Something I haven't heard said about SS scheme.

[SnowGoose]

I have no proficiency in economics, so I may be well off the mark here.

I've heard people discuss how workers diverting a portion of their payroll taxes away from "traditional" SS and into private accounts would deprive SS fund of important revenues. Sure. And that it's a windfall for brokers. Ok. And that people would have to make a certain amount of profit to break even, which they very well may not do (hey, I've actually *lost* money on my 401k over the last 5 years or so). Fine.

But setting all that aside for a moment, what about the *other* effects of SS not getting as much money?

Point 1. They say that the new plan will take between 1 and 2 trillion out of SS in coming years.

Point 2. Right now, that money is going into Federal Bonds. Those bonds are funding the current *huge* deficit.

Point 3. There have been rumblings for some time now that foreign governments will not be forever willing to finance our debt by buying bonds. China had a statement about this in recent weeks.

So the question is, could the 1-2 trillion dollars of bonds that SS be a real problem for the government, especially in an environment where US bonds are becoming less desirable around the world?

I would really like to know. Perhaps the $1,000,000,000,000 to 2,000,000,000,000 dollars becoming unavailable to finance our deficits is just a drop in the bucket compared with everything else. Perhaps it's a huge poison pill.

Please - tell me what you think.

[StephanieMarie]

1. You're absolutely right

When the government needs money it doesn't have, it sells bonds on the open market. Supply and demand applies here as it does everywhere. Meaning, if you flood the market with supply, the price is driven down. If the government floods the market with 1-2 trillion in new bonds, the price that "customers" pay will go down. In the case of bonds, this results in an increase in the interest rate. Right now, the government is floating 10 year bonds at about 4.5%. Good deal for us. If we flood the market, we may have to pay 8% interest to attract enough customers. An interest rate that high will spark inflation, which will kill the economy, the stock market will crash, and your "private account" will take a dive. By the way, you're in good company on your 401K. 80% of people over age 50 are still down 20% in their IRA's from the crash of 1999 (this was in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago.) What people don't understand about the stock market is that if it takes a dive of 50% in a crash, then it must rebound 100% for you just to come out even! Think about it -- your $100 goes to $50 in a dive. Then it must double (increase by 100%) just to get back to $100. Bear markets are a bitch.

[LiviaOlivia]

2. Bush wants Trust Fund bonds to default

From Matthew Yglesias
Feb. 4, 2005

Default

I see that no less a figure than Paul Krugman has now taken two cracks at the clawback issue, eliding the issue of the Trust Fund default which Kevin Drum semi-questions. I think liberals are offering Bush too much benefit of the doubt on this subject, making cute suggestions that the White House press corps ought to try and demand a straight answer, etc. Here's the case.

The White House is now emphasizing that private accounts do not, alone, constitute a solution to whatever Social Security's problems are. The White House has repeatedly defined Social Security's move into cash flow imbalance starting in 2019 as the problem. One can dispute whether or not this is, in fact, problematic. It is clear, however, that it only is problematic if you think there's something problematic about paying the money back. We should, therefore, take the president at his word and assume that when he proposes unspecified benefit cuts large enough to bring Social Security into balance he means cash flow balance, which means trust fund default. I note that the major idea floated by the White House -- price indexing of all benefit calculations -- is a bigger-than-necessary cut if you use trust fund accounting. I also note that the clawback provision in the private accounts isn't properly motivated unless you assume the program to be in cash flow balance.

