>> Bonnie Erbe: THIS WEEK ON "TO THE CONTRARY", FIRST, MANY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS ARE ASKING, WHAT GIVES WITH ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC SENATOR KYRSTEN SINEMA'S HOLDOUT ON ELIMINATING THE FILIBUSTER?

SHE SAYS IT'S PROTECTED WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND PRIOR CONGRESSES.

THEN, CONTROVERSIAL ANTIPOVERTY EXPERIMENT GUARANTEED INCOME.

WILL IT FREE SINGLE MOTHERS FROM POVERTY OR IS IT A GIVEAWAY?

[MUSIC] 'S .

>> Bonnie Erbe: HELLO.

I AM BONNIE ERBE.

WELCOME TO "TO THE CONTRARY", A DISCUSSION OF NEWS AND SOCIAL TRENDS FROM DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.

UP FIRST, VOTING RIGHTS AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS: DEMOCRATS HAVE LOST THEIR BATTLE OVER VOTING RIGHTS AND THE FILIBUSTER.

SO NOW THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD, FOCUSING ON ISSUES THEY BELIEVE CAN WIN.

ALL REPUBLICANS IN TWO DEMOCRATS BLOCKED BOTH BILLS.

JOE MANCHIN OF WEST VIRGINIA AND KYRSTEN SINEMA OF ARIZONA.

LIBERAL ACTIVISTS HAVE PUT PRESSURE ON HIM, EMILY'S LIST, THE LARGEST FUNDER OF PRO-CHOICE FEMALE DEMOCRATS, IS TAKING AN EXTRAORDINARY MEASURE.

IT SAYS, IT WILL PULL SINEMA'S FUNDING FOR REELECTION, EMILY'S LIST WAS SINEMA'S LARGEST DONOR IN HER 2018 RUN FOR THE SENATE.

FOR HER PART, SINEMA SAYS SHE'S ALWAYS BEEN A FAN OF THE FILIBUSTER BECAUSE, IN HER WORDS, IT COMPELS MODERATION.

AND SHE SAYS IT'S BEEN USED IN PRIOR CONGRESSES TO PROTECT AGAINST ATTACKS ON WOMEN'S HEALTH, CLEAN AIR AND WATER, AND AID TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN NEED.

JOINING ME TODAY ARE FORMER MARYLAND U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DONNA EDWARDS, CHAIR OF THE CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LINDA CHAVEZ, COFOUNDER OF REPROACTION ERIN MATSON, AND WASHINGTON EXAMINER COMMENTARY WRITER, TIANA LOWE.

DONNA EDWARDS, WHY SHOULD THE ORDINARY CITIZEN CARE ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER?

IT IS A WORD THAT I THINK PUTS PEOPLE TO SLEEP.

SO HOW DO WE TELL THEM WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT?

>> Rep. Donna Edwards: WELL, I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW IS THAT THE FILIBUSTER IS NOT LAW, NOT WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

IT IS A WAY THAT THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY HAD PROTECTED MINORITY RIGHTS.

IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE FILIBUSTER, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO VOTING RIGHTS, THE FILIBUSTER HAS BEEN USED TO STAND IN THE WAY OF VOTING RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND OTHER DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.

AND SO, I THINK THOSE WERE LOOKING TO PROTECT THE FILIBUSTER REALLY MISUNDERSTAND THE HISTORY AND THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL UNDERPINNINGS.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S BEEN USED TO DO EXACTLY THE WRONG THING.

>> Linda Chavez: ARE NOT A HUGE FAN OF THE FILIBUSTER, AND DONNA IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY RIGHT; THIS IS A SENATE RULE, RULE THAT THE SENATE ITSELF CAN CHANGE, AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CHANGE IN LAW OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR BECAUSE YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.

IF IN FACT YOU GOT RID OF THE FILIBUSTER IN MITCH McCONNELL AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION ENDED UP BEING THE MAJORITY LEADER AND, YOU KNOW, KEVIN McCARTHY ENDED UP BEING HEAD OF THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE AND BILLS CAME OVER FROM THE HOUSE, DEMOCRATS WANTED TO STOP WITHOUT THE FILIBUSTER, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO STOP THEM.

