PERSPECTIVE ON THE CRIME BILL : Some Gift--For $1.4 Billion, We Pay $31 Billion : This is just California’s share of federal funding for new prisons; now add the 30-year cost of new cops and courts.

As with so many other crime initiatives of late, Californians would do well to read the fine print on the new, tougher version of the federal crime bill recently sent from the House of Representatives to the Senate.

The amended bill--whose price tag exceeds $30 billion--promises far more than even its own authors are willing to deliver. What started out last legislative season as a harsh and punitive bill has gotten downright Draconian. It’s as though Congress has adopted the motto “If some prisons are good, more prisons must be better.” The most recent House revisions--which shift $5 billion from prevention programs into prison construction and law enforcement--may become a cruel, self-fulfilling prophecy for many inner-city youth.

But even if one were to subscribe to the “punishment over prevention” theme embodied by the newly adopted congressional revisions, there is still plenty to worry about. The section adding 100,000 police officers to America’s streets, the prison construction funds and the “truth in sentencing” provisions will cost states far more in the long run than the legislation provides by way of aid. A recent analysis by the Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy indicated that, in order to access one federal dollar under the bill, states will have to spend $3 to $5 of their own.

A look at the bill’s impact on California is illustrative. As currently amended, the bill provides $10 billion to the states for prison construction. California’s share is estimated to be $1.4 billion over five years.

But Congress is providing money for prison construction only. The big-ticket item--prison operations costs--are to be borne exclusively by the states.

According to the Justice Department, operations costs amount to 16 times the cost of prison construction over a 30-year period. That’s a national average, likely to be higher in California where prison guards earn 58% more than guards elsewhere. This means that, over the next 30 years, the $1.4-billion worth of “free” prisons will actually cost California’s taxpayers $31 billion to operate.

The much-touted provision adding 100,000 police to America’s streets is more of a bait-and-switch scheme than its fanfares would have one believe. The six years of funding (which only grows to 100,000 police for a short time) again requires a 25% state match, amounting in California to $330 million. At the end of six years, when the federal fundingends, California taxpayers would be left with an annual tax burden of $200 million. Further, hiring additional police officers does nothing to pay for the added criminal-justice system costs those police will inevitably create. Typically, every dollar spent on police engenders $1.50 in additional court, prosecutor, public defender, jail and other system costs.

Strangely enough, under these and other crime bill provisions, the states are facing a massive and uniquely Republican form of unfunded mandates. It is perhaps for this reason that our nation’s governors are opposing many of the crime bill provisions.

Over the past 18 years, California’s prison population has increased sixfold while our violent crime rate has risen 55% nonetheless. In just the past 10 years, California added 26,000 employees to its prisons while cutting 8,100 employees from its universities. We’ve built 19 prisons during that time and but one state university.

The crime bill shouldn’t be about which party can get the most votes by sounding the toughest. In the end, the bill should be evaluated not by how many prisoners it produces, but by how few victims it leaves in its wake.