Rethinking America’s Social Welfare Programs: Clarence Carter on Empowering the Vulnerable and Curbing Fraud

[MUSIC] From your nation's capital, Washington, D.C., I'm Deep Gahez, your host for We Are the Government, a new podcast to celebrate our federal workers and illuminate their success in building our republic over the past 250 years. Thank you for your support and subscribing to the show. We are the government as a collection of short stories from federal employees, political appointees, but also career civil servants who were still in the government, who have left of their own volition, or otherwise. This is a digital capsule for the 250th anniversary of the United States of America. In March 2026, Vice President J.D. Vance became chairman of a new anti-fraud task force. In less than three months, his team has already revealed thousands of thieves that have been stealing billions of dollars from the most vulnerable Americans who rely on social welfare. Our next guest thinks this will be Vice President Vance's legacy, and he would know, Clarence Carter is one of the country's most sought-after experts on social welfare and its reform. He is currently Commissioner of Tennessee's Department of Human Services, a cabinet position under Governor Bill Lee. He is administered and reformed social programs for two U.S. presidents, George W. Bush and President Trump. He has also worked for governors in Virginia and Arizona, and he was invited to join the Democratic administration of DC Mayor Adrian Fenty. Commissioner Carter, welcome to the show. Good morning, dear Pat. I'm pleasure to be here with you and your audience this morning. Well, some people search for meaningful work their entire lives, but you discovered it early and have pursued it for more than four decades. You've protected the most vulnerable Americans, the elderly and the impoverished. You have managed billion dollar programs that deploy resources, strengthening the American Safety Net of Social Programs is Mission 1. But it's where you deviate and how to strengthen that safety net that has brought you so much success and notoriety across America. Can you talk about what is wrong with social programs today and what would make them more successful, make the most vulnerable Americans more secure? Our current public safety net, it is an aggregation of single-purpose programs that actually evolved over time without plan for intention. The objective of the safety net was never set forth, and so it evolved due to political events over the course of time. And because it's many single-purpose programs, each impending to address a singular aspect of human vulnerability, again with no plan, then you have a system and quite frankly an aggregation of single-purpose programs. So my argument is, when you set out to do anything, you have to begin with the end in mind. And we haven't done that in the design and development of our safety net. So that is my argument. We have to first have a shared vision, what is our intention, and then we can go back and re-architect the system based on that shared intention. And I know we'll get into some of these details, but your posture on the social safety net is rooted in your upbringing. But it's only been reinforced by your work in the field over decades. Can you tell the listeners how you grew up, how you've lived, and how that's influenced your position on how to manage social programs for the most vulnerable Americans? So I come from what I believe is a more middle class African-American family. We were from my perspective pretty normal. Politics was never an important part of our upbringing. And we had our economic struggles as anybody else did, but had everything we needed. We were loved and clothe and fad and our roof over our head. But if I could, I want to share a story, and this is from the beginning of the book that I wrote on this, our net has holes in it. And it's a story about the circus. When I was eight years old, my mother took my brothers and I to the Rangling Brothers in Barnum and Bailey Cirque. And we were absolutely fascinated by everything going on in the three rings of the circus. You know, you have the animals doing tricks and you have the jugglers and the you know, and the guy on stilts and the clowns and that was all fascinating and very colorful. Later in the performance, the lights directed you to the top of the arena. And you see up there, people that almost looked like the size of ants. And they were walking across a very thin wire and swinging on the trapeze. And I was really excited, but I was frightened. And I said to my mom, I said, "Mom, what would happen if somebody would fall?" And she redirected my sight that line down some and she said, "Son, that thing you see there is called a safety net." And it's there in case one of the performers would fall, it would help them not hurt themselves. And literally, almost as if on cue, one of the performers fell off the tightrope, bounced into the safety net several times, stedied himself, went back over to a ladder and climbed back into the performance. Little did I realize that eight years of age that I had seen my future. But I go into say, "What would happen if that net had holes in it when it didn't break the fall of the performer?" And that is my testimony for the problem with our current safety net. It has many holes in it. And those holes enable the performers of life to fall through those holes. And so I argue for a transformative effort to re-stitch that safety net. That is fascinating. I haven't been to the circus very much. And I don't even know if we're allowed to have circuses anymore, but I've never actually seen anyone fall from the tightrope. So that in and of itself is a unique experience for you. Yes. Now before we jump into, and I want to we'll get into your book later in the program, it is a bestseller. And so I do remember that story, and I found that fascinating, that that would be your jumping off point. So before we jump into how you shape national policy in Washington, I'd like to talk a bit about your current role. You are in Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee's cabinet, as the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services. You've been in that role since January to 2021 when President Biden took office. But it's worth noting that since you took the helm, Tennessee has been identified as one of the most well-managed social welfare states in the Union. How have your efforts to reform social programs in the state been affected by the change from President Biden to now President Trump? In going to Tennessee, I inherited a most efficient and effectively run state and human services agency. I have been absolutely blessed to be surrounded with some of the highest performing professionals who are really dedicated to an agency that serves 2 million vulnerable Tennesseans every year. What I have been able to add to that is this vision of transforming the safety net so that we are intentional, not just about the administration of programs, but literally about how do those programs help to lift individuals beyond the vulnerability that has them need those supports in the first place. What we've done is we have aggressively worked to build the intention in the system that I spoke about just a few minutes ago that we begin with an end in mind. Okay, I love that you mentioned that because you and I talked about this before and that is looking at these programs holistically. Now we can talk about statistics and investment which we will do as well as some of the anecdotes in your book, but these are real people. Are you out in the community? Do you actually get to know some of these people that are the beneficiaries of some of these programs, I mean, how deeply do you work or have you worked with some of these individuals? Having done this work in the administration of the Tifhthima Public Supports at the federal, state, and local levels of government, the reason that I prefer the state and local level is because this is where the work gets done and you actually have the opportunity to touch the consumer. And so you can see where the work is actually touching people and either helping or harming them. So, yes, I'm very intentional about ensuring that what we are doing is impactful for those that we serve. So this is not a sit behind the desk job. This is really very much a getting out and understanding and touching the consumers that we're on privilege to serve. Well, let's talk about that. Do you have any anecdotes where you sat down with someone or knew of a case where someone was receiving a particular payout of some kind and it was far too long in your view or without any regard to the other elements in their life that have put them in that situation. I mean, you and I talked about the 360 review. I do. And now this was not in Tennessee. This was actually when I held this position in Virginia. We did a welfare reform initiative where we wanted to shift the system, we piloted shifting the system from being an open-ended entitlement to one in which able-bodied individuals were required to work for receive of benefit. So we implemented this program and a year later, year and a half later, I said to my team, I want to now go out and see first hand whether or not what we are doing is working. And I said, I want to talk to real participants and I don't want anything scripted. I want to hear from them how things were going. And one in one particular instance was introduced to this woman, a little named Barbara. And I said, Barbara, you know, what I'd like to know from you today is you've been on the program for a while. Can you tell me the good bandany ugly? And I'm asking you, please don't feel like there's any particular answer I'm looking for. I just need to know how this has impacted your life. And she said to me, she said, Commissioner Carter, when my case worker told me I was going to have to go to work to keep on getting my welfare, I was so frightened. She said I was in the fetal position for a couple of weeks, because I had not worked in 14 years since the birth of my first child. Oh wow. And I didn't know that I could get a job or or sustain my family and my children. And so I literally was traumatized for months. And I thought about moving to another part of the state where the unemployment rate was such that we wouldn't put the work requirement in place because that was the design of the program. If the unemployment rate were such, then you wouldn't have the work requirement there. But I dragged my feet and I didn't do that. And finally the day came when my case worker said, okay, now we got to go and find a job. And so they helped me. They helped me to find a job. For this woman. For this woman, yes, they, my case worker helped me to find a job. Were you a governor, James Gilmore of Virginia at the time, or Governor George Allen? This was Governor George Allen's initiative. And so she said, what's the core of the, what I did with my first paycheck? And I said no, Barbara, I know. She said, took my children off her pizza. She started to cry. Her change for her started to cry. And I started to cry. And she said, you know, I thought I was going to, I didn't know how this was going to happen. But when they said I had to go to work, I said, well, all my children are going to be taken care of. And they said, well, we have to provide you child care assistance in order for you to be able to have your children in a healthy and safe and developmentally appropriate environment while you work. And she said, oh, and then I said, well, you know, I got a meetup card that barely runs. And she said, well, we will help you to get that car up and running. And those things happened. She got the job. And she said, it took my children out for pizza. And everybody started to