Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
You have yet again proven your economic ignorance. It's kinda like saying that if you have a mortgage, you are bankrupt. I hate to break it to you, but annual deficits/surpluses are different than total debt (i.e., you can have an annual operating surplus, but still have debt). Stick to what you understand, though that seems to be precious little.
|
Got it wrong again, tool, possibly because your knowledge of budgeting came from inside the Beltway. And your analogy sucks. Here's a better one:
Cali saying that they have a surplus is like saying that I have a mortgage payment that doesn't fit my annual budget, so I'm going to borrow the money to pay the mortgage. Not only that, but I'm going to borrow more money than I need to make this year's payments, and I'll call the additional funds "revenue". And then, since I'll have more "revenue" than I have expenses, I'll declare a "surplus" this year.
This is exactly what's happening in Cali, and its the same thing Clinton did in the 90's. And just like the 90's when the Congressional Dems wanted to spend the "surplus" by calling it "The Peace Dividend", the Cali legislature is pushing to spend Cali's faux surplus this year.
Because the Cali Treasury has more funds on account than they have expenses, including funds that came from borrowing, they "should" only have two options: refund the excess to the taxpayers (except that its not really an excess so that really isn't an option), or pay down the long term debt. Yeah...that won't happen either.