" 'I just think with however many millions of dollars, we could have done a better job,' said board member Joelle Riddle."
This is such a complex issue that much more space would be needed to cover all the points and counterpoints. However, for anyone seriously interested, enough links have been provided herein to allow further research into the rapidly changing developments for those affected in states where "MMJ" has become a hot topic. Be assured, though, we will continue to monitor and report on this emerging issue.
New Jersey voters reject funds transfers
Now we turn to a related topic: Similar to the attempt to transfer Colorado MMJ funds to cover shortfalls in other parts of the state budget, New Jersey voters on Election Day slammed attempts to "Rob Peter, Pay Paul" at the expense of unemployment and disability funds.
First, let's look at a
Nov. 2 post at nj.com, from the state house correspondent: "New Jersey voters today overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that will ensure the money workers pay into the unemployment and temporary disability funds cant be used to plug future holes in the state budget.
"The vote on the sole statewide ballot question will prevent the governor and the 120-member legislature from using the funds for anything other than their intended purpose: to help people who cant find a job or who physically cannot work."
Wall Street Journal: 'mealy-mouthed' wording
To get an idea of how big a deal this vote was --and how confusing the wording was on the ballot-- consider this
pre-election piece from a blog at The Wall Street Journal: "New Jersey voters are being asked whether to prevent state politicians from dipping into unemployment, disability and other funds to balance the budget. But the mealy-mouthed wording of the ballot question appeared to puzzle voters.
"The question reads:
Shall the amendment to Article VIII, Section II of the State Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, which: prohibits collection by the State of assessments based solely on employee wages and salaries for any purpose other than providing employee benefits; dedicates all employer and employee contributions collected for any employee benefit fund, and all returns on investments of those contributions, to the purpose of that fund; and prohibits any transferring, borrowing, appropriating or using of those contributions or returns for any other purpose, be approved?
"Voting yes would tie politicians hands and prevent them from dipping into the funds for other purposes."
Problems with wording--and the 'help text'
Well, as the nj.com post attests, voters did indeed figure it out, with help from various sources, but the WSJ post also includes this quote from a retired engineer and an attorney: " 'The interpretive statement was harder to understand than the question,' said Mike Mastro, 73 years old, a retired engineer in West Windsor.
'Im an attorney and I didnt understand it,' says Mike Meduski, a father of two. 'I didnt understand the ballot question or the interpretive statement. They made no sense to me.'
Too often, such is life with unemployment and disability issues. Way too often.
Surprisingly serious and seriously surprising: Hollywood? Really?