[EagleUSA]

Deja vu General Motors...et al. No accountability equals financial disaster.

[mtbopfuyn]

I ain't holdin' my breath.

[theBuckwheat]

If keeping accurate and complete books that recognize every source of income, every expense, every asset and the fiscal implications of every liability is good enough for publicly-listed company in the United States (GAAP, SOX, etc.), it should be good enough for all governmental jurisdictions.

Just how bad their books are can only be judged by how much the politicians howl at the suggestion they must follow the same rules as Enron should have.

[goodnesswins]

As goes CALIFORNIA, so goes the nation, eventually.....???

[Popocatapetl]

I can solve California's problems quickly and easily, with "The Singapore Solution."

In Singapore many offenses, no matter how small, are punishable with a fine instead of jail time. Fines for every annoying or offensive behavior.

In California, every single police officer should be issuing fines right, left and sideways. They should have something like a cellphone for swiping credit cards for on-the-spot fines. The State gets the majority of the fine, then the county, then the city get their share, depending on the jurisdiction of the police officer.

People who refuse to pay could have the fine deducted automatically from any bank account, and if the fine amount is over $1000, they work at the rate of one day per $100 to pay it back, mostly picking up litter.

All fines would be based on State law, and would not be *criminal* offenses, but *civil* offenses, which means that they first had to be appealed through a State fines officer, whose primary job is to prevent corruption in the fining system. Alternatively, if payment of the fine was refused, the violation would be prosecuted under normal criminal law as it is now.

In essence, this would amount to an huge tax on that part of the middle class and wealthy who are offensive. Vehicle citations, vandalism, shoplifting, simple assault, littering, just about anything else that is petty and annoying would pour money into the State and local coffers.

In turn, it would result in large cost savings, in not having to arrest, try or jail people. And since the fines would be the only punishment, they would need to fit the crime.

For example, what if for DUI you had to pay $30,000? Many people who couldn't afford it would vie for the jail time and a lesser fine. But a lot would pay $30k or more to not go to jail.

Since California *convicts* about 130,000 DUI drivers every year, and assuming 100k of them would pay up, that is $3M dollars into the State treasury, less any paid to counties and cities. For *one* crime.

And there are thousands of crimes that could be punished with just instant fines. Think of all the traffic laws. If you had the choice to pay $75 and get points on your license and have your insurance go up, or $300 and drive away, how many people would pay the greater amount? You might even save money in the deal.

Put it all together and California might even get their budget in the black for a change. Make a bundle, save a bundle. It starts to add up.

[goldstategop]

As I often said on this forum, if the Sarbanes-Oxley rules were applied our government, all of our politicians would be in prison. After all, they constantly lie about their budgets and overestimate assets and underestimate liabilities. When Enron did it, its top executives faced prison time and the company went bankrupt. The welfare's state's debts are going to become visible just as when the Democrats are coming back to mind the store in Washington. It won't be a pretty sight - the fiscal meltdown. Should be fun to watch.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus