pleasure to have you with us, mr. rosen. you've made a number of investments in small and mid size companies in this part of the country. one of the reasons you say is the mature nature of some of these companies and also the education of the workforce. correct? >> sure, absolutely. both myself and my partner are native to ohio. and we believe in the region. we believe in the skilled workforce. there is plenty of opportunity here. notwithstanding a sluggish economy, that's why we're here. we could have located in financial centers, but we chose to locate right here in ohio. >> where have you found opportunity? are there particular sectors that you think have provided more opportunity for you than others? >> well, sure. success in manufacturing in any small business -- and we invest in small and mid size business -- starts with people. and we have a great talent workforce here in ohio and throughout the midwest. this is key to manufacturing anywhere, whether it's the midwest or anywhere in the nation. we also have very elabor

mr. rosen's comment about east bay or other areas, one of the main revenue sources is the car division.her it be oakland, hayward, san lorenzo, to have towed vehicles back and forth over the bay bridge or peninsula would decimate their ability to make any money. >> thank you. any other speaker who's wish to comment on item number six? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we have the item before us. we have heard and held public comment. any thought, comments? supervisor campos. >> thank you. i don't want to belabor the point here. i think a lot of points have been made. i don't question that everyone here is trying to do what is right for the city, what's right for the workers. i want to thank the representative of workers and talked about the conditions. no one is questioning the fact that we need to move. it is really about making the best deal we can for the city. or at least the deal that, at least on its face, doesn't look as bad as this one does. you know, i want to work with the mta. i'm just -- i'm just not there. part of the

mr. rosen's comment about east bay or other areas, one of the main revenue sources is the car division.

mr. romney, princeton economist harvey rosen assumes the tax cuts would generate enough economic growth to offset the cost but for many, that's a rather large assumption. one that's also by the way questioned by many conservative economists as well. bottom line, though, that word assume. every one of these authors in each of these studies or so-called studies is making assumptions. some may be solid assumptions, others dubious, but they are all just assumptions because neither mitt romney nor paul ryan nor any of their surrogates have yet come forward with specifics. instead, we asked the romney campaign if they would like the opportunity to respond to the program. they declined for us tonight. of course, the invitation stands. joining us is republican campaign consultant, alex castellanos and bill burton, strategist for the obama super pac. alex, with all the criticism, wouldn't you expect the romney campaign to produce their own evidence to prove the numbers add up? right now, people are wondering where that 20% figure came from, whether they came up with the number for policy reasons or

you must read your her book and with richard fisher, and harvey rosen bloom of the dallas fed. mr. fisher says very clearly that our largest banks have become too complex to manage. they cannot be managed by the management, site -- see barkly for a different illustration. they cannot be managed by the shareholder. we can talk about hsbc and money-laundering. we cannot be managed or understood by the creditors. we have any number of failures across the european big bank to look out for that. they cannot be managed by the regulators. the largest banks in the world and in the united states should be made smaller. smaller enough and and simple enough to fail. no funding advantage. these -- there is not a market. there is nothing about the market in the structure. it is a vast nontransparent dangerous government subsidize scheme. you, the american taxpayer, directly indirectly through the federal reserve stand behind the balance sheet and the risk of jpmorgan chase whether you like it or not. this encourages them to get bigger. this encourages them to take more risk. they get the upside

rosen has more on this. >> reporter: neither the debate itself nor in the discussion afterward with mr.atka did the president address the question. who was it that denied enhanced security in benghazi and why? this is part of the answer that the president did provide in the debate and it focused on the orders he gave after the attacks. >> number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in libya but in ever embassy and consulate in the region. number two, investigate exactly what happened. regardless of where the facts lead us to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again. and number three, we are going to find out who did this and we are going to hunt them down. >> reporter: afterward latka told others mr. obama approached him one-on-one and told him the reason between that long gap between the president's rose garden appearance and the point some two weeks later when the president finally dropped all references to protests and videos as the origin of the attack because he the president did not want to speak erroneously with respect to so volatile a

- you must read her book, "bull by the horns," -- and with richard fisher and harvey rosen bloom of the dallas fed. mr fisher says very clearly that our largest banks have become too complex to manage. they cannot be managed by their management, see the london wale as jpmorgan chase for an illustration. they cannot be managed by their shareholders, we can talk about hsbc and money charter. they cannot be managed or understood by their creditors. we have any number of failures across the european big banks to look at for that. and they cannot be managed by their regulators, by their supervisors. the largest banks in the world and in the united states should be made smaller, small enough and simple enough to fail. no funding advantage. there's nothing -- this is not a market. there is nothing about a market in the structure. it is a vast, nontransparent, dangerous government subsidy scheme. you, the american taxpayer directly or indirectly, stand behind the balance sheet and the risk of jpmorgan chase whether you like it or not. this encourages them to get bigger. this encourages them to take more risk.