tv Prime Ministers Questions from the British House of Commons CSPAN April 13, 2016 7:00am-8:01am EDT
twitter using the hashtag pmq. prior to question time members are finishing up other business. and now live to the floor of the british house of commons. >> i think it's important to point out once again while the work ability to be assigned i think we need to highlight his government believes strongly people or disabled have a contribution to make who want to were and are able to work. apologist i've discovered is to help people into employment without is possible and the figures show our policies are being successful. >> thank you, mr. speaker. may i welcome the minister to his post. is the aware that callous policy of the conservative government to implement personal independent payment is leaving too many people being prevented from working because they're
having mobility cars taken away from them which prevents them from being able to travel to work? will he speak to the person next to him to try to talk some sense into him? >> i find the comments to be slightly disappointed. we look at all the changes in the employment situation in his constituency they should be welcomed the work of this governments well fire reform. -- welfare reform. when you look at the statistics, he should welcoming the changes, not condemning them. >> order. questions to the prime minister. wendi morton. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thithis morning i had meetings h ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> wendi morton. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week i visited
manufacturing. would my right honorable friend agree with me supporting small businesses and a further increase in personal caps and allows which came in this month -- we on this side of the house and parties enterprise desperation and believe in enabling hard-working people to keep more of which they earn? >> let me join her and congratulate the firm should mention. she's absolutely right that it is small and medium-sized businesses that the government will be providing the jobs are the future and we want people to keep more of their own money to spend as they choose. that's what historic move to an 11,000-pound personal allowance the people will have gained by 2018 they will be paying about 1000 pounds less per taxpayer and we would've taken 4 million of the lowest paid people out of tax altogether. that's the action of the progressive liberal government.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will join me in mourning the death today of the dramatist arnold come one of the great playwrights of this country come one of those wonderful angry young men of the 1950s and like so many angry young people actually change the face of our country. yesterday, tried to the european commission announced new proposals on country by country tax reporting. so that companies must declare where they make their profits in the eu and in lackluster tax havens. conservative mep is spoke against the proposal, and against the blacklisting. can the prime minister measures conservative mep will support the new proposal? >> first of all that me join the right honorable gentleman in mourning the loss of the famous playwright and all the work you
did. it's quite right to mention that. [shouting] let me, let me, let me welcome, let me welcome the country by country tax reporting proposal put forward by commission jonathan hill appointed by this government, united kingdom the commissioner. this is very much based on the work that we have been doing leaving the collaboration between countries of making sure we should tax information. as we discussed this has gone are faster and far further under this government than under any previous government. >> mr. speaker, if the proposal put forward by the british government, why do conservative mep is vote against them? a bit of a disconnect. the panama papers, mr. speaker, exposed a scandalous situation where wealthy individuals seem to believe that corporation tax and other taxes are something
optional. indeed, as a member from elton inform it's only for low achievers apparently. so when the hmrc says that tax gap is 34 billion pounds, why then is he cutting hmrc staff by 20% and cutting down tax offices which loses the expertise of people to close the tax gap? >> i doubt he wants to get on our responsibility to pay taxes. that's very important. his tax return was a mess for labour policy the it was late, chaotic, inaccurate and un-costed. [laughter] turning to specific question, he is actually right. is absolutely right to identify the tax gap, and that is why we closed off loopholes in the last
parliament equivalent of 12 billion pounds. we aim to close the loopholes in this parliament equivalent to 16 billion pounds so the h.r. mc is taken very strong action backed by this government, backed by the chancellor, legislative for by this house. i think i'm right in saying since 2010 we have put over 1 billion pounds into h.r. mc to increase its capabilities to collect the tax people should be paying. the difference i think between the sight of the house and right honorable gentleman is we believe in setting low tax rates at encouraging people to pay them. and its working. >> mr. speaker, i'm grateful for the prime minister for drawing attention to my own tax return. all my handwriting, all generous donation to hrmc. i paid more tax by some companies owned by people he might know quite well. [shouting]
the prime minister isn't, mr. speaker, the prime minister isn't cutting tax that is biggies cutting down on tax collectors. the tax collected helps to fund our nhs and all the other services. last month the obr reported that hrmc doesn't have the necessary resources to tackle offshore tax disclosures. the government is committed to taking 400 million pounds out of h.r. indices budget by 2020. will he now commit to reversing that cut so that we can collect the tax that will help to pay for the services? >> i'm afraid his figures rather like his tax return his figures are not entirely accurate. at the summer budget 2015 we give an extra 800 million pounds to hrmc to fund additional work to tackle tax evasion and noncompliance between now and 20 to one. this will enable h.r. into to recover billion in tax over the
next five years. we've brought in more than 2 billion from offshore tax evader since 2010. the point i would make i think we should try to bring some consensus to this issue. for use in this country labour government and conservative governments have an attitude to the overseas territories that their tax affairs were a matter for them and their compliance affairs were a matter for them and transparent he was a matter for them. this government has changed that. we've got the overseas territories, the crown dependencies around the table. we such a god of registers of ownership. you've got to elaborate with the uk government. you've got to make sure people don't hide their taxes. and it's happening. so when he gets to his feet he should welcome the fact that huge progress has been made. raising taxes, closing the tax gap, getting businesses to pay more, getting international leadership to the cell issue. all things that never happened under labour.
>> mr. speaker, i thank the prime minister for the edge. the only problem with it is the redbook states hrmc spending will fall from 3.3 billion to 2.9 billion light 2020. and in regard to uk crown dependencies and oversee territory only two days ago the prime minister said that he had agreed they would provide uk law enforcement attacks agencies with full access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies. it seems to be some confusion because the chief minister of jersey said this is his response without delay, where terrorist activities are involved. is jersey and all the other dependencies actually going to provide beneficial ownership information or not speak with the short answer to that is yes,
they are. that is what such a big break -- breakthrough. they are not going as far as us because we are publishing a register beneficial ownership that will happen in june will be one of the only countries in the world to do so. i think norway and spain are the others. what the overseas territories and crown dependencies are doing is making sure that we have full access to register beneficial ownership to make sure that people are not evading or avoiding their taxes. in the interest of giving full answers to his questions, let me give them the figures for full-time equivalents in hmrc in terms of compliance. the numbers above from 25,000 in 2010 to 26,007 and 98 and 2015. it's not how much money you spend on an organization. it's how many people you can have out there collecting the taxes and making sure the forms are properly filled in. >> the prime minister is quite right to the number of people out there collecting taxes is important. therefore, what have you laid
off so many staff from hmrc that therefore cannot collect those taxes? in 2013, mr. speaker, the prime minister demanded the overseas territories with the site the cloak of secrecy by creating a public register of beneficial ownership of information. will he now make it clear that the beneficial ownership register will be an absolutely public document transparent for all to see who really own these companies and whether they're paying the taxes or not? >> let me be absolutely clear. for the united kingdom we've taken the unprecedented step never done by labour never done by conservatives, all open beneficial ownership register. with the crown dependencies and oversee territories, 50 give full access to the registers of beneficial ownership. we did not choose the option of forcing them to a a public
register because we believed if that was the case week at the situation he spoke about his some of them might walk away from this cooperation altogether. that's the point of the question is are we going to get access the information, yes? can we pursue tax invaders? yes. get any things happen under a labour government? no. >> the prime minister does [talking over each other] adequate of that. it's not a public register is offering. is only offering us a private register that some people can see. it's quite interesting the premier and the cayman islands is today celebrating his victory over the prime minister because using the information certainly will not be available publicly or available directly by any uk or non-cayman island agency. the prime minister is supposed to be chasing down tax evasion and tax avoidance.