cry. And she said, and she said, I know now that I will never be on welfare again. Because I didn't think that I could do it. But I now know I can do it for myself and my children. And the bell is the kind of freedom that it is my prayer for everybody that we serve. That moment that the light come on, it says, absolutely, yes, you can. You are worthy of this. And our supports need to help create the pathway to that moment in which that yes, I can light comes on. And there are many barbers that you have helped over the past four decades or so, that you've been doing this type of work. Certainly, the math works where she could collect welfare. And then take care of her children. But this having a job in power to her increases herself a steam. But it also helps her build wealth. And that means economic development for the state of Virginia. So it's sort of a good for everyone, right? It is absolutely a win win when when we take this focus of helping to do what I call growing capacity to reduce dependency. It is very much a win win. Deepka, almost everybody of everybody that I've met, almost all of them don't want to be in the circumstance where they have to ask someone else, can you help me put food on my child's date? The challenge is they feel like they don't know how to do that. And so it comes our societal obligation to help them do that in a way that again, they can do that on their own. Right. And her kids were they were they not going to school at the time? The kids were going to school at the time because again, she was home, she would be home. Oh, okay. Because remember, she was receiving her benefit. And so yes, the kids were were pretty socialized. They were going to school regular. Her argument was, if I'm not here, who's going to take care of my children? It's a fair point. That's a very fair point. But again, the design of the program is if we can't provide you the supports that take care of your children, we then can't ask you to work. And so this was very much a not not a if you would just pull yourself up by your bootstrap. It is we're going to walk along side sheet and provide, create the enabling conditions for you to grow beyond this moment. That is what our safety net ought to be. I love it. Enable. Empower. That's right. Yes. Now, you know, that was one program, one state, one anecdote, but there are 114 national social programs that comprise the net you speak of. But in the United States and you told me this, we spend $1.5 trillion each year on that alone. And that's most of the US budget. Can you parse out for our listeners what's under the federal purview versus state when it comes to social welfare programs. So the way it's set up. The UK is that the federal government, it makes the laws and it authorizes the funding for the programs. So as you mentioned, there are 114 federally authorized programs that were designed specifically to address the economically social and developmentally vulnerable in our society. Those 114 programs are administered by 31 different committees of Congress. And then they are then moved through 12 separate agencies of the federal government. And then it goes down to the states to administer. Now what is interesting about that $1.5 trillion is that that doesn't count one dollar of what the states have to put in to administer the program. There is a cost share that the states must put in to actually administer the vast majority of those programs. Wait, so it's a cost share of dollar per dollar or a difference? No, not dollar per dollar, some 8% each. So for instance, let me take the federal snap or what folks know is the food stamp program. There has been up until next year a 50% cost share from the federal government and the state government to administer the program. So the $1.5 trillion, okay, it doesn't help the what Tennessee has to put up to actually administer the program. And my point of that is that the 1.5 trillion is of all, it's just the federal share. But the states put in what the localities put in and what every sector of the rest of our society put in, the communities of faith, the private sector, philanthropy on and on, none of those dollars are counting. And so that 1.5 trillion isn't a true measure of our benevolence here. It's just the federal share. And I really enjoyed your book and I can't wait to dive into some questions about that book. It's a best seller already and I can see why it's a best seller. So, well, let's jump in, jump into your federal work. Okay, so beyond Tennessee, you reform programs in Virginia and Arizona. But that work proved to be a springboard into your federal service. You caught the attention of President George W. Bush, who invited you to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services as an expert on social welfare programs. You were with him for two terms. You led the administration for children and families. I'm sure there were many roles throughout the eight years that you can tell us about. But I wanted to just sort of dive into how you ended up in the George W. Bush administration. So first of all, I was a political appointee in the administration of children and families, which is one of the operating divisions of the US Department of Health and Human Services. And how that happened was my mentor and dear friend, Oman named Kay Cole's James was the secretary for Health and Human Services for Governor George Allen in Virginia. So I ran the Department of Social Services, which was one of the agencies in the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And so Secretary James was asked by President Bush to be his director of the Office of Personnel Management. And so it was through that relationship that I got the opportunity. And I was asked, what would you like to do in the Bush administration? And I said, I wanted to be in the place where we administered the poverty programs because I wanted to help reform those