and so it would be very, very difficult for us to do the things you want us to do. i think it would mean fewer cases and slower development of cases. again, having said that, you know, wherever we end up we'll do the best we can. wherever we end up with our appropriation. >> well, from my standpoint, we do away with cheap consents. that's the number-one thing. number two, i think we would probably hand off more to the cfpb, which, after all, is expected to handle these

to do. many communities use that a bill to partner with the state and local resources to build bridges and ports. we need to do more of it. we have hundreds of thousands of construction workers laid off around the country. it is a common-sense thing to do. the president included funding in his jobs act. we are going to continue to press and we need, on may non- artists -- partisan basis, officials to stand up and say, this is how you not only put america back to work but it is doing something that we need to do. i was home this weekend, with a little bit of pride, we cut the ribbon on a bridge i had the chance to work on when i was mayor. the department said all of these bridges are 20 years beyond their useful life. we have to replace them. it took us 14 years. you cannot take that long. i think it is a common-sense thing to do. hopefully you can work with our leaders to do something that makes sense and to enhance our competitiveness and put hundreds of thousands of constructors -- construction workers back to work. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> president obama spoke to his advisory bo

and you can't force us to do it. the federal government is overstepping their bounds when they try to force us to do this, okay? and so what's going to happen, go to this one again. see these gray states here? what's going to happen is those gray states, upper south states, the last four that will join the confederacy, arkansas, tennessee, north carolina, and virginia. they leave in response to that call for 75,000. they do not leave because of lincoln specifically. okay? virginia met and voted, okay? virginia leaders voted on whether or not they wanted to secede earlier in the secession crisis and they said, no, we stay. after lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers, they vote to leave. that's why the upper south goes. we are not march on fellow southerners. we will not forcibly keep fellow southerners in the union. we weren't going to leave because of the election. we were going to stay and try and work within the democratic process but you cannot force virginians to invade and march on south carolinians. we're not goin

surge and empathetic goal to our founding that is the and because then the government can force us to do all kinds of things and that is the president. obamacare does more than that. use the the attack on the catholic church. but why to have free contraceptive? the status quo today is they don't. but yet to is a really that hard to get a condom? i am just saying. [laughter] most public schools hot hand them out like lollipops. [laughter] isn't that interesting? not cancer treatment, diabetes, heart disease, but that. it is fine. added tax the notion of the free exercise of religion but also private property rights. even more than that to attack individual liberty because i don't want to subsidize something for free and big government doesn't have the power to tell me that i must. [applause] [cheers and applause] one thing i want to mention is the notion of tyranny. alexis day tocqueville talked-about this. jefferson, you can have tierney through democracy. in other words, if congress does things outside the constitution just because it decides it can do it is tyranny. the 88 individuals

>> really, really, seriously whacked. >> jimmy: yeah, yeah, yeah. >> you know, he used to wrestle women. he used to donight, and in the hallway outside your dressing room, he would be laying there with a post office woman -- like, a delivery woman -- like, in a headlock. have 'em in a leglock. and you just walk in. you're going to work, and he's, like -- he would just attack people. he'd just attack all the women. >> jimmy: i mean, but, for real, or kind of? >> well, yeah, anybody who came in, if he thought she was big enough, 'cause he was a big guy. [ laughter ] >> jimmy: yeah. he wanted a challenge, yeah. >> he wanted a challenge. he'd say -- he'd say -- [ as andy kaufman ] "you belong in a kitchen. you don't belong somewhere in a workplace. that's a man's job." >> jimmy: oh my god. just to make her mad, and then start wrestling. >> that's the next thing. she's got him in a scissor lift, what you call it. how about a scissor hold? >> jimmy: i don't know. scissor lift is pretty cool too. >> i don't know, she lifting him up, and -- >> jimmy: hey, watch it. watch it. you can't do that. you can't do th

so what i'd like us to do, who would like to speak to air? who would like to speak to the breath - of life and the breath within us? great. and who would like to speak to fire? all right. and who would like to speak to water? and i suppose that means you're speaking to earth. so we'll begin with that request, and when all those come together, i've asked john to mix the elements in that creation that is life. >> and i'll play a little drum background for you to do the speaking to the elements. we use a drum a lot just to - sometimes just to entertain the conscious mind, so something else can happen. >> and part of what we teach as the essence of our mystery school is that when anyone is willing to stand forth and do this kind of work, take this kind of risk, what the rest of us give that person is our absolute support. one of my beliefs is there are no mistakes - just sometimes true divine originality. >> often very creative. >> so, would you just ask the air, from your heart, to join us? [drums playing in background] >> from the breath, from t

so it forces us to do a hell of a lot of research to find their positions and also to look eyeball to eyeball and confront candidates. but critical that you do that research and get the word out on where candidates stand on these issues. we've got to know. and women have to know to vote as they go in that day who is going to stand up for women's rights. >> and also be sure to get -- we put on the tables the congressional voting record. please take those with you. don't put them and just throw them away. inside there is a poster that you can actually take out and put up in your communities and use this for, you know, it's my vote. i will be heard. but it says -- it has everybody's congressional voting record. this is how at least you know how the candidates are standing. so take it with you. give it to your families, your friends. it doesn't matter how old you are. put the poster up. okay? thank you. >> good. thank you for supplying that for everybody today. >> now go to the n.o.w. pact.org and you'll see the candidates that have been endorsed by n.o.w. pact, unequivocal and very vocal

just moving through all the matters congress has asked us to do. so we just published ours in the last week or two. and our comment period closes april 16. so any of you want to comment, we look forward to that comment on how to best protect the public through this means. and i would assume that we would work with the other five regulators and, again, in a balanced way to complete what congress laid out. and the challenge is as well known. it's to prohibit proprietary trading and that's to protect the taxpayers. that banking entities that have some support from the federal deposit insurance corporation, in essence in some form of safety from thean the fdic, pro proprietary trading but permit eight or nine other activities including market making. so it's how to deal with prohibiting proprietary trading, permitting market making, and not having one swallow up the other in the final rule. and i think that's the core challenge that 17,000 comment letters have already come in to the bank regulators. was there one other just to wrap? >> you're welcome to

they go to san franciscans, and that is but this grand and the tech assets initiative will help us to do. i think it was harvey milk that said we have to give them hope. -- s.f. initiative will help us to do. i also want to thank the participants in the program. it takes a lot of initiative and discipline to say, i wanted take on these new skills, i want to transform my life. in transforming myself and achieving these skills with the discipline and commitment you have, then you are also transforming your communities and society as a whole. i especially want thank you for your commitment to this program, and to acquiring the skills to really change our lives and contribute back to our society in san francisco in a positive way. i want to thank you for participating in this program. [applause] >> a in thank you, christina. first of all, i want to thank jay for having us here today. i am sure all of you are familiar, but this is one of the most amazing organizations we have in san francisco. i have had the opportunity to speak here a number of times to the children and am impressed more and

does what they call kharkov bonds, -- call hack-a-thons, which they used to help the government look at the way they deliver services, and do business, and use the innovation of the technology world to overlay process with new ideas about how to deliver services more efficiently. with that relationship and through our chief innovation officer, we have got, i think, the beginnings of a brand new relationship that i think will bring us closer to the business needs of that new industry, but at the same time allow us to change the way we do business so we can be more responsive to that. the first year i did this breakfast, it was willie brown in your seat, jerry brown in your seat, and we had questions about the difficulty of buildings for the stadium in order to retain teams. it feels like groundhog day. how many years on, we are still there. you seem to be in the hot seat. you have three professional sports teams, all of whom could go elsewhere. i know you just approved a $3 million grant from a reve

we would like to respectfully urge you to allow us to do so. director goldstein: if you would not mind filling out a speaker cards. >> sure. president garcia: miss ernst, would you come up to the microphone, please? it certainly makes the decision for the board easier if you

