Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Good afternoon.
Good evening.
I'm Brad Scheler.
I'm the chair of the Board of Trustees of Lehigh.
It is my special honor to welcome you
to what will be a most informative, compelling,
and thought provoking event.
I think that it's wonderful when Lehigh turns out
with interest and enthusiasm and commitment
to hear great speakers like we're
going to hear this evening.
I also want to welcome and thank our distinguished guests--
Ken Lagone, Stanley Druckenmiller, Geoffrey Canada,
and Stephanie Ruhle-- for taking the time, both
to focus with us on issues of national import and issues
that are particularly relevant to all of you who
are students of this generation.
I also want to thank and recognize
the presence of two student organizations
sponsoring this event-- Scott Feinstein-- Scott?
Thank you, Scott-- of the College Republicans and Max
Perricone-- hi, Max-- of the College Democrats.
Thanks also to the Class of 2017,
another student organization sponsor.
For all of us, it is wonderful to see this kind of student
enthusiasm and so appreciate it.
It is now my distinct pleasure to introduce our moderator
for today, Stephanie Ruhle.
Stephanie is Lehigh class of 1997.
She is anchor for Bloomberg Television.
And she hosts the program Market Makers.
She is extraordinarily enthusiastic,
committed to the subject at hand.
And her energy is both contagious and remarkable.
Stephanie, we want to thank you especially
for making this evening happen.
It's wonderful, terrific, and it's great to have you back.
Thanks for having me.
[APPLAUSE]
Before we start, if there's anyone in the hallway that
isn't in yet or if you have any friends that got turned away
and went home, text them and send them back.
There's four seats right here, and there's room in the aisle.
And they can sit here.
And the reason you should stand is you've stood through more.
I've been to tailgates here.
And it's cold and muddy and disgusting,
and that didn't bother you.
This is a conversation you need to be
a part of because it's about your future,
and the fact that these three men that I'm going to introduce
you to aren't just here at Lehigh.
But they are passionate Americans
who are touring the country on a mission,
on an initiative, that's going to affect you--
not them, that none of them can benefit from.
And that you should all think about that tonight, tomorrow,
and going forward what this message is
and how it's going to affect you.
So I want to first introduce you to Ken Langone, who--
I said, Ken, how do you like to be described?
And he likes to be-- clearly passionate.
When you look at this man, you think
passion-- but a passionate American; an entrepreneur;
sadly, a Patriot League member and alumni
from Bucknell University, sorry.
We're going to beat you Saturday too.
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
Co-founder of Home Depot.
Geoff Canada, the leading mind in educational reform.
Stan always says the true celebrity is Geoff.
And I grew up in finance, and I said, sure, sure.
And when I called Lehigh and I told them who I was bringing,
immediately, they said, Geoff Canada?
And I said, yes.
So Geoff joins us with a very different perspective
because he represents some of the most extraordinary children
in New York City who need your voices, who
need you to reach out and create change in our country.
And of course, Stan Druckenmiller,
who's leading the charge.
If you don't know Stan and you're in the Business School
here, you should leave and write your parents
an apology letter because he's one
of the greatest investors of all time.
Stan has spent an insane amount of time
researching what we're about to talk
about here-- generational theft and the need
for entitlement reform.
And I want-- who wants to start off?
Stan, with your extraordinary slides?
OK.
Why don't you set the stage for us?
Stan Druckenmiller.
Wow, this is some turnout.
I'm figuring a third of you were required.
A third came to see Geoff, and a third that
came to see Stephanie.
And Ken and I were along for the ride.
You think, Ken?
Nothing left for us.
Look, I know what you're thinking.
I do.
You're thinking, well, why on earth
is a once successful, retired money
manager who's knocking on the door of senior citizenship
bashing old people and declaring a war on entitlements?
Well, the answer is I'm not.
I am approaching the age of 65 very rapidly, and let me say,
regrettably.
But I am definitely not here to tell you
boomers should go bust.
In fact, I am here to tell you that entitlements,
in my opinion, have been one of the great successes
of American government in the last 50 years.
If you look at the chart above you,
you'll see the poverty rate for senior citizens since 1960.
And basically what you see is we've
gone from about a 30% rate to 9% rate for seniors at the poverty
level since 1960.
This is a great achievement.
I think all Americans should applaud it.
And frankly, the reason I'm here is
I think an achievement like that ought
to be perpetuated and around and successful for the next 50
years and for your generation and the generation after you.
And if, in fact, we go with current policies
and we don't reform them, that's not going to happen.
And frankly, we don't have a whole lot of time.
Now, Stephanie mentioned my former job,
which was an investor.
And in the investment business, my job was to anticipate change
and to look at the future.
Somewhat embarrassingly, I made most of my big money
looking at unsustainable situations
and capitalizing on busts.
I didn't do quite as well in bull markets.
I was basically an under performer.
I don't think a shrink would think
that was a very good comment on my personality,
but we'll live with it.
I'm not here to tell you that we're doomed.
I'm not here to tell you that we're all going to be broke,
and this problem isn't unfixable.
It is fixable.
But if we're going to fix it for the next generation,
for your generation, for the generation after you,
to keep that red line down where it is, we don't have much time.
We have to move sooner rather than later.
Stephanie mentioned that I like my slides.
The red line is poverty level for seniors.
The blue line is poverty level for children.
It's pretty interesting.
If you look back over this time period,
while the poverty level for seniors
was dropping from 30 to 9, the poverty level for children
actually went from 20% to 23%.
And there's--
Can you not leave that slide?
Just, can you please say that one more time?
Because I think that's so important.
OK, I'll say it one more time, because Stephanie--
Don't you-- Geoff was--
My wife's at home, my real boss.
My wife's at home.
I guess Stephanie is here--
Filling in.
[LAUGHTER]
For those who know who Fiona is, it's definitely true.
So the blue line is the poverty rate for children.
The red line is the poverty rate for senior citizens.
And you can see they've been going in different directions.
And in fact, Stephanie, I should probably
mention, that poverty rate for children at 23 and 1/2%,
out of the top 35 countries in the world, that puts us
with the 34th highest child poverty rate.
We beat Bulgaria, the other 34 ahead of us
including Latvia, Greece-- you name it.
We have the highest child poverty
rate in the United States.
Now, it's interesting.
The one thing you've heard politicians
say throughout this whole political fight--
and you've heard it from both parties--
is, we're not going to balance the budget
on the back of our seniors.
And let me just say they certainly
haven't been balancing the budget on the back
of the seniors for last 40 years,
because what I'm going to show you today
is a number of charts.
And here's basically what's been going on.
The economic pie for the last 40 years, a greater and greater
share of that has gone to seniors.
Less of that has gone to children.
And less of it has gone into government investments, things
like Head Start, things like NIH grants-- stuff like that.
That has been squeezed out.
Now, let's just look at what we've got up here.
In red is the per capita spending by age group.
And it's basically a percent of income per worker.
Now, it's pretty fascinating.
If we were here in 1960-- some of us were alive then--
Not me.
OK.
And a lot of you weren't.
The average American worker, if they made $1.00,
$0.15 of the dollar they made that they earned would go
to support our elderly.
And about $0.02 would go to support our children.
Now, look at what's happened over the last 40 years.
That $0.15 that the worker was taking out
of their dollar of income, now $0.57 goes to the elderly.
So over this time period, the elderly
have gone from $0.15 of a worker's income to $0.56.
