the one part of the cbo report that i have greatest respect for the cbo and particularly professor lucas is i'm a little squishy on the benefits of the gses from this program. you know, i haven't heard from fannie and freddie are the fha coming out with any positive statements regarding that respect. i'm a little nervous that it may be overestimated. so i would actually make it more in the decision do we really think it is going to help or worse avoid default and would it actually helps stimulate the economy? i think those are the bigger selling points. but again, i think that -- i like the appreciation rollback idea the best. >> i would observe a couple of things. when one we referred a little bit to the cbo report. i would cite private-sector estimates from goldman sachs, jpmorgan, morgan stanley and at probe really structure a program that would generate 25 to 50 million a year. the jpmorgan report came out after the cbo report. they respectfully disagree. i'm not sure it and everybody on wall street thinks that a well-structured program would be as small as the cbo estimated. so i do

is it true that cbo -- has cbo itself done an analysis of these numbers? >> i do not have numbers comparable to the was acquitted to use, but we spend a fair amount of time working with members of congress, working with the people at cmf to think about ways and that policies could be changed that would try to reduce the level of those payments, and the budget control act included provisions for raising the caps in discretionary spending to cover some of those efforts you described, and we could the effects of that act of the savings that would accrue in terms of reduced payments. >> will you work with us to try to identify the potential policy that could result on a cost-benefit analysis significant savings if we were to implement it? >> yes, we certainly will. i would caution that there is no evidence that suggests that this sort of effort can represent a large share of the 1.2 trillion -- $1.20 trillion, or larger numbers you have discussed as being the objective savings for this committee. >> if the g a zero report is right, if the president said -- if

we have referred a little bit to the cbo report., even work mark has done that suggests an appropriately structured program would generate 25-50000000000 per year. the j.p. morgan report came out after the cbo report. they respectfully disagreed. and not sure anybody on wall street thinks that a well structured program would be as small as the cbo estimated. i do think that there is good reason to believe that this would have a much bigger stimulus on the economy than the cbo suggested. i just point out that in 2002 and 2003, the last time rates fell like they have so far this time, about 85 percent of borrowers who could save 100 basis points on their loan took advantage of prepaying over a 2-year timeframe. the cbo estimates that take up rate, even among the most constrained house holds a 30%. i think the cbo estimate predominantly on the take a break has been a bit conservative relative to other folks. i would go out and say, i think, this can be a much bigger effort. the key is appropriately structuring this. you rightly pointed

before he came to cbo dr.orf was the senior fellow in the economic studies program at workings institution. the edward m. bernstein scholar he served as coeditor of the brookings papers on economic activity and the director of the hamilton project and initiative to promote broadly shared economic growth. he has served as assistant professor at harvard university, a principal analyst at the congressional budget office, senior economist at the white house council of economic advisers, deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the treasury department, and an assistant director of the division of research institutes dates at the federal reserve board. in those positions.realm in darfur has gained a wide range of expertise on budget policy, social security, medicare, national health care reform, financial markets, macroeconomic analysis and forecasting and many other topics. so i'm very glad that he has agreed to join our committee here today. dr. elmendorf thank you so much for taking the time and helping

he joins me now, some sobering words there from the head of the cbo. do you see your mission on whatever you guys come up with, whether it's 1.5 trillion, 2 trillion, 4 trillion, that no matter what, the eventual solution is going to include both some tax hikes and some entitlement reforms which is code word for cuts? >> chuck, i think the big solution to get us really moving forward and getting the country back on track will include a mix of those. anyone who says otherwise is either fooling themselves or not willing to be serious. >> let me ask you this. i know that the president, one of the things he hopes for in his jobs bill is that the super committee, if congress itself doesn't like the "pay fors" for the half trillion dollar jobs bill, he would like the supercommittee to figure out a way to do it. is it your plan to take up essentially the pay for aspect of the president's job bill and find half a trillion dollars in what you're doing to pay for this jobs bill? >> chuck, i hope we do take up the proposal for jobs, because this supercommittee is