Last but by no means least, Jacob Sullum wrote a column which advocates defaulting on the Trust Fund debt (" (S)ince this fund consists of IOUs from the Treasury, the relevant date is 2018, when benefits promised to retirees will start exceeding payroll taxes and the system will begin running a chronic annual deficit . . . higher (income) taxes . . . Social Security's fiscal crisis begins in about a dozen years, so the focus on 2042 is misleading."). This column received a response from House Republican Conference Director Greg Crist who called it "a great article" and then complained about Sullum's use of the term "privatization." If the House GOP had some kind of objection to Sullum's view that the cash flow deficit is the problem Bush is planning on addressing, they had an ideal opportunity to do so. So, yes, a reporter should ask Bush about this. But until the White House offers some kind of credible, explicit denial, liberal bloggers and pundits ought to assume that the White House understands the implications of their words and is, in fact, planning on not repaying the money.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/02/default.html

Definition: clawback (British) finding a way to take money back from people that they were given in another way; "the Treasury will find some clawback for the extra benefits members received"

[oecher3]

3. high interest, low price = high risk, lower rating

(...)liberal bloggers and pundits ought to assume that the White House understands the implications of their words and is, in fact, planning on not repaying the money.

I see a larger problem with the notion of defaulting on government loans, and indeed this is in other words what you have implied up there, given I understand you right. A default on loan, any type of fund not being repaid by anyone results in a lowering of rating. Therefore if this were the plan of the administration, they would risk not only higher interest rates, which in turn would mean even higher interest payments to lenders, it would also affect the bond ratings of the US government. A mere flooding of the market with more debt alone can impact the rating.
The rating is not a set-in-stone guaranty, as you might remember from multiple South American examples, when the interest rates rise and the rating drops, the currency crisis and economic break down is just one step away.
There is only so much respect/tolerance of foreign investors until they get scared and take their funds and run. To bank on a great reputation as one of the, if not the safest, investment market is foolish. Reputation can change, ask Martha Stewart or Howard Dean (sorry for the mentioning of both in the same breath of air and no offense to anyone, please - disclaimer of good intension)
Call it dark/doom thinking; however, the hypothetical idea this could theoretically happen is sending shiver down my spine.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaedelusNemo]

5. Not only that -

It's the equivalent to simply printing up nearly 2 trillion dollars - universally recognized, i think, as a bad idea. If the dollar starts dropping too much, as it would in any such insane inflationary scenario, those who are holding it will try to get rid of it before it evaporates. They have plenty of reasons to hang on, but those are bo no means insurmountable.

I'm starting to give more and more credence to the Commies-infiltrating-our-government-conspiracy theory.

The most humorous part is that they claim to be fixing this 'unfunded liability' by taking on another 'unfunded liability', borrowing about the same amount that they're trying to avoid paying. They've gotten to the using-credit-cards-to-pay-off-credit-cards stage.

[oecher3]

6. G7 hypocrites

and then SNOW has the nerve to go into the G7 summit meeting and say it is not acceptable to give 100% debt relief to the poorest countries, but they plan on giving themselves debt amnesty as an second term present to default on our elderly. This is a new way of cheating veterans of life out of their well deserved retirement.

Shows what hypocrites these administration members are! You are not good enough for not having to pay back what you borrowed, but we certainly are entitled to do it ourselves. Why? Because we can and try to stop us!

If this is true, this is would be the peak of arrogance, defaulting of debt and thinking that it would bear any consequences! And Greenspan seems to sit there and not only ignore it but actively encourage it! What a major disappointment the maestro has turned out to be!

[WJB]

7. SS - Know the Motive of Government to Privatize

In a message dated 2/4/05 6:35:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time, gclari@(SNIP).com writes:

> Walter:
>
> What do you think of Galveston County in Texas and Chile in the
> management of their retirement funds?
>
> Gary Cauchi
> Sanger, California
>

----------------------------------------
WALTER BURIEN'S REPLY
----------------------------------------


Mr. Cauchi:


Never looked at, and have not heard anything about what you asked before.

So I just did a Google search on < Galveston County Texas retirement fund > and got 42300 hits per their privatization of SS for "County" government employees.

I looked and the articles are about three counties that bumped SS for a pension style management.

The key to your question is answered by "who" did this and "who" was it for?

It was three "government" entities for themselves, and I will quote from two paragraph clips below in my article posted at: http://cafr1.com/SS.html

#1: If the public starts trading their SS funds, government management is no longer in a conflict of interest. Then government's "other" managed funds are now free to take advantage of the public's ignorance in trading funds and thus the public except for a rare few can say bye, bye to their account balances after the trap is sprung and market losses orchestrated by our own government eats the public alive.

