 Well, thank you very much. Thanks for attending our Baby Bonds Policy Forum this afternoon. It's really a pleasure to be here, a pleasure to be with everyone who's online. Really great to see the support and the interest in this really innovative policy idea. Before we get started with the panel and introduce the panelists, I did want to invite up Scott Giles, who is the CEO of VSAC, and thank him for hosting us this afternoon, and he's going to offer a welcome. Great. Thank you very much, Treasurer Pichek. Thank you very much for organizing this forum and for serving on the VSAC Board of Directors. I would be remiss if I didn't start out by thanking both Treasurer Pichek and Senator Ron Hinstale for the support that they have provided to us through the years. And it's great to see all of our friends out here. I see a bunch of old faces of former Education Committee chair, some friends from the NEA and elsewhere who've been long partners with us. So for those of you who are not familiar with us, we are the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation and I think very upper pole in today's conversation. We were created in 1965 really with the mission of making sure that all Vermonters, particularly those who thought that the doors of opportunity were closed to them, would have access to the education and training that they need in order to be able to achieve their career and life goals. So I think like everybody in this room, we are very, very interested to learn more about this exciting new initiative and wanted to formally welcome all of you on behalf of the staff and board of VSAC. Treasurer Pichek, thank you. Thanks, Scott. We're also fortunate to be joined by some representatives from our congressional delegation. So first I'll invite up Katie, who is the State Director for Senator Bernie Sanders. I'll turn it over to you, Katie. Thanks, Mike. Thanks so much, Scott. Thank you very much for hosting us. Hi, everybody. For those of you I don't know, I'm Katie. Go ahead and take my behind the scenes. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Katie Van Heesten, Senator Sanders State Director. I'm really happy to be here today to say just a couple of words to maybe give a little grounding in the national discussion about what we're talking about here in Vermont. So Senator Sanders is an original co-sponsor of the Senate legislation that would do exactly what we're talking about here in Vermont. The legislation was introduced by Senator Booker of New Jersey and Congresswoman Ayanna Presley of Massachusetts. It's just a great, simple piece of legislation that would tackle economic injustice, break the cycle of poverty, look at cycles of racial injustice here in Vermont, the wealth gap between some of our more urban areas and our more rural areas. And we absolutely love that Vermont is not waiting for the federal government to act. A couple of you might know, things are a little slow sometimes down in DC. So it's really lovely when states get a jump on what we're trying to do in Washington. We're going to keep that fight up in DC, but in the meantime, we're really excited that Vermont is taking this step forward and seeing it as an opportunity when we act quickly and first, it can also be a great opportunity for our Vermont young people and families and people who maybe are thinking about coming to Vermont. Gosh, what an amazing opportunity if we are one of the first states in the country to do this great work. So Mike, thank you so much for giving me the chance to share Senator Sanders' support, and I know I look forward to hearing more about what all of our panelists have to say. Thank you. Thanks so much, Katie. We have a representative from Senator Welch's office who's joining us virtually, Fana, who unfortunately, we can't have her speak, so I'm going to say something on behalf of Senator Welch here that he sent to us. So good afternoon and thank you for participating in this important forum on Baby Bonds. I'm pleased to share that I've signed on to S-441, the American Opportunity Accounts Act, which I believe is the bill that Katie was just referencing, which establishes tax-exempt American Opportunity Accounts to provide children at birth with $1,000 in savings with annual contributions up to $2,000, depending on the family income. The accounts are available to children at age 18 for specific purposes, including educational expenses, home ownership, investment that provides long-term returns. This bill and the proposal at the state level seek to combat generational poverty by providing vital funds for homeowners who might otherwise struggle to earn an education or buy a home. So we thank Senator Welch for that and Senator Sanders for their support, both at the federal level and here at the local level. And I'd also like to invite up David Shear, who is the State Director for Representative Becca Ballant. David. Thank you, Mike. I will keep it brief. I don't want to stand between all of you and what you are here for, which is a discussion of Baby Bonds, but the Congresswoman did just want to express her gratitude. She's very strongly supportive of this concept. She is grateful to the treasurer for, as Katie pointed out, helping Vermont lead the way, which is something that we do well. And something that we will hopefully get the nation to follow on after we're successful here at Vermont on this. I'm making a prediction, but... And so I just want to express her gratitude to the Congresswoman's gratitude to you, to the work you're doing here, and we hope to have the nation follow. Thanks, David. So with that, we can start with our esteemed panel. Right out of the gate, I'll ask the panelists to provide an introduction and an overview of just who they are and the work that they do and their interest in Baby Bonds. And then we'll get into some Q&A. I have a number of questions, but we'll eventually see a few of you in the audience have questions. We're happy to send those to the panelists as well. So Senator Romincil, why don't we begin with you? Absolutely. It's very loud to move. Can everyone hear me? Okay, great. Well, first of all, I feel like I'm sitting amongst some very esteemed intellectual powerhouses up here. And, you know, I have served in the legislature now going into my 13th, 14th year. I chair Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs, but I actually think my biggest qualification being up here is being a new mom. You'll probably see a Rainbow 1C class eight months old somewhere in the building with my wonderful intern Zoe. But, you know, as we've been discussing for much of the day, it's really hard to sort out all of the financial instruments that usually people of privilege have a financial advisor to help them with, have, you know, a history of wealth in their family to draw on. I feel very privileged in a lot of senses in what I could give my daughter. But in my family, you know, we have foreclosure, bankruptcy, homelessness. You know, my parents ran an Irish pub in Los Angeles with money that they got from the Women's Bank of Los Angeles. So the idea of policy shaping your access to capital was a reality in my life from the start. And after they lost the business and got divorced, with my dad being, you know, an immigrant of limited means, I was cashing his checks in my bank account at the age of 14. I knew that if you were on the free lunch program, you could take the SATs for free and apply to college for free. And that's how I'm here today. So, you know, these are the types of policies that I want to get passed because most people in this country feel like the economy is rigged against them and making these tools available to them to feel empowered. You know, especially, I'm thinking the Treasurer's been talking about using unclaimed property as a first source of funding. If that gets people to say, hey, I might have unclaimed property, I want to see, great. You know, I mean, we should be empowering people to feel like they can interact with government and take advantage of their rights and their privileges as residents and citizens. So it's just always a pleasure to work with the Treasurer. I don't think I'm up here as like a, you know, intellectual, cerebral person on the panel, but just to say, we're going to get this done. And actually, I look around the room. I see a lot of legislators, so many that I'm not going to try and name all of them. So many other people, city counselors, thought leaders, you know, all kinds of folks. This is the room to actually just get it done. So I'm glad there was some time to schmooze. Help me pass this when the Treasurer came forward with a retirement savings opt-out bill this past year. Our committee got it done in two days because we just really trust the Treasurer's capacity. He builds coalitions like these, and we're really excited to get these tools into the hands of everyday Vermonters. Do you ever feel like you got set up for this? Say something smart. So I'm Dara Camelton. I am a professor of economics. I am the director of the Institute on Race Power and Political Economy at the New School. And I have a lot of Vermont connections as I sit here and realize. I work with Chuck and Ben Cohen, with Ben's Best Blend. And I am a surrogate from the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign of 2016. I characterize myself as an economist that is vested in understanding the intersections of economics, politics, and identity group stratification. In other words, the ways in which we divide people into groups and place value on whether one group is more deserving or less deserving than the other. To me, all three of those things are interconnected and not separable. I'm also an economist that embraces the identity of a human rights economist that believes that we should have structures. We should have resources directed in a way that support our most treasured resource on earth, which I believe is people and the environments in which we live. And not simply in a charitable sense. I fundamentally believe that our most productive assets are people. If we want innovation, if we want dynicism, then I think we have a fiduciary from our public sector to make sure that individuals are properly resourced regardless of the families or identity groups in which they may have been born. And I think Baby Bonds is one example. So, you know, at the Institute, and I have several people here who work with me at the Institute, David Radcliffe, as well as Garrett Cunningham, we do three things. We have conceptions, we do research. To me, that's the truth-seeking