>> the explosion of entitlements hasn't just turned our federal government into an entitlement machine, it's turned our society into a place where people see entitlements as part of their main source of income. it's had an effect of adding a sort of something for nothing mentality to our politics, which i think is immensely corrosive. >> i looked at just some of the numbers, roughly 2 trilli$2 tri transfer payments in the 2010 budget. the budget itself is 3.4,kron 2 3.4,trillion. 2 out of every 3 dollars. what's this economic consequences? >> one of the economic consequences is we pay for our entitlements by taxing the unborn, adding to the federal debt. the unborn don't get a vote how this is allocated. we're borrowing from future generations, that's one of the economic implications, the other is entitlements have given incentives for men, in particular, to flee from the labor force. we've had women going into the labor force, having men going out. >> is this why all these participation rates and populati population, employment population ratios are going down? is this what this is ab

>>guest: entitlements are consuming the budget. two-thirds of our budget is entitlements. if you are an elected official and you are unwilling to look at reforming the entitlement you should not be in office. this could be a good discussion to talk about entitlements. >>neil: just over the last four years they have green markedly and we asked some of these, just what has been going on the last four years something i want to bring up with the senator, just on medicare alone, if we can take a look at that and the growth in medicare spending over the last four years to the point where we have gone from $390 billion to $485 billion, but what caught my eye is just those who are benefiting from entitlement programs. this is far more important than what you are showing, disability enrollment up 18 percent. medicaid enrollment up 19 percent. food stamp enrollment, north of 65 percent. those are not sustainable numbers. >>guest: the average person pays in $100,000 over their working career into medicare but the average recipient takes out $300,000, multiplied by 50 million people i

president, you are entitled to your own airplane, and house, and knock your own facts. >> this week, the first presidential debate, around one to mitt romney. >> it is matt, arithmetic. >> where was the president's fastball? >> i felt he could of been more aggressive. >> joining the candidates and the center stage, the beleaguered middle class. >> middle americans have been buried, they are being crushed. >> that is when joe biden says. >> how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class who has been bearish for the last four years. >> to joe biden. [applause] don't boo, he has the best thing we have got going, guys. >> it was the biggest drop since -- i read that in a column friday morning. on the cover 25 1415 the english king henry the fifth led his army to victory. french king charles the sixth was mentally incapacitated at the time of battle. that is about as far as i wanted that one. charles? >> you were there, as i recall, you covered it for "the daily frog." it was felt he could of been moe aggressive. >> quite a route. i must say, when i wrote the column, i tried to ke

colby, we have been bellyaching about entitlements for years. ryan has a plan to do something about it, so what is the problem? >> he would, in effect, turn medicare into a voucher program. the president touched on it but did not stay with it, allowed romney to get away with it. the voucher program would cause people to have to then take a chunk of change, credit from the government, and go out and buy their own insurance. but only a limited amount of money would be available. if the costs go up, the people that get that, would have to pay the difference. the guarantee would be gone. that is the substance of how they would deal with medicare, and that is the way it will be. the president did not make the case as effectively as he should have on that. >> that is factually wrong. let me just say, that is completely, factually wrong. under the romney plan, the amount of money the government will give you will be equal to the amount of the second lowest bid, meaning you can then get that plan for nothing, or a cheaper plan -- there will be one plan

however it was entitled, ignoring a beautiful and ugly city is crazy. i agree with carl. i believe he's made good statements. his comments, not mine, he talked about some of the people on the street. he felt they weren't just foreclosed homeowners but people who have long-term serious problems. yet everybody ignores this, has been for decades. i think he makes good points and ends his article by saying we pretend this doesn't exist. san francisco needs a psychiatrist, which is a well-written article. part of this, there is a positive note, however. there is legislation introduced and i believe passed on first reading to ban our vehicles over night. many are housing unit wes don't deal with. we deal with mergers, decks, a bunch of things that are important. we deal nothing with a lot of the housing that is not housing that comes under the auspiceses of houses within houses. i think it is time this is dealt with. i applaud supervisors carmen chu and malia cohen who authorized this legislation. it is about time. i applaud bevin dufty who testified he felt there was room at s

wanted to say to what level does it take in terms of our review to be able to say yes or no to entitlement. i'm not prepared to deny the entitlements at this point in time. >> i feel very differently from my colleague and co-commissioner. i think the design and in standing alone the building is visually not an issue for me necessarily, it's where it's placed. and i think the failure on the part of the parties, i mean the project sponsor, to really engage with the neighbors perhaps given how out of place that structure looks and the height is extreme relative to its neighboring adjacent -- not withstanding what is across the street, and i think that was a good point to make as to what the height variation is, but that is a beautiful neighborhood and it's a really sweet part of town and i think putting something that sort of stands out like a sore thumb, not withstanding that it's standing alone is not an unattractive building, it's an attractive building. it just doesn't belong there. i think also the fact that the commission below couldn't vote in either direction strikes me as p an endors

democrats should be open reforming entitlements andd3 at least slowing their growth.kay, republicans shold not be so dogmatic about defense, can't be touched. that alone would getus moving toward an endgame here. but we don't. it is, the ection magically going to present that opportunity? >> well, i think what's happening is circumstances wi make peopl address this. ciumstances are getting worse. entitlements are growing so rapidly they will consume all of the money the budget within a fewew years. so think circumstances will tell all of us have to do it. to me it is inevitability. i don't care whether you're republican or democrat, is inevitability youill have to fix entitlements becae there's not enough young people and there is lot old people. there is mographic shift and we're living longer. these are facts and they're inescapable. theuestion is, wi we do it with this election o are we going to wait until things get worse a we begin inting up so much money, that prices begin to rise dramatically and everybody is worried abou a chaotic situationr whether we fix it

tracy: in 1961, every $3 went to entitlements. in 2010, two of every $3 goes to entitlements.he point where it is 3 and 3? >> we have already made the federal government entitlement machine. i don't think even franklin delano roosevelt would have imagined that was ever going to happen. the trajectory is straight up. right now there are $3 of entitlements for every dollar of defense spending, entitlements are starting to crowd out defense. you see that in the sequestration debate. tracy: i like your point about taxing the unborn. we have been doing it for for use with medicare and social security. how do we unravel that? how do we get out of that mess? >> i don't have a 12 subprogram for this in my book but i know the first step is recognizing a problem and this book tries to help people recognize the problems so we will start to talk about it honestly i hope. then maybe we can get to the fight that leads to a consensus. tracy: one thing that is controversial in your book is the flight of the out of work man, not one, man. how come? >> if you look at the numbers on this, the pr

go back to the 18 90s and most productist before the entitlement stat and governnt hand out to help us live our lives. it was the most productivity point in american history . you don't get workers feeling like they are stress down. they feel like they are enabled. >> and dying from poverty. >> and the down side is innovation right. and creating new productings. if i am work and stressed out and worried about everybody at home. i am not pushing it further. we are halting because of the uncertainty . to tracey's point. it is a shame that people are not excite to get up and go to work and excited about a job. that is a shift we haven't seen before. >> we went from a manufacturing society to a service economy. and that is going to in and of itself use less and less people. if you go to china they have a booming economy because they are a manufacturing everybody is going to be stressed, sure. >> the least stressed is john layfield and i am less stressful looking at him and wher he is today. thank you, great discussion. >> why are critics charging >> why are critics charging that the health

democrats should be opento reformg entitlements andd3 at least owing their growth.ublicans should not be so dogmatic about defense, can't be touched. at alone would get us moving toward an endgame here. but we don't. it is, the election magically going to present that opportunity? >> well, ihink what's happening is circumstances willake people address this. ciumstances are getting worse. entitlements are growing so rapidly they will consume all of the money in the budget within a few years. so i think circumstances will tell all of u we ha to do it. to me it is inevitability. i don'ta whether you're republican o democrat, it is inevitability you will haveo fix entitlements because there's not enough young ople and there is lot of old people. there is demogrhic shift and we're living longer. these are facts d they're inescapable. the question is, will we do it withhis election or are we gng to wait until things get worsend we begin printing up so much money, that prices begin to rise dramaticallynd everybody is worried about a chaotic situation or whetr rational way,

