California budget balancer

[dead0man]

Almost $14billion surplus....that really WAS easy.
link

[dead0man]

Almost $14billion surplus....that really WAS easy.
link

What a supposed libertarian doesn't release ANY prisoners? I don't know the exact numbers of what people in jail in California are in for, but there are obviously some that aren't dangerous and don't belong there.

Of course I'd release non-violent drug offenders if I had that power....that's not what the thing said though.

That's the biggest problem you had with my budget?

[dead0man]

Yeah, screw those poor drinkers, smokers and drivers!

[dead0man]

Yeah, screw those poor drinkers, smokers and drivers!

Well, no, they'd be screwed if they wouldn't have acces to affordable healthcare (which, let's face it, smokers are more likely to need) or education. Also, taxing these things, all of which have undesirable effects, is likely to function as an additional encouragment for people to stop smoking, drink responsibly, or drive less and use alternative modes of transportation more.

Ahhh, the old "taxing people to get them to act the way you think is best" thingy.  The Christian Fundies in the US approve.

[dead0man]

Well, no, the old 'taxing people because the alternative is subjecting them to sexual intercourse from behind' thing. Frankly, I don't care if you smoke, but smoking is a major source of cancer for smokers as well as non-smokers, so it doesn't seem harsh to have people pay along for the healthcare they might one day have to be able to afford or for the healthcare of people that don't smoke but have develloped cancer because of passive smoking. Well, not harsher than just going after their  healthcare itself instead.

$2 per pack?  And that's after the already in place 90 cents per pack tax CA already has and the $1.01 tax the Feds tack on.  My maths aint the greatest, but that's almost $4 per pack just in taxes....on something that can be sold at a large profit at $1 per pack?  It's mostly the poor workers that smoke ya know.  And you're doing this so the middle and upper classes can go to school cheaper?  Ugggg.

[dead0man]

I suspect non-violent drug offenders WOULD be the people being released. It's not like they'd just pick people at random and let a serial killer out because of budget cuts. Either those types of reformed white collar criminals, I don't see much point in locking those up either for a very long time as long as their post-release activities are monitored (I'm talking about small timers here like some guy who embezzled a few thousand from a multi-billion corporation, not people like Bernie Madoff of course.)

But again, that's not what it said.  I assumed they were saying they'd be letting people out that have served 80% (or whatever) of their sentence, violent or not.