if items are really hard caps, why not have it say, this is the maximum? my fear is you are opening the door for some future disputes about the amount that could be reimbursed, but what is interesting is there is actually a specific amount you are including. the authorities has no problem talking about hard numbers when something is removed a walk in there, so why aren't we talking about a hard, -- that they want in there, so why aren't we talking about the hard, definitive number? plexuses -- >> this is a defined number. i have a history as an attorney curios -- an attorney. by putting those specific new words in, but i would turn to the city attorney about whether this limitation would be effective in protecting the balance sheet. >> i think the question i would have is, can you guarantee there is not going to be a dispute about whether or not something is reimbursable, and do we have an abrogation about the total cost? >> i do not think there is never a guarantee against being sued, but i do believe the structure in section 1.5, which provides the frame

a lot of this depends on if you have a hard cap, or you have the adjustable cap. i think the adjustable capa's also an issue for some members of the board, and a hard cap is something they don't refer. you have public perception issues, about how much is too much, given the current climate, and there is the issue -- i think it is legally at risk to have the adjustable cap of any kind and if you read the supreme court ruling, in the bennett case, it did not say that it was because of public financing, it was because a privately-financed candidates -- this would create a chilling effect by making them think, if i spend more money, the candidate will be able to get more money. i think that this is an issue and you definitely want to give some thought to this. it may not be an agent -- a reason not to do this, because we need the board of supervisors. it is good public policy to have that happen if we can get away with it, and we can track the independent expenditures, which is also a valuable service to the community. one quibble i would raise is that if you look at

with the preferences for the soft cap. this may indeed come before him. thank you very much. >> do you have comments on this legislation? >> i think that the confusion is because there are a couple of tyoppos. this should be the private funds based on the incumbents, and the rest should be private funds. the reason these numbers are different, is because they have a penalty. they have to raise 5000 more than the non-incumbents. mayoral candidates and incumbents. they have to do this to achieve the same -- and that is why these are written the way that they are. >> as a matter of perception, the incumbent can raise more money, and the cap is essentially higher. as a matter of perception, -- >> this is 155 total public funds. >> and they can spend 255. >> and i see what you are saying. >> the answer is that they only spend 250 unless the individual has missed this. what we would do is advise them, they may have this in their account and they can only spend 250 unless this is raised. >> i would be interested in the notion of

things like a cap. things like a cap. anybody here know how many tourists we have come into the united states per year? 50 million. so what i were here to advocate an arbitrary cap of 25 million? doesn't relate to the flow. doesn't relate to the market. doesn't relate to anything except we in congress decided to have 25 million tourist visas here, even though the demand is 50 million. it makes more sense to establish whatever program we accomplish without a cap, but on an annual basis reflects the need as proven by the agriculture committee, approved by the department of agriculture, and then reviewed on a yearly basis. if in fact it's a million it's a million. people seem to be afraid of saying that, but it seems to me it ought to be what the market tells us and then be real with respect to that and give people the mobility and the marketplace so that in fact they're not wards of a particular employer and find themselves back in their home country when they have a legitimate gripe with the employer tha

the previous cap was $143,000. realistically, every race that came before us in the past couple of years, the cap had always been raised because of independent expenditure dollars. we felt this was an average number that reflected what the generally costs to run in a real supervisor election. it would also make public financing continue to be an attractive option for candidates running for office. they could spend time talking to voters and engaging with voters while also fund-raising. i also want to recognize the department -- our ethics department and our ethics commissioners for working so quickly with office. they were really tremendous, as well as our city attorney kind of dealing last-minute changes and number crunching. it was difficult. i appreciate all the work that went forward. i think we have a much stronger public financing program before us. supervisor weaner does have amendments he would like to introduce today. -- weiner does have amendments he would like to introduce today. this would be held for 3

say it is different from a hard cap. the other issue, as you noted there was a hard number. on the other hand, one of the primary sources is infrastructure district bond proceeds. the value they will be able to derive after it has gone through an entitlement process, including further reviews and all the planning and spermicide-- and permit some re. that is the volumand value to ry the authority, and that actual amount we cannot give you a number fourr, so we are limiting back to what they build. and we can only derived that from further development as well as these other sources, and i think by limiting sources, we have provided an exclusive means, which is an effective way of limiting the exposure. >> i have to say i appreciate the work, and from a legal standpoint, it approximates the number of a functional croap, bt if we were talking about my own personal money and i am asking what is the amount of the check i am going to write in two or three years, i do not think you said you would be able to tell me what that amo

, and a hard cap is or is not, and you can get into semantics of how you calculate it, but as of today we do not know what that number is, and i think that is problematic, and even though we have a definitive list of items that is supposedly included, we are not sure what that will add up to, and i think that is a problem, and my own personal view is we owe it to the public to make sure recondition our approval with a hard cap. i think we owe that to ourselves, and the last thing you want is five or 10 years from now to have a situation where the amount is a lot larger than anyone anticipated, and how the year explain that -- how do you explain that to the taxpayer who is going to ask you? that is why it is important to condition the approval on an actual hard cap. >> i would like to respond by saying that by limiting assets, at no time with the general fund required to cut programs. we are talking about piers 30 and 32, the amount relating to 29, and the financial tail, which is another way we can get that out of the document, so we have effectively limited the places they can go, and

how do you feel about caps? >> on the caps we have a de facto cap now the bureaucracy that -- >> right. >> -- chokes all of the programs. >> yes, it's ineffective, yes. >> so, you know, the cap and the american specialty agricultural act is 500,000. should it be higher? maybe. let's pass that and get started. i know that if our country makes a commitment and puts the right statutory language in place that we can build a program that works for farmers and is accountable for workers so, yeah, we can have a program that treats workers well. >> thank you mr. wicker. mr. chairman, i see my time is up. >> yes, you'll have a chance for a second go round. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and the ranking member for courtesies extended. just have comments and a quick question and then a pointed question to mr. goldstein if i could. i have been working on these issues, i'm not from any of the states of the particular witnesses but certainly i join my colleagues in the import

you agree with everything they have said in terms of whether or not there is a cap? >> i will put it into my words, if the helps. we had an unlimited ability to recover the funds spent. we agreed to reduce that by limiting the places upon which they could receive their reimbursement. this is no incentive. there is a disincentive for the authority to spend any more money and we can get back. currently the city has put their calculations at $88.6 million. we have not done that and do not intend to, because we are happy with the methodology that is put in place. we are comfortable with it. >> one thing that might resolve this issue, and i wonder if this is something the authority would like to do. would you be interested in waving your right on what the actual costs are? because if there is a waiver on the actual lawsuit, the issue is closed. is that something you would be open to? >> they are pretty articulate, and how each one undertakes its actions if there is a dispute. i do not see us getting into the a out all. >> would you be open to having an express waiver? tha

i am coming around on the functional cap. it is something that i came in this morning really vehemently against, wanting to see a numerical hard cap. through the conversations today, i have been convinced that this is a good compromise in terms of having a cap on the assets that we expose in terms of a liability to the actual cost of reimbursement. much of this also comes from my faith in the port and their decisions about making decisions in their best financial interests as well, and how important it is for us to have a financial tool to rehabilitate our piers. the second piece, which is important to me to see, is ensuring that we have strong language around local hire. that has come in today in order to move that up a committee. it is something i think is important to our residents. it is a promise we made to our city that out of this event, comes jobs for local restaurants. that was a promise that was made in december of 2010 when this moved out of the board with an 11-0 vote. it was in economic promise to the city and i