programs. And so that's how I got to the federal government. My friend and mentor was the director of the Office of Personnel Management. Presented my name to the president and that's how I was appointed to the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. When you went into the Bush administration that, the scaffolding for Republican President Bush's social welfare policy was Democratic president Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform law. President Clinton focused on personal responsibility, not handing out money or benefits. He was dogged about curbing welfare instead of wanting Americans to, I mean, he wanted Americans to learn to fish, not just take handouts indefinitely. Did President Bush's policy mirror the Clinton doctrine? So two things. One, a direct answer and then a bit of a pivot there. So unfortunately, President Bush's tenure would absolutely have moved those ideas forward. But in many ways, his presidency was hijacked by 9/11. And he was very much forced to be a wartime president. And so these other kinds of initiatives really took back bench to that major part of what ended up being his administration. But I would tell you, was my objective in administering the agency that oversaw some of these programs of the great society because we were going into the 40th year of the great society. I thought that it would be bidding to honor the past and then set out a new vision for the next 40 years. And so we were working on trying to develop that. But as I said again, events were overtaken and we were not able to do that most ambitious I'm reframing if you would. But an important part of this deepka is that the Clinton welfare reform, which was absolutely the right direction for our country, it was the largest welfare program at the time, the eight of families with dependent children. Remember I said a few minutes ago, there are 114 public safety net programs. And that initiative didn't touch any of those. And so what it's my argument is that we have to take that vision for the risks of the safety net. It has to, it can't just be the program that serves families with dependent children. It has to serve all dimensions of vulnerability. Whether or not that be an individual or a family in poverty or someone coming out of incarceration or someone struggling with addiction or mental health challenges or disability or on and on and on, we have all dimensions of vulnerability. And we have to have this comprehensive vision of when we find a neighbor in a vulnerable circumstance, no matter what the dimension of that be, we have this enabling support system that is intentional about growing their capacity to reduce their dependency on those public supports. There is so much that you couldn't do during the Bush administration because of 9/11 you aptly noted. Can you talk about what you couldn't do, what you wish you could have done? And then also what you were able to do, you certainly were successful. So what I wish I could have done is what I shared a minute ago is that really framing. In other words, a comprehensive initiative that said, okay, we are on at the end of the at the 40th anniversary. of President Johnson War on Poverty. And we have learned an awful lot, okay? We have these new tools. And so let's take our learning of this past 48, celebrate what we did. But then let's also learn what we didn't do. And reframe the next 40 years of a safety net that's dedicated to growing capacity to reduce dependency. Now, so we weren't able to do that, but here's what we were able to do. We were able to begin the process of framing out the discussion that we are having today. Well, this really began my learning art for what are all of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the broader safety net. And so for me, where we are today is literally that art of time in which I've had the opportunity to learn this from the inside and to be able to share this vision of what's right and what's wrong and how we make what's wrong, right? That's what we were able to do in that first term of the Bush 43 administration. It seems very difficult to argue with your posture that is to empower and not to enable to give people a sense of dignity, which is to work and to provide for themselves, for their family, if they have one. It seems like it's hard to argue with that, but you do get a lot of pushback from various corners in the political sphere. Well, even what I have found is interesting. Is, first of all, I've had the blessing and good fortune of doing this work on both the right and left side to the aisle. And I have not, what I frame the argument, the way that we're having this discussion today, I'll get very little pushback. In fact, I get more of what we're doing. It's a no, it's not what we're doing. It might be our intention, but it is not what we're doing. And let me show you how this isn't what we're doing. So I have not had a great deal of pushback from either left or right, when the focus is on, how do we build the capacity of our vulnerable neighbors? Now, it becomes very different when you start this discussion from a political perspective, whether that be left or right. In our very contentious political environment of today, you lose half the audience when you begin the discussion politically. But I always begin the discussion with, it is our societal intention to help the vulnerable amongst us. I say that I believe America to be the most benevolent and generous nation known to human kind. And I showcase that point. You know, this country would give someone the shirt off its back. - And has. - And so that's exactly right. And so it is our intention to help. Okay, well, let's dive into some of these programs. So before I do, I want our listeners to know, you also served at Health and Human Services during President Trump's first term. That was 2017 to 2021. Was there a massive deviation from the policies of the