The corrections budget-cutting battle will begin Thursday in the California legislature, and here is what one of the biggest screaming matches will be about: No, not quote-unquote early release. (Although our fun-loving lawmakers will fight about that too, of course.)
There will be a giganzoid fight around the inclusion in the package of…….a sentencing commission.
The horror.
The idea is to create a commission that will draft new sentencing and parole rules. But it will have genuine power. Otherwise it’s just one more Blue Ribbon committee that costs a bunch of money, spits out a five-zillion page report chock full of swell recommendations—-that everyone promptly ignores.
We’re over that.
Even the governor’s over that.
“It’s important that the commission would have real authority,” Governor Schwarzenegger’s spokesperson, Aaron McLear told the Sac’to Bee on Wednesday. “We’ve been debating this for two years. It’s time to act.”
The commission would be made up of 13 voting members, and three non-voting members, points out the San Francisco Chronicle..
(NOTE: I love the needlessly sensational headline. Since when did every newspaper in America decide it had to become the NY Post? Furthermore the thing isn’t accurate. I guess “felon” singular wasn’t as sexy.)
(Here is the complete, 239-page corrections proposal unveiled Wednesday afternoon.. The provision about the sentencing commission starts on page 214.)
Naturally, the LAPPL, the police union, and like groups will oppose this idea. (I’ve already had the discussion with Paul Weber.) And the Republican Assembly Leader, Sam Blakeslee is predictably apoplectic. As are the state’s prosecutors.
(NOTE: Just as I posted this, the Sacramento Bee posted a story about the howls of protest from all the aforementioned usual suspects.)
The sad thing (among a plethora of sad things when it comes to our lousy corrections system) is that other, theoretically more centrist or conservative states, have faced the idea of sentencing reform well ahead of our spineless California lawmakers, while still other states are moving that direction.
Even Florida is talking seriously about it. Here’s what the Orlando Sentinel said in a recent article called RX for Old Cons: REFORM
Long after the national shouting match over health-care reform dies down, state lawmakers had better brace for another boisterous citizen revolt. This time, over rising medical-care costs behind bars.
Florida’s ever-growing and ever-graying stable of prisoners — many serving life sentences — could mean taxpayers will be on the hook for the ever-growing annual health-care tab for thousands of men and women guilty as Cain, but old as Adam.
That’s why state lawmakers better take a hard look at sentencing and parole reforms if they want to deflate ballooning taxpayer costs in the long term.
Then the Sentinel wrote—in kind of a pitying way—about how much worse those costs are for California:
Estimated costs for elderly prisoner care are triple those for a younger, healthy inmate, owing largely to health-care expenses. California, for example, spends upward of $138,000 annually to house and care for an elderly prisoner — a big drain on a state about to go bust.The shame of it is, taxpayers have to foot rising health bills for older inmates who are less violent and are less likely to be repeat offenders, people who could be monitored under less costly community options.
It would be sensible for state lawmakers to get ahead of the curve by revisiting sentencing and parole reforms that balance both public safety and the budget.
Last year, at least seven states introduced or expanded medical or geriatric parole, according to a July ’09 report from the Vera Institute of Justice. And three more states did it this year.
Yet not stupid us.
California (or any state), it seems, gets no Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement for prisoner when they are locked up, but with these specialized paroles, Medicare and Medicaid will share a prisoner’s medical costs with the federal government.
But, hell, why should we empower a sentencing commission to institute these and other sensible policies.
Let’s cut more from schools and parks instead.
************************************************************************************************************
The San Jose Mercury News has a rundown on the rest of the corrections package. It is due to be voted on by the state legislature on Thursday.
PS: Nicholas Kristof at the New York Times feels sad for us too.
PPS: The Sacramento Bee has this well-timed and smart op ed co-written by Jeanne Woodford, former head of the CDCR and former warden of San Quentin prison, and Matt Powers, a retired Deputy Chief of the Sacramento Police Department.
**************************************************************************************************************
Chart from the California Inmate Project.
Who Decides on a Prisoners Care – A death panel or a judge?
Thanks Celeste, lots of good reading and insight you provide with this post. I’m just wondering what it will take to change this abhorrent people eating money machine referred to as the justice system and it’s evil twin, the prison industrial complex.
Nicolas Kristoff in the NYT recognizes the California prison disgrace and it’s consequences in his column.
