Is the Napolitano Administration hiding public funds?

On Wednesday the Governor said that Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin did not understand the financial position of the government because he was not aware how much state agencies were holding in reserve. Turns out these agencies are required to report these reserves to the Treasurer’s office. Looks like Janet has painted herself into a corner. KTAR has a short article on the issue:

Byron Schlomack with the Goldwater Institute says the state treasurer has to know about all of the state’s money, including reserves, otherwise the governor is breaking the law.

We’re talking about a much bigger issue here than just two politicians fighting. We’re talking about whether taxpayer money is going to be spent in a smoke-filled back room or in the open. We’re talking about the integrity of the state, says Scholmack.

For background information on the budget visit the Goldwater Institute web site.


Comments

  1. Sandy Faygubla says

    I suspect that there is an obscure state law that was created that created this system of funds that the agencies use and that will shield them.

    This is one of the problems with legislative leadership. They probably created a rule for ADOA to follow trying to fix one problem and that created this problem of secrecy.

  2. Martin is more credible on this subject than Napolitano. Her numbers change with the issue, whereas Martin’s numbers are accounted for and make sense with what the public sees happening. Martin continues to shine light on the numbers and Napolitano continues to play politics and make silly accusations. Reasonable people can see that Martin has made real points and Napolitano is trying to obfuscate.

  3. Buddy Breon says

    Janet Napolitano has one goal: End her term of office without having to admit that she overspent while increasing the spending in Arizona by more than 50% of what it was when she was first elected.

    The woman has no shame. She started her tenure complaining about the overspending and demanding that something be done immediately about the budget problems. After years of prosperity, the hammer fell and she turned against any idea of cutting spending.

    Her budget is now about 16% out of balance and she suggests 1% in spending reductions. Doesn’t anyone see something wrong here?

Leave a Reply