Transcripts For CSPAN2 Federal Polices And Poverty Part 2 20170817

[inaudible conversations] welcome back. This is a panel on how government policy drives up the prices for the poor and this panel is how Government Policies limit opportunities for. In a lot of ways poor are getting a double hit. They have to pay higher prices which affect them disproportionately than higher earners and so they would just like if they had more opportunity to make money to pay those prices it would be better however, the Government Policies will talk about in this panel limit the opportunities for them to get a job or for anyone to get a job but the most in need people are the ones who need it the most. We are running behind time several cut straight to the introductions. Lisa is the director of Strategic Research at the institute of justice she helps manage the institute Strategic Research initiative which great policy and social research on central to the mission. Poor working as a director of Strategic Research she served as the Institute Director of vacations and she joined the interview in 2001 from the hill and is now a global vacations from where she specializes in Public Relations for technology companies. After lisa will hear from diane who is a Senior Research fellow in regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation. She joined heritage and studied in august 2010 and she previously was director of risk environment and Energy Policy for two years at the fraser institute. Finally, we have jason policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation for legal and judicial studies at the Heritage Foundation. He has written extensively on the need to reform the nation civil active forfeiture laws and researches and writes on issues such as regulation of Unmanned Aircraft systems, economic liberties and the sharing economy and criminal justice form and policing. He holds a masters degree in Public Policy from george mason university, Government International affairs, graduated soon make him latte from Bowling Green State University with a bachelors degree in history and political science. With that we will go to lisa. More American Workers than ever need a permission slip from the government before they can do their job but permission slips, of course, is 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 Cosmetology School or college for four years or cosmetology for 1600 hours. You may be required to apprentice in your chosen occupation for two, three or even four years. You may have to pass an exam or two. Nearly always youll have to pay fees. The share of the American Workforce subject to such licensing redtape has been on the rise since the 1950s. Back then just one in the americans needed a license to work. Today that figure is closer to one in four. As terry pointed out this morning these policies hurt the poor in two key ways first, the focus of this panel is that occupational licensing redtape creates a real and substantial roadblocks to Economic Opportunity. Back in 2000, the institute for justice released a study called licensed to work. We examined the requirements to get an occupational license for 100 to low and middle income occupations across all the states and the district of columbia. We found that on average breaking into those 100 and to lower income occupations would take nine months in education and training, passing one exam, and paying more than 200 in fees. Those figures dont account for hidden costs like income for gone while in training or the cost of tuition for required schooling. Thats an awful lot of time and money spent trying to earn a license instead of learnin earna living. Those cost, of course, will be particularly hard for folks in the lower income to bear. The Economic Cost can be real and substantial. By one estimate licensing laws are costing the American Economy as many as 2. 85 million jobs. The other cost to the poor, of course, is from higher prices. Licensing laws, artificially restrict the supply of providers allowing them to raise their prices. One estimate puts that figure, the cost to all of us from higher prices, at about 203 billion annually. For many poorer americans that means paying more for the same services or sibling doing without. That is the 30000foot view of occupational licensing from the perspective of an economist. Today what i want to talk about is what occupational licensing laws look like to ordinary americans. Americans like that on she is a single mom and an african style hair breeder she learned the craft of braiding from her mom growing up. That is how the track craft is passed down from generation to generation. It originated thousands of years ago in africa and is a natural hair care. Involved no heat or chemicals and no sharp instruments. Nonetheless, she, a skilled writer, her youth was required in the state of iowa to get a cosmetology license to practice legally. That would have meant attending Cosmetology School for 2100 hours for more than a year at a cost of about 22000 in tuition. Then passing a cosmetology examined paying the fees. That exam, by the way, wouldnt test anything about african style hair testing nor would the vast curriculum teach anything about african style hair braiding. She got lucky and that she found a licensed salon owner that was willing to employ her but she was operating in a kind of legal gray area. At any time the state board of cosmetology couldnt shut her down and that would have meant not just the loss of her job in the loss of her income but she would have risked a year in jail and up to 10000 in fines. Also for the crime for braiding hair without a license. She joined with the institute for justice and we sued the state of iowa and last year they back down. They exempted african style hair readers from the states cosmetology licensing scheme. Now, breeders have to register with the state and they are in. They are free to practice. These have been increasingly processor in the state and in recent years about ten states have adopted some kind of reform exempting raters from cosmetology laws. The effects can be quite essential. Mississippi adopted a Registration System back in 2005 and in the most recent year we have data for there was 2600 registered raters in mississippi. That is the effects were one occupation in one state. Unfortunately, others have not yet been so lucky. Like. [inaudible] she is an eyebrow spreader in louisiana and is the owner of the threading studio and spot in the new orleans area. Her craft is eyebrow threading