tv Federal Polices and Poverty Part 2 CSPAN September 3, 2017 5:03pm-6:00pm EDT
we are overwhelmed in the culture, and politics, in the media, with this progressive notion, centralized government, egalitarianism, smothering of individualism. it has become so entrenched in our institutions that there is no way to rip it out. i say this -- we have to do everything we can. confronted, debated, explain to our fellow citizens what is taking place. we have no choice. >> watch tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span two's book tv. now a heritage foundation forum of assessing the impact of government policies on poverty. this is just under one hour.
everyone to get a job, the most in the people are the ones who need it the most. i will cut straight to the introductions. knepper is the director of strategic research at the institute for justice. policy in social science research on issues choice,to school private property rights, economic liberty, and free speech. ofore working as a director strategic research, she served as the director of communications and joined the 2001tute and september where she specialized in public relations for technology companies. after miss knepper, we will hear from diane katz, she is a senior
fellow in regulatory policy at the heritage foundation. she previously was director of environment, and energy policy for three years at the fraser institute. snead., we have jason he has written extensively on the need to reform the nation's civil asset forfeiture laws, he also writes on issues such as regulation of unmanned aircraft, a economic liberties, and criminal justice reform and policing. he holds a masters degree in public policy from george mason , government and international affairs, and graduated from bowling green state university with a bachelor's degree in history and lyrical science.
-- and political science. we will go to lisa knepper. lisa: more american workers than ever need a permission slip from the government before they do their jobs. that is called an occupational license. to get one, you have to meet certain criteria established by the government. you may be required to attend school for four years or for 1600 hrs.hool you may be required to apprentice in your chosen occupation for 2, 3, or four years. you may have to pass an exam or two. of the american workforce subject to licensing red tape has been on the rise since 1950's. 20k then, just one in
americans needed a license to work. today, that is closer to one in four. these kinds of policies hurt the poor in two keyways. first, occupational licensing red tape creates real and substantial roadblocks to economic talk to it -- opportunity. in 2012, the institute for justice released a study hall license to work. toexamined the requirements get an occupational license for 102 low and middle income occupations across all 50 states and the district of columbia. intound that breaking those 102 lower income occupations would take nine months in education and training , passing one example, and paying more than $200 in fees. those figures do not account for hidden costs.
the cost of tuition for acquired schooling. that is a lot of time and money spent trying to earn a license instead of earning a living. those costs are going to be particularly hard for folks with lower income to bear. cost of a real and substantial. licensing laws are costing the american economy as many as 2.8 5 million jobs. the other cost is from higher prices. artificiallys restrict the supply of providers, allowing them to raise their prices. -- estimate puts that figure the cost to all of us from higher prices -- at about $203 billion annually. americans, that means paying more for the same services. or simply doing without.
is the 30,000 foot view of occupational licensing from the perspective of any economist. what i want to talk about is what occupational licensing looks like to ordinary americans. ms. bell is a single mom and a hair brighter. she learned the craft from her mom. that is how the craft is passed down. it originated thousands of years ago in africa and is a form of natural hair care area involved no feet, no chemicals, and no sharp instruments. herilled hair greater from youth was required by the state of iowa to get a cosmetology license to practice legally. that would have meant attending school for 2100 hrs for more than a year, at a cost of about
$22,000 in tuition. cosmetology exam and paying fees. that exam would not teach anything about african style would a vast, nor majority of the curriculum teach anything about african-style hair braiding. got luckyght -- she and that she found a salon owner that was willing to employ her. she was operating in a legal gray area. at any time, the state board could have shut her down. that would have meant not just the loss of her job, she was also risking up to a year in fines.d up to $10,000 in all for the crime of braiding hair without a license. she joins with the institute of justice, we sued the state of iowa. exempted african style hair breeders from the cosmetology
licensing scheme. now operators simply have to register with the state. these forms have been increasingly popular in the state. about 10 states have adopted some kind of reform exempting freighters from -- exempting braiders from cosmetology laws. were 2600 registered braiders and mississippi. effect of just one occupation in one state. others have not been so lucky. threader in louisiana is the owner of a threading school and spot in new orleans. her craft is eyebrow threading. naturalanother form of grooming that originates from south asia. it involves taking a thread and
manipulating it over the face to pluck out unwanted facial hair. it is impressive when you see it. she learned the craft in her native india as a teenager. she opened her own business and it is booming. becoming is increasingly popular because it is a cheaper and quicker alternative for hair removal. her business was taking off until the state of louisiana determined that threaders should be licensed. this is another type of cosmetology license. that would take 750 hours in cosmetology schooling and cost about $10,000 in tuition, passing three exams. none of those exams have eyebrow threading and none of the curriculum addresses it. this is the position she is in
as a small business owner. demandingstomers threading services, but she cannot hire the people best qualified to provide them. beauticians do not know how to thread. they do not learn it. the people who do know how to perform the craft typically cannot afford to get a license. she used to employ unlicensed threader's until the state of louisiana started cracking down. centerrd of cosmetology sees and desist letters. they started finding her thousands of dollars, and finally they ordered her to fire her unlicensed threaders. during the complete loss of her business, that is what she had to do. those folks are now out of work or working in less lucrative fields like retail because they have to find some way to make ends meet.
