Front Page  »  

California departments hoarding more than $2.3 billion

July 27, 2012

While California legislators vote to cut funding to schools and healthcare, state departments have underreported more than $2.3 billion, according to a analysis of 500 special funds by the Mercury News.

Following the discovery that state parks had underreported $54 million in its disclosures to the California Department of Finance, the state began reviewing the more than 500 special funds across state government to verify that departments have provided identical fiscal information to Finance and the Controller.

The review by the Mercury News found at least 17 accounts appear to have significantly more reserve cash than what individual departments reported to the Finance, though it’s unclear why.

For example, the fund that gives restitution to violent crime victims was off by $29 million, a low-cost health insurance fund for children was $30 million out of balance and the fund that rewards people for recycling bottles and cans was underreported by $113 million.

Finance officials are continuing to examine each special fund, line-by-line, to determine how much of the money is truly hidden.

“That ($2.3 billion) number will be inaccurate by the time we are done,” Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

My guess… if we look into cities and counties it would be pretty much the same situation. Its time we stop trusting government and demand accountability. The actof hoarding money and pleading broke is criminal. Audit them all and hold them accountable!


0

And jerry brown thinks we need to pay more taxes? So more politicians can lie to us?


0

When

does your home become part of your health care?…….. After 2012!


Your vote counts big time in 2012, make sure you and all your friends and

family know about this!


HOME SALES TAX


I thought you might find this interesting, — maybe even SICKENING!


The National Association of

Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, — before it takes

effect. But, I am very pleased we aren’t the only ones who know about this ploy

to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think

will vote Democratic in 2012?


Did you know that if you sell

your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a

$100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It’s in the health care bill, — and

it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn’t come to

light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is ‘change you can believe in’?


Under the new health care

bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax.


If you sell a $400,000 home,

there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation,

— who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November, 2012 vote more

important?


Oh, you weren’t aware that

this was in the ObamaCare bill? Guess what; you aren’t alone! There are more

than a few members of Congress that weren’t aware of it either.


You can check this out for

yourself at:


http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/…


I hope you forward this to every single person in your

address book.


VOTERS NEED TO KNOW.


Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/07/27/2159796/2b-in-california-taxpayer-money.html#storylink=cpy


0

Nice try at attempting to stir up the pot, but your assertions are not completely true; from “factcheck.org”, here is their reply: “We’ve been flooded with queries about this one ever since the health care bill became law. At the last minute, Democratic lawmakers decided on a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income persons. But the claim that this would amount to a $15,200 tax on the sale of a typical $400,000 home is utterly false.


The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.” Link here to the full answer. Try again?


0

“Tiny” in the government dictionary really doesn’t mean “tiny” at all, does it?


0

“Tiny” in the sense of the posted reply actually refers to to less than 2% of Americans that earn over the $250k a year mark, and when penciled in for the number of those in that bracket (or above) who are actually selling their primary residence and then would be subject to this tax on the earnings above a $500,000 sale would equal, pretty damn small numbers, like perhaps less than 1/10th of one percent, so yeah, TINY. Anything else?


0

The other point is that the article that I linked to and quoted above is NOT any official “government site” but a fact-finding organization that is dedicated to refuting nonsense no matter where the nonsense comes from; so this isn’t even a case of a “government definition”, is it?


0

LOL @ “quoted above is NOT any official “government site”. Because those government sites ALWAYS tell the truth, right? Talk about refuting nonsense…


0

Excuse me, but YOU are the one who mentioned {“Tiny” in the government dictionary really doesn’t mean “tiny” at all, does it?} Don’t push off on me bringing in the veracity of government sites or government lingo on this thread, that was YOU.


0

I don’t believe mentioning the government’s likely definition of one words is the same as offering up government websites and “fact-finding organizations”, Bob, no matter how hard you try to twist it back on me. You are excused!

: )


0

Robert I saw your comment below to this post. Great post. In reference to the post something that gets me wondering (no matter if it just taxes richer people) is if you are already paying properity taxes yearly, then with this you are basically double taxing the same thing, which in my opinion is WRONG no matter how much money you make.


In regards to Bob as usual he is o.k. with taking others money. No surprise here.