I would add, it’s a decision made by corrupt anti democratic forces to line their pockets and incarcerate mostly poor and minority people at rates that are embarrassing, and for offenses that middle and upper class non minority citizens would get “counseling†for.
Kristoff,
“Astonishingly, many politicians seem to think that we should lead the world in prisons, not in health care or education. The United States is anomalous among industrialized countries in the high proportion of people we incarcerate; likewise, we stand out in the high proportion of people who have no medical care — and partly as a result, our health care outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are unusually poor.â€
“California spends $216,000 annually on each inmate in the juvenile justice system. In contrast, it spends only $8,000 on each child attending the troubled Oakland public school system, according to the Urban Strategies Council. “
……………………….
And a mouthpiece for the “prison industrial complexâ€, Sam Blakeslee, predictably, (could it be the San Luis Obispo Men’s Colony Prison in his district?), just doesn’t get it and considers the mess that we are in, namely the draconian prison system, some kind of “achievementâ€
SFC,
Assembly Republican leader Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, disagreed, calling the package “the biggest step back in public safety in decades.†This is worse than early release” of prisoners, which Republicans had opposed, Blakeslee, said. “It’s rewriting sentencing laws we fought 20 years to achieve.”
……………..
But the big money and big power that control and profit from the prison industrial complex and the laughable justice system, that supplies increasingly more “chow†for this medieval and draconian system, would prefer that the state of California goes down in flames rather than give up the easy money provided by it all, the public be damned.
The power’s that be and the Prision Industrial Complex are destroying our society with the draconin prisons in California. I am sure the majority of people in prison are innocent. And the “three strikes law” is draconian and it’s implementaion is full of racism. The vitriol and hate displayed by the right wing and thier lackeys and ect is draconian. It’s all part of Divide and Conquer ploy being used by the power’s that be and thier lackeys.
The Orlando Sentinel —
First this: Florida’s ever-growing and ever-graying stable of prisoners…could mean taxpayers will be on the hook for the ever-growing annual health-care tab for thousands….
Then this: That’s why state lawmakers better take a hard look at sentencing and parole reforms if they want to deflate ballooning taxpayer costs in the long term.
Does it cost taxpayers less if aging convicts are treated outside the prison walls vs. inside? This seems like a phony selling point.
– – –
Rather than have a new (and final?) “blue ribbon commission,” just use the recommendations of the last one and save the start-up time.
Saw this at the “Talk Left” blog and after reading these benign and sensible proposals I’m wondering how the blithering, lying, greedy, right wing nuts will attack the plan.
Will it be fear tactic’s, aka the old “Willie Horton” ploy? Will it be racism disguised as protecting the people of California?
Will we be inundated with war stories of murders and rapists rampaging in the countryside?
I can hardly wait for the show to begin.
Talk Left,
Other proposed reforms:
Under the measure up for a vote in the Legislature today, parolees who commit such transgressions would be subject to “alternative sanctions,” such as GPS supervision, rather than being sent back to prison.
Other changes in the package including cutting active parole supervision to cover only the most serious offenders; cutting an unspecified number of positions at the Division of Juvenile Justice and at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation headquarters; and giving inmates time-served credit for participating in rehabilitation programs.
….The plan would also establish a new commission to examine sentencing laws. Members would be appointed by the governor and the chief justice of the California Supreme Court. The commission would recommend new sentencing guidelines by July 2012, and those guidelines would take effect the following year unless rejected by the Legislature
Woody, yes, it costs much less outside. Plus we get normal medicare and medicade help that every citizen gets if they’re on the outside. But inside we get none; it’s only on the bill of the CA tax payer. (Most of that’s in the post.)
D.Q. The Kristoff quotes are great. I meant to bring some of them out front but the post was getting long. Maybe I will now.
Pokey, Yes, I’m quite sure that death panels are deciding everything in our lives right now. It’s the only possible explanation. You name it, I blame it on the death panels. It simplifies so much, once you have that realization.
For instance, on Tuesday, I was in a very, very, VERY long Annenberg grad student orientation in which some of the naughty faculty adults (like myself) were texting each other with jokes during slow moments in the thing. It was a really good orientation, but wa-a-a-y too lengthy without a break.
We concluded that some sort of subtle form of death panelism was at work. (And I’m positive we were right about this.)
They’re everywhere, I tell you!
Celeste, the inside vs. outside medical costs depend upon who’s adding up the dollars. Liberal journalists with an agenda always manage to skew the numbers the way that they want. (Not conservatives.)
