Not content to make a mess of just the federal budget, which is on pace to post a record $423 billion deficit this year, Congress has imposed chaos on our clocks. The pork-filled energy bill signed by President Bush last year will extend DST by about a month starting in 2007.

Why? Congress thinks this little time trick reduces our “addiction” to foreign oil and cuts electricity use. But the so-called evidence that DST accomplishes any such thing is as suspect as a clock that strikes 13.

Spring forward/fall back proponents want you to believe DST was responsible for the United States reducing its oil use by hundreds of thousands of barrels each day during the 1970s energy crisis.

That statistic is the main reason we switch our clocks twice a year. It is a primary reason that Congress said it was extending DST by a month. And of course, it’s not true.

In her 2001 appearance at a congressional hearing, Linda Lawson, an official with the U.S. Department of Transportation explained: “Our 1975 study concluded that daylight saving time might result in electricity savings of 1 percent in March and April, equivalent to roughly 100,000 barrels of oil daily over the two months…. Due to the limited data sample, the findings were judged ‘probable’ rather than conclusive.”

Got that? It turns out the great energy-saver is really a guesstimate from an inconclusive study with a small sample size that is over 30 years old.

In her testimony, Ms. Lawson went on to urge Congress to look for new studies that “consider the impact of changes on electrical lighting use, heating energy use, air conditioning use, and transportation energy use, including the potential for increased travel demand resulting from more evening daylight and increased gasoline use.”

In other words, it isn’t 1975 any more; we’ve made one or two technological advances since then; and did anybody stop to think that people might actually take advantage of the daylight by driving their gas-burning cars to more places?

Congress ignored her advice.

Arizona doesn’t obey DST because the extra hour of afternoon sun burns more energy by increasing the use of air conditioners, which have become a bit more pervasive throughout the country since the Ford administration. If DST really worked, you can bet California, a testing ground for any and all half-witted energy regulation, would use it year-round.

In a desperate search for a fix to the state’s electricity crisis in 2001, the California Energy Commission examined a variety of time-warping scenarios, like creating double daylight savings time. But instead of implementing this super-duper saving time, the commission actually found “total electricity use would be virtually unchanged” if the state didn’t use DST at all. The report suggested “the lower electric use typically observed after the spring onset of DST (Daylight Saving Time) may be purely the result of the warmer, longer days and not because of the time change.”

This would be funny, if it were simply about shifting an hour from here to there. But the struggling airline industry thinks Congress’ tacking on an extra month to DST will cost them up to $147 million and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned the change would “raise serious international harmonization problems for the transportation industry.” The National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) opposes the plan because of “the increased danger of traveling to school in dark hours.”

When retailers, who love the extra hour of daylight to lure shoppers into their stores, are the only beneficiaries of an energy policy, it isn’t really an energy policy at all. How do all those shoppers get to the stores anyway? Cars that use gas.

Members of Congress have recently been ridiculed for being on pace to meet only 97 days this year, the lightest workload since the 1940s, in what Truman called the “do-nothing Congress.” Given the nonsense they impose on us, like clock control, maybe they should have to drag themselves to work at 2 o’clock in the morning when their brainchild — extended Daylight Savings Time — hits next year.

David Nott is president of the Reason Foundation (www.reason.org), a free market think tank.

The post Putting the Cuckoo in our Clocks appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The city attorney and police chief argued for the ban, hiding behind the smokescreen of “a conflict between state and federal law on the issue of medical marijuana.” The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in November and is now deliberating in a medical marijuana case, Ashcroft vs. Raich, to decide whether federal agents can stop patients from peacefully growing their own medicine.

Angel Raich, who lives in Oakland, suffers severe chronic pain from a variety of ailments, including fibromyalgia, endometriosis, scoliosis, uterine fibroid tumors and rotator cuff syndrome. If that’s not enough, she also has an inoperable brain tumor, seizures, and life- threatening wasting syndrome, accompanied by near-constant nausea. Raich found that medical marijuana keeps her out of a wheelchair and feeling better than anything else (she’s tried over 35 medicines). Unfortunately, the feds think raiding homes of people like Angel Raich is “law enforcement” and a good use of our tax dollars.

However, under our federal system of dual sovereignties and California law, even where state and federal laws conflict, Huntington Beach is obligated to enforce only state law.

