repoman

http://www.rense.com/general34/cafr.htm
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/cafr1/CAFR.html


This is about the the idea that the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) for local state and federal governments DO (usually, barring outright fraud) reveal the true nature of their financial holdings, but that these govs use other budgets to plead poverty and suck more taxes out of people.

Now I got this out of Rense.com, so I am a bit sketchy about my trust of this, but this is a big deal if true. I wish now that I took a couple courses in accounting because I can't make head or tails of these CAFRs and the claims made by Walter Burien. However, the level of complicity that he is claiming is hard to believe. But of course, in the past couple of years lots of surprising finanncial scandals have happened.

So, are any of you guys out there ready to give an informed opinion about whether this guy is in the ballpark about his claims.

Loren Pechtel

I don't know about the claims in particular, but government accounting practices are *TERRIBLE*. They make Enron look lily-white by comparison.

It's also amazing how they always seem short of money for the projects that the citizens are directly interested in but have plenty of money for things that are not so interesting.

Locally, for example, a new government building. I have no problem with the idea--having all the government offices together certainly has merit. However, the building is far too fancy and I would put the architect before the firing squad--I consider the building a deathtrap. I can't imagine how the fire department signed off on it. There's a round central area with arms radiating off of it. There's a big staircase heading up from this central area--while there are fire stairs elsewhere this staircase is the obvious way down. Unfortunately, it follows the layout of the room--it's pie shaped. What happens when a crowd storms down it to get away from a fire?

Also, they keep having bond issues to do things like build schools etc. A good idea? No! Why do we need new schools? Because of growth! Therefore the cost of the new schools should be borne by the new houses, not by the people who already lived here. Why should we subsidize people moving here?

Besides, when it comes to bonds if there's anything other than capital costs I automatically vote no. To date I have yet to vote yes on any bond issue.

elwoodblues

Drives to the heart of the difference between public and private enterprise. A public body can shuck and jive all day long, pass the buck, redefine goals and shore up weak returns with larger appropriation. When a private body tries this, it eventually turns sour, and even the most aggregious cases are cauterized to stop the hemorhaging of cash. But the gov't has the power to continually pass that buck.

The danger of the biggest corporations is not necessarily the power they themselves have, but in the power they can exert over lawmakers, essentially endowing their private business with that shucking-and-jiving power of a public gov't operation.

What's the solution? Legislating lobbyists and contributions? Tried that; ended up critically loopholed. Asking the cats to bell themselves, basically. I'd be happy just separating business and gov't as much as possible, with large amounts of oversight on what remains necessary. Normal competition shouldn't include having to send people to Washington to plead your case to Congress-people. But, with gov't and business entwined the way they are now, it's unavoidable.

Loren Pechtel

Also, who is going to prosecute the government? Try it and they would simply define it as legal, or else fire the guy doing the prosecuting.