Children, on the other hand, have gone from 1 cent
to 8.7 cents.
I said I'm not going to bash old people.
I'm not.
I am going to bash their lobbying groups that
have made this possible.
I'm sure you all saw the speech by the AFL-CIO head
yesterday who was critical of President Obama.
And he was saying if there is any adjustment whatsoever
to Social Security and Medicare, they're
going to go after Democrats.
This is the head of the AFL-CIO, who
is a very important Democrat, as we all know.
So the elderly have been increasing
their share of the economic pie, vis a vis the government,
for about 40 or 50 years.
How have they done over the last 20 or 30 years
in terms of net worth?
Well, if you're 75, you're worth about 150% more
than a 75-year-old was in 1983.
But as you can see, all the older age groups
have made some significant progress.
However, if you're 29 to 37-- and I'm sure
some of you in this room are-- or if you're
around the age of 20, you haven't done so well.
In fact, if you're 30 years old and an average American,
your net worth is worth less today than it was in 1983.
That's not all the transfers I've talked about, OK?
There's things like the stock market,
other things that have happened.
But it's important to know that one
sector of the age of our society has done incredibly well
the last 30 or 40 years.
And another has done incredibly poorly,
particularly when you have the political system set up--
if you look at the sequester, what happened?
Who was spared, all right?
Entitlements, it's the one thing the wasn't touched.
What did they touch?
Food stamps, Head Start, NIH grants-- right
across the board, the stuff that affects
the children Geoff is working with.
So so far, I've basically shown you
a snapshot of where we are in terms of relative wealth
gains, relative share of the pie the last 40 years.
But let's look ahead 10 years and see,
well, is this about to correct itself?
And a lot of this has to do with the sequester.
So let's look at if the spending on children the last 40 years
was this versus the elderly, what's
going to happen the next 10 years.
If you look at the administration's budget,
over the next 10 years, Medicare-- excuse me.
Over the next 10 years, all government spending
is projected to grow a trillion dollars--
so a trillion dollars.
Of the trillion dollars, $875 billion of the increase
will go to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
How much will go to children?
Anybody want to guess?
You have a trillion dollars here.
875 to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
How much to kids?
$6 billion.
$6 billion-- that's what they get.
And that's after the snapshot I've already showed you.
That's what we're looking at going forward.
And one of the reasons is the dotted black line,
which I'm about to extend for you.
So far, this has all been about the elderly
increasing their share of the pie relative
to the next generation.
Now, something more interesting is about to happen.
The black line is the share of the elderly
of the overall population.
And you can see, over 15 years, they went from about-- oh,
this chart's hard for me to read.
But I know in my head.
They went from about 10% to 13% over 50 years.
Now, here's the current problem.
Because we had this thing called the Baby Boom where
people came back after World War II
and start making a whole bunch of babies,
and fertility rates were very high during that period,
you're about to experience a very unbelievable
demographic phenomena in the next 20 years.
And essentially what's going to happen
is those people that have been given a lot more
share of the pie, they're going to be
a lot more of them eating the pie.
Specifically, the elderly are going to grow about 8,000
per day for a while.
And that will peak in 2029 at 11,000 per day.
And you can see as a percentage of the population,
they're going to go from 13% to 20%.
That's over 20 years after having only
moved 3% in 50 years.
So here's what happens.
And let me put it in layman's terms.
This the best way to visualize this.
So right now, we have 8,000 new seniors created everyday.
And we have people working to support the payments
for the seniors because we have this weird system.
It's not pay as you go where your income will support
seniors, their incomes supported their parent's seniors.
So it's not pay as you go.
So you need new workers to support the entitlements
that we're paying out.
But the next-- where we are right now,
you're creating 8,000 new seniors per day.
How many young workers do you think
we're creating per day to support them?
Anybody?
2,000.
So you're creating 8,000 seniors per day.
But young workers 15 to 34, we're creating about 2,000
today.
And that gives you-- what you're looking
at-- in the dependency ratio.
Here's the problem.
They've been getting a much bigger share of the pie
for many years, OK?
Now there are about to be a whole lot of them.
And then the people that are making the pie,
they're about to shrink dramatically
relative to the seniors.
And therefore, you get the dependency ratio.
Right now, we have about 4.8 workers
supporting every senior.
That number, by 2030, is going to drop to 2.8.
For those of you need visualizations,
between now and 2030, here's what
America's going to look like.
Today versus 2030-- in 2030, the age of the average American
is going to be more than the age of the average Floridian today.
All those people walking around in strollers,
they're going to be replaced with people around in walkers.
That's what you're going to be looking at.
And it's that population that's going
to be supported by a much smaller-- not
smaller, but relatively smaller working population.
So you see, basically the thing that
creates this is the 18 to 64-year-olds increase 100%
over time, but the workers only increase 17%.
Now, I mentioned I have the dubious reputation
of having made a lot of money in financial busts.
One of the things you look for in terms of unsustainability
and looking for a terrible situation
is off balance sheet liabilities.
My favorite one was Enron.
There have been a bunch of them-- banks, the shadow
banking system with subprime debt.
But you really can't have a huge bust
unless you're hiding something from investors
and from the public.
So I saw on your student newspaper today,
there was an advertisement that the national debt
is $16.8 trillion and growing.
And it's pretty wild.
Every week, some Republican is running
around talking about how the debt is $16.8 trillion
and having a heart attack over it.
I have some very bad news for you.
If we did our government accounting
the way any corporation in America did-- well,
that's not true.
Enron, OK-- but any corporation that's not a fraud,
that debt would not be $16.8 trillion.
It would be $200 trillion.
And let me explain to you why.
The way finance works-- let's suppose I owe Geoff money,
god forbid.
He does.
But he can afford to pay.
We're going to settle up right after this.
I owe Geoff money.
And I have promised to pay him back
after he's 65 with a stream of income.
Under any corporate system in America, I would have a debt.
I would have a debt to Geoff, unless you're
the US government.
Because my payroll taxes have been
going to the government for quite some time.
And when I'm 65, I'm going to start
getting entitlement payments.
That is nowhere on the government's books.
And as you can see, they're going
to be a whole lot of us that are going
to be coming on the government books over the next 20
or 30 years.
If you moved-- if you called that a debt, those payments
that are owed to me by the federal government,
promised to me, that $17 trillion,
you moved it onto the balance sheet
and you present valued it at 3% discount rate,
for all the business students, the $17 trillion
goes to $200 trillion.
So this is what we're facing.
We're facing a pie that we've allotted to our elderly.
We've cut out investments.
We've cut out spending on children.
And now, they're going to be a whole lot
less pie makers supporting pie eaters.
So we're looking at a situation that
is absolutely not sustainable and has to be fixed.
I have a lot more slides.
Stephanie hates them.
We've had question and answers go
on and on and on at every university we went to.
I know that people from Lehigh aren't going to disappoint.
I'm going to sit down and shut up, because maybe we
can get into some solutions and have a good discussion.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Geoff, Stan was talking about cutting Head Start.
It would be great if you could give the audience a snapshot
of what things really look like for our young people, what
it really is like for kids living below the poverty line
and how they're being affected by all this.
Well, you know-- first of all, good afternoon, everybody.
Good afternoon.
Oh, thank you.
A little late, but that was good.
I try and judge these schools-- Stan and I went to Bowdoin.
