them. not by laying people off or labor contracts, but incentivizing people to retire. we want to incentivize them. i am a guy to see how you can leverage and get more with less. what we are doing here is making sure that the $7 billion overpayment to the federal employee retirement system can be used in part to help people retire. 80% of the cost of the postal service is people. they have more employees than they need. this will help them get their head count down to right size the enterprize. it is hard for us to defend. you have a post office in america, whether it is delaware, and they are playing $60,000 for a post master and then you have stamps that are 60 cents. somebody will be in and out of the post office several times a day to provide the mailing needs of that community. people are looking for us to do smart things. more results for less money. the other two points. health care costs are involved here. we allow the postal service to do -- they pay for medicare for employees. they contribute to the health plan. they are paying twice for the health care costs.

any solutions and you can say that at the moment right it's the government that is helping to incentivize them because they know you can cheat the system even if the government is also going to create a national commission to not be from cheating what would have been oh yeah that's why you pay taxes right right the reason you pay taxes the reason you have a police force the reason you have a government is to administrate and enforcement of a system of justice on any society that's why you have a government and so if the police force is for sale and now they work for the drug dealers in mexico the answer is not to get rid of the police the answer is to not have a police force that's working for the mexican drug dealers if the issue is that the government is basically being paid off by the equivalent of mexican drug dealers to make rules on behalf of the banks or the large health insurance companies or the large energy companies the answer is not to eliminate the government the answer is to create a government that is not toxified by the payment of those flows which is why my call to action in t

shouldn't we tax them for doing the business overseas, that money comes back into america, and it incentivizes them to move factories perhaps back into america. what is the downside of doing that? >> the downside is that you are attacking financially america's most successful companies. take apple, for example. there is no better known american company, no better success story. apple has $100 billion in cash. that money is now taxable. president obama, looking for revenue, going after the very most successful companies in america. megyn: what do you think will happen? job cuts? >> i think they would have to pay this tax, if it were enacted, and who knows what tax rate it would be in the future. if a government constantly needs revenue to pay for all these spending plans, how do you know how much tax they would take out of american corporations in the future, which never comes back to america? but which they would grab from overseas. megyn: it seems like the president would give an effective lower tax rate to like green energy companies and so on, it seems like the tax plan he proposes does have sig

talked to about 130 folks in the private sector and talked about the issues that stop them or incentivize themfor information sharing and then we tried to knock those barriers down in that process. and i think what is great about the pilot model is you scale city economy. it's hard seeing innovation to solve some of our more serious cyberproblems. this is going after the advanced cyberattacks like china who are out stealing art -- this historic transfer of wealth between the united states in china right now as folks, chinese actors are getting intercompanies in stealing our i.t.. the chinese are stealing their wholesaler we need to do a better job of helping companies protect themselves against those attacks. we believe the project is doing some great stuff out there. i just need some help. they are paying for the great work that goes on at places like nsa to collect that stuxnet data so they should get the benefit of that data in protecting their networks. i think as you have for there is a pretty good consensus that this is a good model for going forward. there is disagreement in the details

what isn't sad rather than what's said but you know a number things one thing is you incentivize people you pay them lots of money and you give them goals and say if you make if you hit this number if you make this x. million x. thousand x. x. number of dollars in sales this month or this quarter this year we're going to pay this much so figure out how to make that happen the other thing is you do play to people's cratylus in this to their knives you know you tell them you're doing a good thing and that you know in the mortgage space this was well you know a lot of these folks are poor they would never have a house without us so we're doing them a favor we're helping them out giving them a house course you know there was a mention that that the likelihood is they would be able to hang on to these houses or that that were were refinancing people who are already in houses and were instead of help and they were actually making it more likely that they're going to lose the house the other thing is this is something interesting that whistleblower work for countrywide told me is you really divide the work

