tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg February 24, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." jon: good evening. i am jeffrey toobin filling in for charlie rose. democratic state attorneys general have emerged as powerful forces fighting president trump's agenda. leading is eric schneiderman. his office is fighting the immigration ban as well as president trump personally in the now settled trump university lawsuit and his continuing investigation of the trump foundation. i'm pleased to have eric schneiderman at charlie's famous table. dhs this week said we have new
orders in terms of how we are going to deal with deportation of undocumented immigrants. short version, there is going to be more enforcement. you are going to try to alleviate that, fight it how? eric: we anticipated this attack, particularly where it regards so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. there is no legal definition as to what a sanctuary jurisdiction is, so we anticipated there would be an attack coming. last month, issued guidance for the first time setting out a legal roadmap of what the city has to do, what you are obligated to do under federal law and what you don't have to do. i'm pleased to say there have been jurisdictions around the country using our legal roadmap to help rewrite their resolutions to prepare themselves to be in compliance with the law.
the two memos issued by dhs are follow-ups on executive orders trump issued in late january and deal with how we handle the immigrants already in the country. we already have a big fight over the ban on immigration and refugees. jeffrey: we are waiting for a revised executive order on that one. that is where you saw democratic a.g.'s all over the country stepping up, working together, getting courts all over the country backing each other up and eventually getting a stay of the immigration been. -- ban. these new memos and executive orders are more likely to be taken up first in individual cases of people being apprehended. it contemplates a massive expansion of what are called , whereed deportations
people do not get the right to a hearing. that raises a lot of due process issues and does include various provisions attacking what he defines as century jurisdictions. jeffrey: let's talk about this issue of sanctuary jurisdictions. as you point out, there is not a specific legal definition of what a century city is. i think in rough terms what it , even a statey like california, saying we do not want our local officials to help ice, the immigration authorities, the poor people. is it legal for new york city to say, we are not going to help the federal government deport people? eric: yes, to a great extent. the reason we issued guidance available on our website and is being used around the state is that there are certain things you are required to do. statute, the relevant
statute, has some requirements. but most of this is optional. they cannot force local law enforcement agencies to become an arm of the federal immigration services. local agencies can sign up for a program to join in, but it is optional. there is some information you are required to turn over the federal government if they get a judicial warrant. you have to collaborate them on whatever the warrant requires from you. but to a great extent, jurisdictions have the option to , this isr judgment what nypd has made clear, we are a sanctuary city, in our judgment we do not want witnesses not to come forward as witnesses and crime victims. we believe it makes it safer for our police officers not to be perceived as arms of immigration. as our guidance makes clear, in most cases local governments can refuse to corporate. the they get a judicial warrant, that is something else.
jeffrey: what about the possibility and you are aware of this through executive action, republican say you want to be a sanctuary city, you can forget about the federal funds for subways, medicaid. have a great time, but we are not going to get any federal money? eric: we will be in court in a heartbeat on that because there are severe restrictions on the ability of the federal government to course state and local governments -- coerce state and local governments into doing things. funding,nt to cut off there has to be a nexus between the program the local government is not complying with and the funding. you can only look at federal funds from a enforcement related to immigration, which is not much money. you cannot cut off money for parks and subways because of a refusal to apply -- comply on immigration.