that is what licensing laws look like to too many americans. what can we do about it? guessing the people in this room are familiar with the phrase repeal and replace. i'm going to suggest we should sometimesng and replacing. there are licensing laws we could do without. meet the government interfering in the private marketplace for braiders or threaders. consumers are well-equipped to decide who is qualified for those services. the discipline of the private marketplace will ensure higher quality. a demonstrated need for some form of intervention, we should be actively considering lighter touch alternatives to creating barriers to work. if there is a concern that sanitation practices -- that
certain sanitation practices be followed, have a regular regime of inspections rather than licensing. inspectarly restaurants, but we do not license chefs and the staff. if there is a concern that consumers are not sophisticated aough to understand whether service provider is qualified, private certification or less desirable government certification can fill that role. providers can become certified and demonstrate they have met certain qualifications and signal that to consumers. others who have not met the qualification are not left out of the market. , byutting back the red tape cutting back the growing tangle of occupational licensing laws, we can put more americans to work and more lower income americans. [applause]
now we'll hear from diane katz. thank you patrick. good morning, everyone. i am here to talk about the affects on the poor of government efforts to eliminate loans under the dodd frank consumer protection act. dodd-frank represents a massive regulatory takeover of the financial system. describingnd days the effect of those regulations on financial services across all income levels, across all sectors of the economy, i will stick primarily to the payday lending element.
the effect of excessive regulation are the same no financialt one's status is -- fewer choices, less competition, and higher prices. are feweror, there alternative sources of credit and capital, which makes the crackdown on payday lending particularly egregious. for those who may not be familiar with payday loans, they are short term loans, typically less than $500, that come due on a borrower's payday. they are structured to be paid off and out lump some -- a lump sum, but there is the option of a rollover. they are used to solve a specific problem -- car repair, a medical bill, a utility bill,
something the borrower needs to take care of immediately. that is an important point because if you are poor and you have an unexpected breakdown in your transportation, if you do not have a source of quick cash, you could use your -- you could lose your job if you are unable to get to work. you need more than 12 million than 12 million people use payday loan services every year. smalldo not offer such loans. this is a market niche that is not filled by any other financial service provider. critics claim these loans trap borrowers into a high cost debt cycle by charging a high annual percentage rate. this is ignorance.