They were nice to us.
We know that if we go to Bucknell,
they're going to-- this is Stephanie.
She told me you all were terrific,
that you all would like me.
Then you all gave me that tepid response.
I don't know.
So-- but I have to tell you I am so impressed.
This is a great turnout.
I'm just--
Unbelievable.
It's unbelievable.
I was like, don't you all have anything to do?
Sorry, so that's another issue.
So--
It's Bethlehem.
What else are they going to do?
They came to see Stephanie, I know.
Don't take this wrong.
But Stan and Kenny are here on one mission.
But I am not here because I'm worried about you
all, all right?
You all are in a pretty exclusive class
in America-- really smart and talented young people.
It's not going to be easy for you.
Life is not going to just sort of-- hey, here it--
but you've got a real shot at the American dream.
And I think what you have here are two of my closest friends,
who all are different examples of the American dream.
How is it you start from nothing and make something out
of your life?
So I am less worried about this group.
But I am terrified about the kids that
belong to the Harlem Children's Zone and places like that
all over this country.
These young people have to have a government that's
going to be fair.
There was no way that we, as, I think,
a group of responsible Americans,
can leave a debt on these kids that's
going to destroy their opportunity
to actually make it.
This is not a theoretical thing for me.
We've got places where kids are struggling.
And what Stan and Kenny and I-- we're
all on the same board at the Harlem Children's Zone--
what we have said to our kids was
you play by the rules, all right?
You work hard.
You avoid crime.
You avoid drugs.
You don't get pregnant, and go to college.
And then you're going to have a great life, right?
This is-- and then I've been looking at this information.
Those slides-- let me tell you something
about when I first saw this.
I'm like a disaster movie kind of guy, right?
I kind of like-- you know, something horrible's
going to happen.
Well, the first time Stan showed me
slides that predicted disaster, I just quite honestly
didn't believe it because it was so horrible.
It was right before the tech crashed.
And I was like, Stan, you can't be only one in America
that knows this.
And he was showing me slides that compelling
and when it was going to happen-- so that happened.
And I said, I got lucky, right?
This, OK-- you made a lot of money.
So you got lucky on that.
They showed me another set of slides not too long ago that
predicted the crash of housing.
Now, this time, when I'd looked at this, I said,
this is going to destroy America.
And we ought to do something about this.
And so Stan and I, we didn't go public like we're going now.
We both considered ourselves insiders.
We went to Washington and we showed
that this thing was going to be a disaster.
To the month, no one did anything.
So here I am.
I'm not in finance.
I'm not in business.
But I know the economy is going to crater.
And this whole thing is going to come apart--
as a guy who's running a program in Harlem.
And people who should be protecting America,
they're not going it.
And what year is this?
It was the year before it crashed.
July of 2005.
So now that happens.
I watched.
No one did anything.
So then Stan says, Geoff, remember the last time?
I've got something I want you to see.
And I'm thinking, not again, right?
Here we go again with the slides, right?
She hates the slides.
You see why.
And I'm looking at this.
Now, I'm a Democrat, right?
So this is now kind of heresy.
I'm a Democrat.
And I'm saying, we can't do this to our kids.
This is not right.
Now, look.
You'll hear from Ken, Stan.
Maybe they need their Social Security.
Maybe not.
Probably not.
I'm not so sure about me.
I'm not sort of saying, you know,
I'm going to be able to live off Social Security.
This is not something we're saying
that Americans can't have Social Security.
You can't have Medicaid.
You can't have Medicare.
What we're saying is you have to do it in a way that is fair,
that doesn't mean my kids are going to end up
having to pay more than they actually get back,
that they're going to finance us.
And it's going to be a deficit for them
to pay for my generation.
That, to me, is basically un-American.
I think that, for poor children in this country,
that their only hope is going to be
the jobs that get created by things that NIH does,
the food that they have to do use from Food Stamps.
If you just looked at-- there was a big article in the Times
today about the gap in the words that kids know.
We'll, one of the best ways we've
had to try and close that gap in the early ages is Head Start.
Why would we punish these kids?
I'm listening to all these politicians, Republicans
and Democrats.
Why would we punish those kids while not even
having the guts to take on and say,
this should be done fairly-- not eliminated, not destroyed,
but just unfairly so we don't have
to hurt the most disadvantaged.
So on this, I'm kind of like a crazy man
because I just think this is un-American.
I just don't think this is the deal
we have in this country, where some people take from others.
Everybody's against welfare.
Well, this is a different kind of welfare to me
where we are allowing older folk to hurt younger people.
The last thing I'm going to say on this-- Stephanie is right.
That slide drives me crazy.
When you look at what's happened to poverty and children
in this country, that's what I've dedicated
my life to trying to erase, right?
And we have spent a lot of Stan and Kenny's money
trying to erase that.
And I would love to say that we have.
But you saw that chart.
This is not something-- now, how is it
that we could do such a great job with those seniors?
And what is it about seniors that
allowed us to come up with a strategy
that children don't have?
Seniors vote.
That is it.
That's what allows it.
That is it.
And everybody's afraid of them.
So no one is going to tell the truth about this.
And everybody's going to say, well, you cut them.
No, you cut them.
No, you cut them.
Because if you cut them, they do vote
and they're going to be upset.
We-- Stan and I and Kenny believe that even
seniors don't want hurt their grandkids.
They don't want to.
But no one's talking about this.
And so part of the issue is this is basic unfairness.
And I think that, as a community,
we have to do something about it.
And unfortunately, we don't think
going the political route, which didn't work the last time,
is the way that we're going to change this.
Can I just repeat that--
[APPLAUSE]
I forgot he was talking.
I've never talked right after him
without applause interrupting.
Can I just repeat that I am not against seniors.
But we've got to realize everybody in this room
is going to be a senior.
And I want these programs that has poverty rate for elderly
at 9% maintained and preserved.
And what I showed you with that $200 trillion
is not going to be around.
To me, it's not about old and young.
It's about future seniors and present seniors sharing
in the sacrifice appropriately.
So this thing about we're against seniors
and entitlements, I think this is a great achievement.
I love entitlements.
But I love them so much that I want them for you when
you guys are 65 too, not just me.
All right, Ken, you just spent the last two days
in Washington.
You're one of my favorite seniors.
When you have these conversations--
How do you know I'm a senior?
Do I take that as an insult?
Come on.
When you have these conversations in Washington
with political leaders, what do they say?
I was at a lunch today with Sam Nunn.
Sam Nunn is truly one of the better elected officials
we've had in the last 50 years in America.
He's right down the middle.
He's a Democrat nominally, but he's right down the middle.
And he made it very clear.
Today, the simplest, the most significant challenge
this country's got going forward is entitlements.
Let me set the stage a little bit.
First of all, let me assure each and every one of you
in this room.
My belief, America's best days are ahead of it.
I wish I were your age.
I really mean that.
I wish I was your age.
Because I know you're all frightened
about the people that can't get jobs, but trust me.
The opportunities and the opportunity
to do good in this country have never been better.
You are the smartest generation.
You've got all this technology to help you.
I remember when I was where you are, I had to go to library.
I can sit now in my home with a laptop on my lap,
and all the knowledge of the world comes right to my lap.
So this is all the things you have going for you.
But let's understand a couple of things.
Social Security, in my opinion, and entitlements
have been perverted.
That's the only way I can put it.
