Solving the Budget "Shortfalls"
by Walter Burien
07/08/09
[REPLY TO JOHN FROM WJB]
John:
Recently someone asked me about transportation funding in Texas. I copied my reply below your post about CA.
The key information in the post I copied below was the listing of funds shown by the TX comptrollers office [thousands of separate funds]
California State Government Inc. has the same if not substantially larger fund balances than TX.
I strongly suggest that you share the same with your people and let them know to look for the same types of funds and listing in CA as shown in Texas to see "the reality" of standing fund balances in CA.
The reality check per current circumstances with an example given on the personal level is as follows:
If you had a fund to take a one-month vacation to Cancun, Mexico with $15,000 in it, and a fund to buy an Island in the Dutch West Indies with 3.8 million in it, and your yearly grocery fund balance dropped from its normal level of $12,000 to $400, would you:
- A. - Pull all that was needed from your "vacation" fund to increase your grocery account.
- B. - Pull all that was needed from your "buy and Island Fund" to increase your grocery account.
- C. - Pull all that was needed from your vacation and buy an Island fund to increase your grocery account.
- D. - Pull 50% of the needed funds from your vacation and buy an Island fund to increase your grocery account and borrow the rest.
- E. - Look at all of your separate funds (thousands on the state level), see what your shortfall need was, and pull a "set percentage", say 1.2% from all of your fund balances "equally" to meet shortfalls you may have in your grocery fund and may also have elsewhere per urgent "living" needs that need to be addressed at "this time"..
- F. - Orchestrate the released news in your neighborhood to give everyone the impression you are broke, about to go under, and you stop participating in church, boy scouts, feed the elderly, and the community watch program due to lack of personal funds as shown in your grocery fund balance whereby you pitch all of your neighbors for several hundred dollars each (tax them) so that you can get back to "normal operations".
In all reality and in the peoples interests the only option that truly is the only choice is "E". An equal percentage transfer from all non-essential fund balances to all "life essential" fund balances where a shortfall of funds exists would solve any implied fiscal "shortfall" in almost any state or sub-local government in the same state.
No fighting per access of any specific fund (as the case is now), but a set percentage withdrawn from "all" non-essential "not life maintaining" fund balances wiping out any shortfall in the life essential budgetary shortfalls.
My hat is off to the TX State Comptroller for giving an easy reference link to view all "State Funds" in the state of Texas. Other states are not so forthcoming and open to their people. [ CAFR1 Note 03/02/14 TX pulled the links to the "Detailed" Cash Report shortly after this CAFR1 Article. People were looking - https://fmx.cpa.state.tx.us/fm/pubs/cashrpt/07/html/index.php ]
_______________________________________
CAFR1 Note 03/02/14 - Thank God for: Archive.org the 2002 to 2005 TX State Cash Report, a snap shot was taken and the report can be viewed and "SAVED" from the following links:
TX CASH Report Archives:
- 2005 Texas Annual Cash Report (PDF 7 MB)
- 2004 Texas Annual Cash Report (PDF 20 MB)
- 2003 Texas Annual Cash Report (PDF 13 MB)
- 2002 Texas Annual Cash Report (PDF 21 MB)
- 2001 Texas Annual Cash Report
If access to the links above are busy, try back again latter. Now known, many will be looking and that will strain Archive.org's bandwidth. Two of the "Detailed" reports I have now archived on the CAFR1 Download directory also at - http://CAFR1.com/STATES/TEXAS/CashReports/Archive/
_______________________________________
A little (much) digging may be necessary to see the same in other states.
I make one very important note here: State funds are strictly "State Funds". All other local governments within the state have their own separate investment funds and fund balances whereby if all local government fund balances were looked at from within a state, the collective totals from local governments from within the state would dwarf the state government's collective totals.
So, we all see how several state governments are playing out their "budget short fall game", now it is up to the people to decide if they are tired of the entertainment presented at their expense of promoted shortfalls and budget deficit soundbites rammed down their throats by a bunch of spoiled, ruthless, yuppies operating from within the halls of government, pockets bloated with hundred dollar bills (with most of the top orchestrator's being attorneys), or shall the people muster to break through and break free from the orchestrated soundbites that are designed to maintain the cash flow and wealth base of others operating from the inside, or must the people force a showing of the collective wealth held by government and then the application of option "E" to solve any immediate fiscal problems standing....
And one very IMPORTANT note; The CA article copied below mentions paying "Proposition 108 bonds", a debt investment instrument. It is VERY important to see who the investors are in that, and all other bond debt standing for all local governments. For decades local governments have been promoting debt at the front door and funding the same debt using their own investment funds through the back door. With them doing so it served a two fold purpose. It locked in an investment for the same local governments to stash their cash, and it allowed for promotion of the debt whereby they could justify by false promotions tax increases to pay the debt, a debt that was in reality a tool used by them to create investment vehicles to funnel their ever growing massive take of revenue (productivity value) from the people.