short-term loans do not extend over a year's worth of time. there is not an annual rate to them. the interest is not compounded, which makes all the difference in the world. the apr represents the actual rate of interest someone pays over the course of a year due to compounding. the process whereby interest is outed -- added to unpaid principal. payday loan customers do not borrow for a full year. the interest charges do not compound. there is no apr on a payday loan. $100 for two weeks for a fee of $15, the fee expressed as an interest rate would be 15%. when a payday customer rolls over a loan at payday, he has to pay a new $15 fee, and is then
responsible for repaying a total of $130. cannot explode exponentially as they can with a mortgage because there is no compounding. the consumer financial protection bureau is the primary regulator in this case. presumes that borrowers are incapable of making rational choices and subject themselves to exploitation because they are not smart enough to manage finances. there is a whole tangent on what that view of the poor can do for their opportunity and prospects. i will not go down that road, but it is something to keep in mind. the view is repugnant on so many levels. to grasp thatil
payday loans are a remedy, they are not the problem. people are going to payday lenders because they have a problem. the remedy is the loan. along comes the consumer financial protection bureau with putoposed rule that would 70% of payday lenders out of business. most notable would be a new requirement that lenders, before making a short-term loan, would have to determine the customer's ability to pay, and meet their other financial obligations and basic living expenses without needing to re-borrow. also beenonstruct has applied to mortgage lending under dodd-frank, and the result housing sales are down. the effect of that ability to pay regime also means it is much
harder for first-time buyers, younger buyers to purchase a first home. if you do not have that first population, it does not create churn in the market. that churn is current homebuyers can sell it to someone and why up. up. -- and buy over time, we get increasing numbers of homes being taught and sold. the payday loans, specifically, a lender would have to verify the consumer's net income, verify their debt obligations using a consumer report or a registered information system, verify the housing cost,
forecast a reasonable amount of basic living expenses for the consumer, determine the consumer's ability to pay the loan based on the lender's projections of the consumer's in,, debt obligations, housing -- all of which sounds absolutely ridiculous. not even bankers do that when they are laying out mortgages. they want to know that the consumer will pay out the look previousck the loan, to dodd-frank, they do not have to do that much. under this ability to pay regime, the bureau is shifting accountability from borrowers to lenders. and youre a borrower cannot pay back your loan, you can sue the lender under this role, as well as under the mortgage role, for miscalculating your ability to
repay. this is a defense against default. this is a perversion of credit principles. it presumes that consumers are incapable of acting in their own interest. even assuming the most benevolent intentions, this kind of paternalism fosters dependence on government and the roads economic freedom. that always hits the lowest rung of the economic ladder the worst. it is not hard to predict the result of such a regulatory regime. the cost of making the loan would swap the profit and therefore payday loans would become rare and costly. it would cut off an important unbanked cash for consumers. it also reflects a politicized
narrative about the finance sector where predatory lenders exploit financially illiterate consumers, and also then will , or those who have few financial resources, into getting cash and credit from black market or unregulated types of sources of funds. there is not a lack of consumer protection and small dollar lending. more than 30 states already regulate payday loans. in typical washington fashion, all of that does not seem to count because it is not the best. in general and the consumer financial protection bureau in particular are imposing semi rolls that many small -- are imposing so many
rules that many small financial providers are being driven out of business. this consolidates financial services among egger banks that do not serve the poor. among biggerhe -- banks that do not serve the poor. that leaves the poor to black market lending. this government is hurting the poor much more than helping them. is one of the worst offenders. thank you. [applause] jason snead. thank you patrick. it is great to be able to talk about an exciting industry which is the bride sharing industry. it has generated significant benefits not only for the economy, but for the poorest citizens of our country. the ride sharing industry is
interesting for a few reasons, not the least of which because it seems like it is changing. i cannot overstate the significance of the change that has taken place in the last decade and the four higher ground transportation market or it -- in the for higher ground transportation market. their whole business model was calcified. what we have seen in the last few years, and a very real sense theave all experienced, are benefits of deregulation and free-market economics in producing innovative solutions to problems that lower cost, encourage competition, and lead to more innovation in the last five years than we have seen in the previous five decades. to frame the issue of benefits to the poor, i think it would be a good idea to look back at what existed before ridesharing took off. since the 1920's and
1930's, we have seen a strict and heavy-handed approach that treats taxi companies more like public utilities than private seenprises. we have efforts to control every aspect of the industry from pricing to intrigue. issue ofeen the licensing requirements. we have seen control of vehicle maintenance and vehicle equipment mandates down to the color of the car allowed on the road. ,his scheme was put forward ostensibly, to benefit public welfare. we were told that market economics cannot work in this space and only through regulatory intervention can we safeguard the public and safeguard the drivers. we have seen nothing can be further from the truth and this space. for years, without competition in the market, consumers were asked to pay above market rates for services that were stagnant or deteriorating in quality.