My mother and father-- my father went to the eighth grade.
And my mother went to the seventh grade.
And I can tell you, the check they got from the government
every month was important to them,
not only for sustainability, but also for self-respect.
Can you imagine me, as well as I've done,
getting a check every month, my wife and I,
for close to $3,500?
That is absolutely outrageous.
Now let me tell you why you're the key to the kingdom.
I disagree.
These people do vote.
These people last year were as much
a determinant of the outcome of an election--
Well, why don't you ask them how many people here in the room
voted?
Well, how many-- the question is how many voted,
which way did they vote?
The point is, the thing we have--
[LAUGHTER]
Right?
I mean, I'm a Republican.
Don't rub it in, all right?
I mean-- they whipped us bad, all right?
But let me say one thing to you.
I'm practical.
God bless Stan.
God bless Geoff.
Geoff's in the trenches everyday with these kids that
are struggling.
They're struggling.
And Stan, god bless him.
His genius-- not only his genius, his generosity
is allowing Harlem Children's Zone to do what it does.
But let me tell you something that's
critical to this country.
We need to fix this problem.
And we can fix it.
If our elected officials, who, by the way, not many of them
would get medals for bravery, because that
doesn't carry you through life in politics.
If you're brave, you typically lose the next election.
But we need to get you people off your butts
and out there on the streets.
There's people that are in the room, they're off their butts.
We're talking about their generation.
I'm talking about the whole generation.
I'm talking about all of you.
Believe me.
A 3,000 mile journey starts with the first step.
A forest fire starts with a match that big.
You need to understand that it will not
be fixed until you or future generations
like you put these politicians in a position of risk.
Right now, the only risk they have
are the old geezers that show up through these different
organizations whose names I won't mention,
but none of which I belong to because I am diametrically
opposed to what they do.
They never have enough.
They never have enough.
You people need to let them understand
there is a downside to pandering to people like me.
And that downside is their political life.
This will be fixed.
It'll be fixed sooner rather than later
if you make your voice heard.
But this cannot continue.
I live in a-- and by the way, this
is not Democrat or Republican.
[INAUDIBLE]
I live in a gated community in Florida
in the winter, one of my many homes.
Can you imagine I got all these homes
and I have all this other stuff.
And I get a check every month from the US government
for-- my wife and I-- for $3,500?
Something's wrong.
And here is this community, about 98% Republican.
And if you walk into that card room and suggest for a minute
that their Social Security's going to be tested for means,
they go nuts.
They go out of their minds.
Then why do you think--
But let me-- I asked them a question.
I say to them, how many of you have fire insurance?
They all raise their hand.
The best thing in the world that can
happen if you have fire insurance
is never to put a claim in for your fire insurance policy.
And by the way, if you don't, the government or the insurance
company does not give you your premium back.
The logic of I paid it in, and I'm only
getting my money back is nonsense.
You are the key to solving this problem.
But it won't get solved if you don't
do what you're good at doing.
You spoke about same sex marriage last year.
God bless you.
You spoke about the environment again and again and again.
God bless you.
Look at what you did you-- you, your generation, 40 years ago
did with the Vietnam War.
You go on and on and on.
But you got to get off your butts,
and you got to get active.
And you've got to let these elected officials know, hey,
I'm a voter too.
And if you don't take into account what's right
for-- prayfully, all of you will do as well as the three of us--
well, the two of us who've done--
[LAUGHTER]
They're working on me.
I'm going to get his Social Security.
That's what I want.
All I know is every time he comes in,
I know it's going to cost me money.
Thank god.
But seriously, many of you are going
to be as successful as we are.
You're not going to need it.
But god forbid if you were my parents and you needed it,
it won't be there.
It won't be.
It's not sustainable.
Please, you've got to-- if you love this country--
and by the way, there's no country
on this Earth like this country.
It is the greatest nation on Earth.
And trust me.
We will do better, and we will be better.
But it won't happen.
Please, you've got to get going.
You got to start now.
And if you don't, it'll happen eventually.
But it might happen at a point in time
when it's too late for you.
That's my pitch.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Stan, then I ask you-- Ken, while he was going on,
said that brave people don't win elections.
So for a room full of young people, when
they hear something like that-- that brave people don't
win elections-- what should they look to do?
At what point in history did brave people
stop winning elections?
Well, I don't know whether brave people
stopped winning elections.
But Geoff and I were the generation
where Lyndon Johnson was executing the Vietnam War.
He won 49 states in '64.
And the young people went up against him.
And he didn't even run in '68.
We drove him out of office.
I liked what Ken said.
I don't know whether if it's a question of brave or not.
They respond to public pressure.
And I have no doubt that the young vote
is the reason we got gay marriage.
They can move the needle.
To me, it's just a question of putting
this on your priority list.
I mean, it's a big priority.
And again, Geoff said something very important.
I honestly believe if the seniors knew the numbers
we've shown you-- and I'm going to show you some more later--
I think--
Slides, they're bad.
--90% of them would be for it.
But do you really believe that?
Because Ken just a moment ago, when
he walks into the card room at his club in Florida--
He's got some weird friends, and they're Republican, OK?
[LAUGHTER]
See, I tried to be fair, and they're throwing it back.
I don't believe those people in the card room
were aware of these numbers.
I have seen grandparents and great parents and parents
around their children.
And they would not tolerate putting the next generation
behind the eight-ball for the kind of entitlements
they're getting.
Because we're talking about something much bigger
than entitlements here.
But Stan, is it going to change how they vote when they
go into that booth and pull the curtain and it's just them?
And the question is, do I get to keep the money,
or does somebody else get the money?
Because people say really nice things at cocktail parties.
It doesn't matter if their vote changes.
We have 70 million young voters, all right?
And these young voters elected a dynamic president, OK?
But right now, he doesn't feel the need.
And more importantly, his party doesn't
feel-- because when I read the paper,
he looks like he's starting to move on this issue.
They don't feel the need to address those young people
because they've already got them.
They've got them.
I think this is a funny situation,
because I think both Stan and Kenny are right on this.
If you say to someone, should I keep money from the government
that I've earned-- that I worked hard for this and that
was the deal.
I get to keep the money, they'd say yes.
I'm not going to give that money back.
I earned that money.
Nobody-- so that group, I understand
why they would just be like, no.
And taking something from someone
once you have given it to them is very hard.
And one of things Stan suggested was
that we do this a long time ago before our generation
got to this age and people didn't listen.
But there's also this issue that I
think what the fundamental principles are
of who that money belongs to and how-- people don't honestly
understand that.
And I think that that's what's so important, because it
does suggest this is not fair.
And I think the average American believes in fairness.
It just is harder to convince them
something's not fair if it's coming out of their pocket.
And I think that that is a challenge.
So I don't think the seniors are going
to move the needle on this.
I really don't, Stephanie.
I think you can maybe get them to not be crazy about it.
But I think this is going to be a war.
And it's going to be fought by young people
to sort of make this a more equitable system.
You know, I'd love to get grandfathers-- and sir,
I don't mean to offend you.
But because you have white hair, are you a grandfather?
[INAUDIBLE]
OK, I'm not either.
And I'm 78, all right?
So all right.
Is there a grandfather in the room?
You are, right here, OK.
You and your grandchild are marooned on an island.
And you've got one meal left.
Do you eat it, or do you give it to your grandchild?
Grandchild.
There isn't one grandparent I've ever asked that question to.
