my name is christopher elmendorf. as a a professor of law at uc davis school of law where i teach election law, and i am resident of san francisco, where i have lived in the mission district since 2005. i wanted to say a few words this morning about why i want to serve on this task force and the values i would bring to the task of the task force. i see this as a public service opportunity, no more and no yes. i am is a tenured professor. i teach and have relevant knowledge in this area that i think i could bring to the project. but i owe no debt to any candidate, to any interest group, and i have no interest in being into debt or having indebted to me any candidate or interest group that has a stake in this process. the u.s. stands alone among all industrialized democracies the use single member district elections in that we have a largely political process for redrawing legislative districts. virtually all of the country's the use single member district electrics -- elections have some non-partisan democratic process

elmendorf? >> well, congressman, there are a variety of influences on the economy. the policies of presidents and congresses are obviously important. i would be close to draw any strong conclusions from that. savages you suggest. >> they're pretty accurate. >> i'm not disputing the numbers. i am just saying to map those directly to the policies while leaving out all the other factors. >> there are other factors aren't there, mr. elmendorf? when the president raised his hand in january 2009, he had no idea, we had no idea of how bad this economy was. would you agree to that? >> if they do, congressman. >> for the record, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. pascarella. mr. kerry. >> i thank the chairman. for taking a page out of mr. pascarella's comments i guess is that with the same time forcefulness. it is hard to make these projections that should make overtime. >> certainly is, congressman. so when you made these assumptions -- when you make these projections, what do you do quickly with great to a

elmendorf, mr. mcdonnell, and i it likes the greens of -- and i liked the range of practical experience. professor elmendorf is no political affiliation to the city whatsoever. >> supervisor, there is an overflow room. that room is available. supervisor kim: thank you. >> [unintelligible] supervisor elsbernd: mr. mcdonnell, the demonstrated commitment to the city through his resonate, and his work with his current occupation. and i just think the threat of not knowledge -- the brat of knowledge, and he is clearly a man of integrity. and it is that kind of integrity, from what i have heard, and will spread out amongst the community. i think it shines through. it is something everyone else will benefit from. mr. alonso stood out to me as someone who would bring a breath of fresh air to something that was highly political. he would be the everyman at this committee. i think that would be very, very helpful with the group, and i think that group of three brings elements of diversity which we are strivin

elmendorf?well, congressman, there are a varietof influences on the economy. the policies of presidents and congresses are obviously important. i would be close to draw any strong conclusions from that. savages you suggest. >> they're pretty accurate. >> i'm not disputing the numbers. i am just saying to map those directly to the policies while leaving out all the other factors. >> there are other factors aren't there, mr. elmendorf? when the president raised his hand in january 2009, he had no idea, we had no idea of how bad this economy was. would you agree to that? >> if they do, congressman. >> for the record, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. pascarella. mr. kerry. >> i thank the chairman. for taking a page out of mr. pascarella's comments i guess is that with the same time forcefulness. it is hard to make these projections that should make overtime. >> certainly is, congressman. so when you made these assumptions -- when you make these projections, what do you do quickly with great assumption

supervisor kim: both brigette leblanc and christopher elmendorf -- >> no, no. it is not a question for chris. i want you to share with me your thoughts on what attracted you to leadership san francisco, why did you participate? >> first and foremost, because i am a resident of san francisco, and i feel that i am is the color in the city that i was born and raised in. i was recommended to apply for leadership san francisco. i did my homework, and i thought that it was a great opportunity to really understand how the city works. and it was a great opportunity to me. we had like 70 people in our class from all different walks of life, and it was just a wonderful experience. i actually became more engaged in my community, and i really knew who to call and how to get help in different areas that we actually covered. that is it. supervisor kim: thank you. gia daniller-katz. next, we have james tracy. after james, we have jason porth. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is james tracy. usually when we come in front of each other like this, it is usually run partisan

well, in the summer of 2009 the cbo director, doug elmendorf, told in a state senate finance committee that indeed the medicare payment cuts would, in fact, result in cuts in medicare benefits. laid on the actuary reported after law had passed, at the medicare provider payments would result to payment cuts would result in a 15% reduction in hospitals, 50% in other words, would make them unprofitable and jeopardize seniors access to care. subsequent analysis by independent analysts have indicated that the medicare advantage cuts are going to result not on any massive desyrel of people with medicare advantage, but they're also going to cut that benefits that are payable to people in the medicare advantage program. herta just an independent analysis of that which indicates by 2017 medicare advantage reductions will result in the reduction of $3700, the value of benefits. jemez talked about the fact that the law does in fact adds to the deficit. the president said however, reporting, recording that he would not sign a lot and i quote as one done through our deficit either now or in the fut

elmendorf for not being here.e president and the white house and the senate on the republican on the issue of the debt ceiling, which i know we may talk some more about and see if we can't come to some agreement about a balanced approach of spending cut and revenue increases to be able to move forward. we'll see. but i appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments about where we stand at what we hear today about how we move forward. for me to make it and if you know i've been on the budget committee for some time. the federal budget is a statement of as a nation. it's about three things. it's fiscally responsible and reducing debt, meeting obligations to our seniors and making target investments to grow our economy. we need a balanced approach and that spending cuts for every aspect of the budget that ensure economic competitiveness and will increase revenue. we do not need political rhetoric were strict ideology. everything must be on the table and compromise in finding the common ground is very important. th

host: that was cbo director doug coleman door for -- elmendorf. here are the numbers to call -- "the washington post" reports the congressional budget office warns of the national debt will swell to unprecedented levels unless major changes are made in spending and tax policy. and the cbo offered a scenarios -- "the washington post" has these graphics. the first shows the budget balancing as the george bush tax cuts expire in 2012, alternative minimum tax is expanded and health care spending is restrained under president obama's health-care law. the second offers an alternative, one in which policy makers short circuit spending restraints but continued to cut taxes, sending the debt soaring. what do you make of this? guest: you are right. ellmendorf consistently put forth the following -- if you don't do something about the pending tax cuts, let them go like last year, and if you continue on the path we have now with spending on medicare, medicaid, tricare and other programs, you can't get the structural deficit under control. what that means that