the contractor in improving them and similarly the contractor and the government behind them aren't really incentivized to give away this tour because it is what it is and they've done a good job with it. >> the companies have invested huge amounts of money in these systems and didn't want to stand up with another competitor. india, however, has very, very tough requirements. they not only want to build the aircraft themselves in india, but they also want the indian industry to build all the subsystems to go into that. with that kind of requirement, how does making money on this deal? >> that's really tough. that's what we will be addressing in the next six to nine months. at the end of the day, even if this was necessary to save the program, at least on an export sense and possibly a domestic sense too, even if it was necessary, yeah, they have to have a nickel by the end of the day. this is a tough contract as you point out. they're asking for everything that's extremely expensive then there's this bizarre jux ta pose ition and here is the lowest cost bidder. it's like arguing over a lamborghini and

it actually incentivizes them to leave their money abroad and to expand over there. because the u.s. has nearly the highest corporate tax rate in the world, companies don't bring those earnings back and instead reinvest, as i said, outside the united states. that's certainly not a recipe for u.s. growth and u.s. job creation. the dominance of u.s.-headquartered companies in the global marketplace is waning. 36% of the fortune global 500 companies were headquartered in the united states in 2000. in 2009, that number dropped to 28%. that's from 36% to 28% among the fortune global 500 companies headquartered in the united states. clearly, america is losing ground and our current international tax rules are a big part of the problem. the bill i'm introducing today would help to right the ship by pulling our international tax rules into the 21st century so that u.s. companies are not at a competitive disadvantage with foreign companies because of american tax rules that are outdated by changes most other countries have already made. the bill would give u.s. companies ince

supervisor weiner, who is something of a visionary, can come up with a way to incentivize the restoration of historic buildings and make them safe for everyone in return for some kind of affordable housing built in the area that would preserve the rights and the needs of the tenants who are in there at present. i think that is a direction which should be going on that. finally, secretary standards -- we need to allow some flexibility. we need to allow additions that are in context with the historic building. we have a case like a today were will speak to that specifically. certainly, buildings that have been altered, where asbestos siding was put on -- i think that somebody trying to restore this should be able to strip that off and bring it back as close as possible to the appearance that it had when it was part of the original district -- would siding or whatever the particular -- wood siding, or whether the particular medium was. there was a commentary on a time limit for renovating -- for re- rating a building. if there is a building rated fairly low on the standard, i think we need a limit. let us make a decision in a

than that actually out in the private sector and talked about the issues that stopped them or incentivized them for information-sharing and we tried to knock down those barriers down in that process and i think what's great about the pilot model if you scale up the committee is that it's harnessing positive driving innovation to solve some of our more serious problems. this is going after the advanced cyberthreat like china stealing our intellectual property every day. chairman rogers talked about the historic transfer of wealth going on between the united states and china right now as folks are chinese actors are going into our company and stealing our it and to create jobs innovation in the market, the chinese are stealing that wholesale and we need to do a better job of helping companies defend themselves against those attacks. we believe the private sector is already doing some great job out there. you know, they are already making for that great work that goes on in places like the nsa to collect that sensitive data and they should get the benefit of that data in defending their networks.

it is inviting them in to give us their ideas and then incentivizing that road to success. that is what i want to celebrate today. thank you for coming in and sharing that celebration. [applause] thank you, mayor lee. this next guest is someone i have interviewed many times on the subject when he was mayor of san francisco. he is very passionate about it. today might be another accomplishment that he may be loud report to being at. please welcome lieutenant governor gavin newsom. >> thank you. [applause] nice to be back. wonderful to see you all. thank you, mayor lee, for your stewardship of this program. president chuiu, everyone here gathered for this milestone. i had the unenviable task of going back to read some of the cliffs that were said to me after we made this announcement, and it was remarkable the condemnation we received. i am glad i never read any of that. maybe i would have been dissuaded. now we have 92% of taxicabs alternative fuel, leading the nation, proven what can be done. there is an old adage. once a mind is stretched, it never goes back to its origina