version two has a hard spending cap for publicly financed candidates and raises the cap higher. i do not feel too strongly about either approach. i included the hard cap in the version we introduced because i feel spending caps in these kinds of races can have a positive effect. if you look at the amount of money involved, having a cap serves a purpose, but i understand why supervisor kim has chosen a soft cap to level the playing field for all candidates in the event other candidates have more access to larger sums of money, so i am supportive of either version and i think the general approach is very similar. i look forward to us having a resolution of these issues and in the days of the superpac at looking at what is happening at the federal level, we should be proud we have a system that levels the playing field and some -- and supplies everyone in san francisco, irrespective of their ability to raise money to be involved in local politics and i think that's a very good thing. the changes proposed in these two items are changes that go in conjunction with the other proposal

i and the general feeling is that a soft cap is more fair. if there is an independent party that decides to throw in an ordinance amount of funding opposing your candidacy, i think it is only fair that you should privately raised dollars. it is different from the other public financing schemes we have work that. it doesn't involve any public funding this embarrassment. there is a slight preference for that dollar amount. we partially addressed that raising the ceiling. in every race, we have had a raise the ceiling, and we reached the number that we thought was fairly reasonable to kind of run a credible campaign on the board of supervisors. i have generally heard a soft preference just in case there is a kind of on likely -- maybe not unlikely, but a scenario where you are vastly being outspent. >> there are considerations that have been important in, and i wonder if you can speak to how they play out here. the government interest and participation in publicly financed campaign systems, and you think the soft vs. hard cap will make it more l

the next day he of not in the net as his bruins lost to the caps 5-3. he was there today, though. 1st period no score. rich peverley up the right ring centered in front to milan luchich, bruins in front 1-0. later in the 1st period alex collides with boychuk but then to alexander semin. his backhand touchdowned about tomas who had over 35 -- backhand turned about tomas who had over 35 saves. behind the bruins net was 6' 5- inch adam mcquaid, ouch. 3rd period, vokoun triggers the caps offense to joe lan son and deflects off dennis wideburg for the often deflect of the game. >> with the defending stanley cup boston bruins in town the caps hoped to make daytime and despite their place in the standings they are still -- make a statement and despite their place in the standings they are still one of the elite teams. >> i thought there was chances on both sides tonight compared to the montreal game when it was a real tight affair. there wasn't much room both sides, but tonight or this afternoon was a lot of -- they know a lot of scoring chances on both sides.

the leader of the party opposite says he is against the cap in -- not against the cap in principle. tonight, we will find out whether or not he is in favor of the cap in practice. >> mr. speaker, can i join the prime minister in paying tribute to the officers? both men showed exceptional courage and bravery, and our thoughts are with their family and friends. mr. speaker, before the election, legislation was passed with cross party support to make all banks disclose how many people earn over 1 million pounds, but it needs the government to trigger the change. will the prime minister now go ahead and do it. >> we have the toughest and most transparent regime of any major financial center in the world for the first time ever. banks are going to publish the pay of the top executives. that never happened in 13 years of the labour government. mr. walker said at the same time -- what themselves said it should be done at the same time, it should be done in all across the union. >> this is exactly what we expect. no leadership on top pay. in case you have not heard the news, there are more

and we have talked about the cap, and i am sure we may return to it. we can move on to the next item. >> moving on to no. 3, the budget analysts pointed out that the reimbursements should be based on estimates provided by a third party engineer. what we have done is to propose a revision that would specify there would be a peer review of this proposed item. in addition, this highlights the number of the engineering review board that calls for a non- linear time sensitive analysis that will go a long way to the finding the most efficient solution so we feel very confident that the combination of those provisions will allow us to make sure what is being done is what is required to reach for the peers are safe but not beyond that. >> next item. >> moving on to item number four, prior to the upgrade of 30 and 32, in dovetails with the situation we just had. at the time before the second phase of work, to a evaluate the financing option. >> i think we would all agree to that. >> to define this a little more, we are calling this details. what is is a partici