SO WHILE I AGREE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SAY IT'S THERE TO PROTECT MINORITY RIGHTS, IT'S NOT THERE TO PROTECT MINORITY RIGHTS WHEN YOU THINK OF IT IN TERMS OF RACE OR ETHNICITY, IT IS MINORITY RIGHTS IN TERMS OF PARTISANSHIP.

AND IT HAS BEEN USED AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS BILLS IN THE PAST, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO PASS THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT, IN THE 1968 HOUSING ACT DESPITE THE FILIBUSTER.

>> Bonnie Erbe: ALL RIGHT.

LET'S JUST EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE, IT IS A TECHNICAL TOOL DEVELOPED BY THE SENATE TO ALLOW THE PARTY OUT OF POWER TO HAVE MORE POWER WERE TO BLOCK LEGISLATION THAT THEY BELIEVE IS HARMFUL.

T TIANA, HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO VOTING RIGHTS IN WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE STATE LEVEL ACROSS THE COUNTRY WITH VOTING RIGHTS?

>> Tiana Lowe: SO I AM VERY CONFUSED ABOUT THIS MYTH THAT THERE IS VOTER SUPPRESSION ON AN AS SCALE.

WE HAVE STATES LIKE GEORGIA PASSING VOTER BILLS, DESIGNED TO REGULATE ELECTIONS ACROSS THE STATE, I MEAN, THE STATE OF GEORGIA, THE REPUBLICAN PASSED BILL, OFFERS MORE DAYS OF EARLY VOTING THEN ARE OFFERED IN JOE BIDEN'S HOME STATE OF DELAWARE.

THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF POWER TO REGULATE OR OVERSEE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT VEST CONGRESS WITH THE AUTHORITY TO FEDERALIZE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

THE REAL CONCERN THAT I THINK EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WAS JANUARY 6.

HOW DO YOU PREVENT ANOTHER JANUARY 6 FROM HAPPENING?

ONE, CODE UP CANDIDATES WHO AREN'T SENILE SEPTUAGENARIANS AND, TWO, REFORM THE ELECTORAL COUNT ACT.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MITCH McCONNELL AND OTHER TOP REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN VERY OPEN TO DOING.

IT WOULD MAKE IT SO THAT WAY.

YOU CAN'T BE THIS COSPLAYING AS AS TRYING TO REJECT THE VOTES OF THE ELECTORS AND NOT CERTIFYING WHAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ARE.

>> Bonnie Erbe: WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS CARE SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE STATE LEVEL AND WHAT THEY SEE THE REPUBLICANS TRYING TO DO TO THE ELECTORAL PROCESS?

>> Erin Matson: BONNIE, THERE'S A LOT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT AS OUR COUNTRY THIS IS AN AUTHORITARIAN THREAT.

WE SAW THAT ON JANUARY 6, ONE YEAR AGO, THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO KEEP TRUMP IN POWER INDEFINITELY.

AND NOW WE SEE A NUMBER OF CONCERNING TRENDS WHERE WE HAVE TRUMP LOYALISTS RUNNING FOR SECRETARY OF STATE AND A NUMBER OF STATES, WE ALSO HAVE TRUMP LOYALISTS WHO CLAIM THAT THEY ALSO WOULD WORK TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF A LEGITIMATE FREE AND FAIR ELECTION, RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR, AND RUNNING FOR LOCAL SPOTS.

SOME OF IT IS HAPPENING MORE QUIETLY.

WE ALSO SEE EFFORTS LIKE IN FLORIDA.ECENTLY HAS MOVED TO DO MORE GERRYMANDERING TO KEEP -- TO DEPRIVE VOTERS OF COLOR OF SEATS IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND ALSO REALLY DISTURBING THINGS LIKE GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS NOW HAS THIS NEW SORT OF MERCENARY ELECTION FORCE WHERE HE WANTS TO INTIMIDATE PEOPLE AT THE POLLS.

