Well, I don't have enough information to evaluate the claim that Walker is improving his state's finances from a GAAP perspective, I will say this... it is absolutely critical that any complex fiscal entity use GAAP accounting, or something even more strict.
There are two basic kinds of accounting: cash-basis, and accrual basis. In cash-basis accounting, you think about cash in today versus cash out today. This is the kind of accounting that humans have been doing since the invention of currency, pretty much, maybe earlier. But it's terribly flawed; say you take out a million dollar loan, in exchange for which you will repay $1.1 million over 10 years. To cash basis accounting, you just made a million dollars, and then mysteriously, for the next ten years, you'll be losing $110,000. Damn, what a head-scratcher. (the real figures wouldn't be so round, I'm just using them for illustration.)
One of the largest advances in the understanding of finance was the creation of double-entry bookkeeping, or accrual accounting. Very simply, in accrual accounting, you maintain an overall balance sheet of assets versus liabilities. If you take that $1 million loan, in an accrual system, you immediately show a net loss of $100,000, with cash on hand of $1,000,000. This reflects the true fiscal reality of what you just did -- increased your cash, at a significant cost. You're in WORSE shape than you were, but in cash accounting, you LOOK better. Only in accrual accounting does your balance sheet correctly show that you've just hurt yourself.
Now, if a government does that, and turns around and blows that money on crack and hookers, everything looks copacetic if it's using cash-basis accounting. It took a million dollars in, and spent a million dollars, and the budget was balanced! Yay, our politicians rock. But, hmm, later years don't look as good, but these politicians may be gone by then. And if they're still in power, they can always borrow some more, maintaining a "balanced budget", make their payments, and get more hookers and crack. Damn, our politicians are wonderful, the budget is always balanced!
Now, if they put that million bucks into something that will, say, generate $1.2 million over the next ten years, then they're using the debt in an intelligent way. But they're running a risk that the investment might not pay off, or of course it might surprise them, and do better than they expect. So there's some real judgement calls in how to enter these figures onto a balance sheet; they can be extremely optimistic and record a future asset of, say, $1.5 million, and claim that they're running a surplus, or they can be pessimistic and anticipate a loss.
GAAP is a bunch of really arcane and complex rules for when and if you can record profits and losses to your overall balance sheet. Basically, it tries to be as accurate as possible, and it has lots of little rules and sub-rules to cover abuses that people have committed using balance sheet accounting in the past. So far, at least, it's the best overall system we have for representing the true fiscal position of a complex entity -- but note that even GAAP can't stop outright lying. One example of that is 'off balance sheet' entities, which is a way of moving expected losses to someone else's balance sheet, and then acting all surprised when monstrous bills come due from your subsidiary. It's my understanding that this was one method Greece used to maintain the fiction that it was in much better shape than it really was, but I don't know details.
Cash basis accounting is just too simple for any entity of any real size. Governments, being both very complex, and having the ability to enter into extremely long-term deals, need to use accrual accounting. Any government much past township size using cash-basis accounting is lying, full stop. With entities this complex, the two terms, "cash basis accounting" and "lying", are direct and literal synonyms.
So, yes, you should be holding Wisconsin to GAAP standards. This is absolutely required if you want to know the truth of what's going on, and even then, you can STILL be deceived. If GAAP accounting says things are okay, they might be okay.... but if it says things are wrong, they're almost certainly wrong.
edit: reworded the example paragraphs pretty heavily.
I dunno. I'm in favor of public disclosure. Someone hunting another person has other resources available, like DMV records. I think people engaging in political action should be at least identifiable. Otherwise, we get into the scenario where no one has to reveal any political actions they take, because privacy is king.
I think the prior example we had was that monetary sponsors of the California ban on gay marriage claimed that they should not be exposed because the very exposure of their positions would put them in danger. The argument leads to the idea that political positions should be private to prevent someone from being attacked for them.
Without meaning to underestimate the seriousness of the situation, if I were hiding from someone, I would not put my address on a form that will go to the state. That seems unwise, if there truly is a danger to my person or property. Of course, fugitives do it all the time, so I guess it's just human not to think it over.
I think the prior example we had was that monetary sponsors of the California ban on gay marriage claimed that they should not be exposed because the very exposure of their positions would put them in danger. The argument leads to the idea that political positions should be private to prevent someone from being attacked for them.
To play devil's advocate on your first point: aren't you a fan of Corporations' donations to political parties being transparent? Shouldn't we allow them to be private to prevent them from boycotts or other backlash from the public?
Without meaning to underestimate the seriousness of the situation, if I were hiding from someone, I would not put my address on a form that will go to the state. That seems unwise, if there truly is a danger to my person or property. Of course, fugitives do it all the time, so I guess it's just human not to think it over.
A legitimate question: So you are saying that people that have something to fear, like domestically abused spouses, should give up participating in the political process.