For instance, from the Sentinel article: Estimated costs for elderly prisoner care are triple those for a younger, healthy inmate, owing largely to health-care expenses. California, for example, spends upward of $138,000 annually to house and care for an elderly prisoner….
Using those numbers, it costs $46,000 to keep each healthy prisoner but an additional $92,000 (!) for extended medical care for elderly inmates. What kind of craziness is that? That’s more than blood pressure medicine…and, they don’t need Viagra. Those numbers are waaaaaaayyyy off.
Also, it makes no sense to say that convicts don’t get medical care on the inside and that it costs more to care for them there than if they were free. (Medicare reimbursments are just shuffling dollars and don’t affect the total cost.)
BTW, you might want to read the comments under the Orlando Sentinel article that you linked.
Why, all of a sudden, are liberals concerned with saving tax money when they never have been in the past?
Damn Hiroshi. You need to give that shit a rest. WE know who you’re capping on and maybe even why you’re doing the capping, but it’s maybe time to take a sabbatical from the overused rhetoric. The guy’s putting up some logical facts, and he may have even reluctantly modified his presentation. Forgive and forget/move on… I give him kudos for not responding to your harassment, and also congrats for putting up some viable numbers. You know yourself Hiroshi that this is one of the only places we can find the balance, the right/the left/ the lukewarms. I’m thinking the water’s fine, and would hate it if Celeste dropped the hammer on a good mix. Take a break,bud. Or cap on me. Hell, I’m just as bulletproof. Better yet, do it at BITH.
The better let out the old guys out of the prisons the
right wing racist nut need to make romm for these black and brown gang members.
**********************
AZUSA – Police raided 15 homes in Azusa, Pomona and Covina and arrested six alleged gang members suspected of being affiliated with the FCK tagging crew early Wednesday morning, officials said. More than 150 police officers from 17 agencies took part in the pre-dawn raids.
The fledgling gang first formed two years ago, and has only recently gained infamy, officials said. On July 31, suspected FCK member Miguel Angel Gonzalez was arrested after he allegedly fired six shots at undercover officers as they patrolled the Altantis Garden
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_13163789?source=rss_viewed
*************************
By some estimates there are as many as 400 members of the Denver Lanes street gang living in Pasadena. A blood gang that probably originated in Los Angeles, PDL is often responsible for much of the violence that occurs in Northwest Pasadena.
Neither does much of the rest of the city north of the 210 Freeway for that matter. Where turf is claimed by gangs like the Pasadena Latin Kings, the Raymond Avenue Crips, Northside Pasadena, the Villa Boyz, Varrio Pasadena Rifa, the Summit Street Smokers, Pepper Street, Squiggly Lane and the Project Gangsters.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvcrime/
When is California going to have minorites in political office so the right wing legislature in California makes some changes to the laws which put minorities in prison. When will a major city in California have minorities and democrats in political office. California will be a much better place when the liberals, democrats and minorities are able to get elected to a political office in California.
Damn those controlling right wing republicans !!!
When you say “new sentencing and parole rules” what you really mean is “weaker sentencing and parole rules” right Celeste? Why not just say that and than argue that 3 Strikes hasn’t been at the forefront of the reduction in crime in our state? I don’t think you can come up with some other reason for the reduction, though I’m sure you can post associated factors none of them will have the teeth that 3 Strikes has had in reducing crime.
You said the following Celeste..”It would be sensible for state lawmakers to get ahead of the curve by revisiting sentencing and parole reforms that balance both public safety and the budget.” Please unfold a plan that you think would balance both because I’m someone who thinks monetary concerns should always come secondary to public safety.
Surefire,
Personally, I think 3-strikes is at least partially responsible for the decrease in crime. But it’s not as cut and dry as you assert. I’ve posted this before, but this is from the California Legislative Analyst’s primer on 3-strikes:
In addition, violent crime rates declined by about the same amount in the counties that were less likely to send strikers to prison as the comparison counties. The violent crime rate in those counties least likely to send strikers to prison declined by an average of 45 percent, while the violent crime rate in the counties most likely to send strikers to prison declined by an average of 44 percent. Figure 11 shows the downward change in violent crime rates in these eight large counties.
Unfortunately, there remains no clear consensus about the public safety impact of the Three Strikes measure. In particular, data limitations (such as the number of offenders eligible for prosecution under Three Strikes) and the inherent difficulty of estimating the number of crimes prevented make it difficult to conclusively evaluate the law’s impact on crime and safety. For now it remains an open question as to how much safer California’s citizens are as a result of Three Strikes.
