Benjamin Meade
English 2
Stacy Knapp
7 October 2012
Cutting Corners on Education
It's hard to imagine California as an under-educated state.
Some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the entire world
are located in this state. That high standard of education has led to
the growth of Silicon Valley, and other economic juggernauts located in
California, as they may be content in the knowledge that California will
continue to produce a skilled labor class, capable of supporting
industry. But unsustainable spending, funded by irresponsible borrowing
has led to fiscal insolvency. California spends more than it makes
through taxes and federal subsidies, and the financial crisis of 2008
has revealed skeletons in our closet. Some believe in raising revenue
and others believe in reducing spending. Ultimately, the quality of
education in California's public schools is what's at stake in regards
to Proposition 30. Most of the rhetoric available concerning Proposition
30 in the media presents a pluralistic point of view. I suggest
Proposition 30 is a band-aid, and it only temporarily stops the
bleeding. Proposition 30 is a good start, but it's not good enough, and
if it passes, we as a state will have this argument again.
In
response to California's budgetary crisis, Governor Jerry Brown has
introduced Proposition 30, an amendment to the California constitution,
which raises taxes for education and public safety to balance the
budget. Advocates of Proposition 30 say raising taxes is the only way to
sustain California's educational responsibilities. The state has
already cut funding for other programs deeply, and argues no other
budget cuts are realistic. That seems logical as the sum expenditure on
K-12 and higher education equals close to 53% of California's spending
from the general fund, according to the May revision to California's
fiscal year 2012-2013 budget. This information is available at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf .
It seems reasonable to presume that any new cuts would need to occur in
the largest portion of the state government's budget, namely,
education.
One
problem with Proposition 30 is that it is projected to bring in revenue
just above what would have been cut by automatic trigger cuts which
will occur January 1, 2013 if Proposition 30 does not pass. That means
that Proposition 30 raises estimated revenue only proportional to the
deficit to be cut on January 1. Other government agencies are funded
proportional to need rather than our cash on hand approach. The US
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is one such agency. The VA funds
disability and other veteran's benefits proportional to the number of
service members in need. As president of the Veterans of Cabrillo
College, I have first-hand experience with filing claims with the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Administrative costs are subject to
executive discretion, but the benefits to be paid out by service members
are projected and funded accordingly. In essence, Proposition 30
prevents degradation to our current system, but it is not forward-looking.
We should project our schools'
needs, and then fund them according to need. The official title and
summary of Proposition 30 states, “In many years, the calculation of the
minimum guarantee is highly sensitive to changes in state General Fund
revenues. In years when General Fund revenues grow by a large amount,
the guarantee is likely to increase by a large amount. A large share of
the state and local funding that is allocated to schools and community
colleges is 'unrestricted,' meaning that they may use the funds for any
educational purpose.” Doesn't it seem likely that in the event more
revenue is generated than needed, it could be spent unnecessarily simply
because funds were available? We should consider funding on a cost per
student basis.
Additionally,
Proposition 30 distributes money for public health and safety services
to local governments due to realignment. Programs like substance abuse
rehabilitation, law enforcement and prisons are some of the programs
included. According to the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30,
figure three, about 99 million dollars is allocated to prevent spending
reductions in public safety programs like those stated above. So, what
do city police grants and prisons have to do with public education? I
propose these are separate issues and need to be legislated separately.
Maybe we should spend that extra money educating our citizens, rather
than policing them. The public safety provisions within Proposition 30
also weaken it to opposition attack. This endangers the proposition for
those voters who respect the cost of a good education, and are willing
to pay for it.
Another
problem with Proposition 30 is the nature by which revenue is
collected. Proposition 30 raises taxes uniformly in a sales tax increase
of ¼ of a cent for all sales, but raises income tax on earners above
250 thousand or 500 thousand for those filing jointly by 1-3%. Opponents
of Proposition 30 abjure the disproportional nature of the taxes.
Families earning more than half a million dollars per year can afford to
pay private school tuition, and aren't dependent on public schooling.
In effect, wealthier families are charged to pay for middle and lower
income families' education. Opponents could call this type of tax a
redistribution of wealth. If Proposition 30 is seen as a redistribution
of wealth, we risk alienating those whose support is most needed in a
time of fiscal insolvency, the wealthy. This makes Proposition 30 less resilient to
opposition attack. Taxing only the super wealthy seems political and it
fuels the opposition's fire. Shouldn't all of us pay our fair share of
taxes?
As
a California community college student, my major, astronomy, is in
jeopardy at Cabrillo. I look at our sporting facilities, the new gym and
the Visual and Performance Art complex and I'm reminded of what's
important to our community. Mathematics is still taught on chalkboards,
while I see pianos in almost every classroom in the music hall. I think
it's great to fund the study of the arts, but it reminds me that my
major has a one person department, and it seems likely to be one of the
first programs cut. I will vote yes for Proposition 30, in lieu of a
better amendment. If we allow our system of public education erode, we
disallow upward mobility for lower and middle class families. Our youth
will inherit a caste system in which lower income families can not
elevate their standing through education. But we should be aware that
Proposition 30 does not go far enough to make California competitive as
it used to be. Proposition 30 is also vulnerable, and its passage is a
big maybe. We need a durable amendment that can withstand partisanship.
That means taxation proportional to income, and funding proportional to
need. We also need to legislate purposefully, and respond to unique
budgetary concerns with unique legislation. We can't lump in all of our
potential cuts and make meaningful decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment