Senate Republicans block plan to improve medical care in California prisons
Wed, 2008-05-28 18:19 - Kerry
Machado said he would request another vote on the measure Thursday, before a deadline passes for the Senate to approve the legislation.
Federal receiver could take $7 billion from state rather than borrow money if Republicans don't change their minds.
By Michael Rothfeld
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2008
SACRAMENTO — In an ominous sign for efforts to end federal oversight of state prisons, state Senate Republicans on Tuesday rejected a $7-billion proposal to build medical facilities intended to improve unconstitutionally poor healthcare for inmates.
The plan was created by a federal receiver and backed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson, who appointed the receiver, wrote a letter last week urging lawmakers to approve it.But Senate Republicans balked at the bill's high price tag and objected that it had not been coordinated with other plans that could dramatically affect state prisons, such as a proposal for settling a federal court case on overcrowding by reducing the inmate population by tens of thousands.
In two days, some of the same Republican legislators, the Schwarzenegger administration, inmates' lawyers and other parties to the overcrowding case are scheduled to report in federal court whether they agree to the settlement, which would divert some convicted criminals and parole violators into local treatment programs, county jails and alternative forms of incarceration.
Advocates for inmates in the case assert that overcrowding is the main cause of substandard healthcare in California prisons. Republican lawmakers and some local officials have expressed reservations about the proposed deal. A panel of three federal judges is poised to hold a trial that could result in a mass release of prisoners if the settlement talks fail.
The construction program and the settlement proposal are part of an overarching but largely disconnected state effort to bring the sprawling prison system and the care of inmates up to constitutional standards. Both now appear to be in some danger of sinking without legislative support.
"The problem . . . , quite frankly, is the amount of money we're talking about," said state Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), who leads the Senate's Republican minority. "We think there are more responsible ways to move forward to get where we need to go and to do it in a much more frugal manner."
Republicans said they needed to make sure that all pending prison overhaul efforts -- including a separate state and local plan approved last year to build more beds -- would be connected.
Democrats said they feared the federal judges monitoring state prisons would not take the refusal to cooperate lightly. Henderson seized prison medical care from state control in 2006.
"This is just another example where the state has failed to enforce its own laws," said state Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden), who wrote the bill to build medical facilities, SB 1665. "How many more times are we going to abdicate our responsibility and let the federal courts come in and govern the state?"
Receiver J. Clark Kelso wants to spend the $7 billion to build up to seven facilities with a total of 10,000 beds for inmates with long-term medical and mental health problems, and to renovate existing clinics at the state's 33 prisons. He wants to begin construction early next year.
Schwarzenegger's office said in a statement that "the receiver's plan is necessary to bringing our prisons' healthcare up to constitutional levels, as required by the federal courts. We're confident that the Legislature understands the need to improve our prison healthcare system and to do it in a financially responsible way."
Machado said he would request another vote on the measure Thursday, before a deadline passes for the Senate to approve the legislation.
Kelso said he remained optimistic that the Republicans might change their minds by then. If they don't, he said, he will be forced to take hundreds of millions of dollars directly from state coffers this year to continue operating, as opposed to borrowing nearly all of the $7 billion, as he had proposed.
The receiver could also seek an order from Henderson to compel the state to provide money, but Kelso said that would be a last resort.
"I'm proceeding step by step," Kelso said. "You don't jump to the end at the beginning."
Several Senate Republicans had previously indicated they would support the construction plan, but on Tuesday they met in private before the vote and decided as a group to oppose it.
State Sen. Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks) said he thought it possible that some Republicans would change their minds by Thursday if there were a strategy to coordinate the receiver's plan, the proposed lawsuit settlement and last year's prison spending measure.
"You need to do this as a package," Cox said.
Because the bill would take effect immediately, it needs approval from two-thirds of the Democrat-controlled Senate, or 27 votes. On Tuesday, the measure garnered 22 votes, with 14 Republicans voting against it. Three Democrats and one Republican also abstained.
Machado's bill would authorize $6.9 billion in borrowing through a type of bond that do not require voters' approval. The debt would be repaid over 25 years, with average annual interest payments of $527 million, according to a Senate analysis.
The plan calls for an additional $100 million from the state's general fund.
In a letter to Machado last Thursday, Henderson said he had heard that support for SB 1665 "may be wavering" in light of questions about the proposed settlement to reduce overcrowding.He asked the senator to communicate to colleagues "the urgency" of approving the legislation.
Henderson wrote that the settlement, with which he is also involved, would not eliminate the need for new medical facilities to improve healthcare.
While acknowledging that the receiver's proposal "asks for a significant amount of funds," the judge called it "an appropriate, cost-effective plan" that could be scaled back later if possible.
"I have directed my Receiver to continue working with you and other members of the Legislature to ensure the bill's expedited passage," the judge wrote.
Comments
Mandatory (care) with Minimum (support)
I find it very interesting that California is facing the consequences of their Three-Strikes Law, yet balks at the cost of neglect. In fact, one could even say the terms "mandatory" and "minimum" are coming back full-swing to haunt the state that 's now responsible for the housing and health-care of an inmate population that exceeds 170,000. This is in addition to the inmates eligible for the other under-funded program called Prop 36
Rather than debating whether a convicted criminal has the right to acceptable health-care, (because the truth is, not all inmates are violent criminals) let's see how poor treatment, neglect and health affects a family with children.
$15 million dollars made from phone calls, thanks to the clever built-in commission. That was 1997-98. Ten years later, how much do you think is being made from collect-calls, ALONE.... and yet a budget for health-care for parents can't be found.
Dare I ask what percentage of the California prison population was ever placed in foster-care, or any other version of "Family Services", and should I ask how many inmates are placed on any form of anti-depressant medication during their prison-stay?
How can any form of rehabilitation be given, if no one wants to give or support it?
Somehow, I'm thinking a state prison is the last place a person can go to receive a second-chance at Life, especially when there's a new generation of children being "cared for" by The State. [Sure gives new meaning to "Criminal Neglect", doesn't it?]
It's nice to know our leaders care so much about the CPS kids who don't have much of a real chance to become more than a disturbing statistic.
But don't fret, the average tax-payer will be footing all these enormous bills, anyway.
Problems with Staffing and Stuffing, 2007 "standards of care"
Failed prison policies are a bipartisan phenomenon, but most of the blame for the current fiasco goes to Republicans in the Legislature, whose refusal to consider sentencing and parole reforms prompted Monday's ruling. The minority party's shortsighted obstructionism isn't just contributing to the overcrowding problem, it's a violation of the GOP's core principles.
Two federal judges Monday ordered the creation of a judicial panel to consider a prison population cap. California has 173,000 inmates living in space built for 100,000 and, with a 70% recidivism rate, has more inmates returning to prison than any other state. The response by the Legislature to the looming federal cap was to pass a bill in May calling for a massive prison construction program paid for with $7.4 billion in bonds. Omitted from the bill at Republican insistence were proposals to create a commission to reconsider the state's overly punitive sentencing rules, as well as reforms to a parole system that sends thousands of nonviolent offenders back to prison every year.
Tough-on-crime GOP lawmakers are unwilling to consider steps that might lessen criminal sentences. By their own criterion, then, they have failed miserably: A population cap threatens to impose precisely the early releases they were trying to avoid. Further, by voting to spend billions on new prisons without taking meaningful steps to reduce the prison population and thus cut costs, Republicans have abandoned any pretense of being the party of fiscal responsibility.
The judges were unimpressed with the state's prison bill, not least because it does nothing to increase staffing even as it would add 53,000 beds to the system. This is precisely the mistake L.A. County made when it spent $373 million to build the Twin Towers jail but didn't come up with a plan for paying guards and other staff. Thus the facility sat empty for years after opening in 1995 because the county couldn't afford to operate it.
Appointing judges to fix California's prisons is undemocratic, but we can think of a democratic solution: Throw out the bungling lawmakers who brought the state to this sad point.
Maybe instead of spending
Maybe instead of spending hundreds of millions on new jails they should try a couple of tens of millions on education and helping people get jobs, there is a warden at a prison in Arizona where prisoners sleep in tents out doors wear pink uniforms etc. It saves the state quite a bit why should an inmate get so many perks that $373 million buys new fitness center HVAC tv's etc. I think we should have an inmate exchange program for anyone who returns to prison after committing a crime should be sent out of the country i'm sure we can pay mexico half as much to take care of our prisoners or maybe even go international and send them to some countries in europe. Im sure if that was in the minds of every criminal set free they would most likely not want to commit a crime again, but as it is now they get fed shelter quite good medical care etc and most have plenty of friends in jail so whats it to them if they break the law and get arrested again? Unless a prison is old enough where they may get pleural mesothelioma or some other disease then any other place thats relativley clean should be just fine.
ideology
Exchanging prisoners with foreign countries would only enhance international crime by stimulating new alliances. Would you want Californian criminals to make new friends in Mexico?
Furthermore bad conditions are not going to do much to prevent recidivism, except when so bad that people will likely die in prison. Those that will survive bad conditions will only have a hatred towards society, making it more likely they will continue criminal activity. Besides that, the 8th amendment wouldn't allow it, especially in the light of Trop v Dulles, so the point is moot anyway.
If you want to see cost reduction, it's best to look at the inflow. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, which is 10 times higher than in most European countries. What is causing the out of proportion incarceration in the US? Is the US 10 times more criminal than Europe? Is the US 10 times more violent than Europe? Is the US 10 times safer than Europe? Or has the tough on crime ideology just gotten out of control?
I think the US is paying the price of being overly ideological in many areas and the prison system is one of them. Instead of taking the pragmatic approach in trying to figure out what are the best measures to reduce crime, an ideology of tough on crime is embraced, together with a war on drugs. The latter is an unwinnable war and not a single victory has been made, while the war casualties are abundant. The problem with ideology is that people never know when to stop.
It's most clear in the tax reductions that have taken place since the Reagan era. At the time tax rates were too high, they were in the US as well as in Europe and rightfully so, taxes were cut to give the economy some extra breathing space. If it had been a pragmatic approach, I would have fully applauded it, but it ended up being an ideology, where cutting taxes is considered to be always good. The price for that is being paid now, with bad public services, failing infrastructure and growing gap between the poor and the rich.
Ideologists seem to mistake the goal for the instrument. Being tough on crime can be an instrument in law enforcement and at times it is opportune to use that instrument, just like cutting taxes is an instrument in economics, which at times is the right choice, but not a means in and of itself.
tactics
I find it ironic that the US has a "tough on crime and drugs" philosphy, with a very weak approach towards quality family-care and crime prevention. [See: "Feds abandon foster-care plan" and "In U.S., Foster Care Funding in 'Crisis'"
It's especially sad when one looks at our prison systems, and learns 70% of the inmate population are former foster-care "graduates".