This is that simple.
This is that simple.
Let me tell you what I think is going on
and how you can have this dichotomy.
And God knows, for those of you seeing Waiting for "Superman,"
my friend Mr. Canada has been struggling with the teacher's
unions for quite some time.
If you haven't seen it, you must see it.
But if you meet most teachers, they're wonderful people.
And they're dedicated, and they really
want to make a difference.
But they've hired somebody to lead their union.
And is that union's leader's job to get
what he can for those teachers.
That's his job-- get them the shortest day
and get them the most pay.
And who is he negotiating with?
Oh, he's negotiating with politicians
who, that's his boss.
And the politicians, he's the one funding them.
So again, there's a perfectly rational person
who's leading the teacher's union,
going and hitting up somebody who he's their biggest
contributor to to get money for.
Of course he's going to get it.
But I truly believe 85% to 90% of the teachers,
they're not even into that.
They've just got somebody doing it.
And it's the same thing, to me, with the AARP.
It's the same thing.
I think, if most grandparents focused and knew these numbers
and knew what was at stake here, all right,
they wouldn't be so enthusiastic.
Do you know I'm 60 years old?
Do you know when I started getting stuff from the AARP?
When I was 50.
I've been getting something every month telling me
about the day that's coming in 15 years
when I'm going to get all these benefits.
I mean, these guys are really organized.
But I--
And they tell you exactly how much you're going to get to.
And it is--- I'm serious.
They tell you exactly how much you're going to get.
They say, right now, when you turn 62, you'll get this.
When you turn 65-- so this is implanted
in the minds of folks the first day of your birthday.
I don't know.
They couldn't do the health exchanges.
They should have gotten the AARP.
When you turn 50, there will be a letter from them
in the mailbox.
But I think, part of the answer, Stephanie,
is shine a light on the problem.
And there's a bill being pushed through right now
by 700 really great economists, bipartisan--
I think there's at least 20 Nobels-- called the Inform Act.
And all they want to do is put those liabilities
on the balance sheet.
Because even the most rabid Republicans
are running around-- by the way, I'm an independent.
I got nothing against Republicans or Democrats.
They're running around talking about $17 trillion.
God, I wish it was $17 trillion you guys were facing.
It's not $17 trillion unless you think all those Social Security
payments and all of Medicare is going to go to 0.
That's crazy.
But I think you shine a light on it as part of the deal.
When we started this session this afternoon,
there was an introduction of a leader for the Democrats
and a leader for the Republicans.
I like people better when they come in my office
and tell me there's a problem, but they offer a solution.
So let me be the person coming to your office.
You two leaders, you get together.
And you energize your members, not along philosophical lines
or party lines, but on what's right line.
There's an opportunity here for you people to say,
this is something we can agree on.
There is nothing partisan on what
we're talking about tonight.
He's an independent.
He's a Democrat, although I'm working on it.
And I'm a Republican, OK?
There's nothing political here, nothing political at all.
It's really making our nation better and stronger
for all of us.
And take the low hanging fruit.
Means test guys like me, and say, forget it.
You're not getting anymore.
And you want to complain, complain.
But it's over.
And then do some modest changes.
Increases the retirement.
At 55 or above, you're grandfathered.
I don't agree with that at all.
Well, go ahead, but tell them why.
Hm?
Tell them why you don't agree.
Why should a 55 year old be exempt?
I just showed you the 55 year olds
have been getting more potential pie for 40 years.
And now you want the next generation to pay--
nothing drives--
Stan, I want you--
Oh, I agree with you, Stanley.
Your point's made.
But I'm trying to be-- hold it.
I'm trying--
He's being a deal maker here.
I am trying to be practical and get the least
amount of resistance I'm going to get.
And Simpson and Bowles laid it out.
I don't think you should be exempted.
I agree with you, Stanley.
But if I got to compromise a little bit
to get the thing done, I'll do it.
We got to be practical, politically.
I don't like that.
OK, well, all right.
All right, Stan, I want you to talk a little bit
about obviously, we spent 16 days in a government shutdown.
We all talk about reaching the debt ceiling.
We haven't resolved it.
All we've done was push it off for a little while.
And it's coming back.
What does that mean to 20-year-olds
who are in the room?
You know, last week, the day before the resolution,
the market went up almost 300 points.
So what happened to Wall Street?
It just got richer.
But what is all of this mean, as Wall Street is thrilled
to have Janet Yellen as the next Fed chair, which
means monetary policy, the monetary machine,
is going to keep on pumping, can you speak about the fact
that the reason we are going to continue to have stimulus
[INAUDIBLE] not tapering, if you look under the hood,
it's because the country is so broken.
And these are the kids that are going
to have to pick up the pieces.
So what is the question?
I want you to--
[LAUGHTER]
Can you talk a little bit about the debt ceiling issue,
the shut down, and what it means for everyone here?
Because for you, you had a great week last week I'd guess.
I did have a very good week.
There he goes.
I did have a very good week, yeah.
Look, the whole debt ceiling thing is a farce.
We're talking about debt.
We're talking about this.
We're talking about that.
But again, I'd go back to the sequester.
What happened?
All right, we cut discretionary spending.
We cut Head Start.
We cut in NIH grants.
We cut all this stuff.
By the way, there's no money there.
You couldn't-- forget what you think about Head Start versus
Social Security or Medicare.
There's no money there, Stephanie.
So to me this, whole thing is a farce.
And all we've done is basically nothing.
And if you look at the sequester,
I want to go back to the number I cited earlier.
They're going to get their $875 billion.
And the children are going to get cut.
And it's only going to grow by $6 billion
over the next 10 years.
In terms of the economy, one of the things
I hate about what's going on with monetary policy
is I think the politicians feel the Fed has their back.
I remember investing in the German Deutschmark
back in 1992 when they were-- west and east
Germany were unifying.
And the head of the Bundesbank told those guys,
if you don't do the right thing, I'm
going to jack interest rates up to 10%.
There is no way you're going to destroy my currency.
And you know what?
The politicians did the right thing.
You know what Ben Bernanke told these guys in September?
Oh, I'm not going to adjust monetary policy because we
might have a government shutdown.
Well, if I'm a politician, I go, yahoo!
The stock market's going to be up.
We never get action out of politicians
unless there's a financial crisis.
It never happens.
So to me, the Fed is aiding and abetting
misbehavior in Washington by canceling the market signals.
I don't know when the bond market would get this.
Frankly, there's reasons, I could tell you,
that are too much for this room.
It might not be for 10 or 15 years.
But I'd at least like to see what
the market thinks about it.
How the hell are we going to know what the market thinks
about when the Fed buys 80% of the debt?
And with regard to me, you're right.
What is going on?
The money goes where?
It's trickle down monetary policy.
Let's get the billionaires some more profits.
I did it.
I did have a good week.
And maybe I'll go out and buy a new Tesla or a Bentley
or something and maybe they're going to hire somebody.
Well, guess what?
In 2012, the top 1%, our income went up 19%.
And the median income America went down.
This is the greatest transfer of wealth
I have ever seen in my career from middle class
and poor to rich.
It's crazy monetary policy.
We're printing all this money.
And billionaires are getting rich.
Ken, you want to weigh in?
He's like, I just got a new jeep.
He did.
Oh, I did.
My birthday, my 78th birthday.
I know.
Let me-- we desperately need to address this problem.