And:

#2: Look closely at the State Retirement Fund CAFRs after 911. As the public's 401K plans for the next two years shot for the floor with an overall loss on average of 40% to 60% of their values, the numerous State retirement fund multibillion dollar portfolios made a very good profit. The pre 911 annual returns were from 23% to 14% and then averages post 911 went to 12% to 5% annual returns. I have not yet seen one State Government Retirement Fund to date that had a net loss after 911.

-----------------

So, when fishing what do you do to catch the minnows? You throw chum out in the water to start the minnows feeding, then comes the net, then the minnows are caught, and you do with them as you will.

Or, in other words what I said in #1 above, having the effect of what I said in #2 above.

The KEY to success or failure for the public is; What side of the fence will their funds be managed on?

Myself having been a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) of 14 years 1978-1992, and the National Sales Manager for the US Trading Championship, US Investing Championship, and Money Managers Verified Ratings for 10 years 1982-1992, I have watched the Big Fish, herd, bait, and eat the minnows very consistently for quite a few years.

So, the real question is; Will the management of the public's funds be in the top of the food chain or at the bottom? Results are the only thing important in reality. Whether it be to meet SS benefits, or as I have proposed with the CAFR1 Plan to make government self sufficient without Taxation.

The markets in all respects for the public have developed into an insider manipulation "winner" takes from the "looser" scenario, or the Vegas mentality of the House (Institutional) taking from the Foolish (the public).

This is not what it should be, or could be. With the dollar being a productivity backed currency, "THE PRODUCTIVITY" should be the determining factor of profit or loss in the markets. With the US Economy being a ten Trillion dollar a year economy, and the value of US possessions being astronomical, productivity results properly managed through return can fund and drive SS and all of government's budgetary requirements without taxation through the CAFR1 Plan.

As I brought forward in #2 above, Government Pension Fund management in adverse conditions on average did rather well after 911 Vs the public's 401K plans on average being slammed to the floor.

Here the answer, solution, and final effect is clear per funding SS or in fact funding government's ongoing budgetary needs using the "Pension Fund Management Principle."

If the exact same pooled management having commingled averages with the funds coming from the model of government pensions was used, then yes you can expect the results to be productive and positive to meet their end need.

The disadvantage to the public that has existed for the last 100 years is that of the predator fish (government Institutional Fund Management) and the minnows (the Public's dismal results and losses in trading the markets -- investing) has to be taken out of the scenario for the final ends of productive results for SS or the CAFR1 Plan to be beneficial to the public and not just become another feeding grounds for the predator fish.

The model used and the same in "participation" fund management is where the success or failure rests.

I hope my comments above have answered your question.

Yours Truly,

Walter J. Burien, Jr.
http://CAFR1.com

[WJB]

8. Follow and Count The Money!!!

Take a look at the scope of the financial takeover by local governments!

When looking at the "Gross" income of government, only 1/3rd is from Tax income. Now the "Budget Report" that is given to the public for their consumption and in all reality deception will give the appearance government is operating primarily from tax income. But, when you look at the same entities CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) or Government's Annual Financial Report similar to what a Public Corporation gives to their shareholders each year by mandatory SEC law, it will show the gross receipts and gross income from "ALL" operations!!!

GOVERNMENT’S C A F R

(COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT)

Most files are Acrobat .pdf files, some are MSWord .doc files for downloading. If the link ends in .html you will reach a web site. If the link ends in .pdf it will start downloading the file when clicked.

If the link has changed, just use the first part of the address and then use the "Search" feature on that site to find the CAFR.

The year of the CAFR in most cases can be seen in the address. I recommend looking at the Statistical Section first.

The Public started to learn the game in 1998 through the efforts of http://CAFR1.com Changes were then made to CAFR accounting shown starting in 1999 through GASB transmittal letters 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36. GET BACK ISSUES! 1999 or before!