i'm cbo, when they score investment, cbo looks at the infrastructure and education. they don't take into account either the positive economic road benefits of that in terms of receipts, judaic? >> in our conventional estimates, they do not account for positive effects for the potential crowding out. >> it is analogous on the cbo site in terms of investment to what she do an attack tax side, correct? >> correct, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> that completes the first round of questioning for the first panel. we will go to the second round of questioning. the cochair will yield to himself. dr. barthold, in my opening statement i quoted from a letter from former cbo error, dr. peter orszag and i believe under a current policy baseline, it's solved on the tax side, that the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would go from 10 to 25. the 2563, 35% bracket 288. the top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35% to 80%. as the joint committee on taxation performed any analysis that is similar to dr. orszag to be analysis? or would you have an opinion? >> i can

so it's a matter of coordinating the court's with with the cbo mediation. so have you a problem of lack of coordination where you have some great programs but they are not supported by the court. juvenile probation. they do need to work together that is respected and used by all the agencies. otherwise students don't believe in these. in the school district doesn't follow or adhere to the outcome. >> thank you. questions? >> i go to civic center secondary school. i was wondering what quality sources do have you for young women? >> we have the wellness center that provides a lot of youth lines and they also provide you with girl's group. i know we have mission's group. there were 4 girls for different ages of girls. they taught us about pregnancy and birth controls and a lot of stuff like that. so the wellness center is something that helps >> at the middle school level, we have safe passage centers. we have all kinds of different community groups coming in to help us with interest around stopping violence, helping kids feel better about themselves and their

and reiterating that the broadbased cbo participation be applied and not just one or two cbo's, becauseveryone has their own constituency. also, want to reiterate the opportunity here for the world cup. america's cup. it being a world-class event. this is a perfect opportunity to apply local hire. it can be held up as a standard for the world. union-scale jobs of participation by all unions across the board, for everyone. we also ask that you please, please make sure they include local businesses, whether it be contractors on the construction site or local lenders on all of the other services and the opportunities that exist for this great event. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. executive director of young community developers. i do not want to spend too much time and echoing the sentiments of a lot of my colleagues. i think we're all on the same page in terms of what we want to see with the america's cup opportunity. one thing i do want to talk about is a credibility in terms of standards and expectations. -- the credibility in terms of standards and expectations. we got lots

i would ask a sure question regards to the cbo score. my understanding is this what save money for the gst is, but because the fed holds a number of securities that might diminish in value with a lower interest rates, but there is some cost estimated. could either one of you kind of clarify what cbo was pointing to? [inaudible] >> fannie and freddie actually can come as we said before, from the changes in the bill to a 200 melon because the savings realized by date reduction in foreclosures would outweigh any revenue due to the elimination of the risk ac and to reduce portfolio income. because of large holdings, cne and freddie mortgage-backed securities would experience reduced investment income of 2.6 billion over 10 years. so this means there is a net cost. so although this means there is a net cost to these changes come in the federal government should not be profiting. this is my feeling, from borrowing -- borrowers paying higher interest rates than they should have to. the fact that the fed holds the security should not create a pe

the models cbo now uses to estimate dynamic effects. i just scratched the surface on technical things that the supercommittee might argue about. i am afraid that such side arguments could be very time consuming and make it extremely difficult to meet the deadline for cutting $1.5 trillion. >> thank you. one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the design of the sequester. do you want to comment on what you think of design? >> very tricky to design a sequester. if you make it too gentle it doesn't do much for you. if you make it too harsh there is the temptation for the congress to walk away from it if it becomes too painful. that is what they did ultimately with the dan rudman sequester created in 1985. i think they are close to a happy medium with the kind of sequester designed by the bill and we could argue ferociously about that but it seems to me that the discretionary cuts. no across-the-board cuts is wise by any standard. it might well be tolerable especially if the committee gets a part of the way to the $1.5 trillion and the resi

is it true that cbo -- well, as cbo done an analysis of these numbers?i do not have numbers comparable to the ones you quoted to use. but we do spend a fair amount of time working with members of congress, working with the people at cms and so on in thinking about the ways policies can be changed to reduce the levels of those payments. provisions have been included to cover those efforts to describe. we concluded the effects of that, the savings that we thought would accrue in terms of payments. >> will you help us identify the potential policy that could result in significant savings if it were implemented? >> we certainly will. i would also caution that there's no evidence that suggests that this sort of effort can represent a large share of the $1.20 trillion or $1.50 trillion or the larger numbers some of you have discussed in savings for the committee. >> if the gao report is right and what the president said is right, that there is over $100 billion in one year alone, even if we get 25% of that, it is a significant amount of money. it is something