And Stan makes these points.
The other points, Stan, I think that you mentioned
about how we're going to get $300,000 more out.
And the kids that aren't even born yet
are going to pay $400,000 more in than they're
going to get out.
That's assuming, over infinity, we
close the fiscal gap, which costs them 427.
Right.
This is outrageous.
What-- pardon me.
Let me be blunt.
What do you need to do to get pissed off?
What do I have to say?
I mean, right now, your blood ought to be boiling.
Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican,
it has nothing to do with it.
The fact-- he's right.
Bernanke's keeping the game going.
And we need to fix it.
But we won't fix it unless there's a political force that
holds these politicians accountable.
You know the first and foremost thing in a politician's life?
Getting elected?
Getting reelected.
That's all, number one.
Then how are you ever going to look to a politician
to make a long-term decision when he or she has a four year
time horizon?
Well, one of the things that I've come to realize,
Stephanie, is that there are movements
that happen in this country that aren't predictable
and that change things quicker than any of the prognosticators
can predict.
You look at what happened at the White House and gay marriage.
That was one nobody's radar screen.
And like that, it changed the whole country immediately.
And that was something that was building that they actually
had tried to suppress, right?
They didn't want to come out with that then.
It was a plan.
It wasn't-- but this thing came out and changed dramatically.
So I think you can get dramatic change if people begin
to set the, I think, framework and the foundation
for that change to happen.
The big issue, we think, and the only reason we're here,
is that we think that young people have to understand this.
And if there are three things they're going to vote on,
this has to be one of the three.
I don't care what the other two are.
It can be any other.
But if we can get that done, we do
believe-- because Kenny said, there's
only one thing they care about-- getting reelected.
And if this has to come on their agenda to get
reelected, and this will come on their agenda.
If it doesn't, you guys have basically had it, right?
I mean, that's essentially where this thing is at.
And the question is how to get it on their agenda.
And the reason we can do with our generation
is that by the time this becomes--
when I go talk to the Democrats and Kenny talks
to the Republicans, we're not getting anywhere on this thing
at all.
Because there is not the outside pressure
saying, doing the right thing.
The outside pressure meaning the people in this room.
That's right.
I want to--
But hold on.
Right now, today, these kids have a better chance
of engaging political leaders than generations
before them because of social media.
So if students-- you can reach out to politicians immediately.
Their teams are checking their Twitter feeds constantly.
You don't have to write letters.
You don't have to knock on their door.
But would you say, even what you do
in education reform, when you see how much outreach
you can get using social media, isn't it extraordinary?
Well, I think this is something--
so Stan mentions the head of the AFL-CIO essentially saying
to a Democratic president, I've sniffed out
that you want to do a deal on entitlements.
And we're going to say, and you do it at your own peril.
And the rest of you all, if you do anything,
we're coming to get you, right?
That's basically the message.
Now, this has happened with nobody.
So the president is there thinking
who's going to support me with this?
So right now, he's under attack in his own party
for trying to do--
Then millions of young people can tweet to him--
That's what ought to be happening.
--and say, I've got your back.
Absolutely.
Suddenly, if that happened, suddenly,
the president would say, hey, I'm not out here on a limb
by myself.
It's just not me against the unions, right?
There are other people in America
who actually understand why this is important.
Right now, I will guarantee you, this is an inside game.
It is just the unions putting pressure and no one else going
to the Democratic president-- because the Republicans
can't-- to say, do the right thing.
But if an entire college campus, tonight,
tweeted at the President of United States,
I assure you, tomorrow morning, it wouldn't be an inside game.
It would not be an inside game.
You're 100% correct.
And by the way, it'd be practical.
It'd cost you nothing.
The wonderful thing about this technology today
is you can communicate with millions of people.
No postage stamps.
No phone bill.
I mean, it's incredible.
You've got the weapons.
You're smart.
You're the best, educated generation of your time
in the history of this country.
And the president can't ignore you.
Politicians can't ignore you.
They've put themselves in the middle of social media.
When hundreds, thousands, millions of you tweet at them,
they can't ignore it.
Because the media will pick it up.
So Stephanie, you're great.
But why don't we ask some students some questions
and answers?
Well, because at 6:15, we're supposed to.
But we can start now.
Let's start now.
Let's start now.
[APPLAUSE]
But before you all feel sorry for Stephanie
because you've got Ken and Stan, just think,
I have to work with these guys all the time.
And in a small room, they're just as powerful and loud.
So--
I think Stan always asks questions.
And he's never looking for an answer.
He's always already decided it.
All right, so why don't we start with questions?
Make them tough.
Here we go.
Right here with the blue shirt.
Yeah, just raise your hand.
If you have a question, just raise your hand.
First of all, say your name.
My name is Alex [INAUDIBLE].
I'm a senior at Lehigh.
I read your article on Wall Street Journal
about your opinions, Mr. Drunkenmiller.
And I know you talked about means testing a little bit
and potentially cutting a corporate tax.
Are there any parts of the fiscal budget that you think
are also fundamentally flawed?
Well, look, there's a lot of waste in the government.
And I'm sure there's a lot of flaws.
But to me, the money is in entitlements.
And they have milked-- or de-milked that bone so dry
in terms of cutting back on discretionary spending.
No, I just don't think that's the way to go.
I do think fundamental tax reform, I think,
would go a long way for this.
And by the way, I don't want to do fundamental tax
reform in 10 or 15 years.
I want to do it now.
And there are several reasons for that.
This first chart is a pure economic chart.
It has nothing to do with fairness.
And it basically shows that to fix the fiscal gap
today, the $205 trillion, you could
raise everybody's taxes 55%.
If you wait 20 years, you have to raise the tax to 71%.
You could also cut spending 36%.
Or if you wait 20 to 30 years, it's 44%.
Why is that important?
Because the problem is getting bigger because the interest
debt is just compiling away.
But I have another reason-- if we're going to raise taxes,
I want to do it now.
Alan Blinder, who is a great economist,
got about 50 IQ points on me, says, for example,
Social Security is fixable.
All we got to do is raise taxes from 12% to 15%.
So why are we talking about this?
Well, that's why I'm talking about.
If it weren't fixable, I wouldn't be here.
So if we can fix it by raising taxes from 12% to 15%,
why don't we do it now so that the 55-year-old that Ken wants
to protect pays a little of his share going forward.
Because you know what happens if we wait 15 or 20 years?
We're going to be over the 65 year.
We're not going to be paying.
You guys are going to pay it all.
So we can all pay 15 now and pay a lot before you
come on the payrolls, or the young people come
on the payrolls.
Or we can just put off until 2033 when things bankrupt.
And you will pay 16, and we will have paid 12.
It's crazy.
Now, I took some real heat in the blogs--
although Geoff has taught me I'm not
allowed to read blogs anymore because he's been attacked
for many years-- over suggesting corporate tax rates go to zero.
But I don't really understand what
these people are looking at.
Because corporations is not some amoeba blob out there.
Corporations are owned by shareholders.
For God's sake, I argued to double the rate
that shareholders pay on their gains.
My favorite blog was, he must have an angle.
Hey, I run a family office.
I don't have any income money.
Or my only income is capital gains and dividends,
and I'm arguing for this.
Why?
Because it's a generational issue.
60-year-olds are worth five times what 30-year-olds are.
So once again, if you tax ordinary income
higher than you taxable capital gains and dividends,
it's a wealth transfer from the young to the old.