George Bush administration on social welfare policy when you were working for President Trump during his first term? - There was not a massive departure. Remember, we did not get much of an opportunity to move this work forward in Bush, other than the framing of it. The Trump administration actually began moving in this direction. - Oh, okay. - My challenge was the overarching chaos attended to the whole administration. It made moving the ball here challenging. But it began to lay out to move in the direction that we are talking about today. - So President Trump certainly wants to do a reframe. But when you described the chaos of the first administration, I imagine you're talking about the fact that, by most accounts, he didn't expect to win the election. And he had to assemble his cabinet and his appointees quickly. There was pushback in Congress approving some of these political appointees. And he was fresh. He was not a Washington insider. So there was a learning curve there, isn't that right? - Correct. That's absolutely correct. That resonated throughout his entire first term. But I would say that, again, I think we were able to, at least strengthen the framework during that first term. And so literally, there was 20 years between, but between that first term of Bush and then that first term of Trump. And so I learned an immense amount during that time as I served in other administration and other parts of the safety net. And so literally what was able to sort of bring that full framework, again, with exactly the things that it should just laid out. And we were not able to move as far as I would have liked in that first term of Trump. And so, with the opportunity to then come to tennis we're actually able to begin to put some of those things in place that we literally have been building over a 20, 25 year period. - Strengthening the framework is one piece of what you're trying to do. But the sheer number of social programs, it seems astounding. I mean, 114 social programs and they're administered through various federal agencies. Social Security Administration, HHS, there are many food assistance programs. Why are there so many? - There are so many because our system evolved over time. As a particular, I would say, dimension of vulnerability gained traction. We created a program for it. - Oh, okay. And then once you create a program for it, there becomes a constituency for that program and it becomes almost impossible for that thing to then go away. Whether it might have been effective at some time but as this time's gone on, maybe that thing's not effective today, but it has built up a significant constituency and fights for its existence. - Okay. - So we evolved over time based on particular circumstances and that's where each of these programs come from. - Now, SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program came into focus. It's one of those food assistance programs but it came into focus for many Americans during the government shutdown of 2025. The mainstream media seized on the fact that low-income parents couldn't get their food stamps or vouchers and therefore couldn't feed their kids. What do you think was missing from this story? - Well, the first thing that was missing from that is that we continued to administer the SNAP program during the shutdown. We came very close to not having the benefit and if that. If the shutdown had lasted a week longer, we would have not had the benefits to provide the support. We continued to provide those benefits at the state level during the shutdown. It is simply that at the agency level, we had to do literally summer results in order to deliver the program because of the fits and starts at the federal level to make the dollars available for the program. So that's the first part. The second thing, part of the story that isn't that isn't very public is the design and operation of the program itself is very challenging to make the objectives of the program. And that's something that we deal with at the state level all of the time. And so you have noticed that there has also been host the shutdown. There's been a significant emphasis on fraud, waste and abuse, ascending to snap and other programs. And so that is an evolving story that is currently taking on more significant viewing. So that could have been a great messaging opportunity for you during the government shutdown that maybe we should look at snap and why are these parents continuing to rely on it? Are they spending their money elsewhere? Do they have new cars or new cell phones? Are they just unable to prioritize spending in their lives or manage their time in a way that could maybe increase their financial strength? Who knows? I mean, is that the type of thing you're talking about? What it exposes for me is the lack of intention of the program to do anything other than provide the benefit. You see, I think that part of what is so troubling to me is that in our crazy public discourse, one of the things we do is we blame the consumer here. And while there are absolutely bad actors, we have built a system which quite frankly, it wasn't intended to help anybody not ever need snap. It's only what's only intention was to get you the benefit. That as an administrator of the program is all I get held accountable for. I get held accountable for did I deliver the benefit to the consumer that was entitled to receive it? Did I get it to them and then you write a mouth and then I get it to them in the appropriate time frame? If I do those things well, I've run a great snap program. There were plenty of controls. That's exactly right. My argument is nobody asked me did anybody get better or healthier or what did you do to help somebody not need snap next week, next month or next year? And so my argument is we have built a system that we get exactly the response that the system designs. And then we want to blame the consumer. And