tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 9, 2015 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
different rooms. they did not have sheet rock or ceilings or masonite on the floor. it would have been freezing, even in the daytime. the only heating that they would've had would have been a potbelly stove here this would not have been able to heat the entire room and they comes will kind of like a > way. >> challenging that order, he defied that order and was arrested. the case went to the supreme court and find out how the court ruled with our guest peter irons, author of "justice at war," the story of japanese internment cases, and karen, the executive director of the institute and daughter of the plaintiff. government'sne the policies during world war ii and follow his life before, during,
and after the court's decision. that is coming up next on t "weimar cases" on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for more background, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it is available for a dollars $.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases. here on c-span live at the heritage foundation in washington, d.c. or a discussion with our consent -- arkansas republican senator tom cotton on disability benefits. >> joining us on the c-span network, we remind our internet and television viewers that questions and comments can be sent to us at any time by e-mailing speaker at heritage.org. we will post the program on the heritage homepage for future reference. in-house, we do appreciate the courtesy of cell phones being silenced as we prepare to begin.
hosting our program and introducing our special guest is ambassador terry miller. our fellow and economic freedom and director of the center for data analysis and trade and economics. he directs all of our ongoing research in the role of free markets and trade and fostering economic growth here and around the world. he previously served in the bush administration as the ambassador to the united nations economic and social council, appointed in 2006. he has a long and distinguished career as a diplomat and public servic servant. please welcome and join me in .elcoming ambassador miller : the socialiller security disability insurance program was established in the 1950's. like most of the safety net, it
was founded with noble intentions. to ensure that america's that could not work because of mental would notl impairment suffer from poverty or destitution. however over its nearly 60 years of existence, the disability insurance program has morphed from a small scale anti-poverty program, providing benefits to less than one half of 1% of our population, to a program that now provides not only disability insurance but also unemployment and early retirement subsidies to over 5% of our population -- 5%. deal with the manifest problems and the disability program ranging from biased eligibility processes to outright fraud, congress chose in its recent budget deal to go with a short-term financial patch.
program withut the $150 billion from the even more underfunded social security trust fund. kicking the can down the road seems to be the best that we can do under the current administration and in the face of an entitlement problem that seems to overwhelm our government's financial stability. despite the infusion of cash, the disability program will run out of money in 2022. with the social security program itself creeping closer to insolvency, it is hard to see where the money will come from for yet another bailout. our guest, senator tom cotton, was one of the heroes who voted against that reckless budget fix. he is here today to talk about some of the real reforms that could improve the efficiency and
integrity of the disability insurance program. tom cotton grew up on his in yieldcattle farm county, arkansas. he went from high school to harvard and on to harvard law school. after a clerkship with the u.s. court of appeals and private law practice, tom left the law because of the september 11 attacks. he left to join the u.s. army. tom served in iraq with the 101st airborne in afghanistan and in afghanistan with the team.cial reconstruction within his two combat tours, he served with the old guard at arlington national cemetery. tom's military decorations include the braun started between th the bronze s.
his time in the senate, he served one term in the house of representatives. tom and his wife anna had their first child in the past spring. congratulations, senator. please join me in welcoming senator tom cotton. [applause] senator cotton: thank you. thank you very much for letting me participate today. ambassador miller, thank you for the very kind introduction. it is a privilege as always to speak at the heritage foundation, especially before this distinguished panel. romine, your work at the heritage has been instrumental in the cause of social security disability reform. legislators rely on your analyses went disability does eventually come. your great work will have advanced the cause significantly. your work on transitional benefits was a critical component of my own legislation, which i will turn to shortly.
we all know the challenges of the social security disability insurance program. it has grown far too large, well past the rate of demographics could there's a lack of program and integrity and those who should recover never leave the program. to highlight to highlight two other specific concerns with social security disability. first, the effect of social security disability on communities, what might be called the disability tipping point. and second, on ways to better help those recover return to work. i dynamic of the program that is underappreciated is how regional and concentrated it has become. and arkansas, we have the third highest rate of social security disability usage, only behind west virginia and alabama. about 7.5% of the working age population in my state collects disability benefits. by contrast, the dakotas, nebraska, and wyoming all have about 3% of their working age population on disability, less
than half of arkansas's rate. within arkansas, the disparity is even more striking at the county level. arkansas, along with the other states in what has been called greater appalachia, have counties close to 20% of the population on disability. --t is an astonishing figure one in five residents on disability in these places. disabilityeans that is the largest source of income in those counties. on the other hand, other counties in arkansas, particularly the fastest-growing ones, have rates of disability well below the national average. the evidence is pretty clear. there is an inverse relationship between the rate of disability use usage and population growth, which most economics would agree is a proxy for economic vitality. art counties with the highest of social security
disability suffered a population decline of more than 2% in the past years alone, while the rest of my state grew by more than 2%. counties in the 20 arkansas with the lowest rates of social security disability usage have boomed with population growth of more than 4% over the same time. this correlation is to striking to ignore. the same trend is also true nationwide. buchanan county, virginia with 22% of the population on social security disability had more than a 4% decline in its population in four years. mcdowell, west virginia with a 20% rate of social security disability sought more than an 8% decline in its population. the fastest-growing counties in the country, in places like north dakota, texas, and northern virginia, by contrast, have less than 2% of their population on disability, or about 1/10 of the rate of
declining a populist and counties. -- a population counties. it is hard to say what first or cause the other -- population decline or increase disability usage or maybe economic stagnation caused both. regardless, there seems to be at the county and regional level something like a disability tipping point. when a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes the norm. it becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income as opposed to a good jobl-time paying instead of a program to deal catastrophic injury and illness. at a certain point went disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees or begin and continue to move out of the area. population continues to fall in a downward spiral, driving once thriving communities and to further the client -- into
further decline. not only that, but once the spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin and met the diction and associated crime. an urgent policy bill should stop these tipping points from being reached. there is nothing compassionate about accepting these rates of disability usage. it is bad for the communities affected and worse for the disability recipients. after all, it will receive poverty level checks for the rest of their lives. those who can work but are instead on disability will likely never again receive a paycheck and never enjoy working with others and making friends at work, developing new skills, and achieving the fulfillment that comes with the dignity of work. points, along with a general increase in the number of disability recipients have also endangered the program's financial health, including medicare benefits for
recipients, and now the program cost more than $200 billion per year, or the equivalent of about half of all nondefense discretionary spending. in turn, the financial uncertainty around the disability programs puts at risk that generally and permanently disabled that depend on the program. i'm introducing legislation to address this challenge. parts. have three main first, social security will do sting was between those who are genuinely and permanently disabled and those who are disabled but expected to recover. today, the system treats a paraplegic the same as someone with a severely broken leg, who is expected to recover within a year. those who are expected to recover will be categorized as likely or potential to recover. it will allow beneficiaries and these categories to earn an income while on the program through a benefit offset. these beneficiaries can take time for rehabilitation and then
gradually rejoin the workforce. with the offset, they will not be at risk of losing the benefits as they begin to earn more money on the path back to full-time work. further, this offset can improve the programs integrity because judges can review whether a beneficiary use the offset, if the beneficiary reapplies the program for permanent disability status. legislation will also set timelines for these individuals to exit the program and return to work. if the recovery goes more slowly than expected and are not yet ready to return to work, they can reapply. they are no longer disabled and they can leave the program and return to the workforce. the past years have shown that this approach is necessary if we want to increase the number of beneficiaries returning to the workforce. social security's ticket to work program, for instance, has operated for more than 16 years. dozens ofalso dov
other resources available to beneficiaries through countless federal agencies. yet after billions of dollars of studies, pilots, and other programs, but return to work rate has dropped to nearly zero. i believe that our challenge is not a lack of good intentions or federal programs. our challenge is a lack of expectations and incentives for those who can recover. my legislation attempts to fix this. these reforms will not solve all the problems of social security disability, but they will address one of the most urgent crises in the program. in the one perhaps most corrosive to affected communities. thank you all for your interest in this issue, for your outstanding work on the topic, and for allowing me to address you today. now, we will turn to the real experts on the panel. thank you. [applause]
ambassador miller: i would ask the panelist to join and continued the discussion. we are joined by a distinguished group who i'm going to introduce as soon as i can find my notes. have three speakers today who will discuss their proposals for transitional benefits for disabled individuals who might return to work as senator cotten talked about. also for private disability insurance options to increase the scope of the program and a flat disability insurance benefit to make it more sustainable and more fair for those who are lower income to start with. our first speaker will be room enough votes to sheet -- ro mina and she is the director at the grover m herman research fellow at the heritage foundation.