California voters overwhelmingly approved medical marijuana in 1996, and the Legislature subsequently passed laws about implementation. It is state policy to encourage dispensaries and provide medical marijuana to patients in need. Moreover, the California Supreme Court has said that the state is responsible for enforcement of its own marijuana laws rather than those of the federal government.

Even if City Council members didn’t pay attention in civics class, they ignored valuable legal information from highly regarded Los Angeles attorney Manny Klausner, who provided them with the relevant information and case law before they voted for the ban. It is a sad day when they are willing to discard the rule of law because of their own prejudices.

They claim they passed the ordinance because of an unsubstantiated fear that medical cannabis causes crime – as if grandma is going to leave chemo, toke up and go rob a bank because she has restricted access to her medicine. Meanwhile, in Anaheim, police Sgt. Rick Martinez recently said a marijuana dispensary that opened in December “has not caused any problems” in his city.

Last year, at a symposium on medical cannabis at the USC medical school, a paralyzed patient in a wheelchair told a heart-rending story of his difficulties buying his medicine on the street, where he was routinely victimized. So the real losers in this are the patients who are having their access to medical cannabis restricted.

The science on medical marijuana is clear: The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences report (funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy) positively describes the role of cannabis as medicine. Similarly, as Dr. Lester Grinspoon of the Harvard Medical School states, “Marijuana’s therapeutic uses are well- documented in the modern scientific literature . These studies demonstrate marijuana’s usefulness in reducing nausea and vomiting, stimulating appetite, promoting weight gain and diminishing intraocular pressure from glaucoma. There is also evidence that smoked marijuana and/or THC reduce muscle spasticity from spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis … .”

Although this mean-spirited ordinance will not hold up in court, time is on the city’s side. The council surely knows that its initial ordinance will expire before a court date can even be set because our wheels of justice move so slowly.

Nevertheless, we’ve learned plenty about council members: They are willing to discard state law and the overwhelming will of California voters; and they are eager to smear ailing citizens seeking pain relief as a crime risk.

Californian Peter McWilliams choked to death on his own vomit because he was denied access to the one medicine that successfully controlled his nausea. How many more people must die before we stop erecting senseless obstacles?

David Nott is the President of Reason Foundation.

The post Surf City’s Shameful Pols appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Here’s guessing they hadn’t read the epic report containing more than 1,200 recommendations cover to cover just yet.

Granted, not every recommendation will be, or should be, instituted – even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stopped short of endorsing all of the specifics. But Schwarzenegger’s demonstrated commitment to serious reforms clearly threatens many of the back-room political deals and cushy, high-paid positions that have plagued California and contributed to record-setting deficits in recent years. Thus, there should be no surprise that special interests and career politicians are loudly complaining.

The long-term success of the California Performance Review rests on Arnold’s ability to successfully communicate his populist notions about government. He’s hoping there are pieces of the California Performance Review that provoke enough outrage from the people of California to get the special interests and career politicians to change their ways, starting with things like state boards and commissions.

The report recommends eliminating 118 of 339 boards and commissions in state government. The state doesn’t even have a master list of all the boards and commissions out there. While the state may not know who’s doing what, taxpayers are nevertheless paying these board members some hefty salaries. The report finds that the “17 boards and commissions whose members are the highest paid cost the state more than $9 million in board member salaries alone.”

As part of the belt-tightening, the performance review would reconfigure state government under 11 main agencies, getting rid of pointless duplication such as the current system of three separate tax agencies.

The review also smartly recommends trimming even more fat from the payroll: “We believe the state can get by with more than 12,000 fewer workers than it has now. The estimated cost savings versus the way the state currently does business is estimated at $4.3 billion between Fiscal Years 2005-2010,” the study concludes.

But unions will predictably fight over even one job lost, so there may be easier gains found elsewhere, in places like the sale of surplus state assets.

According to the report, the “state owns over 2,000 properties encompassing 2.5 million acres of land and 195 million square feet of buildings.” It’s still figuring out what all the property is actually being used for.

The review cites a couple of key examples in how to turn surplus or under-used land into cash cows: In 2002, San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy wrote to then-Gov. Gray Davis detailing his belief that the state’s plans were not properly utilizing property it owns in San Diego; and in Orange County, the review finds selling the fairgrounds in Costa Mesa could bring in $230 million.

