mr. paulson. >gollickson. >> the state of the eviction in san francisco is pretty abysmal right now. we needed it to expand upon what it is right now. we had a court case and the name of it slipped my mind at the moment. about a year-and-a-half ago, it placed a landlord-tenant matters and to the litigation privilege. it is virtually impossible for a tenant to sue a landlord for wrongful eviction unless the tenant has moved and been evicted. that has led to a sharp increase in what we see as bogus and serial eviction notices. the city department was notorious for non-payment, someone that has paid their rent and never missed a rent. tenants are not able to get an attorney to defend themselves. there are n virtuallyo te -- virtually no tenant attorneys right now. they rely on the defense collaborative, sometimes a pro bono lawyer, sometimes they get some help from the housing clinic. the resources out there are totally inadequate and it has reached the point that tenants are not effectively fighting the evictions in a more even when they are the most unjust and unfair ones. a landlord

mr. paulson, i did not call your name. you will have to wait. next speaker? miss debbie joseph? >> thank you for this opportunity. a gentleman that spoke earlier mentioned a parking exclusion zone. what a great idea. if you would like to know how to accomplish this, ask the organizers of this also be dealt festival. the issue placards to the residents who put them in their cars. anyone who is not a resident is towed. this is the problem. it would go easier for the residents it when they got home from work, all of the parking was not done. the other really egregious issue is a lot of people in residents had to park in their driveways because there was no parking on the street during an then the mta ticketed them if they were just a few inches past their parking spot. many of the houses are not big enough with their driveways. why this has to be done on the backs of the residents, i think that we can all managed to get along. we live there all the time. supervisor mar: the sausalito parts festival? >> correct. by family has lived in that house for over 60 years. we have seen it al

mr. paulson. anyone else from the public that would like to speak?ing them, public comment is closed. you're asking for a three-week continuance. i believe that presidents' day is february 20, so there is no land use meeting. it would be the following meeting, which is february 27. can we take the amendments without objection, colleagues? thank you. without objection, we will continue this until the meeting of february 27. supervisor chiu: 1 comment. i know there are where a couple public comments are in the

mr. paulson. >> it wanted to speak in opposition to the proposal to repeal -- i wanted to speak in opposition repeal ranked-choice voting. there will be a differential turnout in the september primary as acknowledged by supervisors farrell and elsbernd. 65% threshold instead of just a majority. this is also the case in other states where an august or september primary where that is normal. they still get much lower turnouts in august or september primaries than their general election. one thing to take note of is how it relates to the school year, academic year. september or late august primary would either be just before or after the beginning of the school year will disadvantage participation by college students and teachers at all levels in this primary elections. i think that probably the most comparable thing in california to the september primary proposal is what cities like long beach to where they have a municipal primary election standalone and half a menace -- have them in a simple collection that is consolidated with an even year election. the most recent one in 2010, they had an 1

mr. paulson. anyone else from the public that would like to speak?ing them, public comment is closed. you're asking for a three-week continuance. i believe that presidents' day is february 20, so there is no land use meeting. it would be the following meeting, which is february 27. can we take the amendments without objection, colleagues? thank you. without objection, we will continue this until the meeting of february 27. supervisor chiu: 1 comment. i know there are where a couple public comments are in the recent issues happening in the arts commission. many of us have been concerned about the situation, and we hope that there are changes to how the arts commission is managing itself to move that forward. but this is not legislation about whether or not we helping the arts commission or not. this is really legislation about the requirement of developers of using 1% of their project costs to spend on cards. right now, the law says that that money needs to be spent on on-site art, usually in the lobby way of these public buildings. this legislation i

mr. paulson is being paid 2% of all the assets under management to do due diligence of a chinese timber company is what he put out yesterday after we sued him. but when the loss was first announced, he went to his investors and said he didn't understand the area enough, and that in the future he was going to have to understand better before he made such a bet as he put it and hire more analysts. so i guess a jury's going to have to decide this issue. >> you could say the same thing about his investment in bank of america. you said this is not bank of america. as an investor, anybody who was long bank of america or recommending it as i did much of last year from 15 on down, may have missed the legal liabilities to which bank of america was exposed in mortgage cases. you can make an argument for any stock gone bad. why is this one any different than any other? >> well, this is a lot different than bank of america. simply making a bad investment. this is a traded chinese trading company in china where the company itself says it doesn't know if its business is legal. it doesn't know if it has the t

mr. paulson is not the only one out there not doing well or struggling. >> here's what i would say. i think people that redeemed on guys of that size probably did so in december. i think in john's case, i would say he was probably a little early on the trade. he's probably going to be very right about that over the next 18 months. it would be foolish to redeem from him now. if you haven't done so already. but i do think that this will be -- the industry's in transition and there will be solid this year. >> last year and think all right. there's an amount that's just too big? the funds are too big. they just can't put that much capital to use. >> there's criticism on both sides. some say the funds are too small. other people say the funds are too big. it's like an elephant taking a bath. they can't move around. you know, karen, i think that the too big theory really hasn't statistically bore itself out. i was part of the smaller is better hedge fund. now i think the evidence is more or less conclusive that you need reasonable scale to get the performance we're looking for. >> what ab

mr. paulson made $5 billion $5 billion in 2010. and, you know, he probably paid at a rate that may have been lower than his secretary or secretaries. i don't know. mr. ellison: well, you know, i'm glad that you raised this point about the people's budget because that really is the point of the progressive message. you know to talk to the speaker and the american people about there being an alternative in our congress, not everybody is carried away with this philosophy that federal workers need to pay more and get less and actually there are a body of folks in the democratic caucus and particularly the progressive caucus who really want to see more shared way of paying for the needs of our country. and we recently had a hearing in which we talked about jobs and we had a group called the patriotic millionaires who was there. and this is the interesting thing about your particular tax proposal. a lot of people who are making a lot of money agree that they should pay more. and i find this to be very interesting because, you know america

mr. paulson was also ther.he deficit because the chairman said he agrees it should be -- he talks only about the entitlements. when you talk about the level of reduction we need f you're going to get that all out of social security and medicare and not go else where, you're going to be doing damage. and i believe to start with, overseas military expenditures that are quite excessive. from the economic standpoint, given the importance of a longer term policy to reduce the deficit, purely economic standpoint, there are policy preferences i know you don't want to get into. but from the purely macroeconomic standpoint, would it be greatly different if those came from reducing the costs of living increases, social security or restricting medicare or from some change in the tax code at the upper levels of income? would there be any macroeconomic difference? >> well, from a macroeconomic perspective, the main thing is to achieve sustainability, which means the deficits come under control and the debt to -- >> it didn'

mr. paulson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.i've really enjoyed the testimony this morning and i think it just follows on the heels of a full year of hearings we've had on tax reform and the message has been pretty clear from the folks here today as well as the folks that have testified in the past about the need to provide certainty for companies that are investing their capital on a 5-year, 10-year and a longer horizon rather dealing with these temporary tax provisions or extenders that can create a lot of difficulties not only for the company's planning but the accounting side of the equation as well. and, you know, the u.s. is trying to play catch-up that we have a tax system that's fair as well as a simplicity component and it is important to focus on the competitive side and the progrowth side. here's my question, i know the united kingdom is moving forward with a tax reform and other countries are doing this. they doing it staggered and lower their tax rates, are we better off to sort of just rip the band-aid off, do this

mr. paulson, ex-treasury secretary words.ne fly in the ointment is that the ppi core at 3% year over year, well, you have to go back to june of '09 to find a higher year over year than that. though you'll find a couple 3% that equal it along the way. why do i say you don't just have to worry about it, it's not the fed's favorite indicator that's going to be benched to that 2% target. don't want to have to change the target. it's only been the target for about a month. interest rates, look at what the 10-year did after some of the better than expected basis i was talking about. popped up a few basis points. that's significant. there was a little delay, you can clearly see the bund correlated highly, it also popped audiotape bipop ed up a bit. we're all in this together on a multitude of issues. >> rick santelli is out with a study on the health hazards of being an investment banker. what warning label would you put on that profession? tweet us. we'd love to hear what you have to say @cnbcsquawkst. some of the side effects incl

paulson. former treasury secretary of the united states. quickly we want to ask you about what we've been watching and slow motion. mr. secretary.erstand with china there's cultural difference, europe, there's cultural differences. but you had, i would say days to deal with a situation in the united states. i guess they have years in europe to deal with similar situation. should we have expected that? and will it ultimately be effective, their approach to dealing with what was kind of similar in certain regards? >> joe, you're right. they're similar only in certain regards. because this has been going on for a long time. and i think it's going to take years to play out. so this is going, this is something we're going to be watching for a good while. and you know, when you and have talked about the u.s. financial crisis, i mentioned that that was, the collision of, of political forces and market forces. and that's really what you're seeing in europe. but the reason it's so difficult is that the issues around the structural issues around the eu are very difficult issues. they're difficult analytically, you can put a bunch of exper