she focuses on federal spending and the national debt, including social security and disability insurance. prior to joining the heritage foundation, she served as an associate at the charles koch as a policyd analyst at the independent women's forum. kim hildred currently serves as .resident of hildred consulting prior to her current role, she served 17 years as the staff director of the committee on ways and means subcommittee on social security. there, she assisted committee republicans in the development and passage of rest -- legislation to strengthen social security survivors and programs. as well as in the oversight of these programs, her prior service also includes three years deciding social security disability claims for
the states of kansas and wisconsin, followed by 10 years of increasingly responsible positions in managing social security disability programs in the chicago and philadelphia regions. our final panelist is rachel guerra slip. she is the senior policy analyst at the center for data analysis at the heritage foundation. in her current role, rachel focuses on social security, disability insurance, tax, and pension policies. prior to joining the heritage foundation, rachel spent seven years as a senior economist on the staff of the joint economic committee where she focused on similar issues. romina.tart with romina: the bipartisan budget deal that passed last week did one thing right. and preventive cuts
for beneficiaries, but it fail to make substantial reforms to make the program work better for beneficiaries that it serves and also for the taxpayers to fund it. it only included very minor changes to deter fraud and to reduce overpayments in the disability program. beyond that, it only included one demonstration project to test out a reform proposal that some believe will increase work participation among disability program beneficiaries. romina boccia: my remarks today looke its will explore this in greater depth and i will try to answer the following questions. is this policy change so promising that it was worth congress putting all of its eggs to just one basket in the budget deal? among all the policy options available which congress could have authorized demonstration projects, was this the best one that congress could have chosen?
the answer to both of these is a flat out no. demonstration projects exist to test and measure the effects of potential program changes. i am sorry to tell you, but the demonstration project that congress chose is among the least promising. that is if we are trying to to focus the program on those who needed the most and to reduce program costs as we do that. the demonstration project authorizes another variant of the so-called benefit offset policies. the idea is to let disability beneficiaries work more without losing their benefits. this policy will likely increase entry into the disability program by individuals who can do some work and it will discourage those already on the program from leaving the roles. ist is the only change that adopted. one might say, hey, let us not fault that. maybe it will work.
the thing is that this proposal has been tried in different variations here in the u.s. and because theions u.s. is not alone and struggling under the weight of growing disability program spending and also the accompanying reduction in labor force participation that occurs when individuals leave the labor market to join the disability rolls. people agree that society has a proper role in providing benefits for those who cannot provide for themselves. design inor program the disability program ends up discouraging labor force participation among individuals who might otherwise work. this is what program reforms should effectively address. before i get into details, i would like to draw your attention to a story in this sunday's "washington post" about thatng man named paul illustrates this problem very effectively. slide -- to pull up
are we able to pull up the slide? you can always find it online. paul is 34 and in the picture he is shown with rockclimbing gear. have actually seen paul at the rockclimbing gym where i go as well. about paul, he used to work at the outdoor outfitter re: for about five years. he lost his health insurance coverage when his hours got cut back. thathas a red condition requires him to take costly endocrine system drugs to manage his condition. post about paul and i quote here, "instead of going out to try to support himself with another job, paul took the safer option -- apply for social security disability insurance and medicaid. in order to qualify for applicantsbenefits,
are required to prove they are unable to earn more than $1100 a month from working. this earnings test is called the substantial gainful activity level." the story goes on to describe shortly after being admitted to the disability program got another job offer in d.c. that would have paid him enough to get him over that earnings test threshold. what then, he risked losing his free medical and government cash benefits. i was very sad and yesterday as i was having my sunday coffee to read about a young man who is holding back his professional career so that he can maintain valuable disability benefits. this is a human tragedy. it is a tragedy of loss potential. some analysts have suggested that lawmakers should eliminate the earnings test or smooth out this benefits cash cliff by allowing individuals to work
indefinitely for higher earnings while maintaining the disability because there are already a lot of programs on the books that allow individuals to test out their abilities to work at these higher levels, but over time, individuals are expected roles.e the some analysts say this discourages individuals from even trying to earn at higher levels. who areonservatives proponents of this policy will leave that more individuals like paul might once they earn substantial amounts in the earnings threshold will be the roles. they are hopeful that this might reduce costs over time. the smoothing out is called a benefit offset policy and the budget deal includes one variation of it. suggestsing research that a benefit offset would likely increase program costs by encouraging more individuals like paul, who have marginal work capacity, to enter the
disability program. it is effectively a benefit expansion and it would also discourage others from leaving the roles. a national benefit offset program is, on the other hand, expected to increase the earnings and disposable income off disability beneficiaries by increasing program costs at the same time as the program expands targeted statutorily populations, individuals unable to work at those levels of income. the social security administration began a similar demonstration project as was authorized in the recent budget deal in 2009. theresearchers evaluating program concluded that adopting this as a national policy would most likely increase program costs. a benefit offset policy encourages people like paul to accept higher earning positions or to work more hours by itself fix theequate to
problems in the social security program. it might increase some labor force participation by those already on the roles, but it is unlikely to reduce the number of individuals on the roles if this is the only policy change that congress were to adopt. and commendation with other reforms that are more likely to result in program savings and effectively return people to work, a benefit offset can improve the welfare of individuals with disabilities and i am very encouraged to hear senator cotten speak about just such a proposal. one of the big issues with current program design is that it sets no clear expectation that individuals with marginal or 10 for a disabilities return to work and by returning to work, i do not mean increased labor force participation by those on the disability rolls, but supporting yourself through work. other nations, notably germany, which is where our firm, norway and the u.k. have built in
incentives for individuals to return to work to focus on accommodations and by lifting benefits for certain populations. coburn, then senator tom and seduce a bill that would have granted time-limited benefits when recovery is expected for those on the roles and i'm glad to hear that senator cotton is picking up that mantle. this bill will also establish pilot projects to test early intervention efforts to help were capable individuals like paul with disabilities to return to work before ever entering the disability program. i look forward to hearing from my colleagues more about some of those promising reforms. miller: thank you, romina. kim hildred: good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. this presentation will summarize our paper entitled "the
transitional benefits of a subset of the social security disability population." i want to acknowledgment and dr. jennifer christian for this paper was actually submitted as a proposal to the solutions initiative that is cochaired by former chairman of the subcommittee jim mccreary and earl pomeroy. delighted to serve this paper for that initiative. just smallur paper a thatt of new beneficiaries the social security administration currently identifies as expected to medically improve after a benefit award is made. today, there are 3% of beneficiaries expected to medically improve. examples of medical improvement include those in a catastrophic accident or those who had major surgery like musculoskeletal surgeries.
those with impairments are rising out of conditions that respond well to medical and/or rehabilitative treatment. these beneficiaries today are not provided with medical support or employment services that would facilitate the return to work. and so, show their benefits be , the review would continue as well nor are they required to pursue services to return to work upon their benefit award. in contrast, when congress first considered adding this program, many contemplated a system of transitional benefits coupled with vocational services, designed to help people get back onto their feet and into the workforce. essentially, our paper encourages lawmakers to revisit the link between rehabilitation andices and disability consider creating transitional benefits for the small subset of new beneficiaries whose
disability is not in question, but graph conditions expected -- who have conditions expected to approve. the social security administration would intimate a capacitive -- a compassionate system with the goal of employment, financial independence, and a better quality of life. as i mentioned in terms of the problem, beneficiaries with conditions that are expected to improve are not encouraged to work nor are they provided with implement support that they need to return to work. continuing disability review backlogs, which have reached 1.3 million by the end of fiscal year 2013, hard beneficiaries according to a report by the bipartisan social security advisory board. delaying the return to work efforts make it more difficult with time, potentially creating a misimpression that eligibility ofpermanent regardless disability status and for the social security administration
from taking timely action to discontinue payments to beneficiaries were no longer eligible, causing and misuse of program resources. dion backlogs, there are other problems facing the continuing disability review process. thehe decision supporting initial finding is very, this vision makers may not be able to determine medical improvement could in addition, beneficiaries face significant problems and a claimant challenges given the length of time that they wait for an award in addition to the length of time before continuing disability review occurs. should they be ceased when a disability review occurs, they are not offered services to help them reenter the labor market. referenceslso experts have highlighted the need for it to receive assistance to return to employment and the value of work and the increasing number of countries that have implemented time-limited or temporary payments.
