Facing a projected $4 billion budget deficit, Gov.-elect Tom Corbett has both challenges and opportunities. He arrives in Harrisburg riding a nationwide wave of taxpayer frustration over the cost — and effectiveness — of government. Corbett and other newly installed governors across the nation are promising to tackle skyrocketing state government spending as well as the necessity and efficacy of that spending.

A recent editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer offered four suggestions for how Corbett could plug the state’s budget deficit: raise money from Marcellus Shale gas drilling with a reasonable gas extraction fee, close corporate tax loopholes, and press for a reduction in the size and cost of the state Legislature, which is the largest and most costly in the country.

The fourth money-saving suggestion targeted the state prison system, where annual costs are $2 billion, or about 7 percent of the state budget — which the Inquirer rightly said was too high.

In particular, it has been noted that mandatory minimum sentences result in more and more people locked up in prisons at tremendous cost. It costs between $40,000 and $50,000 a year to keep a person in prison.

The Inquirer suggested Corbett’s law enforcement background would give him credibility — and insulate him from criticism that he is soft on crime — to propose a rethinking of sentencing and encourage alternatives to incarceration that are both more effective and less costly to taxpayers.

This practical examination of the “get tough on crime” mindset as well as the ongoing “war on drugs” is long overdue across the entire country.

The United States arrests about 1.5 million people a year for drug offenses, putting about 1 million of them in prison. The incarceration rate in the United States has quadrupled since 1970, growing far faster than the rate of increase in any other nation.

Being tough on crime might make some people feel good, but is it working? Is the money spent a good investment, particularly when it comes to nonviolent offenders?

In the 1980s and ’90s, the public was upset with stories of repeat offenders getting a slap on the wrist and then committing more crimes. That position led to a “three strikes and your out” mentality — put lawbreakers in prison for a long time, which has been costing taxpayers dearly. And governors in many states will doubtless be taking a hard look at making changes — partly for reasons of compassion, but more often for reasons of busted budgets and ineffective, wasteful spending.

Few taxpayers realize that the policies reflected by “get tough on crime” — and “three strikes” in particular — were supported by unions representing prison guards. For them, it was not about public safety; it was about money, more union members and more political power.

But there is growing consensus that the tough-on-crime approach is not working — and also is unaffordable.

And the questions are not just coming from the liberal side of the political spectrum. Last month, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said on his “700 Club” television program that criminalizing minor drug offenses is “costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people.”

He also suggested that mandatory sentencing and appearing tough on crime are little more than strategies to win elections.

Corbett’s background as a prosecutor should insulate him from charges of being soft on crime. He should target this issue and present an honest appraisal of the state’s criminal justice and prison systems — to reveal what works, what doesn’t work and how much the massive prison population is costing taxpayers. He also should propose alternatives for nonviolent offenders — programs that are more effective at reducing recidivism and less costly.

Gov. Rick Scott of Florida has vowed to reform that state’s prison system to make it more effective and less costly. New governors in California, New York and elsewhere will likely follow suit.

Corbett is positioned well to lead a criminal justice and corrections reform effort, possibly saving state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.