dave cote, ceo of honeywell on the fiscal commission and alice rivlin, former director cbo, omb, vice chair of the fat on the fiscal commission and cochair of the domenici rivlin. we have a group of people who are together putting together bipartisan deals that in fact did go big and could go big and in many ways will inform the work of the super committee. i'm going to be joined now by my co-moderator, peter cook from bloomberg tv. peter, if you are ready, alternate server two for the first question to our group. >> maya, thank you for the participation. and the all-star panel he have to talk to about the issue in washington these days. as a reporter covering the super committee and actions over the next few weeks, this is a list to say a fascinating and important topic for us and our audience have bloomberg and important for not only this unanswered, the audience at home and around the country to find out why you won't believe going big is the right move because certainly forgot their voices in

finally, when he served as cbo director, dr. peter orszag in a letter to paul martin stated the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10% to 25%. attacks again and comes in at 25% brack it would be increased to 63% in the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35% to 80%. the top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35% to 80%. so the ability, wisdom and consequences of addressing our debt crisis or tax increases will continue to constitute a rigorous debate by her committee. my hope is that we may be able

the cbo s can do something and the police. i worked so hard with that parent and inspectors. not a single person has mentioned parent. how can we make them accountable. >> i just needed to put that the word parent out there. we need to make more accountability. most of the kids are reacting. my kid, has severe ptsd. unless we can heal the wounds. it's not just on the streets of sunnydale. >> yes. the family, what makes up a family, parents children. ultimately, we have to also deal with our families who have their children who are placed with these acronyms over their head that follows them all through their lives. when working with the child. not only are we working with the families and their friends and the places they go before they get home. so the ultimate thing is building that family unit. i was going to run to that. life goes on. we all have a duty not just to the child. but to the family. because the child comes from a family and most the children that we're working with. the families are broken. the homes are broken. so they lived through this years and years. the

according to the cbo, u.s. real incomes could rise for the next decade or so and then could stagnate and then start falling. this would be a reversal of american history. last year's cdo compared paul ryan's road map, which keeps spending at today's level, nurses these alternative fiscal scenarios. they found by the 2050's, u.s. average incomes will be 70% higher under the road map plan than under the alternative fiscal scenario, because of the buildup of debt. some fear that spending cuts in the short term would hurt the economy. i would only point out that we have had $5 trillion of deficit spending since 2008. the most enormous keynesian stimulus you can imagine, but we have had a recovery since world war ii. if you look around the world at real-world examples, canada, sweden, other countries that have cut their spending -- for example, can the that dramatically cut their spending in the 1990's and did not depress the economy. the economy boomed for 15 years even as spending was cut dramatically. i think con

i'm cbo, when they score investment, cbo looks at the infrastructure and education.n't take into account either the positive economic road benefits of that in terms of receipts, judaic? >> in our conventional estimates, they do not account for positive effects for the potential crowding out. >> it is analogous on the cbo site in terms of investment to what she do an attack tax side, correct? >> correct, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> that completes the first round of questioning for the first panel. we will go to the second round of questioning. the cochair will yield to himself. dr. barthold, in my opening statement i quoted from a letter from former cbo error, dr. peter orszag and i believe under a current policy baseline, it's solved on the tax side, that the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would go from 10 to 25. the 2563, 35% bracket 288. the top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35% to 80%. as the joint committee on taxation performed any analysis that is similar to dr. orszag to be analysis? or would you have an opinion? >> i can clearly

they are about our relationship with cbos. however, any actual contracts such as those you saw, they have to come back. this does not authorize the staff to pay money to the cbo's without authorization by the board, so i thank you for the question. i wanted to clarify for myself, which is as i thought it was. for me that was resolved spirit of my question about -- that was resolved. my question about 2-e was about transportation services, the medical transportation services for special aided, and there waa question raised to me about the bidding process. as i understand it, we got a letter. during the bidding process, one bidder had been given notice they had won the bid, and the process was reopened again, apparently because of a complaint by another bidder, and after the same organization and also submitted the lowest dibid it was given to someone else, so there was some question about the issue, and i see the bitter in question has been judged to be non-compliant, and i just have questions about the process, whether it has