i think we have to incentivize and for the people to eliminate parking or put a below grade rather than try to stop them from having it there are making it more difficult. then the whole thing about bulk and again, allowances that allow heightened the bulk and i think this is an effort to make it possible to have affordable rental and come, because polymer requires some sort of element that has been given to the developer to allow this -- really, there is an appropriate height that should apply to an area that is there for reason. if you start making exceptions for affordable and end up with an overcrowded area and people will have cars anyway and it will be even more congested and if they don't, the way to do it is may be to try to incentivize by a giving fee forgiveness to builders for units, particularly for larger family size units. that's a good way to allow for this thing to happen. we talked a little bit about pricing facilities for parking structures. long-term pricing -- i know there were concerns about this. i don't know if the legislation addresses it, but i think there is a language that tal

them for four months. it makes a difference. anything your state can do to incentivize employers. there's a time here of perhaps discrimination against long-term unemployed. we are hearing that they get turned down because employers feel that they sat out the recession. they chose not the find a job. it's hard to say. it's very hard to say. but giving an employer an in incentive to hire a worker like this is one way to tackle the problem. they have done that. we're very proud of our veterans and we have many of them. 2011 texas honored the employer as employer of the year, north gate constructers. our other big story is the omni dallas convention center. we took a parking lot and turned it into a multi-million dollar economic theme. it's an awesome hotel. it's a convention hotel. previously we didn't have a convention hotel. a very big struggle between our mayor and city council over two mayor terms. lots of things went on to see this happen. omni had to come to the table a lot with a lot of money. they had built a similar hotel in ft. worth. they knew what they wanted. employer d

them. >> i think that's a very important point and the sanctions can even go deeper. you can also incentivize something by saying for the next 30 days those in leader who decide to defect will be taken care of in certain ways. you can have multiple kinds of actions with good cop and bad cop with economic measures. but most difficult i think to lose in this resolution was the united condemnation and giving the political message to the assad regime that the days are over. it's going to be very different to determine that on the ground now and it becomes again much more costly as we're seeing in the loss of human life. >> george, thanks very much. and so the security council votes. the chinese and the russians veto. we've been watching it unfold life here on cnn with the help of richard roth at the united nations, nic robertson recently returned from damascus live with us from london on this day. >> you've been listening to john mann reporting with cnn international and our team of reporters talking about that u.n. resolution that has now failed. any attempt to get a united front to intervene on

them more competitive. a broader base to ensure that this reform does not at a dime to the deficit, and a situation where the american manufacturing center is further incentivized to grow, and where small businesses are -- where the environment is made easier for small businesses by simplifying the tax code for them, allowing them to, for example, spend up to $1 million. there are a variety of other measures. it would make american business is much more competitive. host: albuquerque, betty, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. recently, 30 of our largest corporations paid more out to lobbyists than they paid in taxes. i do not know how anybody can say this is fair. the small working man probably pays more in taxes than a great many of these corporations do. last year, exxon mobil not only paid zero in taxes, they got a $ 400 million rebate. there's too much tax evasion going on. when you have companies paying zero taxes, i also read that google paid none. there was a list, a long list. these may be the engines of our economy, but they need to pay their fair share, just as warren buffett has suggested. he has been

incentivize and to foreclosure. they now that whether or not a borrower is paying them or not, they have to forward the money the investorservicing the note for. after three, six months of the servicer not receiving the check from the borrower, they exercise the right to foreclosure because they know for sure they are going to get the first $3,000, $6,000 off of the foreclosure. it is noninterest to the borrowers. not innocent interest of the investor. that's why this is so far out of whack. have not tried to align the interests to leverage the best deal for both investor community and as wells the borrower. that's one of the flaws i have seen and focused on in the settlement. a servicer out there has no skin in the game. as you said, they are not only not equipped to do it do it, they don't have the employees to do it, trying to staff up, but also incentivize financially to foreclosure. >> in their interest. >> that's why you see the -- >> attorney general -- >> that's why the foreclosure prices is what it is. >> err >>. >> i had a macro economic question which is isn't the big goal at the end of the day to sort of remo