they were consistently -- there were consistently underserved neighborhoods, particularly lower income neighborhoods. the reason for that is there is a system in place in taxing markets called a medallion system and this is a strict entry control. city governments will issue medallions that are permits that allow the owner to operate a taxi but these are not permits you get by filling out paperwork going to government office and , you get your permit. these are tradable commodities, essentially. someone owns a medallion. in order to gain entry into the market you had to buy a medallion from someone who is already there. we have to ask ourselves who is going to allow someone to voluntarily compete against them. this is one of the minty anti repetitive of the text market. until recently, medallions were the only way to access the market here in they had a great deal of value to them. on the secondary markets we could see taxi medallion prices
measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. just a few years ago in new york they peaked in the neighborhood of $1 million. the review taxi drivers can actually afford a $1 million medallion therefore, many of them work for companies. this sounds fine until you consider that the medallion owners use their medallions to generate revenue not based on fares that they are charging but by charging the drivers themselves to pay leasing fees for the medallion. each shift a driver starts by paying roughly $100 in a city like new york and boston merely for the right to have a job. imagine having to pay your boss every day that you show up to work $100 simply to log into the computer for the privilege of working for them. there are not many professions that require that. we see that the systems that existed before ridesharing benefited neither poor consumers who were being charged above market rates, nor poor workers who were forced to indent themselves in order to obtain a job in this field.
but contrast that with ridesharing which is significant benefits on both classes of people. on the consumer side, we have seen exactly what we would expect to see when we invite competition into a market. we see the cost of service be reduced while also the quality of service and the attention to things like customer service increase. in most markets in the united states, we have seen that ridesharing services are able to deliver trips at rates at the very least not more expensive, and very often significantly less expensive than a comparable trip in a taxi. those represent instant savings to the people who are relying on these sorts of services. those savings, if you're at the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder, can make all the difference. we've also seen in recent study that uber in particular, because they have significant treasure trove of data to be studied has been able to generate a significant consumer surplus. the paper i reference estimates that in one year alone a single
service, uber x, generated nearly $7 billion in consumer surplus. this figure represents a difference between the amount of the consumers would be willing to pay for the service that they bought and the amount they had to pay, which is lower because of the benefits of completion. that's $7 billion that can be put aside for other things, savings or basic necessities of life. we've also seen significant benefits in service to low income and previously underserved neighborhoods. in one study in 2014, it was found that uber asked -- uber outperformed traditional taxis in terms of services to boroughs outside of the core of manhattan in new york city. and that of those rides which service those areas, 60% of them serviced areas that were below the household median for the entirety of new york city, again excluding the outright outlier of manhattan. we see the benefit to areas where there simply were no taxes -- taxis previously.
similarly, study in los angeles found that low income neighborhoods could expect to wait twice as long and pay twice as much for a taxi as for an uber in their neighborhood. finally, one way that low income consumers have benefited is simply by what we call the last mile problem. these riders are reliant on public transportation but no matter how good of a public transit system you have, even if you have a metro that works like -- unlike d.c., you can expect that it will get you door to door. there is the last mile problem and how do you bridge the gap from your destination to the closest point in the transit system. often there are times where people can't make long walks or there are neighborhoods that you don't want to walk through in the low cost of the upper -- uber presents itself as an opportunity to bridge that gap. the system doesn't just confer benefits to consumers but confers them to people who are working for these services. people who drive for ridesharing problems don't have to pay medallion views because there are no medallions. there is no artificial attempt by government to restrict the
number of taxis that are present in a market. so right off the bat you can see the advantage of not having to pay for the right to work. secondly, there is also a significant ability on the part of the people working for the services to earn supplemental wages. in fact, one study of uber x drivers found 70% of the people driving for the service treated not as a primary source of revenue, but as a means of adding to the primary source of revenue they have in another job. again, the ease of being able to get onto this platform allows for that opportunity to present itself. additionally, people who are out of work and would otherwise have no choice but to turn to government assistance can quickly turn their vehicle which is otherwise just an asset that depreciate the value, into an opportunity to generate revenue and that could make all the difference for a family where there are no jobs available. finally, one of the reasons the
drivers consistently report that they are working for uber or lyft or other ridesharing services is the possibility that these services permit. there are no requirements they work a mandatory set of hours per day. there are no shifts. they determine minute by minute where and when they will be working. valuellows them a set of they have on the time to themselves in work when the wages they offer exceeds that value. the flexibility also prevents itself from jumping between one platform in the next. i have actually taken a number of rides with uber and lyft where you see both company stickers on the carpet reason is is they can monitor both platforms, see who is offering the better way to, and go with that service. it also permits the form of adaptability in the scheduling that doesn't often exist in lower skilled, lower wages profession. if something happens in your life that requires you to adjust your schedule you are often not , going to be able to have that in professions but you have that with ridesharing.
