tv After Words with Don Watkins CSPAN May 16, 2016 12:00am-1:01am EDT
every day when they go to school i get scared to death honestly. i love you but it's a plausiblee situation of the school shooting and things like that. the line in terms of violence hitting is just much too far in the wrong direction. we as a country have the possibility to shift back as well just as much as the terrorist organizations as well. the teams tie about? -- that means timeout? thank you. [applause]
next on "after words," hello don watkins discusses income inequality with diana of the manhattan institute. >> i have so much enjoyed reading your book, "equal is unfair to fight against a quality." it is so thought-provoking to be from someone that this inequality is not a problem. can you start out by telling us why inequality isn't a problem?
>> let's start with what is economic inequality because it is depleted with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. but it just means there is a gap. we can have a gap because some people are getting richer and some are getting poorer but it can also be because they are getting rich at different rates and it can also rise or fall for different reasons. one reason might be that some people are just being really productive. he's employing thousands of people and creating tons of value by pioneering a new inventions that he's going to get richer than me or my wife who sees the teacher and she is i think the great teacher but is only providing economic value to a few dozen people at a time but on the other hand there are things that can increase that are bad are unjust and take advantage of people so bernie made off, he's going to embezzling and steal a lot of money to fraud. the reason that i say it isn't the problem is because what we
are concerned with is not how much money do you have but how did you get it, was it something that was fair or a process that was unfair? that's something we are challenging and saying that isn't a fair way to treat people. >> host: veer off in the middle class is stagnating and inequality is one of the courses. what do you say about that to these people? >> first why is it that the critics of inequality have made this a central claim that his idea of the middle-class stagnation? americans have a sense we don't live in a zero-sum world and when you achieve something through your work it doesn't come at my expense. when he got amazon it didn't make me worse off if need be better off. if you want to convey to people that know, w we live in a zero-m universe and to lift us on, we have to bring others down, which is what the inequality campaign
is all about. in order to do that, you have to be able to show that something to the effect that the guys at the top got there at your cost, by taking advantage of you. that's why they claim to stagnation has become central to them. the idea is the middle-class is stagnated different start dates but generally 1979. i think it is wildly implausible just for common sense. if you ask somebody would you rather make 50,000 today or 100,000 in 1979, given all the advances anothe in the design, n everything that has happened in the internet and computer technology realm, giving just our bigger houses, very few people would take the bet. the question is what is the claim based on and what it is is based on claims that look at statistical aggregates. so it's this idea that we are supposed to have in our minds and the idea that i started
working in 1979, and i haven't gotten a raise for decades. but that's really not the scenario that we are talking about. we are talking about certain statistical categories tha thate seen thseen their wages not ince during this time. but statistical categories don't necessarily reflect what is happening to the real-life individuals like you and me. just a couple of brief examples. so, for instance to say that middle-class incomes have stagnated over 40 years, the composition of who is being counted can change so we have different trends of immigration. we have seen an influx primarily from the poor countries and they come here to the united states and now they earn more than in their home country so they are better off. we are presumably not changed. we are making whatever we were making before yet what is going to happen to the median income when you get is people taking low-paying jobs, it is going to go down everybody isn't in the
scenario of petrov or you can take the effect of what the statistics look like as household income. the composition of households has changed over time. in the 1970s we saw the rise in divorce rates. so if you have a couple making $50,000 a year to let's say gets divorced and if they get a raise, statistically that makes us look worse off, because now you have to households making 35 instead of one making 50. so there's a lot of factors that lead to the statistics that claim we are stagnating, but if we look around us and take a careful look at the statistics i don't think that you can justify the claim. >> host: 's equal isn't fair. is there any role for taxation, should there be any adult to help the people at the bottom? >> guest: would lead the government for because we need the government, no question about that. i'm certainly not in our case --
and anarchists. it was unequal. some people were born as the rulers and some were born to rule. if you wanted to rise in life you had to get the favor of someone i was one of the rulers. >> host: so it wasn't so short. we don't have to go back to those days, do we? >> guest: nova that is the ultimate system is when you have these entrenched and politically unequal groups the real insight of the founders was each of us are equal in the fact that we have equal rights and so the government's job isn'governments but it's to be the servant, the protector of our rights. but what happens when it protects the rights equally and when it protects you and your freedom &-and-sign? we will creat create different s of wealth because we have
different abilities and make different choices. some of us want to become a teacher and for us that's what a successful life is whether we go up from where our parents were committed as a successful life. others want to be hedge fund managers and others want to start new companies. you will get a quality if we have equal freedom. >> host: what if they can't do that because they have a poor education do you think the government has a role in making the opportunities more equal by making sure that they have a better education for example? >> guest: absolutely not, and i realize i skipped the important essence of the question which is does the government has a role to help out so let's start with the equality of opportunity. i think it's been a mistake to talk about equality of opportunity because it can be one of two things, one of them very good and one of them very bad.