stage, trying to understand how phenomenal works. Then we translate that into ideas, into action, into policy. And then finally, public engagement to make those ideas, those policies, sustainable. And we begin with a set of values, which is economic inclusion, civic engagement, and social equity. So I won't give you my whole spiel about the Institute. I'll just summarize one of the big programs that we're vested in and why we're here today. Baby Bonds. So Baby Bonds is focused on ensuring that everybody has a capital foundation so that they can build wealth and have the economic security, and the treasurer uses this word a lot, the agency, the sovereignty to be able to affect their lives over time. To me, that's justice. To me, that's a conception of justice. And a similar way that we think about civil rights, political rights, right, those are not concepts that I suspect anybody in the room would say that we should deny people. Well similarly, I think people need resources to have the agency, the freedom to be able to live dignified lives, not just for themselves, but to come up with the innovation, to come up with the dinosaur so that we all can have better lives. Speaking of being set up for failures, following Dr. Hamilton. But my name is Eric Russell. I am the state treasurer from Connecticut. It's great to be here with all of you in Vermont and to be with Mike. So Mike and I got elected at the same time and stepped into these roles. Some of my core responsibilities as treasurer are being the principal fiduciary for our state's pension funds, overseeing all of our cash and debt management in our 529 college savings programs. But what I think is really powerful about this role as treasurer is the opportunity to really look at long-term investments in our state. And so we can talk about that from a direct investment perspective in thinking about our pension funds, but we can also talk about it in investing in people. And I think that is exactly what we've been able to do with Connecticut Baby Bonds. I'm just really kind of breaking some of this, the mold of thinking about this role in just the traditional way, but say looking at how we can make investments in building a long-term future for our state where there is more economic opportunity and prosperity and fairness for everyone. And so this was a very collaborative effort to get to this point. My predecessor, Treasurer Woodin, was the first person to roll out working closely with Dr. Hamilton, the concept of Baby Bonds, and passed the statute in Connecticut back in 2021. And we'll get into some of these details, but essentially the program funds for every child born into poverty, which we use the state's Medicaid program as that indicator. There would be $3,200 invested in a trust on behalf of that child. Those revenues would grow over the life of that child in between the ages of 18 and 30. They could access those resources for purposes that are all around wealth creation. So purchasing a home in Connecticut, starting or investing in a Connecticut business, being used for post-secondary education or job training, or could be rolled into a retirement savings account. The program was ultimately, though, legislation was passed, was pushed off for funding. And so when I came into office in January, one of my primary responsibilities was really focusing on how we could work collaboratively and come up with a funding mechanism to get this program off the ground. And starting on July 1st of this year, we were able to fully fund the program for the next 12 years. And the first babies born into the program were born as of July 1st of this year. And so I'm just excited to be here to help support this initiative as we're talking about it here in Vermont. But understanding the opportunity there is for our states to really invest in our people. And I would just say on a personal note, I grew up in a community that is so tied in thinking about how beneficial this could be for people. I mean, folks who worked hard every day who made money, but the difference between them paying a mortgage or paying rent for their entire lives is being able to have some access to capital to put down on a property. And so we are doing a lot of work as we implement this program, but just really honored to be here with this distinguished panel and to help support this initiative here in Vermont. Thank you all for being here and thank you for the introductions. Eric teased out some of the specifics of the Connecticut program. And in Vermont, we're modeling our legislation off of Connecticut. So in Vermont, we would have the same concept. Every child born on Medicaid would be eligible for baby bonds. So in Vermont, it's about 2,000 children per year, about 37 or 38% of all birds in Vermont. That money would be invested in the treasurer's office and would grow. And the estimate is something like $11,500 at the age of 18, up to $24,000 by the age of 30. That's sort of the eligibility criteria and the last sort of why that age frame was picked in a minute. And then similarly, same for eligible expenses to buy a home in Vermont to start a business in Vermont to go to higher education or job training or to roll it over into your retirement. So we talked about this as something that was addressing and attacking generational poverty, something that was disproportionately helping rural areas from an economic standpoint and something that would help retain young people in Vermont as well. Those are the four or three sorry policy aims of this program. So I wonder maybe Professor Hamilton and Treasurer Russell, you can just talk about those four items that were selected. And maybe a question is why those four, why sort of select those as criteria for baby bond program. I'll defer to the godfather. So Derek is the intellectual godfather of baby bonds. He didn't put that in his self file. The human emoji. Right, so right now there's another policy that's gaining momentum guaranteed income and it's unconditional. So the purpose of putting conditions on baby bonds is not to be paternalistic, but imagine the context of a low income individual that comes into their adulthood with a set of resources being directed to them. I know myself, you know, I suspect I have a similar narrative as Treasurer Russell. I probably would have had an aunt that might have been vulnerable to eviction and it would be a worthy cause for me to offer her resources to not be evicted but it's not going to grow my wealth. So there's, we need to recognize that there are no one single silver bullet policy that's going to redress the conditions that we have nor provide the agency that we're talking about that these various policies work in combination and collaboration. So those four elements are chosen largely because the program is keenly focused on assets and building of wealth. So they're intended to not protect the children from making poor decisions but rather to protect the children who become adults from the societal structures that inhibit them and their capacities to build wealth. Yeah, I think that makes sense. I think even in thinking specifically about all of these purposes, if you think about how most people in our states and in our country have amassed wealth over time, it's been through ownership of something that appreciates without anyone having to do anything, right? And so really thinking about tying this to something, the ability for someone to purchase a home again, that difference between having a down payment or not and paying rent for some extended period of time. But it's something that ultimately can allow someone to build wealth over time. It's how so many families refinanced their homes to help their child pay for school or to deal with some catastrophic personal finance issue that they've gone through, right? So I think all of these things are designated for that purpose. I think another thing and this is me thinking about the reality of getting policy like this done sometimes is that there are going to be people that have those questions about is this money going to be used for the right purpose or is it going to serve the goal that's really intended. And I think some of these parameters that are built into the program are necessary things to get the program over the finish line from a just practical perspective. Yeah, I know it's a great point, American, around how policy is made over the state at a better level. Real quick, I promise to be brief, but how is wealth generated for most Americans? We could probably ask ourselves in this room, how did you generate wealth? Most Americans don't generate their wealth from passive savings. Most Americans generate their wealth from an asset that passively appreciates over their lifetime or having a career or a profession with the automatic tools like a 401k program where employers contributing to it, that's how for the typical American wealth is built. So it's recognizing that and some of the, I think, the elegance and the ideas is simplicity. It's literally providing you that capital foundation to try to get into one of those assets. So a similar question, just talking about the framing of the bill. So you have those four sort of asset types that you can invest in and you also designate 18 to 30, sort of younger people. I'm assuming that was done with the strategic thought as well. Yeah, without a doubt wealth compounds over one's lifetime. So if you really want to build wealth, you want to target an early point in one's life to build that economic security. And then one other aspect is that if you think about our public policy infrastructure, we don't have anything aimed at development beyond subsistence for young people. We have one of our best public policy programs, Social Security, where, you know, that's a great program, but it's targeted at the twilight of our lives or when we're heading towards retirement. So from the life cycle, you know, it's a pivotal point that can make a difference in generational ways. And I would say, I think, you know, as we think about the program, it was very intentionally developed to be separate and apart from the parents, right? Is that this, the idea is that this program and these resources track the child. And so if you think about just that timeline, one, it's that 18 year range where one, I think as was mentioned by Derek, right, the idea that if you are growing up in a community or a family that is struggling and you have access to resources, you are going to use those resources to help sustain your family. With this, it's regardless of what family you're