>> there is nothing wrong with the way we doll out entitlements. if we look at what is the lifestyle of the median household in this country, more than 60% of people actually own their home. you have people who have two cell phones, people who eat out three times a month. >> there was a study on poverty, those livering below the poverty line. most have air conditioning. most have cell phones. most have big color tv's. this is not zimbabwe here. i am a little shaky on you guys. i think the u.s. economy if you raise taxes which barack obama wants to do that will harm the economy and not stimulate the economy. >> the way he wants to raise ks tays is how it will harm the economy. we are focusing on ordinary income. the ordinary income is just the average guy working. it is the small business. >> we have had much higher tax rates than we have now, and we have had phenomenal prosperity. >> i would rather eliminate the loopholes and do it that way. >> you think it would be enough in the loopholes? >> if you -- -- what loophole? >> i would put a cap on the

and expend grant in amount of 399,442 through the california department of justice for a program entitled forecast closure crisis recovery program for period of july 1st, 2012 through june 30th, 2013. >> thank you. for this item we have conrad delrusario. >> thank you. my name is conrad delrusario from economic crimes office in san francisco, currently overseeing many units. a particular one is a real estate fraud, as well as mortgage grant. we previously had mortgage and investment grant funded by the federal government that had just recently expired. this is grant presented by the attorney general's office as a result of a settlement with countrywide loan or countrywide bank several months ago, if not a year ago. the grant is specifically targeted toward assisting our office in developing and maintaining specialized prosecutors and investigators -- sorry, singular. specialized prosecutor and investigator in area of dealing with mortgage fraud and associated type crimes. san francisco is a city that is very rich area for purposes of these type of frauds and scams to occur. notably the la

[phr-frplts/] include in the annual housing inventory an evaluation of how residential projects entitled in the proceeding calendar year contributed to the city's housing goals for each income level and to the housing elements, polices and objectives. to also include how entitled housing projects met inclusionary housing or affordable housing fee requirements and their expected impact on achieving the city's goals for each income level of the also to include whether entitled housing projects advanced very areas plans and objectives and finally to include in the annual housing inventory the current and projected status of housing development in the city compared to the city's housing goals. i would be happy to answer questions if there are any at this time. >> i don't have any questions. i do want to thank the budget and legislative analysts and maybe my colleagues have questions for them. let me say this. that i understand the comments that were made by supervisor wiener, but i have a different approach, different take on the point he made about whether or not it's a good idea to have an

we have to address the entitlements. >> what is the libertarian position on that? >> well, i am promises to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013. now, that's not promising a balanced budget, but promising to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013 believing if we don't reduce government expendtures by $1.4 trillion, that we're going to find ourselves in the midst of a monetary collapse and a mop -- monetary collapse is very simply when the dollars we have are not worth anything, and that's going to be the consequence of us continuing to borrow and print money to the tune of 43 crepts out of every dollar. >> governor gary johnson, author of "seven principles of good government," and also the libertarian candidate for president. what other issues do you write about in this? >> well, this being kind of a background and my history, i've been an entrepreneur my entire life. i started a one-man handyman business in new mexico in 1974, grew that business to employee over a thousand people. using those same principles, you know, showing up on

democratshould be open to reforming entitlements andd3 at least slowing their growth. okay, republicans should n be so dmatic about defense, can't be touched. th alone would get us moving toward an endgame re. but we don't. it is the election magically going to present that opportunity? >> well, i thkhat's happening is circumstances will make people address this. circumstances are getting worse. entitlements are growing so rapidly they will consume all of the money in the budget within a few years. so ihink circumstances will tell all of us we have to do it. to it is inevitability. i don't care whether you're republican o or democrat, it is inevitability you will have to fix entitlements because there's not enough young people and there is lot of old people. the is demographic shi and we're living longer. these are factsand they're inescapable. the questn is, will we do it with this election or are we going to it until things get worse and we begin printing up so much money, that pres begin to rise dramatically and everyby is worried about a chaotic situation or whethe

i am not understanding it. >> understate dissolution law, the oversight board is entitled to select staff, to engage staff. the staff of the successor agency commission, repairing these obligation payment schedules for the review and consideration; i staff the oversight board; the new successor agency commission would select a director, a staff, the existing staff is there, governed by the successor agency commission. the way to look at it, it is similar to hpc; the successor agency staff would staff the oversight board. it is the successor agency commission that would govern all activities of the successor agency staff including the director and day-to-day operations and management. >> so there will be two directors now? one for the oversight board, one for the successor agency, or one person can do both? >> not necessarily. it is the oversight board's option to provide their own staff if they so chose. the successor commission can select the tone director. >> it is essentially the same procedures. it is confusing because essentially for all practical purposes, it is like to be the same

