GIVING STUDENTS PRIORITY OVER INMATES WILL TEST GOVERNOR

At the center of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's State of the State
speech Wednesday was a proposal that outside of Sacramento might seem
like common sense: Mandate that the state invest more dollars each
year in its public universities than in locking people up in prison.

But to many inside the Capitol, that idea appears all but unattainable.

The plan -- and the reaction to it -- highlights the disconnect
between the priorities of voters and the reality of the state's
shattered finances and a policymaking process that often seems byzantine.

"In concept, it absolutely makes sense to everyone," said Thad
Kousser, visiting professor of political science at Stanford
University. But "when you look at the trade-offs that the state might
face to get there, it gets a lot harder."

The proposal for a constitutional change that would require more
spending on higher education than prisons was the key headline as
Schwarzenegger delivered his final State of the State speech, in
which he also asked legislators to approve a jobs creation program
and urged them to join him in pushing for increased funding from Washington.

The governor's plan aims to bring back the days when the state
funneled more money into University of California and California
State University classrooms than into its prisons. It has been at
least five years since that has been the case. It comes at a time
when tuitions are soaring and course offerings are being cut.

The state's public universities, long considered an economic engine
and a source of pride for California, have proved to be an easier
target for budget cuts than other major programs, which are protected
by politically powerful unions, deep pocketed corporate interests or
federal laws limiting the state's ability to cut.

"What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms
than caps and gowns?" Schwarzenegger said. "The priorities have
become out of whack. . . . Thirty years ago, 10% of the general fund
went to higher education and 3% went to prisons. Today, almost 11%
goes to prisons and only 7.5% goes to higher education."

The governor called for a constitutional amendment that would
prohibit corrections spending from outstripping funds for higher
education by 2014-2015. The plan would require approval from
lawmakers and voters.

University leaders said they were delighted that the governor was
championing the proposed amendment, which UC President Mark G. Yudof
called "a visionary way to address the issues."

Charles B. Reed, chancellor of the 23-campus Cal State system,
acknowledged that gaining approval for the measure would require
"heavy lifting," but said he thought it ultimately could win favor
with the Legislature and voters.

"It's a step to begin to change the culture of California back to
investing in California's future rather than just paying expenses for
California's failures," Reed said.

But lawmakers have been unable to trim the corrections budget for
years. Voters and politicians alike have approved years of stiffer
sentences and stricter rules for parolees -- driving up the prison
population. The result has been a prison network bursting at the
seams, with federal judges taking control of prisoners' healthcare
and ordering the state to either release tens of thousands of inmates
or boost prison spending by billions. Lawmakers so far have chosen to
keep spending.

Although some legislators applauded the governor's goal, they were
immediately skeptical of his plan for reaching it.

It calls for cutting spending through privatization -- either having
private companies run prisons or hiring private firms to supply
state-run facilities with guards, doctors, teachers and other
employees. Most current prison workers are part of a powerful union,
the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn.

"I don't think privatizing prisons is the answer," said Assembly
Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles). "I think we need to look at why
California incarcerates more people than any other state. We need to
look at ways to reduce recidivism and we certainly need to look at
sentencing reform."

Republicans tend to support privatization, but they have other
concerns. Many of the state's financial problems have been
exacerbated by conflicting constitutional mandates already on the
books that dictate increased spending for various programs each year.
The new proposal would be another of those. And GOP lawmakers are not
eager to impose the prison cuts that would be required to free up
money for universities.

"The most essential of government functions is public safety," said
Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks), "and we have to make sure
that's our top priority."

In the current budget, UC, Cal State and the state's Cal Grant
financial aid program combined to receive about $6 billion, not
including revenues from student fees. The Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation received $8.12 billion, according to the
nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office. Under the governor's plan,
spending on UC, Cal State and Cal Grants would have to account for at
least 10% of the state's general fund by 2014-15; prisons could
receive no more than 7%. The guarantee could be suspended by a
two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Changing that ratio would require the type of deep cuts in prison
spending that Sacramento has long balked at making. Federal courts
also would have to give their blessing. Short of deep cuts in the
prison budget, the only other way to meet the mandate would be to
find billions of new dollars for universities elsewhere in the budget
at a time when the state is facing enormous deficits.

In the 1970s, the share of the state budget set aside for UC, Cal
State and state financial aid was about 13%, nearly four times as
large as the percentage for corrections, according to the California
Postsecondary Education Commission. Funding for the two sectors drew
close in the early 1990s and prisons then pulled ahead consistently
starting in 2004-05, the commission reported.

Steve Boilard, director of higher education issues in the Legislative
Analyst's Office, questioned the proposed link between higher
education and prisons, even if it might appeal to voters.

"It's apples and oranges," he said of universities and prisons. "Why
should state spending on higher education be determined on how much
we save on prison reform?"

Yudof, president of the 10-campus UC system, said he did not know
whether it was politically wise to link university and prison
funding. But he hailed the governor's plan as "a very useful opening
salvo" to restore higher education funding.

"I don't have any particular argument with corrections or the need to
lock up bad guys," Yudof said. "But having the best prison system in
the world is not going to create jobs the way having the best
university system will."