In his final State of the State address on Jan. 6, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed a constitutional amendment prioritizing more spending on higher education than on prisons.
Currently, the state spends 11 percent of its general fund on prisons and 7.5 percent on higher education. The proposal the governor outlined would cap prison spending at 7 percent and set a minimum of 10 percent for higher education, specifically for the University of California and California State University systems.
This board commends the governor for his albeit long-overdue regard for California’s crumbling higher education system and his attempt to reconcile the nearly $1 billion decrease in spending for the UCs and CSUs since he took office in late 2003. However, we must question the timeliness of the proposal and the reasoning and repercussions behind arbitrary caps on spending.
The speech came at the sobering realization that California must close a $19.9 billion budget gap. Unfortunately, deep cuts across the board in all areas are required to close such a gaping deficit. Given that stark reality, it seems logical to appeal to pathos by offering the comparison between spending on prisons and higher education. However, the comparison serves as an oversimplification of the larger problem. It creates a false dichotomy that presumes that spending on either area can easily be transferred between one another without reverberations.
If it were as simple as shifting spending from prisons to higher education, this board cannot help but cast aspersions on the governor’s allowance of a nearly 6 percent, or $5 billion, divergence in spending in the two areas in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Given that, historically, California’s priority has been overwhelmingly in favor of education, the divergence between spending in the two areas has not followed accordingly in recent years. Nearly 30 years ago, UC and CSU spending topped 13 percent while corrections spending was below four percent.
As Gov. Schwarzenegger approaches the end of his term, this board doubts his willingness to push the legislation. With his political capital waning, we question whether he will put in the necessary time to promote the proposal while concurrently battling the powerful prison guard union, which will invariably contest the privatization of prisons. If the administration fails to win passage of the amendment, it will be placed on the ballot as an initiative that will require a two-thirds majority to pass.
Understandably, no head of state wants his legacy to be that of dismantling one of the world’s premier public university systems. Gov. Schwarzenegger has been inconsistent toward education at best and negligent at worst. The bottom line is that there are serious systemic problems that California needs to rectify and that the governor points to a positive direction in getting the state to re-examine and shift its priorities to uphold and sustain our quality of education.
This board hopes that our legislators will be judicious in reviewing the proposal instead of blindly accepting it.