so, i think it's pretty clear, in conclusion, that ridesharing has delivered on the promise that it offered when it first started to roll out amazingly enough just a few years ago. that he would deliver lower-cost service with higher quality and would deliver opportunities for divers to want to work on the platforms that didn't exist in the taxi industry before it. but unfortunate, all is not sunshine and roses because you -- eightect a decades decades of regulations to simply be wiped away in a single year. we have seen as these services grew throughout the country very stiff resistance from regulators and taxing interests in the form of efforts to ban these services and sting operations and targeting drivers for arrest and fines to deter them from working in the services. we have seen lawsuits filed by people who own taxi medallions who are a very powerful entrenched special interests every incentive for rent seeking behavior. we have seen lawsuits that claim a property interest in the for higher market the government cannot take away from them. while we have clearly
demonstrated the benefits, there is still more work to be done and the answer is to deregulate the taxi space and let competition reign and we will reap the rewards. thank you. [applause] the chances they were given of the financial protection bureau? there are a couple of different things going on a different fronts. at this point in time i can't say for sure what may happen. on the one hand there is pending litigation about whether the position of the director is constitutional and that he kind of operates outside the authority of the white house. the initial ruling was favorable that the position of a sole
director of the agency with violatedd of powers the notion of separation of powers. but that is being appealed and we don't quite know what the result of that is going to be. presently the only way the trump administration could actually get rid of cordray against his will would be to fire him for cause. that would require them to record of negligent behavior. negligent is not a legal term, but you get the idea, of legal behavior that they had cause to terminate his employment. may -- mightct prompt and to fight that. he is supposedly looking at running for governor, so we are
hoping he will just go away. the likelihood that will happen changes from day to day as we get closer to the time he would launch a campaign. status of kind of the where things are. made this problem and they could make it go away. overhaullling to chapter 10 of the got frank act which established cfbp. ling has been putting together legislation to do a great deal of reform to on fran -- dodd-frank. whether that we get through the senate or not is a question at this point in time. spring --ater in the
it is called the choice act. i believe that will probably be taken up. we will have to see. i will take the opportunity to save the new administration is doing a great deal on the regulatory front. theicularly given what regulatory onslaught that occurred during the prior administration in which more than $120 billion in additional regulatory costs per year were added. >> thank you. we have time for some questions. wait for the microphone. right here. >> you may have said this.