0

“In regards to Bob as usual he is o.k. with taking others money. No surprise here.” Um, how exactly is that pointing out that the new tax on the sale of homes for those who make over $200k a year ($250k if married) when they sell a home for over $500k that they will then be subject to a 3.8% tax on any amount over the $500k, how is that me taking others money? Is there anybody who reads these comments that will find themselves having to pay this new tax? Honestly?


0

If you aren’t opposed to the Gov. taking others money (doesn’t matter if they make more than you) or will not vote against it then you are for taking others money. Is that simple enough?


0

Hum, I must be getting dense in my advancing years; in your first comment it looks like you said: “In regards to Bob(,) as usual(,) he is o.k. with taking others money.” and in your second comment you have conflated the idea that “I” personally have no problem with taking other’s money with the “Gov.” taking others money. Which is it, me taking the money or the government taking money (collecting taxes)?


0

O.k. lets not be so cutzy. Who votes? The people. Who is the Gov.? It is the people. Are you one of the people?


Also you keep trying DESPERATELY to make the point that it will only affect people over 250k. So what. You are obiviously, from your deperate attempt, o.k. with it being on people over 250k or you would have stated it? So which is it? Are you o.k. with it on people over 250k or not on anyone? I already know you will probably skirt the answer again. It’s o.k. we both know the answer.


0

Yes, unequivocally, yes, I am “okay” with this tax being implemented. It is not for “all” people who make over $250k a year, only those who sell their principle residence and they sell it for more than $500k; then, and only then will the new 3.8% tax kick in, only for the amount over the $500k figure. If someone in that tax bracket were to sell their home for $1,000,000. , their “new” tax burden would be $1900. ; cry me a river if you can’t afford that for such a huge sale.


0

Um I might be wrong Bob but buy my calculations 3.8% on 500 K profit of a million would be $19,000 not $1,900. Big difference.


Also if a couple is making about 250k in today’s world that isn’t bad but I don’t think that makes you rich either. Many a small business locally could make that. I always here the liberals chanting about big business and protecting small business. Guess some people will just throw them (small business owners) under the bus when convienent.


And last getting back to the article why tax people more? So the Gov. can piss it away as usual?


0

Robert 1′


Good post. Your chek is in the mail.


Sincerly,


Faux, Inc.


0

I told you!


US: ‘Thrive’ filmmaker Foster Gamble explains how governments at all levels operate on two sets of books: one for the public and one for insiders. [The public books deal with budgeted operations and show revenue from taxes and fines. The confidential books relate to a ‘hush-hush’ fund that derives revenue from investments. Most of these hidden funds are awash in money while the governments that own them are pretending to be broke.] YouTube 2012 Jul 6


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pvr-eN7Eu8&feature=player_embedded


0

The problem is TOO MUCH money rolling into Sacramento to keep track of. Just think out the federal government issues…


0

Is anyone really surprised about this. The it’s free money attitude in not going to work anymore. Time to clean up our Own front yard……………… Lets start with the P.R. city council at election time.


0

:No surprise to me. Totally agree – clean up ourselves first. Hopefully, many other Paso voters will

feel similiar come November. Vote NO on all tax increases – tell them to live on what they have. Stop this insane practice of just keep asking for more and more; when it seems they already have many millions ‘hidden’ away. Wish I could go to my attic and find a million or so.


0

Photocal….that is the plan! : )


0

This is just another example of entrenched government employees guarding their fiefdoms. No one should be surprised by this.


0

I’ve been saying for years, that when you figure all the different taxes we pay to the state, (properity, sales, vehicle, franchise, etc. etc. etc.) I can’t understand why we are in the hole as far as we are. Maybe not in the black fine but why so far in the hole?


Like I posted on other article about the state Parks bruha last week, think about this when you close that polling drape in Nov. when you get to the question asking to vote for more money in the way of sales tax.


I say let’s make the state have a FULL disclosure first of all the monies we have given them past and present before we give them more to throw down their endless pit of no end.


0

Read my comment above to see the new “Home Sale Tax” from Obama & Crew !


0

SICKENING!


0

It’s situations like this that make the government want to take our gun rights away from us so we can’t rebel in the future. This is taxation at its worst and more to come from both parties, this is not a democrat or republican issue, this is “we have had enough issue”.


0

Very well put Robert………………Yes I’ve had enough !


0

It may not be a democrat or republican issue, but it is a Libertarian issue.


0
1 2