Calif. Taxpayers Due Refunds May Get IOUs

[red states rule]

Lets see, tax cheats get jobs in the Obama administration - and taxpayers get IOU's

Yep, the nation is getting the change the Dems promised


Calif. Taxpayers Due Refunds May Get IOUs

By Patrick Healy
NBCBayArea.com
updated 2:48 p.m. PT, Mon., Jan. 5, 2009

If you expect you'll be getting a refund from California when you file your 2008 state income tax return, be prepared: you may instead receive a "registered warrant." Translation: an IOU.

California is rapidly running out of money. Blame it on the state budget deficit that continues to bleed billions of dollars from California's reserves. Facing inadequate credit to make up the difference, California's Controller John Chiang warns that by the end of February, the nation's most populous state may not be able to pay some of its debts, and instead be reduced to issuing those creditors IOUs.

"My office has projected that, in approximately 60 days, there will be insufficient cash available to meet all expenditures reflected in the 2008-09 Budget Act," stated a Tuesday letter from Controller Chiang to the directors of all state agencies. "To ensure that the State can meet its obligations to schools, debt service, and others entitled to payment under the State Constitution, federal law, or court order. California may begin, as early as February 1, 2009, issuing registered warrants...commonly referred to as IOUs...to individuals and entities in lieu of regular payments."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28448852/

[DannyR]

Last I checked California was run by a Republican governor? Democratic legislative branch certainly, but how can you blame Obama for this one? Perhaps if the people of California wasted less time and tax dollars trying to stop gay marriage they wouldn't be in such a mess.

[red states rule]

Last I checked California was run by a Republican governor? How can you blame Obama for this one?

Arnold is a RINO

I am pointing out the tax cheats get a great job in the current White House, while honest taxpayers can't even get their refunds in a VERY BLUE STATE

[Yurt]

Last I checked California was run by a Republican governor? Democratic legislative branch certainly, but how can you blame Obama for this one? Perhaps if the people of California wasted less time and tax dollars trying to stop gay marriage they wouldn't be in such a mess.

that is an ignorant statement...

as if the money spent on that would even dent the budget here...further, most of the money was raised privately...and you are entitled to your opinion about it being a waste, but for those supporting prop 8 they believed it a very important civic duty, perhaps you ought to think about cutting other programs.

and arnold is not a true republican governor

[red states rule]

that is an ignorant statement...

as if the money spent on that would even dent the budget here...further, most of the money was raised privately...and you are entitled to your opinion about it being a waste, but for those supporting prop 8 they believed it a very important civic duty, perhaps you ought to think about cutting other programs.

and arnold is not a true republican governor

The state is wasting to much money on ILLEGALS

Maybe the taxpays of CA should send in IOU's for their payroll taxes

[DannyR]

that is an ignorant statement...Actually it was a facetious statement, there is a difference. I'm well aware the costs aren't comparable.

Just pointing out that this crisis hasn't exactly appeared overnight. Citizens of California could have been urging their legislative branch to fix the problem and cut back services, but pretty much the only news coming from the west coast that I heard about was worry about dudes getting hitched.

[red states rule]

Actually it was a facetious statement, there is a difference. I'm well aware the costs aren't comparable.

Just pointing out that this crisis hasn't exactly appeared overnight. Citizens of California could have been urging their legislative branch to fix the problem and cut back services, but pretty much the only news coming from the west coast that I heard about was worry about dudes getting hitched.

Liberals are reaping what they have sowed

[DannyR]

Liberals are reaping what they have sowed

True in California, but this isn't just a liberal/conservative problem. What's happening in California can occur in Washington DC too, and neither party has done a thing to stop deficit spending there.

If what I read is right, part of the reason California is in trouble is because it can no longer borrow money to pay for its deficit spending.

What happens to our nation if the world decides to stop funding USA deficits anymore?

[red states rule]

Liberals are reaping what they have sowed

True in California, but this isn't just a liberal/conservative problem. What's happening in California can occur in Washington DC too, and neither party has done a thing to stop deficit spending there.

If what I read is right, part of the reason California is in trouble is because it can no longer borrow money to pay for its deficit spending.

What happens to our nation if the world decides to stop funding USA deficits anymore?

