McDonald suggests that a citizenry or lawmaking body enlightened by data on the 'real costs' of corrections would more rationally decide sentencing and correctional policies. However, as any successful marketing person knows, consumers do not mind paying the price so long as they feel cost and value are proportionate. This is not to suggest that accurate, systematic, and comprehensive correctional cost analyses are not needed. However, this proposal has potential dangers: prior Federal effort to develop consistent reporting methodologies have been ineffective, the introduction of sophisticated accounting methods may contribute to increased costs, and data from cost analyses can be manipulated to achieve desired policy goals. In addition, presenting data on the 'costs of corrections' may produce emotional reactions that result in having existing resources targeted for elimination. Further, even proven cost-effectiveness, as in the case of intensive supervision programs, does not necessarily lead to more rational allocation of resources. Finally, McDonald might have considered a number of additional hidden correctional costs, such as those resulting from State/local differences between jurisdictions, standards, litigative atmosphere, revenues, transportation costs, and intangible cost savings. While a national reporting system on correctional costs has merit, what is missing in McDonald's discussion is a consideration of proportionate cost -- and proportionate value of corrections.