsin. caller: i would like to know how much pharmaceutical money mr. fitzpatrick takes to promote drug in people. host: do you think he has been promoting drug in people? caller: yes, i do. i think a lot of the mental health system, their first knee- jerk reaction is to chemically restrain somebody. real-life problems are not solved by pills. host: thank you. guest: i would agree. and you would agree. medications are certainly a part of people's recovery. many people recover from mental illness from medication.
it is not part of many treatment programs. there are many that are. as i said, is housing, service centers, piehler centers -- peer centers. there are many programs that need to be available, as well as medications. host: you have an association with pharmaceutical companies? guest: national alliance for the mentally ill take some pharmaceutical monday as part of its budget, like a lot of health associations. -- pharmaceutical money as part of its budget, like a lot of health associations. host: do you promote certain medications? guest: never. host: do you believe it plays a part in the cures, i guess? guest: yes, i have said that medicines can be part of the equation in recovering from serious mental illness.
but there r other programs, housing -- but there are other programs, housing, and other treatment programs. host: melissa in illinois you are on the line with michael fitzpatrick. caller: i do not think there are a lot of people the realize just how bad it is with the mental health issues in this country. an example is my own situation. being unemployed for so long, i got really depressed in june and i attempted suicide. but instead of getting the treatment, they put me in the criminal-justice system and then finally, being court order to get help, of being unemployed there is nothing to help me get the help. now i am looking at going to prison if i cannot pay for my counseling. it is even more frustrating now. host: larry, have you been
diagnosed? caller: with depression, yes. i can see where a lot of people in this country are getting frustrated and people have -- and if people have a violent tendencies, it could make a lot of them worse. host: what is your advice to larry? guest: in many communities there are very effective practitioners. there are mental health centers, mental health clinics. paying for those treatments can be a challenge sometimes. hopefully, the new law will help with that. but i would connect those traders -- connect with those treaters and never isolate yourself. get involved. it is important that you stay engaged. host: mr. fitzpatrick, this is a tweet.
guest: there are many children that you find in schools that are learning disabled. some may have mental health issues, some may not. the important thing is to get an early diagnosis with a trained clinician to understand what the issues are and are not. host: denison, texas, go ahead, jackie, you are on the air. caller: my mother was a paranoid schizophrenic and i grew up watching this system work with her. what people do not realize is these family members of this young man, they are caught up in a nightmare. they are part of a crazy world. when someone in your family has paranoid schizophrenia, they do not recover. they have good days and bad days. the system is not there to keep them in treatment and housing.
they cannot stay with you all the time. but when they need it -- when they are ill they need housing. finally, the nursing homes is where these people and up. and these nursing homes, the best they can do is become a lockup unit. they are not qualified to take care of these people. host: we talked earlier about the old state hospital system. would you be in favor of that? caller: i would be in favor -- my mother was part of the old state hospital system. she had a partial lobotomy. she went through the shock treatments. as bad as those things are, they are better than having her out on the streets when you cannot take care of her, you cannot live with her. your a part of her nightmare. and until you get the medication and help for her, you are living in a nightmare that they have. you love them, but you become part of a dysfunctional family.
host: in your view, what has been the experience with the state of texas? caller: the state of texas is a disaster when it comes to mentally ill people. the way we would actually receive treatment after they passed laws so that i family cannot go and say, we need help, put her name institution until you get the medication to straighten her out, the only option is the emergency room. it has to be a big disaster. she has to create a scene and be a big problem before you can get help. then when you go to a behavioral health unit, it is good for 30 days. at the end of the 30 days they will win release that person whether they are losing -- whether they are hallucinating or not. host: thank you. she guest: talks about the reality for many people. -- guest: she talks about the reality for many people. there are many situations that,
as does not work. -- that the science does not work. tremendous not work for a variety of reasons. there needs to be an option of housing as well as staff and a facility that provides 24/7 care. we absolutely believe in that. what she describes in terms of having to get treatment for her mother in the emergency room and having to or through this area of having to talk about the dangers, whether they exist or not, just to get her in the hospital is a national tragedy. people should be able to get treatment when they needed. host: you say true be available, but it does not sound like jackie's mother would have committed herself. guest: right. host:, she needs to be committed. are the laws effective in the
states -- you talked about arizona as law, but what about other states? " jackie said, my mother is crazy or having a mental -- could jackie say, my mother's grave you're having a mental breakdown and have her committed? guest: in many states there is a dangerousness criteria. what it requires is a fair amount of tenacity and almost gaming the system. the reality again, and until we find a cure for mental illness, until the treatments become more robust, there is a subsection, a small group of people who are routinely very ill and have no insight into their illness. if you need a system that effectively cares for and provide treatment for those individuals. host: how did you get into this topic? guest: i have a family member