In both cases, the government could make a windfall and help improve the quality of life in the state. The review estimates 1,000 new homes could be built on the fairgrounds site alone, helping ease the state’s ever-growing housing crisis.

Structurally, one of the key reforms calls for producing a state budget every two years, instead of every year. More than 20 states currently use a two-year budget because it improves oversight and limits the accounting gimmicks that have plagued California. Taxpayers thought the state was out of borrowing and accounting tricks and would have to face the deficit music this year. The recently passed budget shows we were wrong.

All 1,200 recommendations in the California Performance Review don’t have to be enacted for the state to reap huge benefits. If lawmakers roll up their sleeves and work through the details of the report, they’ll find that they can save taxpayer money and improve the quality of services we receive. Over 200 people teamed up for several months to put this review together. Are legislators willing to put in the same effort?

David Nott is the President of Reason Foundation.

The post State Review Deserves Serious Consideration appeared first on Reason Foundation.

With refineries running at 96% of capacity nationwide, simple scheduled maintenance at a plant can produce a price hike at the pump. And yet no new refineries have been built in this country since 1976; no new California refineries have been built in 35 years. On the contrary, since 1981 the number of refineries nationally has shrunk from more than 300 to half that many. The single biggest reason for the decrease in refineries is that extreme environmental regulations make it almost impossible for oil companies to build new facilities. Do you want one in your neighborhood? No one else does either. Never mind that you smell more gasoline at a filling station than at your typical refinery, thanks to improvements in technology and equipment.

Oil companies also want to limit their exposure and liability in overzealous lawsuits and attacks from the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1994, an independent contractor accidentally damaged a pipeline, leaking large amounts of oil into the Skagway River in Alaska. Edward Hanousek, a manager for the project, was off duty and nowhere near the accident at the time. Nevertheless, he was charged with two federal crimes and sentenced to six months in prison. The threat of lawsuits drives refineries, which are at higher risk, out of business.

When the government isn’t prosecuting employees, it is creating laws to make gas more expensive. Regulations requiring reformulated gasoline are making many older refineries obsolete, and California has special regulations that are different from the rest of the country. As Congress passes pork projects that benefit individual members’ home districts – like federal ethanol mandates that put corn-based products in our gas (great for Midwest farmers, terrible for drivers) – it makes producing gasoline more complicated and thus more expensive.

And then there are the taxes. We often forget about gas taxes at the pump because we see just the per-gallon price. In California, the per-gallon price includes more than 50 cents in federal, state and local taxes (all states collect 18.4 cents per gallon in federal taxes) – a full 8 cents higher than the national average, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Let’s stop padding the state coffers.

Without the taxes, paying $1.50 for a gallon of gas would seem like a steal considering that the oil is shipped by tanker from the Middle East or another faraway place, refined and then trucked to the pump. A gallon of Evian water costs $6, well more than a gallon of gasoline.

There also is the matter of Shell’s ultimate goal – to make money. Last I checked, there’s nothing wrong with that. Shell is making the same decision that many other companies have made – to scale back California operations and move to states that welcome their business. California has more regulations, higher taxes, higher workers’ compensation costs and higher labor costs than almost anywhere else in the country. Until that changes, we will continue to see other firms do the same.

I lived the first 30 years of my life in Bakersfield. When you drive down Coffee Road, you can still see the abandoned Tosco refinery. When it closed, my cousin lost his job there. You can see the signs of change and evolution in the oil industry in which I also worked. Life moves on, and so will businesses in this overly regulated climate.

David Nott is the President of Reason Foundation. He is also a registered professional petroleum engineer in California and worked for Shell from 1986 to 1994.

The post Jolted by Gas Prices? Don’t Be Too Quick to Cuss Refiners appeared first on Reason Foundation.

These are the types of dubious victories the war on drugs is achieving. It is also the biggest reason everyone from the Supreme Court to Gov. Gray Davis to the San Diego City Council is seeking to protect medical marijuana patients from unlawful harassment.

In his signing spree over the weekend, Davis finally approved a bill (SB 420) that will allow the state’s medical marijuana patients to obtain optional ID cards protecting them from arrest. (San Diego recently passed a similar plan, and San Francisco and numerous other cities have already been operating medical marijuana ID programs.)

The identification system will allow many of society’s sickest citizens to retain a little dignity by avoiding a trip to jail if law enforcement officers throughout the state question or detain them.

Authorities would use the ID cards to verify that a doctor has prescribed the drug to the person in question, and that the amount carried is within the allowable limit. If someone doesn’t have the card, or possesses too much of the drug, they would be subject to arrest.

California didn’t think it would need to issue ID cards. In 1996, California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act, or Proposition 215, which was supposed to make certain that gravely ill people could get medical marijuana if their doctors prescribed it. However, federal authorities have ignored the will of Californians and have frequently attacked the law during the Bush administration, with the DEA conducting military-like raids and jailing known medical marijuana growers throughout the state.

In fact, the Bush administration went so far as to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the federal government could punish doctors for simply suggesting or just talking about marijuana with their patients. Thankfully, the Supreme Court yesterday rejected that request.

Nevertheless, many ill or dying patients will actually avoid the optional ID cards — fearing that if they register their names they will be vulnerable to greater harassment and scrutiny from federal agencies like the DEA. For others, the ID card system will provide some relief and perhaps serve as a form of civil disobedience against the DEA and those pointless attacks. Along the way it also will further entrench California as the state blazing a trail for the others to follow.

Californians have demonstrated repeatedly a desire to help long-suffering patients who might be aided by medical marijuana. Look no further than the recent recall election for the broad scope of support that medical marijuana enjoys today. All of the election’s major candidates: Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger (no surprise since you can see him smoke marijuana in the documentary “Pumping Iron”), Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and conservative Sen. Tom McClintock all agreed on one thing – that medical marijuana should be legal for select Californians.

But this isn’t even one of those wacky California-only things. The entire country overwhelmingly supports the use of medical marijuana: 80 percent of Americans support the legal use of medicinal marijuana by patients, and 72 percent say adults who smoke marijuana recreationally should get off with a fine, according to a national TIME/CNN poll published in October 2002.

California’s new statewide ID card system will prove to be a method of providing our society’s ailing members more medical choices, while also allowing our already thinly stretched law enforcement agencies to focus their resources more appropriately. San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne told The San Diego Union-Tribune that the ID card ordinance “makes my job easier.”

It also will make life easier for patients like Suzanne Pfeil, who are fighting life-and-death battles and shouldn’t have to waste time with, or be victims of, the federal government’s misguided crusade against medical marijuana.

David Nott is the President of Reason Foundation.

The post A Show of Support for Medical Marijuana appeared first on Reason Foundation.

That’s a serious departure from the Terminator’s campaign rhetoric about “cleaning house” in Sacramento. And it makes his transformation even more evident; Schwarzenegger has gone from actor to Governor.

Schwarzenegger has laid out a thoughtful plan for his first 100 days in office, saying he will, among other things, repeal the tripling of the car tax; push for a state spending limit; reform the workers’ compensation system; and obtain a detailed audit of state finances.

To implement these changes, and to be an effective leader, Schwarzenegger will unquestionably have to compromise with the Democrat-controlled state Legislature, and this is where things get dicey, particularly with the audit.

The state budget deficit for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2004, is estimated at anywhere from $8 billion to $20 billion, and a meticulous audit of the state’s finances will undoubtedly uncover additional problems and creative accounting.

Combine that with the fact that a court has already nixed $2 billion in bonds for state pensions and could very well strike down another $10 billion in planned bonds because voters never approved them, and we have the makings of a full-fledged budget disaster all over again.

The only way to deal with a mess of this magnitude is structural change, starting with Arnold’s audit.

As part of the inspection, each and every state program should be required to justify its existence by demonstrating relevance and results.

Longtime politicians and special interest groups like to scare people with cries of, “If the state cuts spending we’ll lose vital services and suffer dire consequences.” So let’s use the audit to define those consequences and make informed decisions about what is, and what isn’t, important.

We shouldn’t assume that since a program exists, it is needed. To continue, programs must answer key questions: Does the program provide an essential service to taxpayers and the state?

What do they spend and what do they accomplish?

Are the programs— functions still needed or are they outdated and duplicative?

If the program were eliminated would anyone miss it?

Programs that cannot prove their necessity to taxpayers should be temporarily suspended during this fiscal crisis and reevaluated at a later date.

In conjunction with the audit, the state should establish an ongoing assessment on all state programs, modeled after the 10-member Sunset Advisory Commission in Texas. The Sunset Commission issues a report on each agency with a recommendation to abolish or continue the agency; holds public hearings on its findings; and sets a date on which an agency will be eliminated unless legislation is passed to continue its functions. As a result, 44 agencies have been abolished and another 11 have been consolidated.

Showing the proverbial bank statement will make policymakers accountable for results. If they continue to fund programs, against the commission’s advice, they’ll have to explain their reasoning and defend the expense.

The $38 billion deficit this year didn’t motivate California legislators to take a critical look at their spending habits, but the resounding recall results demonstrating Californians’ rabid thirst for fiscal responsibility and transparency just might.

Before the election, Senate leader John Burton, a San Francisco Democrat, said of Schwarzenegger’s plans for reform: “I think he’s got a little bit to learn. He ought to wait until he’s elected.” Well he’s been elected now, and it’s the Legislature’s leader and his colleagues who have a little bit to learn: Californians are ready to make tough choices and critically evaluate government spending. And we’re expecting Sacramento to do the same.

David Nott is the President of Reason Foundation.

The post Action! appeared first on Reason Foundation.

DARE’s much-hyped plan to teach kids to “Just Say No” is short on success and long on evidence of failure. In 2001, the U.S. surgeon general and the National Academy of Sciences called DARE ineffective. And just a few weeks ago, the General Accounting Office – Congress’ investigative arm – issued a report stating, “the six long-term evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that we reviewed found no significant differences in illicit drug use between students who received DARE in the fifth or sixth grade (the intervention group) and students who did not (the control group).”

Translation: Kids that complete DARE’s program are just as likely to use drugs as children who are never exposed to the “Just Say No” message. And that begs the question, how long will we as taxpayers dare to pay for a program that doesn’t work? We’re currently at 20 years and counting with DARE.

According to The New York Times, in 2001 the Department of Justice (read taxpayers) gave DARE about $1.7 million; police departments (read taxpayers) gave DARE approximately $215 million in indirect benefits in the form of officer salaries for speaking appearances and other duties; and DARE received around $15 million in private support.

Across the country, you can add millions of dollars in state (read taxpayer money), local (read taxpayer money), and school district (read taxpayer) money that is annually poured into the program.

We can applaud the efforts of well-meaning volunteers who invest personal time to advance their views. But the government gravy train should stop immediately.

Thanks to quickly escalating budget deficits and the program’s failures, many local governments have already started slashing DARE-related expenditures. In Long Beach, budget problems recently forced the city to move half of the program’s police officers back to where they belong – patrolling the streets. And in Huntington Beach, city officials suspended the police department’s DARE programs at the Ocean View and Huntington Beach City school districts.

But like a junkie, DARE is desperately trying to hold on to its federal funds by somewhat altering its curriculum. Back in 2001, facing an onslaught of criticism after several studies highlighted the dismal results, DARE said it would revamp its programs to target kids in seventh and ninth grades, instead of fifth- and sixth-graders.

But DARE could only manage to overhaul its program in six cities. The University of Akron and DARE are working together to implement these changes and to study a group of students immersed in the “revised” program in six metropolitan areas, including Los Angeles. Of course, since this is an internal study, the findings are likely to be much more positive than the previous nonpartisan reports that have been extremely critical of DARE. And this in-house assessment won’t be complete until 2006 – meaning millions more in taxpayer money will flow to the program in the interim. Furthermore, while select students in six cities may be getting a new lesson from DARE, the vast majority of kids continue to receive the same old tired message – a message that has proven to be completely useless.

So let’s weigh the evidence: 20 years of data showing the program doesn’t work; a track record of excruciatingly slow change; and law enforcement patrols stretched to the brink because officers who should be enforcing the law are assigned to classroom duties where they preach abstinence and reiterate the same worn-out statistics. And yet, DARE continues to expect our support just because they’ve decided to ever so slightly alter their game plan?

Even the federal Department of Education, a model in wasteful spending if there ever was one, refuses to endorse funding of the program. DARE was conspicuously absent from the department’s 2001 list of nine “exemplary” and 33 “promising” school-based programs that “promote safe, disciplined and drug-free schools.”

The grim reality is that there are no surefire ways to keep children away from drugs and alcohol, and the evidence shows DARE’s scare tactics often backfire in the long run. I have two kids myself, and I must first show my children responsible behavior through my own actions. It is also my responsibility to teach my children rationally about the potential perils of drug abuse.