born into, regardless of what zip code you're born into, you have this access to capital to use for something that could ultimately change your circumstance in a meaningful way moving forward. I think the other piece is just the, you know, from a policy perspective is the economic opportunity for our states through this program. This program, the way it's designed from this age range allows and incentivizes people to either stay in our states or move back to our states, no understanding that they can access these resources at a time that they are likely to be starting a family or starting a career and ultimately are going to reinvest these resources back into our states. So we talked a little bit about the generational poverty aspect of Baby Bonds. I wonder if the panelists want to hit on that sort of rural economic development piece and why it's sort of disproportionately beneficial to the more rural areas of Medicaid or Vermont or in the country. Okay. Well, actually, so I wrote down as my colleagues were speaking, Bear with me here, Phantom Toluth by Norton Jester. So that was my favorite book growing up and I had the opportunity to go meet the author in Massachusetts, Norton Jester was doing a book signing and I didn't even know he was still alive. So, you know, I went to go get my book signed and he said, oh, you're a policymaker. This was early in my 20s and he said, you're a policymaker. You know what we should do is just give every baby born a college degree. That would solve all our problems. And, you know, of course he's a very tongue-in-cheek, big thinking kind of author, but, you know, it made a lot of sense. I mean, what stands between a young person and a college degree? It's really usually just money. I mean, you know, Scott can tell you that. They should be able to access any of those opportunities, whether or not we think they're qualified already. You know, they should be entitled to that. They should grow up thinking I, you know, I am meant to go and access something that's for me that was set aside for me. And, you know, I mean, I guess I would just say in a place like Vermont, in our rural places within Vermont, there are a lot of people who think I'm not going to be able to afford that. That's not for me. That's for folks in Chittenden County. You know, I'm never going to be able to understand how to access that. I don't have teachers who are telling me, you know, that I can afford to go to UVM, et cetera. So they're never going to ask the questions. They're never going to interact bump into somebody who can help them, you know, understand that that opportunity truly was meant for them. And so I just think of it as a motivator. And, you know, when I think about what, you know, just what else I heard, we have a policy here that I don't think it would be really high-minded of us to think it's an equalizer, but it's a great stabilizer. There are so many people who can't see beyond a very desperate loop of poverty and, you know, just a very unstable life situation. And to know that one day, you know, there's money waiting for you, there's your government, you know, your state treasurer, set aside resources for you to be able to dream big. I just, that's so huge. Like, I just, you know, they often say for whether it's really blighted urban schools or really depressed rural schools that kids need to experience small victories. They need to just feel like they're winning some of the time. And, you know, just the idea that someone is counting on them and is believing in them to realize their full potential, that's huge to just make the world bigger for you when you feel like your world is small in a rural school. Sure. And I appreciate all of those comments. I'm glad that you touched on them. On the, I think rural communities, so thinking about Connecticut, this was really important to us in terms of being able to get this program over the finish line because I think many people in Connecticut were one of the wealthiest states in the country and people think of very specific communities in Connecticut when they think about the state very often. The reality is that we have one of the largest wealth gaps in the country as well and it is a gap that has continued to widen. And the communities in Connecticut living in poverty are not monolithic in any way either, right? So we have, certainly there's urban poverty but we have a ton of rural poverty in Connecticut. I think that was important to getting this done because we had to build really broad-based coalitions of support and understanding that there were going to be people from all 169 towns across our state who would benefit from this program. But it's also about using this opportunity to reinvest in the state and reinvest in communities that have been under resource for so long. I think that piece of it is critical, particularly when you think about our rural communities, right? Folks living in rural poverty. The likelihood is that folks who are accessing these resources are going to be reinvesting them, purchasing homes, starting businesses in the communities in which they live and grew up. And so we see it as a huge opportunity to really further that development as well. So, you know, I'm going to build on those ideas and perhaps say something slightly controversial but I promise not to embarrass the treasurer. You know, what do we do when an area becomes dilapidated? We strategically direct public resources often by trying to bribe capital with tax incentives to come into the area to redevelop it. Well, what does that do? It often might improve the neighborhood but the people who were there don't always get to benefit from it and it also enriches those that already had capital. This is a little different. This is also an investment and we should characterize resources going to poor people in ways that are meant to be developmental as investments. We often characterize them as costs. But this is investment. This is a redirection of public resources in a strategic way to communities that need it most. First and foremost by directly funding those individuals rather than the place per se. And then that also will have a spillover multiplying effect that will improve the areas. And the money will be going because it's likely that poor people don't live in isolated communities. Poor people will often cluster and be together or rural people who have less resources will be at least somewhat clustered and live together. So it generates a different form of economic investment that will directly benefit those that need it the most but also create a dynicism to improve those areas. So one question I want to ask a couple more sort of broad-based questions and some more sort of detailed questions about the program but I sort of asked this question in response to an email I got when we sent out this idea about the program and the person wrote back and sort of was struggling with how to characterize the program. Was it a progressive idea? Was it a pragmatic idea? Was it a democratic idea? Was it conservative? And I think it's actually a little bit the beauty of it that people can view it in different ways. So I guess my broad question is like who should support this bill? Why? And then maybe Eric you can talk a little bit about the experience in Connecticut getting the bill passed and the support for it. So I always tell this tongue-in-cheek story when I get a question similar to that. A good friend of mine is Lynn Paramore wrote an article entitled Baby Bonds and Idea Conservatives Should Love. And Lynn I don't think would characterize herself as a conservative. To me if you believe in markets, if you don't believe in markets, a critical ingredient if you do is capital itself. Otherwise that's not a transaction. If you have one party engaged in a transaction that has no resources, that's either the whim of exploitation or the whim of charity and that engagement. So this idea is intended to properly resource people so that they can engage however you want to structure your economy. And again this is part of the framing of what we're applying to the Institute where we're trying to reclaim this notion of rights, this notion of justice and add economic rights to it. And it's not again not this juxtaposition of capitalism or socialism per se, but rather what are the necessary ingredients that people need in order to have dignity and authentic agency in their lives. So I kind of see it as that. Wealth is functional. The essence of wealth is not it as an outcome, but what it can do for you and your life. And those that don't have it really are limited in the agency that they have over their life. I think it's always funny when we have to take something like this and try to put it into a bucket rather than looking at what is just effective for helping people. And what we were able to do in Connecticut, again in building this broad-based coalition, we had strong support from mayors in first-election in the state that understood that these resources would be invested back in their communities to help build them up. We had strong support from Chambers of Commerce in the business community who understood that this was an investment in building out a stronger, more skilled workforce of the future. We had residents who understood that this was going to be an incentive to keep people in the state young folks coming back as they were starting their families. We had legislators from across the state understanding that there were folks from every corner of the state from rural communities and urban communities that were going to benefit from this program. It was so important to build that broad base of support in understanding that yes, there's a social driver in trying to help people and create opportunity for people to lift themselves up, but that doesn't mean that this investment isn't a strong economic investment in our future as a state as well. I think the other piece is important to note is it's not as if poverty doesn't cost us something, right? We are spending money. We are spending resources. It impacts every component of our society and our way of life when folks don't have the resources that they need. And so why not shift this conversation to say rather than just looking at programs that are about helping someone sustain themselves on a day-to-day basis while they're living in poverty, looking at transformative programs that can allow individuals to lift themselves up and change their circumstance in a meaningful way. And so I think that this is a program that does that and again understanding