the cap is right and fair. it is right today. you should not get more than 26,000 pounds per year in benefits. that is 500 pounds per week, and is there because we are introducing a new principle that an able-bodied family that can work should not get more in benefits than the average family gets from work. the leader of the party opposite says he is against the cap in principle. tonight, we will find out whether or not he is in favor of the cap in practice. >> mr. speaker, can i join the prime minister in paying tribute to the officers? both men showed exceptional courage and bravery, and our thoughts are with their family and friends. mr. speaker, before the election, legislation was passed with cross party support to make all banks disclose how many people earn over 1 million pounds, but it needs the government to trigger the change. will the prime minister now go ahead and do it. >> we have the toughest and most transparent regime of any major financial center in the world for the first time ever. banks are going to publish t

we're not making a hard cap of $85 million, which would be my druthers. we are making some other firms statement about wanting to have those outlined sources as the port has indicated and agreed with. commissioner chu: i would like the port to be able to respond to that amendment. from my point of you about the additional resolution language that pulls up the same language in the dda, that does not seem to be problematic. i want to hear from you. in terms of the issue about the general fund levels, i think i would be interested to hear what you have to say about it. supervisor chiu mention there might be opportunities where we actually want to have a different financing mechanism. can you speak to them? >> i think a couple things. based on the resolution and restating the reimbursements, the finite but it makes sense and i support that. -- bucket makes sense and i support that. i would suggest using the language that we can read into the record that talks about, no one can force the general fund or harbor fund to do any of these things. that discretion is

the caps are now one point out of a playoff spot.ohn wall competed in the skills competition, but it was san antonio's tony parker who won the event. as for who won the dunk connest, let's hit the highlights. this is paul george of the pacers. lights out tron style. apparently the people like utah's jeremy evans, dunks two basketballs over teammate gordon hayward. the winner was decided by fan voting. so jeremy evans, your slam dunk champi champion, get excited. vcu grads are smiling big tonight. the rams broke the patriots heart tonight in rich month. patriots with the ball. later in the half, george mason down big. and they turn it over. scooped it up and scored. vcu 43-27 at halftime. burgess making his 141st consecutive start. knocks down the three. he pumped in a career high 31 points. and on senior nigh, vcu defeated george mason, 89-77 and the ncaa tournament starts from i had. ninth-ranked georgetown hosting villanova. hoyas coming off their first loss of the season in an 18-point defeat against see tto hall on tuesday. the f

it's cap and tax. >> it's cap and tax. republicans came up with cap and trade, it was their proposal. now they are not only against it, it's the end of the world. september, 2008, republicans are in favor of bailing out the banks. to the point of john boehner weep be about it on the floor of the house. >> i ask you both sides of the aisle, what is in the best interests of our country? not what is in the best interest of our party or reelection, what is in the best interest of our country, vote yes. >> vote yes. vote yes to bail out the banks. okay, now, same republican, same policy, a year or two later, in 2009 and 2010. >> i'm going to ask my colleagues, if you have enough of bail outs and tarp, do the right thing for the american people. they are already saying enough is enough. lets end tarp, pay down the deficit. cut spending back to 2008 levels. and back before the bail outs and the stimulus and all the nonsense. >> all that nonsense. that i wept and begged you to vote for. they were all for the bail out idea, now the

first of all on salary cap. i can assure people that cap is not anywhere close to $1 million. i welcome people to look at that. hi family might not think it is so great, but it is overall a great thing. you raise a number of serious issues. one is funding generally. i do think it is critical to have diversity of funding. it is important to balance it out. any organization that disproportionately relies on one source of funding or one kind of a funding can end up speaking to that funding. that is a challenge overall. it is something we work on to ensure we have diversified our funding and we are not dependent on any single donor or any particular set of funds either. i would very much disagree with the idea about the research world declining. i take this very seriously. there is too much commentary coming out of think tanks. i am pushing our teams to focus on analysis and less on commentary. there is a lot of commentary out there. having just recently served in the government and served 10 years ago, there is an incredibly vital role to government policy makers to depend on the

