State should lock escalating prison funds to help budget

In the past 20 years, prison spending in California has
increased by 571 percent, while the state’s spending on
education has gone up by only 33.4 percent. The disparity between
these two figures seems even more striking at the present moment,
when our “Golden State” is facing a $35 billion budget
deficit, the worst since World War II.

Gov. Gray Davis is great at balancing the political scales and
making “hard choices” for budget cuts, but his
motivation is questionable at times. Davis announced in January
that “virtually every program in the state has been
reduced.” Yes, virtually every state program has been cut
except for the prison system, which needs help the least. I am not
an economics expert, but Davis’ personal favoritism for big
campaign contributors in dire times seems out of place to me.

Why would our state be borrowing billions and pinching pennies
from health and education while our prisons are hardly touched? Has
myopia become an epidemic in state officials’ circle? Maybe
the $4.8 billion annual budget of the California Department of
Corrections has not been enough to maintain the growing needs of
the 160,000 inmates and the 30,000 prison guards in our prison
system.

I believe in humane treatment of criminals, but I have a hard
time understanding how a $26,690 per prisoner allowance is not
enough to cover one inmate’s needs. It must be the escalating
cost of health care, since every prisoner, unlike everyone else in
the state, is guaranteed full medical coverage by law. I suppose we
have to keep our prisoners healthy in order to ensure the workings
of our retributive justice system as long as possible. A life
sentence in prison better last a long lifetime.

Meanwhile, the 7 million Californians without health insurance
and the 6.5 million on Medi-Cal support, awaiting reductions of
benefits under the proposed budget cuts, can take care of
themselves. If humaneness was a concern in the treatment of
inmates, then where is the humaneness in the treatment of
underprivileged and elderly citizens?

I am glad that Davis recovered some sense of decency and
returned the Medi-Cal coverage for prosthetics, which he previously
considered cutting as an “optional” benefit. I am still
not sure what destiny awaits the adult diaper for prostate cancer
patients ““ also a proposed “optional” benefit
cut.

As for our state’s prison system, it is enjoying all the
benefits, including a 37 percent pay increase for its employees
over the next five years, which the governor himself approved.
Maybe he could approve an “Intensive Prison Training
Program” for the 30,000 teachers who have recently received a
pink slip. We will need more prison guards, since the rising
unemployment and the growing cost of living (including education)
will likely lead to higher crime rates.

I am sure our Department of Corrections could use the additional
money to cover the cost of its paid-leave program, which has
reached numbers in the millions. According to a recent article by
Dan Morain from the Los Angeles Times, over 109 of
California’s prison guards have been placed on paid leaves
for months, and sometimes years. One guard from a Southern
California institution has been on paid leave (for crime
investigation) since October 30, 2000. He has collected $55,000 a
year, plus all benefits, including paid vacation and a pension
plan.

The facts scream abuse of privilege and lack of government
control. Or, maybe, the $277 million deficit of the prison system
is not yet a fair match of the state’s budget deficit? Gold
digging fell off California’s “profitable industries
chart” more than a century ago, but it seems like our
state’s prison employees have been quite ingenious in running
an undercover gold mine. In this case, however, “the
gold” actually comes out of our own pockets.

I am not advocating closing down prisons or firing guard
personnel, but a major restructuring of the current prison system
and a change in Davis’ preferential treatment of the
Department of Corrections. If it’s “crunch time”
in California, then we all should “crunch.”

The 2003-2004 Department of Corrections’ budget includes a
$220 million item for the construction of another prison in San
Quentin. Do we need any more prisons? The Delano II prison,
scheduled to open in 2004, will swallow enough of the
department’s budget with its $595 million cost. Building more
prisons is not only financially prohibitive in these difficult
times, but also unjustifiable by the current crime rate. Attorney
General Bill Locker reported in February that the number of crimes
in California is significantly lower than 11 years ago, when
violent crime was at its peak.

Most of the increase of inmate numbers has been in the lower
security sector for non-violent offense. Putting such prisoners on
parole would save our state $10.7 million a year, as estimated by
the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Discharging non-violent
prisoners one month earlier than their sentence would save an
additional $20.8 million a year.

The Department of Corrections’ employees could also use
some “crunching” in their salaries. Davis should stop
his preferential treatment of California’s Correctional Peace
Officers and their director, Edward Alameida. I understand
Davis’ urge to be grateful for the union’s big campaign
contributions, but shouldn’t pay back time be over?

Unless Davis has some secret plan of using California’s
inmates for gold mining in a super undercover gold field, I do not
see how his pampering of our prisons is beneficial for our state.
California’s prison system might be a golden egg for its
employees, but for the rest of us it is a bottomless pit. It is
time for Davis to leave the virtual world of budget cuts and gain
some real concern for the well-being of our state.

There is no guarantee a change of policy would give Davis
another term in office, but it might give him a chance to leave
with an approval rating higher than his current 24 percent.