there is a general rule if the funding is so large and something that local governments are dependent on, again in the affordable care act opinion, it amounts to coercion. the federal government cannot use funding in collision. there has to be a clear subject tohat it is these conditions. you cannot retroactively impose conditions. the ability of the federal government to cut off funds for century cities is limited. i think it will be tested in court. everyone in new york to know what the law is and is not. there is a roadmap for what you can and cannot do. the executive orders do go beyond what the stated law is, but that should not be a surprise. this first executive order banning immigrants and refugees was found by courts around america to have gone beyond what was allowed. jeffrey: let's talk about that
order. that was the order, it seems like a long time ago, but it was only a couple of weeks ago, where the seven muslim majority countries, there were new restrictions on immigration. the district court in seattle said it is unconstitutional. the ninth ciruit affirms that ruling. the trump administration now said they are going to rework it in a way to similar effect. theyu think there is a way can rewrite that executive order so that it is constitutional? eric: not that executive order. they can take pieces of it and perhaps do it. jeffrey: presidents have wide authority over immigration. why can't they say these seven countries, we want to stop and take a look? eric: there are so many problems with that executive order. there was an article written malevolencelled "
tempered by incompetence," which i think sums up a lot of people's feelings about the executive order. it said no one from these countries can come. the contemplated -- it contemplated providing the president with a longer list to be added later. that was in the original order. it also shut down a refugee program completely for a time and criminally band -- syrian refugees -- permanently banned syrian refugees. i don't think there is a constitutional way to do it. while the ninth ciruit decision is the decision that stayed the order and the trump order said we will not try to appeal, we will go back to the drawing board, it is important to understand we went into courts all around the country brought on behalf of detainees. i went into court in new york. my colleagues when into court in
virginia and other states. this is something where every judge that saw this, republican and democrat alike, issued some form of stay of the order. it became clear the court in washington was prepared to issue a national stay. that is why was submitted and from allamicus briefs different groups. the damage to the country caused by such an extreme termination of immigration from any countries in the world but certainly from the seven, we documented the harm it would cause to new york. we are a state that lives off international commerce. our health care sector would suffer. there were doctors not able to get home from family vacations. state institutions would suffer. our tech sectors, finance sectors. we put forward evidence of the damage done not just to the
detainees but millions of others new yorkers and people all over the country. i am proud of the fact the attorneys general around the country responded quickly within 36 hours of the order. we issued a strong statement because we were getting nothing but few to station and confusion from washington. one of the complaints from folks on the ground working for federal agencies is they had no guidelines. there were inconsistent applications. statement we were confident the courts would strike it down. we are committed to minimizing the pain. and we followed through. jeffrey: we will see how that involves -- involves -- evolves. do you see yourself as the voice of opposition to trump? democrats in congress do not have subpoena power. you have subpoena power. do you see yourself as one of the major checks on the new administration? eric: i do see state governments
and state attorneys general in particular as a major check because it has become clear at least until now the republican majorities in congress are reluctant to pose much of a check on this administration. that brings us back to the wisdom of the founders providing for the federalist system where a lot of power is retained at the state level. i see myself and another group of democratic a.g.'s playing a leading role in this. first of all, we are in a position to fill in if the federal government retreats from what we believe to be its duties to enforce the law. if they do not want to enforce the civil rights laws, they are not enforcing consumer protection laws or labor laws, states can fill in that gap. action thathey take causes harm to the people we represent, we can challenge them in court. this comes up in many different contexts. ironically, i know defending the
plan, for the rules issued by the obama administration e.p.a. on greenhouse gases came after my office filed a notion of intent to sue them because they were too slow following up on a supreme court decision that directed them to do so. our ability to file lawsuits to protect people, the people we represent from overreach or bad public policy of washington is unusual. we will have a new test of the strength of our lowest fabric -- federalist fabric. we are not looking for fights that do not exist. the reason the immigration ban became the first flashpoint was it took effect immediately. jeffrey: even before president trump took office, one of the responsibilities of the attorney general of new york is to regulate charities. the use andmp about abuse of his foundation. eric: we determined they had not done the proper filings in new york to raise money here and issued a directive that they
comply. they cannot raise money here anymore. we are working our way through whatever problems they are. they are being handled professionally. their lawyers are cooperating with our lawyers. jeffrey: tell me about the trump university investigation. eric: that was a different matter. this was a lawsuit brought in the summer of 2013, long before anyone thought he would hold the present position he does. it was not a political case. we were looking at for-profit colleges generally and had actions against several for-profit colleges. trump university was supposedly a new york state university. we do have rules in new york we are picky about. you cannot just say this is a university and you get a diploma. we sued because it was a straight up fraud. mr. trump's role was as the pitch man. we got sworn testimony he was
not involved in all --at all. jeffrey: he settled it for $25 million, a relative pittance it seems. did you roll over in that case? eric: not at all. this was an excellent settlement. folks ripped off at university have been waiting a long time for the money. they wanted to get as much relief as they could. they received compensation. we got on top of that a million dollar fine to the state of new york because of their abuse of our education laws. i was very pleased with the settlement. keep in mind, he said how many times i will never settle this case. i'm going to win this in court. it will be easy to win in court. he is a new yorker. i am the new york state attorney general. we have gotten to know each other in the context of litigation and investigations in the past. jeffrey: what do you think of donald trump? eric: i think it is extorting -- extraordinary he has done what he has done.