it as a piece to a much larger puzzle but really has the ability for us to create a future that's different than the one that we see on a day-to-day basis. I would just add a couple things and I don't want to let Democrats off the hook. Number one, when the Treasurer told me, we often fight about where's the money going to come from and it's a great idea but our budget's so tight, when the Treasurer said he was going to start with unclaimed property, I said, thank God, in all these red states where the Treasurer's like, and this won't cost taxpayers anything, we're going to use unclaimed property, there's a huge wealth gap. I say controversial things all the time, there's a huge wealth gap between the younger generations and boomers. It's bigger than in any other country in the world and there's some unclaimed money sitting there. Sure, can people claim it? Yes, it's a huge pot of money, but we should boldly say some of this can go to young people. This is money that we need to invest in our children if we're not investing them through our other policy means and if we need to supplement that with additional funds, great. But just letting it go to the general fund, I feel like as Democrats, just sitting on good government principles and not actually thinking about all the people that are in despair. So I was really grateful to see the Treasurer not borrow something from the Republican Treasurer playbook but just be bolder than a lot of Democrats have been. And then I took a class with Cornell West and Roberto Unger at Harvard basically saying if progressives do not understand and navigate the means of production, they will continue losing elections. And we are never talking enough about workforce and housing on the left. We're just not. I go to the other committees that I love and care about and say we're not going to meet our climate goals, our healthcare goals, no other goals if we continue down this economic downward spiral of having no young people and really no one who can move here because of our housing and workforce challenges. And something like this is operating on a number of fronts. If you stay in the state, you get to access this money and think about what opportunities are available to you here. Sure you could take it elsewhere but you're going to go to institutions like VSAC. You're going to go to financial navigators here in the state who are going to say look at all these options that you have. That is just, if we say we're investing in our 18 to 30 year olds, God bless us. We really need them and we need them to know that their state cares about them and is ready to transfer some of that wealth that's sitting there directly to them. Real quick about the generational gulf. Boomers came of age with the GI bill and FHA loans. Millennials came of age with the great recession and then the pandemic recession. And at the age of 30, they had some of the generationally lowest home ownership rates going all the way back to the greatest generation that came out of the Great Depression. So it was public policy that yielded essentially whatever American asset based middle class that we have. Now of course there were intricacies that left certain groups of people like black people out of the asset based middle class but we have a blueprint and Baby Bonds is another example of the state seeding the capital resources so that generations can acquire wealth. So just to put a finer point just in terms of a Vermont perspective on this question of like who should support Baby Bonds and the concept. You know we're here in Manuski which is one of the most densely populated most urban cities that we have in Vermont one of the most racially diverse cities that we have in Vermont and one of the poorest cities from a sort of a percentage of those living in poverty so you can see that Baby Bonds are having disproportionate impact here in Manuski and in contrast that with Essex County in the Northeast Kingdom one of the most rural areas of Vermont one of the whitest counties in Vermont and also one of the most impoverished counties in Vermont. So I think this program is great in that it really targets the areas of the state or of a particular community that need the support the most. You know I wanted to share a little anecdote that when we were working on the retirement savings program I was speaking in like a church basement you know eating chili with some folks in Essex and you know there are times first woman of color ever to chair a committee you know let alone first woman to chair economic development where I'm thinking like what are we doing that's really popular and you know I brought up the retirement savings plan and this woman came up after you know older white woman I just need to talk about it helping particular groups of people and she said you know when I was young I thought compound interest was something I'd have to pay like I heard interest and I ran the other way and it was only in my 50s as I was like ready for retirement that I truly understood that I had really missed the boat and so I just see these kinds of programs as really unifying as taking everyone who just thinks I never got a leg up I you know the systems rigged against me and just says you know we're going to make sure that you have access to just the same financial education that wealthy people pass on to their children it's no more no less it's not you know some kind of extra it's just universalizing financial tools that we created for these reasons and left huge chunks of the population out in the meantime and sometimes as people know I put color of law by Richard Rothstein on my bookshelf when people come into my committee sometimes government did that to people and it's our fault that we failed people with our policies and it's really our job to right those wrongs no matter who folks are well another big question I wanted to ask you know this program you know if implemented in Vermont or as implemented in Connecticut you know 6.4 million annually in Vermont where Connecticut is set aside hundreds of millions of dollars for the program you know people will start to see the tangible benefits 18 years from now so some would ask well aren't there more pressing problems right now that we should focus on so it's sort of a two-part question how do you address that and then what are the here and now index that you're actually seeing from this program in Connecticut yeah so first I would say it's why I give the treasurer and elected officials who are here today supporting this program so much credit because and folks back in Connecticut who made this happen it takes a lot of political courage to step out in front of a policy or a program that frankly I won't be in office when the ultimate benefit is paid out to those recipients I think for the governor and legislators and folks who got behind that I think it's really important and I think it's a sign of what we need to be doing more of as we think about policy every kid thing can't just be about a budget cycle we can't address long-standing generational issues thinking about them in some narrow kind of tunnel-driven way I think what's important in thinking about this funding is one needing to do something that has a set revenue stream or that kind of lockboxes a sum of money to the program so that is something that goes on kind of in perpetuity or at least is funded for some extended period of time because there is always going to be this effort to kind of pit issues against each other to say well we could be spending this money on this other thing and I think what we need to do is say that we can look at this holistically and understand that we need to prioritize things that we need to do in the short-term we need to make investments in our communities but we also need to make some of these longer-term investments to really change things in a bigger picture way and so I think that is certainly was very effective in Connecticut I think the other piece is just having to be creative about this our program after being passed through the legislature back in 2021 was held up for a couple of years because of funding the program was initially going to be paid for in bonding we were going to bond $50 million a year for 12 years so a total of $600 million for the program the governor was not on board with bonding the program so it was stalled and when I came in the goal was to bring everybody to the table to say let's look at some other creative, innovative ways to fund the program let's keep it open mind let's make sure everyone has a seat at the table in thinking about how we get there and what we were able to do through that collaboration and with looking at different ways to do this we actually were able to fund 12 years of the program upfront by releasing some money that we had in a reserve fund we were able to take $400 million and move it into the baby bonds trust what it did was not only fund the program in full for that 12 year period but because we were putting money in the account upfront we actually cut $200 million off the cost of the program and then probably another $150 million or so of interest cost that we would have paid if we had borrowed to do it so I say that in like it's really thinking about this creatively I think your proposal here is very strong it's taking resources that would not be dedicated to something to a specific policy like this and repurposing it to something that can be really effective and create a transformational program in the state and also is going to do that year over year not just thinking about it in one budget cycle perspective so there's a lot of heroic stories that I think can be written about policy treasurer russell is a hero treasurer wooden is a hero pointing out the fact that this program won't pay out for 18 years it's not politically the most expedient choice that you might make if your goal is strictly your career but the ways in which they transitioned with this and were steadfast in their commitment to make sure that it got passed it took heroic efforts like that and then now I think it's going to be a contagion I'm excited and optimistic that you will pass it here in Vermont it's poised to be passed in Massachusetts but it takes heroic efforts of individuals to get something seated and started so the answer to the question of what about early education what about food stamps what about food insecurity the answer is yes to all of that the answer again is there is no silver bullet policy but all the education in the world is not going to solve the racial wealth gap the typical