rule/s a proposed -- rule? it is several roles in the federal register? >> is currently a proposed rule. the comment period ended in october. it has not been finalized. >> is this something the trump administration is aware of and is it subject to some of the delays in different agencies? >> well, it is subject to the freeze at some point because it is not a final rule. it can't take effect yet. if there were to be finalized, it within be subject to the congressional review act, which is another way of getting at it, which for those who are not familiar, the congressional review act allows a 60-day window in which congress can
effectively rescind a rule before it takes effect. that also has to be signed by the president. i have not heard president trump talk about the payday rule per se. and so, i don't know if he has any plans on how to manage it. >> you don't know if it is something that has been flagged? because of the freeze the white house can take a look at it. >> i don't know if it was specifically. cfpb is aow if particular concern to them. during the campaign, candidate trump you know, was critical of , cfpb for a whole host of reasons. and he should have been critical. but we shouldn't forget that this is a creation of congress and we shouldn't let them off the hook for having empowered
this agency in an unparalleled way. cfpb doesn't answer to congress in any way. it's outside of the appropriations process and it's even outside, as i said, the direct control of the white house. this is congress' fault. they did this. the best solution is not for the legal system to come in and change things. it really ought to be congress that changes it. >> i don't want to be on this too long. barring regulatory reform, which as you said may or may not pass the senate, in terms of payday loan rule, what do you think is the best practical approach to resolving that? do you think it is best for the --inistration to certify
flag this and notice it and stop it at that level? or do you think it is better for it to be finalized, submitted to congress so cra action can be taken? which do you think is a better solution in which is the more plausible solution? that's the last thing alaska about that. -- i will ask about that. >> yeah, i'm really not good at forecasting things like that. congress never fails to surprise me. but i will say that my preference in terms of regulatory matters in terms of establishing what the law should be, i really think belongs to congress. in the case of the congressional review act, you need both the white house and congress. you know, the administration may be able to get a new director for the bureau and have them pull the rule and reconsider it. it's hard to say what will
happen and what the best way is except that it shouldn't be there to begin when. -- begin with. there's really no reason the fed have to get involved. >> we have time for one more question. >> izzy ortega, former heritage employee and i now write for a number of publications. this question is for diane and jason. i think you both laid out very compelling cases for why payday lending should be an option in terms of uber and left. -- lyft. i wonder if you all could talk about the public relations battle that is also happening. both of these companies -- both of these issues you just mentioned are facing a backlash. if you could speak to that and how do we win that argument as well. >> yeah, well i want to point
out a couple of things. first of all, i don't want to necessarily get into the business of defending one particular company or anything like that. it is important to make a point that we like uber because we want uber to be able to compete in the market and we think they should have a free and fair right to do so at the risk the -- and the consumers decide the ultimate decision. i also want there to be a next uber and the innovation trend to be able to continue. when we talk about waging public relations battles in the political space, it is important to note a few things. first of all, there are significant benefits that accrue to people who are working in these fields that were simply unavailable to the old regime. but there is significant benefits to consumers as well. the data exists. we know the fares have been reduced in the ridesharing contacts. we know that there are several hundred thousand people driving for these platforms that certainly didn't have jobs as taxi drivers before. we can see based on the uptake
rates that consumers are shifting their loyalties from traditional taxis to uber and lyft. they are always going to be concentrated interests, specifically folks like medallion holders in cities that have systems and regulators that are quite frankly losing their ability to regulate the industry that will try to push back on this. i would like to point out the irony of supporting a status quo system on the basis that somehow heavy regulation has produced great result that's great for everybody. consumers and the drivers protecting the little man sort of thing, but in actuality, the people who own the medallion and hold everybody else, consumers and drivers alike, you know, in a system that is not quite frankly in their best interest, but only in the interest of those specific concentrated folks. >> i would like to say that the
problem with the payday loans in terms of how it is viewed by the public is also part of a much larger problem in how financial services in general are being used. i think there is -- particularly since the financial crisis, there is a narrative of financial services being trustworthy and greedy and exploitive, which really misrepresents what actually happened and what actually caused the financial crisis. unfortunately, members of congress and the executive branch, republicans and democrats both, not just democrats, not just the left have played into this idea by generating ever more regulation and assuming ever more control of the industry. it doesn't surprise me in the least that the public has sort
of internalized these ideas. >> ok, thank you. i did just hear that our report is now up on heritage.org, just went up. we also have copies available outside. ambassador miller will introduce our late morning keynote speaker, dr. fullmer. [applause] >> it is a distinct honor for me to introduce to you the founder
of the heritage foundation, dr. edwin j. fullmer. dr. fullmer's leadership as president of the heritage foundation really transformed this think tank from what started out as a small policy shop in something that the new york times, no real friend of ours, has called, and i quote "the parthenon of the conservative metropolis." dr. fullmer stepped down as president in april of 2013 after 36 years in charge of the heritage foundation, but he of course has continued with us in his role as founder and also a member of our board of trustees. just a little bit about his history. a former director of the republican study committee and the house of representatives, he
also served as vice chairman on tax reform and is a member of the commission on reforming international financial and dictations. -- institutions. other leadership roles include serving as president of the philadelphia society and is chairman of both the intercollegiate studies institute and the advisory commission on public diplomacy. president reagan presented him with the presidential citizens medal for his work as leader of his other honors include the 2012th bradley prize for extraordinary dedication to the conservative movement. his books include "the american spirit," "getting america right," "leadership for america" and "the march for freedom." please join me in welcoming dr. edwin fullner.
