As UC Berkeley students enjoyed their winter breaks, they may have noticed in their inboxes a curious e-mail from Chancellor Robert Birgeneau. Most probably deleted it without reading. A shame — it was more delightful political analysis from the man who, in a previous mass e-mail, warned that faculty would flee to Massachusetts if Proposition 8 passed.

In this e-mail, our Canadian friend expressed support for Governor Arnold Schwarzengger’s proposal to amend the state constitution to change the way money is budgeted for higher education. Knowing how we are supposed to feel, Birgeneau writes, “I am sure that you are as uplifted and encouraged as I am by this very positive outcome.”

Although there has been no “outcome” so far, there is little about which to be uplifted or encouraged in these recent developments. Governor Schwarzenegger was elected on a promise to be different than the Sacramento politicians who have systematically created the mess, fiscal and otherwise, this great state finds itself in. As he completes his stay in office, a stay that was once so promising in the hope for reform it offered, it is a sad irony that he would propose a constitutional amendment that would amount to exactly the same type of autopilot spending mandates he once opposed so vehemently.

According to comments made to The New York Times by the governor’s chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, “[t]hose protests on the U.C. campuses were the tipping point” that prompted the governor to propose the constitutional amendment in question. Apparently, Republican leaders no longer stand up to violent mobs of disaffected students who occupy buildings and throw torches at the houses of administrative figures. These leftist radicals, toting scarlet armbands as though they’re in Mao’s Red Guards, evidently achieved their objective — rather than confronting extremists as Governor Reagan once did, Mr. Schwarzenegger seems content to give them what they demand. A solid precedent he sets. Can we say girlie man?

Taking at face value the left-wing slogan “schools not prisons,” Mr. Schwarzenegger asks Californians to enshrine in the Constitution his plan that no more than 7% of the state’s General Fund be devoted to prison spending, while at least 10% be committed to the University of California and the California State University systems. Now, it does not appear that the figures are based on any pedagogical or criminological information, but let us not worry about such trivialities. There is a legacy to be made!

Currently, the state spends 5.9% of its general fund on the two university systems, while spending 9.7% on the prison system. Admittedly, it is viscerally disturbing that we spend more money on coddling criminals than on educating the youth. But rarely is the issue that clear-cut. Governor Schwarzenegger is correct in claiming that we spend tens of thousands of dollars more per prisoner than comparable states, and that this can be alleviated in part by contracting out prison operations. Studies have shown that a “private option” limits prison spending. Reforms of overreaching criminal law, as well as alternative sentencing, could also reduce the need for such large prison capacity. But the governor is delusional if he genuinely believes his proposal is a panacea to education spending reductions. Unlike other states where prisons operations have been contracted to private companies, California is a state where unions retain tremendous power, and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, one of the most powerful unions, will surely stop any attempt to break their monopolistic stranglehold on the multi-billion prison industry.

Even if by some miracle it was made possible to introduce competition into corrections, California’s activist judiciary would still mandate incredibly high standards of care for inmates. J. Clark Kelso, a court-appointed receiver for the prison health-care system, infamously demanded the state spend $8 billion on a gold-plated hospital plan that would allow inmates to enjoy yoga and art therapy, a hospital plan that would go beyond what is offered by almost any private insurance. Until the power of the judiciary to pervert the law to mandate unreasonable spending on the comfort of inmates, massive reductions in prison spending are unlikely.

This all means that under Mr. Schwarzenegger’s plan, so trumpeted by the administration of the UC, spending by the state on university systems will need to be increased significantly. Prison spending is unlikely to be reduced much, so such a plan would not be cost-neutral—rather, it would equal an overall ballooning of spending. If we assume prison spending remains constant, to meet the 7%-10% ratio mandated by the constitutional amendment, the state would be required to increase its spending on the UC and CSU systems by approximately 242%. More spending — isn’t that what got the state into the mess in the first place? And can we expect a 242% increase in the quality or quantity of public education? History suggests not.

Fundamentally, the issue with the proposal at hand is that it is an ‘autopilot’ formula. Spending mandates like this one virtually ignore the realities of revenue, limiting the ability of the legislature to cut services as appropriate to a particular economic environment. Mr. Schwarzengger once railed against these formulas, denouncing them for what they were. He even proposed a landmark constitutional amendment, Proposition 76, to limit the deleterious effects of these mandates. But its defeat at the hand of the teachers’ union seems to have destroyed his commitment to financial responsibility.

California already has a gamut of autopilot spending mandates. Introducing more will further destroy the state’s fiscal solvency and almost necessitate tax increases, the last thing needed as California attempts to revitalize its economy. Rather, Californians must demand fiscal responsibility from their state legislators.

The University of California is a jewel, fueling the state’s economy with its teaching mission and ground-breaking research. It is among the prime assets of this beautiful state. But trying to avoid economic realities that call for sources of funding other than the taxpayer, including tuition increases, is not the way to maintain its premier status. Rather, it is a recipe for disaster for both the state and the university itself.

Popularity: 25%