I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I was seriously looking at some jobs in cali recently. And I seriously stopped looking the moment he was elected - by a large margin. If ever there were truth to the adage that people deserve their elected leaders, this will be it.
I forgot - is anyone else wondering what Limba will say about this?
yeah, this is about as well-conceived as the car-tax reduction. oops!
tho' i'm in favor of releasing prisoners convicted of drug-related charges who would have been eligible for the enlightened drug-diversion program had it been in effect at the time.
but, of course the prisons are such that some of these people will not be the non-violent offenders that they were going in.
loser,
please don't give up on Cali. A majority of us did not vote for Governor Bozo. Los Angeles is a marvelous place to live, and we have good weather too.
cat
This is irony. Ann Richards was slammed with having a similar policy here in Texas. Kenneth McDuff was released from prison, and promptly went out and killed someone else.
He was release under an early release program, in part to save some money. His release, and subsequent crime, was used by the Bush campaign to get him elected Governor.
I guess it is a good thing as far as getting the gropenfuhrer out of office, but the cost could be too high.
Willie Horton
cat,
Wasn't it 48%? Pretty darn close to a majority. And tho I realize that the system has been gamed (e.g. Gray Davis), the succession of crappy governors and bizzare policies (e.g. property tax and underfunding education) does not speak well for the state.
The jobs, and my desires, were around the bay area btw. LA is OK, but not for me. I'll wait another year and see what's happening.
You know, Saddam released boatloads of prisoners before the war. Maybe Gropenfuhrer is setting the stage for an insurgency...
loser,
48% of those who voted for a replacement candidate. Course the DLC's idiotic strategy, "Vote No on Recall, Screw Everyone Else" may have, nay, DID, contribute to the inexcusable loss of the California governorship. Which proves how profoundly out of touch the DLC is to their base of Democratic voters.
well, the bay area is great too, love SF. You probably wouldn't regret it if you came........
cat
I hope Tommy Chong is first.
David (Austin Tx) beat me to it. Texas tried this. It didn't work out so well.
I wonder what Ahnuld and/or his backers thought when they decided he should run for governor? Did they have any idea what they were getting into? In some ways I have to LOL; I'm sure once Ahnuld got a look at the books he wished he had just shut up and kept making movies. I kind of expected him to appear after the election and say: "I vas chust kidding. I don't know anything about being governor of Kahleeforn-ee-ahhhh."
cat,
Oh, right. Thanks for the correction. That IS a difference. Oh, well, I guess there are things worse than having a gov who's a national joke.
Tena:
I don't know anything about being governor of Kahleeforn-ee-ahhhh.
Confirming my own opinion, just becoming obvious to the zombies who voted for him.
-
loser:
Oh, well, I guess there are things worse than having a gov who's a national joke.
Well, having George W. Bush as preznit...
Our Bozo may be an incompetent joke and sexual predator, but thankfully he doesn't have the power to send anybody to war......
cat - I'm hoping somebody in his administration has a clue. Ya'll have enough problems - sorry about the mud slides.
Tena,
I'm sincerely hoping that as well.
Actually I'm in favor of drastically reducing our prison population, and soon. The growth of the prison industry under Davis was of profound alarm and disgust to me. Davis was a veritable shill for the prison guard union. California even resorted to putting children in prison to feed Davis' draconian hard-on-crime image. It has been very destructive to the justice system and to California as a whole.
If governor Grope can find a way to release these people in a well-planned manner, then kudos to him. Start with Tommy Chong.
-
Arnold is proposing releasing up to 1/3 of the California prison population.
well perhaps it's all those first time drug offenders otherwise it's a good thing Arnold has a legislative babysitter.
Release the terrorists from gitmo.
But keep those awful first time drug offenders locked away in the dungeon.
Ken Lay walks free on the sands of his private estate while Joe Dime Bag is locked up in the state pen getting anally probed with meat.
Who's caused more damage?
OJ is free too...wtf!
The bush administration has released hundreds of "terrorists" from gitmo. odd.
Jesse: I agree with you on one hand. But on the other hand, that sets such a terrible precedent in our judicial system. It says "Yeah, don't worry about all those MINOR crimes...we're just gonna let you go after we blow all our money on other stuff"
Let's hope for the best, and maybe somebody intelligent in the gov's staff will find a way to ensure a dumb man doesn't destroy a potentially be a good idea.
It IS funny to watch him squirm desperately under the budget crisis. I've heard Ken Lay came into some big $$$ recently, maybe Arnold should ask him for a loan.
Curse your lack of an edit button Atrios, WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH?!?!
Actually, its probably a good thing to ensure at least some intellectual honesty (on the internet no less!).
Virtus: But weed is from da erf, man.
No, really, though...
If drug laws are flawed to begin with,then why is releasing non-violent drug offenders a bad precedent? They shouldn't have been locked up in the first place. They should have paid a $75 fine or something similar.
Woo hoo!
Yee haa!
I agree that drug laws are flawed (to an extent...obviously the 'harder' drugs need to be regulated [imo]). However, if you want to release them, then change the law. Don't just release them and keep the same criminal penalties in place, because that makes our judicial system seem so very pathetic.
If there is a problem with the law then repeal it and grant pardon to those currently under it's penalties.
Virtus: I'm just saying that if drug laws weren't so pointless in the first place, then Ahnuld wouldn't even have to consider releasing prisoners to save money. We wouldn't even be having this discussion! < The preceding post has been brought to you by George H.W. Bush's War on Drugs >
Virtus: It appears we are in agreement.
Jesse - If Ahnuld releases the drug offenders it will be great. But if it goes like it did in Texas, there will be violent multiple offenders released instead. I never did figure that one out. I think it was based on the "good time" provisions in Texas, which are so Byzantine that noone understands them except the prisoners.
Agreed. 
I think the BIG issue (and it seems that is what Atrios was stressing) is not the release of the prisoners, but the fact that California is in such a budget crisis.
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/a...ves/
001366.html
California Applies for Ditech.com Consolidation Loan
(2003-11-19) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today went online to apply for a $15 billion debt consolidation loan for California from Ditech.com.
"I have heard that you can borrow up to 125 percent of the value of your property," said the new Governor, "We'll combine all of our monthly bills into one easy payment."
Mr. Schwarzenegger said that California would then go on a strict budget, setting up a system of manila envelopes for each category of expenditure -- public schools, highways, police.
"When we get money, we put it in the envelopes," he said. "When an envelope is empty, we can't have any more of that service until we get more money in the envelope."
The Governor also said he would cut up the state's credit cards.
(That was obviously a satire) ^^
releasing the prisoners is good if done right, but if it's done to save money it will be done wrong.
Atrios: What's wrong with my inferences on the other thread??
Virtus: Maybe if they looked at where the money goes (drug war?) they could turn that place around.
Tena: "Good Time"? I can just hear the following being said by a prisoner: "Warden Palance said that if I reduce my shanking habit to 3 people a week, I might be eligible for Good Time!"
Did Bush enact this "Good Time" provision when he was governor?
Jesse: I think California has much bigger issues than the drug war.
Obviously between the earthquakes and the mud slides and the raging forest fires (why do Environmentalists hate mother earth? Let them clear the underbrush so that doesn't happen anymore...yeesh) California has ALOT of problems that their is no real 'solution' to. Also the illegal immigrant situation takes a large toll (I would assume) on their finances. Both to try and stop them from coming in, and then when they DO make it in, to provide them with the same services a citizen would get.
I don't see how a State with such an affluent citizenry can be so poor. I guess those ultra-libs in hollywood don't like paying taxes either...
Hey, I wonder if this isn't a sop to employers. Think about it -- those prisoners will want jobs, saturating the job market and lowering wages.
IOW, exactly what the xenophobes worry about with the Mexicans crossing the border.
And, the stoners will drive up food prices with the demand for munchies.
Not that I don't like the idea, just looking at the effects.
Jessse - No, the good time provisions of the parole laws have been around longer than Bush. They get tinkered with periodically, which only serves to complicate them further. They go from getting 1/2 day for each day served to as much as 3 days for each day served. Or used to anyway. And as I said, noone but the prisoners really understand the system. The prisoners, however, have it down, as might be expected.
Laugh or cry? I can't decide.
Even if releasing Jie Dimebag possession offenders makes sense--which frankly makes a lot of sense--these people will make a hash of it. I'd bet money that Arnold is about to learn the length of his leash.
Given that the drug war is a colossal waste of money, I think that if releasing non-violent drug offenders to save money is a good thing. What really matters, though, is not the release of the prisoners but the reason why they are put there in the first place. Just think of the money that could be spent other places than on chasing pot dealers down the street. But that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.. Don't get me started on what other money wasting endeavors we could do without.
why do Environmentalists hate mother earth? Let them clear the underbrush so that doesn't happen anymore...yeesh
Except they're not talking about clearing the underbrush. They're talking about cutting the trees. They dut down the trees so they don't burn down. Yeah, real Orwellian thinking. But since you hate this country, you must not give a damn about its vegetation.
Slightly OT, but if you are interested in the extent of California's budgeting woe's
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/Budgt...3-
04_BudSum.htm
Arnold's plan to turn Cali's money problems around (This time w/out using Ditech)
Virtus: I'm sure most of that money goes right back up those ultra-rich people's noses.
