I'm not sure on this, so I might be wrong, but it might be due to the lack of funds going to prison.
Perhaps. Although, the Bureau of Prisons budget has steadily increased over the last couple decades according to my GAO evidence. This is in part due to shifting national priorities toward defense spending, and the ever-present drug war.
They get more funds by prisoners working on things like construction projects so the prisons get more funds by selling the houses they create.
So the Bureau of Prisons will reap funding from the construction work instead of the profit being subsumed by the government coffers? It doesn't seem like the project will be worth much if the funds are only distributed to the BOP. Throwing a lot of money at something is not automatically going to make it better. If you want proof, consider the fact that over 70 million dollars was spent on the creation of Jack and Jill (2). After watching the film, if you don't immediately desire to hurl yourself in front of a stampede of elephants, then perhaps you have no soul. Hell, I might even prefer slave labor to watching the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard in movie form for what feels like 3 and a quarter eternities.
But in all seriousness, onerous parole conditions, hefty legal fees, systemic racism, and mistreatment of the mentally ill pervades the legal system along with the previously mentioned faulty prison infrastructure. No matter how much funding we get from selling houses, these social ailments will probably never be solved without significant focus on the issues of prisoner well-being in the US. If prisons are struggling to pay for adequate staff, it is reasonable to suggest that they could fix their infrastructure dilemma without a heavy dose of government subsidies? I think not.
What is a backlog?
In this context, it is the accumulation of incomplete work. The repairs on prison infrastructure from years ago have not been completed or started, and as the prisons become decrepit with age, violent outbreaks due to vile prison conditions proliferate. We need money to fix this problem, not add money to the budget.
The inmates, especially if they are rapists, arsoners, kidnappers, murderers, or people who commit high treason don't deserve good treatment. Otherwise, jail wouldn't be much of a punishment. Staff members I think already have good treatment, although I might be wrong. The aim of my idea is to keep prisons a state owned endeavor that pays for itself and pays the government for the crimes the criminals commit.
A couple things. First off, hiring enough guards to watch over rapists, murderers, kidnappers etc. would exhaust prison budgets, causing revenue to plummet regardless of the sold product. There are hundreds of thousands of people convicted of violent crime in prison (1). How would we be able to monitor the supposedly dangerous people in these prisons from hurting their fellow inmates or themselves?
Regardless, given the previously mentioned constitutional test, this plan stands on shaky legal ground at best.
Since I have space left, I wanted to address a previous argument that you made in a different thread because it is tenuously linked to this one. Specifically, the Eugenics plan would sterilize 15% of Americans. Even if you implemented this plan "slowly," there would be a definite decline in population as a result. I mean, you even mention the possibility of sterilizing more people after the initial 15% of Americans, so I doubt that the results would take a long time to manifest anyway. Sans an explanation as to why rich people will suddenly f*** like bunnies, I can't see this tax plan working in the long term. If the population decreased, then there would be less people consuming alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc. Sin taxes would not provide enough revenue if there were no people willing to buy the products. Sure, one could make the argument that we would need less tax revenue because of the declining population. However, if the point of this new tax plan and eugenics plan is to bolster economic growth, then it is doing the opposite of what you intend as GDP constricts and productivity declines.
You might have missed it, so look at posts 144 and 145 for my full response.
In brief, I don't think Alec's Seriously Troubling Action Plan (ASTAP) will work as intended.