fiscal sustainability issues in the united states and what we need to do is find a strategy that will credibly and convincingly put us on a path towards lo sustainability without doing undue daniel to the recovery. >> thank you. >> secretary geithner. >> no basis for comparisons with greece. important for people to recognize our long-term fiscal position is actually we're in a much stronger position than the continent as a whole. it's partly because our economy is will grow past faster than europe's over time. probably because we're a younger country. probably because the commitments we've made to health care and retirement security even if you know sustainable are much less generous than is true in europe as a whole. those factors and the one the chairman meant mean we're in a fundamentally different position and more comfortable position. but, of course, in, the united states as well our deficits are unsustainable over the long run. we have a little more time in how we address those. very important as we address them and we need to address them, we can't put them off indefinitely, we do this in a way that achieves

-- we decided it will be transportation and it will be this guy who is going to do it, this other person. when he came to us he said that he was going to do murals about the gay hustler era. we objected. the same way they did in fillmore when they suggested prostitutes on the walls. this was about the exploitation of young vote -- young boys, sex for drugs as one of the homeless outreach workers said -- living under the freeway, they are older now. or dead. we should have some control over what is being put on our walls. we also need some control over these things that are not sitting. they say that it is free and they go to the merchants and said they will put it up for free and the emergence, some of whom do not speak english, are persuaded to except this on their wall. many controls about that. money for public art is great, but we need to make sure it does not destroy neighborhoods. a couple of years ago on the walking to work, it was so hopeful and you could see what it could be, but the entire area it has been wracked by what we have seen robert garcia talk about. much of that drug messages. >> robert

work we are doing through our partnerships with public sector entities, as well as our community based organizations, drawing on data to make sure that we are doing makes sense. we continue to use a primary lends to look at the work we're doing. one of them is by age, primarily first in five. school-age, five years old to 18 years old, and then transitional age use of 18 to 25. looking at our work through the lens of neighborhood to make sure that we are clear that when we talk about services that are citywide, ought to be sure that we are also clear when we are talking about services that are concentrated in to specific neighborhoods. finally, to look at our work through the lens of risk factors. some of the children in the city have higher needs, such as the needs for children who have disabilities, lgbtq youth, homeless youth, english language learners, and undocumented immigrant youth. the third principle is to champion strategies that events that. we want to invest in proven approaches, drawing on our successes to date, to make sure that we leverage the expertise already within the community. finally, we want to focus resources where we have maximum leverage and impact. th

these guys were looking at me like now that you are here, you have to do something, tell us what to do. >> what did you tell them? what did you do? >> guys, number one, we have just -- didn't have to tell them. they already knew. we had been ambushed. we need to execute the process we know to go about. the first thing, establish a position where we could be thoroughly secure. one of the first airplanes that landed in the makeshift perimeter that we had, medevaced choppers. when they came in i basically went over to the first bird that landed and talked to the pilot. basically said this is what happen order your way back in. if you can bring in the mission, water, medical supplies, whatever, we need, because we have been hit pretty bad. we are in good shape but i would imagine that the units in front of us are -- are having more problems than we are. combat effectiveness of my unit was probably 75%. and -- after having read the book, you -- kind of know what the guys up in front of me were like. >> yes. >> so it was -- the -- once we started to, again, get the wounded out and get suppli

us to invest in the project. it is quite a burden to pay that off over 10 years. we do -- probably going to bring in $30,000 a night every time we do a show, and also parking. it is up broadway from us. we are committed to working with local vendors in the food area, preferably organic. we look forward to actually continuing the fine tradition. the particular site is quite special because it was on clerk point, where the first pier in san francisco was built, and it became the city gate to the city, which began with barbara coast becoming a great tradition. there was a circus that combine the theater and circus, which is what we do today. we feel like the spirit of the incredible entertainment scene that grew out of san francisco, we follow that and we feel it every time we do a show. if there is any question, -- no questions? thank you. >> commissioners, any comments? public comment? >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for staying solely. my name is frederick and i am here tonight speaking on behalf of recreation open space for the waterfront. i also am the presi