one is a level playing field deeply by the same rules and that is the political equality that i was talking about a moment ago. your freedom is protected equally to min mind but the wayt it has been used especially the last 70 years or so is to mean the quality of initial chances of success it means the fact if you were born to parents that are rich or if they give you a good education or as one philosopher said if they did something so monstrous as to read it to you, you will have unfair advantages. it is true that we had unequal opportunities. there is no way to change that. but one thing needs to be kept in mind at all times. one person's opportunities don't come that anybody's expense. the fact is, take the example of bill gates. malcolm gladwell wrote a popular book a few years ago which he pointed out to give bill gates of us credit for succeeding but he went to school that had computers when nobody else had
computers. >> host: it wasn't just when no one had computers but he got up in the middle of the night, programmed computers then they came back to bed and his mother was wondering why he always had to wake up in the morning. >> guest: that is exactly right and it highlights two things. what we have been better off if bill gates didn't have access to those computers? we would be worse off. opportunities would have been equal for everybody would have been a loser. the second point is precisely that. a lot of what matters in life is in the opportunities you have to do what you do with the ones you have. have. a lot of our success in life is turning things that don't look like opportunities into opportunities. one quick example, we tell a story in the book. susan peterson has been a guest on the show shark tank, which is a great show. she had a business making these stylish baby moccasins for little kids to wear. she started but she couldn't
turn it into a business because she didn't have any money. money. dimoney. that she complained about not having equal opportunities? though, she asked her brother that had a window business if she could keep the discarded window frames. so she's following him around, banging out the glass and turned in the aluminum and that's how she started her business and now it is successful. if you had asked does she have any opportunities, just in the abstract you would say no she doesn't have any money but because she set the goal for herself and took the responsibility for achieving that she was able to see something that was a potential opportunity and then act to turn it into success and that's what you want to see. look around all the ones that are open to you. been to highlight some of the reason you can't have the government promote one person's opportunities the only way that you can do it is other people's expense. so the number one thing that i would like to see is the
government to sto stopped takiny people's opportunity which i think it is way too much of and hopefully we will get to talk more about these but if you take things like the minimum wage, which now in california they are going to hike up to $15 an hour over the next few years, occupational licensing laws and education systems that leave too many americans particularly poor americans without a good education, these are the things holding people back. it's not that they haven't gotten a big enough handouts they've got been handicapped by the government intervention. >> host: most people then can't get any jobs at all and it's troubling that this is spreading across the country. new york state might be the next just in the name of getting rid of inequality. >> guest: one side says it creates unemployment and the other side says no, if we look at the studies they don't. we can think of this in a simple
way which is if i can't find somebody willing to offer me $15 an hour to work, the minimum wage cities it is illegal for me to work. i come at this book and this issue from the perspective of the philosophy and in particular one of the things it is very concerned with his justice so i would say even if it were true that 99% of the people get a higher wage and only 1% of the people get stopped from working by something like the minimum wage, that is unjust. you can't prop up some people by obliterating the future of other people who are unable to take the first step on the road to success. >> host: they concluded that the young and the unskilled hurr tidy increases in the minimum wage comes with is those that are preventing from getting their foot on the first rung of the ladder. it's troubling that into one and perhaps in new york, teenagers
aren't going to be able to get jobs because of this step. >> it is tragic and ignores the main thing people need to succeed and this is the story of american history. it's an open road to success. go back before we had the welfare state and for the government was doing anything to lift people up. here's the time human beings only had economic progress for a short amount of time and yet, people were able to come here and build successful lives for themselves because here as opposed to their own countries nobody was going to stop you from doing what you judged as best for your life and the same is true here the way we open up the road to productive achievement and to stop putting blockades and barriers in the way of it that is what is going to allow anybody regardless of where they start to have the maximum opportunity to achieve success and happiness.
