Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, September 26, 1994 TAG: 9411090012
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: C. RICHARD CRANWELL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
There is no debate on whether we need to be tougher on violent criminals. There is no debate on whether we need sentencing reform to deal with violent crime. But there is a serious debate on whether the proposed plan in its present form is the best we can do. Does it do the job we need? Is the cost one we can afford without jeopardizing the commonwealth's financial stability or crippling our ability to provide for the needs of future generations?
Just two weeks before the assembly was called into special session on Sept. 19, Gov. Allen first revealed the detailed bill that he was introducing to accomplish Proposal X. It would abolish parole effective Jan. 1, 1995 for all felonies, revise and expand sentencing guidelines under a newly established Sentencing Commission to reflect actual time served, and fix prison time for all violent offenders and many nonviolent offenders.
The plan would double the prison population in the next 10 years by building 25 new prisons and three additions to existing prisons, adding more than 23,000 prisoners for a total of 47,000 inmates. The costs were estimated at $1 billion for construction and another $200 million to $300 million a year for operational costs of housing the inmates.
Already, these estimates have come under serious dispute in a report issued last week by the House Appropriations Committee staff. The report concludes that, at a minimum, construction related costs of Proposal X (by the year 2005) could easily range from $1.9 to $2.2 billion. The additonal operating costs could exceed $495 million, for a total Department of Corrections operating budget of $950 million annually.
But the increasing demand for prison beds under Proposal X will not end in 2005. Another 16,000 beds will be needed by the year 2012. Assuming the same average bed cost requested in the current proposal, adjusted for inflation, this second phase of construction could cost another $1.5 billion. Annual operating costs for the prison system would rise to about $1.4 billion a year.
It should be noted that the money for all this comes out of the same pot - the General Fund - as do funds for most of the programs Virginians consider essential: public schools, colleges and universities, law enforcement, health care, and many others. We have some major needs that must be met in these other areas. For instance:
nAbout 65,000 additional public-school students will require $500 million in state funds over the next four years.
nAn additional 36,000 higher-education students by the end of the decade will require $440 million.
nPlanning funds of $98 million for higher-education capital projects were approved by the 1994 General Assembly and will need to be funded within the next couple of years.
nMedicaid, which is federally mandated, has been the fastest growing area of the budget. Assuming a moderate growth of 8 percent for the remainder of the decade, it will require $402 million in additional expenditures.
nAnother $282 million will be required in the next four years to provide state employees with annual 2.5 percent salary increases.
nA similar increase for school teachers would cost $233 million over the same period.
nOver the next five years, the federal retiree tax settlement and retiree tax relief/benefit enhancements granted this summer will cost $636 million.
Although not a General Fund item, the state must also very quickly find a way to meet highway construction needs. Increasing costs of maintaining present highways are taking up most of the revenues in the Highway Transportation Fund. In just a few more years, we will have no funds for new construction.
Virginia has long been a low-tax, low-debt state noted for its excellent financial management. It is one of five states in the nation that has a AAA bond rating from both major rating services. This has saved Virginians millions of dollars over the years through lower interest rates on bonded indebtedness.
But there is a very disturbing but unmistakable trend in just the last few years toward becoming a high-debt state - the same trap that has brought on well-publicized financial crises in a number of states. The potential costs of Proposal X threaten to exacerbate this danger.
In 1980, Virginia's total debt was $1.985 billion. By 1990 it had grown to $6.127 billion. This year it is $8.246 billion, and that doesn't include another billion that has been authorized but not yet spent. Proposal X could add another $1 billion to $2 billion to the state's debt.
It is even more disturbing that most of the exploding debt is through pledge bonds rather than general-obligation bonds. This means (1) that the public does not get an opportunity to vote on the bonds, and (2) they are sold at a higher interest rate than general obligation bonds, thus costing taxpayers additional millions. Proposal X currently calls for issuance of more pledge bonds.
Against this disturbing financial picture we must weigh what we are getting from Proposal X and whether we can get nearly as much, or perhaps more, impact by making Proposal X more cost-effective and aiming it more precisely toward those criminals with a propensity to violence.
We also need to look more closely at the juvenile problem. A disproportionate number of violent crimes are committed by juveniles. Experts tell us that with the second generation of the baby boom now beginning to enter the teen years, we can expect a large increase in violence from that age group.
Proposal X may well need to include provisions for early intervention, education and support for this age group in an effort to lessen the potential of violence.
This newspaper reported in a recent series of articles that if Proposal X had been in effect between 1986 and 1993, it would have prevented 1.9 percent of the murders recorded in Virginia, 1 percent of the rapes, 0.6 percent of the robberies and 0.5 percent of the aggravated assaults. These figures indicate to me that we can do much better on both ends of an anti-crime strategy. We can get the costs down and the effectiveness up.
That is what the upcoming debate is all about. I believe that when the legislature completes its work, we will accomplish the governor's goal, but at a more responsible cost.
C. Richard Cranwell, a Vinton Democrat, is majority leader of the House of Delegates.
by CNB