it would give them unlimited power if they can force us to do this. and they can force us to do. >> how do you think that the high court will respond to the arguments that cut to the score core. >> well, i think that the court is going to have the advocates engage in a vigorous debate. the obama administration is going to try to focus on health care policy. that is not what it is about. it is the rights of the united states constitution. and the advocate. and paul lament who is a supreme court litigant and we as the states argue. thrait is -- that it is about the constitution and our founding father's view of limited federal government and we believe in state's rights and individual's rights. that is what will argued on tuesday. a modern day united states supreme court, they give you an hour of oral argument. we have been begin six hours over three days. >> this is the first time in 50 years that the high court is allotting oral arguments over three days and six hours; did that surprise you that the cower was open to the scrutiny? >> it confirmed for u

to fight for us.'t exp administration to do this by themselves. it's got to be up to us to stand up for our own and make sure that the right thing is done. and i want to acknowledge someone who has been helping to do that, assistant secretary of health, and who has been working to get mental health incorporated, as pam said, into the affordable care act, and that's none other than sherri glade. let's hear a great round of applause for sherri glade. [ applause ] >> i just want to speak very briefly to that point. i think one of the really important things that you could do at the state level right now is influence states in their selection of essential health benefits. the way we've laid out the law, states have a choice of benchmarks between their small group plans and large employer plans and so on. one of the things that that makes possible is for states to include, if they choose, their existing mental health mandates in the essential health in the pact they choose. so for some states who have a strong advocacy influence and e health/substance a

that's a big part of our job, it's something we're going to be -- it's a big challenge for us to do it, but we're working hard to do that as we go over the first few years of our existence. >> to establish a single regulator for protection, the federal regulators have nonetheless retained enforcement powers for the overwhelming majority of banks. if there is a risk that this will weaken protections for consumers or lead to confusion for financial institutions. >> i don't know that there should be confusion. i think for the vast majority of banks, as you indicated, and it's my understanding as well, they have remained subject to the same regulators they always have. for the large institutions, those with assets over $10 million, they will be overseen by us for consumer protection services and by their regulator for safety and soundness purposes. so there is some overlap there. but for all of these reasons, it really behooves us to collaborate closely, to make sure we're approaching problems in common, to make sure we're on the same page, make sure we're getting their perspective as we a

why do you not use it broadly and will you begin using the debarment or do you believe you don't have the authority to? >> there are many compelling reasons why we do not currently use it. we are able to take stores. we've taken stores out this very week. for misleading us. we don't have to hold hearings. if we use debarment we have to go through a whole extended hearing process. when we take the stores out, most of the stores we're talking about are small stores. they rarely interact with other parts of government. they don't have pharmacies. they are not stores, government doesn't buy liquor from liquor stores to use the earlier reference point. it's far more efficient for us to do this. i will say this, we have completed requirements with the general services administration to allow our agency to now start filing excluded parties listing, which means once that company is on that list, they can't do business with any part of the federal government. this is a more efficient way to do it. meantime we can take that out. >> mrs. fong, my time is expired. it looks like you have at least a partial answer

and so it would be very, very difficult for us to do the things you want us to do. i think it would mean fewer cases and i think it would mean slower development of cases again having said that wherever we end up we'll do the best we can. >> well, from my standpoint we do away with cheap consents. that's the number one thing. number two, i think we would probably hand off more to the cfpb. which after all was expected to handle these matters. number three, i think we would probably hand off more to the states. i don't think frankly sec stration would be that bad a thing for us under these circumstances given the austerity that we are living in right now. having said that, probably because of my background as a trial lawyer and anti-trust trial lawyer, i don't think that the supreme court, that matters are ever over until the supreme court has said they're really over. and so for that reason probably i am more eager than my colleagues to follow on in administrative proceedings and with supreme court review. but having said that, in the whole foods case, i was able to