>> host: you say no one can exploit you with voluntary trade. but there are those that prey on the uninformed. look at those that for example thought they were buying the low efficiency vehicles. is there the federal trade commission that makes sure what people are saying is true, or do you think that there is a role for the law that says children under some age which is 15 or 12 shouldn't be allowed to work to avoid exploitation? >> guest: i think the essence of a moral society when it comes down to it is that it is voluntary. but we interact voluntarily empty reach a mutual agreement over freedom to go our separate ways but nobody can do something without our consent. so when somebody sells you a product that is different than a promise to that's where we need the government to step in and say that isn't what the person consented to when he agreed to pay $20,000 for the car if the
car that was good to operate in a certain way. i don't think you need certain regulatory bodies you just need against fraud and so on. because of the regulatory bodies to this basically they don't prescribe criminal behavior. the prescribe and proscribe productive behavior. they dictate how people produce and they decide what kind of a deal can we arrive at? it'is not regulation to tell the carmakers when you saw somebody something it is better be better then you told them. it's a regulation when you say it has to do this kind of gas mileage and it has to have this many seat belts rather than leaving that up to the mutual choice of the buyers and sellers and as far as children, i think the government has a right or responsibility to protect the rights of children, but i don't think that applies in the so-called child labor laws.
on on the one hand, when you are necessary concerned with the well-being, we are so rich now parents are nothing to send their children into the coal mine. the first thing they do in the level of economic success if they send their kids to school, and that's why you saw child labor going away before there were ever even laws against child labor. it was on its way out because of economic progress. but they make it harder for the kids are excited. instead of playing nintendo or whatever the video game system is, they would've to have a job they can earn money and gain responsibility and you know who suffers the most from those? the poor kids. one of my friends i write about in the book was basically thrown into the foster care system at a pretty young age and the main thing he didn't have it his own money so he could actually be himself and he could gain a foothold and start building a resume and achieving success and this is one of the barriers
until you hit an arbitrary age you were able to go there and risk your life or hang out on the street corner or do any kind of an unproductive thing you want the one thing you can't do is bthis the productive and i tk that is unfair to young people. >> host: don't you think there should be a saying that if they are under a certain age they have to be in school what if i know that it's not very common but what if there were parents would say i'm going to send my children to wash cars all day because of family needs the money or something like that should be prohibited? >> guest: would we consider actual abuse of children but after that it has to be up to the parents judgment because that brings you down a very dangerous road for a number of reasons but the basic one is now the government gets to decide what qualifies as an education and i think that is one of the worst things you can do.
i agree it is a scary thing but putting them in charge of the ideas and values children are taught, we have taken it for granted for 100 plus years. so the biggest risk is and they won't send their kids to school. i think the biggest risk is that the schools are taken over by bureaucracy rather than open the choice, for the parents being free to decide what ideas their children should be taught and for innovators to find exciting and effective ways to educate children. there's there is a problem in gt schooling today but it doesn't educate many children particularly those growing up in the poor neighborhoods. >> host: one of the topics on the radar as the presidential election. it will be interesting to see how much support bernie sanders has with his focus on inequality, and it has a really driven his numbers much higher than they would have been otherwise. can you talk about why that is?