SO THERE'S A LOT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

>> Bonnie Erbe: ALL RIGHT.

NOW LET'S TURN TO KYRSTEN SINEMA.

WHY WAS ALL THE FOCUS ON HER AND NOT AS MUCH ON JOE MANCHIN?

AND HOW WILL SHE -- WILL SHE BE ABLE TO RUN AND WIN WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF EMILY'S LIST?

ANYBODY?

>> Rep. Donna Edwards: PART OF THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE, THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE WITH SENATOR SINEMA WAS HER TIMING.

SHE WENT TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE TO ESSENTIALLY PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDERNEATH PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, LITERALLY AS HIS MOTORCADE WAS WARMING UP TO COME TO THE SENATE TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ON HER POSITION ON THE FILIBUSTER.

AND APART FROM THAT, HER SPEECH ON THE FLOOR REALLY RECAPS HISTORY.

THE FILIBUSTER HAS NOT BEEN USED FOR COMEDY AND, YOU KNOW, THE GOOD GOVERNANCE OF THE SENATE, AND ESPECIALLY IN RECENT YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF TIMES WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN CARVE OUTS FOR THE FILIBUSTER, EVEN SENATOR SINEMA HAD VOTED FOR ONE OF THOSE CARVE OUTS WITH THE DEBT CEILING JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE.

AND SO, I THINK THAT SHE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET, WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF EMILY'S LIST, IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR TO ME WHETHER SHE'LL BE ABLE TO MOUNT A SUCCESSFUL RUN FOR REELECTION.

I THINK THAT SHE IS LIKELY TO FACE A PRIMARY CHALLENGE, GIVEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED NOW.

AND THE FACT IS THAT THE REASON THAT WE NEED CHANGES TO VOTING RIGHTS IS BECAUSE WE SHOULD NOT HAVE STATES UNDERMINING FEDERAL ELECTIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF VOTERS.

>> Linda Chavez: I WENT TO SAY IN TERMS OF SINEMA GETTING ATTENTION, SHE'S GOT ATTENTION THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS.

BUT MOST OF THE ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON JOE MANCHIN EARLY ON.

>> Bonnie Erbe: YEAH, EARLIER.

>> Linda Chavez: YEAH.

AND PART OF IT IS THAT SHE STAYED QUIET.

WE KNEW THAT SHE DID NOT WANT TO SUPPORT CHANGE IN THE RULES TO GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER FOR THE VOTING RIGHTS BILL, BUT SHE HAD NOT BEEN VERY OUTSPOKEN.

AND SO, WHEN SHE DID DECIDE TO SPEAK, AND THAT ESSENTIALLY SEALED THE FATE, EVEN THOUGH MANCHIN'S BOAT ENOUGH WOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH, I THINK THAT WAS ANTAGONISM TOWARDS HER.

BUT IN TERMS OF HER BEING ABLE TO WIN REELECTION, I MEAN, THAT'S AN OPEN QUESTION.WHO KNOWS?

ARIZONA HAS, YOU KNOW, SWUNG VERY FAR TO THE RIGHT WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, BUT THE STATE ITSELF HAS BECOME MORE PURPLE.

SO EMILY'S LIST SUPPORTED HER BECAUSE SHE IS PRO-CHOICE.

THEY LIKE THAT.

BUT WHETHER SHE WILL BE ABLE TO RETAIN THAT SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, I DOUBT IT.

OBVIOUSLY EMULATES LIST WILL NOT GIVE HER MONEY, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE WON'T WIN REELECTION.

>> Erin Matson: SHE CERTAINLY IS CHASING REPUBLICAN VOTERS, BUT I DO THINK IT GOES BACK TO THE FACT THAT EMILY'S LIST WAS THE LARGEST SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR TO HER IN 2018 AND SHE DID NOT JUST LOSE THE SUPPORT OF EMILY'S LIST, SHE ALSO LOST THE SUPPORT OF NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA.

