-
August 7th, 2009UncategorizedOK, we know about the dire financial picture for the state, the latest report showing that while there’s a chance the state will have money in the bank on June 30, the following year requires major cuts or new taxes.
Budget cutting is almost a black art, shrouded in acronyms and with “State General Funds” and “All Funds” columns on complicated charts.
The House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Ways and Means Committee meet separately to put together their versions of what will at some point become a single bill that both chambers will have to approve.
That work is being done this week, before the Legislature reconvenes April 29, with the hope that each chamber will have its money committee’s version of how to make the books balance for the upcoming fiscal year—2010, which starts July 1 and ends June 30, 2010.
This behind-the-scenes work involves scouting how either to cut $328 million from the budget which was already pared down sharply in the “mega” appropriations bill which the governor signed into law–minus some line-item vetoes—last week or to find new revenues.
And, the House and Senate, almost institutionally, have different outlooks on how to make budgets work.
That predilection changes over time, depending on the membership of each chamber.
So far this year, we’ve seen from the new House leadership and membership less angst over cutting funding for elementary and secondary school funding than funds for Regent institutions.
In the Senate, from all appearances so far, there’s less fear about cutting funding for state colleges and universities. Nobody likes to do it but the kids are nearly grown-up by the time they’re going to a college or community college and while not everyone lives in a college town, well, everyone lives in a school district.
Why dwell on education spending? Because it represents the biggest pot of money in the state budget. If you’re going to save money, you cut where the money is.
That other option? Raising revenue through taxes? Chances look very slim. There’s an easy pick-off worth a total of $75 million in payments made to counties, and that’s almost in the bag. But new taxes or suspending tax cuts lawmakers gave away in previous years? Very, very tricky. The people—and mostly businesses—with tax cuts are extremely protective of them.
This ought to be an exciting wind-up session of the Legislature.
-
July 9th, 2009UncategorizedIn US v. Blackmon, No. 07-4237 (2/23/09), the 3rd Circuit addressed the interplay between the money laundering guideline, USSG 2S1.1(a), and relevant conduct, USSG 1B1.3. The Circuit accurately warned that the discussion of these issues is "abstruse."
The Circuit held (1) that the district court correctly applied the guidelines for "direct money laundering" under USSG 2S1.1(a)(1) because defendant was accountable for the underlying offense of drug distribution; and (2) that the district court properly counted as relevant conduct for the money laundering guidelines the cocaine conspiracy that defendant was involved in.
Blackmon pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute over 5 kilos of cocaine, and to money laundering. The conspiracy involved Blackmon shipping Fed Ex packages of cocaine from California to conspirators in Philadelphia, in exchange for packages of cash that the coconspirators sent back to Blackmon. The FBI arrested the coconspirators, who began cooperating. FBI then set up a sting in which one of the coconspirators sent $15,000 to Blackmon as payment for a shipment of 1 kilo of cocaine. This constituted money laundering because the coconspirator stated that the money itself was the proceeds of drug trafficking. The FBI arrested Blackmon after seeing him pick up the money.
The Circuit ruled that Blackmon was engaged in "direct money laundering" under USSG 2S1.1(a)(1) because he committed the underlying offense of drug trafficking by agreeing to send the coconspirator cocaine.
The Circuit next ruled that in calculating the guidelines range for the money laundering, the district court correctly included as relevant conduct all of the drug trafficking from the conspiracy count. The Court rejected the defense argument that the money laundering offense level should be based only on the 1 kilo of cocaine to be sent in exchange for the $15,000. The Court reasoned that the more than 150 kilos from the cocaine conspiracy should be included as relevant conduct for the money laundering because it was relevant conduct for the drug distribution that was the underlying crime.