and this is another form of natural grooming and it originates in south asia and the middle east. It simply involves taking a piece of cotton thread and skillfully manipulating it over the face to pick out unwanted facial hair. Its pretty impressive when you see it and a lot of people learn the craft in her native india. She moved here and opened her own business and business was booming. Threading is becoming increasingly popular in the states because its cheaper and quicker alternative to other forms of hair removal. Her business was taking off until the state of louisiana in the cosmetology board determined that predators should be licensed as an aesthetician. This is another cosmetology license. This would take 750 hours in Cosmetology Schooling at a cost of about 10000 in tuition and passing not one but three exams. Again, none of those exams test eyebrow threading and practically none of the curriculum addresses it at all. This is the position that she is and as a Small Business owner. She has customers demanding Threading Services but she cant hire the people that is qualified to provide them. License and aestheticians dont know how to read. They dont learn it in Cosmetology School. The people who do know how to perform the craft typically cant afford to go get in and aestheticians license. She use to employ unlicensed predators until they started cracking down. The board of cosmetology sent her a cease and desist letters and they upped the ante and signing her thousands of dollars and finally they ordered her to fire her unlicensed predators. Fearing a complete loss of her business and that is what she had to do. Those folks are either out of work or working in less lucrative and desirable feels like retail because they have to find some way to make ends meet. That is what occupational licensing laws look like to too Many Americans and especially lower income americans. So, what can we do about it was work im guessing that most of you in this room are familiar with praise repeal and replace . I will suggest that in the licensing context we should be repealing and sometimes replacing. There are a lot of licensing laws we could do without. We dont need the government interfering in the private marketplace for raters or for predators. Consumers are perfectly wellequipped to decide who is qualified for those services and the discipline of the private marketplace will ensure Higher Quality. If there is a demonstrated need for some form of Government Intervention we should be actively considering lighter touch alternatives to creating barriers to work. For example, if there is a concern that sanitation practices that certain sanitation practices be followed how t have a regular regime of inspection rather than licensing. We regularly inspect restaurants but we dont license chefs or the waitstaff. If there is a concern that consumers are sophisticated enough to understand whether a Service Provider is qualified or not, private certification or less desirable government certification can fill that role. Providers can go and become certified demonstrate that they have met certain qualifications in signal that to consumers but others who havent met those politicians arent necessarily left out of the market. By cutting back the red tape and by peering back to the growing tangle of occupational licensing laws we can put more americans to work and in particular, lower income americans. [applause] now we will hear from diane. Thank you. Good morning everyone. Im here to talk about the effects on the floor of the permit efforts to eliminate what are called payday loans under the dodd frank supposedly Consumer Protection act. Dodd frank represents itself a massive regulatory takeover of the entire Financial System and i could spend days describing what the domino effect of all of those relations are in Financial Services across all income levels and sectors of the economy but i will stick primarily to the payday lending element. In some respects, though, the excessive regulations are the same no matter what ones financial status is. Your choices, less competition, and higher prices. For the poor, generally speaking, there are fewer 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 shortterm loans typically less than 500 and they come due on a borrowers payday. They are often structured to be paid off in a single lump sum but theres also the option of a rollover. The loans are primarily situational which means they are solving a specific problem, car repair, medical bill, utility bill and something that the borrowers need to take care of immediately and thats an important point because if you are poor and you have an unexpected breakdown in your transportation to get your job and if you dont have a source of quick cash you could easily lose your job and if youre unable to get to your work. Indeed, more than 12 Million People use Payday Loan Services every year and banks simply do not offer such small loans. This is a market niche that is not really filled by any other financial Service Provider. Critics claim that these loans trap our orders into a highcost debt cycle by charging a high annual Percentage Rate but this is ignorance. Plain and simple. Shortterm loans do not extend over a years worth of time and there is an annual rate to them and the interest is not compounded which makes all the difference in the world. The apr represent the actual rate someone pays over a course of the year due to compoundin compounding the process whereby interest is added to unpaid principal. However, payday loan customers do not borrow, as i said, for a full year and the interest charges to that compound. There is usually no apr on for example, if i borrow 100 for two weeks for a fee of 15 then the fee expressed as an Interest Rate would be 15 . Now, when a payday loan customer roles over a loan he has to pay a new 15 fee and is responsible for repaying it for a total of 120. Interest cost cannot explode exponentially as they can with a mortgage because there is no compounding but the cfp d, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the primary regulator in this case. The cfp b says borrowers are incapable of making rational choices and subject themselves to expectation because they arent smart enough to manage their finances and theres a whole tangent on what that view of the poor can do for their opportunity and prospects and i wont go down that entire road but its something to keep in mind. The view is repugnant on so many levels and clearly the critic failed to