the first hearing in the house budget committee, the testimony, cbo director after that. i went on laid out what i thought would be a reasonable republican plan to stimulate the economy. we need to address entitlements. one thing, proposed in the testimony, change the indexing formula for social security and gives you $7 trillion in trent value, takes the budget balance a little better. >> how is that stimulus? >> take a trillion and trim it back with permanent tax cuts. you don't have to pay for it down the road and get the stimulus of a tax cut. problem, if you're doing something one year really what we'll do is give you $100 this year, take it back next year and you're not going to change consumption very much. that's the obama approach. we need to stop this we can ignore the nation's problems and jack things up with cash for clunkers and we'll be okay. we have to address the problem. >> a creative idea. i missed that testimony. i hadn't heard that. my guess, you couldn't get republicans to go for the mega entitlement reform? they've walked the plank on the paul ryan p

omb and cbo tend to come out reasonably even in all areas. they make the same fundamental assumptions about the long-term economic outlook. and as a consequence that's a major driver of revenues. and so my judgment is let's get our house in order. let's remember that taxes are there for the purpose of funding spending and decide what level of spending this country can afford, not what it would like, but what it can afford. >> i'm in strong favor for that and qualifications on your first approach which is to use reduced rates which to me is the classic definition of tax reform, expanding the base and lowering the rates in a revenue neutral way. the strategy or the plan for the budget i outlined orally at the beginning and in my written testimony has that built into it and i think that's one of the real advantages of a credible gradual reduction in this very high level of spending that we recently just achieved. number 1 it seems the way to do this. >> thank you, dr. feldstein? >> i would split the revenue between the two uses, and i thought th

, nonprofits that deal with -- the fleet of cbo's and others who sit at the reentry consul. san francisco looks very prepared on paper. in the budget that we are expecting to really operate this program by, for the upcoming year, is approximately between $13 million or $15 million. we are not getting all the funds we should be getting. as the question we posed earlier to mayor lee, the portion we have to then supply is approximately $5 million or $6 million. that is going to have to come from somewhere, especially if there is an added population of prisoners that we are not expecting. there is one overriding concern we will have to monitor, and that is that what 12 and 13 us before us today is we are adding 31 new positions, appropriately so and legitimately so in the combination of adult probation who is going to get the substance of those positions and then public defender and district attorney. what our hope is that for those positions, that all the money is not so staff heavy that it is not getting to direct services. it is direct services on the ground that we have to m

cbo expects employment to expand very slowly. it leaves the unemployment rate as depicted by the dots in the figure close to 9% through the end of the next year. all these figures are taken from the written testimony in nearly in that order. as a result, we think that a large portion of the economic and human costs of this downturn remained ahead of us. the difference between output and estimated how put shown by the gap in the lines between that figure has accumulated to $4.5 trillion. by the time this is realized, we expect that the cumulative shortfall will be twice as large as it is to now, or $5 trillion. not only of the costs associated with this shortfall in output immense, they are also born on evenly, of falling disproportionately on people who lose their jobs, displaced from their homes, or own businesses that fail. i want to emphasize that the economic outlook is highly uncertain. many developments could cause it to differ substantially in one direction or the other than those we currently anticipate. if the recovery c

elmendorf, let me just ask as you have talked about it long term but reports from january, cbo included an analysis on the impact of lower than expected economic growth on the federal budget. i want to ask you what does cbo estimate the impact on the deficit projections in the near term and over the next ten years if gdp growth continues to weaken beyond what is reflected in the current estimate? >> a weaker economy implies worst outcomes because tax revenues fall and extra spending and entitlement programs we talked about a moment ago. we have not done quantitative estimates of other scenarios beyond what is in these rules of thumb we offer in january. the rules of thumb are rough because a lot of things may not rise and fall with the rest of the economy. we have been surprised that the outcomes of tax revenue given the state of the economy but there's no doubt a weaker economy works for the budget and stronger economy is a lot better for the budget. the challenge is how to move the economy. is not easy to move $15 trillion economy. >> thank you. i do have a question about sequestratio