give credit where credit is due, but he's now the president of the united states. whatever our relationship was when he was a private citizen engaged in good or bad conduct is very different. we are not out to get this to trump. -- mr. trump. we are out to uphold the rule of law. jeffrey: let me ask a legal question. in the course of your trump foundation investigation, do you have the legal right to subpoena his tax return? eric: i don't comment on ongoing investigations. i don't think we are there yet. jeffrey: i am not saying are you subpoenaing, but do you have the legal authority to do that? eric: i don't think that is something required under the circumstances of this investigation. we are being very careful not to overstep our authority. we don't want anyone to get the impression there is any political aspect to this. we are treating it as much as we
can like a normal investigation into another foundation that had troubles. i have to say to their credit, his lawyers have been dealing with us professionally and responsibly making information available as we requested. one of the paradoxes of your role is you are both a law enforcement official and a politician. you run for office. you are a democrat. is supported hillary clinton for president. is virtually every state attorney general is a separately elected official, isn't there something inherently awkward at least if not actual conflict of interest of being an active and proud democrat and being someone who wields the power of law-enforcement? eric: not really. historically, the really has not been. we have a long history, of public has lasted a long time -- the republic has lasted a long
time with elected attorneys general and fulfilling other roles. i think it is dependent on us being responsible. if something is going to hurt the 19kers, to represent million plus people here, i will take action. i have sworn to do that. i will tell you at least among my democratic colleagues, there is a sense of professionalism about our work. we are not just representing our individual states. we are the guardians of the rule of law for the system of constitutional laws. this is a government of laws. sensek there was a real in which my fellow a.g.'s got riled up by the immigration ban because of the sense of disregard for the rule of law. they took the position in the case that in the area of immigration, the president has unfettered discretion not subject to review by the courts. for any longer who takes the
system seriously is an offensive position to take. matter think this is a of liberal versus conservative. this is not an ordinary set of political battles. we are dealing with an administration that has shown disregard for the constitution and effort to circumvent the checks and balances established under the constitution to keep a chief executive from running amok. this is something we will stand up to where ever he tries to manifest it. jeffrey: one of those checks which had been rather scare is the clause that says in plain english that foreign governments cannot pay the president. there are some who suggest that through the hotel in washington and perhaps other ways, trump may be in violation of the cause. is that something in your jurisdiction? enforce that, challenge it? eric: this is a fascinating set
of questions. we are in totally unchartered territory. let me remind everyone there are two separate issues. one is the unprecedented refusal to divest himself of his holdings. unlike other presidents who created blind trusts were divested their holdings, he still has interest in companies all around the world. second, his refusal to disclose what those interests are which adds another level of problems. there are two clauses in the constitution. in article one, there is the clause that says unless congress approves of some enrichment, any kind of game by a foreign power, president cannot accept it. the case law on this, there is not much case law on this. we are talking about a gift of stallions to president in the early 19th century. we are reading the research and they are talking about ben franklin getting a jeweled box
from the king of france. we are in very obscure territory. our representatives in congress have to at least know what his business interests are so they can fulfill their duties to approve or disapprove. that is something that will be litigated at some point. the second clause, and keep in mind at the founding of the republic there was a concern about big states versus little states, that says the president gets whatever his salary is and can get no further emolument from the united states a any state in fear that state might try to pay off the president to get better treatment. that raises a similar issue. how can states know if they are violating it if they do not know what his business interests are? we are aware of the litigation already brought on this.
