California budget balancer

[RI]

Why not just cut all the spending and raise all the taxes? You'd get a $50 billion surplus. Sounds good to me. Maybe we can give that to the legislators?

Take that, peasants.

[Beet]

I love these things, they're so easy.

http://lat.ms/gJ8P8Y

I absolutely hate that plan just because of the alcohol/cigarette tax dissonance.

Because cigarette taxes are already very high. They're usually the first whipping post for everything.

[Badger]

http://lat.ms/i4D2CC

Not pretty, but....

[exopolitician]

http://lat.ms/egV6zD $9.5 billion surplus.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah, screw those poor drinkers, smokers and drivers!

The drinkers aren't so bad, but the other two pollute my air and smoke by my window on the hottest day of the year and fail to obey traffic laws and try to run me over. Besides, Californian's cigarette taxes aren't that high.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

It's not, but it's the non-libertarian. The rest is expected.

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.)

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In theory it could just mean being more lenient with paroles and whatnot. The vagueness is why mine wasn't higher though I'll admit.