So what is the biggest problem facing Killa Cali, moneywise?
Diamond: Did you know that they have been logging in the black forest for over 1,000 years and they still have trees? Apparently trees can 'grow back'...who knew??
Also the latest forest fires in California are DIRECTLY attributed to the Sierra Club demanding that underbrush clearing be stopped.
Much like the Environmentalists in Cali demanded that hunting be stopped in '91 and the government ended up having to shoot down starving overpopulated deer from helicopters to fix that mess.
Jesse: Looking at the projected financial report for Cali in 2003-2004 only 5.9% of their total budget is allotted towards Youth and Adult Corrections.
When atrois says this could be a good thing, he fails to mention the consequences of increased demand on the street price of pot.
Jesse:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/
Budgt...mary_Charts.pdf
That is what they are spending on taxes in graph format.
Basically 32.1% goes to K-12 Education and 28.3% goes to Health and Human Services. IMO Education needs to be cut from the top, get those administrators out of there. Hire more teachers and Reduce Education spending in one fell swoop. And Health and Human Services...well you already know how conservatives feel about welfare...
Arnold and California can look to Alabama for the coming attractions. After Gov. Riley's tax overhaul was swatted down, the budget for the remainder of the fiscal year was pretty much shot. The new fiscal year for Alabama starts next month, and the hacking and slashing will be breath-taking to behold.
To the point of this thread, Alabama is getting set to release something like 30,000 non-violent offenders (not just drug-offenders, but con-men, burglars, etc.) because they don't have the money to operate the prisons. At the same time, the State Trooper corps has been slashed, and troopers are now restricted to 50 miles of driving a day. (Oh, and there are only three or four troopers on duty at night--STATEWIDE.)
Never thought you'd see the day when Alabama was the model for California, huh?
You guys are wandering in the weeds. The proposal is not so much "early release" as it is revamping parole in California, which is badly, badly broken. Read the article linked to by the post Atrios found, the one in the Sacramento Bee. California has twice as many parole violations as the national average, and they're all decided by members of the prison guards union - not by judges or juries. Every bit of overcrowding in California's prisons comes from parole violators.
I actually wrote a lot about this, but it was too long even for a front-page post on my own blog, much less for Atrios' burdened comments system. You can read it here if you want.
California's broken parole system
Thanks for the clarification Matt.
at least they aren't adopting the FL system yet http://tinyurl.com/35pkb
I agree with D. LeGrande: if they release tens or hundreds of thousands of prisoners at once, those people are going to want jobs. All you're doing is taking all of those people from prison and putting them in unemployment lines. Of course, some will find jobs -- which is good -- but it'll make it that much more frustrating to the state's unemployed, and I'm sure those who feel they've committed no crime will be angry that former drug users got their jobs.
It's also a bad move in terms of ideology, as Atrios and others have pointed out: don't just release drug users from prison because you're out of money. Stop arresting non-violent drug users, legalize marijuana and tax it. That way, prices of it would be cheaper and your pot smokers wouldn't be spending $50 on an eighth-ounce of the stuff, and could spend what they save on legitimate products that fuel the economy.
Ugh.
Only on this blog could people who believe that nonviolent drug offenders shouldn't be in jail... spin the release of nonviolent drug offenders as a bad thing.
I'm a liberal too, but this is getting pretty absurd.
i would say that, instead of taking money away from education, reallocate the funding within the education system. less administrators, more teachers, less state testing, more freedom for the teachers.. teachers help mold kids into people like us. the more teachers get shit on, the more money we spend on prisons.
good reverend: maybe if we didn't ship our jobs across the border to Meh-he-co then we would have jobs for these people in the unemployment lines.
spirittraveller,
I don't think people are "spinning tghe release of non-violent drug offenders as a bad thing" I think people who are largely opposed to the draconian drug laws are concerned that this particular action either 1) will not involve only non-violent drug offenders, 2) will not include any up front reconsidering of the drug laws (thus creating a temporary fix to the larger budget crisis) and 3)will be done in an inept and even cruel way as so much else is being done under california's new governor.
People, like me and the other posters on the board, who have been oppopsed to the drug war for a long time (if we have, not speaking for others here) and concerned about the rise of the incarceration state are not just naysayers, we are just people who like to look at all sides of an issue before giving it a thumbs up.
aimai
what is the biggest problem facing Killa Cali, moneywise?