grasp that payday loans are a remedy. They are not the problem. They are going to payday lenders because they have a problem in the remedy is in the loan. Along comes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with the proposed rule that would effectively put 70 of payday lenders out of business. Most notable would be the new requirement that lenders before making their shortterm loan would have to determine the customers ability to pay that is to make the loan payments and meet their other financial obligations and basic Living Expenses without needing to be borrow. The same construct has also been applied to mortgage lending under dodd frank and the result is that housing sales are down and the effect of the impact that its much harder for firsttime buyers, younger buyers in the market, to purchase a first home. If you dont have that first home buying population it doesnt create turn in the market and that turn is that current combiners can sell their home to someone in by up and that over time and through the cycle we get ever increasing members of homes being bought and sold. In terms of the payday loans specifically a lender would have to verify the consumers net income, verify their debt obligation using a Consumer Report or a registered Information System and verify the consumers housing costs, forecast a reasonable amount of basic Living Expenses for the consumer, determined the consumers ability to pay the loan based on the Lenders Protection of the consumers income debt obligation, housing costs and the forecast of basic Living Expenses. All of which sounds ridiculous. Not even bankers do that when they are laying out mortgages to that degree. Of course, they want to know but they dont have to swallow that they have to do it more than dodd frank but previous two dodd frank they didnt have to do that. Under the ability of pay regime they are shifting accountability from loans from borrowers to lenders in indeed, if youre a borrower and you cant pay back your loan you can sue the lender under this rule as well as under the mortgage for miscalculating your ability to repay. This is also a defense of defaulting on a mortgage. This is a perversion of credit principles. It proves that consumers even assuming the most benevolent intentions this paternalism fosters dependence on government and the roads Economic Freedom and that always hit the lowest rung of the economic ladder, of course. Its not hard to predict the results of regulatory regimes and the cost of making the loan would swamp the profit and therefore payday loans would become a rare and cost it would cut off a very important source of cash for unbaked, as they are called, consumers. It also reflects a political narrative about which predatory lenders exploit financially illiterate consumers and it also then send the poor or those who have few Financial Resources into getting cash and credit from blackmarket or unregulated sources of funds. Isnt a lack of Consumer Protection in a small dollar lending. More than 30 states already regulate payday loans but in typical washington passion all of that doesnt seem to count because its not ironically, dodd frank is a general in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in particular are imposing so many costly rules that so many small Financial Services are being driven out of business in this, interns, consolidates Financial Services among bigger banks that do not serve the poor. At least, as i said, more to resort to unregulated blackmarket lending. In other words, the beneficence of government is hurting the poor much more than helping them. The cfp b among them is one of the worst offenders. Thank you mac. Jason. Thank you, patrick. Its great to be here to talk about really exciting industry emerged in the last few years and that the ridesharing industry. This is generated fairly significant benefits not only for the economy, as a whole, but for the poor citizens in our country. The ridesharing industry is interesting to look at for a few reasons and not the least of which is the fact that its constantly changing. I cant really overstate the significance of the sea change that has taken place in just the last decade. For decades, that market was dominated by incumbent taxi firms that were protected by anti competitive government regulations and their whole Business Model was essentially calcified. What we have seen in the last few years in a very real sense that weve all experienced on the benefits of deregulation and free Market Economics in producing Innovative Solutions to problems that lower cost and encourage competition and lead to more innovation in the last five years in the states than weve seen in the previous five decades. In order to frame the issue of benefits to the poor it would be a good idea to look back at what existed before ridesharing took off. For a decades, since the 1920s and 30s, we have seen a very strict and heavyhanded regulatory approach to treat taxicab companies more like Public Utilities than private competitive enterprises. We have seen efforts to control every aspect of the industry, from pricing and entry, weve seen the imposition of strict licensure requirements and weve seen control of basic vehicle maintenance and vehicle equipment mandates right down to the color of the cars that are allowed on the road. This entire scheme was put forward ostensibly to benefit public welfare. We were told that for some reason Market Economics simply cannot work in this space and that really only through regulatory intervention can we safeguard the public and can we safeguard the drivers. Of course, we have seen that anything nothing could be further from the truth. For years, without competition in the market, consumers were asked to pay above market rates for services that seem to either be stagnant in quality or deteriorating in quality and we saw there were consistently underserved neighborhoods and communities particularly low income and minority and we saw drivers that this was hardly the highpaying, high earning potential that we were sold on. 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 in 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 and they had a great deal of value to them. On the secondary market we could see taxi medallion prices measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. A few years ago in new york they peaked in the neighborhood of 1 million. Repute taxi drivers can actually afford a milliondollar 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 fears 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 were being charged above market rates nor poor workers who were forced to indent themselves in order to obtain a job in this field. 