others have brought other ideas to us. it is something i do think a combination of his refusal to divest or place in trying -- blind trust his assets and refusal to disclose what those are will come to litigation at some point, whether we are part of it or someone else. i am not sure at this point. jeffrey: let me ask you about it purely new york state issue, voting. those who write about it are indignant about north carolina cutting early voting and ohio and texas. new york has some of the worst voting laws in the country. the famous liberal bastion. no early voting. very difficult absentee voting. why? eric: this is something we cannot blame on republicans in congress. you have written about this. advocate forn expanding early voting for a long time. when i became attorney general,
our office set up a hotline for election day if people had problems. last year, the phones were ringing off the hook. we had to bring in additional staff because there were some problems with voting. we did an investigation into the board of elections and took our findings and combined them into something called in your votes act which would bring us into the 21st century. voting, no-fault absentee voting freight open the registration process. was 48 out of16 50 states in terms of participation eligible voters. shame on us. that is something that some voterargue is lower turnout favoring the incumbents of both parties. some consultants make money selling the triple prime voter list of people who will show up in a hurricane to vote. i favor opening up the franchise. it is so easy to do.
there are other states that do it. oregon went to automatic registration. my proposal is the same. jeffrey: what is stopping at? is it going to get through the assembly? let's name some names. because the public was so outraged by it last year, and this was not just in one part of the state. this was all over the state of new york. inconsistent instructions being given out by boards of elections. names purged from the voter rolls and properly. we filed a lawsuit related to that. i do believe the public anger about this makes this an excellent time to make a move. it has already been introduced in the assembly. we have sponsors. i have spoken to the leaders of both houses of the legislature about this. i think we have an excellent chance to make these changes this year. it is important to recognize this has become part of the national debate. when you have republicans and comes -- in conservative states
tried to cut back on voting rights pointed to the new york saying we are still better than new york -- jeffrey: governor kasich said that. what are you complaining about? our laws are better than yours. eric: one of the things you can look forward to in the next number of years is states will be differentiating themselves. you will not have the big homogenizing federal programs. you can see if the federal government dismantles the consumer financial protection bureau, you will have some states that have strong civil rights protections and some that don't. i think it is important for new york to recognize we are back to like 100 years ago when states will be the laboratories of democracy. we have to open up the voting. jeffrey: where is governor quota eric: cuomo --where is governor cuomo? eric: he says he is an favorite -- in favor of it and hopefully
he is the president of the robin hood foundation, a philanthropy founded in 1988 to alleviate poverty in new york city. it recently launched a campaign to help over 800,000 new yorkers receive the federal benefits to which they are entitled but not getting. i'm pleased to have him on this program. welcome. what is robin hood? >> founded in 1988, which is recent by charity standards. >> robin hood was created by some publicly spirited hedge fund managers who wanted to give something back to the city and were very concerned about poverty in new york city and ways in which to alleviate it. in its current incarnation, it raises every year somewhere between $125 and $150 million and distributes it to our nonprofit partners who provide services in everything ranging from charter schools to food pantries to health services to
income maintenance services for clients all over new york city. jeffrey: let me ask you about poverty in new york city generally. is it better or worse than 10 years ago, 100 years ago? >> we have shifting definitions of poverty, just as we have shifting definitions of wealth and the middle class. it is certainly better than it was 100 years ago. it has not differed much in the last decade. worsenedbly, it has in the sense that new york is a very expensive area to live in. housing costs and necessities have gone up considerably in excess of inflation rates. incomes have not. particularly for the working class. is that because of something the government did or did not do? is it about bigger forces the government cannot do anything