I WENT TO LIFT THAT UP BECAUSE IT'S A REALLY BIG DEAL THAT ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAD HISTORICALLY BEEN MORE CONSERVATIVE ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ARE FINALLY STARTING TO HEED THE CALL OF REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE ADVOCATES AND SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT?

VOTING RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED AND YOU CANNOT HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.

AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING SENATOR SINEMA SAID, SHE MADE A CLAIM THAT THE FILIBUSTER HAD BEEN USED TO PROTECT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.

LET'S ALSO TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT ALREADY WHEN MITCH McCONNELL WITH SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, HE DID AWAY WITH THE RULES AND WENT TO SIMPLE MAJORITY RULES FOR RAMMING THROUGH SUPREME COURT NOMINEES BECAUSE OF KAVANAUGH, BECAUSE OF GOING FOR A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.

>> Tiana Lowe: IT WAS HARRY REID WHO NUKED THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER, NOT MITCH McCONNELL .

>> Rep. Donna Edwards: NOT WITH REGARD TO SUPREME COURT NOMINEES.

THE RULES WERE COMPLETELY UPENDED FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINEES, AND I THINK FOR THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND HOW MITCH McCONNELL FUNCTIONED BOTH IN TERMS OF BOTH BRINGING UP A NOMINATION FOR AMY CONEY BARRETT IN AN ELECTION YEAR WHEN HE HAD BLOCKED IT FROM MERRICK GARLAND.

>> Bonnie Erbe: TIANA, LET ME INTERJECT HERE.

NOT JUST KAVANAUGH -- NOT JUST AMY CONEY BARRETT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEW GORSUCH.

THAT WAS THE SEAT THAT OBAMA TRIED TO GIVE TO MERRICK GARLAND, A VERY MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD GUY, NOT A FLAMING LIBERAL BY ANY MEANS.

BUT THEY -- McCONNELL PLAYED GAMES BY SAYING AT ONE POINT, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T BRING UP A NOMINATION TOO CLOSE TO AN ELECTION.

AND THEN OF COURSE, DOING IT IN THE CASE OF AMY CONEY BARRETT.

>> Linda Chavez: BUT, BONNIE, QUICKLY.

JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I POINTED TO.

YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU DO, BECAUSE YOU CHANGE THE ROLE.

HARRY REID DID FOR LOWER COURT APPOINTEES, AND THEN THE REPUBLICANS COME ALONG AND THEY CHANGE IT FOR SUPREME COURT.

SO THE IDEA OF THE FILIBUSTER, AS I SAY, I WILL NOT DEFEND THE FILIBUSTER.

IT'S BEEN USED FOR VERY NEFARIOUS PURPOSES AT SOME POINTS IN OUR HISTORY.

BUT THE POINT OF IT IS TO TRY TO HAVE ON CERTAIN ISSUES OR CONSENSUS.

AND WHEN YOU GET RID OF THAT, THEN YOU END UP WITH, YOU KNOW, THE KINDS OF DECISIONS ON BOTH SIDES THAT YOU MAY NOT LIKE.

>> Bonnie Erbe: ALL RIGHT.

BUT SO YOU THINK KEEPING THE FILIBUSTER WOULD OR WOULD NOT LEAD TO MORE UNITY OF THE COUNTRY?

>> Linda Chavez: WELL, I THINK THAT IT CAN END UP LEADING TO MORE UNITY IN AND I THINK HAVING, JUST PASSING MAJOR SWEEPING LEGISLATION, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I HAD WITH THE HEALTHCARE ACT WAS PASSING IT ON A TOTALLY PARTISAN BASIS, IS NOT BEST FOR CONSENSUS IN THIS COUNTRY.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE CONSENSUSBUILDING.

YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY, THAT'S REALLY HARD BECAUSE WE ARE SO DEEPLY DIVIDED.

>> Rep. Donna Edwards: JUST A MONTH OR SO AGO, THE RULE WAS CHANGED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEBT LIMIT.

AND SO, IF THAT RULE COULD BE CHANGED, A TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION, THERE IS NO REASON THAT THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN ACCOMMODATION FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

AND SO, THE SENATE HAS BEEN CAREFUL OVER THE YEARS OF MAKING THESE VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE FILIBUSTER RULE WHEN IT SUITS THEIR PURPOSES.