State CAFR Links last updated: 01/28/05
FROM: http://cafr1.com/listings/Listings.html
Download copies of older year CAFRs first before they are pulled!!!

HIGHLIGHT AND COPY THE BELOW LINKS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE
Listed below are just a few CAFRs, primarily State CAFRs from the 84,000 separate "OTHER" local government CAFRs, City, County, School Districts, Enterprise Authorities, Universities, etc., etc.

Guess what? When you add all governemnt CAFRs up for gross income and investments held,(84,000 separate government entities) the private sectors investments and holdings in total are very insignificant in comparison and government has much greater "gross" annual income than the entire private sector combined!

Haven't heard a peep from the Press over the last 65 years since the creation of Government's CAFR in 1946? Well, I guess that expression "Silence is Golden" has truly been golden for; Government, Controled Education, and the Syndicated MEDIA, at your expense that is! But then look at how well you have been masterfully entertained due to the Money Involved for so many years not to have noticed!


Alabama:
http://www.comptroller.state.al.us/cafr.htm

Alaska:
http://www.state.ak.us/admin/dof/fin-afr.htm

Arizona (2000 .pdf download) AZ pulled 1994 - 1999:
http://www.gao.state.az.us/financials/CAFR/CAFR2002/02-%20CAFRall.pdf
http://www.gao.state.az.us/financials/CAFR/CAFR2001.pdf
http://www.gao.state.az.us/financials/CAFR/CAFR00/introduction.htm

Arkansas:
http://www.accessarkansas.org/dfa/accounting/cafr.html
http://www.accessarkansas.org/dfa/accounting/cafr2000/
http://www.accessarkansas.org/dfa/accounting/cafr1999/
http://www.accessarkansas.org/dfa/odd/recent.html

California:
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/cafr/cafr02.shtml
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/cafr/cafr01.shtml
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/cafr/cafr00.shtml
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/cafr/cafr99.shtml
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/cafr/cafr98.shtml

California - Cities:
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/local/locrep/cities/9899/cities.shtml

California - Counties:
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/local/locrep/counties/9899/index.shtml

California School Districts:
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/local/locrep/school/98-99/index.shtml

Colorado:
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/audit_dir/2003/2003fin/1433 CAFR PERA.pdf

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sco/cafr/cafr96/cafr.html


Connecticut:
http://www.osc.state.ct.us/2002cafr/contents.htm
http://www.osc.state.ct.us/2001cafr/contents.htm
http://www.osc.state.ct.us/2000cafr/contents.htm


Delaware:
http://www.state.de.us/account/2002cafr/2002-cafr.html
http://www.state.de.us/account/2001cafr/2001-cafr.html
http://www.state.de.us/account/2000cafr/2000-cafr.html


Florida:
http://www.dbf.state.fl.us/aadir/cafrlist.html (2002 - 1996 CAFRs)


Georgia:
http://www2.state.ga.us/departments/audit/ppd/cafr_main.htm


Hawaii:
http://www.state.hi.us/dags/cafr/index.html


Idaho:
http://www.sco.state.id.us/dsa/fr.htm#99CAFR
http://www.sco.state.id.us/dsa/fr.htm#98CAFR
http://www.sco.state.id.us/dsa/fr.htm#97CAFR
http://www.sco.state.id.us/dsa/fr.htm#96CAFR


Illinois:
http://163.191.177.7/ioc-pdf/CAFR_2000.pdf
http://163.191.177.7/ioc-pdf/CAFR_2001.pdf


Indiana:
http://www.state.in.us/auditor/publications/2002cafr.html
http://www.state.in.us/auditor/publications/2001cafr.html
http://www.state.in.us/auditor/publications/2000cafr.html
http://www.state.in.us/auditor/publications/1999cafr.html


Iowa:
http://das.sae.iowa.gov/financial_reports/index.html


Kansas:
http://da.state.ks.us/ar/finrept/cafr2002.htm
http://da.state.ks.us/ar/finrept/afr2001.htm


Kentucky:
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/manuals/tax/02CAFR.pdf
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/manuals/tax/01CAFR.pdf
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/manuals/tax/00CAFR.pdf
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/manuals/tax/kcafr98.pdf
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/manuals/tax/kcafr97.pdf
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/manuals/tax/kcafr96.pdf


Louisiana:
http://www.state.la.us/osrap/library/Publications/cafr2002beg-end.pdf
http://www.state.la.us/osrap/library/Publications/cafr01.pdf
http://www.state.la.us/osrap/library/Publications/cafr99.pdf
http://www.state.la.us/osrap/library/Publications/cafr98d.pdf
http://www.state.la.us/osrap/library/Publications/cafr97.pdf
http://www.state.la.us/osrap/library/Publications/cafr96.pdf
http://www.state.la.us/osrap/library/Publications/cafr95.pdf
http://www.state.la.us/osrap/library/Publications/cafr94.pdf


Maine:
www.maine.gov/bac/financial_reporting/2001/cafr.pdf
www.maine.gov/bac/financial_reporting/2000/cafr.pdf

Maryland:
http://www.marylandtaxes.com/publications/fiscalrprts/cafr-99.pdf
http://www.marylandtaxes.com/publications/fiscalrprts/cafr-98.pdf


Massachusetts:
http://www.state.ma.us/osc/Reports/99cafr/Intro99.htm
http://www.state.ma.us/osc/Reports/98cafr/Intro98.htm
http://www.state.ma.us/osc/Reports/97CAFR/Intro.htm
http://www.state.ma.us/osc/Reports/96CAFR/Intro.htm
http://www.state.ma.us/osc/Reports/95CAFR/Intro.htm
http://www.state.ma.us/osc/Reports/94cafr/OSC/CAFR/Massfy94.htm


Michigan:
http://www.michigan.gov/budget/0,1607,7-157-13406_13419-56728--,00.html <2002>

http://www.michigan.gov/budget/0,1607,7-157-13406_13419-33703--,00.html

http://www.michigan.gov/budget/0,1607,7-157-13406_13419-34672--,00.html <2000>

http://www.michigan.gov/budget/0,1607,7-157-13406_13419-35442--,00.html <1999>


Minnesota:
http://www.finance.state.mn.us/accounting/

Mississippi:
http://msonline.state.ms.us/CAFR/cafr99/cafr99.htm
http://msonline.state.ms.us/CAFR/cafr98/cafr98.htm
http://msonline.state.ms.us/CAFR/cafr97/cafr97.htm

Missouri:
http://www.dor.state.mo.us/cafr/pdffiles/CAFR2001.pdf
http://www.dor.state.mo.us/cafr/pdffiles/CAFR2000.pdf

Montana:
http://www.state.mt.us/doa/adm/cafr/CAFR.htm

NEVADA:
http://controller.nv.gov/CAFR_pdf_files/FY02All.pdf
http://controller.nv.gov/CAFR_pdf_files/FY01All.pdf
http://controller.nv.gov/CAFR_pdf_files/FY00All.pdf
http://controller.nv.gov/CAFR_pdf_files/FY99all.pdf

New Hampshire:
http://admin.state.nh.us/accounting/00nhcafr.pdf
http://admin.state.nh.us/accounting/99nhcafr.pdf
http://admin.state.nh.us/accounting/98nhcafr.pdf

New Jersey:
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/01cafr/pdf/01cafr.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/00cafr/pdf/00cafr.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/99cafr/pdf/99cafr.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/98cafr/pdf/cafr.pdf


New York:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/finance/finreports/cafr02.pdf
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/finance/finreports/cafr01.pdf
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/finance/finreports/cafr99.pdf


North Carolina:
http://www.osc.state.nc.us/financial/


North Dakota:
http://www.state.nd.us/fiscal/CAFR/CAFRIndex.htm

http://www.state.nd.us/rio/NDRIO/Publications/AnnualReport.pdf (2002 ND-RET)


