Dan Walters is out with a column arguing that our schools have plenty of money already.  He describes the education community and Democratic legislators as “howling” about Schwarzenegger’s proposed bugdet, which slashes education spending and has already resulted in 20,000 education professionals getting pick slips.

Naturally, the Republicans are attempting to claim that we are already spending too much on school administration costs and education reforms.  They point to California’s poor scores on standardized tests as a reason to cut school funding even more.  Somehow logic seems to be eluding them.

Walters bases his column on numbers released by the Census Bureau, based on what he calls “hard numbers”, but when you dig into them, they actually undermine Walter’s argument.  (check the flip)

The Census Bureau report strongly refutes the oft-cited “fact” that California is near the bottom in per-pupil school spending. The national average was $9,138 in 2005-06. California was at $8,486, with New York the highest at $14,884 and Utah the lowest at $5,437 – one of 22 states, in fact, that fell below California’s level.

In terms of school revenues, California was 25th among the states at $10,264 per pupil, just under the national average. It was above average in per-pupil income from federal and state sources and about $1,700 per pupil below average in local revenues, thanks to Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax limit measure.

Walters is arguing that below average is just peachy.  Keep in mind that these figures are not adjusted for cost of living, just straight expenditures.  The Education Coalition naturally has a few things to say about these numbers and points out a few details that Walters conveniently skipped over.  This is from a press release I received via email, sorry no link.

The Census Bureau numbers show that California still spends $652 less per student than the national average, even though their figures on “student spending” include funds from outside the state that never make it into the classroom, which arguably inflate the figures.  The Census Bureau estimates lump in payments made into the state retirement system, as well as federal funding beyond what the state spends. But even including those calculations, California’s significantly below-average spending on students is abysmal. By comparison, the non-partisan national publication Education Week issued a report showing that California spends $1,900 less than the national average, because it only includes the actual funds spent by each state on each student.

Back to the cost of living discussion….even though we have extremely high costs, housing in particular, our teachers are still paid below the national average on a per pupil basis: $3,479 in California – compared to the national average of $3,811.

More from the Education Coalition:

The report also shows that California ranks 49th out of 51 states in the amount of funds spent on “general administration,” which includes spending on the Board of Education and Executive Administrative Services, including the office of the Superintendent.

Those figures directly undercuts the arguments of the Republicans about our school administration.

California also ranks dead last in funds spent on transportation services, according the Census Bureau.  This is a budget item that many school districts are having to cut even further with the proposed $4.8 billion in funding cuts, making it even more difficult for students in both rural and urban areas to get to school.

Remember the heralded studies that the governor put together in advance of his “year of education”, guess what they said about education spending?  We need more investment in our students and our classrooms not less.

The legislature needs to hold the line on the budget.  We cannot afford not to invest in our future.

Jon Coupal is the head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and by the way, seems to be managing the Yes on 98 campaign. Coupal isn’t much a fan of government. In his world, we’d all fend for ourself in a state of constant battle with nature and our neighbors.

In recent weeks, Gov. Schwarzenegger, legislative leaders and the Legislative Analyst’s Office have called for eliminating what they term “tax loopholes” to help close California’s staggering $16 billion budget deficit.

But one person’s loophole is another person’s legitimate advancement of public policy. This is especially true with those tax credits or deductions that are both broad-based – benefiting large segments of society – and which result in a significant societal benefit.(OC Register 4/2/08)

He then goes on to talk about the home mortgage deduction, and how that’s terrific! If the evil Democrats succeed in eliminating it, surely every house in California will fall into foreclosure.

Uh-huh. There are a few problems with this, specifically that the Legislature isn’t trying to end the home mortgage deduction. There’s a name for this type of argument, ah, yes, it’s called lying. You could call it a red herring, or what ever you want, but, it’s just a lie. The tax loopholes the legislature is trying to close are not as big as the mortgage deduction. Like the yacht tax loophole. Apparently, Coupal is against closing that, but what policy purpose does that encourage? Ah yes, it encourages the time-tested state policy of moving business to Nevada.  A great one, there, Mr. Coupal.

Jon Coupal is comfortable with lying, though. Like when he says that Prop 98 won’t end rent control, it will merely phase it out. (Disclosure: I do some web work for No on 98.) Too bad he fails to mention that Prop 98 also ends tenant protections that block unfair evictions. So, sure tenants keep their rent control, until they get evicted, that is.

Coupal just continues his tired, old rant. “Government is too wasteful, private companies do it better and cheaper.” Yada, yada. Too bad they don’t actually have any evidence of that. In fact, the real evidence ends up quite to the contrary. Just look at the recent news that the Medicare auditor showed that the private medicare plans never provided any savings whatsoever over the regular Medicare plan.  The old, stodgy government run Medicare is in fact better.

But let Coupal rant about how he wants to cut education and cut services. His argument is tired as Prop 13. Let’s see this terrific Republican budget with all the so-called waste.  What Coupal and his cronies call waste, is what everyday Californians call a lifeline to the future: Good schools, safe and effective transportation, and care for those who need it most. If we state our claim clearly, voters will see past Coupal’s snake oil for the progressive truth it is obscuring.

As I posted over on DesertBlog, the comment deadline on the Sunrise Powerlink Draft Environmental Impact Report is April 11th. As SDG&E rolls out its “False Choice” advertising campaign for the Powerlink — more on that tomorrow — it’s vital that the Public Utilities Commission hear that there are better alternatives to this destructive transmission line, ones that will provide San Diego with clean, renewable and reliable energy, while reducing greenhouse gases by 50%.

If you’re brand new to the Sunrise Powerlink issue, it’s a proposed 150-mile transmission line between Imperial County and San Diego. Like the San Onofre Toll Road, it would cross a State Park, in this case Anza-Borrego. It would also tie San Diego in to a fossil-fuel future, despite all the “green energy” hype San Diego Gas & Electric puts out. In fact, the EIR found that the powerline would actually cause a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, even were it to carry 100% solar power (which it won’t). For more details on the truth about the Sunrise Powerlink, go to the San Diego Smart Energy Solutions Campaign website or check out the EIR.

While SDG&E wants to present us with a false choice between the Sunrise Powerlink and polluting power plants on the coast, there really is a better alternative that will rely less on fossil fuels and more on distributed generation, locally produced solar, combined heat and power technology, energy efficiency, and distribution system improvements. Together, all of these will provide San Diego with reliable, secure, clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50%, all with less cost to ratepayers. This is the plan outlined in “San Diego Smart Energy 2020,” and you can read more about it here.

BTW, for Californians outside the SDG&E service area, you’ll also be paying for the Sunrise Powerlink with fees you pay through your own energy utility. Strange, but true!

Feel ready to submit a comment? Doing so is easy. Just send an e-mail to the Aspen Environmental Group (the company writing the EIR): [email protected]. Make sure to include your name, address and telephone number. The CPUC also maintains a webpage with more details on the DEIR and how to comment. Do it by April 11th!

In addition to your own reasons for opposing the Sunrise Powerlink, make sure to insist that the Final EIR fully analyze “San Diego Smart Energy 2020” as a viable alternative to the Powerlink.

For more detailed comment letter points, see the Desert Protective Council’s Sunrise Powerlink page.