2.3 billion more in under reported funds found. (Sacramento, Rancho Cordova: leasing, attorneys)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has nothing to do with conspiracy and everything do to with ineptitude. Another reason to vote NO on Brown's tax increases and force the State to its knees to make changes.
Read the damn article. You people sound like a broken record so let me spell it out to you for a second time. Most of that supposed money doesn't exist, it was allocated but not spent in one year then spent in the next so when they audit 2010 they say "there is $X which was allocated but not spent; I HAVE FOUND HIDDEN MONEY!", only they haven't as the project was funded in Demember 2010 but actual work started in April 2011. Get it? There is NO found money in those cases! None, no matter how much you fervently wish there was.
Secondly, according to the article, to reach the spurious dollar figure posted in this thread's headline they are proposing to raid special purpose funds such as the Crime Victims Restitution Fund. The problem is that such a move would deprive worthy causes of money already paid to them and second of all it poses serious legal risks. For instance, people found guilty of crimes in the state are required to pay in to the victims restitution fund as part of their sentence and the money is awarded to help pay damages to people who suffered at the hands of criminals. Guess what? If we refuse to pay those awards after collecting the damages then they might rightly sue the state for taking away their court ordered restitution money.
We'll still have to pay those expenses even if, as you want, they raid the crime victims fund only since the fund would have been raided there will be no cash on hand to do so. That is so obviously stupid I have to wonder if you've even thought through your own position.
The most inefficient? California has the fewest government employees per 100,000 of population of any state in the country. I call that being the most efficient. Further more it sounds like standard accounting to me and not incompetence; do you actually even know anything about accounting TVC? Lastly, I'd suggest you read more facts on the matter especially since you so obviously don't want to hear the facts. I know you are ideologically biased but you really should stop babbling talking points and actually read what the heck the article said.
And any apologist and idiotologist....umm....ideologist....can read into it what they wish. Perhaps you should stop babbling and look behind the sound-bites.
Here's a hint for ya. The Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst are at complete odds with one another.
As you are wont to post, think for yourself without regard to affiliation. It will open a whole new world of reality.
It has nothing to do with conspiracy and everything do to with ineptitude. Another reason to vote NO on Brown's tax increases and force the State to its knees to make changes.
Read the damn article. You people sound like a broken record so let me spell it out to you for a second time. Most of that supposed money doesn't exist, it was allocated but not spent in one year then spent in the next so when they audit 2010 they say "there is $X which was allocated but not spent; I HAVE FOUND HIDDEN MONEY!", only they haven't as the project was funded in Demember 2010 but actual work started in April 2011. Get it? There is NO found money in those cases! None, no matter how much you fervently wish there was.
Whether they spent the money or not is totally irrelevant. The fact it was a hidden fund with shady accounting and gov't employees doing things "outside the box" is pretty much corruption any way you spin it.
And you're OK with this? Wow. Guess my whole value judgement of what's right and wrong is not too aligned with California nowadays.
Whether they spent the money or not is totally irrelevant. The fact it was a hidden fund with shady accounting and gov't employees doing things "outside the box" is pretty much corruption any way you spin it.
And you're OK with this? Wow. Guess my whole value judgement of what's right and wrong is not too aligned with California nowadays.
Really?
From the article:
"But finance officials, operating under a longtime honor system, never checked the controller's total -- and no oversight groups caught the discrepancy, even though the numbers are publicly available on two state websites. As a result, Brown and the Legislature used the smaller $8.8 billion figure when they approved the state's annual spending plan last month."That does not necessarily translate into hidden funds," said Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer. "In many cases, there will very likely be legitimate accounting reasons for the difference in those funds."
This article is a tad amusing in its inferences that contradict its own statements and quotes elsewhere. Uh, not exactly AAA-level journalism. But then, in today's media, blogospheres substitute for actual professional quality, ethical reporting all the time -- and the public is rapidly losing awareness of the difference. This story, like much contemporary reporting, is trading in sensationalist inferences to sell its, and its publication's worth.
"Publicly available" numbers don't constitute "hidden" or "shady" accounting. And there isn't any sign of corruption in the material released so far. But if a person's exercise program is knee-jerking, I'm sure they are staying in shape.
Hey, just think about what might happen if even more funds are discovered. I mean, if they find another billion or so here, and then another billion or so there, and it keeps up for awhile longer, pretty soon it might actually start to add up to some real money!
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
5,058 posts, read 1,961,101 times
Reputation: 5633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself
The most inefficient? California has the fewest government employees per 100,000 of population of any state in the country. I call that being the most efficient. Further more it sounds like standard accounting to me and not incompetence; do you actually even know anything about accounting TVC? Lastly, I'd suggest you read more facts on the matter especially since you so obviously don't want to hear the facts. I know you are ideologically biased but you really should stop babbling talking points and actually read what the heck the article said.
My you remind me of anther poster who likes to put words in my mouth. Where did I say the most inefficient? Go back and re-read what I said.
And in the meantime here are some excellent facts on why CA is one of the most inefficient governments out there. Government Waste
Government inefficiency results in mismanagement of funds and wasted money. This in turn places a higher burden on the tax payers.
Read the article? You bet I did...you must have missed this part from the article?
"Finance officials are continuing to examine each special fund, line-by-line, to determine how much of the money is truly hidden. That ($2.3 billion) number will be inaccurate by the time we are done, Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said."
BTW I do know a thing or two about accounting which is why I am voting HELL NO to the proposed tax increases. Good business accounting practices don't follow wasteful continuous over-spending and mismanagement of funds. This is all you see with CA's government. This has been going on for a very long time. It appears the voters need to take basic accounting lessons.
I can assure you that there aren’t' billions of dollars of hidden money sitting around in TX due to an inefficiently managed government.
This post was started to show how wasteful and inefficient CA's government operates. It is apparent that this has been the case for long long time. The voters need to wake up and realize that they need to stop this broken cycle.
Whether they spent the money or not is totally irrelevant. The fact it was a hidden fund with shady accounting
Except it wasn't as the article in the OP even said!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read the damn article. You people sound like a broken record so let me spell it out to you for a second time. Most of that supposed money doesn't exist, it was allocated but not spent in one year then spent in the next so when they audit 2010 they say "there is $X which was allocated but not spent; I HAVE FOUND HIDDEN MONEY!", only they haven't as the project was funded in Demember 2010 but actual work started in April 2011. Get it? There is NO found money in those cases! None, no matter how much you fervently wish there was.