about? >> we are fortunate in new york city to live in a town that is governed by both the mayor and a governor who in the last two years have made major progress for poor people. increasing. the minimum wage. yorkers-k to all new who have a child of pre-kh. paid sick leave. a proposal amount for free tuition in-state university and city university of new york. these have been enormous changes affecting the lives of poor people. neither the mayor nor governor control microeconomics and they don't control federal entitlements. those are areas outside control. within those discretionary areas in control of the mayor and governor, we have had to do very progressive forces. jeffrey: one of the things you
heard from donald trump during the campaign was poor people, their lives have not gotten much better under barack obama. he would often say, what have you got to lose by switching your allegiances? what about that argument? >> we will find out. whatuture will tell us impact the administration will have on poor people. 3.5% growth rate being projected by the administration as a goal will be helpful in terms of job generation. new york city has been driving -- thriving. a significant number of jobs have been created in the hotel industry, in the transportation industry that have been helpful to poor people. the fact that tourism is at record highs, in the $55 billion a year range, has been really
significant in terms of its impact. so we will see what the federal impact is. jeffrey: let's talk about robin hood. you have $121 roughly to give away every year. how do you decide? there are lots of good people doing good work. pertinent a very question to ask because robin hood has developed a very sophisticated set of metrics to determine the cost/benefit of a gift to a nonprofit. we track the impact of that gift on clients who are served. what is the impact of a gift to a food pantry? what is the impact of a gift to a special ed class? what is the impact of a gift to enhanced tutoring or a longer school day? jeffrey: let me stop you in terms of metrics. that actually has been very controversial in many areas, measuring student achievement rates is controversial. you mentioned special ed. how do you measure the effect of
putting money into special ed? >> you have a control group that that mayget a gift have two extra teachers in the room that would allow for a longer school day. you measure the proficiency of the control group compared with the group that receives that edition and you measure it over time. you see what the impact is over time. extensiverement is sometimes because it involves a longitudinal study and staying with the students. but you try to control for other factors that are not related to the gift itself. jeffrey: you want a lot of bang for your buck. you want to be able to measure it. >> correct. we hope that we will come upon
some solutions that are replicable, that can go to scale, and that can influence systems not only in new york city but elsewhere in the country. jeffrey: have you found that has been the case so far? >> we found a few we think make a major impact. curriculum reform, different kinds of curriculum reform. systems to make food distribution more efficient and effective in the food pantry area. we are constantly searching for those. jeffrey: one of your big initiatives i mentioned at the beginning is to get new yorkers to get the federal benefits to which they are entitled but not receiving. like what? what is it you're trying to get people to get? >> the start by asking campaign opus is on four benefits. the earned income tax credit, the snap program or food stamps, women's infant and children program, and the child tax program.
if all new yorkers eligible received those benefits, it would take hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. there are roughly 800,000 new yorkers eligible for one or more of those benefits were not now receiving them. it is roughly $1.2 billion of federal money fully legislated, it is their untapped. jeffrey: the obvious question is these people are entitled to these benefits. why are they not asking for them? >> around the country, the figure is roughly $40 billion. to take one benefit, there are 44 million americans on food stamps. rough estimates are there are 30% more americans eligible, or 12 noon americans. of those 44 million americans on food stamps, receiving the steps has taken 10 million -- footsteps has taken 10 million out of poverty.
often working class americans eligible for food stamps. jeffrey: why are more people not asking for what they are entitled to? of the eligibles for snap our senior adult. many have worked all of their lives. now they are widows or widowers on fixed incomes. costs have gone up. they become eligible but think of it as a welfare benefit, and they are reluctant to take it as a result. some are language difficulties. some are concerns about immigration and being new immigrants and what impact enrollment in any federal program would have. some are bureaucratic obstacles. jeffrey: let me interrupt you since you mentioned immigration. these programs like food stamps, are people who are undocumented immigrants eligible for food stamps in new york or anywhere else? >> they are not. their children are. jeffrey: how does a 2-year-old get food stamps other than from their parents?