Short-term, the Gropenfuhrer's idiotic "repeal" of the "car tax" (which was actually a legislatively-mandated return of car registration fees to a previous level, written into the law during the Pete Wilson administration to take effect in times of fiscal crisis). The ripple effect throughout the state is abominable - my favorite example is that Gropenfuhrer has announced the state program to subsidize AIDS drugs for those who cannot afford them will no longer accept new applicants unless a previous recipient kicks off. And please don't think for a moment Ahnuld has anything to do with what's going on - he's laying very low and is so obviously a marionette of the Wilson interests that dominate his inner circle that even the yokels who voted for him are noticing.
Long term, the financial problem is the same as it's been for over 20 years - Prop. 13, the "third rail" of California politics. Despite the fact that few individual homeowners actually reap any benefits of the property tax rollback, which are all locked in virtually in perpetuity for business and commercial property, God forbid you should try and change it.
(On the good side, rents in SF are going down somewhat...)
Jesse: Well, as a fiscal conservative I ALWAYS love to see huge bloated government programs getting slashed to bits (Not taking AWAY that service mind you, but making it more EFFECIENT). But I suppose if you really had to pay that much into it, we need at LEAST a redistribution of where the tax money is going in the Bureau of Education.
Dave: Don't you think it is racist to corrolate someone of Austrian decent with one of the greater tyrants of the 21st century...who was NOT Austrian?
Or does racism only apply to people of color...I'm sorry, I don't get the liberal handout on political correctness...
Sorry, 20th century...oops
Don't you think it is racist to corrolate someone --
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
dave
Vibrator? poop chute?
Or does racism only apply to people of color...I'm sorry, I don't get the liberal handout on political correctness...
Virtus
Racism applies to all. The recent Israeli statement about not wanting the Chinese workers to date or marry Israeli women is racist. The policy on US troops marrying Iraqi women is racist as well.
Of course no one cares if the fuck the good women forced into prostitution to survive.
Jesse: Well, as a fiscal conservative I ALWAYS love to see huge bloated government programs getting slashed to bits (Not taking AWAY that service mind you, but making it more EFFECIENT). But I suppose if you really had to pay that much into it, we need at LEAST a redistribution of where the tax money is going in the Bureau of Education.
Virtus
So you would support a reduction in the bloated Defense budget? After all they could not account for three trillion dollars.
i would say that, instead of taking money away from education, reallocate the funding within the education system. less administrators, more teachers, less state testing, more freedom for the teachers.. teachers help mold kids into people like us. the more teachers get shit on, the more money we spend on prisons.
Jesse
Better teaching curriculum would help. Explain to me how a teacher without a background in either Science or math can effectively teach the subject?
I'm all for more teachers and better pay, but if they don't have a background in their subject then that needs to change.
How is the idea that nonviolent drug offender shouldn't be locked up an idea that is "out there?"
How are society's interests best served: by locking up nonviolent drug offenders, or by using that space and those resources to deal with violent offenders?
In fact, for all the money that has been thrown away by this country on the idiotic "war on drugs," we could have operational public schools; we could take care of addicts by treating those who want treatment; we actually might be able to fund a federal or state tax cut. But NOOOOO - it's more important to lock up Tommy Chong for possessing a bong.
I would love to see an increase in the effeciency of the Defense Department. If we could achieve the same results with less money, it would be perfect. The corporate world has gotten more effecient every year since day 1 of this country, so why can't the government?? Because it is not subject to the demands of the laws of economics, it is in essence a monopoly.
The corporate world has gotten more effecient every year since day 1 of this country
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
[deep breath]
. . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
what??? release non violent drug users? you mean they aren't releasing rapists and child molesters fisrt???
Thumb: You don't think so? About 150 years ago 1 in 3 people where farmers. Now it's closer to 1 in 33. But Virtus, how do we have so many less farmers, and yet produce the same yield? Well the answer, short-sighted one, is that agricultural efficiency has gone up. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin (among other inventions) and people had to find new jobs.
The countries industrial workforce declines every year, but our industrial output increases? How is that possible? Efficiency improves.
(sorry, we don't produce the same yield of crops...we produce a HUGE amount more than we did 150 years ago, oops)
How exactly does your comment about agriculture support your assertion that corporations are more efficient than ever? All you've managed to show is that more agriculture is being done by corporations. It is a huge leap of logic to take increased production (if that's so - show the numbers please) and say it shows all corporations are ipso facto more efficient.
Tena: I'm sorry. I said corporations, when in fact I was referring to industry and agriculture (and in a round about way corporations because many rely on industry/agriculture).
Corporations in general SHOULD improve in effeciency over time due to the fact that they will generally act in their best interests. But that is not always the case.
The point is that the government is not spending their own money like agriculture/corporations/industry is, so they don't give a shit if they waste it.