there were some folks at the cbo, the congressional budget office. we have a wonderful vignette where they came up against fannie mae when they were in 1995 part of the congressional act of '92 which was the safety and soundness act that created a new regulator for fannie and freddie, asked for studies from treasury, gao, hud and cbo. cbo did a masterful job of analyzing how rich the subsidy was from the government that fannie mae received. um, they were visited by fannie mae executives, june o'neill who was the head of cbo at the time said she felt like they were being visited by the mafia. they were, she was pressured to try to water it down. not to produce this report that was very explicit about how much the government guarantee was worth to the cope and how -- company and how at all costs they had to protect it. so we had cbo people who were standing up against the pressure from fannie mae. there were other people who saw what was coming, people in the, in the georgia area who were first to wave the flag and call out the rating agencies for, um,

services that are required to truly meet a particular outcome that we are going to lay out for our cbo's are actually differ for each one of these populations. actually, maybe not, but we do not know because we do not have that level of data. what we have now someone saying that we serve young people in the bay view or the mission, but we do not know what some of the risk factors are that these young people have. or, where are they on this continuum of need? now that we have broken apart this way -- and i realize that means a little bit more work for our community partners, but it will definitely help us in terms of gathering that type of data. so that we can say, in order to serve as a young person here as in-custody contact, it actually costs us this must -- this much money. for us to truly serve the population, we need to truly invest in this population. and invest in the types of services that will produce that type of outcome. so we hope to get there through this rfp and through this process. in terms of meeting the needs of on the ground, street level, and ensuring processes have b

there are no hiccups in the cbo baseline. and so if you want to build in a rainy day fund on top of that, you're, unfortunately, talking about some number compared to current policy in excess of $6 trillion. >> thank you. >> dr. feldstein, what do you recommend that we do with the bush tax cuts? >> tell me what the economy is going to be like, i'm afraid the economy is going to be very weak. and, therefore, when i think about deficit reduction and reform, i think that we have to do the timing such that we don't take a weak economy and push it down even more. i think there's, unfortunately, contrary to a lot of the both private and public official forecasts, i think that there's a 50% or better chance that we're going to go into a new recession. i think consumers and businesses are not under current circumstances inclined to spend. and so i'm afraid that if that's where we are, it would be a mistake to let those tax cuts lapse. >> anybody on the panel, i would like you to opine on this -- do you have any favorites among the ta

need to get them to work right now in the cbo. in tomorrow's headlines, they came out today and told the super committee here in the congress. >> right. >> that the best thing to do for our economy, the best thing about dealing with the debt is to spend government money now to increase economic activity and put more people to work. >> and that's the cbo which is non-partisan. >> non-partisan experts. they are smarter than all of us put together here in the congress. that's why we hired them. we pay them a lot of money, and they have given us some very good advice. >> congressman fattah, thanks for joining me. >> thank you. >> as the president addressed the crowd in columbus, ohio, today he made it clear the time for partisan bickering is over. >> maybe there's some people in congress whoied rather settle our differences at the ballot box than work together right now, but i've got news for them. the next election is 14 months away, and the american people don't have the luxury of waiting that long. >> so will republicans make it ha

the cbo said the plan only reduces the total budget by a billion dollars. which of these numbers is correct? cares? the $7 billion that john boehner calls quote a real enforceable cut for finance year 2012 represents what the government of the united states currently borrows every 37 hours. in other words, between now and the time, and the end of the week we will have borrowed back every dime of those painstakingly negotiated savings. if the cbo scoring is correct that it would reduce the 2012 deficit by just $1 billion, then the cut represents what the united states borrows every five hours and 20 minutes. in other words, in less time that it takes to drive from ipad at stake and back, and the time it takes to watch harry potter and the deathly hallows, parts one and two with a bathroom break in between, all the savings that was painstakingly negotiated plan will have been borrowed back. 7 billion or 1 billion? who cares who's right? that's a choice between dead or better. amount of shuffling back and forth between the capitol and the right horse, at the w

the cbo and others have done that calculation. i don't have the numbers at my fingertips. >> does anybody have that number kind have been off their heads ballpark number? >> i don't have the exact number but i do know that people have looked at the growth of the debt over time. attributed a good part of that growth not to specific policy choices made since 2008 at in fact to the recession and automatic declines in tax revenues and automatic increases in spending programs. they don't provide any choices that we have made that is added several billion dollars, trillion dollars, i'm sorry to the current level of debt. that is likely the deficit by further reducing tax revenues and raising spending. >> dr. foster. >> yes senator this is one of those rare moments when we are in agreement which is rather pleasant. to read what dr. rivlin said there's there is a chapter in the analytical specter of the president's budget in which there is a table. i believe it is chapter 3 and perhaps table 3.11 which goes to a budget sensitivity analysi