he is supposed to be bringing it all into the open. if you cannot even persuade the premier of the cayman islands or jersey to open up their books, where is the tough talk bringing the information we need to collect the taxes that should pay for the services that people need? >> let me, i think yo you are misunderstanding. in terms of uk is an absolute first in terms of a register beneficial ownership that is public or he keeps saying it is not public. the british one will be public or further to that anything this is important because this ghostly question asked by the right honorable member, we are also sent to foreign companies that use with britain that they have to declare their properties in the properties they own which will remove the huge avail of secrecy over the ownership for instance, of london property. i am not saying we completed all this work but we have more tax x information exchange can more registers of beneficial ownership, more chasing down tax evasion and avoidance, more
money recover from businesses and individuals. at all of these things are things that have happened under this government. the truth is he's running to catch a biggest labour did nothing in 13 years. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents whose daughter was tragically murdered i her ex-partner whilst he was out on bail campaign to save nine women's refugees which occurred at threat because labour run counts are proposing all of their funding. does the prime minister a greek with the family and me that the council should prioritize the victims of domestic violence? >> first of all, my honorable friend does move a very, does raise a very moving case and i know the whole house will wish to join instantly our sincere condolences to the family.
intensification we stop violence against women and girls know what should be living in fear of these crimes. that is why we committed 18 million pounds to tackle violence against women and girls and this includes funding and securing the future for refugees and other accommodations based services that it help if local councils make the right decisions as well. >> the kingdom and its offshore territories and defenses collectively sits at the top of the financial secrecy index of the tax justice network. centiliter panama papers, france has put panama on the blacklist of uncooperative tax havens and offices have been raided by the police in panama city. what have british authorities and specifically in relation to this end with animals and delete of the panama papers? >> first of all in terms of who
is at the top of the pair made up tax secrecy, i think it is not unfair to say that about our crowded defenses and oversee territories because they're going to cooperate with the three things that we asked them to do in terms of the reporting standard, the exchange of tax information and access to register of beneficial ownership. frankly, that is more the we get out of some states in america like a delaware. i think in this house we should be tough on all those and facilitate lack of transparency but we should be accurate in the way we do it. he ask about what we're doing about the panama papers. we have a 10 million pounds review to get to the bottom of all the information you it would hugely be help if the newspapers and other investigative journalist now share this information with the tax inspector so we can get to the bottom of it. and his final question on black lists, we were happy to support blacklist but we don't think you should draw up a blacklist on the basis of a territory raising
a low tax rate. we don't think that is the right approach. that's the approach the french have sometimes taken. in terms of tax havens come this government has done more than any previous one. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 3250 staff have been specifically investigating benefit fraud whilst only 300 hmrc staff have been systematically investigating tax evasion. surely we should get equally about equal abuse in the tax system and those abusing the benefit system. why has this government had 10 times more staff dealing often with the poorest in society of abusing benefits and with the super rich a fading their tax is? >> i will look carefully at the statistics but they sound to me entirely bogus.