briefly, our proposal for transitional benefits would change the dynamic of disability by ensuring that beneficiaries have access to supports and services that will aid them in medical and work recovery. sending a clear message through a fixed length benefit award that temporary financial support is needed while the beneficiary is recuperating while also signaling the expectation that they will be returning to work. allowing transitional beneficiaries to earn income without limits during the period and maintaining the ability to file a new application at the end should they still believe they are unable to work. under this proposal, disability determination services examiners , these are 100% federally funded state agencies can make those disability decisions at the initial reconsideration level. judgesinistration law
would first determine as they do now whether the claims of meet the statutory definition of disability. decision-makers would use a newly developed predictive analytics model to determine whether the medical condition is expected to improve. if so, transitional benefits would be awarded for a two or three year period specified by the predicted model, with the decision-maker having the discretion to expand the traditional period up to the three-year traditional term. as soon as practicable, contact individuals of individuals receiving benefits would be sent to the court enters under the current law work incentive planning and insistence program, which would be modified to prioritize services to transitional beneficiaries, for a ticket to work service provider. read and modify ticket to work program, and as the senator mentioned, that is the current law program under the social
security administration, service providers will provide customized services for medical and functional recovery if necessary in order to achieve employment. theretioned previously, will be no cap on earned income during the traditional benefit period to encourage work. so, the paper further addresses a number of implementation issues. regarding the use of predictive modeling, it points to emphasizing experience with predictive modeling and they continuing disability review process, determining which matured diary cases should undergo a full medical review. toalso points that they need update the guidelines to determine these diary assignments. the instructions for the examiners who set the diaries from when people who will have a continuing disability review -- they have not been updated since the 1990's. we point to the need for that to happen.
panely, an expert would be can be periodically to determine medical improvement. regarding appeals, we propose making the decision to award transitional benefits nonappealable to avoid undercutting the goal of encouraging beneficiaries to take the steps needed to reenter the workforce instead of waiting for the appeals process to unfold. we point to examples where congress have included appeals to analogous contexts in the past. as for supports, we provide further details regarding the --edited ann taylor services and tailored services for return to work programs in a study regarding the rehabilitation act. require compliance, traditional beneficiaries would be required to follow prescribed treatment and take advantage of return to work services if needed to facilitate it workforce reattachment. required toso be
notify transitional beneficiaries six months in advance of their benefits ending so that they may take any needed action. kerry go. -- here we go. the paper also requires that we would -- all the authors were asked to specify statutory changes that we be needed under the proposal. and so we included a list of the statutory changes. that's as illustrated here. i think i jumped ahead. there am. you can see that those are spelling out some of the changes that would be required. it asks us to identify some potential intermediate steps i could be utilized by lawmakers. the paper includes certain intermediate steps -- for example, a study to analyze the cdr process to provide baseline data to perform a well designed
transitional program and testing of all elements of the transitional benefit program in a few states or regions, which could be expanded if a limit their results are positive. and the paper also includes options for demonstration projects through federal interagency agreements or state innovation or expanded tatian expanded tatian with partners and that can be funded by nonprofit foundations or social impact funds. asked towe were address some of the questions or concerns that people may have about the proposal in the paper. including those for example who may simply oppose the concept of time limiting benefits. while we believe that establishing transitional benefits for this small subset of business ishares who conditions are specter to improve combined with the ,mployment support services it's not only a compassionate solution but better serves these individuals, but it is also
consistent with congress toss and tension that some disabilities would be temporary since the definition of disability specifies that the disability must last for a least 12s period of at months. we sign off on the use of predictive analytics as a probabilistic approach that would ensure more consistent outcomes nationally and the senator spoke to some of the needs that we see across the nation. we ate knowledge this concept would impose greater administrative burdens as more applications might be processed due to those transitional beneficiaries who may believe they are still disabled however, we display the white these burdens may be manageable. while the costs are somewhat speculative, we explain why the increasing administrative costs could be eclipsed by the long-term savings in the trust fund. we also explain why traditional funding would not solve the issues addressed by this paper, including the fact that the
transitional term, unlike the uncertain prospect of a cdr, reinforces the fact that beneficiary should be able to return to work and provide support and enable them to do so. averageusion, the benefit is 13,000 $980 a year. -- $13,980 a year, slightly above a poverty threshold living alone. that is better for americans with the disability act, including the individuals living with disabilities in all aspects of life, particularly employment . studies have indicated that age, time on the roles come and help are associated with beneficiary work-related activity and employment success. we believe that limited time on the rolls for a small subset of these beneficiaries have a high likelihood of medical improvement and aimed at improving health and employment reentry will facilitate better
economic outcomes and approved overall quality of life. ambassador miller: thank you, kim. rachel. rachel gressler: i'm going to to big picture reforms and one is in the current system and the second is a flat benefit. i'm going to start with three statistics. there are over 20 million working age people with disabilities in the united states today. about 11 million people are on the disability insurance roles. with disabilities, that 20 million figure, would like to be working in some capacity. few ofgreszler: but very them are, only 30% of them are inflicted what this says is that there are more people with disabilities that are currently on the system, but yet there are more people overall that want to be working and are not able to. a lot of those receiving benefits would like to work, but
they are not able to in the current system and it is impeding the for doing so. this first chart here shows the percent of the population that has been on ssdi since its inception. than one halfess than 1% of the population and now we are at over 5% of all people working age receiving it. so many people receiving benefits when we see that life expectancies are increasing, there are medical innovations allowing more people to recover from whatever disability they have to get back to the placerce, and work accommodations, and jobs are a lot more sedentary? oft's not that there are lot manufacturing jobs, but there are a lot of jobs that can be found today that require minimal physical effort. role in increasing despite that?
the study by the federal reserve looked at the change in beneficiaries between 1980 and 2013. they were able to account for about half of that rise in the roles. they attributed that rise to three factors. first, there was an increase in social security retirement age. ages 65-67 will now be on disability as opposed to social security if they become disabled at that age. second, there is the aging of the population. baby boomers are reaching older ages where they are more likely to become disabled. third, we have seen a rapid rise in women's labor force participation. while they were not eligible before, they are now. that leaves about half of the rise, which is equivalent to 3 million people per year, or $42 billion in spending that is unaccounted for. lot of problems within the ssdi system, but we can categorize them into two things. first, there are too many people get on the roles to begin with.