Being in the military I have seen quite a bit of waste on small scales, and I am certain that it is equally wasteful in other departments, probably quite a bit more so as people in the military tend to be more disciplined, and, at least in the Marine Corps, we only get 6 cents out of every dollar given to DoD, so we have to be efficient.
But thanks for catching me on that.
And just to follow up on that - if you think all corporations are more efficient now, I have 3 letters for you - AMR.
No I agree, corporations are not all more effecient. That was a mistake on my part to convey that.
Anyway, gotta go to work in a few minutes. Thank you all for the intelligent debate as always (well, not always...).
Viso Gero
If you consider the inherent racism of the prison system, how could this make things any worse than they already are? Most of the people in prison are there because they did something wrong and could't afford a decent lawyer.
Not to mention all the children who would have parents again and maybe manage to grow up without propagating the cycle.
Looking at the prison system in California has been one of my litmus test for the new Gov. The current prison system is currently 2 prisons over capacity due to the new drug diversion laws. I believe that what is going on is a trial balloon and that the Govs staff are trying to justify a tax increase.
All of you folks believe that the California State government is overbloated should know that per capita spending by the state is 1/2 of what it was during the Reagan administration, and 1/3 of what it was when Pat Brown was Gov (in infaltion adjusted dollars).
It is ironic that people always wax eloquently about the good old days when we could educate our children and drive our cars on good roads, when in fact that we have been miserly and are getting what we pay for.
(Did no one catch the Return of the King reference in the title, or was it too obvious to merit comment? I had this vivid image of a rain of decapitated heads falling across the border into Nevada...)
surfk9 - I don't see how anyone will be able to pull California out of fiscal disaster without raising taxes. And the same thing is true of the federal budget; whoever succeeds Bush will have to roll back the tax cuts and probably raise taxes just to try to bring the budget into the land of reality.
OT about Alabama...
My brother and I live in Georgia. My parents live in Mississippi. Therefore, we have to drive through the great state of Alabama to get home to see Momma and the Old Man for Chris'mus. About half the trip is on I-20, from Atlanta to Birmingham. From there, we take Highway 78 to near Tupelo, then drive until we run out of paved road.
Anyway, most of Highway 78 is still "unfinished". See, way back in the '80s, Highway 78 was expanded to four lanes in Mississippi, to handle the traffic from Memphis to Birmingham and, eventually, to Atlanta. Or at least that's the plan. Mississippi's was finished in '93 or so. Alabama's still working on it. They'd made some headway up until this year when, of course, the bread ran out. Now, it's heavily doubted it'll be finished.
On top of that, on the way home and back, we noticed about a dozen police cars sitting in the median of the part not expanded...with no cops in them. Just sitting there. At first I figured they were all out for donuts, but a cousin told me the police were just leaving 'em there so drivers would slow down, but didn't have the funds to man 'em.
Ain't that a helluva note?
No I agree, corporations are not all more effecient. That was a mistake on my part to convey that.
Another couple of weeks and we'll have him singing the Internationale.
Tena-
That is my point. There are some things that can be cut, prisons for one. But after three years of budget problems, vital programs are not performing their missions, because they do not have the staff, community colleges are being systematically destroyed through neglect, the State colleges will be turning away students next year for the first time in a half century, parks are not getting routine maintenance, traffic congestion relief projects are being postponed etc.,etc.
Taxes will have to be raised. I a way they have been raised for those who are paying incresed fees for college and other services. Restoring the progressivity of our tax code would help. The business tax side of prop 13 must be addressed.
It will take courage for politicians to admit and address this problem, both in Sacramento and Washington D.C. I don't think there is a whole lot of that around currently.
There are many other victimless crimes for which people should not be in prison-if Arnold can pull this off, more power to him. Remember that there is no way in hell Bush will take California, and if Arnold shows Republicans how they have to change to appeal more broadly, we are the better for it.
surfk9 - well, the old saying: As goes California, so goes the nation, was never truer than in what you are pointing out. California is feeling it more than other states, perhaps, for now. But the services in other states are in trouble, too, as I'm sure you know. It's going to be an all out financial disaster from coast to coast if the borrow and spend Bush Repugs aren't stopped.
As a strong opponent of the drug war, I believe that this would be a HUGE step in the right direction. The drug war has been destroying the lives of non-violent citizens and their families by criminalizing what is at its core a medical issue. We are simply classifying certain behavior as deviant and removing these persons from society instead of taking constructive steps toward a solution.
There is also the issue of the prison-industrial complex. The U.S. holds 25% of the world's prisoners even though we are only 5% of the world's population. The prisons being built today in the U.S. are run for profit. Not only does this mean cost cutting for services and security, but the prison industry lobbying legislators for increased penalties and an increase in punishable offenses.