so what does snap actually allow a person to buy? Is it healthy food or is it processed food? Or I mean that isn't that a factor as well? So there are some restrictions on what individuals can't purchase and that is literally evolving all the time. Okay. And again, I feel like that discussion, it enters the argument in the middle. What I mean by in the middle, yes, you absolutely, we absolutely, in society, should want those dollars expended for the healthy nutrition of the consumers that need it. But I go back up if you would back up stream and say shouldn't it first be our intention to as we're providing this benefit, be intentional about helping that consumer get to the day where they don't need benefit. I actually want to start at the beginning and work towards please don't hear a utopian notion in what I'm saying. We are always going to have amongst us the economically socially and developmentally vulnerable. That is why these systems are absolutely essential. But the systems have got to be intentional about helping people as many people as possible move through it and not reside in it. I say often that the safety net should act as a trampoline and not a hammock. We really do want to instead of celebrating that I delivered so many units of service. Shouldn't we celebrate the day that that consumer can turn around and say thanks but no thanks. I got the baton. I can take it and run with it because of the help that I've got. That's a great goal. Vice President Vance is leading a new task force to combat social welfare fraud in all 50 states. What do you think he'll find? That there are appreciable levels of fraud, waste and abuse in these massively government run systems. Remember, Deepkin, what we've talked about today, $1.5 trillion in federal outlays on an annual basis. There is going to be there is going to be an amount of fraud, waste and abuse in an endeavor of that size that is significant. Significant enough that we have to ensure that all of our society's intention is being met with those dollars. This notion of diving headlong into identifying fraud, waste and abuse and trying to ensure that those dollars get to their intention is absolutely necessary and appropriate. I feel like Deepkin, those individuals and I will take the SNAP program, but those individuals who have figured out how to defraud that program are literally stealing food out of all our people's mouths. I believe that the hottest places in hell should be reserved for anybody who would line their pockets with the resources that were provided for the good intentions of our society to serve our vulnerable neighbors. So this is something that we absolutely have to get our hands around. And every administrator, every manager, every front line person who administers these programs would agree with that notion of we've got to get our arms around the fraud, waste and abuse. I mean, this could be the vice president's legacy. Good well, Be. Now you wrote a book in 2025 entitled Our Net Has Holes in It. It's a best seller. And in it, you talk about the unparalleled benevolence of Americans, how the US is the first to respond to global citizens during a crisis and you had some convincing statistics. You wrote that between World War II and now essentially the US distributed $4 trillion or has distributed that amount, which is about $50 billion annually to countries during times of crises, but also for economic development. But you also also mentioned through philanthropy that Americans poured an additional $500 billion in 2022 alone into the international community. Do you think the international community appreciates America's kindness? Do you think we should continue on this path before and aid to that point? Our external neighbors have come to caluton it. Okay, and it's gotten to the point where it's just sort of baked into the fabric. So there might have been a time when it was, you know, welcomed and celebrated, but we've been doing it for so long. It has just become, again, that's what I do. And so I don't believe that there is the appreciation for it, that there ought to be. But absolutely, I believe it is something that we need to continue to do, but we need to better manage and regulate it. Okay. It serves our interests in supporting our objectives around the globe when we have partners. And so we absolutely ought to continue it, but I really like the work that Secretary of State Rubio has done on, again, reigning in non-governmental organizations that are funding things that literally are not in our best interests. And again, that's how we've allowed our benevolence to get away from us. We've enabled some of these countries in the way that we've enabled some of our citizens, isn't that right? Absolutely. That's exactly, that is exactly correct. And so working aggressively to rein that in, we do not want to stop providing foreign aid. We want to provide value added for an aid to help partnering societies and to further our own American interests. Well, when President Trump took office for the second time, one of the things he did was cut and got the US agency for international development, USAID. There were protests and Democrats criticized him relentlessly. The summer Republicans also criticized him. But you point out in the book that money is still leaving our treasury to help our allies, that funds are being directed through the State Department, the Department of War among other areas of the executive branch. Is this information obstructed from the American people? Is it the media that ignoring this reality or someone trying to malign the country in some way to show that we're not actually helping our allies? We are at a place in our politics in America where if something is done or promoted by one side, the other side is duty bound to castigate it. And also, you know, we live in headline. And so the headline of USAID being shut down, that's where the focus