[applause] >> thanks very much, ambassador miller, and a special word of thanks and congratulations to darren and patrick for this really extraordinary interesting and exciting report that has just been released today. i had the opportunity to read it last night and yesterday when i was on an airplane. it reminded me of so many basics going back over the years. basics like studies that we were doing here 20 years ago on another side of the same question, which was how did we encourage economic opportunity for all americans in terms of rethinking things like the 71 means tested welfare programs that are out there. we did that with the leadership
people that are still here that resulted in the welfare reform act of 1996 is a real significant changes. i do hope that this study will also be the cause of some significant changes. the problem we face is -- as conservatives is we are constantly confronted with the notion from our liberal friends that, hey, here is a social problem. let's just take some money and we'll throw this money at the problem and that will help solve it. it isn't just the money. not only the fact that it scares -- scarce resources been taken from the taxpayers were borrowed from future generations. it is also all the regulations and big government that goes along with it. that is what we've really been focused on and talking about today. when actual flesh and blood people are considered, there are many that comes the big government policies among the poor. it crops up in so many different ways. whether it has to do with what you can buy or how much it costs or what you can do, whether you
can run a lemonade stand, whether you can sell roses on a street corner or whether you can drive a car without having to go through some governmental process in higher up that car. with professor boudreaux still here, i just look at that chart on page two and i think it was probably in economics 1 today learned lower incomes have larger npc's, higher propensity to consume. you look at those numbers and all of the basics that lower income individuals have to buy in order to survive are really taxed, regulated and covered -- governed much more highly for people in that income category than it is for those of us who are fortunate enough to have done better and moved up the income pattern. so this really is a problem of
both dealing with big government, intrusive government and how it adversely impacts people at the lower end of the political spectrum. also reminding all of us who are in fact either self-described conservatives or libertarians or people who say government is a problem. in government is bad. lesser member who was that and it is worse for, that is people not as fortunate as we are. if government would get out of the way, stop intervening and staff requiring individuals to do certain things whether it is , to go to cosmetology school in order to become hair braiders or in other ways to stop them from making their own economic decisions, which they are leasing the best position to be able to make as a yellow card so many times. i really know how to spend my
own money rather than having some government person spend it for me. it is very much to the point of where we should be going in the new economic era, the new political era in which we find ourselves. again i want to congratulate you, terry miller, your colleagues in the center for what you have done and the 12 individuals within heritage is interviewed to this study. they're listed on the inside front cover. i want to particularly thank the five individuals from other institutions that joined with us today in terms of talking about some of these problems as they confront all of us as we rethink these public policies going forward. it's been a very exciting morning. i learned a great deal from all of you who made presentations. it just shows the continued extent of the challenges that we
all face as we do what we can in terms of helping to build an america for freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society can flourish. thank you all for being here. it has been a wonderful morning. [applause] >> thank you so much, dr. fullner. it remains for me always to thank all of you in the audience and think those who joined us online and through c-span. the report is available online at heritage.org. we invite you to take a look at it. i hope the discussions today have encouraged you to go beyond the soundbite when you think about public policy, to make sure you are looking at the actual facts, what actually happens. good intentions aren't enough. public policy must actually achieve some positive then to be justified and i think we'll
leave that up to you as the voters to ultimately decide. thanks again for coming. [applause] [crowd noise] >> not me. it is to keynesian for me. >> president trump that this afternoon with military advisers concerning north korea's latest nuclear test. following the meeting, defense secretary james mattis made a brief statement to reporters, accompanied by joint chiefs of staff chairman general joseph dunford.