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. At most markets in the united states, we have seen that Ridesharing Services are able to deliver trips at rates of 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 youre at the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder, can make all the difference. Weve 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. Thats 7 billion that can be put aside for other things, savings. Weve also seen significant benefits in service to low income in previously underserved neighborhoods. In one study in 2014, it was found that uber asked outperformed traditional taxis in terms of services to boroughs outside of the core of manhattan 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 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 is 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 writers 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 dc, 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 cant make long walks or there are neighborhoods that you dont want to walk through in the low cost of the upper surface presents itself as an opportunity to bridge that gap. The system doesnt just confer benefits to consumers but confers them to people who are working for those services. People who drive for ridesharing problems dont 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 the 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 driver senate 70 of the people driving for the service. The service 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 just an asset that depreciate the value, into an opportunity to generate revenue and that could make all the difference for family where there are no jobs available. Finally, one of the reasons the drivers concisely report that they are working for uber or lift or other Ridesharing Services is the possibility that these services permit. There are no requirements they work a mandatory set of hours every day and no shifts. They determined minute by minute where and when they will be working. This allows the value on the time that they have 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 in literacy 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 doesnt often get in lower skilled, lower wages profession. It 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, its pretty clear, in conclusion, that ridesharing is delivered on the promise that it offered when it first started to roll out amazingly enough just a few years ago. He said it would deliver lowercost service with Higher Quality and would deliver opportunities for divers to want to work on the platforms that didnt exist in the taxi industry before it. Unfortunate, all is not sunshine and roses because you can expect a decade 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 interest in the form of efforts to abandon these services and sting operations and targeting drivers for arrest and fines to deter them from working in the services. With the lawsuits filed by people who own taxi medallions who are a very powerful entrenched special interests every incentive for rent seeking behavior producing 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 tax see space and let competition rain and we will reap the boards. Thank you. [applause] we do have time for questions. I will ask the first question of diane. What are the chances that congress and the president will get rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . Oh boy. Theres a couple Different Things going on in different fronts. At this point in time, i cant say for sure what may happen. On one hand, there is a pending litigation about whether the position of the director is constitutional in that he operates outside the authority of the white house and the initial ruling was favorable and that is that the position as a sole director of agency with those kind of powers, you know, violated the notion of separation of powers. With that being appealed and we dont quite know what the result of that will 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 establish a record of negligent behavior, negligent is not the legal term but it gives you the idea. They had cause determining to terminate his appointment and i suspect may, might prompt him to file suit and fight that. He is supposedly looking at running for governor and we are all hoping he will go away. The likelihood that that will happen changes from day to day as we get closer to the time that he would launch a campaign. So, that is the status of where things are. Congress made this problem and they could make it go away if they were willing to overhaul chapter ten of the dodd frank act which was what established cfpb but i havent heard back. [inaudible] has been putting together legislation to do a great deal of reform to dodd frank and i think that would also include some reforms of the cfpb weather that would get the senate or not is a question at this point in time but i expect that later in the spring, its called the choice act and i think that will be taken off. We will have to see. I will take the opportunity to say that the new administration is doing a great deal on the regulatorys butt. In particular, given the regulatory onslaught that occurred to the Prior Administration in which more than 120 billion in additional regular tory cost. Year were added. And so it has a timeline. Is this something the Trump Administration is aware of end of the subject to some of the delays in different agencies . Well, it is subject to the freezer at some point because it is not a final rule. If there were to be finalized, he would then 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 row before it takes effect. I have not heard President Trump talk about the payday rule per se. And so, i dont know if he has an income that you know, plans on how to manage it. Because of the phrase obviously so the white house can take a look at it. I dont know if it was specifically. I dont know if it is of particular concern to them. During the campaign, candidate chomp, you know, was critical of cfpb for a whole host of reasons. And he should have been critical. But we shouldnt forget that this is a creation of congress and we shouldnt let them off the hook for having empowered this agency in a paralleled way. Cf. Pb is not doesnt answer to congress in any way. Its outside of the