black family with a college degree often has less wealth than the typical white family who dropped out of high school but that doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in education a good moral society should think of education in and of itself as worthy of an investment but it also means that we need to be focused on redressing the intergenerational structures that generated that racial wealth gap in the first place and then obviously wealth poverty is not the exclusive domain of black people there are a lot of assent poor white people for which these important investments are not going to address so you need it all budgets are moral documents and states are constrained in ways that the federal government isn't so that is a reality but it is going to take commitment to justice and it's also going to take a realization that this truly is an investment I mean and there's plenty of examples that period that we were citing in history that new deal period that great society period we had a lot of growth in America productivity doubled and what's more it was linked to about a 90% rise in real wages over that period so it was almost a one to one ratio of growth with the benefits being spread out again nuance everybody didn't benefit but nonetheless we can reconceive of the ways in which we invest public resources again in people with a purpose of generating a dynamic economy then the last point I'll just make also is we don't have to wait 18 years for the investment to pay off some people emphasize the aspirational aspect for a child imagine if you get your suppose you send out statements showing the child how much is reserved for them with the account so with their 10th birthday they see this account does that change their horizon I don't emphasize that aspect of the program that much you know why because the aspirational part without the resources is almost cruel so you do need the resource part as well it will change the horizon but what's more it changes the relationship between the state and a lot of the people who have poor relationship with the state to begin with part because of history poor people are used to dealing with the state in punitive ways poor people don't vote sometimes because they don't believe it's going to make a difference in their lives so the civic engagement associated with it is again a right thing to do but very well might lead to a better society for us all yeah what that made me think of is just we're coming up on the 16th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act next year and that's 60 years that we can look back and say yes some progress was made at the tip of the sphere but we did not accomplish a lot of what we set out to do a lot of black and brown Americans still feel like they have been written a bad check by the government and we think maybe right now 18 years seems like a long time you can't even pass the budget for more than a year in the federal government but states are where exciting things are happening where we can say to people hey not only are we going to give you a future that you can believe in are we going to invest in you and not tell you that climate change or democracy are going to take out sort of all of your opportunities that we can't even look past the next few years but we're going to do it in a multicultural democracy we're going to do it in a way that really has those unifying principles that we never quite fully engaged with and gone on board with and I can't think of saying it I mean this is a great moment the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act to work on some of that unfinished business of 60 years ago so it's just it's never the wrong time to do the right thing yeah you know it's wonderful I think of like that changing that relationship of government like that old joke that I'm from the government I'm here to help right people sort of laugh at it but it's true in this instance I think it can reframe individuals relationship with the state and hopefully enhance civic engagement as well so a question I wanted to ask maybe it's very specific to Connecticut but Eric and I were up early today on the morning drive at 7.30 and I warned Eric that there could be some tough questions that get called in and just so happened Derek's flight was delayed after he heard that but one of the questions was not a hard question I asked you know we need to set up a new department to administer this like what sort of administrative costs are there what's the administrative burden I think from my perspective one of the reasons I like this program is that don't envision there being a lot of overhead there certainly from my perspective doesn't need to be a new department but I wonder Eric if you can talk a little bit about that like what are the administrative pieces to this program in your office now and then how do you see that developing over time I think particularly right now there are not many administrative costs to administering the program we already collect data around children who are whose birth is covered by Husky which is our state Medicaid program so that information is there these aren't individual trusts that are set up we have a larger baby bond trust that the pool of resources goes into and so the real process doesn't come up until claims are actually coming in at the point that children being born now turn 18 or later at that point we would likely be hiring an administrator much like administrators for unclaimed property process claims like this who can confirm identity and paperwork and that would ultimately say you know if we were going to use these resources or an individual is going to use these resources to go to UConn National Champion UConn Huskys that invoice would come in from UConn and that check would then go out to pay that what we are doing right now and I think we've been able to do all of this internally we probably will use maybe like a directional consultant at some point but we're really looking and this goes back to kind of that engagement over this 18 year window we are looking to develop programs we've partnered with philanthropy and nonprofit organizations bringing stakeholders to the table so that we can build and wrap around services and support and continue to engage with these children and their families throughout these next 18 plus years understanding that engagement with parents around even connecting them with existing resources in the state or existing programs again understanding that a lot of these families haven't had positive experiences with government us bringing something positive to the table that they now have a reason to engage in a more meaningful way can allow us to connect those parents with existing things like workforce development training or financial literacy programming or existing childcare resources that are out there but also partnering with philanthropy to say hey can we add on to this we know this is a vehicle for connecting with some of the most vulnerable folks in our community let's look at saying we can combine our 529 program and see if we have private donors that are going to be willing to contribute to build that asset base for these children and so I think as we flesh some of those things out the goal will be to partner those programs even if we are providing more funding through philanthropy or through other resources but really to beef up existing programs so those are not things that we're necessarily doing in house and maybe Eric I can stay with you to another sort of specific question about the program I think this will apply to Vermont as well but you know as students are getting the baby bonds and they're approaching going to college and they're doing their financial aid analysis or there are certain benefits that their family are getting is there an impact on other benefits from having a baby bond or being eligible for a baby bond and then what are the tax implications also of the child receiving the baby bond at age 18 to 30? Great question and we were very intentional about this and I know that you did the same here in Vermont but that the one this resource that is sitting in the trust is not deemed to be an asset of that child until it is claimed right so at the time that this money is being invested in the trust fund it would not impact that family or child in any way with kind of income or asset thresholds for any programs and we also carved out that the once that these resources are received by a recipient it would not impact them from a tax perspective it wouldn't be considered income on the state level. We have been working and this goes back to 2021 under Treasurer Wooden when the legislation was first passed but with Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut and others to make sure that legislation is passed on the federal level to make sure it would be treated the same I think that was kind of put on hold in part because the program was put on hold so there wasn't an immediate need to address it but that's something we continue to pursue and that I think there would be a strong focus on that point as more states end up moving on programs hopefully more federal delegations engage in that conversation exactly we are working with many other states around the country right now as Dr. Hamilton and really providing that support as folks are interested in building out baby bond programs across the country. So I have a couple of broad questions that I want to ask and then you know just want to give the audience prime that they have questions we'll turn it over to you Dr. Hamilton you talked about this before and I think it's interesting just to build out on a bit from a sort of economic theory perspective you know at the state level there's sort of progressivity built in because Medicaid is the eligibility criteria and even in your initial proposal in the American Opportunities Account Act progressivity is built in so that potentially everybody gets something but then there's income eligibility going forward so why from an economic standpoint is it so important. And you know it turns out that there's a lot of poor babies born in states I became surprised at how many actually become eligible and that's a little sad actually but the answer to the question is without the progressive aspect you ironically could end up making things worse one it could simply inflate asset prices if everybody just got the same across the board and the other part is you would enhance the capacity of people with capital already you would simply be offering top off to those that have