i think entitlements will need to have a serious look. reform will be necessary in order to change the way that we are spending money if we want to continue to ensure that those who need to benefit do benefit in the future. everything can be examined. every business in this country examines what the are spending money on. they make sure that their processes are lean and that there is no waste. government can do the same. i have work for a former governor. states often times lead the way on civil responsibility. >> the role of government is one of the big issues in this country and whether you believe doesn't.t helps our in terms of their programs, they do not want to cut. even in the example of governor romney is suggesting that if we had spending cuts in defense, it would kill jobs in virginia. >> that is where you need leadership from the top. i will point back to the governors. successful governors do two things really well -- provide leadership and propose a bold initiatives to their legislatures. they also have a strategy or a bluepr

it can no longer pay the huge entitlement. so these people are angry. they want to destroy the establishment. with the usa owing more than $16 trillion, those scenes could happen here. it is conceivable. if we keep spending a trillion dollars more than we take in, we will eventually go broke. the only reason we aren't bankrupt yet is that folks overseas are still buying treasury bonds and other u.s. investments. that could stop in a hurry. president obama has not addressed the issue. his theme is, if you tax wealthy americans and corporations more then the debt will get under control. but the figures don't back that up. right now the federal government spends more on welfare than on any other program. and we are not talking about medicare or social security. we are talking about payments to the folks and stuff like food stamps, housing, medical care and those kind of things. according to a new study by the congressional research service, the usa spent $746 last yore alone -- $746,000 last year alone giving people stuff. that's more than social security

i think entitlements will need to have a serious look. reform will be necessary in order to change the way that we are spending money if we want to continue to ensure that those who need to benefit do benefit in the future. everything can be examined. every business in this country examines what the are spending money on. they make sure that their processes are lean and that there is no waste. government can do the same. i have work for a former governor. states often times lead the way on civil responsibility. >> the role of government is one of the big issues in this country and whether you believe government helps or doesn't. in terms of their programs, they do not want to cut. even in the example of governor romney is suggesting that if we had spending cuts in defense, it would kill jobs in virginia. >> that is where you need leadership from the top. i will point back to the governors. successful governors do two things really well -- provide leadership and propose a bold initiatives to their legislatures. they also have a strategy or

taylor is entitled to his own views, but he's not entitled to his own facts. he wildly misdescribes what's happening at texas and what's happening at schools across the country. african-americans, latinos, many others and white students benefit from having a diverse student body and the university recognizes this. the idea that people are harmed by having access to flagship institutions doesn't really ring true with most people in their common experience. the dean of my law school said to us on our first day, all of you are terrific but we could have cleared the decks and taken the next 400 and they would have been just as terrific. so there's not an entitlement that any one person has to go to college or law school, for that matter, but there is an opportunity for educational institutions to consider race as one of many factors far from the quotas or racial balancing that mr. taylor describes and that have been illegal and unconstitutional for a very long time. >> davo abigdulah, thank you for your time, and steven taylor. we will be watching as this hearing

, if we don't fix them, and paul ryan has been pretty bold talkin about how to fix entitlements.eil: he was the house version of you. they did the same to him. you think he would have, you know, did he use his deodorant that day. everyone avoided him. >> well, younow, i'm of the opinion that all of the old days are gone. the day where you could scare people and say, oh, republicans will take away your medicare. neil: you're right, you're right. absolutely right. here we go again. i want, if republicans really mean what they say and i think they do, and democrats anhat they say about eventually getting entitlements under control and i actually want to say i believe they do, is it just the election we've got to get past, toach side, things calm down and that's whene get something done or what? >> i fear maybe things will have to get worse in our country and we'll have to approach a debt crisis before people will be serious about it because people do worry about the polics of this. they're afraid to say that the age for social security or the age for medicare needs to gradually rise

and i want to keep it alive in child care and in other entitlements. >> margaret warner for gov. dukakis. >> governor, i'm going to pass on the question i originally planned to ask you, to follow up on your rebuttal to a question andrea asked, and that involves social security. now it is true, as you said, that originally you sought an exemption for social security cola's in this national governors' association vote. but when you lost that vote, you then endorsed the overall freeze proposal. and what's more, you had great criticism of your fellow governors who wouldn't go along as political cowards. >> that is absolutely not true. >> you said it takes guts and it takes will. >> that is absolutely not true. it had nothing to do with the debate on social security. it had to do with the discussion we had had the previous day on the overall question of reducing the budget. >> my question is, aren't you demagoguing the social security issue? >> no, and i have to - [applause] >> i just have to correct the record. that simply isn't true. now, we're not a parliamentary body, the national