second, too few people are ever leaving the roles. the proposal i'm suggesting here is an optional private insurance system. this would address both of those components. private disability insurance exists today for about one third of workers. , it is a totally different structure than the ssdi system. it is the same product -- it is disability insurance, but the incentives are tiredly different. entirely different. private disability insurance has to provide a product that employers and disabled individuals appreciate and is valuable to them, but they also have to provide it at low cost. they do that through a very efficient and determined process. as you can see on this first chart here, the average wait time for that initial decision from private individual insurance providers is 41 days. almost no one goes beyond the initial decision. it is not like ssdi where
everybody appeals. most people have that decision within 41 days. , they areme period assigned a caseworker who are meeting with them if needed and meeting with the employer and trying to figure out what kind of medical help they need and what kind of workplace accommodations would allow them to get back to the job. or do they need a different education because they can no longer perform the job they were doing before? administrationty -- individuals sit and wait for five months before they can apply and receive benefits. they go to the initial level where they wait about 100 days for initial determination. most people are denied at that stage and go on to appeal through a administrative law judge. that takes 568 days on average. during that time, individuals are losing whatever length they they're losing
their skills and education. they are beginning to believe that they really cannot work. the second component of the private disability that is more effective and efficient is the determination process. the second graph just gives one glance of that. we have seen in the ssdi system that now 63% of all claims that are approved offer mental and musculoskeletal disorders. disorders,egitimate but they are the more subjective ones that are harder to diagnose . on the other hand in the private 35 percent of those claims are for the musculoskeletal and mental disorders. providing more workplace accommodations and having the goal of getting people back to work as opposed to just approving them because that is easier than denying and continuing to pay benefits because that is easier than going through a cd-r, as we heard there are more than a million people waiting to have
their cd-r's. in addition to that, the private market is not only providing higher benefits that at a lower cost. the first chart here shows the level of benefit the individuals would receive by income level. if you go to the right, that is higher income individuals. the light blue bars represent what they would receive from ssdi currently. the dark blue bars of what they would receive from private disability insurance. ssdi replaces on average 44% of workers income whereas a private system typically replaces 60%. it is providing higher benefits and doing that at a much lower cost. cost $245 a year on average compared to $867 per year that some of the thousand dollars would pay in ssdi taxes. it is hard to do an apples to apples comparison with these two is one if an individual private disability and then get on ssdi, there is an offset. even after accounting for those
things, i did an analysis that show that the private market could continue to pay the 60% replacement rate for half the cost of what individuals are currently paying and payroll taxes. would be to here allow employers if they wanted to to offer a qualified private disability insurance that would be at least equal to what ssdi provides now. employers who choose to offer this receive a payroll tax credit and a portion of the current 1.8% on the employer themselves. they will receive that credit and it will allow them the funds to purchase private disability insurance. individuals who have an employer who goes through the private system would first applied to the private system. they might still be in their job and having trouble and they would have to apply without sitting for five months and wait another 500 or so days to get a determination. they would have all those accesses to work supports and
resulted of efforts. after the initial decision, if they were determined to be disabled, they would receive those benefits for the first two or three years. arer that time, if they still disabled, they would be transitioned to the ssdi system because there is no reason to continue on a private system if at that point they have been determined to be continually disabled after two to three years. it is more efficient to less as -- let ssdi pay the benefit. we have had the individual having support along the way and all the efforts tried to get them back to work. when they are determined not able, they are transitioned over. this has the benefit to the individual who has more support along the way. whoanishes the employer could reduce the overall employment costs and is also an advantage to the ssdi system. the private employers and the payroll tax credit is less than
what cost to provide those benefits of would also have a reduction in the roles and the results. the second proposal i would like to talk about gets at the original intent of social security. this is a nearly six-year-old program and when it was originally set up, it would ensure that people who become disabled or not destitute and living in poverty. see here, social security provides the largest benefits to the people you the highest pre-disability income. the graph to the left there shows that somebody with the highest income would be receiving $2800 per month in ssdi benefits were as a minimum wage worker is going to be receiving only $866 per month. we see thatof this, nearly 2 million people that receive ssdi benefits are living in poverty. that was not the intent of the program. prevento commit --
poverty among the disabled. they're turning to other government programs that are having an additional cost. if we were to implement an anti- poverty flat benefit equal to everybody who has to go into the system, this would be an increase in benefits for about 35% of the population and a reduction of about 65%. we would not propose to change benefits for anybody currently on the roles, but going forward, and this is something that could be implement it relatively has those in the future to receive this flat benefit. starting at your from now, disability is not like social security where individuals plan to retire and they know they need the money someday. disability is an unplanned event could to the extent that an individual wants to ensure that they have a certain level of income if they become disabled, they can go out tomorrow to purchase disability insurance in the private market and ensure that level of income. this is getting at the proper
roles of the disability insurance system. anti-poverty benefits and anything beyond that is left up to individuals decide to do i need 50% or 100% of my income? the government does not need to dictate that and said it added certain percent -- at a certain percent. in addition to restoring social security disability insurance program to its original intent, this proposal would go beyond solving social security shortfalls. over the next 10 years, it would solve two thirds of the shortfall and that is only because we would grandfather anybody in the current system the graph here shows the white blue lines are social security shortfall in billions of dollars. the dark blue lines are the savings that would be accumulated as a result of implementing this flat benefit. inyou can see, beginning 2023, the savings exceed the shortfall. that is that you're going to have more money left over than
the shortfall. you can take that money and reduce the payroll tax itself, get more money back to individuals, more after-tax take-home pay. it would allow them to purchase disability and private disability insurance to bring them to whatever level they need they would need -- believe it would need if they become disabled. two proposalse get added and these components addressed the problems inherent in the current system through the private option and then they also look at returning social security to its original intent and bring about the financial savings that we need to keep the program solvent. i think we will turn to questions that. thank you,miller: rachel. now it is your turn. while you are formulating your questions, i'm quick to start with one of my own. situation and a program here that is manifestly broken in many ways. it provides an equitable
benefits, the bureaucratic inefficiencies in running the program are terrible, it discourages people who are currently disabled from returning to work through punitive measures. as senator cotten said, it provides incentives that were people into long-term dependency and effectively makes them wards of the state for their entire remaining lives. we have heard some very innovative and it sounds like reasonable proposals for reforms to the program. i would just ask our panelists briefly -- what are the politics of this? is this something really amenable to bipartisan action or is this going to be another one of those failed debates in washington where the two parties talk past each other and nothing
actually ever gets done to fix what is clearly a broken program? romina. romina boccia: i will take the first data this. i believe that disability politics are interwoven with the social security politics in general where one party stance they defined benefit cuts and all sorts of interesting ways. many of these proposals that would return people to work, some people would say that this is a benefit cut. benefit for this the rest of their lives and we should not put any time limits or anything that could potentially do any harm to individuals when what we are really trying to do is help them be independent. i think is that disability is a much, much smaller program that social security retirement program and much less understood. it is highly complex and many
lawmakers don't understand it very well. and so, they fear getting involved with the program that they might make a mistake. there are only a few that have shown leadership and willingness to learn about the program and really lead on these issues. with the reallocation of money from the retirement trust fund to the disability trust fund, it takes urgency to fix the issue in terms of legislative action off the table, but what we the costs stress is and potential benefits to the individuals currently in the program and those joining the roles now if we were to make the program work better for these individuals and the taxpayer. and not rely on the next legislative opportunity, which will be seven years down the road and could very likely not be seized either.
rachel greszler: i think the recent budget deal shows this is a difficult political topic. they showed a few small changes and said, look, we did things to solve social security and we are paying for it. really all they did is kick the can down the road and steal money from social security and make both programs worse off in the long run. while it's like we have some time, the same thing is going to happen come 2022 with disability is running out of money again. they're so far has not been an initiative to do any real reform on this rather than to try to turn merge the two programs. the further we push them back, the more likely we are to see a tax increase and nothing is going to change the problems that exist within it. kim hildred: i would agree. the challenges and complexity and lack of urgency now with the new budget deal that passed for sure. there is not a coming together of parties or even constituents to try to tackle some of these
very difficult challenges that the program faces, not only in full of long-term having benefits being paid, but also in terms of one of the other challenges that we have is that the statute really does not say very much in terms of defining disability. a huge amount of responsibility is placed on the social security administration to develop the supporting policies, to update the policies, and really to maintain the program. as we know, that is particularly challenging for the social security administration. you have all these competing factors, i think, that really make for this cocktail that ultimately, in my view, hurts people. ambassador miller: thank you. questions from the audience?
