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

 RW> 16 Jul 03 04:06, Roy J. Tellason wrote to Roy Witt:

 RJT>> Are ya?  Good news,  that...

 RW>> At this late date, the recall movement has announced that they have
 RW>> enough signatures to put the recall measure on the ballot.  Too bad
 RW>> it doesn't include the Democratic side of the legislature as well.
 RW>> They're insisting that higher taxes is the only way to balance the
 RW>> budget and get the state out of it's 38 billion dollar deficit.

 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?'

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

 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.

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

 RW>> The only spending cuts they've come up with, affect the tax payer.
 RW>> Nothing about cutting spending in places like perks for
 RW>> legislaturers.

 RJT> Of course not.  The bunch we have here in Harrisburg has voted
 RJT> themselves raises,

 RW> Must have gotten that from the California Democraps.

 RJT> making it a point to do stuff in the middle of the night,  and to 
 RJT> make them automatic so that they specifically have to vote 
 RJT> against it happening to keep it from going through. The latest 
 RJT> bit is a fifty percent hike in their retirement benefits...

 RW> Sheeesh...that's what we get for electing lawyers.

I don't even wanna get started on lawyers...

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

 RW> Welcome to the club.

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

 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.

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

 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. Last year, I found out 
 RW> there's no unemployment office to file a claim with, just a 
 RW> telephone number.  I didn't have to provide proof, nor did I have
 RW> to report anywhere, accept by mail.  I'd lie on the form and get a
 RW> check in the mail, just like clockwork.

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

 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..

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

 RJT> Nothing like getting the feds involved in a state matter to make it
 RJT> much more fun!  :-S

 RW> Yeup.

Oh yeah...

---