Forums | MacLife

NEW YORK (AP) - After taking multibillion-dollar bailouts from the federal government, some of the nation's biggest banks are declining to lend a hand with a different financial mess: the California budget stalemate.

The banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. and Citigroup Inc. and some regional banks, are trying to pressure lawmakers to end the impasse by warning that, after Friday, they won't accept IOUs issued by the state. The move would leave many businesses and families with pieces of paper and fewer options for getting their money immediately.

Government officials and consumer advocates say the banks should be more sympathetic, especially since they've been the direct beneficiaries of taxpayer dollars.

"If they hold to that stance, then there's potential for hardship being suffered by the recipients of IOUs," said Tom Dresslar, spokesman in the California Treasurer's office.

Unless recipients are able to hold IOUs until Oct. 2, the official redemption date, "they'll have to scramble" to feed their families and meet obligations, Dresslar said.

Banks draw line over accepting Calif. IOUs   Chase, has, tho, run 11 full-page ads in major papers saying how much they've helped folks, as Congress debates new banking regs.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A pro-marijuana group launched a television advertisement Wednesday in California advocating legalization and taxation of the drug to help solve the state's budget woes.

The 30-second spot, airing Wednesday and paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project, features a retired 58-year-old state worker who says state leaders "are ignoring millions of Californians who want to pay taxes."

"We're marijuana consumers," says Nadene Herndon of Fair Oaks, who says she began using marijuana after suffering multiple strokes three years ago. "Instead of being treated like criminals for using a substance safer than alcohol, we want to pay our fair share."

Can pot help fix California’s budget? Ad says so

zoees wrote:

I really don't think pot is "the magic bullet" for any of our financial woes- and I'm a huge anti-drug war kinda' guy.

It will make a dent though and it would be a hell of a start. Among other things, maybe it would re-establish relations between cops and communities. Something that right now is all but non-existent in major cities where lower income people are most concentrated.

Then there are the prisons: the tax payers would get a break if they would do away with and or not count any pot arrests in with the "three strikes" law. However, I do believe the prison unions would make a huge stink and what about all those people who own shares in some of these private prisons? That's a huge hurdle.

Of course there's absolutely no way to tell how much revenue would be generated with pot being taxed and sold right along with alcohol. How could you even estimate as there has never been a country or state to fully legalize?

I'm 38, I've seen the government smurf a lot of things up in that time. I really don't want the big G involved with pot any more than they already are. I like it the way it is in a way. Pot is only a phone call away and currently I am not paying any taxes on it. Just decriminalize it and let the market take care of the rest.

Simply not putting pot users in jail, where they are a burden on the taxpayer, would do wonders.

me2

I work for the Commonwealth of PA. We're not being paid until the budget impasse is resolved. The deadline for passage was June 30. Since July 1, I have been working without pay. The Commonwealth Human resources department in Harrisburg has officially designated all of us whose pay is allocated through the budget as leave without pay and will be reset when the budget is passed. They will issue back pay which we will get likely two or three weeks after the budget is passed.

Article III Section 24 of the Pennsylvania constitution states:

No money shall be paid out of the treasury, except on appropriations made by law and on warrant issued by the proper officers; but cash refunds of taxes, licenses, fees and other charges paid or collected, but not legally due, may be paid, as provided by law, without appropriation from the fund into which they were paid on warrant of the proper officer.

Ed's not paying us because it'll be illegal to pay us because he can't legally release funds that haven't been allocated via the budget being formally passed. He is, however, allowing services to continue uninterrupted even though those services are budget items for which money must be allocated via the budget being formally passed.

The constitution does allow for issuance of money upon warrant issued by the proper officers so I'm guessing he went through the legal hoops to allocate money for services but not for payroll. What a steaming dung heap.

It's funny, the republicans and some dems in the house and senate are holding out because Mr. Rendell's budget is too spendy. He has increased spending on welfare and education among other things. He has also moved to increase the personal income tax, about the only thing that actually makes sense besides cutting spending. His budget does not make sense being that we're in the middle of a serious and much larger financial situation. We can't afford to continue spending more than we have. I place the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Rendell.

Two things that will likely occur because of this.

1. a large percentage of rank and file Commonwealth employees who are single, separated, divorced and may or may not have children will be applying for food stamps. those whose only revenue stream is their job will effectively have 0 income and will be entitled to expedited service. this means that every person or family in this situation will be getting AT LEAST a $200.00 raise. Of course, the money from the food stamp program is federally allocated so the seriousness of Mr. Spendell's political black eye has yet to be seen.

Secondly, it's simply illegal for employers not to pay their employees timely, when agreed upon, and in full. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows for suit for damages for EACH violation. The commonwealth will likely be sued by AFSCME, PSSU, APSCUF and any other unions representing affected employees. Mr. Spendell will likely be out of office by the time it's resolved.