one right here. if you could just wait for the microphone and please just identify yourself and state your question. we have a microphone down here in the front. thank you, essar. this gentleman right here. if you could talk about senator cotton and his proposal and why lawmakers are so hesitant to take positions on this type of issue. romina boccia: kim, you probably know it best. kim hildred: what we know is that the description that the senator has given today has not been introduced yet. we do not have the details of his proposal to his commentary i think really speaks for itself in terms of the kinds of principles that he has. the legislation is actually propose, but i think another challenge is that it is
very difficult. really do you find true leadership in terms of members of congress who really want to stake out a claim for this position. often times, some of the individuals receiving benefits and their advocates can be very --istant, as my fatalist fellow panelist said, they can ofresistant and very afraid change. it can be as scary change if any them and thatto makes our representatives and senators a little hesitant to take on these very complex and very big challenges. at the end of the day, i think if members can find bipartisan partners, i think that will also help tremendously. i think we are starting to see a little more of that behind the scenes. deal is probably one example of a more minimalist approach certainly. but i think all of this discussion is helpful to helping the members understand the
challenges that the program faces. maybe we might see some of them working together. romina boccia: i think another challenge is also historical experience. pass some reforms in the 1980's that strengthen the continued disability review process and the social security administration was encouraged to identify more individuals who were no longer eligible to receive those cash benefits and those cash benefits were terminated. that was huge backlash and congress received many, many phone calls from constituents who had been relying on those if their medical condition is no longer eligible, but they had no other sources of income. income, and when you got a constituent calling saying that they cannot pay their mortgage anymore that has a certain impact on a member of congress, and i think that has a lot to do with it as well. how many other economic opportunities are there for these individuals, and i think it's one of the issues the
program does act for too many individuals as a long-term unemployment or early retirement program. there are lots of incentives in the program that should be changed to not abuse the program and that way because in the end, a benefit that goes to someone who is not truly eligible is money that's not available for an individual who truly cannot work. i think these proposals and telling certain people that they are expected to return to work -- it incites fear. i've had phone calls from people who are terrified. that is the result of the current system. when i was talking about five months of waiting before you can apply, then another two years before you can get benefits. by that point, individuals believe they are disabled and that they cannot do any work. if you start at the beginning with a transitional benefit and say here is the system you go
through and it looks more like a private disability insurer where they are working with doctors and seeing what kind of workplace support you can have, what type of medical corrections might help you perform jobs or a new type of job or education and training, that's a different system and there does not need to be the fear because people are there, working with them and showing how they can get back to work as opposed to just receiving a phone call that says hey, you are done, your benefits are up. ambassador miller: one of the itor issues is when you face -- face a long-term fiscal overhang like a disability or social security system, you can fix theest reforms and problem of the system that has appointed us all. [laughter]
you can make modest reforms now or radical and punitive reforms later, so it's distressing when the -- when the congress just kicks the can down the road and does nothing for the next seven years. that, to me, seems like a abdication of responsibility. i've a question for kim. [inaudible] kim: it is difficult to tell because the combination of the criteria not being updated for examiners to make the right decision, we also know that the quality is very limited of these
decisions, if any, so essentially, unless an individual is clearly expected to medically improved, those of the examiners are going to give that diary type of category. people get a seven your diary and then there's a very large cohort in the middle that's called medical improvement possible. one of the reasons why we believe in the predicted analytics is that predictive analytics will use the data itself to show what other types of impairments that really do result in medical improvement and those predictive analytics continue to use the data on an ongoing big -- basis to ensure that not only do we have a process that is much more accurate in terms of diaries, but also a process that is much more fair and consistent across the country, because we've seen some of the challenges the program has faced, especially
when there is a lot of judgment in certain types of impairment, when one is establishing their functional capacity, the capacity that they may still have, even with their disability. those functional capacities are determined by individual examiners and administrative examiners and they may have feedback from a position, they may not. subjectivity, of the more we can have the data and the actual experience of individuals to drive the accuracy of those diary designations, i think we would larger population expected to medically improved, but make no mistake, the program is an important program for those who are not expected to live along. time becauseiod of of their disability. we are talking about those who have those conditions who are expected to improve and what kind of support they are
getting. right now, they're getting nothing, they're continuing this ability reviews are delayed, then they get letter that says -- they had no support up to that point and if they are seized, they are provided no support at the moment, and we don't believe that's compassionate. ambassador miller: i think we have time for one more question. right here in the front. we have time for two more questions. we will start in the front and come back to you. just a question for the panelists, given what we've seen with the recent efforts to replenish the highway trust fund and the sort of political machinations around that and how people talk about tax increases find ways to to
reallocate spending, how do you see a long-term effort to smooth out changes in ssdi? there were a lot of similarities between the concentrated ofefits and dispersed costs instituting another tax increase that might be more politically salient, even if that's not something that's best in the long term. cow do you see this playing out, and what are ways we can put representatives to light that fire that might push them toward doing the right thing, rather than the easy thing? they longer we wait, the more likely it will be some sort of tax increase fix because you are just going to get to a point where the shortfall is imminent and any policy reforms we can possibly adopt, unless you are willing to cut benefits abruptly
, which seems very unfair, you are going to have to raise taxes or take the money from somewhere else. right now, the money is being taken from somewhere else, but in the end, you can see it as just another portion of the tax increase that is to come. if you are thinking about the last reform effort in social security in the 80's, there was a massive tax increase, then there were some small reforms. small reforms that in today's environment, i would consider big reforms like raising the retirement age, reducing incentives for early retirement and the disability programs that are small considering the vastness of the problem, but since we're not had any reform at all in today's context, these would be major. we need leadership in the congress, presidential leadership can do a lot on those kinds of programs.
beyond that, with no legislative urgency, i don't see how we are going to get all the interests to come together. you have to say a worse scenario to agree to changes that will ultimately make it better off. on the positive side, i would mention to the changes that were made and the function is determined by ssa and there are a lot of things that can be done there to appropriately determine who is disabled, who is still disabled, and that would go a long way in reducing cost. kim: i would add that a fundamental question in social -- workers pay taxes to get disability benefits, survivor benefits, time and, eventually. is social security going to remain self enhanced in the
future, or are there other outside income like general revenues, these are some clear choices that members are going to have to think about, especially given the challenges reform.are and tax these are large questions that face them and the american people, so i think that's a very important kind of first question. everybody pays into social security, everybody get something out of it. how about if people start getting less and less, will we continue to have public support for the program? is are tough questions, but they will have to be answered and -- ambassador miller: for the final question. >> i did not know if anyone could speak to what the senator mentioned about the regional usage of the benefits. orthere a reason for that, -- i but it was an interesting point.
she is asking about the difference in the regional usage of disability benefits. i have looked at some of the statistics and see the percentage of people with disabilities who are employed and it ranges from over 50% in the dakotas to 25% in places like louisiana and west virginia. culturalt of that is in the communities that develop. a lot of times when a parent is on disability, they can get their child benefits and i guess is a lot of cause of that is just the community in which they live and people see that others are able to get on ssdi benefits and how to get on them and just encourages that. also be a could signal that brought is going on, that has happened in some communities were disability lawyers have partnered up with physicians and there has been kickbacks and doing that kind of statistical analysis sometimes
fraudveal these sorts of schemes but a lot of it is also what other economic opportunities are available in the community and when there are few, then disability becomes a substitute for earned income. they congress and the law and the statute, in order to determine disability, one has to consider age, education and work experience. how those are implemented by the social security administration is through the medical vocational rules. these roles have been in effect since the 70's. efforts to update them have not been successful in the past. social security has embarked on a effort to update that process, but that is a piece of the program that is out there and cause differences in award
>> if you missed any of this discussion on disability insurance, you can find it online on the c-span video library. the future ofat afghanistan with the carnegie endowment for international peace and discussion with an afghan politician. we will get his view this afternoon at 3:30 eastern time. is on a triphtinen to afghanistan, tweeting from -- afghants with the president, as well as a businessman about the u.s. security relationship. also with her in this picture, representatives tim tebow, democrat al gore prompt of new jersey and chill, republican
from arkansas. on capitol hill, the house side you little quired are the usual with members on trips or in their districts until next week. we will be joined the senate side on c-span two active -- at 2:00 eastern as members continue debating on spending on military projects and funding for the ba -- va. later this week, work expected on defense authorization. is -- all persons having businesses before the supreme court of united states are inspected to step or and give their attention. >> boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese americans during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for
relocation, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. c-span'seek on landmark cases, we discussed the historic supreme court case of korematsu versus the united states. after the attack on pearl harbor, president franklin roosevelt issued an evacuation order, sending 120,000 people of japanese origin who live close to military installations to internment camps throughout the u.s. >> this is a re-creation of one of the barracks. the members were 20 feet wide and 120 feet long and divided into six different rooms. -- it would have have been freezing, even in the daytime. the only heating that would've had was a potbelly stove. this would not have been able to heat the entire room in a comfortable way. >> challenge of -- challenging the evacuation order, korematsu
defied the order and was arrested, and his case went to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled in view of the powers of congress with our guest, peter irons, author of justice at war, the story of the japanese-american internment cases. -- executive director of the korematsu institute and daughter of the plaintiff. we explore the mood of america and the u.s. government policies during world war ii. mr.ollow mr. cormedix -- korematsu's life before and after the court decision. 9:00s coming up tonight at p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order a copy of the landmark cases companion book, available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span or -- c-span.org/landmark cases. tonight, on the communicators, we discussed cyber security
threats acing the u.s. and other countries. james lewis from the center for strategic and international studies is our guest, and talks about what the u.s. is doing to avoid attacks by china and russia. several security legislation passed by the house and senate. severs security reporter for politico also joins us. foryber security reporter what ago also joins us. >> that would be a good thing to change. many think about critical infrastructure -- they need to think about critical infrastructure. the bill in 2012 would have dealt with it, probably not in the right way. the obama administration put out a second order in 2013 that imposed light requirements on critical infrastructure to protect the networks. congress needs to go back and ask if that's enough. what's that on the
communicators tonight on c-span two. -- watch that on the committee gators tonight on c-span two. >> the american enterprise institute hosted a discussion about the current field of candidates and their campaigns. looking at the provincial race, as well as senate and house races, and the potential balance of power in congress. >> good morning, everyone. good morning. my name is carl and bowman and i'm a senior fellow at the a e i -- at the aei, and i would like to welcome you. as a number of you know, this is the longest running election program and -- election analysis program in washington and we were here when the program first began in 1982.