white up, the school district, mayor's office, and the number of city cbo's partner together to plan and implement a very special program. three weeks ago, august 25 through 28, our department in the above-mentioned partners, a team together to make 37 our risk youth, ages 14 to 17 to the camp. campers participated in activities such as interpreter of heights, the navigation classis, fishing, sports and athletics come early morning runs and hikes, archery, aquatics, conflict resolution. the producer did it in a talent show, and a very memorable trip to hit tetchtch hetchy. we hope to identify teenagers that could move into the department work -- recreation program, use leadership program, and potentially to become leaders to keep some of our outdoor courses in extreme forces its sports. thi10 of those students are beig selected immediately to begin work this october. they will put throughout the city in different competencies' to start providing some of those services. that is a really great thing. i would like to recognize some of our staff that planned this for weeks and weeks. we

the cbo also assumes constant growth. there are no hiccups in the cbo baseline.in a rainy day fund on top of that, you are unfortunately talking about some number compared to current policy in excess of $6 trillion. >> thank you. dr. feldstein, what do you recommend we do with the bush tax cuts? >> tell me what the economy is going to be like. i am afraid the economy is going to be very weak. and therefore, when i think about deficit reduction and reform, i think that we have to do the timing such that we do not take a weak economy and push it down even more. i think there is, unfortunately, contrary to a lot of the private and public official forecasts, i think there is a 50% or better chance that we are going to go into a new recession. i think consumers and businesses are not, under current circumstances, inclined to spend. i am afraid that if that is where we are it would be a mistake to let those tax cuts laps. >> anybody on the panel, i would like you to opine on this. do you have any favorites among the tax expenditures that you would like to get rid of? t

. >> the cbo projects that federal spending will rise 24%. budget chart showed, the federal debt will explode almost 20% by 2035 unless we make reform. some people think it is ok if america raises taxes in coming years because they think we have a uniquely small government in this country. that is the longer the case. if you look at data, total federal spending in united states is 41 certification of gdp. that is only -- 41 % of gdp. that is only 4 % less. we are becoming a bloated welfare state. this is one of your charts showed. if you look at growth over the last four years, our debt has grown the fastest. of crisis going on. we're getting up to that level. it is about half of gdp by 2035 care there are fewer -- by 2035. there are fewer. it would be really sad to lose that. there are terms of all this deficit spending. additional spending cuts in the less productive government of the economy. if the government is our is spending 4 out of every $10, it seems marginal spending is going to have a lower-return. texas a&m public finance profess

the cbo says he cannot score a speech. we need specifics. i think we're all committed to working together to solve problems. i do believe the way you solve the employment problem is that we have to give some stability. businesses are sitting on the sideline. they do not know of their energy costs are going to beat. they're sitting back. they're very hesitant to hire. >> the bigger issue is the terms of the regulation of the obama administration. they do it before the infrastructure projects and things like that. >> the first thing to attack is regulation along with everything else. you can play with rules with a business person. renown nobody knows. the last thing any business person is looking for is running out and hiring people. we're making it so difficult because we do not have an energy plan. we see anywhere from 30-80%. employers will pay the fine. there's tremendous uncertainty. employers are not volunteer and not hire a bunch of people on a matter how much money we spend. >> what is the unemployed rate in arkansas that price is abou

have somebody at their side all the time to help with the needs of the student and the principle and cbo get up and meet every morning. they were total partners in making this a community school. then i will be through. i had the opportunity to go to another school at 9 o'clock at night where i thought it was going to be closed. i walk into the school in upper manhattan and it is lit up like a christmas tree. we have to light up every school. it changed the whole neighborhood. it was a beacon of wonderfulness. it was full of activity. of young people. parents. esl. everything. i got so excited about the potential could be. and it changed the neighborhood and young people. if you want to talk about safety. i think we can make a joint commitment to this philosophy and start making it happen in san francisco. >> i really, i completely agree with margaret. when you look at this list, the reason some schools have this is because those schools go out and hustle funds. we are blessed because d.c. yf. we have the city that helps us. we have prop h. but the reality, the bottom route is our state