The reason the country is in trouble is because Dems wanted to make home ownership a "right"

And they fought reforms when Pres Bush wanted them - crying he was against minorites owning a home

[Yurt]

Actually it was a facetious statement, there is a difference. I'm well aware the costs aren't comparable.

Just pointing out that this crisis hasn't exactly appeared overnight. Citizens of California could have been urging their legislative branch to fix the problem and cut back services, but pretty much the only news coming from the west coast that I heard about was worry about dudes getting hitched.

no, really, i had no idea...up until today i had no idea what facetious meant, none, amazing what you can learn on this board

did not know you were kidding

[DannyR]

The reason the country is in trouble is because Dems wanted to make home ownership a "right"

Current housing and credit crunch is nothing compared to the threat of our national debt and yearly deficit spending.

Not certain where you can blame Dems alone for the housing problems. Yes they passed laws making it easier for low income people to buy houses, but if you think thats the source of all our current ills, you have blinders on. For one thing, loans to low income buyers doesn't represent a majority of the bad loans out there.

I know from my own experience that banks were wanting to give pretty much everyone huge loans far beyond what they should have qualified for. When I bought my house in 2001, I was approved for a loan up to half a million bucks! Home I bought cost 135K. I'm firmly middle class. There is no way I should have had that much potential home buying power.

Current crisis has much more to do with greed by banks than minor policy changes by dems allowing the poor to buy a house.

[DannyR]

no, really, i had no idea...up until today i had no idea what facetious meant, none, amazing what you can learn on this board

did not know you were kidding

Glad I could educate you. A large vocabulary is something everyone should aspire to. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

The reason the country is in trouble is because Dems wanted to make home ownership a "right"

Current housing and credit crunch is nothing compared to the threat of our national debt and yearly deficit spending.

Not certain where you can blame Dems alone for the housing problems. Yes they passed laws making it easier for low income people to buy houses, but if you think thats the source of all our current ills, you have blinders on. For one thing, loans to low income buyers doesn't represent a majority of the bad loans out there.

I know from my own experience that banks were wanting to give pretty much everyone huge loans far beyond what they should have qualified for. When I bought my house in 2001, I was approved for a loan up to half a million bucks! Home I bought cost 135K. I'm firmly middle class. There is no way I should have had that much potential home buying power.

Current crisis has much more to do with greed by banks than minor policy changes by dems allowing the poor to buy a house.

Our current economy is in trouble over the Dems wanting unqualified people to own himes

Read this, read what Dems said, and check the date


September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[Yurt]

Glad I could educate you. A large vocabulary is something everyone should aspire to. :laugh2:

yes, thank so very much for the education, now how to use my new word in a sentence....

your posts, facetiously speaking, are inspirational and educational, notwithstanding, the overall fallacy of this sentence....

[avatar4321]

Last I checked California was run by a Republican governor? Democratic legislative branch certainly, but how can you blame Obama for this one? Perhaps if the people of California wasted less time and tax dollars trying to stop gay marriage they wouldn't be in such a mess.

Exactly what tax dollars were used to stop gay marriage? People donated their own time and money to stop it. The goverment sure as hell didnt want it to stop.

[DannyR]

your posts, facetiously speaking, are inspirational and educational, notwithstanding, the overall fallacy of this sentence....Hehe. That was rather clever.
Exactly what tax dollars were used to stop gay marriage?Just the act of having an election costs $. Sure, since it happened on a normal election day the cost was much less, but time and money still had to be spent verifying signatures, by poll officers formulating the ballots, etc
Our current economy is in trouble over the Dems wanting unqualified people to own himesUm, reread my last post above. I'm already aware of that claim that the push to give homes to poor caused this, blaming CRA. Once again, the problem with that claim is that only a minority of the bad loans out there have been caused by this legislation. Fannie/Freddie failure is only a small part of a larger problem across the board. Blaming the crash only on them ignores this!

A far bigger cause is the greed of banks giving outrageous loans far beyond the ability of people to repay! I rely upon my own direct experience with what banks tried to give me to buy a house. It was outragious, and had nothing to do with Fannie/Freddie or a CRA initiative. Someone out there just wanted a big fat paycheck that a loan of 500K would bring them compared to the 135K house I actually bought.

Not to mention much of this housing crisis is also fueled by TV shows showing people how to "flip that house" and make an easy fortune, nevermind mortgage fraud and lack of oversight by banks in looking at the properties they were supposedly securing.