i would like to begin by thanking the hackers team who always do a wonderful job of making sure everything is in order, also a special thanks to ,y assistance -- -- assistants who have been extremely important in the very the handouts you have getting the conference organized. we invite you to join the conversation on twitter. handle for more insights into the 2016 election. continues, inon in news, the voters hampshire will go to the polls to vote at midnight. this morning, we will tell you what we are watching in the early days of the campaign and why. it's a pleasure to have my colleagues on the panel and we are delighted to be joined by john fortier, director of the democracy project of the
bipartisan project center. he bbc's senior henry olson is here. >> i stuck in. -- i snuck in. >> each panelist will have five minutes for an initial remarks, then we try to start a lightning round in which any of them can answer any question. last but not least, we turn to your questions. let me say a few words to begin. i read the polls, but it think we should treat what we are seeing now with skepticism. according to political scientist robert erickson, polls conducted even 300 days before an election have virtually no predictive value. that is one of the many reasons polls should not be used as a standard for debate participation. their predictive power comes later in the campaign, usually around the 100 day mark. another reason for caution at this stage of the campaign is that polls cannot simulate the
electorate because of the arcane rules for awarding delegates. amongst important finding republicans was not that trump and carson were tied for the lead, but that 35% of republicans are people they say they -- their minds were made up. in the nbc news washington journal poll, only 28% of republicans had said they differently decided. ,epublicans in new hampshire only 20% said they were definitely decided. democrats, and especially hillary's backers, are even more sure of their votes. traditional polling is beset by problems. all of the final polls in the kentucky contest show the democrat ahead by 5%. the republican won by 8.7%.
even devon own polls show the democrats winning. polls areates for below 2% for even the best designed surveys. thus far, gallup has been sitting on the sidelines in terms of trial, in 2007, between january and november, gallup had asked over 50 questions about the election. missedknow about the calls in great britain and israel and argentina to name a few. i'm not sure that election polling has a future. important,ains hillary clinton has spent more than $1 million on polling and last week, bernie sanders hired a pollster. this week we saw another change in part because of problems with business overall. 48 years ago, cbs news conducted the first exit poll of voters leaving the polls in kentucky and the governor race.
it's become harder for the exit poll consortium of the ap and the five networks to be -- conduct an exit poll because around a third of us either vote early or absentee. on thursday, the associated press move forward with an experiment to reinvent the exit poll by conducting an online voter poll. in the 2014 election, they did online polling in georgia and illinois. there estimates were more action -- more accurate than the exit polls. the ap has not fully analyzed their new results from either kentucky or mississippi. unlike the exit poll, online thatys cannot guarantee the people that they surveyed have actually voted, but ap is working with the national opinion research center to explore the possibility of using gps tracking on cell phones of online participants with their permission to verify they voted
before asking them to participate. candidates with high name recognition and star quality usually do better early, then the fundamentals taken. let me say a quick word about the fundamentals. jobs report this morning was encouraging, the economy added far more jobs than predicted and the unemployment rate ticked down to 5%. the 2008 crash was such a powerful event in public opinion, americans have still not fully recovered. they are confident of the financial system. while we have focused in recent weeks on divisions among republicans, dissatisfaction with both parties in washington runs deep. although the republicans lie behind the democrats in terms of party favorability, virtually -- a new poll shows that slightly more than half say that they are angry with the way both parties have been dealing with the country.
only a quarter said that they were angry at neither. adding to the sour mood, many americans share donald trump's critique of the american -- -- that america is not great anymore. while america is generally ordered toward the future, business delegate is a powerful occurrence of public opinion. on virtually every question a lot of one of the central issues in any modern election, there is a chasm between democrats and republicans on the proper role of government. what does all of this mean? nbc news and the wall street journal asked about six times since december whether it would -- whether it would be better to have a democrat or republican as the next president, each question, people have been evenly divided, never separated by more than two percentage points. they conducted another poll in october and asked a separate question and 41% said a democrat and 41 percent said a
republican. once again, the country was divided. when a question was asked in november of 2007, before the last open contest, people preferred a democrat by 10%. since 1916, we have had five of the eight closest elections in our nations history. now we turn to the panelists, and i will begin with michael brown, one of the original authors of this 2000 page volume. one of the original founders. 1972.t's >> he has the introductory -- one of the indirect -- introductory estes -- essays. you say our politics are stuck in a rut, explain. you've already explained it, we've had five of the closest elections in american history since 1960.
other one, one of the of the other ones was 1980 and nobody remembers that in washington, anymore. as i look back over the last few years, the last half-century, what i see is that we have been -- it isic time of persisted about as long as any such time in american history. voter attitudes and choices seem to be linked primarily more on cultural attitudes then on economic status. demographic most highly correlated with political behavior is religion, whether that's the result of a certain amount of polarization or we had a time where we had increasing numbers of people who identify as secular and not religion and the other hand, people put edify
as even jellico or very strongly religious. this has been reflected in the degree of political polarization and attitudes. if you look back at the last six president elections and for the 1990's, allocate according to second choices, what you find is that both democrats and republican get it it's have run between -- ,hat's a pretty narrow range and certainly in the historic things, we have not seen anybody when anything like the landslide victories that went to candidates that were perceived as bringing peace and prosperity that we saw for both parties in the 1930's. happened, the highest percentage since 1984 and a president election went to george h.w. bush in 1988, nearly
,qualed by barack obama in 2008 rounded off to 53%. had elections where the easiest way to predict which party is going to carry the state's electoral votes is to look at the last map. 2004, only three states switched between candidates -- between parties. between states with parties between 2008 and 2012 and even between 2004 and 2008, which was the biggest swing during the swing -- during the time, you get nine states out of 50 changing parties. we see the same thing in house elections. popular vote for house of representatives in nine of the ,1 elections starting with 1994 a time when i think i was the first to write that there was a serious chance the republicans would win the house, it appeared
in july of the election-year and there but he idea that this was going to happen. we've had said it numbers, 52%,licans winning 48 and democrats winning 49%, nearly overlapping numbers. you have two exceptions, 2008 when george w. bush's numbers and you got democrats winning 53 to 54%, republicans 40's, in 2010,ow we swung back to we swung back and we've been there ever since in the house popular vote. this has been accompanied by increased straight ticket voting . i can remember when a political scientist wrote a book in the late 1960's. .ticket splitters were the key to elections that was then, this is now. in 2012, we only had 26 of the
435 congressional districts voted for president in one party and congressmen in another, that's the lowest number since 1920. warren g. harding was elected then in a landslide. despite this, we have had divided government. even though you got closely and straightorate ticket voting, you've got 2/3 of theernment, time since 1968 but for different reasons. part of the reason for that is demographics. democratic voters tend to be clustered in central cities and said that that except herbs and university towns with high democrats in those constituencies that helps them in the electoral college and when you go to single equal population districts.