and i and also a social worker. by run mental health programs. i have been an elected -- i run mental health programs. i have been an elected official in my state. i have a professional interest and a personal interest. host: what percentage of families in the u.s. have family members that if mentally ill? guest: that is hard to quantify. let me give you an example. in the last few days i spent a fair amount of time talking to the media at all over the country. and three-quarters of the folks i talk to have said i have a grandmother or a mother or a brother that have a serious mental illness. and anytime you go into a public reception, people come to me and say, we know what you're talking about. i can mental illness is pervasive. we do not talk about it perhaps the way we should in this
country. it is something that affects a lot of people's lives. host: are the rates of mental illness and different in the states than they are in other countries? guest: think the rates are pretty similarly -- similar. culturally, how people deal with it is different. how they organize service what about the government has control over, how they tracked outcomes is different. remember in this country, we have local control. we have states and counties deciding what the mental health system should be and whether they should be built up or in this environment, it should be cut. host: and you think it should be federalized? guest: i think the federal yarmulka should have more control in terms of -- the federal government should have more control in terms of measuring outcomes. too often we find services that are not effective. but it gets back to what i said
earlier, untreated mental illness has an enormous impact across the community. we need to fund those services that are effective. host: last call for michael fitzpatrick in detroit. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i pray for the arizona sun -- senator and i do believe the killer was insane. however, i would like to know if you have any facts that are true about how many people have gone on social security for mental illness and how many of those you think are bogus claims, let's say, in the last 20 years just so that people could get money from the government and so the government could grow. host: we got your question. michael fitzpatrick, and the answer for that caller? guest: it is a tough question. one of the hardest things about social security for people with mental illnesses is getting them off of social security and going back to work. there are disincentives built
the s&p 500 is up about 25%. i think a stronger economy actually helps small businesses more than it helps large businesses. we are contributing to the stock market. edgers rates are higher because the news is better -- interest rates are higher because the news is better. i think the policy has helped. small business, which as we started off by saying, response to increased demand, market
share, and opportunity. again, one of the best things we can do is try to strengthen the overall economy. >> had gotten more optimistic about the economy? >> i certainly have. we started taking action in august. even though we made the announcements in november, the policies really started on august 10. since that time, -- at that time, the economy was looking somewhat shaky, frankly. we were quite concerned about the recovery and inflation and this kind of risks. we felt something needed to be done. i think we have seen some improvement. we are looking for a stronger recovery this year. we have seen some improvement in the labour market.
we are moving in the right direction. >> would you say it is more balanced now? >> in august, they were on the downside, now i think they have come back. there are many uncertainties in the world. financial markets are when we get to keep a close eye on. >> chairman bear, we kind of went over this -- bankers say they are open for business. small businesses say we cannot get credit. please comment on this? [laughter] >> i think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. regulators need to caution their reaction and strike the right tone. banks are more risk averse than they should be. the demand for credit has been down.
the truth is somewhere in the middle. we are encouraging banks. we want them to land. getting the economy going is going to strengthen the ability of them to land. >> senator warner, could you walk us through these next several months. this change like it will be dramatic in detail across the river. [laughter] >> in terms of issues of the debt ceiling and debt reduction, i know they are not primary issues, but they affect small business symbol happened there. chairman bernanke would not say this and politely, but he is basically saying to the congress we need to walk and chew gum at the same time.
we need to show we could do short-term stimulus. what is going to be critical to keep the economy going is to use monetary policy. we have to get part of our $2 trillion sitting on corporate balance sheets reinvested. some of the policies we took in december will help do that. i think it is important that the administration and business community top. i think we also have to put in place a meaningful debt reduction plan. saxby chambliss and i are working on taking the president's commission that got 11 out of 18 votes. it is not perfect by any means, but we will introduce that as legislation. it is put up or shut up time.
i think we will have a broad based plan that will say the single largest threat to our long-term economy is not thinking of the short-term challenges we face right now and getting our nation's balance sheet in order. that is going to take both sides. we will have dramatic cutbacks on spending. it will need meaningful tax reform. that is part of what simpson bowles did in lowering the rate. in certain cases, it creates the revolution we need. that does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 24% of gdp and revenue at 18% is not acceptable. i think you'll hear a lot more about it. it will not disappear. you do not want to play russian roulette with the world's economy.