>> they enroll their children. jeffrey: they can enroll. if you are in an environment where people fear any contact with the government, maybe they will not enroll and her kids to not get the food. >> which is why the start by asking campaign has developed a sophisticated triage system. where there is a straightforward movement from awareness to enrollment, that can happen pretty automatically by computer or face-to-face engagement. where it is complicated, when someone is at risk, we want to make sure legal assistance is provided and legal guidance is provided on what the risks might be. particulares the condition of the immigrant. jeffrey: this is a major initiative of years. why this as opposed to something else? is it because you think it could have this multiplier affect of getting all of these dollars
into the hands of poor people? why this program? >> we don't know if any other program that can bring -- that can relieve poverty more quickly for more people at less cost with no new legislation, no new executive orders. this money is there for the asking. it is not a shiny new toy. it is basic money to create greater awareness and motivate poor people who are entitled to these benefits to enroll. make them aware and make the process as simple as possible for them. they can do it in new york city by dialing 311 or the website. around the country, i would encourage any of your viewers who know poor people, poor
people who work for them, who are fellow parishioners, who have contact, to encourage them to check out the availability of these forms of benefits. jeffrey: how do you feel like a program like this intersects with the political environment in the country? this is a country that just elected donald trump president. we have a republican house, republican senate. the idea that poor people are getting benefits and maybe too many benefits is widespread at least in the federal government. do you feel this may be is out of step with where the federal government is at the moment? >> i do not. the food stamp program has been in existence for 60 years. 12% of the dollar value of the food purchased in new york city. and is a very widespread
consensus program through republican administrations, democratic administrations, recessions, good economic times. the earned income tax credit is one of the few things speaker ryan and president obama agreed on. republicans support the earned income tax credit. i think there is a consensus that people who work full-time and work hard at their job should not have to choose orween paying a utility bill buying adequate food for their kids. outstandingoposals intact reform legislation to increase the ceiling for the earned income tax credit. ♪
♪ jeffrey: let's talk a little bit about how robin hood runs. robin hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. i guess that is sort of the joke behind the title in 1988. robin hood is famous, perhaps even notorious, for his famous fundraiser every year at the conventi center where you raise this astonishing amount of money in one night. how did that come about? event take on such a life of its own? reynold: i speak now as an
historian. i was not there. i was not there when it started. jeffrey: but you are happily the custodian of catching those big tex -- big checks. reynold: i am the inheritor and not unaccustomed to benefits that raised substantial amounts of money. this is singular. and i think part of it has to do occasionting a special and special spirit around poor people. there is such energy when you come into the center with 4000 people in the room getting exposed to the major themes of what robin hood has accomplished in the year passed with a focus on metrics and numbers, reporting back to our shareholders on what their gifts last year conquest -- copley -- accomplished. jeffrey: what about the argument
the income inequality, the hedge fund people who have made all of this money, are in part responsible for the incredible -- the poverty. i won't call it incredible. but that there is something vulgar or inappropriate about it since they are such beneficiaries of the present system. reynold: let's contemplate the reverse. let's contemplate for a moment they maintain the status quo but did not give a penny to help poor people. by what ethical standard, by what in our scripture would deem that a better situation than giving privately? i would argue those who feel taxes should be reduced further and that the government should play less of a role should feel a sense of personal obligation to give more themselves. jeffrey: let's talk about you.
careere had a legendary in the nonprofit world. lincoln center, the rescue center. very different organizations. what is it like raising money for high culture, lincoln center, versus raising money for poor people? how is your job as a fundraiser different? reynold: i think the nature of the cause matters a lot. people are said that convinced by the power of the salesman. if the salesman believes, they will believe. i think looking over the right shoulder as i am now a view and imagining -- of you and imagining what could happen if jeff toobin offered a major gift to robin hood, what would that mean to kids, hungry kids who would no longer be hungry.
in the same way, in a similar way to what might happen on a stage if someone gives a substantial gift that otherwise would not happen. or what might happen to the arts in schools if someone offered up a major gift? jeffrey: there are a lot of people sheepish about asking for money. you are not. reynold: not really. jeffrey: why not? reynold: because i have never encountered in my life and unhappy donor. jeffrey: what do you mean by that? reynold: i mean that people who give of themselves, give to something beyond themselves feel better about themselves. identify with a cause. i am fond of saying when i was at lincoln center, i said if you gave a substantial gift to lincoln center, a gift of consequence, that might even hurt a little, and unprecedented gift, i would promise four
things. better sleep, longer life, unobstructed pathway to heaven, and i would arrange for i'll seats when you got there. with benefits like that, how can we deprive anyone of the opportunity to share? it is a strong belief on my part that exposing a donor to a challenge and demonstrating they can make a difference with their resources, not just helps the beneficiaries directly, but helps them as well. jeffrey: do you mind when people say no? reynold: they really don't mean it. jeffrey: [laughter] jeffrey: is that right? reynold: they mean ask me later. they mean it was a backorder. they mean i came to your office, you did not come to my. no is the beginning of the conversation. you obviously have a great deal of experience in this world. and you seem to have rules, in a way. how different our people?