stops. The fact that those resources have been moved to the Department of State, where the secretariat state is lead the effort to determine where do these resources best support our partners around the globe and our objectives. We don't ever get down to the second level of the story because we live so much in the headlines. Okay, we absolutely have not backed away from any of our intentions to be to be a leading global partner. We just need to make sure that the manifestation of that is in our best interests. There, I mean, if you were administering programs for an aid, how would you approach that? Well, again, what approach is similarly understanding what is our principle objective in this or an aid? Then make the aid available based on those objectives. And can absolutely be mutual objectives. In other words, objectives that are evaluated to us and evaluated to our partner. But they have the first, they have the first support our objectives. And so just like with the safety net, the first thing that has to happen is we have got to answer the question, what is our intention? And then once you address that issue, then you can reschedule the aid based on those intentions. I think that we have gotten so far away in our country from our primary objectives. We don't know what they are anymore. But when I was growing up, my father said to me often, when you're up to your elbow and alligators, it's difficult to remember that your original intention was to drain the swall. So in other words, we've gotten away from in some instances we never had in a original intention. In others, we've gotten so far away from it. And so we have to get back to our in some instances create that original intention and then rearchitect our systems around that intention. That's so interesting. And you aptly note in the book, the fewer people reliant on the safety net equals more taxpayer money in the treasury for all of the things that we need to keep this nation running. And help our allies. That is exactly what I mean by when I talk about growing capacity to reduce dependency. If we are intentional about helping our vulnerable neighbors get beyond their vulnerability, they run yet to the other side of the ledger where they are actually producers. And what we like to say in our Tennessee Department of Human Services, our mission is to strengthen Tennessee by strengthening Tennesseans. And I would just extrapolate that to the broader society. We should work to strengthen America by strengthening Americans. That is so poetic. And if Marsha Blackburn becomes the next governor of Tennessee, I'm sure she will take that same posture that governor Lee has taken. That would absolutely be my my hope and belief. So you have worked for two US presidents, George W. Bush and President Trump, four governors, two from Virginia, one from Alabama, and now governor Lee. Oh right, I'm sorry. Arizona. Okay, Arizona. And now governor Bill Lee from Tennessee. But you also worked for Democratic Mayor Adrian Fenty of Washington DC. Why did Adrian Fenty want you to join his administration after you left the Bush administration? And why did you take that job? Because as Mayor Fenty's team heard this very explanation, this explanation about the laws of the safety net and how we're not intentional about growing people beyond it, they do embrace that notion. And that's why I've said earlier, as long as we begin this discussion with the intention of helping our vulnerable neighbors grow beyond their vulnerability. This is a place where we can meet as a society. Our flaw has been we start the discussion in our politics. But I actually have to have this discussion with several different several different influencers in the Fenty administration before it actually got to the Mayor. And each one that heard this vision said, you know, somebody else needs to hear this. Wow. And it kept getting past the food chain until you know Mayor Fenty said, that makes sense. And so I'd like you to come and head my department of social services. He was a great mayor. I lived in DC at the time. And I just remember feeling like he was more of a moderate, whereas the Democratic Party on a different topic has sort of shifted more left. But Adrian Fenty was all about building Washington, he's sort of a rational thinker. I really liked him as mayor. - I saw that he was one of the, that's bosses that I had the opportunity to work for. What I was coupled by at the end is his focus was so intent on fixing Washington DC. He didn't believe that he had to play the political game. And so the old guard said no young man, you've got to play the politics when they voted him out. But he was absolutely the best thing that had happened to Washington DC and had he been allowed to continue, it would have been a shining local government, I think. - I agree with you. Well, thank you for your candor and your service commissioner Carter. And thank you for being a guest on We Are the Government to our listeners. If you haven't picked it up, you've got to pick up. Our net has holes in it. Commissioner Carter's great book and Commissioner Carter, please come back anytime. - Thank you so much for the opportunity. And it is my intention to use opportunities like this to create a movement, a national movement to transform our American safety net. And so I want to thank you and your audience for hearing this this morning and ask folks to join us in that pursuit. - Thank you again. - And thank you to our listeners. Thank you to our executive producer, Richard Talifero, former senior digital editor at the Wall Street Journal. He's coaching others on their career transitions now. If you need a coach, you can reach him in the show notes. Also, thank you to our new editor, Axel Soderland, a rising senior at Temple University in Philadelphia. Please subscribe and review our podcast and get alerted when we post another episode of We Are the Government.