Ohio:
http://www.state.oh.us/obm/BusinessCommunityPage/Financial/CAFR/cafr02/2002cafr.pdf

http://www.state.oh.us/obm/BusinessCommunityPage/Financial/CAFR/cafr01/oh01cafr.PDF

http://www.state.oh.us/obm/BusinessCommunityPage/Financial/CAFR/cafr00/oh00cafr.PDF

http://www.state.oh.us/obm/BusinessCommunityPage/Financial/CAFR/cafr99/oh99cafr.PDF

http://www.state.oh.us/obm/BusinessCommunityPage/Financial/CAFR/cafr98/oh98cafr.PDF

http://www.state.oh.us/obm/BusinessCommunityPage/Financial/CAFR/cafr97/oh97cafr.PDF

http://www.state.oh.us/obm/BusinessCommunityPage/Financial/CAFR/cafr96/oh96cafr.PDF

http://www.state.oh.us/obm/BusinessCommunityPage/Financial/CAFR/cafr95/oh95cafr.PDF



Oklahoma:
http://www.osf.state.ok.us/cafr02.pdf
http://www.osf.state.ok.us/cafr01.pdf
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/00cafr.pdf
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cafr1-99.html
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cafr1-98.html
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cafr1-97.html
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cafr1-96.html
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cafr1-95.html
http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cafr1-94.html


Oregon:
http://scd.das.state.or.us/DAS/SCD/SARS/docs/2003_CAFR.pdf
http://scd.das.state.or.us/DAS/SCD/SARS/docs/2002_CAFR.pdf
http://scd.das.state.or.us/DAS/SCD/SARS/docs/2001_CAFR.pdf
http://scd.das.state.or.us/DAS/SCD/SARS/docs/2000_CAFR.pdf


Pennsylvania:
http://www.oit.state.pa.us/budget/lib/budget/2000-2001/cafr/index.html

PA pulled the CAFRs from public viewing on the Internet. The above link is to request a hard copy of the CAFR

South Carolina:
http://www.cg.state.sc.us/cafr02/index.htm
http://www.cg.state.sc.us/cafr01/index.htm
http://www.cg.state.sc.us/cafr00/index.htm

(For the CAFR Prior to 1999, request hard copy)


South Dakota:
http://www.state.sd.us/bfm/cafr/fy01/index.htm
http://www.state.sd.us/bfm/cafr/fy/00index.htm
http://www.state.sd.us/bfm/cafr/fy99/index.htm
http://www.state.sd.us/bfm/cafr/fy98/index.htm
http://www.state.sd.us/bfm/cafr/fy97/index.htm


Tennessee:
http://www.state.tn.us/finance/act/cafr.html
(1997 -2003)

Texas:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/fm/pubs/cafr/

Utah:
http://wwwfin.state.ut.us/reports/cafr.htm

Vermont:
http://www.state.vt.us/fin/Fin%20Publications/2001cafr.pdf
http://www.state.vt.us/fin/Fin%20Publications/2000cafr.pdf
http://www.state.vt.us/fin/Fin%20Publications/1999cafr.pdf

Virginia:
http://www.doa.state.va.us/docs/Publications/CAFR/cafr.htm


Washington:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/cafr/2002/cafr02toc.htm
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/cafr/2001/cafr01toc.htm
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/cafr/2000/cafr00toc.htm
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/cafr/1999/cafr99toc.htm

(Washington pulled all pre 1999 CAFRS)


West Virginia:
http://www.state.wv.us/admin/finance/cafrgap.htm

Wisconsin:
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/cafr/fy01/01CAFR.HTM
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/cafr/fy00/00CAFR.HTM
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/cafr/fy99/99CAFR.HTM
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/cafr/fy98/98CAFR.HTM
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/cafr/fy97/97cafrm.htm
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/cafr/fy96/96cafrm.htm
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/cafr/fy95/95cafrm.htm


Wyoming:(look 2/3rds down page)
http://sao.state.wy.us/download.htm


Yours Truly,

Walter Burien

http://CAFR1.com