So the bottom line per debt as disclosed here is: What percentage of any local government's debt is actually funded in a round about way with the same local government's investment funds? Is it 50%, 70%, 80%, or maybe even 100%???? Every taxpayer BETTER and should know the answer to that question.... The Foxes are not going to tell you or make it easy for you to find out.
TWO EXAMPLES OF ROUND ABOUT SELF DEBT FUNDING: 1.] City X has $100,000,000 in bond debt that was funded by (Bank, Insurance, Investment Company) X. The same City X has $100,000,000 invested with Company X. 2.] State X has $10,000,000,000 invested with the local government investment pool and the local government investment pool is funding $10,000,000,000 of State X's bond debt. The mix and cross play here is mind boggling but in end result, the largest proportion of local government debt is funded with their own investment funds....
I make one very important note here: State funds are strictly "State Funds". All other local governments within the state have their own separate investment funds and fund balances whereby if all local government fund balances were looked at from within a state, the collective totals from local governments from within the state would dwarf the state government's collective totals.
So, we all see how several state governments are playing out their "budget short fall game", now it is up to the people to decide if they are tired of the entertainment presented at their expense of promoted shortfalls and budget deficit soundbites rammed down their throats by a bunch of spoiled, ruthless, yuppies operating from within the halls of government, pockets bloated with hundred dollar bills (with most of the top orchestrator's being attorneys), or shall the people muster to break through and break free from the orchestrated soundbites that are designed to maintain the cash flow and wealth base of others operating from the inside, or must the people force a showing of the collective wealth held by government and then the application of option "E" to solve any immediate fiscal problems standing....
And one very IMPORTANT note; The CA article copied below mentions paying "Proposition 108 bonds", a debt investment instrument. It is VERY important to see who the investors are in that, and all other bond debt standing for all local governments. For decades local governments have been promoting debt at the front door and funding the same debt using their own investment funds through the back door. With them doing so it served a two fold purpose. It locked in an investment for the same local governments to stash their cash, and it allowed for promotion of the debt whereby they could justify by false promotions tax increases to pay the debt, a debt that was in reality a tool used by them to create investment vehicles to funnel their ever growing massive take of revenue (productivity value) from the people.
So the bottom line per debt as disclosed here is: What percentage of any local government's debt is actually funded in a round about way with the same local government's investment funds? Is it 50%, 70%, 80%, or maybe even 100%???? Every taxpayer BETTER and should know the answer to that question.... The Foxes are not going to tell you or make it easy for you to find out.
TWO EXAMPLES OF ROUND ABOUT SELF DEBT FUNDING: 1.] City X has $100,000,000 in bond debt that was funded by (Bank, Insurance, Investment Company) X. The same City X has $100,000,000 invested with Company X. 2.] State X has $10,000,000,000 invested with the local government investment pool and the local government investment pool is funding $10,000,000,000 of State X's bond debt. The mix and cross play here is mind boggling but in end result, the largest proportion of local government debt is funded with their own investment funds....
OPTION "E" - Make it happen in your state!
Walter - CAFR1.com
-----------------------------
From: "JOHN"
Subject: A RECENT CALIFORNIA COURT CASE--RE: HANK PANKY USE OF SURPLUS TAX REVENUE
Date: Sun, July 5, 2009 10:08 pm
To: WalterBurien@cafr1.com
Walter:
You may find the following informative:
California Appellate Districts, June 30, 2009
Shaw v. People ex rel John Chiang , No. C058479
Shaw v. People ex rel John Chiang , No. C058479
In an action related to California's state budgetary process, trial court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the Legislature's amendment of Revenue and Taxation Code sec. 7102 is invalid and thus most of the Legislatures appropriations of Public Transportation Account spillover gas tax revenue for the 2007-08 budget year are invalid because they do not serve a transportation planning or mass transportation purpose; and 2) the court properly rejected the Legislature's transfer of $409 million from the Public Transportation Account to the General Fund for past debt service payments on Proposition 108 bonds as not being consistent with the purposes of the Public Transportation Account. Read more...
***
Sent FYI, John-----------------------------------------
TEXAS COMMUNICATION
-----------------------------------------
From: "Walter Burien" <walterburien@cafr1.com>
Subject: Re: Urgent Request for Your Services
Date: Mon, June 29, 2009 11:22 am
To: "Russell Doyle"
Russel:
I will note that in AZ the state had a fund back in 1998 which was called: The Capital Projects Road Development Trust Fund that was designed to make payments to the counties for road improvement.. In 1998 it had a balance of 8.5 billion dollars. TX State Gov Inc., has some similar funds. Keep in mind on the road "profit makers" they set them up as "enterprise operations" to be separate from the general purpose operating funds. EXAMPLE: NJ Turnpike, Garden State Parkway, etc. All other roads are handled and maintained by the county, city, or state.
***** Here is a 2007 breakdown from the TX state comptroller: of all different fund balances under "Treasury Fund Detail". The first link there about 80% down you will see the TX Highway Fund numbers. I would look very closely at all from each - [ CAFR1 Note 03/02/14 TX pulled the links to the "detailed" Cash Report shortly after this CAFR1 Article. People were looking - https://fmx.cpa.state.tx.us/fm/pubs/cashrpt/07/html/index.php ]
***** Here is a 2007 breakdown from the TX state comptroller: of all different fund balances under "Treasury Fund Detail". The first link there about 80% down you will see the TX Highway Fund numbers. I would look very closely at all from each - [ CAFR1 Note 03/02/14 TX pulled the links to the "detailed" Cash Report shortly after this CAFR1 Article. People were looking - https://fmx.cpa.state.tx.us/fm/pubs/cashrpt/07/html/index.php ]
_______________________________________
CAFR1 Note 03/02/14 - Thank God for: Archive.org the 2002 to 2005 TX State Cash Report, a snap shot was taken and the report can be viewed and "SAVED" from the following links:
TX CASH Report Archives:
- 2005 Texas Annual Cash Report (PDF 7 MB)
- 2004 Texas Annual Cash Report (PDF 20 MB)
- 2003 Texas Annual Cash Report (PDF 13 MB)
- 2002 Texas Annual Cash Report (PDF 21 MB)
- 2001 Texas Annual Cash Report
If access to the links above are busy, try back again latter. Now known, many will be looking and that will strain Archive.org's bandwidth. Two of the "Detailed" reports I have now archived on the CAFR1 Download directory also at - http://CAFR1.com/STATES/TEXAS/CashReports/Archive/
_______________________________________you will be amazed when you see how much money is involved (floored more like it) The second link of fund listings, about 80% down the page you will find the County and Road District Highway fund #0057. When you look at all the rest of the separate funds linked and you will find others that apply to transportation; road; highways also.
Make sure you save each page from the above and then you can burn a CD of all applicable funds (many) per roads and highways by cut and past into one listing and post on a site or distribute to like minded. That should cause a few trembles and ducking for cover down at the state house. There are listed 1 through 7,626 "separate" fund balances. You may want to do a directory download with all sub-directories, and then you can do key word searches for "Highway" and "roads" to spot the many different funds listed.
Make sure you save each page from the above and then you can burn a CD of all applicable funds (many) per roads and highways by cut and past into one listing and post on a site or distribute to like minded. That should cause a few trembles and ducking for cover down at the state house. There are listed 1 through 7,626 "separate" fund balances. You may want to do a directory download with all sub-directories, and then you can do key word searches for "Highway" and "roads" to spot the many different funds listed.
Walter
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION FROM RUSSEL
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Russell Doyle"
Subject: Urgent Request for Your Services
Date: Mon, June 29, 2009 1:49 am
To: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com
Dear Mr. Burien:
Texas is about to hold a special session of the legislature from Wednesday July 1st to about the 4th or 5th.
The issue is how to fund roads. I am part of a group trying to stop toll roads and Comprehensive Development Agreements, which is another name for Public Private Partnerships.
My question is can you help us identify how much Texas has in assets, and how much income we are getting from these assets, some of which may not be going into the general fund where it is available for roads. Our goal is to make the case to legislators that selling assets or possibly diverting income from other accounts is a better way to fund our roads. I saw a link on Google that I cannot now find that said that in 1998 Texas had assets of $8.3 Trillion and income from these assets of about $450 Billion. The article also said that our total 1998 city, county and state taxes were about $360 Billion.
As usual, we are strapped for cash but we could probably come up with several hundred dollars for your services. Please let me know if you would be interested.
Sincerely,
Russell Doyle
----------------------------------------------------------------
The above sent FYI from,
Walter Burien - CAFR1.com
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, Arizona 85936
Tel. (928) 458-5854
PS: Make the investment wealth of government directly benefit the people and taxation be gone! TRF now!
------------------------
Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State's annual budgetary needs!
------------------------
To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL Posts - http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe
------------------------
CAFR1 needs help in this corner: http://CAFR1.com/DNT.html
-------------------------
BACK TO THE CAFR1 FRONT PAGE