Roy Witt wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason:

 RW> 23 Jul 03 12:06, Roy J. Tellason wrote to Roy Witt:

 RJT>> Does it never occur to these people that one other way to deal with
 RJT>> it is to spend less?

 RW>> LOL! That's what they were told when they sent emmisaries from the
 RW>> legislature to the cities to tell them they need to get behind the
 RW>> tax increases. That and 'isn't it about time you filed bancruptcy?'

 RJT> Emissaries...  They had to come up with something else to spend more
 RJT> on...!

 RW> Those who visited the mayor and city council members were from San
 RW> Diego and probably headed home for the weekend anyway. That may
 RW> also be true of the other 'emmissaries' too. Probably one of the
 RW> perks of those offices is travel pay.

It is here,  I think.  I know that the legislators here get a
"free" (to them) leased vehicle,  can hear this one local talk
radio guy with his "Fooooooord Exploooorer" bit.  And a "per
diem".  And assorted other stuff,  "expenses" on top of a
salary that starts at something like $124k.  I'm not even gonna get started
on the retirement bennies...

 RJT>>   I never see any of them mention that possibility,  not ever...

 RW>> The Republicans have said it all along. Even as a minority in
 RW>> California legislatures, the pubs have been able to stymy any tax
 RW>> increases, since the law requires a 2/3s majority vote to pass. Now
 RW>> the democraps have put an initiative on the ballot to make it 55%
 RW>> to pass. I sure hope these dummies who elected this group don't
 RW>> fall for that one.

 RJT> Yeah,  if they can't work the system to do what they want,  they
 RJT> change the system?!

 RW> Well, we got a budget yesterday and thanks to the republicans, 
 RW> there are no new taxe...course, this came about right after the
 RW> democrats were overheard in secret session, discussing plans on how
 RW> to keep the budget issue alive and blame it on the republicans.

If they can't get what they want,  then blame it on somebody else...

 RJT>> Our governor,  having been a DA and then mayor of Philly,  is
 RJT>> making more in retirement pay from that stuff than I make while
 RJT>> working! But I get to contribute to it.  Grr...

 RW>> Welcome to the club.

I don't wanna join that particular club!

 RJT> At least right now I'm collecting unemployment,  and not paying into
 RJT> all that stuff at the moment.

 RW> Is PA like CA in that you don't pay income taxes on unemployment
 RW> benifits? It used to be that the feds didn't collect taxes on it
 RW> either, but then they got greedy and said piss on the unemployed...

You can have some money deducted,  and they advise people to do so,  but I
chose not to.  Which puts my cash coming in at not a whole lot less than
what I was getting net before.  I'll owe taxes on this stuff,  of course, 
but I'll worry about that when I get there.  At least at this point any
money I don't need for current stuff is sitting in savings and collecting
interest.

 RW>>> In January, the employer's unemployment taxes go up 51% to fill
 RW>>> the caufers, which are going to have a much bigger demand because
 RW>>> of the state jobs going down the drain. California should file
 RW>>> bancruptcy, but that'll never happen.

 RJT>> Nope,  that'd be too like the politicians admitting that they
 RJT>> screwed up.

 RW>> There're no secrets in this state. That's exactly what they did.

Wow.  Imagine that...

 RJT> They do it all the time.  AND GET AWAY WITH IT.  Grr.

 RW> Unfortunately.

Well congrats on likely getting rid of that governor,  anyhow.

 RJT>> And I have a new wrinkle to contend with while collecting
 RJT>> unemployment, which I've been at a whole couple of weeks already.

 RW>> I did that last year.

 RJT>> I apparently fit some sort of a "profile" that
suggests that I'll
 RJT>> go the whole way through all of my benefits before getting employed
 RJT>> again.  (And if I should choose to do so,  what of it? It's my
 RJT>> choice,  right?)

 RW>> Not if you look at the law and how you must keep up your efforts to
 RW>> find a job. Of course, it's no big deal that you can't find one,
 RW>> that's what the money is for. They keep changing the system so
 RW>> that you can never get a foot up. In 1970, I took off a whole year
 RW>> on unemployment; all I had to do was lie about the effort I put
 RW>> into finding a job. I tried that again in 78, but they required an
 RW>> interviewer or receptionist to sign a sheet of paper that I had to
 RW>> turn in to get my money.  And again in 85.

They want me to log stuff too.  I'm looking in the paper and not finding
much, though,  so I haven't been putting in any applications.  Yet.  Worse
comes to worst,  I can always hit the temp agencies I used before.

 RW>> Last year, I found out there's no unemployment office to file a 
 RW>> claim with, just a telephone number. 

They did a lot of that kind of cutting back here,  too.

 RW>> I didn't have to provide proof, nor did I have to report 
 RW>> anywhere, accept by mail.  I'd lie on the form and get a check in 
 RW>> the mail, just like clockwork.

All I have to do is call in every couple of weeks and deal with an automated system.

 RJT> I found out yesterday that the reason for all this is because too
 RJT> many people were doing that sort of thing.  And because the feds
 RJT> have their fingers in it.

 RW> Sounds about right.

 RJT>> But I had to go in there today, and have to go back again next 
 RJT>> week,  and when I asked today what the deal was with all this 
 RJT>> stuff I found that it has to do with the feds getting involved in
 RJT>> it,  since they've gone and extended things they're apparently
 RJT>> putting some more conditions on getting that money...

 RW>> Yeup. That's the worst case scenario too.  The government screws up
 RW>> the economy and puts you out of work, then the government makes it
 RW>> harder for you to collect what's yours while you look for work.
 RW>> California doesn't levy taxes on 'unemployment compensation', yet
 RW>> the feds do...bend over, here's the shaft..

Sounds about right.

 RJT> This one local talk radio guy happens to be fond,  when talking
 RJT> about that sort of thing,  of saying "grab your ankles"...

 RW> Just once I'd like to see the tables turned...

When I listen to that guy and he starts getting all worked up (which he
seems to do on a daily basis :-) I keep getting the urge to call in.  I
wanna tell him that one of these days there's gonna be a hand reaching into
my pocket,  and somebody's gonna pull back a bloody stump...

Not that I'm advocating any particular action,  I just feel that way sometimes.

---