That ankle bracelet thing works great! Just let ’em all out.
Court didn’t know of ankle bracelet break for 12 hours
In reviewing the graph presented by Celeste, the solution becomes obvious. Law enforcement needs to arrest younger criminals.
C’mon Joe, give Hiroshi a break. Are you and the Don back to being ol pals again? The old gas bag is still crying the same song…everybody is a racist.
From Don Q :
I’m wondering how the blithering, lying, greedy, right wing nuts will attack the plan.
Will it be fear tactic’s, aka the old “Willie Horton†ploy? Will it be racism disguised as protecting the people of California?
To #15: Hey can’t you push back 20″ from your screen and scan for cliches? If the comment makes you wince you don’t read it. I do that now with the poster you mention, same for some others. I’m sure you do the same when I get repetitious. It’s the nature of the game, the knack we develop. Woody said it best: “too many words”. A great by-product of this forum is the right to dissent, and do it freely. My gripe with Hiroshi is he was getting plum freakin monotonous and I called him on it. Most probably I saved Celeste from having to issue another sigh and admonishment. I don’t always agree with every or anybody’s stance here, but it’s a good mix. So bring it on, but keep it fresh.
Great assessment of the downside of lock-em-up legislation. For the past twenty-plus years our country has taken an ostrich view of crime. We want someone to address growth in lawlessness and criminal behavior. Legislators respond with the most simple legal answer for a set of complex social problems.
But, I wanted to comment on your observations about the growing population of old and sick inmates. I am retired and was formerly the director of a monitoring agency in Florida. We were responsible for overseeing Florida’s prison health care system, reporting our findings and recommendations to the Dept of Corrections, the Legislature and the Governor. Our primary task was to help keep the system out of the Federal courts, as it had been before our agency’s creation for over 20 years.
We had some success in helping the Dept of Corrections identify cost-containment strategies for their health care system and processes. However, all parties learned that after a few years of good effort, the easy savings were done. Once an agency has pared costs as much as possible there’s not much they can do to continue to lower expenses. This is especially problematic when the Legislature’s continue to expand and enhance prison commitments.
One recommendation I offered to the Governor’s office and the Dept of Corrections was establishing a medical parole process. That proposal was not acted upon. However, I’m sure someone will resurrect it in a similar form before long as a cost containment strategy. Money drives the system; everytime, everywhere.
You referenced several states that have initiated this type program. It is common knowledge that criminal behavior tends to decrease as criminals age. Targeting old and sick inmates for a medical parole is certainly a viable method of diminishing health care costs for the prison system. Medical parole could be designed to apply only to inmates in need of nursing home type care. This would move the cost of their nursing home care, hospital stays, doctor’s appointments, etc. under the state Medicaid program. In addition to drawing Federal funding for the health care services, the state is providing the care outside the expensive security setting of prisons.
Of course, careful screening would be a requirement for eligibility in any such program. But, know that there is a huge and growing population that meets such guidelines in almost every state’s prison system. We are foolish to ignore such a logical response to this ever increasing drag on our states’ economies.
Good luck in your efforts.
If someone wants to avoid jail time for a crime, they should first become a good college football player. The athletic department will be sure that the crime is swept under the rug. At worse, they may be suspended for the first quarter of a game.
Joe take your own advice and push back 20″ when Hiroshi comments. Quit trying to get in Celeste chonies and let her moderate her own blog.
“For now it remains an open question as to how much safer California’s citizens are as a result of Three Strikes”.
Only in the minds of people like you Mavis because the facts about the effectiveness of 3 Strikes are clear. People who are soft on crime can explain anything away and try to deflect the truth all they want, but the stats over the past 15 years tell the story.
#19 Thank you, may I have another.
Surefire, I don’t know how I can make clear to you that I’m quoting from the California Legistlative Office and not just offering my own opinion. It’s not just “people like me” who have doubts. It’s experts who have studied and tried to come to an unbiased conclusion. You are welcome to disagree, but I think you need to stop treating the opposing view like it was conjured out of thin air.
“I’m someone who thinks monetary concerns should always come secondary to public safety,” says Sure Fire above, even as he’s accused me earlier (the Gov Goes to Prisons thread, 8/19, where I just replied belatedly) of being a “foaming at the mouth liberal” (hardly) who just loves criminals too much to understand that this prison crisis is “a budget thing.”