rich people, upper-middle-class people, they are often very different from each other. it seems like they have a lot more in common perhaps than someone like me might think. reynold: it is very important for the person asking for funds to find the intersection between the passion and interest of the potential donor and the cause. that means trying to know as much about your prospect and what motivates them, their children, the schools they went to, where they came from, what their values are, and engage in a conversation to find that meeting place. jeffrey: you have to do a substantial amount of research before you go ask him one for money. reynold: yes. i am in a position where others do that research but i am a consumer of that research, absolutely. david geffen just gave $100 million to rename avery fisher hall. some people said it will cost $500 million to redo avery fisher hall. why did they give it away for
$100 million? they should have asked them for $200 million. how do you make a judgment like that? whether $100 million is enough where it should be $300 million? reynold: it is sometimes said that every cab driver in new york would be a better mayor or thinks they would be a better mayor than the mayor. i have hardly encountered a field where there is more second-guessing than the guessing about what others would give or should have given under what circumstances. $100 million gifts to cultural institutions are very significant. it was not until maybe 10 years ago that harvard, your alma mater, got the first $100 million. jeffrey: not from me, i hasten to add. reynold: for cultural institutions, libraries, parks,
to be in that classification of giving at that level is historic and extremely meaningful and speaks to people about their importance. david's gift was very significant. jeffrey: we read today of hedge fund people whose incomes, yearly incomes are now over $1 billion. do you think that new class of robber barons is doing enough in the philanthropic world? reynold: i would like to remind everyone that maybe hurting was theo, bill gates subject of great criticism because he was earning substantial amounts of money and giving it away -- giving away very little. i do not think anyone says that anymore. philanthropy has a place in your life's trajectory. often, that comes in a later stage in life.
certainly it did for warren buffett in his giving pattern. i would be patient with individuals who have made a lot of money but have not yet given it away. foundations, the increase in giving in the country is very substantial. i would suspect it will continue to grow. i hope that there are not tax constraints imposed on givers. i think that would be discouraging. jeffrey: getting rid of the tax-deductible the of charity gifts, that is one subject. talked about. reynold: or significantly reducing it would haven't adverse -- have an adverse impact on the amounts given. that, i used to hear wealthy people talk about their private planes. i used to hear what the people talk about their third and fourth homes. i now here wealthy people talk
about where they should give, how they should give, how they should involve their children, what forms there giving should take. the growth of philanthropy in america i think is very bright. jeffrey: it is bright. but i think gates is a wonderful example because he has established this foundation which is vast and active and has had tremendous impact in a variety of fields. but where are the hedge fund billionaires? where are their foundations? you say not yet, but there are a lot of needs right now. reynold: there are. i will tell you robin hood is an illustration of where hedge fund people are. our board is well known. many of our board members are extraordinarily generous and not only to robin hood but too many other causes. i think you will see a sharp
increase in the size of foundations and the number of foundations, including many new actors at significant orders of magnitude of increase. jeffrey: i take it you have names in mind of people who will step up in this way? i expect he will not tell me on television. but you think there are people getting ready, like mark zuckerberg just created this enormous institution. reynold: i know there are. the trajectory depends very much --often say philanthropy is biography. jeffrey: what do you mean by that? reynold: where you come from, what your values are, how you think about giving to others, what form that might take. there are a lot of people that think growing their firms and moving from an.500 people to 50,000 people is an extraordinary important act.
we value that act, particularly in recessions. there are certain times in someone's life when they want -- they are really focused on their 47 and they feel they cannot do philanthropy properly. back and everyone has its time. philanthropy has its time. others get there earlier, maybe because their parents started earlier or they were brought up in a different way. jeffrey: will philanthropy ever replace government in helping poor people? reynold: never. every place where robin hood operates, any field in which it operates, government resources by 20-1, 50-1, 1000-1 what private philanthropy can do. that is why we start by asking campaign is so critical because there is no way private resources can possibly substitute for the snap program
or the women's, infant, and children program. something wed is all can identify with. millions of hungry americans is a statistic. we want to reduce those numbers. we want to reduce them considerably. anyone in your audience who knows of people who they think are eligible, i would just encourage them to have them call .org.r start by asking dot theranos reynold leavy -- jeffrey: reynold leavy of the robin hood foundation, thank you for being on the "charlie rose" show. ♪