One of the few things I find encouraging about the economic recession is the fact that many states are considering releasing non-violent prisoners. It goes to the core of just why we put people in prison; they are a danger to society through either violence or economic deception. Drug offenders are neither, except in ways related to or caused by Prohibition itself.
Despite my feelings about the recall, I would give Schwarzengroper two thumbs up if this were to occur in California.
I presume that A.S. thinks that he could do significant layoffs of prison guards after he lets a lot of prisoners out of the system?
That would make some political sense since the guards union was a major political supporter of Davis.
But as someone mentioned the pugs are probably setting up the 'cover' for a tax increase. After all they'll be able to present a itty bitty tax increase as the alternative to all those potheads invading the malls or something...
As a strong opponent of the drug war, I believe that this would be a HUGE step in the right direction. The drug war has been destroying the lives of non-violent citizens and their families by criminalizing what is at its core a medical issue. We are simply classifying certain behavior as deviant and removing these persons from society instead of taking constructive steps toward a solution.
There is also the issue of the prison-industrial complex. The U.S. holds 25% of the world's prisoners even though we are only 5% of the world's population. The prisons being built today in the U.S. are run for profit. Not only does this mean cost cutting for services and security, but the prison industry lobbying legislators for increased penalties and an increase in punishable offenses.
One of the few things I find encouraging about the economic recession is the fact that many states are considering releasing non-violent prisoners. It goes to the core of just why we put people in prison; they are a danger to society through either violence or economic deception. Drug offenders are neither, except in ways related to or caused by Prohibition itself.
Despite my feelings about the recall, I would give Schwarzengroper two thumbs up if this were to occur in California.
whoops
sorry about the double post
Bram-
The Correctional Peace Officers Association is the big prize in California money politics. Aside from the recall, which was a fluke, they have backed every winner for the last two decades. They went for Duckmegian and Wilson and then Davis (two times). Both sides have courted them and treated them very. I would expect to see some sort of sweet early retirement program offered on top of their already sweet retirement benefits to reduce the ranks.
I agree that we would have to look at the details of a tax increase to know whether it is phony. My feeling is that for Arnold to expend the political capital for any tax increase, it would have to be real.
It probably wouldn't happen all at once. One of the main parts of the new plan would do away with sending people on parole back to prison for minor violations.
Since these would be graduated in time, it wouldn't happen all at once. It would just be the case that less and less people on parole would be going back for being caught in possession of drugs or alcohol or some other minor offense.
As for spending on reintegration programs, that also seems to be in the works.
Atrios, did you read the whole article?
!
Did anyone read the article before commenting?
If the governor moves to reduce the prison population through reduced sentencing for non-violent offenses, increased use of parole board recommendations, and drug-diversion programs, that would place him far to the left of Davis on this issue and I would support him in that, especially if he addresses the children in prison issue.
However, let's wait and see whether the republicans will let him get away with that. I expect them to take him into the back room and beat such enlightened ideas out of his head.
Well, it may have already been said, but Atrios' comments were smart, but it doesn't look like he read the whole SacBee article.
1) Folks aren't being released all at once.
2) Some redirection of funds towards rehabilitation is already in the works. From the SacBee article:
Dubbed the new "Parole Model," the program shifts $50 million from the prison system's "institutions" budget to "parole" and is expected to begin in February or March.
For the first time ever, "re-entry" units will be established at each of the state's 32 prisons and 11 reception centers to counsel inmates while they're still locked up.
They'll each be staffed with one parole supervisor, one parole agent and office staff. The aim is to work on a parole plan with the inmates before they get released -- work, living arrangements, counseling, drug treatment -- designed to improve their chances of staying out of prison.
"We've never really involved (inmates) in their release plans," Jackson said. "This is really some pretty basic stuff to make sure, before the parolee gets out, that we have a solid plan."
I've said time and again to friends that Arnie is just a Pete Wilson clone. I hereby retract that statement. I still am very suspicious of the man, but this move makes sense.
I do agree with Atrios that it's a shame this is occuring because of fiscal issues and not a more enlightened policy shift. But, you know, Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he was an abolishonist (sp?) at heart--it was to hurt the South.
All non-violent drug offenders everywhere should be released immediately.
Atrios: It's odd when the gropenfuhrer proposes what might be a good thing but then you have to realize that, no, wait, it's probably a really stupid thing.
Must we be so partisan when our opponents do good things?
Whether or not this is happening due to fiscal constraints, it's no basis for criticizing Arnie, as many have taken the opportunity to do in this thread (and I opposed Arnie's campaign). The Democratic member of our California legislature have been wanting this for awhile, but Gray Davis was too much in the pockets of the prison unions.
...and you can't do it assuming that it will magically suddenly save lots of money.
Actually, this will "suddenly save lots of money", and it won't be magical. Study after study has shown that this will save the state truckloads. Everyone knows it.
Will it put the state in the black? No. But noone, including Arnie, claims this is the case.
This is a great development, and a hard lesson for the citizens of California. I hope other states take notice, and free themselves from the grip of the prison complex and unions.
Media Revolution, are we sharing a mind today? Are we even having to cut corners and share minds these days?
The Grand Old Plan:
--------------------------------
1) Run for office. Accuse your opponent of being "soft on crime", no matter what the current laws are, no matter what the background of your opponent. If it's Vincent Bugliosi and he just locked up Charles Manson, say "He should have gotten Manson's mother too!" Just suggest harsher punisment for everything.
2) Get elected. Go after petty, easy to catch criminals, preferably drug users. Ignore overall crime rate statistics as violent murder rates soar; just brag about the sheer numbers of human beings you have locked up. Think: Guantanamo. You can now claim to be "tough on crime".
3) Incarceration rates skyrocket, prisons fill up, huge prison funding increases are required. You can't raise taxes, so the money needs to come from elsewhere. Siphon it off all those "useless" social services: medicare, schools, mental health services, school luches for poor kids - anything from which your family is not currently personally benefiting. Stick to cutting programs that although they may do the most harm to the most citizens, they affect the fewest Republican voters.
4) As social services are cut, especially schools, the incarceration rate continues to climb as a new generation of criminals is created in direct proportion to these budget cuts. Your plan now runs itself like a perpetual motion machine. The prisons need ever more funding so you can cut social services even further. Your goal is complete elimination of programs you do not like. Even schools, because you will send your children to a private religious school - a Christian madrassa - anyway.
A pleasant side benefit at this point is that the prisons are now filled with the non-violent druggies who were more likely to vote Democrat, if they were to vote at all. You can save more money by hiring fewer prison guards, and cutting correction officer's benefits as well. Remember - keep your eye on the ball - it's all about the number of filled prison beds.
Emergency Backup Plan (aka, the Nuclear Option)Run out of money, propose to release all detainees, er, prisoners en masse that should never have been incarcerated in the first place. This gets tricky, because you're not a Democrat and not "soft on crime". Blame the system, blaming your predecessors (preferably Democrats), and claim that you are really just making things more efficient. Explain that these people have been duly punished, and you are just streamlining the bureaucracy.
Be very careful not to admit that the drug offenders should never have been locked up in the first place, because your president is fighting the War on Drugs, and you don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy (pot smokers), during wartime.
Continue to cut money for social services.
6)Move to a gated communuty to protect yourself as society deteriorates. Wait for better times when more tax money is once again filling the coffers, then start lo
6)Move to a gated communuty to protect yourself as society deteriorates. Wait for better times when more tax money is once again filling the coffers, then start locking people up again as the crime rate will have skyrocketed largely due to the collapse of the education system and other formerly worthwhile programs.
Repeat all the above steps as long as you detect any heartbeat of humanity outside the walls of your exclusive enclave.
Ben -
I'm not sure if that's hilarious or depressing as hell.
I'm still wondering if anyone actually read the article.
Except for the obvious few who ask the same thing.
freelixer:
The article makes clear that this is a trial balloon based tenuously on Davis era proposals, the only specifics mentioned. As we know from the big fights so far, the Arduin people don't stick to a play book, they do what they boldly hope to get away with: having the ambassador for the Special Olympics shut newborn developmentally disabled children out of treatment centers, for example.
The state correctional budget is somewhere around $5.7 billion. The small specific proposals listed in the SacBee piece talk about tibits, $50 million for anti-recidivism pre-parole training, reductions in parolee supervision saving less than a quarter billion.
But the governor’s sources are not talking about anything that modest and measured, not $50 million, not $231 million. Atrios doesn’t have problems reading.
"Arnold has had us identify the nonviolent, nonthreatening inmates," said one high-ranking corrections official working on some of the proposals. "We could probably cut the (prison) population by a third, which would be a huge savings for taxpayers and give some of these people a chance to be productive citizens again."
Administration sources said the ideas are driven by California's fiscal problems and, if successful, could save the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year…
By my quick calculation, 1/3 of 161,000 times $25,000 per year is $1.34 billion, but there would be some parole expenses. But mind you, the extra 53,000 parolees are not accounted for in the reduction referenced upthread:
According to internal memos reviewed by The Bee, corrections officials are considering cutting the number of active and supervised parolees from nearly 97,000 to between 50,000 and 60,000.
