So what? I, as a taxpayer and consumer can only WISH that anything I come in contact with would only rise two percent. Thank yer lucky stars ya don't live and get taxed to death in the real world outside yer ivory tower. Sheesh!

Money is definitely getting tighter.

When "the big fight over money" really gets started in earnest in this country in the very near future, I am sure the following topic will be put on the table for discussion.

Californians to vote on legal weed.

It's official: Californians will decide whether legal marijuana should be used to plug the state's $20 billion budget gap.
California residents are expected to vote this year on whether legalization should be approved to raise nearly $1.4 billion in state revenue. That's based on an estimate from the State Board of Equalization, a tax administration agency.

"It would be another source of revenue for the state," said Anita Gore, spokeswoman for the board. The board has not issued an opinion on legalization as a means of easing the state's budget crisis, she added.

California Secretary Debra Brown confirmed on Wednesday that enough signatures had been collected to put AB 390, a marijuana legalization bill, on the ballot for Nov. 2.

The bill proposes that marijuana be regulated and taxed in a similar way to alcohol.

According to the bill, people would have to be 21 years or older "to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use." Californians would not be permitted to use the drug in public or within the presence of minors, and would not be allowed to possess it on school grounds.

Most importantly, as far as the budget gap is concerned, the bill stipulates that the drug would be subject to a sales tax. An additional retail fee of $50 would be imposed on every ounce that's sold.

"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense," Ammiano said in a press release when he first proposed the bill last year.

Also, Mecke said that legalization could prompt the state to "reallocate" more than $300 million in law enforcement spending away from non-violent drug activity to address violent crimes.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/25/news/economy/marijuana_legalization_tax/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

Somehow I really don't care what is happening in California...a few Californians who looked at my B.C. license plates (British Columbia)asked me how life is in South America...

Most indoor “pellet stoves” are not certified or tested for emissions and efficiency. Most indoor pellet stoves are “exempt” because they choose to use the 35 to 1 air to fuel ratio. It is now thought that these appliances are not as efficient as their “default” efficiency suggests (78%) because no emissions measurement are taken during the test to prove the 35:1 fuel to air ratio. Indoor non-catalytic woodstoves do not test for efficiency because this has never been a “certification” requirement. Instead they use a default efficiency of 63%. Indoor catalytic woodstoves do not test for efficiency because this has never been a “certification” requirement. Instead they use a default efficiency of 72%. If these appliances are as efficient as or more efficient than their default efficiencies indicate, there would have been a movement by the industry years ago to use a Standard to show how efficient these appliances really are. The problem is that most of these manufacturers have been content with using default efficiencies because these appliances would never be as efficient as their default efficiency suggests. Outdoor hydronic heaters in the EPA HH Phase 2 Program are tested for both emissions and efficiency. The output based emissions limit is designed to take into consideration the efficiency of the appliance. In order to meet the output based emissions limit, the appliance must be very clean and also extremely efficient. The efficiency numbers are reported from the actual test. Very few indoor EPA certified woodstoves would be able to meet the output based emissions limit. Bob

Spanish Columbia and British Columbia .....

Betcha in SC they would have corrected you and told you that Columbia is not British. Columbia is Columbian .....

Did anyone ever wonder why license plates in the US and Canada have the name of the state or province on them rather than the country?.......

I mean, Californians living in the city of Ontario must go crazy seeing Ontario license plates, wondering why they cant get one like that.

Motor vehicle licensing is a Provincial and State area of jurisdiction. We should be protecting those areas of jurisdiction, not surrendering them, (as with the HST proposal).

History seems to indicate that once a Province of State vacates an area in which it was previously sovereign, (often in the supposed interests of 'cost-cutting', or in return for 'grants' from the Federal government), the people of that area further lose the right and ability to determine their own policy.

Two things come to mind immediately. One is the oft-reported "evolution" of today's RCMP in the way it now polices BC. From police stations that are now like "Forts", to protect the occupiers from the 'natives', as well as all the other questionable, but seemingly unanswerable, practices that have occurred recently in regards to numerous individual incidents.

The other is Federal Income Tax. Which was an area of jurisdiction surrendered by the Provinces to the Dominion to aid in financing Canada's effort in World War One, as a 'temporary' measure. Prior to that war the Dominion government financed most of its operations taxwise through duties on imports. Quite an achievement, when you consider the size of the Canadian population from 1867 to 1914, and what was funded by the Dominion government in those years.

I don't personally agree with the legalisation of marijuana, and especially not for the reasons advocated by some Californians, as a 'cure' to their State budget problems. I don't believe it would be any such thing. But the larger question is whether a State like California COULD even legalise 'pot' in opposition to the policy of US Federal government on its legality.

Even if a majority of Californians, in a referendum, clearly favoured such a move. If they couldn't, then what does that say for the idea of ballot-box 'democracy'?

Charles:- "Money is definitely getting tighter."
-------------------------------------------
Then why don't we do something to loosen it up? After all, Charles, the amount of money is not fixed, as if by the laws of nature. It varies every time a Bank makes a loan, or spends on its own account to buy securities, or for any other purpose.

That 'creates' money. The repayment of loans, or sale of securities by a Bank 'destroys' that 'money' previously created. It's all "bookkeeping", Charles. Debits and credits.

The only reason money is 'getting tighter' is because there is a disconnect between all articles 'priced' in money, and money itself.

Re-connect, through a further process of "bookkeeping", what has been disconnected, and thereafter maintain the connection, and the problem is solved. What, pray tell, is so difficult to do about that?

2% sounds fair and reasonable.

"The only reason money is 'getting tighter' is because there is a disconnect between all articles 'priced' in money, and money itself."

Everything is priced in money. Goods, services...you name it. My taxes are quoted in money and so are my earnings.
So many *dollars* please, sir!

Everything is connected to money. The value of everything is expressed as a monetary value, in units of currency.

Unless Walmart is willing to barter with me at the till for something else (a service or something I wish to trade for the items in my shopping cart) they won't let me have the *stuff.*

If I don't give them the money they will call security or worse if I don't do as they say.

I don't think money is getting tighter. There is so much of it being created out of thin air every day that the deluge of debt is threatening to drown the whole world.

"The only reason money is 'getting tighter' is because there is a disconnect between all articles 'priced' in money, and money itself."

Everything is priced in money. Goods, services...you name it. My taxes are quoted in money and so are my earnings.
So many *dollars* please, sir!

Everything is connected to money. The value of everything is expressed as a monetary value, in units of currency.

Unless Walmart is willing to barter with me at the till for something else (a service or something I wish to trade for the items in my shopping cart) they won't let me have the *stuff.*

If I don't give them the money they will call security or worse if I don't do as they say.

I don't think money is getting tighter. There is so much of it being created out of thin air every day that the deluge of debt is threatening to drown the whole world.