The Legislative Analyst’s Office has given thumbs down to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s idea of a constitutional amendment to permanently reverse prison and unversity spending – and did so with strong language. The proposal is “an unnecessary, ill–conceived measure that would do serious harm to the budget process,” the LAO concluded.

A University of California vice president immediately criticized the LAO report, while mischaracterizing it as an endorsement of fee increases in lieu  of state support.

Schwarzenegger is proposing that the state spend no less than 10 percent of its general budget on universities, and no more than 7 percent on prisons, starting in 2014-15. That would be the opposite of what it is now and reverse a misguided trend of a quarter century. In 1985, before a string of harsh sentencing laws and fat pay raises and benefits for prison guards, UC and CSU systems received 11 percent of the state budget, and prisons only 5 percent. In the current budget,  prisons get $8.1 billion and universities $4.9 billion. The excludes student fees, which have largely offset the decline in funding and are going up 32 percent at UC campuses over the next year .

Schwarzenegger’s priorities may be right, but the means – arbitrarily locking in a formula for prison and university spending – would limit spending options for half of the state budget not already covered by mandates, the LAO said. It’s also unnecessary, since governors and legislators can always decide to limit spending on prisons. That they haven’t is their bad decision, though it also is a consequence of requiring a two-thirds majority to pass a budget.  Republicans generally have fought cuts in prison spending.

The LAO has encouraged the Legislature to set goals for higher education and outcomes for higher education spending. Not only would a constitutional amendment not do that, but it would leave out community colleges, which are funded, along with K-12 schools, by Proposition 98. Instead of integrating the systems, a constitutional amendment could end up pitting one system against the other in a battle for money.

Having been on the short end for so long, it’s no surprise that UC and CSU would cheer on the governor.  UC Vic President Patrick Lenz  got it right in characterizing “the Sacramento approach to higher education over the past two decades: stick students and their parents with what essentially is a user’s tax in order to compensate for a declining commitment to higher education.” It’s incorrect to imply that the LAO agrees with that approach.

A constitutional amendment, put into effect long after Schwarzenegger has vacated his office, would just slap on one more patch over a broken system.

By John Fensterwald on January 26th, 2010