however, it is true that any changes need to be consistent with arissa, and not be preempted by that. if the city were tried to -- were to specify how these would be used, you would be running a foul of this pre-emption. that is why the amendment here is carefully designed to simply say, we are just clarifying what it makes tbeans to make an expe. merely clarify what an expenditure is, money that has been let go permanently and irritably -- zero vocally on behalf of the worker. supervisor farrell:

however, it is true that any changes need to be consistent with arissa, and not be preempted by that. if the city were tried to -- were to specify how these would be used, you would be running a foul of this pre-emption. that is why the amendment here is carefully designed to simply say, we are just clarifying what it makes tbeans to make an expe. merely clarify what an expenditure is, money that has been let go permanently and irritably -- zero vocally on behalf of the worker. supervisor farrell: and this is an important issue. most people would say the limits on usage, you cannot pay premiums or dependents, really restricting it, that seems a perverse incentive, but making sure the public understands we are not able to dictate that. >> that is absolutely right. the board is hamstrung in some respects and prevented from just saying to some employers you have to keep these as open as possible and allow workers to utilize them for any kind of expense, make them available to workers dependence. i think the board is hamstrung in that respect. supervisor campos: if i may, i know president

host: let's hear from chri arissa in north carolina. i think that pushed the wrong button. in the meantime, let me show you more from the "york post." the credit region -- the credit rating agencies and what they may say. here is the impact. that credit rating agencies will be up on capitol hill today for a congressional review. we will have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3 of that hearing. let's go to mike in utica, new york. caller: this is getting ridiculous. what is going to happen is that the republicans are going to go with a bill that requires less funding than intended. they're going to protect rates for the rich, including bill gates who wants to pay more taxes. this goes on every year. speaker boehner has proposed those cuts when harry reid proposed more. something is wrong here. they were sent into office to cut spending. let's not worry about tax rates. let's cut spending. that is what they do not seem to get. boehner and mitch mcconnell are there for bill gates only. host: you say no on the boehner proposal. caller: from what i have heard, the spending cu