it already. Now there's something valuable about making it universal similar to Social Security from a political standpoint as well as a solidarity standpoint you know the extent to which we can create public policies that are not stigmatized the better which is another reason why I like the rights frame so that it's not attached to some status per se but you get a you as a human being get this resource so that you can you know engage but the short answer is you want to avoid some of the asset inflation and also you want to make the effects real and not enhance the capacity in an unfair way for those that already have capacity yeah thank you very much I think that's an important point and Senator Ron Hinsill has been a big advocate of building more housing in Vermont for a similar reason that you know we need to increase that supply to take the inflationary pressure off home prices and rental prices as well so a question I want to ask the whole panel sort of thinking about you know we're talking about generational poverty, rural economic development retention of young people in Vermont but also I think if you even zoom out even further and think more fundamentally like greater and greater income inequality seems to be eroding even the foundation of our democracy it's creating individuals that have no hope that have no perspective to the future that become angry you can say rightfully so because of the state of their condition but I wonder your perspective on you know how economic insecurity and how this you know this dramatic deviation in economic wealth has impacted the state of our democracy, how baby bonds sort of works to try to address that and what other programs might be needed to sufficiently answer that question this might be a bridge from the last question to this question I'm thinking about when Katie said it's a simple bill I was like oh no you can't say that in the legislature we see that as a compliment absolutely just to be a little bit of a legislative nerd for a second I can't speak for the House but in the Senate you know we're really frustrated with programs that cost more to administer than the benefit that gets to people we try this with COVID relief unemployment is having lots of problems right now we're spending so much money to determine who's worthy of support and it's just getting really frustrating so you know of course I mean you want some eligibility as Dr. Hamilton pointed out but the simpler you can make it and the less you make people feel like they're growing up with government saying you're going to do the wrong thing you're already you know bad at making decisions when you are poor and being poor is stressful and being poor doesn't let you think about your future you know it's just changing the entire paradigm of like we're going to give you something that you deserve that you are going to do good things with and break cycles that you have been wanting to break and that's a really different message than we give people coming out of government you're cheating the system you know and you have to fill out 10 more forms you have to come take time off of work to be here and prove that you're worthy I'm sick of those programs and I think that sentiment is shared by a lot of legislators who feel like we're throwing money into a pit of fire saying like we have to have this huge administrative apparatus to just give people worthy of government help I'll answer the question with first some stylized facts and then across race inequality grows often at higher levels of education so the difference between a black person with a high school degree and a white person with a high school degree is often not as pronounced as that of a black person with a college degree white person with a college degree and what's more that relationship becomes more pronounced in economic downturns so why am I giving you that stylized facts economic inequality political polarization feeds racism feeds sexism it feeds some of these isms in our society that make us vulnerable broadly and also trend us away from justice so the ability to offer politically dominant groups economic status relative status compared to another group becomes more pronounced in economic downturns becomes more pronounced when there's more economic insecurity so really policies like baby bonds in general are not sufficient but necessary with growing economic inequality and we can look across societies and across times this is not unique to the United States you will find and I want to use a bad word greater societal vulnerability to straight up fascism so again I think if we want a better society good public policies get invest in inclusive ways become a necessary ingredient I would just say I think a lot of times when we talk about poverty we talk about income inequality that we talk about poor folks as if people are choosing to be poor or if people want to be poor or this narrative about people not wanting to work and the reality is that in so many ways and I think in a growing way the system is just set up to fail people and it's why we've seen so much separation it's why we've seen the wealth gap continue to grow with assets and wealth get exponentially wealthier while the or the pool of people at the bottom struggles more and more and the reality is that we need to start shifting this conversation and thinking about creating policy and tools that allow people to lift themselves up and change that dynamic I think the reality is that it's just not sustainable you have so many people who are just more and more disengaged from the process more distrusting of government and of just the political process more generally and I think it's why we've seen just this huge divide it's why the political landscape has gotten so ugly and so divisive and so I think as we are having these conversations and looking at policy we need to just be intentional about creating opportunities for people to lift themselves up in a meaningful way to create an economy that is more sustainable for everyone rather than just a few yeah no thank you all for your answers to that that's great so this opportunity I want to open it up to the audience for any questions that folks might have if you have a question raise your hand just say where you are yell it out I'll repeat it into the microphone so folks online can hear it Lawrence I'm curious about the geographic constraints naturally as a state program so there's going to be some geofencing but we see kids when they're minors or as parents they might show up on a Vermont tax return in even number of years in the New Hampshire tax return in odd number of years and then later in life you mentioned trade reversal kids attracting people young people back to Connecticut and we find the benefit from going out of state sometimes do Connecticut and coming back just one of the mechanics is that regardless of their location once they're deemed eligible at birth and then the claims process kicks in just how do you make sure that works so the question just for those online was really around geography particularly in a state like Vermont where we're close to our neighboring states in Connecticut how does it work mechanically when someone born in the state might move away what does it mean when they're at 18 years old maybe Eric can answer that question sure happy to start so the thought is yes there would be flat funding and the only eligibility requirement in Connecticut is that the individual's birth is covered by the state's Medicaid program again that was intentional because the thought here is that if you have somebody who was born in Tupavri in Connecticut and at seven years old their parents pick up and move to Vermont that child should not be detached from that opportunity I think the other piece in thinking about the economic opportunity for Connecticut is we want that individual to come back to Connecticut when they're 21 years old and they're starting a career and starting a family and so I think there's kind of benefits to that on both sides I think it's also important to note that we did not want the program to be something that people had to opt into and so what the Medicaid kind of requirement does is again understanding that a lot of the folks that we are talking about are not going to necessarily be aware of all of these programs they're not necessarily going to trust engagement around that program and so creating that automatic enrollment process really allows us to hit so many of the people who are most they need and just one detail in like a place like Vermont right where you are in the upper valley and maybe you live in the Vermont side but you're born at Dr. Hitchcock and you'll be born with your dinosaur who has the payment so that would cover you there thanks Lawrence yes Scott I mean this may be for Treasure Russell in terms of your thinking but the power of this program amounts to a promise about a promise that's being fulfilled in 18 years and as these funds grow I'm curious as to how you thought about how you safeguarded the funds against the possibility that a future group of legislators or will have different priorities with a pool of funds that are now that's a great question and it was something we spent a lot of time thinking about the way we've set this up in Connecticut is that there is a baby bonds trust and that trust is safeguarded and so the legislature would not be able to go back to the pool and kind of raid this trust at any point it is also helpful and this was I think one of the best benefits in addition to the savings from funding this with cash reserves rather than bonding it is that we were able to take that pool of money and put it in the trust for 12 years of funding and we don't have to go back to the legislature or the governor at any point and because we were going to need to ultimately get these bonds authorized on an annual basis the way we have this program funded now is it won't require us to go back and so we're not kind of at the whim of the legislature changing or a new governor that maybe didn't agree with the program I think it's one of the important pieces about tying this to a set revenue stream because I think it is a lot harder when you make this commitment and you have a dedicated funding source to go back and try to pull the rug out from under kids but you know I think in keeping those things in mind I think the trust is the most important piece in making sure that it's essentially lock boxed for that purpose I would just also maybe add and say you know I think it's probably important Eric to like continually reaffirm the value of the program to your constituencies in Connecticut legislators, stakeholders so it's not the program that's past and then it's sort of a passive thing until you know age 18 I totally agree and I think that's part of our wanting to continue to be engaged with kids throughout this process looking at these partnerships with stakeholders and philanthropy and kind of continuing that engagement it is challenging right because you do have this really long runway before the ultimate benefit is paid out I also think that's a huge opportunity to interact with kids and families in a way that we haven't been able to previously the other piece of that kind of philanthropic collaboration is around data and research right we want to make sure particularly being the first state in the country to pass this legislation and to implement it is to make sure that we're going to have things data to rely on in the future to show if there's a changes in behavior and engagement from these kids and families that are benefitting from the Baby Bonds program right if some of these other additional wraparound supports are having a benefit on kids built into the program so that we can make sure we have the backing for continued support of Baby Bonds moving forward and for the implementation of the program in other states around the country a quick shameless plug is we need a political movement to ensure that the program and the accounts can be secure so why not work on demonstrations now I get in trouble for saying this there's nothing magical about babies we can start with I'll be in touch with you I hope you're listening your mom's but seriously obviously I was being tongue-in-cheek but we need to build a political momentum now so through demonstrations and showing the affects so where philanthropy can help is yielding a big bold demonstration at this point across geographies across various groups so that this program has political viability and is invulnerable I'm short I got to stand up I'm Shabnam Nolan I'm the executive director of an organization here in Burlington called King Street Center and we're a youth development organization serving children from 18 months up through 18 years and increasingly beyond that and we really focus in on surveying our most marginalized communities our low income communities and you talked a lot about the trust or distrust that government and low income families have you know with government and I'm curious what strategies Connecticut employed or you know Dr. Hamilton what strategies you would recommend in terms of the connecting with nonprofit organizations who are in fact the trusted places for these families you know we see families come for decades to the center so what would you suggest for how Vermont can engage now with development and implementation so how did you seek and gain input from the communities who are most impacted by this as you were developing the policy and then how do you intend to continue to do that partnership that's a great question so part of in terms of building the political will for the program we were very intentional about partnering with community organizations want to get buy in from those organizations so that they could lobby and push for this legislation that they understood the program right and the benefit but also to make sure that we were actually hearing from folks who would benefit from the program right not developing this policy or thinking about implementation kind of in a silo and so that was really important we are continued that work because I think what we need to do now one big piece of this is making sure that everyone who is actually eligible and can benefit from the program is notified of the program and how it works right if we're going to track changes in behavior and you know throughout these 18 years folks need to know that that resource is there for them and how it actually works and so we've continued that engagement one in getting ideas on how these collaborations with philanthropy and nonprofits can kind of we can build out these additional wraparound services that will actually benefit recipients and families but two to make sure that they are voices for us in spreading the word about the program and how it works and how people can benefit from it and so we did a lot of programming through the campaign in collaboration going into the community with these organizations being the validators for us right and then we will continue to do that as we do outreach to families to notify them of the program when the story gets written about Connecticut there's going to be so many gyms and jewels in there the nonprofit community was very much involved in making sure it got passed when it was vulnerable so they I think Connecticut they've been along throughout the journey and you know there was such a heavy lift to get it funded that we'll even see some more the fruits I suspect of the collaborations and what the wraparounds will come about going forward. I'm Dan Tull I'm the head of a process improvement consulting practice focused on ending homelessness and dramatically improving the lives of people like myself with major mental health issues first of all I want to thank you Mike and Yukisha for organizing this and expanding political capital on this very exciting initiative as someone who's a finance and investment person by trade the intersection of finance and investment and social change just really gets me excited and thank you too Dr. Hamilton and Treasurer Russell for traveling all this way to share your perspective, your expertise I've discovered the Vermont way is first name so you've got to give it to this doctor you're from out of state so I was trying to get to the point I'm actually from Connecticut I moved here from Connecticut so I won't hold that against you the thing I was thinking about this is my real first exposure to this initiative but this idea of the 18 year time horizon you know we in America are so focused on the here and now and corporations it's the quarter to quarter have you explored ideas of making interim payments like for example halfway to 18 when they turn 9 just back of the envelope you said about 11.5 at 11,518 is about at 9 7,000 taking like 10% of that and paying it out and exclusively used for education or training so they could put it in like a 529 savings account so that would get that money into the hands of the people we want to have it using it sooner but also sort of bring back that time horizon for 18 years which for most of us in this country that's like 12 lifetimes well that's a great question I'll take two parts and then I'll turn it over to the panel I think one of the reasons I like this program so much and our other legislative initiative was so supportive of last year Vermont saves it's a publicly administered retirement program both of those programs in the long term are going to have big benefits to the individuals, to their communities for the state's budget it'll make people less dependent on state resources it'll give them more financial security to benefit our economy and their long term horizon programs and like Eric said and you said the next political campaign in Vermont is every two years the next quarter is within the next couple of months we're so focused on the short term that I think we lose sight of that long term trajectory of where are we heading and how to set our sights on it and get there so just from a fundamental basis you know, longer term one thing we also thought about in the Vermont bill we have a study in the bill that would have us look at how can we invest some of the money that will be set aside into the Vermont economy in the here and now so for example could some portion of the funds be used to support housing development in Vermont addressing one of our other critical issues that we're facing so it might not be a direct benefit to the individual account holders but it might not be a direct benefit to society by putting more capital into things that are a real challenge right now in our state so that's one way that we're thinking about trying to make more impactful investments here and now as those returns grow over time but I know Eric and Derek can sit around me and so probably have thoughts too right so the political dimension is real you know, I think of history and social security and President Roosevelt you know social security is set up as a trust you pay in when you're working you receive when you retire but the funds went out as soon as the legislation was passed so they had that capacity because they were the federal government states need time to build up the funds so that they'll be a size big enough to have a meaning to be a capital foundation that's a reality but the point you make is that from my standpoint is that we do need political momentum around this so it needs to be coupled with demonstrations and then also we set the program up if we believe it's going to be a set it up for failure if we believe it's going to solve all our problems it won't it has a specific aspect that it's aimed at addressing and if we expect it to do more than that it's going to fail you need those other supports as well so you know again this last thing you know this is we need movement we need a social movement and Vermont leads we can name states that lead in this area you all as a state have had a long history of doing innovative things outside the box thinking in ways that help build the movement and then you know I love that this is not isolated to Vermont that you have two treasures from two different states that are working together in movement building local level, state level and federal level that's the way I guess I would think of this I would agree I would just think that there's you know I'm thinking about two separate real goals there right and I think to Derek's point this is one piece to the puzzle and we need to continue to look at other ways to lift people up and provide those supports in a host of different areas but I think this program is really intentionally focused on building with the goal of building wealth so having those longer term assets that are going to be able to appreciate and I think once you start divvying those things up or you make the pool of money or kind of focus of that too small that you doesn't have the same impact I think the other piece is again making sure that we are protecting and insulating individuals benefiting from the program from either exploitation in thinking about you know these payday loans and things or being able to