caps in toronto., before you can sit down with popcorn and sip on a coke, marcus johansson circles the net and scores, 32 seconds into the game. it's 1-0 washington. his 12th of the season. a little later, it's a russian robbery. alex simmons scores. second period, watch this stick work, ladies. one, two, three caps score. first goal of the season, caps win 4-2. washington now one point out of first place. good win today. redskins news, leanard hankerson announced on his twitter account today that he had surgery tuesday to repair his injured hip. hanker son had a break out game against miami. in that same game, he tore his labrom. he was hoping surgery wouldn't be necessary, but it was. he fully expects to be ready for training camp. georgetown began the day in the big east. why do you care about that? get a double bye in the upcoming big east tournament and an easier road to the title game. it's important. nova, georgetown, always an intense game. less than 30 seconds into the game. georgetown, porte

so i think caps are dangerous. >> if i have time for one more question. how do you feel about caps? >> we have a de facto cap now. with the bureaucracy. >> yeah. yeah. >> so, you know -- >> it's ineffective. yeah. >> so, you know, the cap and the american specialty agricultural act is 500,000. should it be higher? maybe. let's pass that and get started. i know that if our country makes a commitment and puts the right statutory language in place that we can build a program that works for farmers and is accountable for workers so, yeah, we can have a program that treats workers well. >> thank you. i see my time is up. >> yes, you'll have a chance for a second go round. the gentlelady from texas is

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 votes and the ethics commission. there are ballot measures where the voters have not given us that authority. the voters have kept the power to themselves through prop e. in this instance, the voters passed a ballot measure that provided a mechanism for us to make amendments without having to send it to the voters. i think it is appropriate for us to do that. if the voters disagree, we have the initiative power to change that. thank you. president chiu: is there any further discussion on this motion for this item back to committee. roll-call. >> supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, no. supervisor elsbernd. aye. president chiu: motion to refer back

. >>> caps? >> caps unfortunately not a great day for them. it takes is a couple games for the caps to drop from first to ninth place. >>> plus an exciting day in college hoops, hoyas, terps and a big upset, those and more coming up next in sports. ♪ [ male announcer ] for our families... our neighbors... and our communities... america's beverage companies have created a wide range of new choices. developing smaller portion sizes and more low- & no-calorie beverages... adding clear calorie labels so you know exactly what you're choosing... and in schools, replacing full-calorie soft drinks with lower-calorie options. with more choices and fewer calories, america's beverage companies are delivering. a little bird told me about a band... ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ she was in paris, but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band. there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so, where to next? ♪ >>> now 9 sports with kristen berset, the best sports in town. >> it's never a surprise when a team's home r

what it says retain existing restaurant cap. i did not know of that was limited to restaurant definition or also to a restaurant limited. >> that should be clarified. >> that is silly thing and wanted to bring up. >> any other comments? >> i am prepared to support this. president adams: we have a any public comment? we have a motion? >> i move that we recommend approval of this legislation with the request to planning that in certain districts, commercial ncd's, if a restaurant limited had been included in their cap, that should be examined and allowed to continue under the restaurant cap. >> second. >> can we do that with the specifics? >> any ncd that had any cap on what will now be called restaurant limited. >> that was seconded by clyde. >> on that motion, will call. >> commissioner clyde, aye, commissioner dooley, aye, commissioner dwight, aye, commissioner raley, aye, president adams, aye, commissioners that passes 6-0. >> item 12. >> item 12, discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisor

the cap is right and the gap is there. it is right to say you shouldn't get more than 26,000 pounds a year in benefit. that is 500 pounds a week. it's there because we are introducing the new principle into our welfare system that an able-bodied family that can work should not get more in benefits than the average family gets from work. now, the leader of the party opposite said he's not against the cap in principle. and i will find that what he is in favor of the cap in practice. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, can i join the prime minister in paying tribute to signaler jones of 20th armored brigade, and lance corporal attached to first battalion yorkshire regiment. both men showed exceptional courage and bravery, and our thoughts are with their families and friends. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, before the election, legislation was passed by parliament with cross party support to make all banks disclose how many people earn over 1 million pounds, but it needs the government to trigger the change. will the pri