Musictomyears wrote...
I read them as being in defence of state-sponsored accounting tricks, that serve the purpose of deceiving the public. You call that "spin". I call that lying, deceiving, and manipulating.
And you are right, I'm not American.
I have been in business for many years, and I have a layman's understanding of accounting and how it works. These aren't subtle tricks, lies, deceit or manipulation. They are the result of years of debate, open dialogue and considered conclusion by experts, by various independent (NOT governmental) organizations. There are thousands of people who interpret these accounting rules, as applicable to particular circumstances. These are not always black-and-white issues.
I hesitate to continue further, but I'll try again to explain my position in more detail, focusing on just this original issue of accounting conventions.
So, let me give you a little example of how this works. For decades the accounting profession held that postemployment liabilities, like retiree medical, were a current expense and didn't need to be accrued over the working life of the employee. Since Medicare assumed most of an individual's medical costs after age 65 the actual, supplemental cost was manageable and became almost a throwaway benefit by American business. Then the profession--NOT the government--decided those costs needed to be accounted for during the employee's entire working life, as if they were pension benefits. Even though costs didn't change, the impact on American business was enormous and impacted balance sheets almost to the point of disaster. So the accountants said it had to be reported as if it were being funded over many years. But Congress never actually permitted corporations to do so with the same tax advantaged benefits which gave rise to corporate pension plans. And thus began businesses cutbacks on retiree medical. EXCEPT for the government. Because they live by different rules, and didn't need to account for its enormous postemployment liabilities in the same manner as corporate America did. And that enabled the runaway entitlement mentality within our government to continue unabated.
So, what's the implication? In New Jersey, we've reported postemployment liabilities of, as I recall, about $25 BILLION. Now there's been an accounting change that will require reporting similar to corporate reporting and that will require full disclosure of the REAL unfunded cost, which is about $115 Billion. And that means our financial solvency is impacted and so is our debt rating and our ability to borrow efficiently. As the most taxed people in America, we're staring down the barrel of catastrophe, and our Governor continues to ignore the issue and kowtow to the unions which ensure his, and his party's, election.
And none of that is secret or a trick or manipulative. It's all out in the open. But most people don't care to understand it or involve themselves in the debate until it's way too late. And that's the problem. Not subterfuge or secrecy, but time. Most people have neither the time nor the inclination to read and understand what's going on, unless it happens to be a good sound byte for the mainstream media. And all this absurd conspiracy nonsense simply distracts people from meaningful issues that have direct and immediate impact on their lives and fortunes.
So, in that long winded way, what I'm trying to explain is that taking a simple article discussing some pretty routine accounting issues--none of which are secret or duplicitous, and all of which are, as you know, public--and trying to turn them into "black ops budgets" and secret dealings because it serves some personal dark view of the government distracts Americans from the REAL issues, which frequently go unexamined.
There is enough TRUTH out there that should concern us. We don't need to be inventing it simply to entertain ourselves.
Having raised that simple question--what about this simple article led the poster to believe there was something nefarious?--you chose to not respond to my question but attack my motivations for asking it, implying I was some form of government apologist. And David, as is his wont, chose to pile-on because I had the audacity to openly post a few weeks back, in a very respectful manner I might add, that I would never read his new blog because he acknowledged it would be a reflection of what I see as his extreme, black and ugly view of the world in general and America in particular. So there you have it.