time will prove that out. i trust you like a brother, but i am not going to share all the strategy. [laughter] >> i think you'll see broad bipartisan interest in not letting deficit reduction goal weight. it is harder to make the hard choices we have to make to put our nation on a state of balance. states are doing that. i had the opportunity to do that as governor of virginia. >> will you tell us what the business community wants when it comes to deficit reduction? >> it is the number-one issue. it is not way out there in the future, it is present. i think the last election cycle
demonstrated very clearly that there are a lot of people in this country, perhaps a significant majority, that things we have to more -- more government than we can afford. i have seen the issue raised up as the top three issues. i think the business community would like to see a significant restructuring of the tax system and the entitlement programs. the problem we have at the chamber with any issue like this is that many of our members at their own specific tax in accouterments that they rob them what to hang onto. [laughter] they all agree we have to do something, just do not do anything that affects me. this is the first time the chamber has taken the position as an organization and our
members are generally answering to us. we have to elected state significant restructuring of how we derive the revenues we derive and we had to get our spending down below 20%. that is about all you are going to get up -- out of tax revenue is 20% of gdp. there has to be a balance in there. >> if i look at, for example, lowering the corporate tax rate, you have to raise the taxes on half the corporations. it is neither a democrat or republican issue. it is a bipartisan issue. senator warner, is that one of the things? >> we are at 35. we need to bring it down closer to 25. there are going to be some winners and losers. i think the only way to get their is with a bit of shared sacrifice from everybody.
the concern i have is why -- while deficit reduction is in the top three, the notion of raising the retirement age two years over a 40 year time frame -- eight workers per retiree 50c does not want to touch that. the public does not want to touch medicare. we have got to have a little more truth. we will not get this done unless the business community is saying, we are in for our share of the hard choices as well. >> i want to get back to the small business issue. my thoughts are on the deficit changes there. the one issue that kept coming up was the issue of real estate as collateral -- that in the
environment of uncertainty surrounding values, i would like to leave here with the sense that something could be done on this issue that it is a role for the fed or a government -- or other government services to resolve that issue. >> on the margin, you could do some things. you can work with the appraisals. one of the issues with real- estate is that in a stressed environment, sometimes the appraisals come in very low. that will affect the collateral value. the agencies in december issued a new issue that copper bulls was not what she wanted to look at, you had to look at everything.
better appraisals as one thing that can be done. until the real estate markets recover, which will take a while still, the only way around this is to make loans that do not rely on collateral for repayment. that means you have to do the hard work of getting into the prospects of the business, the cash flow. you should not be making -- you should not be rejecting loans because of the geography or some category. you have to look at each individual and take of his actual process and make a decision. collateral is a way to make a loan without doing much work. the only way to make loans is going to be doing the work. >> chairman, did the bankers did that? [laughter] >> i think some of them forgot how to do it.
they think they are more high- tech lenders. they have more knowledge of their borrowers. they have gotten stronger to about the crisis. with those decisions, they have better relationships with their borrowers. i welcome it. we would get better asset quality. >> we are in the last two minutes. >> we have been urging the regulators if the value is down, it does focus between a rock and the park -- and a hard place. one of the things we are also saying is that with the massive
consolidation of the larger banks, you have teams that are white alkali in committees. the connection between the borrower and the banker has been so distorted that it really is a longer-term opportunity for the community banks. i do not think we will completely be able to find the community and the community banking system alone. >> there is and unaddressed loan-loss embedded in the banking community for religious -- real-estate that has not been addressed. i ran a public real-estate investment trust for eight years. it has not been addressed. if we want to get the stuff out of the system and get it into secondary hands, you have to create a r.t.c. tax structure. they want to make a profit. they want to make money. mud -- some might bats and lose
money, but some will make bets and make money. some people are going to get rich, some other people will lose money. >> we have to wrap it up. we could go for another half an hour. the original design of the talk was that purpose. please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the report on homelessness in america. in about 40 minutes, former minnesota 10 pawlenty on his political future and his new book. one washington journal this morning, the -- we will see how the democratic base seized
president obama's priorities. we will also be joined by the founder and president of the media research center. we will look at the state of the automobile industry with david welch of bloomberg business week. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this week's report from the national alliance to end homelessness says the homeless population has increased by 3%. the recession has been a contributing factor to the homeless rate, which is highest in california, florida, and nevada. this is 40 minutes.
release of state of homelessness in america. i am nan roman president of the national alliance to >> we plan for this to be an annual report. homelessness has gone up or down since the last year's report. and what the economic and demographic causes of homelessness look like over that same period. we'll answer these questions both nationally and for each state. typically when we think about homelessness we focus on homelessness programs and homelessness assistance as being responsible for whether the number of homeless people goes up or down. homelessness assistance is definitely part of the equation but the other part is larger outside drivers like unemployment andousing costs. and this report really focuses on those economic factors. state of homelessness shows that
homelessness which had been declining over the past few years went up between 2008 and 2009. and that this increase was associated with the economic recession. the total number of homeless people was 656,129 and that was up 3%. also pulations of homeless people went up. however, families went up most, about 4%. the number of chronically homeless people went up less than 1%. just a note about theata that we used for the homeless numbers, we used data from counts that communities submit to hud. the data are not perfect but we examine them carefully and ty are adjusted where we find problems with them. although not without limitations, we think that the data do present a valid picture of what's going on in terms of homelessness in amica. the homelessness went up -- this is probably not a surprise to anyone given the recession. we looked at several economic
factors that are associated with homelessness to see what happened to them during the period. unemployment, unemployment, of course, is up some 60% more people were unemployed during the period we looked at. incomes, low wage worker incomes were down abo 2%. that's twice as much as the rate of workers incomes fell overall in the country. housing, the number of people who were low income and doubled up went up 12% over the period we looked at. people who become homeless were often doubled up before they became homeless. so this has obviously appearance big effect. the number of severely hng cost burdened households which are low-incomed households that are paying more than 50% of their income -- more than half of their income for their rent went up 9% so these housing factors also have an impact on e number of homeless people.