for this reason. the jobs, the predominant job of the dwp is to make sure that people receive their benefits. the predominant job at a gym or see is people pay their taxes. the 26,000 people i spoke about earlier, all of them are making sure that people pay their taxes. .com the clue is in the title. >> thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. will until davis and others are still awaiting their 2015 payments from the rural payments agency. nearly four months after they were too. this follows the failure of the website last year but it is causing great personal and financial distress and threatens the future of our business. will the prime minister agreed to meet with farmers, will the press the rpa jamaica's famous by the end of this month and does he share my view that at the very least farmers should
repeat interest on the amount overdue? >> first of all i have met with both the image and the welsh image and continued meetings with farming or positions including my own constituency. i noted in problems with the payment system to be given the rates, the latest figures aren't 70% of all claims have been paid and i believe the figures are in line with the national average. we had a financial hardship process. we are working with security. we've made hardship payments amounting to over 70 pounds but we do need to make sure the lessons of how to make the system work better in future years are properly learned. >> if the british people vote to leave the european union, will the prime minister remain in office? >> yes. [shouting]
>> again on europe, mr. speaker, does the prime minister a greek european union is not just the world's biggest single market but it is also an ample source of foreign direct investment to rising 50% of investment we received a also an excellent platform for supply chains to thrive in prospect, beating the ability get the skills they need and the innovation they need, and my constituency -- and a whole lot of other high-tech companies thrive and prosper as they did in the united kingdom? >> i well remember my visit with my honorable friend where they touch the i think the world first in a bicycle that was printed on a 3-d printer. i didn't get on and give it a try but look like i they would even carry some of my weight. he's right because single market is 500 million people and that is a great market for our businesses, for our services and
increasingly the market and the supply chain is getting more and more integrated and that is why we should think carefully for more separating ourselves from it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the biggest cancer killer of children and people under 40 them but despite this research into the received less than 1% or just over 1% of the uk's national paint on cancer research. this is a subject of debate next monday in westminster hall. with the prime minister -- my honorable friend sector she's a state for health so the minister answering that debate might be able to bring with him over some long overdue good news of changes? >> i was very happy to do exactly as he says that it is an important issue. we invest something like 1.7 billion a year in health research but there is always this question when it comes to cancer research, the spending has gone up by a third to nearly 135 billion pounds but is a
question about whether that is fairly distributed between all the different types of cancer and i will make sure the minister can give them a very full reply. >> thank you, mr. speaker. -- concerns raised about the future of our steel industry and more, energy intensive manufacturing north of england has manufactured but it's been held back by green taxes, high energy costs and emissions targets. what more can you do to energy intensive industries? >> i thank my friend raise an important point and the changes we're and the changes would make it will save the steel industry over 400 million pounds by the end of this parliament and that is a good example of the steps we can take. there was an excellent debate yesterday about this issue. we need to work and everything we can do, make sure we're taking action in the eu against dumping come and we are. we need to make sure we reduce the energy cost where we can come and we stand by to work
with any potential purchaser of the works which will safeguard steel jobs in other parts of the country to see a we can help on a commercial basis. i'm satisfied with doing everything we possibly can. we cannot totally block the global trend of this massive overcapacity of steel and massive decline in prices but those are the key areas in terms of power, plant, procurement. all areas where we can help. >> research shows turning schools into academies doesn't message of improve them. thousands of acts of primary schools, parents wanted to continue to be maintained by the local authority. why our ministers plan to overrule parents and force all those the schools into academies? >> i think all the evidence shows the academies work as part of our education reform. let me give the house of commons, to give the house the evidence. if you look at those schools
that converted into academies, 88% are either outstanding work of schools. a few look at the sponsored academies can often failing schools -- hold on. if you listen, if you listen, if you look with the schools that are often failing but are now sponsored by academies, using an average of 10% improvement over the first two years of all the evidence is the results are better, the freedoms the lead to improvement and also with our problems intervention happens far faster with academies. we have got 1.4 million more children in good or oust any schools and i say let's finish the job. >> thank you, mr. speaker. would you like to overcome that the mission by join me for the
upcoming british asparagus festival which starts on saint george's day and to support? >> well, i'm happy to say that my honorable friend's constituency is only one constituency a way. we share the same railway line so there's an operative for great british asparagus, i would be very happy to join him. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i take the prime minister back to his respond to the honorable mention -- member. it was a truly dreadful case it women to refugees, mr. speaker, are facing absolute crisis. that changes the government proposes to make do housing benefits will force the closure of the women's refugees. he needs urgently to look again at these changes because alessi makes refugees exempt, they will be closing up and down the country. will he do it?