More importantly, if you look at economic decision makers,
if the guy that is actually hiring people,
and he's going to build a plant, his taxes are zero,
I think he's going to be pretty incented versus a coupon
clipper, who's just trading away or collecting dividends.
I really can't see them having an effect on corporate decision
making.
So that's one thing I'd do in terms of tax reform--
is literally double the rates on capital gains and dividends
but take corporate taxes to zero.
By the way, there's corporations already paying zero.
If you want to know how corporate welfare
and crony capitalism works, it works through the tax code.
You send a bunch of lobbyists down to Washington.
You get a tax benefit for this.
So that's a couple suggestions I'd start with.
There's another problem with our progress in science.
It's not going to be uncommon for people
to live to be 100 years old in the next 10 to 15 or 20 years.
Thanks to the [INAUDIBLE] Medical Center?
Hopefully, among others.
But seriously, think of the stress on the system.
When you're messing around with nature,
there are unintended consequences.
I'm not suggesting we should die young.
But I'm saying to you the longer we extend life, the more costly
to is to maintain that life.
And all the things that Stanley are saying
doesn't necessarily take into account the longevity.
But you look at people in their 80's and 90's, they
have a high maintenance needs, whether it's
a walker or a special way to build
a house so they can shower or whatever.
These costs will be all on your shoulder
unless you're willing to pick up the baton and say enough.
Enough.
Now you got to listen to me.
And I'm urging you to do that.
I'm here to tell you I'm ripping you off.
I take your money every month, and I give it to my charity.
I feel good about it, but I'd feel better about it
if it was my money instead of yours.
You've got to do something about it.
Next question,
Do you think there's a [INAUDIBLE] problem
between the two party system, especially considering
that it seems that hundreds of issues
are determined arbitrarily by which party
is in favor of [INAUDIBLE] many issues?
Yeah, well, look.
I think our political system has become
one that has, in many cases, been so gerrymandered
that people don't have the interest of the whole
as their own political interest.
So when I can just represent my little community
and I've made sure that only people that agree with me
live in that community, you get very partisan kinds of results.
And I think that when government stops
operating and something is as broken as this is,
you've got a real problem.
But I don't think it's a permanent problem.
I think this could be fixed.
But it won't be fixed unless folks
start demanding that government actually work.
And right now, I think what Stan's talking about
and Kenny's talking about, what happened
when the market-- when the whole government shuts down
and the market is like, who cares,
that means that's us saying who cares.
We don't care if this thing works or not.
And I think that's a major problem.
I think that everyone should feel heat
when the interest of the country is not coming first.
And I think that we've got a real issue right now.
And some of the partisan, I think, bickering
has gotten in the way.
But I think this is more fundamental than that.
I think that you could be on one side or the other.
There were folks who were for and against immigration.
[INAUDIBLE].
They're going to fight that out.
This is, to me, a separate entity
than all of that because this is a problem that
has real consequences, right now,
for the whole entire generation that is not our generation.
And it just continues.
So this one, I think, is in a different category
than some of the political bickering in Washington.
And I feel equally that the Republicans and the Democrats
are unprepared to solve this issue, that in the end,
they want to blame one another.
And they will not get together and even do
the basic, minor things necessary to fix this.
And it could be fixed fairly painlessly if we do it now.
It'll be some pain.
It will-- but fairly painlessly for the country.
The longer this thing waits, the more painful
it will be, unless they bankrupt the whole nation.
Upside down.
Upside down.
You got it upside down.
Figures.
Ken taught me that.
I strongly disagree with Stanley's position
on taxes-- raising the capital gains and the income tax.
And the reason is pretty simple.
I think everybody in this room, whether you're employed
or a student, has a deep suspicion of the government's
ability to spend anything effectively.
And much better than increasing taxes, where the money all
goes to the government and then they screw it up spending it
on this, that, and the other, why not
institute a philanthropy tax where you pay a certain amount
to the government to cover the military
and other essential needs that can only
recover by the government.
And then you enforce a means test
if need be on the income generated from capital gains
and dividends and force it to be spent philanthropically?
It would be a hell of a pain in the *** administratively,
but the best money spent in this country
is spent for philanthropic purposes.
And the government does a lousy job
in spending most of the money it raises.
But there's only one problem.
It's not practical.
Because look, you're going to deal with a system that's only
going to become more complicated.
What Stanley's suggesting, to me,
is more politically palatable.
Why?
Because first of all, think of all the money
that's in all these warrens all over the world
so it doesn't have to be brought back here
because they don't want to pay taxes on it.
That it all goes away.
That all goes away.
It comes home.
The pie gets bigger.
If you've cut corporate tax rates to zero, no more building
plants in Ireland, no more building crazy
stuff in Puerto Rico.
Precisely.
The economy would boom, OK?
And the shareholders should be taxed on that.
I don't even know whether taxes would go up or down.
I guarantee you one thing.
Tax revenues would go up because the economy would grow.
But I'm talking about corporate tax rates to zero.
I'm just saying shift it from the operator to the coupon
clipper, which by the way, what a coincidence,
happens to be the very wealthy and the elderly
in this country.
What a surprise.
Good evening.
I'm not a Lehigh student, although I
love Lehigh University.
I work for a nonprofit organization.
So I guess my question to you is it's frustrating
because we're understaffed, it's challenging,
budget cuts-- all those wonderful things.
Do you have any suggestions on what
we, as community-based organizations,
nonprofit organizations, can do to get this message out
and to empower the people we serve?
That's a great question.
And let me tell you that is the reason that I first
became suspicious, which was every time there was
a financial crisis, it seemed like the poorest and the most
destitute communities where the ones that
were taking it on the chin.
And I said how is it that this keeps
happening when that-- Stan talks about how small
that discretionary spending is relative to the budget.
And yet, that's the one place the Democrats
and the Republicans can agree, let's cut that, right?
And it's all the services that support the most
disadvantaged communities.
And that, to me, is what I started getting me crazy.
I didn't quite know why it was happening because I had never
seen these numbers.
I just didn't know the growth in these other areas.
And I will only-- so what can you do?
I think, again, here's another example
that an organization that rallies its parents and others
to be aware of this, and when someone has a solution,
whether they're Republicans, whether they're Democrats,
whether the president or a senator, that you say, yes.
We want you to continue that discussion
because we need to get this situation resolved.
I will tell you this.
I know what's going to happen to our services
if we don't deal with this issue of entitlements.
Because we're all in discretionary.
All of our work is in discretionary.
And it is tiny to begin with.
And they're going to just slaughter it.
So I just think that our parents have to know,
our staff have to know, people have
to know this is not Republican.
This is not Democrat.
It's not whether you like Obama or dislike Obama.
This is about, let's do this in a fair and equitable way
so we don't have to fight over the crumbs, which are already
not enough to sustain most of these communities.
Did you have question right here?
Yes, my name's [INAUDIBLE].
And my question is what makes-- what
do you think makes out country and the people in it
so greedy to the point where a little bit of taxes or even
more taxes comes out of their check,
but they don't want to do that for the better
of their community [INAUDIBLE] other people?
That's not America.
That's human nature, OK?
I wish it was American because we could then
figure how to deal with it.
But human nature, what it is-- we
all know we need garbage dumps.
We just don't want it next door to our house.
Same thing here.