THEY JUST -- >> Linda Chavez: I MEAN -- IN THIS INSTANCE, AS FAR AS CONSENSUSBUILDING GOES, I HOPE PEOPLE REALIZE, YOU KNOW, HARRY REID GIFTED US THE ABILITY TO ADD THREE JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT, WINDOWS JUSTICES UPHOLD THE 15 WEEK ABORTION BAN AND DOGS, 2024 GOP WILL RUN IF THE LEGISLATIVE FILIBUSTER IS NUKED.

THEY WILL RUN ON MAKING A FEDERAL 15 WEEK ABORTION BAN.

SO THAT'S WHAT IT DOES.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BEST THING FOR THE COUNTRY.

I AM PRO-LIFE, BUT DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY GREAT PRECEDENT TO SET TO MAKE IT SO WE HAVE THE PURITY OF A VERY THIN MAJORITY.BUT THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

>> Bonnie Erbe: WELCOME THE TYRANNY OF AN ACTUAL MINORITY, I READ SOMEWHERE THAT THERE ARE 20, 22 MILLION MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS IN THE COUNTRY THAN REGISTERED DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS.

>> Rep. Donna Edwards: FOR SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS VOTING RIGHTS AND MAKING SURE -- I MEAN, WHAT'S WRONG WITH OFFERING PEOPLE A BOTTLE OF WATER AT THE POLLING PLACES?

THAT'S NOT GOING TO BUY A VOTE.

HAT'S WRONG WITH INCLUDING MORE DROP BOXES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN DROP THEIR BALLOTS IN THE MAIL?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH MAKING ELECTION DAY A HOLIDAY?

I MEAN, THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE REALLY COMMON SENSE KIND OF REFORMS.

THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND TWO SENATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STOP THAT.

>> Bonnie Erbe: FROM PARTISAN POLITICS TO ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAMS: ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS COMMITTED TO LIFTING PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY OR PROMOTING AND EVEN FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING PILOT PROGRAMS THAT OFFER A GUARANTEED INCOME.

IT IS A MOVEMENT THAT CONTINUES TO SPREAD ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE MORE THAN 35 SUCH PROGRAMS AND AT LEAST 17 STATES.

THE UNCONDITIONAL STIPENDS RANGE FROM $500-$1000 A MONTH.

THE MONEY COMES WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

FAMILIES HAVE FULL DISCRETION ABOUT HOW TO SPEND THE MONEY.

THE STOCKTON ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT DEMONSTRATION REPORTS PEOPLE WHO RECEIVED THE MONEY FOUND FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT AT TWICE THE RATE OF THOSE WHO DID NOT.

PARTICIPANTS ALSO SUFFERED FEWER HEALTH PROBLEMS, INCLUDING DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY.

IN 2020, THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER FOUND 54 PERCENT OF ADULTS OPPOSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDING GUARANTEED BASIC INCOME.

BUT MANY OF THESE PROGRAMS GET FUNDING FROM PRIVATE DONORS.

SO, LINDA CHAVEZ, LET'S START WITH THE PRIVATE MONEY, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY TWO DIFFERENT STORIES IN A SENSE, IN TAXPAYERS DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT FOUNDATIONS AND PRIVATE DONORS DO WITH THEIR MONEY, BUT THEY SURE AS HECK DO GOVERNMENT MONEY.

SO EXPLAIN TO ME -- >> Linda Chavez: THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

I THINK INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MONEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEND IT AS THEY CHOOSE.

THAT'S WHERE I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS ON THE PANEL IN TERMS OF ELECTIONS AND SPENDING MONEY TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES WHO RUN ADS OR WHATEVER.

BUT, YES.

IF A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION, PRIVATE FOUNDATION WAS TO GET MONEY, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL EXPERIMENTS IN MAJOR CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO CREATE THIS BASIC INCOME.

THE QUESTION IS ABOUT PUBLIC MONEY AND WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE A LAW THAT PROVIDES PUBLIC SUPPORT.