wall street interests have taken us to court to stop it and their argument we didn't do a good enoughone of their strategstrategies,. they don't give us comments or give us comments that aren't very good. then we pass the rule and then they say, you didn't look at it well enough. it's nutty. then they take us to court. has paralyzed some of the regulators not just at our agency, i think, they are so concerned about the scary litigation risk, that we have been implementing the important rules. >> this is really important. when i gave that statistic how 70% of the deadlines for rule making from frank-dodd have been missed not because people like yourself are sitting around playing playstation all day and not doing the work. because is there a concerted effort and litigation in court that is being marshalled to slow down the process, right? >> that's exactly right. now, i don't want people to think that cost benefit analysis that they are not important. they are important for us to do. but, again, they are a piece of the regulatory rule making and not the be all end all. the be all end y

to them. nine out of 11 of us have the ability to run for reelection. five of us very well could be doing that this fall. nine out of 11. tell me i'm wrong. supervisor chu and i are the only once turned down. nine of you are available if you so choose. correct me if i'm wrong. i think i can count tonight. i think it is inappropriate, highly inappropriate for members of this board to increase the amount of money they can get from the taxpayers. if you want this extra money, let the taxpayers vote for. do not do yourself. i urge you to vote against this sends back to committee. but the voters decide. -- let the voters decide. supervisor wiener: i respectfully disagree. if i run for reelection, if i take financing, i would be entitled to less money than i got last time because my cap i and my race is exploded. president chiu would be in the same situation. it is not accurate to say that we are raising our own caps. in addition, it is entirely appropriate for this board to use the authority that the voters decided to give us in passing public financing where we are allowed to amend with eight

we use the tool to help us do our job better in certain situations. it is helpful for a beat officer, and as i told the committee to group when we discussed this, i wish i had civil sidewalks when i was a beat officer years ago in the tenderloin district. how often what i have had to use it? maybe not that often, but it was something that the people knew -- there was some need for them to move out of a doorway, off the sidewalk -- if they are spread out on the sidewalk sleeping. we have an opportunity to clear that sidewalk for others to enjoy the use of that sidewalk. >> has there been an increased number of referrals? i know one of the ideas is to connect people to services, homeless outreach. has there been an increase in referrals to various services as a result of civil sidewalks? >> the beat officers are regular officers. when i was there 10 years ago, it was difficult to have officers work the beat on haight street. i now have eight different officers that want to have that assignment. not because it is an easy assignment, but they get the satis

to be easier. i do not want to be shy about saying we use parking meters to generate revenue, because we do in your gut -- because we do. that is part of the reason we are there. the parking policy has to sit with our goals overall, but i feel like it those who regard -- i feel like it does. i feel like there is going to peace enforcement we have not had before. people say they are going to church. they are going to the church of yoga and to get a two-thirds. if the leaders are working on sunday we are going to have turnover on the legal spot, and we can cut our on illegal spots. everytime i see that i think about how many trips we are facilitating. that is another reason i am really interested. the other one, a citation increase to offset a court house sefee. is it up to $5 for a citation, and is our total impact 3 million? >> here is what happened to reagan -- here is what happened. my understanding is we have passed through $1 of six. -- $1 of it. we are assuming not to have thought, so if we were to increase the citations by $2 but would be $2.4 million to close. there was a second court house

a financial incentive to pay us to do this. we pay the auto industries to go to a more fuel efficient or did we tell them they've got to reduce emissions and fuel consumption? if we do that with the private sector, why do we hold cities, counties and private counties immune for it? and how can you say that we're doing everything we can to have fuel efficiency and clean air when we allow the government to take a free ride on this one? >> well, sir, i would refer you to the department of transportation who i think in their smart transportation and planning do encourage local governments to put in place ordinances -- >> administrator, i've administered the clean air act like you have. in nonattainment area, isn't it true when you allow one group in a nonattainment group to pollute, somebody has to offset it, right? >> a new source has to offset its submissions. >> when government is allowed to force cars to pollute, it's the stationary sources that take the biggest hit because they're the easiest to regulate, aren't they? >> no, si