>> what i would say it is what we did in the last parliament with rape crisis centers we are doing the same type of thing with these refugees and that's why the 80 million pounds of funding is so important and that is why my right honorable friend has written to local authorities to explain that this money is available to make sure that refugees are there. >> mr. speaker, as part of world autism awareness last week the national autistic society launched its biggest ever awareness campaign called too much information and young alex was here announced and met many on monday this week. their research shows some 50% of autistic people and their families don't sometimes even go out to public because they are afraid of what people think as the public reaction to the. will the prime minister meet with me and others to show how the government can support this campaign and how we can help tackle the socialized nation so
many families through this campaign through government assistance to? >> first of all let me bid to become a right honorable friend who has been campaigning and legislating on this issue for many, many years including the landmark legislation that went through in the last parliament. we have been working closely and invested in 325,000 pounds since 2014 but she's right it is more than its be done in terms of helping families with autistic children and raising the profile and understanding of what having an autistic child or being autistic is all about. i think she's right to do that. let me put in a plug for the strange incident of the dog in the night which i think is still available. i think it's of the whitehall theatre. it's actually. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. authorities in peru, san salvador and panama have raided offices seeking documents and computer equipment but no one
>> arguing against proposition vice president sarah at the national association for independent colleges and universities and andrew kelly, american enterprise institute resident scholar and director of aie center. our moderator today is daniel gabriel so we should be able to sere our proposition up on the screen pretty quick here. i want to explain the voting process that we are going to be doing. here we go. as you can see the proposition is now up on the screen. we want to take the temperature of the audience before and after
come being the next, first state to be out of the public higher education affordability business. your legislators told me i can get reelected, this was another state, get reelected by not raising taxes. you go to the federal government and get direct student aid or loan money however you can get it. in 1965 and 1972 the great debate went on about institutionsal aid versus direct student aid. let market decide versus incentivize institutions or states to enroll the right population, needy populations. we took the market route. we took the market route and went to direct student aid. the assumption in '72 was made
states would take care of public universities. states vanished taking care of published market universities, we have federal market based and fee-based system allowed a whole new sector to merge because it is so lucrative, for-profit sector, enrolls 11%. and has 41% of all student loan defaults. would you want your k-12 system to have the same structure where we let for profit universities educate middle schoolers, elementary schoolers and high schoolers? right now we had no idea that the federal government would become main supplier of revenue in higher education. the objective in 1972 was to save private higher education. university of chicago said with public fund we'll be like university of illinois and increase lower income access and keep our cost controlled better. none of that has happened. university of gibbing cois just
as university of chicago was then. the only difference university of illinois for survival purposes is trying to become the university of chicago. low-income access has been only increased in lowest cost institutions in this country. the entire ivy league combined, richest institutions on this earth federal direct student aid, more and more of it wealthiest on this earth have less pell grant students than lsu, have substantially less pell grant students when i was at cal state long beach. we had 15,000. the ivy league combined had 9800. has this 140 or 170 billion worked? well our 55 to 64-year-old population in this country ranks number one in the world in college degrees. our 25 to 34-year-old population ranks 13th in college degrees and it is dropping. it is time to do something
different. time to incentivize our states to do right things. when our medical center chancellor told our legislators in special session couple weeks ago, every dollar we cut from him in medical education, he will lose three federal dollars. that changed entire dialogue in our legislature. in louisiana we raised taxes to make sure we didn't lose the federal money. now it is time. we know it works, ssig was a federal matching program to encourage states to do the right things. the stimulus package is the reason it worked for education was, we put maintenance of effort provision from the federal government that said you can't collect educational resources if you cut your budgets before the 2006 funding level. sea did it. we do it in sea, time to use new federal dollars, any new federal dollars to get states back in
the public keg affordability game. otherwise we won't have public colleges and universities in the next eight years when states drop off the map. >> operate, thank you. in 2013 the new america education policy program made impassioned case for the pell grant program. they wrote the pell grant program is cornerstone of federal aid. keep low income students from attending colleges over the years college prices have soared. the system is become less and less effective. surely they argue stop handing out vouchers and instead give money directly to states or institutions. on the contrary, they are argue for increasing maximum grant, making program a permanent entitlement and providing bonuses to high performing campuses. let me say i agree with 2013 new america and believe shifting federal role from student aid to institutional aid would not be improvement. i see four arguments for giving need-based aid to students.