AND THEY ARE I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'M WITH 54 PERCENT OF AMERICANS WHO HAVE QUALMS ABOUT THIS.

AND MY QUALMS HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THIS DOES IN FACT OVER TIME DEPRESSED WORK INITIATIVE.

WE HAVE A HUGE LABOR SHORTAGE IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE VERY LOW UNEMPLOYMENT AND WE HAVE A LOT OF JOBS THAT ARE GOING UNFILLED.

AND IF YOU GIVE INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE NOT TO WORK, THAT'S GOING TO ADD TO THAT.

HOWEVER, YOU COULD HAVE TARGETED KINDS OF SUPPORT.

YOU COULD HAVE TARGETED SUPPORT AS WE DID WITH THE CHILD TAX CREDIT, WHICH I THINK DID LIFT A LOT OF CHILDREN OUT OF POVERTY, WHICH IS SOMETHING I WOULD SUPPORT.

BUT HAVING JUST A BLANKET AMOUNT THAT GOES TO TWO FAMILIES FROM THE GOVERNMENT, I THINK IT'S NOT THE WAY WE WANT TO GO.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS NOT A NEW IDEA.

THIS IS RICHARD NIXON'S IDEA BACK IN 1970!

IT DID NOT GO ANYWHERE THEN EITHER.

>> Bonnie Erbe: TIANA, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

WILL IT MOTIVATE?

BECAUSE IT'S MAINLY GOING TO, LET'S FACE IT, YOUNG SINGLE MOTHERS.

IS THAT ENOUGH TO MOTIVATE THEM TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE RAISING THEIR KIDS AND WORKING AT THE SAME TIME?

>> Tiana Lowe: I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT SOMETHING LIKE WHAT ANDREW YANG PROPOSED DURING HIS 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, REPLACING OUR NEED-BASED WELFARE SYSTEM, ONE THAT IS INCENTIVIZES WORK WITH A NEED BLIND, FLAT BASIC INCOME TETHERED TO INFLATION, ACTUALLY BELIEF THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY MUCH WORTH IT ENTERTAINING, IT'S JUST DIFFICULT BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY WE ARE OVERHAULING OUR CURRENT LIBRARIES OF OUR WELFARE SYSTEM.

>> Bonnie Erbe: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IT WILL COST TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>> Tiana Lowe: DEPENDS ON THE PROGRAM.

THE ONE REALLY WORKABLE PROGRAM THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT ACTUALLY COULD BE PASSED THE RECONCILIATION IS WHAT MITT ROMNEY HAS PROPOSED, THE FAMILY SECURITY ACT WOULD END THE SALT PRODUCTION, SO REMOVE -- CAPS THE SALT REDUCTION FROM 10,000 TO ZERO AND TIED TOGETHER A FEW ASPECTS OF WELFARE SPENDING AND INSTEAD ISSUE A BASIC INCOME TO PARENTS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF CHILDREN THEY HAVE IN THE AGE OF THOSE CHILDREN.

UNLIKE OUR CURRENT WELFARE SYSTEM, IT WOULD INCENTIVIZE MARRIAGE BY NOT HAVING THE MARRIAGE PENALTY OF SOME TAX CREDITS, AND IT WOULD ALSO SPECIFICALLY BE GOING TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, FAMILY BUILDING IN COMBATING CHILD PROPERTY.

WHEN YOU TETHER THESE PROGRAMS TO IF YOU'RE WORKING OR NOT WORKING, THEN IT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR REALISTIC THINGS LIKE, OH, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A HOUSEHOLD WHERE BOTH PARENTS WORK IN THE MONEY IS SPENT ON HOMECARE, OR DO YOU WANT TO USE THAT MONEY TO SUBSIDIZE A MOTHER WHO WANTS TO STAY AT HOME WITH THEIR KIDS AND BE A FULL-TIME HOMEWORK OR, AND THAT WAY THEY CAN ONLY WORK ON ONE INCOME AGREE WITH LINDA IN THE FACT THAT PRIVATE DONORS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT THE PROBLEM IS YOU NEED TO START WITH SOMETHING THAT'S WORKABLE.

