Truth in Accounting's Fifty State Study Uncovers the True Financial Condition of the States

Only four U.S. states have sufficient assets to pay their debt and obligations related to pension and retirees' healthcare

Chicago, (June 27, 2011) -- Today, the Institute for Truth in Accounting (IFTA) announces completion of a significant, comprehensive study of all 50 states' assets and liabilities, including pension and retirement healthcare obligations.  The study determined that six states had a per taxpayer burden over $20,000:  Connecticut ($41,200), Illinois ($26,800), Hawaii ($25,000), Kentucky ($23,800), Massachusetts ($20,100) and New Jersey ($34,600).  The Taxpayer Burden represents the funds that will be needed to pay the commitments the state has already accumulated divided by the state's taxpayers. 

'If governors and legislatures had truly balanced each state's budget, no taxpayer's financial burden would exist,' said Sheila Weinberg, Founder and CEO of the Institute.  She continued, 'A state budget is not balanced if past costs, including those for employees' retirement benefits, are pushed into the future.'

The study found four states (Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming) have assets available to pay their debt and obligations related to pension and retirees' healthcare.   

The study reviewed each state's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to offset assets against liabilities.  For the first time, a detailed analysis of pension and healthcare liabilities uncovered the states' actual obligations.  From these calculations, the Institute was able to determine the Taxpayer's Burden.  Results for each state are available at http://truthinaccounting.org.

Employee compensation packages include retirement benefits.  A portion of these benefits is earned each period and should be included in the current budget as a portion of current employee compensation costs.  Instead most states handle many of benefits on a 'pay-as-you-go' basis.  This obligates future taxpayers to cover these past costs - without receiving any benefits or services.

'Though 49 of the 50 states have constitutional or legal requirements to balance budgets, most states employ a variety of financial maneuvers to circumvent this requirement,' said Roger Nelson, chair of IFTA and former vice chair of Ernst & Young.  'The largest of these maneuvers is related to employee compensation.' 

About the Institute for Truth in Accounting

The Institute for Truth in Accounting (IFTA) is dedicated to promoting honest, accurate, and transparent accounting at all levels of government and business.  As a non-partisan, non-profit organization, the IFTA works to expose accounting deficiencies while promoting better, more accessible delivery of accurate government financial data-and, in turn, providing a foundation for more informed public policy.  The IFTA provides its expertise to develop more effective accounting standards and deliver accurate government financial information to policymakers, opinion leaders, and citizens, so they can all work for a more secure financial future.

Project Censored - Family Members Needed for Study on Law Enforcement Related Deaths

The Investigative Sociology project at Sonoma State University (SSU) and Media Freedom Foundation are conducting a study on the commonalities of law enforcement related deaths in the United States. We are seeking to  conduct telephone interviews with individuals in families of people who have died in a law enforcement related incident within the past twenty years. Students from the spring 2010 SSU Investigative Sociology class will be conducting confidential one-hour interviews with family members in April. The purpose of the study is to evaluate support programs for families who have experienced such a tragedy, and the lowering of the overall number of law enforcement related deaths.

 

SSU professors supervising the study include: Peter Phillips, Sociology Department, Tryon Woods and Diana Grant in the Criminal Justice Department.

 

To arrange a confidential interview or refer a family contact—call or

e-mail, Dr. Peter Phillips: peter.phillips@sonoma.edu

 707-664-2588

Fact checking, comments - NH Death Penalty Study Commission

To: The Commission to Study the Death Penalty in New Hampshire and to others

Re: Fact checking, comments - Your Nov 6, 2009 meeting

From: Dudley Sharp

Dear Committee members:

Some corrections and clarifications. I have listed the speaker, the material and the page number from your minutes, below, with my reply.

1) Rep. Shurtleff: p 9 Finally, in 1972 -- excuse me -- the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Furman v. Georgia ruling stating the death penalty was unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.

Reply: The death penalty was never declared unconstitutional. The statutes and therefore the enforcement of the death penalty were seen as too arbitrary and, therefore, a violation of the 8th Amendment. As the death penalty is integral within the constitutional, it is unlikely it will ever be declared unconstitutional.  It is an important distinction.

2) Mr. Vogelman: p 19  " . . . the classic example that was all over the press was during President Clinton's first-- during the first primary. There was a man executed in Arkansas who when he was given his last meal when the warden gave him his dessert the evening before he was to be executed, he said no, I'll save this for tomorrow's breakfast. So there was some question. He eventually lost and was executed but there was some question as to whether or not he even understood that this was his last day on earth."

Reply:  According to an Arkansas Dept of Corrections spokesperson, there is no record of this ever occurring. A defense attorney for Rector, the subject inmate/double murderer,  had a story that Rector set his dessert aside, because Rector did know what execution meant.  There's nothing to support the story. Rector had mental problems, which were thoroughly vetted, repeatedly in court. The court found that he knew exactly what execution meant.  Otherwise, he could not have been executed.

3) Mr. Vogelman p 20 The law says that you cannot put on the jury somebody who under no circumstances would vote for death.

Reply: True. It would be unacceptable to seat any potential juror who could not vote for the range of punishments under consideration for any case, be that jay walking or more serious crimes.

4) Mr. Vogelman  p23  The Supreme Court of the United States decided that the gas chamber, for instance, you can't do that.

Reply: There is no SCOTUS ban on the gas chamber.

5) Mr. McLaughlin  p 29: I will tell you, I think the experience of whether you're defending or prosecuting as an attorney is that when you look in the mirror that night you simply hope that you have done your job as best you can because you realize that out there on the one hand you have a person who has just been sentenced to life without parole, and on the other hand you have the other participant who is not there at trial who is the victim who will never be heard in any circumstances for any reason. There is nothing about it that is anything other than sobering.

Reply: I couldn't agree more.