Maybe They Can Sell The Children For Medical Experiments

|

In the SF Chronicle, George Passantino of the Reason Public Policy Institute offers up family-based fiscal advice to the Nancy Reaganeaque California legisaltors who are crying a river of red ink in the Golden State. A snippet:

Just like the family coming to grips with the painful realization that its spending and income are out of whack, we need to understand that this isn't just a bad month or year, it is a lifestyle.

There are a number of constitutional spending-limit proposals that would help curb the state's expensive lifestyle.

Californians need to ask themselves what services it expects from state government and then focus on providing them.

Whole thing here.

NEXT: Words to Disarm By

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Californian’s already continuously ask “what services it expects from state government” and THAT IS the problem.

  2. “Californians need to ask themselves what services it expects from state government and then focus on providing them.”

    Maybe Californians need to ask themselves what services it can afford from state government and focus on cutting everything else.

    As a Californian, may I suggest we start with the state workers. Everyone who has ever stood in line at the DMV knows that they have so many people working behind the counter that they’re getting in each other’s way. And that’s in a State Department we can see.

    Don’t like figuring out which deparments to cut? How about doing the math, figuring out precisely what our shortfall is, and cutting EVERY department across the board on an even basis.

    Snip. Snip. Snip.

    If I don’t see protestors in front of the capital by summer, then Arnie isn’t doing his job.

    P.S. With the exception of justly imprisoning convicted felons and enforcing contracts, the State of California isn’t doing anything that I’m willing to pay for. Yes, I mean our abyssmal education system too.

  3. Bite the moon, Mr. Schultz. Your fondness for one of the biggest prison systems on earth, coupled with disdain for education places you in a unique category that shall go unnamed for now.

  4. I think Schultzie’s comments are more on the dismal return on the dollar Californian’s get for their education taxes. As for prisons, you want to let people off to save money? No problem, just make sure all the burglars move to YOUR neighborhood.

  5. What, you never heard of a bribe?

  6. not Weishaupt,

    You know, burglars and violent criminals aren’t the only choice. About half the people in prison are there for free market transactions that shouldn’t be crimes in the first place. Letting them go might save some money, don’t you think?

  7. They should deport prisoners who are illegal aliens. I’ve heard that they have an enormous number. Pay to have them kept in Mexican jails or just deport them. Whichever.

  8. Dear Bite the Moon,

    I don’t have a, “disdain for education”; I have a disdain for the abyssmal state of the California Education System. Nothing a bit of school choice couldn’t solve.

    Although I’d free everybody with only a drug charge tomorrow, California does a pretty good job of keeping violent criminals off the street which is one of the few things the government does that I’m willing to pay for.

    What should that make me that remains un-named, a libertarian?

    P.S. Oaf!

  9. “Pay to have them kept in Mexican jails…” That’s actually very interesting. It’s a win-win-win. California (and the US) pay less per prisoner, Mexico gets a higher per head fee than they pay to incarcerate, and the extra money goes to updating Mexican prisons, making them safer and more humane. I think you’ve hit on something there, mouse.

  10. joe:

    Would that be part of the great sucking sound?

  11. Sorry Kevin. Not buying. heh heh heh . . .

  12. What a load of horseshit. Spending caps just shift state-level budgetary power away from the legislature and into the executive. They force shortfalls to be taken up by counties and municipalities, which are themselves hamstrung by things like millage hike caps anti-government types already got on the books.

    By imposing spending caps on the legislature, which still supposedly writes the budget, the governor gets political cover for both the service cuts and tax hikes that will inevitably follow when the population grows or another earthquake hits.

    If the goal is to decentralize government and move funding to the city and county level, then make that the openly stated policy goal. Announce and end-of-life state-run programs and do whatever is necessary to help local governments raise their own taxes to pick up the slack if they so choose. Spending caps are just a sneaky way of taking the power out of voters’ hands, by making spending increases — or even keeping per-capita spending constant — something that requires another amendment to the state constiution.

  13. If we deport the illegal aliens that are in jail for other illegal activites, they will just cross the border again. Crimes commited by illegals will rise because many will see that there is no punishment. The mexican government cannot be trusted to hold any deported illegals as prisoners. Perhaps the answer is some sort of work program for the illegals modeled after the soviet gold mines. Or we could hand border patrol duties to the military.

  14. I think the idea was to deport felons incarcerated after being found guilty of a crime. Obviously, otherjoe, Mexico isn’t going to jail people just for leaving the country, but I find it unlikely they’d turn violent felons loose.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.