I'm not so sure this CAFR thing is anything important.  It does reveal alot about the corporate governance of state affairs.  From that perspective it is interesting.

However, CAFRs include retirement program assets as "assets" when they are in fact liabilities.

However, you might feel about public retirement programs, if the existing participants are playing by the existing rules, their contributions or the public contributions on their behalf should not be the subject of envy or confiscation.

If you want to change the public retirement program terms, then GET INVOLVED AND CHANGE IT AND QUIT B*TCHING. 

If you don't it means you DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE IT.

B*TCHING is not involvement.

That said, if it is true that CAFRs include these future liabilities as assets - which they do - then all the "money" the CAFR opponents claim the sate has really isn't there.  Because those assets are OWED to the retirement program participants and not at the disposal of the public entity.

So, where does that leave the arguments of the CAFR "truthers"? 

Not really anywhere - unless they are going down the path of exposing the corporate side of government - which is important.

If they are just expressing envy in the form of arguing for the disposession of people in public retirement programs who were just playing by the rules of the game already in place, then you're looking at supposed pro-liberty patriots playing the collectivist/envy game.