Comments

  1. Thomas Carter says

    Sir:

    Have you asked EDD or possibly John Chiang, your State Controller, if this program using B of A was offered to other banks to see which financial instrution offered the best deal. Or was B of A the only game in CA?

    • says

      Why do you continue to assume that those running B of A, Chase, Citibank, and others, along with the public officials that sell their office and fiduciary duty to the public are anything more than white-collar criminals? First the ending of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that made the banking fraud and sub prime fiasco possible.

      Now students who were conned into taking out huge student loans from schools with worthless diplomas or even good schools that cannot get them a job in this economic environment now face a close to trillion dollar debt at 8% plus interest when they get out of school and find it impossible to clear these loans even with bankruptcy.

      Given this reality, why would you assume that anybody from EDD shopped the best deal for the state and didn’t just take the simplistic and bank-serving attitude that the state no longer had to pay to send out and process checks- wasn’t that enough of a benefit to the state? Wanna bet that actually compensating the state for the value of the money they were turning over to B of A never came into the discussion.

      Since I wrote this blog post, it has also come out that the newest bank loan scheme is to “give” financially stressed people money collateralized by their pensions. When somebody actually looked into it, they calculated that a $90,000 advance today would cost the borrower over $300,000 by the time it was repaid.

  2. Silver Dragon says

    This is gonna suck – My wife and I are part of a Class Action against BofA – it would be a conflict of interest for the State to transfer my UI check to a BofA account – I wonder how many other people are gonna find themselves in that position, and if we could band together and sue BofA and the State?

    • says

      The State of California rational/cover story is that in these bad economic times with huge state deficits, letting B of A handle getting the money to the 1.2 million unemployed saves the state money in not having to incur the expensive of processing the checks. What is conveniently left out is any other manner of accomplishing the same function, while generating income from this process for the state and not a for profit corporation, while respecting the rights of the unemployed.

      A consistent obfuscation of our economic and political rights is equating corporate well-being with individual well-being. Or, to put this in historical context: What is good for General Motors is not good for the country, if General Motors buys off government regulation by Congress in lieu of being bound by it like the rest of us.

      The pejorative term fascist is bantered about without understanding it so much that its simple meaning as government control of production, distribution, and exchange in derogation of supposed sacrosanct market principles has become the rule and not the exception. This is all the more troublesome when corporations that are “too big to fail” have usurped the built in checks and balances of power between the 3 branches of government by the removal of any limit on their power to bribe or coerce government official by the ludacris decision in Citizens United, which can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment or a reversal by the Supreme Court, which is not likely in the near future.

      Today is a day of action all over this country. It might just be that the only way to express our majority status against the constant erosion of rights and the economic ramifications it brings is to get into our own Tahrir Squares around America to give the minority, who has so far had a free pass, the power of we the people. Did you close all your bank accounts in Chase, Citibank, B of A. and put the money in a depositor owned credit union?

      The greatest slight of accomplished by those in power is to convenience the majority that we are the minority.

      As for court action, this presupposes

  3. Dan McCrory says

    Leonard,
    Hate to take the wind out of your sails on this one and ruin an otherwise appropriate rant, but B of A had actually exempted the EDD card from its proposed $5 debit card charge from the outset.

    • says

      Dan,

      The $5 debit card charge has nothing to do with the EDD debit card. The first is tied to your B of A bank account, while the second is only for the unemployed and is exclusively funded by EDD. The attempt by B of A to tack on a $5 use charge to the first was overturned. As for the EDD B of A debit card, the B of A financial picnic goes on. Again, why couldn’t EDD have just offered direct deposit to the unemployed instead of giving this cash cow to B of A?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *