It's the only way he survives in this debate. Democratic run California only survives in the land of lies and deceit.
*Sigh.* Fine. You have prompted me to actually go look up the audit in question. And guess what? It's a nothing-burger. First, let's address my OP from a year ago. California's fiscal year starts on July 1. This thread, and the article it was based on, were about a projected surplus for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. That surplus came true. http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2013-14/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf The 2013-2014 budget had a $1.7 billion surplus. Now let's look at the audit that has Molon so excited. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2013-001.1.pdf #1, it's not an audit of the state's final published numbers; it's an audit of the internal controls at various state agencies. #2, it covers the 2012-2013 budget year; it has nothing to do with the budget THIS thread referenced (the 2013-2014 budget) or the upcoming budget that starts July 1 (the 2014-2015 budget). What it found was that the State Controller's Office -- due to implementing new procedures, a high volume of late submissions from state agencies, inadequate training, and high turnover -- made a bunch of errors in its calculations. Those errors totaled $31.5 billion. HOWEVER (and this is the biggie): THOSE ERRORS WERE CAUGHT BEFORE THEY WENT INTO THE FINAL BUDGET. Get that? This is a review of internal processes, not final products. The Controller's office screwed up, but the review process caught them. That's why the report has all sorts of paragraphs like this one: The Controller’s Office prepared numerous erroneous reversing entries and posted these entries to its accounting system that if uncorrected would have caused the material misstatement of the State’s financial statements. See that? It's criticizing the procedure. But the errors were caught and corrected before the final financial statements were published. No fraud. No lies. Nothing wrong with the state's budget statements. Just criticism of the internal processes of an overworked and understaffed agency. Every time I take a conservative post at face value, I regret it. This is another example.
Nice dodge. Having read the post you quoted, do you now see that the audit you guys think shows fraud and "cooking the books" in California, in fact shows nothing of the sort?
Don't know how you can have a 'balance budget' when you have a huge debt. How did CA get the debt if they have to balance their budget?
Given the facts as laid out in this post: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=305051&p=1063949716#post1063949716 I'm sure you'll all be by to apologize to me, Democrats and the state of California for falsely accusing, slandering and insulting us. MOD EDIT - Rule 3
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Are you possibly confusing "debt" and "deficit"? One can have a balanced budget while carrying debt; one cannot have a balanced budget that has a deficit (since a deficit, by definition, is a shortfall in the budget).
Wow. How long have you been participating in this forum? Haven't you learned anything here or are you still just dialed in to that RW propaganda regardless of what they tell you. I can't believe that with the amount of time you've been on this board you'd ask a question that shows such a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of a simple concept. - - - Updated - - - Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
So address CA's debt. - - - Updated - - - Yes, the current budget gymnastics say this years budget is balanced but if they have to have a balance budget every year, how could there be any debt?
Because debt is listed as a long-term liability. What affects a given year's budget is service on the debt. Think of your home mortgage. You may owe $200,000, but that doesn't go into your annual budget calculation. Only your 12 monthly payments do.
His latest comments note that the "wall of debt" is down significantly, and is on track to be less than $5 billion in the 2016-17 budget year and eliminated completely by 2018. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-14/brown-nurses-california-s-debt-binge-with-dose-of-cash.html Do you have a specific point you want to make in regards to that?
You can't see it because you're not desperate to find something to take the attention away from the fabulous success of ObamaCare....
No, I often expose their silly beliefs and misunderstandings. See my responses to your posts. - - - Updated - - - Obamacare? Who said anything about Obamacare? LMAO! Diversion of the Day Award to you. - - - Updated - - - That explanation went right over your head.
You really can't be this stupid. They are planning to spend what they think is a surplus yet they have debt that needs to be serviced. They are under the impression because they have increased taxes that it will flow forever, yet they have unfunded liabilities that they have to plan for. Unfunded means they have not planned for them. This is not something that is cut and dried but it is dynamic. They have no idea how their recent tax increases will affect the overall health of their budget.
Governments and companies routinely carry debt; it's not a big deal unless the debt-to-revenue ratio is excessive. That said, California is on track to eliminate its "wall of debt" by 2018. It's not that simple. Yes, one should not plan long-term spending on the basis of what could be short-term revenues. Let's hope they're not doing that. Unfunded liabilities are another matter. Those are projections, and what you use as a projection has a huge effect on the size of the liability. For instance, back before the recession, governments were able to use pretty rosy investment-return numbers to calculate the future value of the money they were socking away to pay things like pensions. So the liabilities were small. Then the recession hit, and the stock market tanked. Governments were now forced to use far lower investment-return numbers. Their unfunded liabilities skyrocketed -- even though they weren't doing anything differently. Unfunded liabilities are a real problem, and governments should take them seriously: but they are nothing more than projections, and it's easy to exaggerate their weight.
Fascinating. Tell us what the difference is between a deficit and a debt, and then maybe you can try to explain how you could ask something like "Don't know how you can have a 'balance budget' when you have a huge debt."
Well let me keep this simple for you. Since CA has to have a balance budget, how come they have debt? In fact the 'wall of debt' mentioned by Brown?
Why don't you keep it real simple and simply answer my question. Which apparently isn't simple to you at all.
Deficit is what they are apparently saying they won't have this budget but debt is the deficits added up, so if they have to have a balance budget, how could they have a 'wall of debt'?