so the national picture is that the economy did poorly especially for low-incomed people and as a result, homelessness went up. while the national picture is clear, the picture in the states varies. in some places the number of homelessness went up and some went down. in 19 of the states homelessness went down and in the majority of the states, 27, homelessness went down among chronically homeless people. similarly the economic causes of homelessness did not behave consistently. in some states the factors got worse and other places they got better. or theicture was mixed that was re typical. we did find that states had the most sns of economic distress were the states that had the biggest increases in homelessness. so if you hear locally or talk to local communities that say that their numbers went up substantially more than 3%, that wouldn't be a surprise. also, it says we said it's true that in some communities, the
numbers actually went down during this period. but melessness did get worse nationally because of the recession. and it's important to remember that these data are comparing '09 with 2008. this was early on really before some of the interventions that later emerged to help prevent recession related homelessness kicked into gear. it's also important to remember that homelessness is a lagging indicator. people don't become homeless on the day they lose their job. it typically takes a while for that happen so the pressure is not yet off. we anticipate that there could be continued increases in 2010 and 2011. on the other hand, the good news really is that the number could have been a lot worse. what's been happening in communities to forestall a recession-reted increase in homelessness what have people been doing? in a lot of places, the number of homeless people went down
during this period so communities are to be congratulated for improving their homeless systems, for redouble their efforts for investing wisely in solutions. those things can obviously work and did work. an example of this was the big crease in permanent support of housing during the period. the result of which was that the chronic homeless numbers did not go up at all, barely at all. since this report, comnities d the federal government have continued to take steps to try to prevent homelessness increases. communities are focus in prevention and getting people into housing faster and the federal government has stepped up with a $1.5 billion federal stimulus program and rapid rise program. it also passed the heather act authored by senator reed who's going to join us that funds action oriented activities and these are upcoming but these resources are not adequate to meet all of the projected needs nor will they probably last long
enough. so we'll be discussing a little later what can be done to prevent furtr increases in homelessness. i now would like to introduce bill sermons. bill is the author along with pete witty who's also here of the report and he is the director of the homelessness research institute which is the research arm of the national alliance to end homelessness and he's going to tell you a little bit more about what's in the repor report. >> thanks, nan. and thanks everybody in atteance today. you should have all found copies of the report in your seats. the binder -- or the folder that you have has a copy of the full report. and what you'll find inside is a report that consists of three main chapters. the first chapter looks at 2009 levels and 2008 to 2009 changes in overall homelessness and for individuals for the nation and
each state. recognizing the impact of housing affordibility and income on homelessness, the second chapter looks at 2009 levels and changes from '08 to '09 in four economic factors and factors, the number of unpeople the number of households below of the poverty line that pay half their income on households, average real incomes of working poor people and the number of residential units in foreclosure. these measures are reported nationally and also for each state. further recognizing another truth about homelessness that some specific groups of people are at increased risk of experiencing homelessness, chapter 3 looks at the 2009 levels and '08 to '09 changes in the sizes of four specific groups. these are low-incomed people who are doubled up, that is living with family and friends for economic reasons. young adults who have aged out of foster care,eople
discharged from jail or prison and people without health insurance. these indicators are all reported against nationally and at the state level. as i move into presenting some additional findings from the report i'd like to acknowledge the very hard work of pete witty, my co-author and has katherine and shaun. it's an honor to be able to present our team's work today. nan provided an overview of the major findings in the report particularly at the national vel. and i won't repeat those here but i'd like to highlight some additional findings including some insightsnto some of the state level data. nan mentioned in her introduction that while the nations saw an incase in overall homelessness, the individual states point decreases. and this is the wide variability across states and also in individual communities. by contrast, one thing that stood out when we were looking at the economic data was the relative consistent worsening of
the economic circumstances across states. between 2009 -- 2008 and 2009, the number of unemployed people increased in all states. the number of doubled-up low-incomed people increased in 45 states. the number of units in foreclosure increased in 42 states and the number of severely housing cost burdened households increased in 40 states. the ubiquity of the increases across states points to the widespread economic pressures faced by filies experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. and to the demands on the systems that serve them. the first three chapters focus on homelessness and the economic and demographic factors that i talked about separately. chapter 4 looks at the economic and demographic factors in their relationship to the measures of homelessness that are in the report. a review reveals a handful of states, states like florida and nevada and california have rates of unemployment, cost burden,
doubling up, lack of insurance, all worse than the national averages. and so not surprisingly, all of these states also have high rates of homelessness and ty also have changes from 2008 to 2009 well above the 3% national increase. the report goes oto identify additional states with multiple high or worsening economic and demographic factors as well. lastly, the report combines 12-month shelter use data from hud with data on doubled-up people, young adults who age people, young adults who age out foster care and people discharged from prison and estimates that all three of those populations have annual odds of experiencing homelessness of 1 in 11 or greater. these relatively high odds speak clearly to the need to address these and other high risk groups and efforts to end homelessness.
an appendix in the back of the record provides specifics about the data used in this report which relies most heavily on the 2008, 09 january point in time counts conducted by over 450 communities across the country and reported to hud. and on the census bureau 2008 and 2009 american community survey microdata. sources also include foreclosure data from realty track, unemployment data from the bureau of labor statistics and data on prison releases and foster care emancipations from the departments of justice and health and human services respectively. sources using the report represent the most recent available nationa data. newer national data on homelessness and most of the indicators will be available toward the end of this year. i want to close with a little bit of background. two year ago, weeleased a report called homelessness
counts, changes in homelessness from 2005 to 2007. the second in the homelessness count series. at that time, we were in the midst of a major ecomic downturn tt was ultimately declared the recession of 2007 to 20. because of the economic services at that time, the question that most people wanted answered was, what will this recession mean for homelessness? and while we knew anecdotally that many homelesservice providers across the country were reporting increased demands for services and unemployment wod lead to increased poverty and lead to increased homelessness there was no archive of national annual homeless data from past economic crises that we could consult to validate this expectation. fortately, given the fact that annual national counts have been conducted since 2005, these data are available for 2007 to 2009 and the state of homelessness in america provides the first of
its kind 5x5 look at changes in homelessness and the relevant economic and demographic factors. as nan mentioned, this is the first inhe state of homelessness series which we expect to release annually. because of the relatively slow pace of economic recovery through 2010, it isxpected that the next issue in the series will again focus largely on the economy's impact. it will also be where the first -- the first where the initial impacts of efforts like the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program will begin to be evident. thank you for your attenti and i'll turn it back or to nan. thanks. >> thank you, bill. we'll be taking questions at the end about the report. but in the meantime, homelessness really can seem, when you read a report like this or hear comments about it, to be rather an abstract concept but for people who experience it
obviously it's all too real. and i want to introduce you now to ebony roscoe, ebony and her children were homeless. they were living in the community of hope which is a wonderful organization here in dc that helps homeless families and thanks to the resources of the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program that bill and i both mentioned earlier, ebony and her family were able to move into an apartment and now she has a job with the mental health services organization. so ebony is going to give us a little bit of a perspective of the reality of homelessness and what it means in human terms to see these kinds of numbers increase. ebony? >> hello. my name is ebony roscoe. several years ago i moved to washington, d.c., from charlotte, north carolina, with my four children. we had need an unhealthy marriage that i was involved. i moved in with my brother who
is staying here in washington, d.c. and without a job and stayed there for approximately four months. i stayed unemployed for 20 months. during the of unemployment and even wle employed now, i make ends meet with assistance that i receive. benefits from social service have decreased tremendously but we still try to make things do with the current situation that we're in. homelessness and unemployment took a toll on me and my family. but we were able to receive the things that -- i'm sorry, my children weren't able to receive the things that they wanted as being children such as like bikes and small toys that they wanted during the time. we had to relocate so staying -- staying and feeling stable within a school w difficult. it was hard enough moving from place to place and not knowing where we were actually going to be staying. so making and keeping stable friends made them feel sad at
times. plus, they didn't have a place to call home. we were finally housed by community of hope, a local housing program here in washington, d.c., with resources from the hprp program, my family and i were able to find permanent housing. finding housing is like a brick being lifted off of my soldiers shoulders and being placed back on the ground. my family and i are able to move and be more involved in our school and in the community. without being restricted to any time frame. also, it gives my children security, and theare happier. you can tell when they want to have a sleepover or have some of their friends over i'm able to say yesnd make the decision without turning to someone else for approval. i'm able to build my independence again and make wiser oices when it comes to living with the necessities and wants. it makes a significant difference for secure, confidence stability but for
children it gives them a piece of a childhood that they can say is like everyone else's in their eyes. it's difficult to see parents who have problems and not know if the children blame themselves or if they will later in life blame themselves. you never know what children are going through in the midst. i'm sorry. but to see the change so drastic and for them to see positive direction. you keep aiming high and to change things in a bad situation, that they can go through anything and overcome and see themselves come on top. moving forward, i'm aiming to increase myncome to better support me and my family and eventually purchase a vehicle so that i can expand my children's eyes in the world. i would like to get back to my community because when i needed
it, they gave it to me. [applause] >> thank you so much, ebony. i know it's not always so easy to tell your personal stories in front people so i appreciate -- we really appreciate you doing that. the state of homelessness shows us not surprisingly that homessness is linked to economic factors like unemployment and low wages and that as a result of the recession, homelessness is up. it also raises concerns that since homelessness is a lagging indicator, it may continue to rise over the next few years. what can congress and the administration do to avoid increased homelessness. while obviously as the report shows, there are two dimensions to this. one is the bigger picture that reduced unemployment, decent wages, in short and improved ecomy will lift all boats. and especially if housing costs
stay a little bit lower. so as the economy improves, we expect that to have a positive impact, obviously, on the number of homeless people. we need congress and the administration to target their economic interventions, though, to the very lowest-incomed people because it's the very lowest-incomed people who have been hit the hardest by the recession. and although resources are scarce, experience tell us that letting people become homeless because of bget cuts is a false savings. increased medical, education, housing and law enforcement costs eat up anything that might appear to be saved. now is not the time to abandon the most vulnerable people. scarce resources suld be targeted to those people who need them most. since we will face a period of time before the economy recovers obviously and even longer before those benefits reach the poorest people, we will need to rely on the melessness assistance system in the short run to help
people, obviously. the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program and other emergency resources are helping now. but they need to be replaced when they run out and they need to be strengthened and communities across the country have shifted their homelessness approach fr band-aid approaches to housing solutions to prevention to rehousing and to planning to end homelessness. these communities have developed plans to end homelessness. we need congress and the administration, good timing, to -- [laughter] >> which also the administration by the way also has a really excellent plan to end homelessness, opening doors which focuses on ending homelessness over the next 10 years. we need congress and the administration to continue to support these local and national plans to end homelessness and to fund them to succeed. and one of the real leaders in congress really our leader on
homelessness is senator jack reed from rhode island. we know he does not need any introduction to any of the people in the room but let me just say we will rely and continue to rely on senor reed to advance the issues relating to homelessness and homeless veterans. he authored and led the heather bill which is really going to change the help communities change their homelessness assistance to be much more solution and outcome oriented and really refiguring the approach to homelessness at the local level, his experience at west point and as an army ranger has -- has only strengthened his commitment to homeless veterans and he has been a leader in that issue as well. so we look forward to continuing to work with him to solve the sues of homelessness in the untry and we're delighted to have him with us today. thank you so much, senator reed? [applau] >> thank you very much, nan, for
those very kind words. and i also want to recognize nan for her extraordinary work in leading this national alliance but bill sermons who's a researcher, bill, thank you for your great efforts and ebony roscoe, ebony is a consumer advocate a community of hope graduate and thank you so much. i also have to recognize on my staff james and tara who actually do the work. i get to give speeches. they actually do the work extraordinarily gifted and committed individuals. i've been engaged for many years in trying to address apopriately the issue of homelessness. as a young lawyer in rhode island, i was asked to go to be a pro bono lawyer for a a soup kitchen and homeless shelter in south providence and i began to
understand homelessness in this country. today's report state of homelessness in america, it's gotten much worse despite the efforts and despite the extraordinary contributions of individuals across this country. the partnerships that have evolved. one, it's a reflection of the most difficult economic circumstances we've seen since the great depression. that has taken a huge toll and not surprisingly in terms of the homeless population as well as other americans. and this is not just about a topi a policy issue. it's about people. our neighbors. our fellow americans who are facing some very, very severe challenges. one of the ironies back home in my state of rhode island is that the average rent, monthly rent, has increased 45% at a time when
the housing market is collapsing. the residential housing market is collapsing. that is a bit of irony for people who are struggling to make ends meet struggling frankly in too many cases ddle incomed families who have to give up their home and now have to look at soaring rents in the rental markets. that is a very bitter suation and all too prevalent in our communities, not just rhode island but in rhode isld particularly we've seen the unemployment rate go from to as high as 12.7% in 2008. it's come down to11% plus now. still unacceptable. and the homeless population, no surprise, has increased dramatically. about 34% from 2008 to 2009 in rhode island. and what else is happening and what is identified in this report is the doubling up phenomenon, people moving in with other families.