The only thing certain is that Arnie needs to fix a $14 to $15 billion budget problem.
Arnie is not doing this because it's good public policy; he's certainly not doing it because it's right. He's doing it because it's a soft spot in the budget. And to do this as an immediate emergency budgetary patch is a disaster in the making. Right now there are services that help ex-cons transition back into the community, reunite with their kids, etc. What about drug testing for parents who are in jail for neglect? A slashing of the prison population at the same time as a slash to the parole system would be very, very bad..
I caution anyone willing to give Governor Grabass the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the other budget cuts already on the table, especially to poor children and the mentally disabled. This dumping of prisoners is perhaps 10% of a total solution.
Even if this cut is masterfully handled (it won't be, this is Pete Wilson's GOP we are talking about), anyone who thinks the other 90% won't piss them off hasn't been paying attention.
Release anyone convicted of a marijuana ofense. They are not addicted and do not need treatment. They do not need community supervision or urine testing. The only additional money we need to spend on them is expunging their records. Let them go.
Pacific John, I'm not giving Arnie the benefit of the doubt. I'm just refusing to criticize him for promoting a policy I am firmly in agreement with, as will be nearly the entire Democratic leadership in the Assembly and Senate.
As for your analysis of the budget issues solely on the information in the article, I suggest it's incomplete, and encourage you to investigate why the Democratic leadership has been pushing for this for awhile.
You're right to say that a lot of this is Gray Davis-era stuff that never seemed to see the light of day.
With that said, I'm unclear why I should take this opportunity to haze Arnie because of this welcome development.
I don't care why it's being done. In a perfect world, I would. But, with our finances the way they are, not to mention the immorality of incarceration that way it currently is, this is the right move.
To characterize it as insensible is, to me, insensible, not to mention outrageous, unless from a moralistic conservative who is complaining about not punishing criminals harshly.
freelixer:
I'm just refusing to criticize him for promoting a policy I am firmly in agreement with, ...I'm unclear why I should take this opportunity to haze Arnie because of this welcome development.
Because you are about to be head-faked, in precisely the same way as everyone else who believed anything he said (aside from anti-taxers or on the licenses for illegals issue).
- He said he would not touch education - he's slashing education, especially for poor CSU applicant; he now supports suspending Prop 98 protections for the k-14 budget.
- He said he supports expanding Health Families, the healthcare program for the children of lower income working families - he's slashing it.
- He famously supports the Special Olympics - he proposed eliminating treatment for newly diagnosed developmentally disabled children.
- He promised to not raise large wads of cash (famously saying he was rich enough to not take contributions from “special interests.) – he is whoring at an unheard of rate.
- He promised to fully audit the state's books – he didn’t.
- He promised to conduct an independent investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against him – he stopped his self-examination.
- He promised to back-fill VLF money to the counties - he will fall far short.
I can’t imagine how your support for this dangled bait will do anything other than enable your own betrayal, like has occurred in every other case aside from taxes. (Let’s face it, if Mr. Special Olympics will betray the retarded, he has no moral code, except perhaps as a quest for adulation and power).
If you have problems understanding this, try your own thought experiment. Aside from taxes and rescinding driver’s licenses for illegal workers, name one promise that he kept. Heck, try to name one moderate or liberal issue that has not been a complete betrayal. Please feel free to take your time.
Enable your own betrayal if you must. I don’t endorse that behavior.
Pacific John, I'm not defending Arnie, and I also choosing not to criticize him, for this specific development that we are talking about.
If you want to take any available opportunity to rant about Arnie, go ahead. I will continue "to enable my own betrayal".
This doesn't mean I plan on voting for Arnie. If you check my blog, I strongly opposed Arnie, and the recall, all along. So it's not about supporting Arnie.
It's about the issue we're talking about. It will save the state tons of money, not all this year, but spread out over the years upcoming. There are countless studies that demonstrate this, and the Californians and the Democratic leadership are behind it.
This is what is wrong with politics. As much as I was opposed to Arnie, I'm willing to give him a chance, especially when he's proposing stuff that Gray Davis should have finished a long time ago.
If he wasn't in the pockets of special interests. Not that Arnie isn't, but you need to apply the same magnifying lens to Gray Davis' activity as his.
It's only fair. The recall was an epic embarrassment for us, but it's time to move on.
Come election time, there will be plenty of bones to pick with Arnie other than bones we've been trying to get adopted forever.
People will rightly see that, criticizing Arnie for anything and everything, as hyprocrisy and oddhandedness.
freelixer:
We'll revisit this shortly. I hope I'm wrong, but if I am, it will break a pattern. Like I said, name a policy where support for Schwarzenegger was actually productive. You can't do it.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