>> guest: this fits into what is going on in the debate is it that bernie sanders just has tons of charisma and sex appeal or that he actually has some ideas that have a lot of power, and i think that it is the power of the ideas and it comes from two things. number one, is he standing up for a moral idea of economic inequality commanded the second is that he has on his side would call the moral narrative that tells us when you abide by my idea, you flourish and when you abandon the idea, you flounder. this you know doubt heard is the idea that america reached into the golden age in the postwar era when the government fought income inequality and fielded better. and then what happened in the 70s, which is usually equated with blaming ronald reagan but starting in the 70s, what happened is we abandoned that idea. the 1% took ove one person tookd
started reading the game, we moved in a radical free-market direction and the result is they got all the games and we all stagnated. stagnated. so the lesson is supposed to be fighting a quality and things are great. >> host: his message does have traction. he said that taxes should go up to 80 or 90%. people cheer on the college students to vote for him. they feel the burn. >> guest: when you have morality on your side at least when you appear to have the idea on your side that is inspiring together only to young people. >> host: it's coming from his heart and it seems authentic. how do we fight that message or address of? >> guest: what is going on us to aspects. he has this moral idea, take the issue of free college. he's going to help people by
getting them to college but it's also because the message a lot of these kids take away is maybe i will get out of these college loans and when you combine the moral idea, people will crusade for something and the only way to impose that is to challenge the idea so long as you grant that yes free college makes you a good person and then you can take that strong stand for it is all they are saying is i want to bail out or handout, you will not see the crusading spirit for the same thing that has happened and that is tragic about this whole discussion is the critics of inequality and people don't want to see the government expanding how much it takes from people expanding how much control it has over people's choices, the people support free enterprise and free markets. they have not really had much to say on this issue to be at when we started writing the book do you know how many books that
left about on this issue, probably four or five a year. how many of the critics put out at that time, zero. and one of the biggest issues already. since then there have been two books. one by the canadian professor not many people have heard of unfortunately although the book was quite good and then another by thomas sold which was it have some developments that it didn't onlonly address the small subcomponent of the debate with holding. it focuses on challenging the statistics and saying it's not as bad as you think are challenging the solution saying we should minimize inequality but if you remember during the presidential debate republicans wildebates therepublicans will e inequality better than democra democrats. and the trouble is both of them can see that the economic inequality is a bad idea and the problem is if it is a bad idea, then we are in trouble because
economic freedom is immoral. we talked about this free-market that leads to nothing resembling economic inequality. it leads to progress for everybody but different progress. so we have a lot of work to do. we have to challenge their idea into their narrative and present the counter idea and that is what we do in the book. >> host: yes. certainly i very much enjoyed reading it and it's worth everybody picking up and adding it to the state. what seems to concern many americans isn't inequality per se. but we talk about mobility and peoplpeople that start off low y just want to get better off. that seems to be more important than economic inequality. what do you say about that? >> guest: a lot of our
concerns when it comes to the concern isn't that gap. it's our people able to ris rise binaries are they able to rise by their own efforts even if they start out without a lot of wealth or all things they were on the scale there's a couple things important to keep in mind about mobility. first, nobody isn't declined most researchers agree it's not declined even if economic equality has been rising. but we do have a mobility problem. now, the danger is thinking about mobility in purely financial terms. a lot of times you see these charts how many move up from the bottom to the top until the middle? that's the wrong way to think about it.
you can build for yourself a really fulfilling life. i mentioned my friend jeremiah and here is a guy that started at the bottom and now he's a teacher. i don't know how much money he makes but i imagine most don't make enough to get into the top 10% of the top 20%. but isn't it a full success? should we regret he didn't become an investment banker because that might have gotten him to the top? >> guest: there are some who say we need to pay teachers more and the leveend of a level theyg back to society doesn't really square with the amount we should be paying teachers for. they had proposals for teachers would get paid more in exchange for giving up ten year. >> guest: that's funny. that is quite revealing. they should be paid as much
economic value as they can in a market that we don't have the market for education today so it isn't clear what they should be paid in the sense of how much economic value are they really adding. but then how should we think about mobility if it isn't by looking at these mobility tables. and i think the view that you think about it is are there barriers preventing a person from rising. with that comes down to the end of the day is the government intervening in the economy and the way that prevents a person from rising by the productive achievement and rising by productive marriage >> host: it is the licensing you're discussing her book. you discuss in your book. >> guest: there's a million examples and maybe some not particularly annoyed you but here's the ones that annoy me. i can't find anybody to employee me into so i'm going to go out
on my own and i'm going to teach or perform hair-raising because it is a skill i'm good at and if i say i know a bunch of people who want to pay me to do it, can't do that. >> host: to braid your hair? >> guest: absolutely. but as a job come as a trade, i have to spend hundreds of thousands of hours getting a license and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. who are the people most likely to try to become hair breeders and who are the people least likely to be able to afford to go through a process like that? it is precisely those people who need every ounce of freedom to get this stuff on the road to success. and that is just one of many examples. >> guest: >> host: devries included on children's lemonade stands. >> guest: a lot of it is about teaching the lessons of entrepreneurship that teaches one of the main lesson today
which is the need permission from the government to do almost anything. but it really is outrageous. but there are so many barriers particularly with people starting out at the bottom. we talk about the minimum wage if we talk about education. here is one more area. everything the government does that drives up the cost of the things we buy is a huge barrier and opportunity because it means i have to work that much harder just to make a living s sellingo government funds the affordable housing crusade, a lot of what it is doing is driving up the cost of housing as more people are demanding housing. a lot of the restrictions of the sea by the epa on energy production, such as the whole ethanol scandal such as it is, that drives up the cost of energy, who were the people who are most affected by that, the people who don't have that big a budget and can't afford the higher energy costs. >> host: 25% of its income is on energy and gasoline and motor
>> >> it has been precisely because we had cheap affordable abundant energy. i don't think the arguments that we hear against fossil fuels holdup or the idea that we are running out the government has to get us on something else is true. is certainly can cause pollution but you don't need to outlaw the fuel that more than 80 percent of the time
is making possible industrial civilization. climate change is a more complex issue. i don't think there is evidence we're headed for a climate catastrophe. and on next to cope with any climate. but to connect us to the inequality today. is to extend the power of government and expand the power of government from destroying with the planet from fossil fuels but it takes away freedom and wealth from individuals to give more power to the government with the environmental argument for expanding the of the government today.