technically not homeless but as the report points ou chance that you'll be homeless very shortly. and the providence journal in one of their reports, my leading newspaper, more than half of rhode islanders sleeping on cots and mattresses in 2010 remember homeless for the first time. this is not the situation, the chronic individuals with several different issues, housing, health care issues, et cetera. these are people who have always had a home until very recently. so this issue of homelessness which has always been at the forefront of your efforts is now taking on an even more important dimension in our country and our neighborhood. the federal government, state government, local governments cannot tackle this issue alone. we need this kind of partnership that you're on the forefront but we all understand the fiscal pressures that are building in every level of government. that means we have to be more
innovative, bring more ingenuity to these efforts, more partnership, more collaboration, more of those things that will put people in homes with less resources to do it. now, i'm here to work as i've tried to in the past to help you in your efforts. we must build on a passage of the hearth in 2009. it's not sufficient to make a legislative statement and not put the resources behind it to actually help people and we've got to do that. that's gng to be a challenge. it's going to require your grassroots efforts across the country to help my colleagues battle from difficult choices of priorities about where we put sources. and this is going to require a national effort in the rural communities, in the urban communities. one of the things about the hearth act there's significant
improvements in how we deal with rural homelessness and this was a central city issue not an issue affecting the great plains and the small towns of america. it's there. unfortunately. and this hearth act has some better approaches so i hope we can engage all of my colleagues in this effort. we're beginning an effort today but actually continuing an effort. i can recall again thinking back to the late '80s and when i came down here for a march against homelessness in the 1980s in washington, all across the country, that spirit is still alive. even in this very difficult environment. and the reason it's alive, frankly, because you, ladies and gentlemen, but you have not forgottewe are literally our brothers and sisters keepers and that's an important thing to remember. thank you very much. [applause]
>> well, you can see why we're so grateful to have senator reed on o side working on this issue. thank you so much, senator reed. and now bill and i would be glad to entertain any questions you may have about state of homelessness in america. yes. >> i wanted to ask you about -- about homelessness in the district. and i wonder if you had a chance to look at the data and credit that to whether that was a policy or what were your explanation for that? >> well, i think here in the district, speaking from my own experiences as a resident of the district, that really was as a result of apolicy to house
chronically homeless people so there was a real effort on the part of the district government to identify chronically homeless people and get them into permanent supportive housing. there was also a big effort to house homeless veterans in the district. identify them and house them using hud -- the hud federal program. and also families who were also housed so there was a policy change in the district focusing on housing. >> do you have any numbers on how many houses like yours in the country now? >> it's a good question. we do have information in the report about the number -- total number of beds broken out by -- into three categories. sort of permanent supportive housing beds. also looking at transitional housing beds and emergency shelter beds and so i thi the 2009 numbers on shelter beds were about 180,000 in terms of transitional housing beds, about
185,000 and in terms of permanent supportive housing beds around 215,000. >> there was an increase al, i believe -- there was an increase in permanent sportive housing beds of 11,000 between '08 and '09. >> given the variation that you found among states, did you look at what was working in a systemic way in the states where there was a decrease? i mean, you focus on the risk factors in the states where there was an increase but did you see in terms of states that spent more andllocated more of their budgets to this or what did you see that's consistent in those states whether there was a decrease? >> rights. and, you know, one of the things that's true is that these efforts tend to happen at very local levels. you know, one of the series that we have, of our publication series we have community snapshot series where we look at individual communities and our last three series which focused on wichita, quincy and alameda county all showed that from '08
to '09 there were individual communities that had decreases in specific populations and in overall homelessness in the context of the same economic factor that we're looking at. in this report we don't really look at sort of identifying one single factor that seemed to drive things. although we did find -- and i didn't mention it in my findings, a particular association between high rates of severe housing cost burden for poor households and high rates of homelessness and so those two seem to go together. >> any questions or comments? yes. >> you talked about the inadequacy of the resources that are available for homelessness programs. you probably also are aware for many cities across the country are in severe financial distress and there are estimates -- some people are estimating 50 to 100 municipalities are going
bankrupt do you have any sense what kind of impact -- if this continues -- if the cities continue to collapse this way, what kind of impact that will have? >> well, we're obviously very concerned about the current situation and the numbers going up because of the pressures you mentioned because, you know, the things that are talked about in the report in terms of income unemployment continue but also as you say, really the state and local budget cuts had not hit when this report came -- when the data from this report was accessed so we're very concerned about the number going up because of all of those factors. and the communities are going to have to do much, much more with much, much less because of the lack of state and local resources. i think with respect to state and local government resources it's also not only a matter of funding the homeless assistance programs for people after they become homeless but also whether those cuts are going to cause
