I’m amazed by this news story about a serious Colorado government security loophole, with no plans to fix:
Internet security loophole? Like “dog bites man”, I guess that’s not news. But leaving a gross loophole, because they don’t have the budget to hire 5 employees? I wonder if Colorado businesses can sue their government for negligence.
I can’t believe it takes 5 to 7 people to password-protect a database.
Depends how many users you have and how you implement the controls and what policies you have.
I used to be security administrator for the place I work at. At the time we only had about 600 staff but there was plenty of overhead in simply administering passwords. People forget them, get locked out due to violations, have to reset them etc. Every Monday morning you could guarantee a few people coming back from leave that couldn’t remember their password. You would get people who ran out of grace logins due to an enforced change, you would have to fix up the account, sign them on and get them to change the password. Some would lodge another request later the same day because they had forgotten their new password. We used to marvel at the stupid stuff that users did.
I think they are saying 5 to 7 people to handle password problems, once the password protection is in place. Which I find hard to believe also. Most every protected website has a password recovery feature.
Of course, why changes are allowed via the website when it is so obviously unsecure is beyond me. Turning off that ability should be within the technical skills of their existing IT staff.
And yes, states are that destitute. I can only speak to my state, but Ohio is forcing ten unpaid days off for workers, no raises, no personal days for many employees, and other items. State services have been dramatically cut in some areas, and there is no budget for new items.
As to how broke any state may be, an investment newsletter I receive last week contained this:
*With so much press devoted to Europe’s sovereign debt woes, you may have missed the news that America’s largest state economy – an economy so big it would be the seventh largest in the world by GDP – is much further down the tracks of a fiscal train wreck than even some of Europe’s worst economies.
Canada’s Globe and Mail reports that California faces annual budget gaps of $19 and $37 billion in the next two years. According to BusinessWeek, investors in credit default swaps now think that California is a bigger credit risk than Portugal!! I’m almost certain that America’s federal government will have to bail out California – and possibly many other US States and cities in the coming years – as the housing market further implodes and unemployment rises.*
South Carolina just bought some old school buses… from Kentucky. That’s how broke we is.
I just thought you’d all like to know that I am now the CEO of the Newmont Mining Corporation. Who wants some aluminium?
TIME article from last month on the issue of state indebtedness: In the U.S., Crisis in the Statehouses:
Yes, Colorado is that destitute. Last year, all state workers had to take 4-8 furlough days, and the state faced something like a 750M shortfall. Most of that was made up with slashes to education funding and state programs.
This year, all state workers are taking a 2.5% pay cut, and we’re facing another 212M shortfall.
From The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities
In terms of community colleges (where I work), we’re anticipating anywhere from a 10 to a FIFTY PERCENT cut in state funding.
$750 million? Ha! The Florida government is short $800 million in lost property tax revenue alone.
One benefit is that the state legislature looks as though it’s going to start charging itself for health insurance.
Yea, but y’all have about 18M people, and Colorado only has 5M 
The 750M was down from a projected shortfall of 1B (both numbers from memory, may or may not be 100% accurate). And looks like I was wrong on the 212M - this article claims the shortfall next year will be 1.7B.
A huge percentage of our state budget is constitutionally mandated (because idiot voters think putting financial policy into the state constitution where it remains inflexible in times of crisis is a good idea), so the only places that can be cut in times of crisis are higher education and a few others. AND there’s a constitutional amendment that the state cannot deficit spend - Colorado’s state budget must be balanced every year.
Doesn’t the temporary de-Brucing expire this year as well?
Yes, but Referendum C actually permanently removed the ratchet-down effect, so that even when TABOR goes back into effect (which is adding to the projected shortfall), it should be slightly less horrific in the future.
And as an aside, Mr. Bruce is being charged with contempt after avoiding subpoenas to appear to answer questions about his unrevealed role in three ballot initiatives on this year’s ballot, all of which would financially devastate the state.
I’ve been mulling over a variation of the “balanced budget” amendment. Since it doesn’t leave any room for “proper” Keynesianism (ie., paying off deficit spending in times of crisis by running surpluses in good times) it creates as many problems as it solves.
However, I propose that state budgets be balanced over state congressional terms. For the purposes of explanation, we will assume that our guinea pig state has a unicameral legislature, with representatives elected to four year terms.
Each representative must pledge that the budget be balanced during his term. That means that he can deficit spend for two years, just as long as he runs a surplus for two years.
Any elected representative who fails to balance the budget during his tenure must work in a prearranged capacity for the state government or participating nonprofit for 1, 2, 3 or 4 years, depending on the shortfall.
At minimum wage.
That’s an interesting proposal, RNATB. I’m not completely averse to balanced budget amendments, but I feel that they lack the flexibility necessary to recognize changing financial and economic times. Much like you propose, I believe that states should be able to deficit spend for some years if they run a surplus other years.
I think of it this way - when a financial change causes an individual person or family to have to “deficit spend” (i.e., use credit cards, loans, savings, IRA funds, etc.), then generally that person or family uses times of stability to pay back those loans, pay down that debt, replenish savings, etc. (yea, yea, I know most Americans don’t do this, but follow along with the analogy, please). We don’t necessarily expect that the person who’s just lost their job or had some other financial change must completely stop all spending in equal portions to their change. For example, someone who lost their job (and therefore has no income) isn’t expected by most people to completely cease all spending of any kind immediately, especially if they have resources they can use. We allow for the possibility that people can take advantage of resources to tide them over, even while we DO expect some budgetary restrictions.
I think we should give governments the same flexibility, with protections to prevent them from doing it every single year.
In the specific case of states, which don’t really do much stimulative spending, I don’t think standard BB amendments are bad. They definitely don’t work in conjunction with the other tax-prevention legislation you’ve got, though.
If you notice…the states that are led by Democrats and have been ruled by the demos for years are in the worst shape. California…even though they have “AHHH-nold” as their RINO governor…the legislature is demo has been for years.
Usually demo run states have the highest taxes,…the most minorities and minority led instituions, and cater to illegals more than other states.
The more liberal the state regime…the more in debt they usually are.
YOU IS???
You’re an idiot.
Next time, this Republican will remember Bush 43 as a Democrat.