Say what? Sure Fire advocates here, there, everywhere (like that earlier thread) for paying the Prison Guards union and the LAPPL anything they want (even as the PPL opposes adding the cops we need to pay for it), because to consider “monetary concerns” — i.e. being too broke to pay for schools, health clinics and other vital services — would mean being “soft on public safety.” (An argument that works too well even with those who should know better like Alan Mittelstaedt when used by the LAFD.) Frankly, this sounds like an argument that only someone who wants to keep as many people incarcerted as possible to create jobs for prison guards could make.
I like the simple quote Celeste uses, that we need to revise sentencing and parole guidelines “to balance public safety with the budget.” That’s the crux of it — and more humanity and returning the power of individual judgment to judges would be a welcome byproduct. (Like taking another look at someone whose third strike was petty shoplifting.)
This does NOT mean “soft on real criminals” at all. It means taking a look at the person’s WHOLE criminal record and in the case of someone like Samuels who killed Lily Burke (“allegedly” except he’s on video), he could have still been in jail if not for “clerical errors” and booking him only based on his last crime, a misdemeanor. (That was a Republican Steve Cooley decision, not some “liberal criminal lover” one.) But if you take a seriously ill older sick inmate who’s an unlikely repeat offender and is costing almost $150K/ year in jail, and parole him to where Medicare and the feds can pick up the bill (good information, Celeste), it’s win-win all around.
I didn’t say to pay anyone anything they wanted, I said this, “Far as I’m concerned every penny was deserved just like many of you are ok with the countless millions given to ridiculous gang intervention programs that don’t work”.
Why do you have to spin my words, you pointed out where to find them didn’t you?
The first priority should be funding public safety, always, and education should follow closely behind. You claimed the following as well “Sure Fire (@#14) makes even less sense this time around and repeating allegations that PPL endorses liberals is nonsense”. That list I posted seemed to be full of liberals endorsed by PORAC and where it’s obvious you have a hard on for the PPL, they are not the biggest, or most sought after endorsement state officials look for.
After public safety and educational needs is when we need to think about funding others, not ever before and if you feel differently that’s ok with me. But as I recall up until last year we were handing out over 50 billion in entitlements in our state. That’s 50 billion plus to be cut from. The Democrats got us into this mess and cuts should be made to allow for the funding of what I’ve said should be our top two priorites.
Should we go broke funding law enforcement, nope, but I don’t think law enforcement should take the hit or educators when one group deals daily with the garbage of our society at personal risk and the other group is tasked with educating the young. Releasing countless prisoners will result in more Lily burk’s and that will be awful.
Your posting is pathetic, like Cooley was responsible for the clerical error, what petty bs to throw into a debate. Releasing people just because there old and maybe ill makes me believe you were ok with Scotland releasing the mass murderer from Libya who is lapping it up at home now.
All you post is weak on crime ideas, maybe that’s ok for you and soft hearted friends, not for me.
^^^ And we hold that truth to be self evident.
“But as I recall up until last year we were handing out over 50 billion in entitlements in our state. That’s 50 billion plus to be cut from.”
Do you not know the difference between the federal budget and the state budget?
I’m pretty sure I do Mavis. Are you under the impression the federal budget would only be giving out 50 billion in entitlements a year? The below is from 5 years back. Think the spending might be greater now? Get a grip Mavis.
NBC News
updated 1:15 p.m. MT, Tues., Dec . 27, 2005
WASHINGTON – Three growing entitlement programs consumed nearly half of all federal spending in 2004, and budget analysts expect them to make up an even bigger share in the future.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for more than $1 trillion in the 2004 budget year, according to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.
Overall federal spending was $2.2 trillion, an increase of 5 percent from 2003.
“The total federal spending increase is actually down a bit from recent years,†said Gerard Keffer, chief of the Census Bureau’s federal programs branch. “It had been running 6 to 8 percent in the past several years.â€
For years, Washington has been fighting over how to manage the growth of entitlement programs. Analysts think the fight will continue for years to come.
“I think it’s absolutely essential and inevitable that we are going to reform those programs,†said Rudolph Penner, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a social issues research organization. “How, is another question. There’s very little interest, now.â€
Fight over Social Security
President Bush has pushed to overhaul Social Security and establish private accounts, but Congress has balked.
Critics argue that private accounts would do nothing to slow the growth of Social Security spending — unless benefits are cut, a politically unpopular option.
Spending on Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly, is set to increase with the introduction of a drug benefit in January.
state-by-state Federal spending
State or area Total spending (millions) Total per capita spending (dollars)
United States 2,162,204 7,222.62
Ala. 39,047 8,619.41
Alaska 8,445 12,885.17
Ariz. 41,979 7,308.59
Ark. 19,489 7,080.08
Calif. 232,387 6,474.30
Colo. 30,060 6,532.86
Conn. 30,304 8,649.37
Del. 5,253 6,326.32
D.C. 37,630 67,982.10
Fla. 121,934 7,008.82
Ga. 55,153 6,246.52
Hawaii 12,187 9,650.53
Idaho 8,968 6,436.84
Ill. 76,828 6,042.99
Ind. 37,918 6,079.04
Iowa 19,473 6,591.21
Kan. 19,131 6,993.48
Ky. 31,714 7,649.33
La. 32,954 7,297.55
Maine 10,865 8,247.88
Md. 64,726 11,645.42
Mass. 53,120 8,278.72
Mich. 60,488 5,981.49
Minn. 28,791 5,644.18
Miss. 22,338 7,694.78
Mo. 45,730 7,946.69
Mont. 7,4948,084.85 undefined
Neb. 11,795 6,750.65
Nev. 12,769 5,469.24
N.H. 7,959 6,124.29
N.J. 55,264 6,353.04
N.M. 19,864 10,436.65
N.Y. 143,903 7,484.37
N.C. 55,233 6,466.69
N.D. 6,035 9,513.12
Ohio 73,195 6,387.57
Okla. 26,644 7,561.66
Ore. 21,871 6,084.40
Pa. 94,900 7,649.36
R.I. 8,245 7,629.99
S.C. 30,051 7,158.33
S.D. 6,602 8,563.86
Tenn. 45,441 7,700.53
Texas 141,858 6,307.62
Utah 13,684 5,727.67
Vt. 4,633 7,455.71
Va. 90,638 12,150.14
Wash. 44,841 7,227.98
W.Va. 15,183 8,363.93
Wis. 31,554 5,727.67
Wyo. 4,393 8,673.36
American Samoa 262 4,528.28
Fed. States of Micronesia 103 953.91
Guam 1,249 7,637.43
Marshall Islands 218 3,859.87
Northern Marianas 213 2,800.61
Palau 51 2,566.87
Puerto Rico 15,479 3,990.84
Virgin Islands 592 5,438.14
Undistributed 23,075 0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau • Print this
The federal government estimates it will spend about $724 billion over 10 years to provide the Medicare drug benefit.
Other factors contributing to spending increases include an aging population and soaring health care costs, Penner said. The oldest baby boomers will start turning 60 in January, and once they start qualifying for Social Security benefits, costs will grow at an even faster pace.
Penner said increased spending on entitlement programs eventually will mean less money for other programs and increased pressure to raise taxes.
“I think they’re going to squeeze out all sorts of other spending items,†said Penner, former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
The Census Bureau compiles the federal spending report each year with information from about 50 federal agencies, Keffer said. One purpose is to show how much federal money goes to each state.
Classified dollars
The report excludes spending on foreign aid, international affairs and interest payments on the national debt, a total of about $200 billion in 2004, because those items do not go to individual states, Keffer said.
It also does not specify spending for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency because those budgets are classified, Keffer said.
Among the report’s findings:
* One third of all federal spending went to five states in 2004: California; New York; Texas; Florida; and Pennsylvania.
* California led all states with $232 billion.
* Wyoming received the least money, $4.4 billion.
* Alaska received only $8.4 billion. But with its relatively small population, it led the nation in per capita federal spending, at $12,885 a person.
* Nevada received the lowest per capita amount, $5,469 a person.
* Defense Department spending was highest in California, Virginia, Texas, Florida and Maryland.
Sigh. This is still federal spending. It’s just federal spending as allocated to each state. California’s governor and legislature don’t have control over this money or the taxes that gather it.
I don’t think we should need to argue about this. It’s a pretty basic fact.
You asked if I knew the difference between the state and federal budget because as a whiney liberal you can’t take a conservatives word for something. I posted some numbers because you’re question was simply stupid. Do you people think you’re the only ones who have college educations and know how to research and base a position on more than one factor?
Arrogant liberals make me sick.