more homelessness because of inadequate mental health services, substance abuse treatmt and supports for families. so we're worried about it. you know, the counter-veiling pressure this report does not impact the homelessness rapid recovery housing funding which we hope will push back some of those potential increases. and really the change strategies that communities are taking. but we are very, very concerned about increasing numbers. >> what do you think of states like south carolina where the risk factors are going to up but then homelessness is going down? >> i think as i sort of alluded to before, i think and maybe nan will answer that with ebony sort of communicating her story, you know, every individual, you know, that experiences homelessness has a very sort of unique circumstance. and i think that shows up when you look at the fact -- when you
look in states, you know, the same factors that may be caused homelessness to increase in one state may not he the exact same impact. nan mentioned the fact that homelessness is also a lagging indicator so as we move forward with future reports we'll be able to take a little better look at that. one of the things that can't be overlooked and shouldn't be overlooked is that in the face of a lot of these overwhelming economic challenges, communities have adapted. they hav innovated and introduced strategies to try to deal with homelessness to prevent it. and so i think we can't overlook, you know, the coendable work that's been done all across the country. >> any questions? >> over the years you guys have been great about identifying the different populations, especially chronic homelessness or, you know, youth aging out of
foster case is there a new face of homelessness under the whole foreclosure crisis that we should be proactive about are making new alliances, you know, because there's like a world out there preventing foreclosures and something that we ould be doing nationally or as we were talking about it? >> i'll let bill speak to the foreclosure connection because he has worked on that but i will just mention something we didn't mention earlier, which is the report identifies that only a very small group of homeless youth were counted by communities, was it 12,000; is that right? >> yes >> there are 12 more than 12,000 homeless youth in the country. d one thing that we feel that we're very concerned about is that we don't have a handle on the problem of homelessness among youth. we don't have a handle on the numbers. we don't have a good assessment ofhe solutions. and we called a lot of -- we
called the communities that had reported no homeless youth which a lot of -- was it 30% of the continuum of no youth at all. i don't know about the new face of the homelessness but that is a population that i think we join with the federal government and the u.s. interagency council on homelessness and hha and hud trying tget a better handle of that problem and the solutions. >> and certainly as it relates to foreclosure, yeah, i see some people that help -- there was a joint multiorganization effort on the foreclosure to homelessness report. and one of the findings in the report was that while, you know, the majority of people being served by, you know, homeless assistance organizations are not there due to foreclosure. they're still are -- i think the report estimated 5 to 10%, you know, of serving organizations reported some of their -- the people that they were serving
were experiencing foreclosures so i think that there's -- there's a mix. there's a lot of people who were experiencing the same kinds of factors that would have led them into homelessness before the foreclosure crisis and a lot of additional people who are having additional stresses whether it would be foreclosure or unemployment that they just wouldn't have imagined a few years before. >> a follow-up to that we're still a nation at war. so what's the status of homeless veterans and specifically in increased homelessness or decreased or awareness of communities of that population. >> we don't report on homeless veteran numbers this time around at least in part because in the past, the va had system of counting or estimating the size of the homeless veteran population. they've recently teamed up with hud to come up with a new methodology and they're
releasing that as an addendum to hud's report and so as that becomes a regularly sort of issued item and as the methodologies of that become clear, we'll be able to report on- be able to report on that. >> i just would mention there is a national goal that the department of veterans affairs set the goals to ending veteran homelessness in five years. that's big priority for us as well. the number has been going down, which is a really good thing. and there's no reason we should have any homeless people, there's no reason we should have any homeless veterans. this is a solvable problem. and i think it's very -- there's a lot of political will behind it, and i'm prettyure we'll be able to make good progress, we as a nation will be able to good progress on that movg ahead. other questions? very good. well, thank you all so much for coming. [applause]
>> president obama speech today at a memorial service for the late richard holbrooke. other speakers include former president bill clinton and secretary of state hillary clinton. mr. holbrooke, the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, died in early december. that coverage is on c-span2 at 3:00 p.m. eastern. former minnesota governor temple on the on his -- governor tim pawlenty. we will be live at kennecott 30 eastern with the republican
national committee winter meeting. the republican includes the election of the chairman. the current head of the rnc, michael steele, has for challengers. a couple of live events to tell you about this morning. secretary of state hillary clinton talks about relations between the u.s. and china. that is on c-span2 at 9:45 eastern. we will bring you coverage of the republican national committee winter meeting. there are four challengers to the current chairman, michael steele. our coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern. >> watch the process and the vote live starting at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org.
>> on television, radio, and online -- c-span, brimming public affairs to you. it is washington your way. >> former minnesota governor, jim pawlenty, talked about his new book yesterday at the national press club in washington, d.c. his book tour includes stops in iowa and new hampshire. this is one hour.
>> to navigate to our programs, please visit www.press.org/library. i would like to welcome our speakers and attendees of the events. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many audience questions as time permits. i would now like to introduce our guest. from your right, a freelance political reporter, associate editor for the hill, associate dean of georgetown university, the speaker of the house for new hampshire,