Overcrowded Solution
But the Unions Really Hate It
By Daniel Muniz

Like many states, the California prison system is a mess. The state currently houses 173,000 inmates in correctional facilities that were only designed to hold half that many prisoners. And since about half of the convicts are already violent felons, the overcrowded prison system is infested with more violence and brutality.

But California is unique in that everything is expensive.

The latest proposal to build two additional prisons and expand capacity of other facilities just to house an additional 24,000 prisoners would amount to a staggering 6 billion dollars. Doing just about anything in California isn’t cheap mostly because of regulations, excessive bureaucracy, and higher costs. Naturally, legislators and taxpayers don’t have the stomach for such expenditures since so many pet projects and other pork and barrel spending already consumes a huge portion of the state budget.

But what really is the alternative?

Are more violent felons going to be roaming the streets? Will the people who should be punished for non-violent crimes, like multiple convictions for drunk driving, only get a slap on the wrist instead of jail time?

These are serious questions that need answers. California and numerous other states with overcrowded prisons like Texas will either have to solve the problem now or let the situation spiral out of control.

However, Governor Schwarzenegger found a novel solution. California taxpayers fork out about $34,000 per year in costs for every inmate incarcerated in a state prison. Schwarzenegger cut a deal with private prisons in other states that will annually charge $23,000 per inmate.

The savings is enormous.

Shipping out 10,000 prisoners to another state will immediately save over one hundred million dollars. Ship out around 45,000 inmates and the savings could be half a billion dollars per year. Instead of building new prisons with big price tags, inmates could be sent somewhere else to be housed and maintained for a far lower price by private operators. And fewer convicts could tremendously alleviate the tragic dilemma of prison overcrowding.

In fact, the biggest problem would be finding enough private prisons to take these inmates.

And one thing about the free market is that if there is money to be made, then someone will find a way to do it. The economic laws of supply and demand will usually solve about any kind of problem because they involve efficiency and innovation. Consequently, the more competition that exists, the lower that prices will plummet. As a result, California could actually see much bigger savings if more private firms in different states engaged in free market practices that would help spur more competition for housing prisoners.

Alas, there is always a problem when the free market becomes the solution.

The prison guard union is not exactly thrilled with the concept of efficiency and innovation. In fact, they don’t care if the free market can do the same job cheaper while saving the taxpayers a fortune. They are more interested in protecting their own jobs and preserving the strength of their union even if it is at the taxpayer’s expense.

They immediately notified the other service employee unions throughout California and with their staunch Democrat supporters in the legislature; they stifled Governor Schwarzenegger’s initiative to use the free market to avert a serious public justice crisis. And of course, Liberals allied with the unions have also rallied to their defense. In fact, in an editorial written by the San Francisco Chronicle whined about this:

“the fact that the inmates will be moved against their will…”

I about fell off my chair laughing when I read that one line in their editorial. Prisoners are people who commit crimes against the state, thus they forfeit many of their rights and that includes sitting in a prison cell against their will. In fact, there are a lot of things an inmate has to do against their will, including where they will be incarcerated at.

But the real issue is money and power.

Special interest groups and their allies don’t want to lose money and power because that dilutes their political strength. In the eyes of the union, the only solution is to exercise that expensive six billion dollar proposal to build two costly prisons which will preserve their jobs.

In addition, California politicians (the same thing has happened in many other states) have rigged their state laws and their constitution to actually prohibit private firms from doing the same tasks and jobs that are done by state employees.
The unions argue that California’s constitution prohibits the transfer of inmates because it forbids the state from hiring private firms that do the same work of state employees. In other words, politicians manipulated the state laws to protect government jobs, especially the ones performed by union members.

The role of a governmental entity is to provide a service to the people. It is not their role to guarantee employment to a certain group of people, especially when it can be done cheaper and more efficiently elsewhere by private enterprises. As it has happened all too often, once governmental employees have a monopoly, they end up being more interested in protecting their employment than allowing the government to make the best decisions for its citizens.

First and foremost, public safety has to be a top priority. Prison overcrowding is a dangerous breeding ground for more violence. And second, the taxpayer’s pocketbook is more important than the aims and aspirations of special interest groups like the prison guard union and their union allies.

Private facilities in other states can do the same job at a much lower cost. It is time for states like California and others to allow the free market to solve the prison overcrowding problem.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.