ROMANIES BILL IS VERY WORKABLE.

I DON'T THINK A NATIONAL UBI FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING CHILDLESS ADULTS, IS FEASIBLE RIGHT NOW.

>> Erin Matson: AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PRIVATE DONOR FUNDED EXPERIMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE CITIES AND SOME OF THE RESULTS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THEM, IT ACTUALLY DOES NOT DISINCENTIVE IS WORK IN ORDER TO GIVE PEOPLE DIRECT CASH AID.

I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO SAY WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT DIRECT CASH AID IS AFFIRMING, GIVES PEOPLE DIGNITY TO PURSUE WHAT THEY NEED WHEN THEY ARE STRUGGLING FOR MONEY.

AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT, AS YOU NOTED AT THE OUTSET, THE FACT IS THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE MORE LIKELY AFTER HAVING THIS DIRECT CASH AID COMING TO THEM TO BE IN STABLE EMPLOYMENT WITH IT.

>> Rep. Donna Edwards: I DID GO BACK TO MY OWN HISTORY.

I RAISED MY SON MOSTLY ON MY OWN AND I CAN THINK BACK TO THOSE DAYS WHEN HAVING THAT EXTRA INCOME WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A DISINCENTIVE TO WORKING, BUT IT WOULD'VE MADE SURE THAT I WASN'T, YOU KNOW, SCOPING OUT FOOD PANTRIES EVERY WEEK AND STRUGGLING TO PAY, YOU KNOW, THE ELECTRICITY AND CHILDCARE AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS.

SO I DO THINK THAT THIS IS AN IDEA THAT HAS COME.

I COME OUT OF PHILANTHROPY AS WELL.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF EXPERIMENTING IN PHILANTHROPY WITH SOME OF THESE IDEAS TO FOOD PROVE THINGS LIKE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZE TO WORK WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO MEET BASIC EXPENSES OF THE HOUSEHOLD.

THE WAY THAT WE HAVE STRUCTURED, PARTICULARLY THROUGH COVID RELIEF, THE CHILD TAX CREDIT AND ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IS A CONCEPT THAT IS ACTUALLY ROOTED IN THE IDEA OF A BASIC, BASIC INCOME.

AND SO, I THINK THAT THESE ARE REALLY IDEAS THAT ARE WORTH EXPLORING.

THE REALITY IS THAT MOST MOTHERS, MOST FAMILIES, IF THEY ARE GIVEN MONEY, THEY PUT IT RIGHT BACK INTO THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES.

THEY DON'T ABUSE THAT.

THEY SPEND IT IN RESPONSIBLE WAYS TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES.

THE UNITED NATIONS HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ALL OVER THE WORLD AND THAT'S TRUE IN THE UNITED STATES?

>> Bonnie Erbe: LET'S TELL THE AUDIENCE HE REMARRIED WHEN YOU WERE HAD YOUR SON AND YOU CAME FROM A FAMILY WHO REALLY PUSHED YOU TOWARDS GETTING EDUCATED AND GETTING READY FOR PROFESSIONAL CAREER.

AND WHILE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO GET RICH OFF OF IS GOING TO GET RICH OFF OF $500-$1000 PER MONTH, I MEAN, IN FACT IN THIS INFLATIONARY ENVIRONMENT, IT WOULDN'T EVEN PROBABLY COVER GROCERIES AND DIAPERS FOR TWO PEOPLE FOR A MONTH.

BUT SHOULD NOT THE GOVERNMENT BE INCENTIVIZING, IF THAT'S GETTING EDUCATED AND GETTING MARRIED BEFORE YOU HAVE YOUR CHILD IN SO THAT YOU HAVE A CHANCE AT EARNING REAL INCOME FOR YOURSELF AFTER THE CHILD IS BORN?

