Let me ask you. Its imperative that the agency use every tool at its disposal to address the budget shortfall to protect the taxpayers. You believe the agency has used every tool at its disposal to address the budget shortfall . If not, i guess id have to raise the question of whether the fha is failing to properly manage its portfolio, which places the taxpayer at greater expense. I believe weve use every tool at our disposal, and we have made prudent and appropriate policy changes, whether thats increasing in premiums or the many other changes that ive talked about here today. We also have to do that in a way that does not do further damage to the economy. And we need to do that thank you. You do agree if you were in a business that cpb would put you out of business . No, i did not. The gentlemans time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. Himes, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And ms. Galante, thank you for being with us today. Ive been
Important one and that we do believe we need to make changes. Why dont you just do it . Frankly, we did make changes. We introduced a much safer, better, we thought, alternative through our safer saver program. We could effectively do what you said, which is to just create a moratorium on the other program. What we are concerned about is particularly given the economic crisis that seniors have gone through, that we would be eliminating an option that works for some seniors, if its done safely, in order to eliminate also the bad loans being made. Our preference, if we could get authority from you to change the structure of the program to make it much more effective and safe, that would be a better way to go. If we cant get that authority quickly, well have i would think why cant we do a unanimous consent, it seems to me most people would be willing to do that . Lets talk about that today. I would love to i know youve got a partial situation that has been very healthy. It seems to me if
In brooklyn is connected to it. It was totally filled with water. Both tubes, from one end to the other, from the manhattan end to the brooklyn end. Ere were close to 100 million gallons of water that had to be pumped out of that tunnel and its still not back up to snuff. Thats one of many examples. Theres so many. The mta did a very good job. I want to congratulate joe lhota. They moved their Rolling Stock to high ground. Tried to barricade this awful flood in the best way they could. Boy, its awful. The mta is the largest Public Transportation system in the country. Its the life blood of new york. Its our circulatory system. 3. 5 Million People g on and off Manhattan Island every day to work. Wow. 3. 5 Million People. I guess thats more than the people in mississippi and probably more than the people in dade county, any way. And we depend on it. 2. 63 billion trips a year. As i said, the mta took a lot of necessary precautions. But this is 108yearold system. Its the first major subwa
Greece. Some of the other headlines this morning, a surge in healthcare coverage signups innups, 1. 1 million enroll this initial period. The Washington Times reports report bybenghazi the New York Times may be to benefit Hillary Clinton for president. And the New York Times reports about the democrats and how theyre look at the 2014 elections. They are turning to the minimum wage as a strategy to help win elections. The question for you these first nexttolast this day of 2013 who was the biggest political loser this year . Who had a rough year in your view . Who lost ground or lost support . To hear some names from you and some explanations as to why you think someone was the loser politically this year. Youll remember we did the winners a short while ago. The phone numbers. Over 1,500 facebook postings at this point just 7 00 in the morning eastern time. A few about the biggest political loser of 2013. Thats have i i cant facebook. And if not by phone, you can via facebook, also twit
Nominations i dont have my line in here but you only have a few that are not competitive. Versus incumbent renominations that rarely are these things competitive. Betweennd difference these indicators, democrats versus republicans. There is a distinct party difference for this timeframe. Campaigns contents are bit more competitive overall. Republican campaigns typically are not as competitive. Intraparty trends. This is perhaps the most fascinating thing as far as looking ahead toward 2016 and beyond. Haveratic nominations become somewhat less competitive over time. This is suggesting democratic a couple of things. One, the Democratic Party is a little more unified. It also could mean perspective candidates are little more strategic about calculating their chances and not running, which is also a possibility. Republican nominations in contrast, basically competitive in the 1970s. Ray nagin reagan comes along and you have a great deal of unity in the party and that maybe fragmenting in