i should add a close friend wrote about the moral case for fossil fuels. >> we does have to make sure that they read. >> people talk about scandinavia as the ideal and say you should be more like that because it is more equal. what do you say? >> when i started to write thisbook i knew a little but not a lot. one of the surprising things that i found was if you look at the history. >> so we hear a conspirator -- comparisons they are dangerous for many reasons
but it is easy to cherry pick the political policy you want to say characterize this we did vs. america. and pretty much compare rabil with the government control and involvement but it is just different with much higher taxes much more wealth distribution wellesz david g. regulatory spier. but this is what is fascinating the history of sweden startedoff as the animals porous countries in europe. it quickly became one of the richest and one of the most free-market countries you could make an argument it was more free market and the united states.
to become very rich very unequal. and as we hear it talked about today. to dramatically increase taxes and welfare redistribution it was never socialist but it went far of the social democratic redistribution state. the results the economy flat lined you didn't see that our entrepreneurial people with a bunch of new companies coming out. to get as low as it has ever gotten and to say this is not working and liberating their economy with really good economic outcomes so if
you look at it from the perspective of his own history that is concerned about economic progress but also economic liberation teeseven fat we do want some of redistribution? we need streetlights and some things only the government can pay for? teeone but differentiate between we need to pay for the things the government does that protect all of our freedoms. no question about that. what are the best ways to moires that revenue? redistribution is when instead of raising funds for every betty's freedom and
property takes it to give it to other people. >> so there should not be any social safety net? no housing vouchers or medicaid? >> one person should not work without pesach the people can get paid without working. >> but a portion goes to the social safety net so if they get in trouble than they have the social safety net to fall back con teeone a call that a working without pay because it amounts that if i went to work somebody was to pay be in return for reservists is it i don't get to decide what to do with the money it goes to another cause, may not want to in that amount bad things can happen in life you have to be prepared that things can happen to the people that you care about but all that
can be taking care of voluntarily. my previous book focused on america before and after the welfare state and one of the things that was happening before the creation of the welfare state starting in 1935 was the social security act with these challenges of involved in the industrial nation suddenly you had to figure out what happens is if i lose a job or retirement to take care of myself for my family? people were starting to find a private voluntary solutions. first of all, they would save a more significant amount of more money than we do today but also rising insurance in terms of unemployment for all the analyses as evil fifth. mutual aid societies that were little insurance
agencies i could join the elks lodge to pay an amount and then have a contractual right to say health care benefits or a place to stay if i was elderly it could not support myself than the abundant private charities. why should we make a social safety net voluntary rather than coercive? because different people have different values. >> host: the during the great depression there worked some of that time if people were standing in line for soup at the soup kitchen so you say that life was better than? and not having food stamps. >> guest: would you be shocked if i said yes? >> but the fact is the depression, a day debate
details but a question that was made possible by government control over the economy with the actions of the federal reserve. when people are left free we don't have widespread depression. >> host: on the one hand they can say there should be less regulation and the federal reserve should have a consistent monetary policy. that there should not be any social safety net. it is immoral and destructive but history shows we don't need it and the great depression and far looking at what happened if we didn't have a lawyer doesn't count as an example because it is precisely the fact we did have these catherine interventions.
if it has been more abundant. because there is way more money we can use so i don't see that as a problem but what i do see a society treats people live as individuals that we all respect to freedom their property but to it to resources and burdens i hate the way people deserve to be treated is independent beings to of the right to be left alone to pursue their own happiness and success.