>> Rep. Donna Edwards: IF YOU THINK ABOUT PEOPLE'S LIVES, IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING OFF THE PLATE LIKE HAVING TO STRUGGLE FOR ALL THESE THINGS WERE WORKING TWO OR THREE JOBS, GUESS WHAT WOMEN DO: GO TO SCHOOL, COMMUNITY COLLEGE, TO GET EDUCATED, THEY BUILD THEIR SKILLS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD THINK OF THIS AS A ZERO-SUM GAME THAT IF YOU GIVE FAMILIES AND MOTHERS THOSE RESOURCES, THAT THEY ARE ALSO GOING TO FOCUS ON THEIR CHILDREN EDUCATION, BE MORE PARTICIPATORY IN SCHOOLS, ALL THE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY LEAD TO MORE SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES FOR WOMEN AND FOR FAMILIES AND FOR THE CHILDREN.

>> Linda Chavez: DID IN FACT HELP BILL CLINTON PASS WELFARE REFORM, AND I THINK THE IDEA OF A GOVERNMENT CHECK, DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH IT IS, WHETHER THEY ARE STRINGS ATTACHED.

BUT ANYTHING THAT WE DO HAS GOT TO BE TIED TO NOT THIS INCENTIVIZING WORKGAIN, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT IF WE HAD FULL EMPLOYMENT AND -- LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION, BUT WE DON'T.

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION IS GOING DOWN, WAY DOWN DRAMATICALLY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SOME OF IT IS AGE AND AGING POPULATION AND NOW IT'S SOME PEOPLE JUST DROPPING OUT.

>> Bonnie Erbe: ARE YOU GOING TO DEPRECATE THE VALUE OF GETTING A JOB WHEN YOU ARE GIVING SOMEONE WITH THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH?

IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?

>> Linda Chavez: IT DEPENDS ON -- IT DEPENDS ON WHAT OTHER PROGRAMS ARE AVAILABLE AND WHAT OTHER ASSISTANCE IS BEING PROVIDED PLENTY OF GOTTA MAKE IT NOT MORE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL NOT TO WORK THAN TO WORK, UNLESS OF COURSE YOU WANT TO DO WHAT TIANA IS SUGGESTING, AND THAT IS INCENTIVIZE AT LEAST ONE PARENT, PROBABLY THE MOTHER, TO STAY HOME IN TWO PARENT FAMILIES AND THAT'S A DEBATE THAT WE CAN HAVE.

IT IS A DEBATE THAT'S WORTH HAVING.

>> Rep. Donna Edwards: LOOK, I WILL DELETE THIS CONVERSATION WITHOUT SAYING THAT IT FEELS RATHER ELITIST FOR US TO BE HAVING A CONVERSATION SAYING THAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO WORK, THAT, YOU KNOW, FAMILIES DO NEED SUPPORT AND WE UNDERESTIMATE, ONE, THE VALUE OF WORK AND THE FACT THAT WOMEN, ESPECIALLY WOMEN WHO ARE RAISING THEIR CHILDREN, GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT OF SUPPORT.

THEY WANT TO WORK, THEY WANT TO GET THEIR EDUCATION.

THEY WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR FAMILIES.

THAT'S A MAJORITY.

I DON'T LIKE TALKING ABOUT A MINORITY WHO MIGHT ABUSE THE SYSTEM.

>> Bonnie Erbe: ALL RIGHT.

ONNA, AGAIN, I WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT $1000 A MONTH IS NOT GOING TO DISINCENTIVE ICE ANYBODY FROM WORKING.

THAT IS JUST -- IT IS A TEENY TINY DROP IN THE BARREL THAT THEY NEED TO SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN, GET EDUCATED, AND GET GOING ON A GOOD BASIS FOR THEIR CAREERS.

THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION.

LET'S KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING ON TWITTER, FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM.

AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE, PBS.ORG/TO THE CONTRARY.

AND WHETHER YOU AGREE OR THINK "TO THE CONTRARY", SEE YOU NEXT TIME.

FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR TO SEE AN ONLINE EPISODE OF "TO THE CONTRARY," PLEASE VISIT OUR PBS WEBSITE AT PBS.ORG/TOTHECONTRARY.