i have been looking for changes. we have seen huge viewership increase particularly in the republican debates, maybe in the democratic debates, but as i look at the results of the 2015 governor races, i see the same numbers. race, it wasernor 56-42 and the president last time 57-41, sounds similar. gongis low-tech reminds us to keep our panelists on time. another quick question for you, michael. this is the centennial of the new hampshire primary. when did it become important? >> 1952. existed buty -- it the results were not really candidates.ith
you were just electing delegates. in 1952, eisenhower backers in the republican party instrument opponents in the democratic party, people rebelling against what was seen as party establishment decided to put their candidates on the ballot. that became the sort of referendum. evolvinge caucuses from antiwar democrats starting in 1970 to emphasize caucuses that had been perfunctory before. >> thank you. we will now turn to henry olson. you tend to think of the gop contest in terms of the title of your forthcoming book " the four phases of the republican party." it is available for preorder on amazon is published by macmillan. can you explain your theory? >> if you take a look at the exit polls going back through the 1996 republican nomination areest, you find that there
four faces or factions of the republican party. they are roughly the same in terms of what type of candidates they prefer, what issues they prioritize, and roughly the same as where they are concentrated in strength and weakness. the four factions are moderates and liberals that dominate in the northeast and are strong in the midwest and california, 30 ofally, they are about the national electrical well over 35%% and up to 50% in the states i just mentioned. there is the evangelical conservatives who are extremely conservative as one would expect. they dominate in the south and midwestern caucus states like iowa. there is the fiscal conservative who was a secular person who thought that steve forbes should be the next president. 10% of thebout electorate nationwide.
the group that always wins is the group that no one pays much attention to. in the polls, they say they are somewhat conservative. i think the best way of thinking about them in washington terms is they are the sort of conservatives that think that john boehner is just fine. 40% of theout republican party and exist in equal numbers in virtually every state in the union. both at the state level and national level, they always back the winner. track this group and you know who the next nominee will be. insiders versus outsiders has of very mucheme import throughout the last few republican cycles. that would be the idea that a lot of media representatives are pushing now based on a couple of polls saying that republicans prefer somebody without elected experience. i think they are using that to interpret his wife -- white ben
carson or donald trump are rising. polls this far out on national levels do not have a good level of predictability. below the top line of the aggregate numbers and look at the cross tabs, the support among different subgroups, you find the factional theory i advance explained as well as to what's going on. happen is thatll the same factors that have affected republican nominations going back for 20 years will affect the same ones here. that is that the very conservative factions of the republican party for people who are highly ideological and highly active in their rhetoric, of the republican party that is established conservative or moderate liberal do not want those things. the typically happens is
moderates and liberals and established conservatives back someone who was conservative enough and they win the nomination. the only time that has not happened was in 2000 when john mccain broke through and you saw the opposite which was that the inflammatory candidate came from the left and not from the right. the establishment conservatives lined up behind your still be just behind a george w. bush. it does not look like the candidate who is likely to come through as the conservative favorite like ted cruz is going to have much support outside of that group. that suggests who ever consolidates the two larger factions is going to be the nominee. the only reason when carson's running well now is because unlike every other candidate who has profiled highly to the right in the last 20 years has also appealed to the gop center. when you see somebody who was basically extremely low-key and extremely self assured on tv,
that's the sort of personal characteristics that john boehner has. i don't think this will last. i think somebody who thinks that the pyramids were built by , thereto preserve grain are too many things out there. the other thing we know about establishment conservatives as they like stability. you take a look when financial markets are in meltdown, investors flocked to the 30 year bond. are inlitical parties meltdown, they flock to the conservative candidate. i don't think ben carson will be able to stand up under the scrutiny. i don't think ted cruz will appear to the center enemies the winner of the marco rubio/jeb bush nomination will be determining it. question, andick
lessons in the scott walker/rick perry demise? >> yes, rick perry is someone whose sell by date was november, 2011. think is a lot of lessons. one is don't run is somebody you aren't. scott walker is not a voluble tea party sort of person. he ran as the tea party candidate. it became clear in the debates and why he had an unprecedented was what hisupport supporters were being sold as was not who he was. that became very clear that this was not somebody who is a ted cruz who can win. the first lesson from scott walker is don't run as somebody you are not when you're trying to run for national office. the other thing i think you would learn from scott walker is
what worked for scott walker in the general election in was an uncanny ability to mobilize people who generally support democrats to support him on what might be called a reform conservative platform. nobody is trying to do that in the republican electorate right now. none of the republican candidates are really trying to mobilize republicans in a way that present that for the general election. the thing that made scott walker and attractive candidate was something that for whatever reason they decided was not salable in the republican party. i think that speaks very poorly for the republican party's chance to win the general election. >> thank you so much. now norm, this is the time we all know is the peak recruitment season when democratic and republican party officials go around the country to get the best candidates to run. have doneats o really well and house contests. can they regain the house and how many seats do you think they can pick up?
>> thank you. let me say i miss rick perry. 2012vorite moment from the campaign came when he was asked what he would do about the west bank and he said he would bring back free checking. [laughter] i want to offer a moment of silence for george pataki and lindsey graham who did not make the kitty debate next time. for jim webb and lincoln chafee, i feel for lincoln chafee. he tried to become the alternative to hillary clinton. bernie sanders have the slogan, feel that bern and he felt the chafe. it just didn't work. [laughter] for chris christie and mike huckabee for now off the main stage and onto the undercard. chris christie said he would cross that bridge when it comes to it. [laughter]
so, onto your question- the democrats have had a good recruiting season but i think it's important to realize that there is a bigger and longer-term problem for democrats below the presidential level. the have really done poorly last two midterm contests which were disasters not just in congress but at the state level. and democrats in particular, look to state legislators and in some cases people who have been other public offices to recruit and move up. it's a thin scene looking down the road. they have to hope they can turn that around. while they have a good class this time and they will have some resources, winning the house would require a whole set
of circumstances that go way beyond the candidates they have, the micro level campaigning. it would probably take a republican presidential candidate who would take -- make some republicans yearn for the success of barry goldwater. it would take a complete wipeout at the presidential level. that could happen a couple of ways. analysis isy's really terrific. i have a couple of cautions. i believe that the anger level out there for a substantial knowr of republicans -- we among other things that anger is driving the electorate more than we have seen before. it's anger at the other party more than it is support for one's own party. on the republican side, there is a lot of anger at the parties on establishment. some of that is being driven by a lot of people making a lot of money by feeling that anger. if you end up with the nomination process that is
significant of a number of evangelical conservatives and fiscal conservatives believe was stolen from them yet again, the ted cruz theory that they keep having defeats snatched from the jaws of victory by nominating a nice person who was another turnout-we may see a that is not quite as robust as we have had before. the same thing obviously would happen if you ended up with a trump or a a donald ben carson winning a nomination. that it is going to move in another direction. that is a topic for another day. otherwise, democrats can pick up seats this next time. if you look at the sheets, you can see how different the electorate is for a presidential election year compared to a midterm election year. that is becoming more distinct. categories in a presidential election year that worked to the advantage of democrats includes
people who were are not married, women, aving more larger share of minorities in a larger share of younger voters. that works to the advantage of democrats and that can help in some districts but the structure of house districts is such that if democrats managed to pick up 10 seats, that would be seen as a big victory. on the surface, the senate is a great chance for democrats to win back a majority. 24 seats held by republicans in only 10 held by democrats, seven of the republican seats held in states that obama won. as we see the number of swing voters decline as we see red and blue states divide much more distinctly, as we saw with the kentucky results which reflected the fact that you are not seeing swing voters much anymore.