The billions of dollars spent on DARE clearly can’t compete with parental involvement. DARE’s results do not show success. And they do not show progress. We are staring at an ever-growing mountain of evidence demonstrating that DARE simply does not work – kids in the program are just as likely to use drugs as children not in the program. Reality doesn’t get much harsher than that. It is clearly time to cut our losses with DARE and return to the tried-and-true approach of personal responsibility.

David Nott is the President of Reason Foundation.

The post Kill DARE Now appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Let’s slash education programs, cut health services and eliminate construction projects designed to alleviate traffic. Let’s force cash-strapped cities (San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy recently said the city faces a projected $20 million shortfall) and counties to run a variety of child abuse and health care services that they are ill equipped to finance or handle. And while we’re at it, let’s increase funding for our prisons.

Davis’ budget plan makes perfect sense if you’re a prison guard or a governor lining his coffers with money from prison unions. Meanwhile, if you’re in charge of San Diego’s schools, you’re busy wrestling with budget cuts. San Diego Unified School District Superintendent Alan Bersin told the Union-Tribune that the district will most likely have to cut some teaching positions next year.

“Virtually every program in the state has been reduced,” Davis said as he announced his plans to balance the state’s budget.

The governor had to qualify his statement with “virtually” because prisons are Davis’ sacred cow.

Despite a $34.8 billion deficit, the Department of Corrections is actually slated to get a 1 percent increase in funding in the governor’s proposed budget. The governor’s budget even includes $220 million for a new state-of-the-art death row facility at San Quentin Prison. Furthermore, while Davis wisely suggested laying off about 1,900 state employees, he also called for adding 800 new prison employees – and potential contributors — to the corrections payroll.

Prison guards seem to be safe because their union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, gave $2.1 million to Davis’ 1998 campaign and has given the governor an additional $1.46 million in direct and indirect donations since then. In return, Davis rewarded them with an inexplicable pay raise of more than 30 percent over the next five years and has steadfastly refused to cut their programs.

Instead of cutting prison pork, Gov. Davis is willing to place the financial burden on taxpayers with a one-cent sales tax increase that would cost the average family at least $200 per year; increased fees for driver’s licenses; a cigarette tax increase that would force smokers to cough up an extra $1.10 per pack; and a personal income tax increase that could cost the state’s wealthiest residents around $2.6 billion annually.

The governor also passed the buck to cities and counties, forcing them to operate costly long-term health care and child abuse programs usually run by the state. Former Gov. Pete Wilson designed a similar realignment in the early 1990s. Mike Van Mouwerik, San Diego County health budget manager, said in a newspaper interview that sales tax revenue fell about $8 million short of funding the programs that the state pawned off on the county last year. And you can bet the new tax revenue that Davis promises for these new responsibilities won’t be enough to cover the expenses. As a result, San Diego will be forced to find ways, meaning increased fees and taxes, to fund the programs the governor is handing them.

We’ll also find increased fees at the state’s community colleges, where tuition will more than double. The state’s community college chancellor, Tom Nussbaum, estimates 146,000 fewer students will attend community colleges next year because of the cuts. Maybe that’s the governor’s grand plan – a less-educated population that is more likely to commit crimes. Eventually, the entire state could be one big prison. Think of all the guards – and all the campaign contributions.

Davis said he wouldn’t sign a budget that doesn’t produce real reforms. Why not start with real reforms to the prison system?

California’s prison health care costs rose from $282 million to more than $660 million in a recent four-year span. Last year, it was reported that California spends $4,222 per inmate on medical care each year. By comparison, an average of $4,637 was spent on health care for each American in 2000. California’s escalating inmate health care costs are even more perplexing when you consider that the majority of prisoners are men in their the mid-20s to 30s – and as a group should be relatively healthy.

The bottom line is that there are prison cuts and efficiency gains to be made if Davis is interested in looking. The governor is asking taxpayers to pay more taxes and fees. He’s asking cities and counties to do more with less. He’s cutting education by more than $5 billion. If he is truly serious about cutting state spending and charting a course for long-term economic health, shouldn’t he ask prisons to share the burden?

David Nott is the President of Reason Foundation.

The post Why Spare Prisons From Budget Cuts? appeared first on Reason Foundation.