we can help by delivering prope first aid and keeping things clean but this isn't the target group and these are the people to be aware of, in the middle and people are talking about blood and this brings up the concept of res curer protection. gloves, eye protection, and masks and sanitation and hand washing and who among us don't have a nick or a cut on their hand and are you going to touch someone's blood and your in tac skin will protect you from most ilknows. however, if you have a cut on your hand you have a path for infection to get inside of you and you want a pair of latex gloves -- several pairs of glo gloves that you can put on and change as you go from patient t patient hopefully and at least wash your hands and disinfect your hands between patient contacts and the eyes are like an open wound and path to get into your body and glasses and take the old glasses and throw them in your kit and you have something to wear and face mask and of course dust and dirt and all of these disasters throw up dust and dirt and especially in a dryer season and push comes t shove a band da ba

there is the long-term issue of the charter language that requires us to pay back at some point unless prope h is renewed. something to consider for the future. another big piece of the deficit projection is the capital budget plan that assumes we will be spending $73 million in general fund cash over the coming year. the deficit projection historical the includes that full value for the last two years we have used a combination of reductions to spending and applying other funding sources to reduce general fund costs. it is likely that we will have to do that again. we have been talking about that at capital planning committees for the last couple months. obviously, this is not without its trade-offs. we have a huge backlog in infrastructure means needs. right now if we make this level of reduction in general fund capital, the street resurfacing budget will decline into the next year and there will be a drop-off. some of those big pieces can get the deficit down substantially. i think that those will in some form or another be a part of the solution. but it still leaves us with about a $300

there is the long-term issue of the charter language that requires us to pay back at some point unless prope h is renewed. something to consider for the future. another big piece of the deficit projection is the capital budget plan that assumes we will be spending $73 million in general fund cash over the coming year. the deficit projection historical the includes that full value for the last two years we have used a combination of reductions to spending and applying other funding sources to reduce general fund costs. it is likely that we will have to do that again. we have been talking about that at

of all of the four propes, -- proposals, including the one we are here debating today, this i think is the most mean-spirited and most duplicitous one, and i think the one that most vigorously deserves to be opposed by my colleagues here in the house. because this proposal is to do away with a program that assists people who were employed, got a mortgage, were paying their mortgage, then lost their jobs to the downturn in the economy and found themselves in a position where they could no longer afford to pay their mortgage. these are not people who are out getting second homes. these are working people who had jobs, fell on bad times and lost their jobs and getting unemployment benefits. and all we're saying is give them a break for 12 months and give them the opportunity to go back into the marketplace and find a job and then they can resume paying their mortgages. . it is absolutely mean-spirited to say to somebody who has complied with all the rules and lost their job by no fault of their own, and then find them selves unable to pay -- themselves unable to pay their mortgages that w

of all of the four propes, -- proposals, including the one we are here debating today, this i think is the most mean-spirited and most duplicitous one, and i think the one that most vigorously deserves to be opposed by my colleagues here in the house. because this proposal is to do away with a program that assists people who were employed, got a mortgage, were paying their mortgage, then lost their jobs to the downturn in the economy and found themselves in a position where they could no longer afford to pay their mortgage. these are not people who are out getting second homes. the are working people who had jobs, fell on bad times and lost their jobs and getting unemployment benefits. and all we're saying is give them a break for 12 monthsnd give them the opportunity to go back into the marketplace and find a job and then they can resume paying their mortgages. . it isbsolutely mean-spirited to say to somebody who has complied with all the rules and lost their job by no fault of their own, and then find them selves unable to pay -- themselves unable to pay their mortgages that we won'

doesn't serve in the appropriations committee, he serves on the tax writing committee but in the propings committee, we found a way to come together and make an agreement. i think it unfair and incorrect, frankry, not to count $41 billion as -- because we're now starting at 2010 levels as opposed to the level you started at and we started at, the president's 2011 request, and both of us have come that $41 billion an the issue is how much further we're going to go. if the gentleman wants to make any further comment -- mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, we've discussed the math here. the problem is the american people are waiting for us to act. if the gentleman knows the position of senator reid and where he would like to go, other than maintain the status quo, then that's what we're looking for. the house has made its position known. its position is $100 billion off the 2011 request, or $61 billion off of the 2010 levels of current spending. and we have maintained the position all along, mr. speaker, that freezing spending at today's level is unacceptable. it will bankrupt us if we contin

of all of the four propes, -- proposals, including the one we are here debating today, this i think is the most mean-spirited and most duplicitous one, and i think the one that most vigorously deserves to be opposed by my colleagues here in the house. because this proposal is to do away with a program that assists people who were employed, got a mortgage, were paying their mortgage, then lost their jobs to the downturn in the economy and found themselves in a position where they could no longer afford to pay their mortgage. these are not people who are out getting second homes. these are working people who had jobs, fell on bad times and lost their jobs and getting unemployment benefits. and all we're saying is give them a break for 12 months and give them the opportunity to go back into the marketplace and find a job and then they can resume paying their mortgages. . it is absolutely mean-spirited to say to somebody who has complied with all the rules and lost their job by no fault of their own, and then find them selves unable to pay -- themselves unable to pay their mortgages that w