it's a red state and votes red. who was an outsider in that party to win handily, that tells you something. for democrats to win the senate, they will have to win the white house and probably when it by a significant enough margin that a lot of races that are now marginal would go in their direction and they don't loose states of their own like nevada. >> thank you. you, i knowion for paul ryan is a friend of yours. what are his greatest strengths and weaknesses right now? >> he started out very well. that's because right now, john boehner gave him two big parting gifts. the first was negotiating this broad deal that took us past a debt ceiling debacle that could easily have resulted in disaster.
also, he added enough money to the budget accounts that money itself is not going to be the big driver in confrontations in the days and weeks ahead. it also left it open for another build a john boehner had helped negotiate and that was the transportation infrastructure bill which has to be done by november 20 or the highway trust fund basically is unable to operate. did bringing it up which they could not do until they resolve the basics of the budget bill was to open up the process a little bit more and have a significant number of amendments. surprisingly, 100 amendments allowed but he moved it through expeditiously. burger is here and he knows the dangers of opening up a process even more. whether paul ryan can continue to bring up bills allowing a lot of amendments maintains some
control over what happens on the floor and over those amendments. it can do with the freedom caucus wants which is the regular order by what they really want is the regular order that applies to them and not to democrats or moderate republicans with amendments. it's a challenge ahead. he is very smart and artful. the other thing he wants to do is bring up substantive legislation that can pass and to the president for his signature or veto. the infrastructure bill is one of those that will go for a signature. most of the other things may not make it to the senate. he has a real challenge because he has promised to bring up an alternative to obamacare. we have been promising alternative to obamacare since obamacare was enacted. we don't have a bill that has actually been introduced that can be scored by the congressional budget office because it's tough to do without being eviscerated. ?an he managed to do that
we have the other big test coming up very quickly by december 11 which is, freedom caucus members and other now demand having voted for paul ryan and taking a lot of flak for being squishy, will they confront thee defunding of planned parenthood and adding writers that block obama executive actions in the environment and other areas that could lead to at least one or more partial shutdowns? if he can make his way through that, i think he has relatively smooth territory through the rest of this congress. >> thank you. last but not least, john fortier who has been looking at the fundamentals in the senate contest. it seems the republicans have not had the kind of recruiting season they hoped to for senate candidacies. >> thank you. i would like to thank all of you.
i hope henry's book will be ready for christmas. , have it in her stockings? >> it will be ready, you will have other issues. [laughter] >> i look forward to it. i also look forward to the idea that we probably created a new insult. dou can now be four face instead of being two-faced. i will let you follow up on that. -- we haved to this different classes of the senate and they have different characteristics. we have gone through a phase in the last election where republicans have many more seats they could challenge. in addition to the number of total seeds out there, the republicans did very well last election picking up extremely red states that had democratic senators. that aree six states
rock red republican states in a republican election. republicans picked up all of carolina and if you swing states. those are the prime targets in a world that michael describes as well a linelly where the republicans are holding republican seats and democrats are holding democratic seats. what does the selection look like? on the surface, the big numbers for 24 republicans up reelection in only 10 democrats. -- and only 10 democrats. it's alook at 2018, class in the opposite direction and only eight republicans 25 democrats. you can imagine that the fundamentals are very different in these type of elections. one thing i think that is different about this election coming up is that there is one verythat looks like those
red seats that republicans one last time for the democrats. that's in illinois, estate the democrats should win, will win at the presidential election, and it's a very difficult atmosphere because of the character of the state. the other opportunity for democrats are swing states. some are democratic leaning swing states and the list is relatively long. win for agood presidential candidate, a democratic wave, you can imagine a big win sweeping in. but those states are more competitive. republicans will win some and lose some. wisconsin,s are probably the most endangered for -- and then roughly in order, new hampshire where there are strong candidates, one florida which is
an open seat in the sense that both primaries are quite interesting. we don't know who come out of --s that that is potentially both sides of better and worse candidates are primaries. facing a portman is good recruit on the democratic side. democrats have done well recruiting in the senate. that is governor ted strickland who has won statewide and is ap-list candidate democrats could have recruited. he will be 75 years old but is still formidable. looking down to other states that are competitive but probably the candidates are not there, pennsylvania, north carolina, iowa and places like that. on the democratic side, no bot is the one place for democrats will have to watch. colorado is another swing state but it does not look like michael bennett will get a serious challenge. if you look at the race, what
democrats need is for seats to win if they get the senate or win the presidency. we are looking at a senate that is more democratic, is closer to 50/50, but at this time, it's hard to tell how close we will be 250/50. >> john is the country's leading expert on early and absentee voting. i wonder what changes we have seen since the 2012 election that might impact 2016? >> a couple of things i will mention -- the trend over time and i wrote a book on this not so long ago -- it was 10 years ago in the numbers have started to go up since then as they had been before. the direction certainly is more less in voting by mail and voting in person. the numbers were roughly 40% or so in the midterm elections and be probably that were higher this time. have it states
like oregon and washington state voting 100% by mail. we have the state of colorado which is more or less that way. they send a ballot out to everyone. it is essentially a vote by mail state. you have states like massachusetts moving in that direction. i think you will see more absentee voting. the other interesting development is a couple of states moving to new modes of registration, in particular, automatic registration. this.ft is excited about it will happen in oregon in 2016 and it will be implemented and we will see people who go to interact and don't with anybody about the voting process and automatically get put on the roles. they can opt out of they want to. in california which has adopted this practice but will not be quite ready to go in 2016.
these could be significant changes in the registration of the states and it may lead to other states adopting this. >> thank you very much to all of our panelists. i will now turn to what i call the lightning round. no one has mentioned hillary clinton yet on the panel. i thought we would start there with a question about bernie sanders upping his compare and contrast attack with a new ad designed to raise questions about her honesty and integrity. how serious a problem is this for hillary clinton? honesty and integrity are a serious problem for hillary clinton because most voters don't think she has those qualities. whatever else you want to say about her, that's not a positive when you're running for president in a general election. it's interesting that bernie tack.s is taking this
saide first of eight, he he will not ask questions about the e-mails. he's dealing with a democratic electorate that, as i understand, has universal positive feelings about hillary clinton and very little appetite for an idea she might not be honest and trustworthy. they are loyal down the line. i don't see a real path forward for bernie sanders. in af his problems is that democratic primary, even overall, 25% of the voters are black. hillary clinton will do very well against bernie sanders and bernie sanders is not the kind of candidate the black voters go for. black voters tend to go unanimous to democratic primaries as they have been in general elections. i don't see this is a game changer. the polls, donald trump
and hillary clinton are the two candidates who have the highest negative numbers on honesty and integrity and they are identical. do you want to anything, norm? sanders, he has chances in iowa and new hampshire but once you get past that, his support craters. you have the numbers in south carolina where he is losing by almost 70 points. you also have to wonder, in iowa, the caucus requires people not just to go into a polling place and vote. you have to go to a site and stay there for several hours. it's a complicated process. 2008, hillary clinton's campaign did not do the groundwork required, the sophisticated work, to get their people understanding how the caucus work and the obama people cleaned them out there. this time, she has a much better team. for bernie sanders whose support
tilts very young, you're dealing with a lot of people who likely have never been to a caucus and probably are not going to have as much staying power. as hillary wins iowa, it's premature over that point. if she doesn't, even if she loses iowa and new hampshire, i think there is still no path for anybody else. we are likely to see a democratic contest that is effectively over very early on and a republican contest, even if you get a few more candidates dropping out, it will have more candidates than we usually see and extending beyond what we usually have. wayher it works out the that carl rove suggested the other day and i wrote a piece on why this time i be different, that this goes on perhaps even to the convention, or at least much more into april or may, remains to be seen. it is a draining process and you
can see right now that as candidates look for traction, they go after each other. my guess is as sanders begins to decline, he will turn away from the attacks on clinton and move substantialto a role, trying to pull her more toward the populist left. >> thank you. considerably expanded the size of the iowa electorate in 2008. he brought in many young people and that was the key to victory. it's not clear we will see that same thing for bernie sanders in this campaign. this campaign. head to the primary calendar. henry, we will start with you. i wonder if you can start with byzantine delegation rules. the republican nomination has a pretty good chance of being significantly influenced