>> we don't have any obligation to help them to give them medical care. or any obligation to give them food. >> guest: who is though we? there is no society. which responsibilities in which individuals? is anybody that i doubt if their house burns down? yassin have a certain obligation. so the people that i care about i will be there to assist them stood there for somebody who is very nasty the republican who has befriends are you saying there is no government entity with the moral obligation? >> guest: now. why you should be a jerk if you want people to help you
in and be the case you have to repaid the favor by against the idea what a person is the entitlement. we think about ourselves as to read the helping. i would hate to see somebody starting in front of my eyes but that is not the issue. you could help a but you want but question is if you are sick and need an operation how do you think about it? if somebody owes me i don't care if they are struggling to send their kid to school or trying to build their business so i will march over and a bit he pays for my operation. i ask thousands that i yet to meet one person who says yes that is how i act as a. [laughter] somewhere else those
attitudes should be reflecting government policy. is your sheered feet of entitlement regardless of what you got in the position >> for the sake of argument and to go to your friend would you give me the money for heart surgery your friend might want to but not be able to afford the back into that operation or that surgery but if we take a few pennies from everybody it would be from many people to help you in there would be a fund or a risk pool so you don't have to depend on one friend and you have a rich
friend to to help you buddies are vast economies of scale. >> guest: this is why insurance is such a great innovation with the economies of scale but we get them voluntarily. it is so controlled by government that we take for granted that there would be as expensive that this is. to make a combination of of really good in to really bad. has driven up the costs enormously.
>> host: we do have very severe problems of the delivery with the lack of competition with a bad bones health insurance but it doesn't me that always works for everybody. we need is some kind of safety that we don't want a society as somebody doesn't have friends they are starving or die in the early death it is very troubling. >> guest: history shows that the scenario that you talk about is not realistic because of their rich land were people feel benevolent that somebody out there has no friends or family or neighbors or private charity to help the amount? i don't think that makes a lot of sense. but i want to two separate you would be great should
the government have any role of the safety net? that is good vs. debating economic inequality not to focus just on the one at of 1 billion who can help itself and has nobody around to voluntarily help, but we need to equalize and the quarter is to bring down people at the top. submit capital and the 21st century is she proposals but he says explicitly that this is not about raising money to help the port because he argues these high taxes deferred
animosity to people and those as monday like the ceo of the government tries to way that it different areas. interestingly there is a lot less animosity toward rock stars of madonna is the lady got got and the leading sports players. and the sports players and the money that they get. >> part of the reason is it is easy to see the value of the broad james. his spectacular it enjoys playing basketball but with co we are taught to have strong opinions of how much of the cn should be paid but if you ask most people what does he do? have yet to get a decent answer. >> he manages the company's.
>> but people don't know why that is important. obviously people that we know our experts have some idea. but it isn't teethree to a hundred $20 billion in revenue and the average pay is 10.5 million dollars. that is a lot of money nothing to scoff at. i would be happy to take a percentage but compared to the scale of the companies they are readying look at t ted who made over $20 billion last year.
everything around us, tv's coverage air-conditioning, heating i got here in a car or this side of the country on an airplane was needn't it as we who new york it is clear the ceo can make a huge difference. >> host: neece the cafe and a student. >> is madonna not the ceo with they don't have the animosity towards business and one of the biggest disgraces isn't history is
error problems is insisted and kent but the solution is to read and a better to celebrate selective the achievement. >> one of the major recommendations for the weaker it would do you see the should say right al and. >> i would say a couple of things that we need to do some controversial are some less but first of all, and all the corporate welfare led business compete in the free market no bailouts or special loans. behalf to prove themselves
with the enterprise situation. but the stop being barriers from people starting at the bottom. so get rid of that insanely necessary licensing. >> if you could is happening in the data with more control and more choice is good. are like to see more than that and innovators readying to nevada so we can see education become cheaper and
more effective for all americans. >> host: did you see the we see and when the governor changed they could only opt out of the nt and aft schools and i have a three year-old daughter and one-year-old son but basically the view of the critics would nitrite to give him more opportunities opportunities, i am doing something wrong.
i said this is the kashmiri you are not entitled to have to take responsibility. you always have to be learning and trying and going out there to give it your all to make something of your life. a lot of people in this country the think fully not a majority don't want that they want to be taking care of they want security but that only comes at the expense of other people. if everybody has a limited opportunity to make the most said here is a place to fight for it. with those independent