Crime rates correlate with economic and demographic circumstances more clearly than they correlate with raw numbers of law enforcement officers on duty. The Clinton grants funded a lot of make-work positions but didn't do much to reduce crime. And drug task forces may lead to more drug arrests, but there's never a shortage of new drug dealers to take over for those who get busted. It's a mistake to think that more arrests necessarily equals less crime.

Certainly a strong argument can be made for funding crime prevention programs (such as drug treatment, job training, and reintegration programs for released offenders), but preparing individuals for the labor force will help the economy only if there are jobs available for the ex-offenders. Of course, any job creation has some stimulative effect -- whether jobs are created for police officers or drug counselors -- and crime has an economic cost that is anti-stimulative. But as the editorial notes, "the limited number of new law enforcement jobs would pale compared to those created for building roads, bridges and other public works projects." Moreover, the nation benefits from safe bridges more than it benefits from incarcerating drug dealers.

Job creation isn't a smart rationale for funding crime prevention grants in the stimulus bill. Congress should instead consider a bill that focuses more specifically and comprehensively on crime prevention. The relative need (or lack thereof) for more police officers, more prisons, more after-school programs, more job training, and more drug treatment centers deserves more carefully considered debate than it can receive when packaged as part of the stimulus bill.