incentivize a company to buy that extra real estate for a factory. >> or research and development. >> research and development or maybe that's the thing that will tip them over the edge to invest in a new facility. but i think when you're talking about the certainty of that, a lot of these things are temporary, so you don't know if they're going to be able to do it again. it's so -- three different companies in three different industries could have completely different tax landscapes. it's very, very difficult. >> jean. >> temporary is a very funny word because the r & d credit has been on the books for 30 years but they just keep renewing it over and over and over again. it's a waste of time and energy because everybody wants to keep it. but they don't want to project the cost out. >> but there's a particular conservative critique that says whether you make potato chips or microchips, the government shouldn't tax you differently. >> right. >> we do use the tax code to inruns in behavior >> individual companies. >> is that sound? >> i think maybe up to a point it is. i would ask someone smarter than me that question. but i do think you could still favor

incentivized. it can be done on a continuing basis and the industry needs to implement them. >> when you and your sister were trading packets when you should have been sleeping, obviously, -- >> and doing their homework. >> yes, doing your homework and then turn out the lights. that was the threat to this computer. now we understand it to be broader than the networks that can be taken down. can you describe what those threats like and what should happen there? >> absolutely. we did that over a 1200 baud modem over a phone line. >> i remember a 300 baud modem or you put the phone into a coupler. >> the threat looks at an instruction that execute off the side of memory, not the piece that holds the word- processing program, but where your computer grabs the next instruction -- what do i do next. i am controlling my world on your machine, whether i am telling it to send out a lot of traffic or i just something that might change the settings on circuit relays. my world is being executed on your machine. you can buy these exploits on the net. you can even use botnet that looked together like quicken. you are

round of housing proposals or legislation, trying to find ways to incentivize people to go from 30-year loans to 20-year bonds to help them climb out of the whole but some of them are in, being under water in the mortgage. if you go to the 20-year loan, you get back above water, meaning that you owe less much more quickly than if it is a 30- year loan. host: for those who have once or freddie, are they eligible for the other programs? guest: yes. with regard to the loan modification program, facing foreclosure, it is more complicated. essentially that can be done through fenty or friday. with harp, is specifically designed for fannie or freddie backed loans. that could save 300, five under dollars per month, let's bring them down. as jesse said, lower the risk of default, prevent foreclosures. that should save the government money. again, everything comes back to the heads fund that side of the business. if you just look at the good side of the business, for lack of a better term, there is no problem with that. there would be no friction with allowing these folks to refinance it's on the investment side that oh, well, we

incentivized associates. this is kind of interesting. it is just a -- >> is this loews? >> no. home depot. >> right. so i think it's interesting. we called the company trying to get confirmation of this. sent them get back to you. either you know or you don't. i believe it's something and they're obviously looking at a way to cut costs as part of by the way their multi-channel home improvement company that they're trying to create as they try to compete. diamond foods just is amazing. who do you think bought into lowe's, filed yesterday that as of january 31st they own more than 7% of this thing? tia kraft and two related entities. the college retirement fund and teachers advisors filed yesterday. question is why would they buy now -- >> you said bought into lowe's, you mean diamond foods. >> i'm sorry. i have so much going on. >> i know. >> they bought into diamond foods. why would they buy into diamond foods? we called the company, they did not say. but it is interesting because this is a pension fund. there's so much going on at this company. so much controversy. that's not where i expect the pension fund to go my opinion. >> that's not just your opinion. this is a retirement and annuity fun

incentivized. it can be done on a continuing basis and the industry needs to implement them. >> when you and your sister were trading packets when you should have been sleeping, obviously, -- >> and doing their homework. >> yes, doing your homework and then turn out the lights. that was the threat to this computer. now we understand it to be broader than the networks that can be taken down. can you describe what those threats like and what should happen there? >> absolutely. we did that over a 1200 baud modem over a phone line. >> i remember a 300 baud modem or you put the phone into a coupler. >> the threat looks at an instruction that execute off the side of memory, not the piece that holds the word-processing program, but where your computer grabs the next instruction -- what do i do next. i am controlling my world on your machine, whether i am telling it to send out a lot of traffic or i just something that might change the second -- the settings on circuit relays. my world is being executed on your machine. you can buy these exploits on the net. you can even use botnet that looked together like qui