use resources and being taken advantage of in that way or the desire and a lot of times necessity in supporting family or others in that immediate kind of challenge of living in poverty the only thing I would add is just it as much as I think we're forward thinking and very progressive in Vermont none of us are immune to the zero some game thinking of well we have a real big emergency and we can use some of this money now to help families and that kind of lets us off the hook to help them in other ways that we should be helping them with our budget so you know I just I can't see us just doing that out of the goodness of our own hearts and solving a lot of those problems of poverty and desperation without looking at our larger general fund and being more courageous there so I would just worry about drawing it down before and just a nine-year-old you know like that's where the legislature can be paternalistic I don't know to a fault but you know we really look at brain development we really want to talk about you know age of decision making a majority and sometimes my colleagues push maybe too far than I like I said young person but you know we really look at trying to make sure we set young people up for success and not say oh we gave you some of this when you were nine I thought this would be to go to the guardian and I was thinking more along the lines of five to ten percent yeah just a small it would be about seven hundred dollars right I think they oh yeah do you mind if I just say something way we want to be professionals of color network I think something that dr. Hamilton had addressed earlier I think is that we're giving children the choice of what they want to do with the money and that is very important around the agency idea right making sure that they are angered in this community that this community wants to support them and it's not about the parents it's about the child and that's really what the focus is on is that future generation and making sure that they have the choice to build a home to go to school to to do whatever to build a business in this in the state I would just you know I speak for no one but as as a child who grew up poor in certain context like one of the privileges you you you lose is just being a kid you're cashing your parents checks you're you know taking care of them you're you're making money for your parents and you never get to say like I have something for me that set aside and so I talk about baby bonds but we're talking about like so much more you know that this is it's really just belief in kids in their future and investing in their agency at the right time and not you know making them become adults too soon and lose that capacity to dream a lot of 14 years with phone bills and light bills and I think Dan I think the broader point is like yes we got to figure out ways to like make this meaningful along that back to 18 right and we have to give an open mind to what that will mean yeah yeah Peter so thinking about the outreach around the program but also the other thing that you know folks need to make to build welfare is financial literacy I know there's a financial literacy component to this program this proposal he talked a little bit more about that yes just for the folks on the phone the questions around financial literacy and how that's incorporated into this program all maybe just start with a broad perspective and turn it over to Eric you know I one of the other reasons why I like Vermont Saves and I like this program is because I view it as like interactive financial literacy like it's not just showing up and getting a lesson on what does it mean to buy a house it was a mean to save retirement it's a program that's then facilitates you to do those things right so it's like here and now which I think makes it much more actionable and much more meaningful so I think financial literacy is a key thing that we have to focus on in Vermont we've been holding behind the curve in terms of our scoring across other states but when we can create these programs that are interactive I think we'll get much more bang for our buck from trying to ingrain these lessons into individuals thought processes sure so we do have a financial literacy requirement as part of the program as well before individuals access resources I mean I think some of the specifics of that are going to be ironed out as we still have many years to put that together but I think what's important to note with this right is that even when we talk about financial literacy and financial education we often talk about it from a perspective of people not knowing how to manage money or not having any financial knowledge when the reality is that without resources it doesn't matter right and so to try to have someone focus on financial literacy with their lack of resources is cruel in many ways right the goal here will obviously be for individuals to be able to develop those skills that they would need to use these resources well but I think we also don't want this to be prohibitive in a way that's preventing people from accessing the resources another thing that we just recently did in Connecticut is we actually passed a requirement for financial education before graduation and so some of this is going to be built in for students through that process as well we will have some additional courses I think I'd love the idea of depending on what an individual wanted to use those resources for having there be some specific curriculum around that purpose being fleshed out right now yes I'm going to the center for women to enterprise and I'm like out of my mind at this prospect and what you have here we see hundreds of women come to us each year we're looking to start and grow their businesses and usually the amounts they're looking for are five ten twenty five thousand dollars and the ability to assess that capital affordably and relevantly right like that it's going to work for the business owner is very very difficult and what this is promising is really exciting so Dr. Hamilton you had mentioned a little bit about that multiplier effect and I assume that you've seen done some modeling around what were some of the ancillary partnerships for example okay we know that you're going to start a business with these funds the local community loan fund for example might might offer zero cost loans or something like that right just for recipients of this have you seen any kind of proliferation of additional partnership programs I mean that's a great question so I've seen the modeling on individual levels as it relates to the racial wealth gap and Naomi Zudi has a great study in the review of black political economy that looks at it at the federal level at a higher seat the answer to the dynamic macro effects I turned the history a little bit so the evidence to me is a little anecdotal when I look at periods of history when we've invested public resources in these ways what were some of the outcomes but you know I think we could even look and this hasn't been written yet or fully analyzed yet but our recent economic downturn in the pandemic which was a lot of pain a lot of horror a lot of people suffered from I guess we can call this a short term inflation in a historical sense but it was real pain and suffering but this was the shortest recession at least in my lifetime that I'm aware of I think on record and then if we look at the recovery from this recession we didn't have the long the longer drawn out recession that we had from the great recession and I think government interventions in this time around were done in ways not so different than some of the things that we're talking about today there was direct stimulus sent to the American people from the IRS with those checks that went out it was we had a moratorium on foreclosures moratorium on evictions we almost had essentially guaranteed healthcare as we dealt with the pandemic so I didn't give you a direct answer I gave you some anecdotes from history but if one were to do a deeper analysis I really believe one will uncover that this form of government intervention not only directly benefits the targeted recipients but very well leads to more efficient multipliers in a way to promote shared prosperity so we're running short on time maybe we'll have one more question here from Bill in the back first of all all of you treasurers and economists and your daughter brother and mother don't think about what she was trying to say well here I'm sure eventually but it was pretty clear I can't get the metaphor I'm not sure what you're trying to get on the beach and then you fight your money in one or you just get the flag up the pole and everything will salute it's just cleaner from just the energy of your comments than many others but the excitement will will be the dividend between now and 18 years or maybe even be 10 as suggested in what you call wraparound I mean as that unfolds I wouldn't be surprised if the congress said you know let's 529 this or somehow I mean I ran out of kids and grandchildren for my 529 but you know how can we help you know I think different generous folks in this community and for my as well as some of them will find ways to bang on your door to get this train on the road to service open whatever so thank you very much I'll take that as a comment a great closing comment so before we thank our esteemed panelists I do want to thank the legislators that are in the room I want to recognize Dan Noyes representative Noyes who is the lead bill sponsor on the house side yes representatives who are watching or here in person if they want to learn more about the bill or thinking about being a co-sponsor I suggest they reach out to Dan for those that are in the senate senator rumhinsdale is our lead bill sponsor in the senate so I encourage you similarly to reach out to the senate I'm going to take a mini committee session I also want to call the action I want to recognize David Cunin who is our outreach and communications director helping with the event on but also organizations in the room are interested in writing an op-ed interested in testifying interested in writing their legislators reach out to myself or to David will help coordinate that activity in the new year to make sure we're coordinated and organized I also just want to generally thank the treasurer staff who's here who helped us move this program along and helped us close out a strong 2023 also so thank you very much to our panelists thank you for being here really appreciate it look forward to what we can accomplish in 2024 thank you