What Stan is demonstrating clearly and irrefutably
is that this needs to be fixed.
And it can be fixed.
The irony of it is-- my belief, and Stan's
the economist, and superb.
The irony of it is you will unleash
dramatic economic growth in this country if you do this.
So there will be more jobs.
There will be more investment opportunities.
There will be more capital gains.
One thing I heard these last two days in Washington,
everybody says no matter what you do in Washington, if you
don't get economic growth going, you can't fix the problem.
Just can't fix it.
So ma'am, with all due respect, I
don't think it's a rich versus poor.
I think it's human nature saying, don't take it from me.
Yeah, but I think what you said about the dumps,
why can't everybody take a little bit of trash
rather than a certain community have
to live next to the big dump?
Think about the answer.
You wouldn't have a solution.
You have a bunch of little garbage dumps all over.
Or nuclear power, same thing-- nobody
wants to a nuclear power-- whatever it is.
I would say that the-- what you're talking about
is how power gets exercised and what
happens to the powerless, right?
And I think that in the end, one of the reasons
that the work we're doing in the community of Harlem was Harlem
was that dumping ground.
It was that place that nobody wanted to be.
It was a place that told the whole community,
go anywhere but here.
This is not a place you can raise your family.
And part of what we decided was we could change Harlem.
We could actually make it a place where people
want to come to and people wanted to live.
And it wasn't going to become the dumping ground for crime
and drugs and all of that sort of stuff.
The challenge, I think, is that that's an exercise of power.
And I would love to say that someone will say, please, bring
it to my neighborhood and bring it in my backyard.
I just-- none of us say that, right?
And so the powerless are the ones that end up,
I think, having a disproportionate share of that,
which is why we believe in education,
because we think it's the only way you could equalize that.
And you've got to get people voting,
and you've got to get people active.
And they've got to know there's a solution.
So I just think that power struggle will always be there.
And the question is, in your community,
they cannot be the powerless.
You've got to help your community
because it's going to be a fight.
And it will always be a fight.
But there's nothing wrong with that.
But it should be a fair fight, in my opinion.
And right now, I don't think it's a fair fight.
I'm a low tax guy, guilty as charged.
I don't pay low taxes.
I'm not in Buffett's category.
I've always paid over 30.
But let me tell you-- and this is selfish
because maybe I'm playing god.
But when I look at what's going on in Washington
and whether I want my incremental dollar to go
to Pelosi and Boehner, or whether I
want it to go to Geoff Canada or stem cell research,
or I don't know you, but this not for profit,
I just-- it's part of what Washington
does with people's money, I think, that upsets them.
If I thought they were spending my money even
with 5% of the efficiency the way Mr. Canada spends my money,
I'd be all for it.
Now, maybe that's selfish.
And I know people say, who the hell are you
to be able to play god and distribute money
to stem cell or Harlem Children's Zone?
But is it is tough for me to send money to Washington
and see what they do with it.
David [INAUDIBLE], freshman here at Lehigh.
You said one the main problems-- one of the main drivers
of this problem is lobbying by senior groups.
How would you reform lobbying, or for that matter, campaign
finance?
Geoff, you want--
Look, I'll start because I think that money in politics
has become a huge issue in this country.
And I just think it's gotten out of hand.
And the Supreme Court decision on this said it was fine.
And I don't think that's doing our country any service.
But I will tell you this.
The last election proved it.
Money will not win you an election over ideas and people
who understand what's actually [INAUDIBLE]--
because there were a lot of people who spent a lot of money
and got nothing for that money thinking you could buy
the presidency or any other position in this country.
So it's not quite as simple as that.
But in general, do I think that there's
a problem with money in politics?
My answer is yes, I do.
Is there a way to be fair about this?
People talk about this group having money.
But people don't talk about that group.
So they'll talk about the Koch brothers,
but they won't talk about the unions, right?
And so when you look at it, it's all money in politics.
And you've got to say, if you're against it,
you're against it across the board.
It's all too much.
That being said, do I think-- I mean,
it's a Supreme Court decision.
Do I think anybody's going to walk that back?
No, I don't.
So I think that a part of this is
this is the system we have right now.
We've got to figure out how to make it work.
But Kenny said something, though-- that I think the Obama
administration sort of shocked folk.
You can do what a lot with very little because of technology,
right?
You can be in contact with millions
of people, all the time, because of technology if you get them.
So that, to me, is the only neutral-- that
neutralizes, to some degree, the power and influence
that money has.
That's a new phenomenon.
It did not exist before.
Let me-- I think the number is roughly half
of eligible voters vote.
Only half the people that can vote vote.
I think that's the number.
If we can get all of you, all of you not in this room,
but all of you people all over America
in the same classrooms and the students,
if we get two million votes, you will
change the course of history.
Don't forget.
Look at what the spread was in between the winner
and the loser last year.
I'm telling you this is a solvable problem.
But it's going to take some sweat.
And it's going to take a lot of passion and a lot of doors
slammed in your face.
But if you're willing to do that, you'll get it done.
And trust me, when you have 500,000 kids show up
on the mall in Washington, you will get their attention.
Organize this to say, we're going down there.
Generational theft is over.
The shell game you're playing with us is going to end.
They see half a million people.
Remember-- god bless him.
Remember Martin Luther King.
Thank God we've taken this country a long distance.
It came a long distance a lot faster because of Dr. King
and what he said and what he did.
This is-- to me, from the standpoint of all of you,
this is critical to your futures and your children,
and your children who haven't been born yet, their futures.
But you can make it happen.
Well, on that note, I think the two we should bring up
are Max and Scott, the two who lead the Republican
and Democrat clubs here at Lehigh, to wrap up the evening.
But I just wanted to-- thanks so much,
Ken, Geoff, Stan, for your time, for your passion,
for your dedication.
[APPLAUSE]
Before we wrap this up, let's just
give another round of applause for having such a
great [INAUDIBLE].
[APPLAUSE]
I hope you all were able to take something
good away from this event today because this is something
we all are going to have face.
All of us today at Lehigh, we've all
got to face this one point in our life.
So [INAUDIBLE] we all were able to get some good information
out of this event.
And if you want a more active on campus,
the College Republicans meets every Thursday
at 7:00-- and also the College Democrats.
They meet on Thursdays at 7:00 as well in [INAUDIBLE].
If you want to get involved, you can always
email me or anyone else in the club.
Can I ask these two fellas a question?
How do you personally feel about we're talking about?
I personally agree with you.
Stand by the microphone.
We can't hear you.
I personally agree with you more, and Stan here, and Geoff.
I mean, I agree with all of you pretty much.
[LAUGHTER]
OK.
You are in politics.
Before I came to this event, I already
knew it was a big issue we all have to deal with.
And I mean, I'm surprised more people
aren't concerned about it.
I mean, it's a bit-- when I went to vote,
I voted mainly on trying to fix our economic issue.
And I'm surprised more people aren't concerned about it,
to be honest.
I mean, I agree as well, mostly with Stan.
I think that we would all care a lot more if we were actually
aware of it.
But unfortunately, we're not.
I'm sure a lot of people in this room right
now didn't know anything about this issue
until they came to this event today.
So--
Is that true?
How many-- raise your hands-- that
didn't know, have any awareness of this?
Please raise them high.
Well, we've heard this throughout the country.
Yep.
Well, are you going to do something about it now?
I hope it's a silent yes.
All right, well, thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]