appropriations process and its even outside, as i said, the direct control of the white house. And this is congress as well. They did this. The best solution is not for the legal system to come in and change things. They really ought to be changes in it. I dont 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 . Is it best for the administration to certify this, notice it and stop 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 is a better solution which is the more plausible solution . Yeah, im 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 manners in terms of establishing what the law should be coming in now, and i really think belongs to congress. In the case of the Congressional Review Act, 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. So you know, its hard to say what will happen and what the best way is except that it shouldnt be there to begin when. Theres really no reason the fed cut to get involved. We have time for one more question. Izzy ortega, former heritage employee and i now ripe 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. 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 we win that argument as well. Yeah, well i want to point out a couple of things. First of all, i dont want to necessarily get into the business of sending one particular company or anything like that. It is important to make a point that we like uber because we want goober 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 ultimate decision. I also want there to be a next uber and the next train 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 working in these fields there 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. There are several hundred thousand people and certainly didnt have jobs as taxi drivers before. We can see based on the uptake rates that consumers are shifting their loyalties from traditional taxis to goober and left. They are always going to be concentrated interests, specifically folks like medallion holders and cities that have systems and regulators that are quite frankly losing their ability to regulate the industry, double try to push back on this. I would like to point out the irony of supporting the status quo system that somehow heavy regulation has produced great result thats great for everybody. Consumers in the drivers protecting a 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 and general are being used. I think there is, particularly since the financial crisis, there is a narrative of Financial Services been coming in now, 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 have played into this idea by generating ever more regulation and assuming it ever more control of the industry. It doesnt surprise me in the least that the public has sort of internalized these ideas. Okay, thank you. I did just hear that our report is now up on heritage. Org, just when i appeared as we all have Copies Available outside. Ambassador miller will introduce Early Morning keynote speaker, dr. Fullmer. [applause] it is a distinct honor for me to introduce to you the founder of the Heritage Foundation,. Dirt edwin jay fullmer. Dr. Fullmers 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 has called, and i quote here, the parthenon of the conservative metropolis, end of quote. Stock or 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. Other leadership roles include serving as president of the designer veteran society in 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 president ial citizens medal for his work as leader of the conservative movement. 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. Thank you very much dr. Miller and a special word of thanks and congratulations to darin 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 of people like robert rick or another steer 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 conservatives are constantly confronted with the notion from our liberal friends that hey, here is a social problem. Lets just take some money and well throw this money at the problem and they will help solve it. It isnt just the money. Not only the fact that it scares resources been taken from the taxpayers were borrowed from future generations. It is also the regulations and Big Government that goes along with it. That is what weve 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 and 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 one today learned lower incomes have larger npcs, 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 tax regulated and covered 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 infected are selfdescribed conservatives or libertarians were people who say government is a problem. Lets remember who its worse for a man his people who are not as fortunate as we are. If government would get out of the way, stop intervening and staff requiring individuals to do 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. I want to congratulate you, terry miller, your colleagues in the center for weight you have done in the 12 individuals with inherited chew contributed to this study. Theyre listed on the inside front cover. I want to particularly thank the five individuals to join with us today in terms of talking about some of these problems as they confront all of us as we rethink these a sick Public Policies going forward. Its been a very exciting moment 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. A romancer matic thank you all in the audience and for those who have joined us online and through cspan. 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 arent enough. Public policy must actually achieve some positive then to be justified and i think well leave that up to you as the voters to ultimately decide. Eggs again for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] now, to the world of law. Former judges from the colorado and Indiana Supreme Court joined at Indiana University Law School Professor to discuss the future of law schools. This panel is part of the seventh Circuit Bar Association annual meeting held in indianapolis in may. [applause] things and things from making time on the program for this conversation about the future of our profession is brainwash side, and randy shepherd could end up spending most of my life as chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. He now doing Senior Service in the intermediate court and i have an appointment over at the Indiana University Mckinney School of law. To my right is for backup kourlis Rebecca Kourlis who spent more than a decade on