THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, September 22, 1994 TAG: 9409220020
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 56 lines
The special session of the General Assembly called by Gov. George Allen to consider his parole-abolition plan was recessed for a week on Tuesday by the Democratic majority in both houses. Ostensibly, the reason is to conduct public hearings. In fact, what truly frightens the Democratic leadership in the General Assembly is that passing the program would not only hand the governor a political victory, it might actually force them to set spending priorities.
Why the sudden need for public hearings? Reforming the state's criminal-justice system is hardly a new idea. In 1992, Gov. L. Douglas Wilder appointed a Task Force on Violent Crime, dominated by Democrats, which recommended an overhaul. The legislative committee studying the recommendations did not meet until August 1993. It was still meeting last November when Mary Sue Terry was swamped by George Allen, running on a platform of abolishing parole. The Democrats didn't present their plan until two weeks before the session.
Nor are the Democrats in much of a position to be upset by the estimated cost of the program. Five years ago, Virginia was sitting atop a lottery-fattened state-budget surplus of $600 million. Soon after that, Doug Wilder became governor and found the cupboard bare, and not one Virginian in 10,000 outside of the state capitol could say where the money went.
The House Appropriations Committee's $2 billion-plus cost estimate, which rocked the state Capitol this week, gets to that figure in part by including the cost of debt service on bonds sold to finance prison construction. A case can be made that debt service should be included along with the face value of bonds. But since little was heard about debt service during the 12 years of Democratic rule in Richmond, the timing of this argument is odd.
The governor and his staff have never hidden the fact that abolishing parole for violent criminals and doubling the average time served by violent first-time offenders will cost money. But only 5.3 percent of the state's general-fund budget now goes to all corrections spending, including the parole board and corrections education. Even if the governor's plan raises that percentage a bit, is anyone going to argue that six or seven cents on the tax dollar is too much to keep criminals immobilized behind bars?
Dealing with the criminal element is the first duty of government. Legislators are elected and paid to set spending priorities consistent with maintaining that duty. As this page has outlined, the costs of not doing something about a revolving-door system that no bad guy takes seriously can be dire. The costs of crime, in lives lost, medical bills, days lost from work and jobs lost or never created because business goes somewhere else, are every bit as real. The voters clearly demanded protection last November. The General Assembly must move forward and give it to them. by CNB