I don't see inconsistency between Robear's two points that both voters' information and corporate donations should be transparent.
I don't see inconsistency between Robear's two points that both voters' information and corporate donations should be transparent.
Whops, reading comprehension fail, in the first paragraph I thought he was arguing for hidden voter information, even though in the second paragraph he obviously wasn't. And I knew he wasn't.
Regardless, my second question stands.
To play devil's advocate on your first point: aren't you a fan of Corporations' donations to political parties being transparent? Shouldn't we allow them to be private to prevent them from boycotts or other backlash from the public?
I was citing the argument, not supporting it. I think they should take their lumps.
A legitimate question: So you are saying that people that have something to fear, like domestically abused spouses, should give up participating in the political process.
No, I think they should think twice about whether putting their current address in open records would be wise. If not, then perhaps they should avoid the petition for reasons of personal safety, not as a policy of disenfranchisement.
I don't think we make the entire list private because there might be a tiny percentage of people who would find their addresses used against them somehow. I think if you're hiding for your safety, you've likely got bigger issues than signing a petition.
Edit -
Except of course Wisconsin law already acknowledges that making some people's address a public record through poll lists poses an unacceptable risk to their safety. While I expect there will be some violence from hotheads targeting folks for being "union thugs", I'm ultimately willing to accept that risk as being significantly less-bad than having an opaque political process. The people covered by §6.47 are a different matter. These are people for whom simply disclosing their address can pose unacceptable risk. The argument is that we don't need to conceal the fact that they've signed, only their residence data - because the simple act of revealing their address puts them in real danger. This is, in fact, why Wisconsin law §6.47 exists.I'm very confused by the implication that domestic violence survivors signing the petition was somehow a foolish decision, whose consequences could have been foreseen in advance. Do you think it's unreasonable that a survivor of domestic violence, who qualified for protection under §6.47, would have the expectation that his/her address would be redacted, in exactly the same way as it's handled for polling records?
Well, I didn't know the above. But how do they verify the claim? How do they enforce it? And how do they *secure* the process?
As to the latter, I'd have that expectation if I knew about the law. Given that I didn't, no, I would not just expect to hang my personal safety on a hoped-for redaction. Make sense?
I would expect the information to be kept the same as polling records; in fact, I almost used that as an example in my first reply here.
And I agree with that, especially since there's a law in place. I thought you were arguing the general case, that's all. No big deal, just a misunderstanding.
Yes indeed.
If not, then perhaps they should avoid the petition for reasons of personal safety, not as a policy of disenfranchisement.
You realize that this means that you can be disenfranchised by assholes, right?
Quote:If not, then perhaps they should avoid the petition for reasons of personal safety, not as a policy of disenfranchisement.
You realize that this means that you can be disenfranchised by assholes, right?
It turns out that you, like me, missed a law that protects these people, so they *don't* have to worry about it.
Yeah, on balance, that's probably right. In a perfect world, I'd rather have the names and addresses on petitions be hidden, because as long as the people involved are citizens, I don't see any legitimate need for anyone else to know who they are. But that's a huge 'as long as', and there's too much room for corrupt government officials to say, 'X thousand people signed this petition', and then for regular citizens to have no way to verify that.
So, in our imperfect world, that seems like a good compromise -- your name, address, and employer will be released unless you can show good cause for the address to be redacted. If you can demonstrate an actual danger to your safety, this means you can't be shut out of the political process because you justifiably fear the release of your personal information.
When do we get to the part where some "Democrat" burns down the State House? Because soon, some distraction will be needed... Anyone heard from James O'Keefe lately?
Darlene Wink (mentioned upthread: misconduct, charges) pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges in a Milwaukee courtroom today.
As part of a plea deal with prosecutors, Wink agreed to provide information to prosecutors in the ongoing Doe probe. The deal calls for Wink to serve no jail time. Her sentencing was set for May 15. Prosecutors wanted the three months to question Wink, who would have preferred a swifter sentencing, said her lawyer, Peter Wolff.Wink, using several email accounts while at work in the courthouse, worked for several months on a birthday fundraiser for Walker in late '09 that was canceled and replaced with "a holiday gala" fundraiser for Walker, a complaint says. She also worked on Walker fundraising in 2010, the complaint says.
In one email exchange in 2009, she asked friend and fellow Walker aide Timothy Russell how she could erase a document from an online chat session. Russell told her it would disappear from her computer when she logged out, though investigators were able to ferret it out.
"I just am afraid of going to jail - ha! ha!" Wink wrote.
She faces a maximum of six months in jail and $1,000 fine on each of the two counts. Wink agreed to provide information to prosecutors as part of a plea deal.
Potentially noteworthy: Wink's lawyer, the charmingly-named Peter Wolff, appears to no longer be asserting that Walker didn't know about the misconduct happening in his office.
His blood runs cold; his memory has just been sold..
When's Wink's Playboy shoot?
Pages