first, providing students to vouchers on basis of income allows us to target scarce public dollars for those that need it most. those that benefit from college but would not be able to afford it. this is the real reason federal government got involved to solve underprovision problem. in contrast. state direct funding is often quite regressive. subsidizes in statute tuition benefits upper and middle economic family and likely go to college than lower income peers and could pay more. once more state funding formulas that shortchange low income students. public universities received $7400 per student in 2012 compared to $5750 to community colleges. just up the road in maryland the formula provides community colleges with 25% of the per student appropriation for four year colleges. that is in the law. affluent students who much more likely attend a four year college than flagship are big
winners here. states have their own reasons to fund their colleges this way and they have every right to let's not pretend with the align's fed's primary concern targeting aid to lower income students. the second point, need-based grants empower students to choose option where they most likely succeed, be it public, private, in-state or out-of-state. in contrast, direct system aid of public colleges lower tuitions at subset of institutions but are the institutions always best fit for students? evidence suggests this may be costly tradeoff. recent analysis from chicago consortium of public research. they have no public colleges with four year graduation with over 50%. teachers college of columbia found the adams scholarship in massachusetts students can only use at public state colleges actually let college recipients graduate at lower rates than peers that didn't get
scholarship? why? in kind subsidy was at subset of schools and those schools have lower he graduate race rates. third, giving students aid and letting them choose from range of options helped to drive innovation and die array of offerings. new america laid out compelling case, on line education, blended learning other things. from where did most of those innovations occur? many if not all outside public sector and for-profit and non-profit systems. voucher system with reasonable standards places power to decide which innovations are worthwhile in the hands of market not bureaucrats in washington or state capitals. forth and last i believe portable aid is critical to accountability, not detrimental to it. to be clear i agree with my colleges, policymakers demand
much more affordability. this is where my partner around i disagree. advocates of institutional aid giving money to directly to colleges, states or schools, than students, fed will have better ability to hold collegeses to standards and enforce tuition caps. colleges could demand accountability under current system and chosen not to. not clear why direct funding would change that the problem leaving the decision to sanction colleges in hands of few regulators to scenario where colleges are ever held accountable. 1% of colleges lost accredit dyings over four years period. only 11 colleges lost eligibility due to high fault rates. regulators answer to many masters, regulators in congress, interest groups. voucher driven market, voucher driven system arrives on decisions of thousands of
individuals. advocates of direct aid say this market is not worked nearly as well as it should. student need better information, schools should be held to higher performance and fiduciary standards and regulatory outcomes not inputs. these reforms are possible without sacrifice wag aid system focused on inches students, not institutions makes available. >> will. >> thanks for having me. i would provide a little more context and background to president alexander's remarks. our essential argument is that the set of assumptions that underlie our national system for making college affordability no longer hold. what were those assumptions originally 40 years ago. first was that the federal government would provide need based financial aid directly to students. but they weren't the only stakeholders. next public institutions and states working together would keep tuition low. and state government was do that by providing appropriation. institutions would do that using
appropriations efficiently. staved-based financial aid would be mostly need based and be there primarily for choice. for institutions, their commitment was, if they were charging prices that were well above what the financial aid system covered, then they had an obligation to make sure any student who was admitted could enroll, need blind financial aid essentially. so what's happened over time to each of those? our argument besides the federal government the other stakeholders drifted away from their commitments. think of states and institution, public institutions states have, spending much less than they have in the past. public tuitions between 2000, 2015 increased by 80%. if you look at the state financial aid, if you take a low income student who is attending a public institution and compare the amount of aid they to the from the state financial aid program, that didn't change in inflation adjusts dollars between 1996 and 2012. same amount of money for that
student. if you look at high income student attending public institution, amount of financial aid got from the state that increased by 450% during the same time period. the states drifted funding high income student. we have done a lot of work at new america, commitment to funding private institutions increased financial aid substantially between 1996 and 2012. impressive 150% increase for those low income institutions, it deserves credit. but doesn't compare to the 260% increase that high increase found at same institutions during the same time period. if you're a family making over $125,000, amount of financial aid you got from institutions increased 230%. so, that is massive increase. you can see the states and institutions drifting abay from their commitments. so the solution, seems to me is
to give states and institutions every incentive to go back to their original commitments. asking them to do so or pointing out they're not doing so does not seem to be effective. we need to find a way to use additional federal funding to give states every incentive to do so. the way to do that effectively to make sure as federal funding, some can go to the states and states have to both change, how much they're spending and how institutions are behaving, if the states will continue to benefit from federal funding. those are the points i want to make. i look forward to the conversation. >> sara, give you the last word. >> thank you, i will take a little different approach. i will ask you to assume some form of what is in the atmosphere right now, giving more federal aid to public institutions via the states actually comes to pass. let's look ten to 20 years now and higher ed landscape.
make assumptions what it would look like. you would see disparity among state because some states will buy into this and some states won't. and we have seen that certainly recently with the recent med died debate. we will see -- medicaid debate. we see variety of among institutions. we will have less access for private non-profits, less access for out-of-state publics. the after goddability on those will primarily be between upper income and for wealthy institutions whether they be public wealthy institutions or private wealthy institutions because they fund their own student aid. so those institutions that are wealthy are also selective. so we will have low income students who are very bright, may be able to have the same kind of options they have had before. the familiar, this landscape is rather familiar. it looks like american higher education circa 1964.
this is exactly what the federal government came in to address in 1965, when they set up the higher ed act and in 1972 when they filled out the current framework. so what has, where are the holes in that framework? i agree, i'm glad both will and dr. alexander mentioned the past. mentioned the original structure of this because much of the original structure is no longer functioning. the pell grant program was not supposed to be the only program. no one wants to talk about ssig anymore. i'm glad dr. alexander did. the whole concept with the federal government, they said we're going to start with low income students but we are also going to incentivize the states to also step in for low income students. so we set up an ssig program. federal government completely defunded that eight years ago. as soon as they started
defunding it, four states stepped out of need-based aid. dr. alexander said in his testimony before congress, if you give me $200 increase in pell grant and louisiana makes me raise tuition $1200, my low income students lost $1000. same principle applies with ssig. if you make the pell grant go up $200 and state takes away $1200 aid, low income students lose. we saw this happen with the stimulus bill. what happened with the stimulus bill, it worked well for public institutions but didn't work well for low income students. a study by jennifer delaney out of university of illinois, low income students whether at public colleges or private colleges lost in their scenario. now we could fix that. we could fix that scenario. we could simply put moe that worked well for public colleges into ssig for public colleges.
we could ad moe to congress knead based aid. it was not in the stimulus bill. it was not unintended consequence. we could look at institutions. i am going to surprise you, we are not against adding whatever those accountability de jure measures are on institutions. perhaps into a reinvigorated, well funded campus-based aid formula. no question that institutions that serve a large number of pell grant students are not getting enough seog. put real money into it. house did it proposal in 2009. issues de jure, completion rates, percentage pell, and price even. and that formula could be worked. so my main argument today is that the federal government in '72 recognized that institutions are institutions. they have mixed obligations. they have to also survive as an
institution. they have to balance the book. states have mixed obligations. they want to educate their sit currency but they also want to keep the best and brightest at home because they are competing with the other 49 states. so the federal government in many ways has the purest thing. they want to get low income students who are capable through. let's not throw out the current system. let's work on it together. let's work towards 2064, instead of 1964. >> thank you, guys. gentlemen, we'll start with your team first. dr. alexander, if we were to funnel additional aid directly to the states have them make decisions how to disperse that, how would you make colleges subject to the winds of state legislatures? >> one thing has been constant. i've been a president in kentucky and california and now in louisiana and worked in illinois and wisconsin.