we're going to bomb you, is much more incentivizing to build a weapon or put it on a fast track than it is to deinincentivizing. and to deincentivize is to bring themcommunity, the kbeshl, economic community. we've had sanctions on iran for over 30 years, the united states has, and now they've intensified and we have pressure on other countries to go ahead with other sanctions. iran is capable of withstanding sanctions. i don't know for how long. the regime is not going to crumble tomorrow because of sanctions. it's not going to happen in a short time. >> although at the top of your blog, i should mention that you said, the economic situation there is dire, there is economic discontent because of it, and there is a connection between those two things. >> sure there's a connection between the sanctions and the economic situation, but right now the iranian people are not blaming their own government for it, at this point. they may in the future, but right now they're not. they're not saying, you've got to change, you've got to give up our nuclear program in order to ease the effect of the sanctions. >> two points. one, the elephant in the room here i

them more competitive. a broader base to ensure that this reform does not get a dime to the deficit. and, a situation where the american manufacturing sector and the advanced manufacturing sector is further incentivize to grow. if we are small businesses -- where small businesses have an environment that is easier to deal with taxes by simplifying the tax code. allowing them to expanded up to $1 million. there are a variety of other measures that would make american business is much more competitive. >> have you gotten feedback from the ceos about the plans? >> i do not have anything to share with you. we believe that the reception has been positive and will be positive because it does what so many people say is important to do. this is democrats and republicans. this is low or the rates broaden the base, eliminate the underbrush of unnecessary subsidies and loopholes and special provisions that complicate the tax code and basically have the taxpayers subsidizing oil and gas companies, for example which enjoyed record profits last year and certainly seem to be on track to enjoy significant profits this year. they do not need those subsidies. that money can then be used to pay for an action that woul

incentivizes. that is why the approach dhs did with the chemical industry saying these are the general standards and general requirements. if you need theme. flexibility, innovation, all different ways to skin a cat, but in the end, you do at to show that you have achieved results. you have to make sure we are not under investing. before i conclude, the irony is when i talk to people in business, -- in business, i often think they do not realize how much it is in their interest to have standards set. without standards being set, you will get standards, but they will not be as thoughtful. attorneys will go in front of juries and set standards. having spent a lot of years in the courtroom, business leaders will not like the way their standards are set. i would argue that intelligent, standard-based regulation with ample room for innovation and credit for what you have done will serb business interests as much as it serves the national security. >> mr. secretary, thank you. you have put an awful lot on the table. i know the bills touched to one extent or another palace optically on these issues. i have been on the budget of the school of th

particular the advanced manufacturing sector is further incentivized to grow, and where small businesses , where the environment is made easier for thems by simplifying the tax code for them, allowing them for example to expense up to $1 million. there are a variety of other measures that would make american business is much more competitive. nec's host: to a call on this topic, albuquerque, betty, republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. it was released recently that 30 of our largest corporations paid more to lobbyists than they did in taxes. i don't see how anybody can say that the system is fair. i, as a small working person, probably pays more in taxes than a great many of these corporations do. exxonmobil last year not only paid zero in taxes, they got a $400 million rebates in the bargain. too much offshore at going on and too much tax evasion. you have companies paying zero taxes. i have also read that google paid none. there was a long list. these may be the engines of our economy, but they do need to pay their fair share just as warren buffett has suggested. he has said much and has been marked by many people on the ri

, is further incentivized to grow, and where small businesses are -- where the environment is made easier for small businesses to deal with the tax code by simplifying the tax code for themwing them to, for example, expense up to $1 million. and there are a variety of other measures that are part of this corporate tax reform that would make american businesses much more competitive. >> have you gotten any feedback from the ceos that the administration talks to about the plan already today that you can share with us? >> i don't have anything to share with you. i think that we believe that the reception so far has been positive and will be positive because it does what so many people say is important to do, which is -- and this is democrats and republicans -- which is lower the rate, broaden the base, eliminate the underbrush of unnecessary subsidies and loopholes and special provisions that complicate the tax code and basically have the taxpayer subsidizing oil and gas companies, for example, which enjoyed record profits last year and certainly seem to be on track to enjoy significant profits this year and don't need those kinds of subsidies. that money can then be used t