Proposition 98 doesn’t help the UC system since a portion of the funds are steadily allocated to the K-14 system

When Gov. Jerry Brown announced that California received $6.6 billion in unexpected revenue, I immediately thought that the University of California system might be saved from the tuition hikes and budget cuts that we’ve become all too accustomed too.

As recently as April, the governor had said UC tuition would rise without additional revenues, and as a sort of sign from the heavens, the state got just that. Unfortunately, because of Proposition 98, which mandates that K-12 and community colleges (K-14) receive a little less than half of California’s entire budget, the UC system has been forgotten.

Though $3 billion of the new revenue was tied to Proposition 98, lawmakers could have allocated the remaining funds to the UC system. Instead, funds were put toward dealing with the miserable state of the economy by way of lowering taxes to incentivize a future vote in favor of tax extensions.

Proposition 98 rarely receives bad press because those in the K-14 will fight tooth and nail for their funding, which they admittedly need. But when the state receives $6.6 billion in additional revenue and the UC system ““ which plays an important role in creating and sustaining California’s economy and workforce ““ doesn’t receive a penny, we have a serious problem on our hands.

Though funding for K-14 is incredibly important, Proposition 98 is a tangled mess of regulations that strangles the ability of lawmakers to pass a responsible budget. It’s especially worrisome given that tax revenue varies so much from year to year, creating a situation where lawmakers can’t rely on steady funding but must steadily fund the K-14 system.

My opposition to Proposition 98 does not stem from a belief that it is wasteful spending. Education spending can’t be wasteful when California ranks as one of the worst in the nation on the per-pupil expenditure rankings. Rather, my opposition stems from a wish to see the budget battles of Sacramento be more productive and a desire to see money go where it’s needed.

We all know why tuition has risen steadily; California simply doesn’t have the money, and UCs have received dwindling funds as a result. In many ways, the root of our budgetary woes come from Propositions 13 and 98. Proposition 13 was enacted in 1978, and reduced property taxes significantly, mandating that the budget and any new taxes must be passed by a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses. As a result, many of California’s essential services, including the UC system, remain underfunded.

Proposition 98 was in large part a response to the tax limits of Proposition 13, which hit school districts the hardest, and mandated a minimum spending requirement on K-14 schools, according to Daniel J.B. Mitchell, professor emeritus at Anderson School of Management and the Luskin School of Public Affairs.

This spending requirement amounts to about 43 percent of California’s overall budget.

Now, the system automatically dictates around half of our budget without giving lawmakers a chance to assess what the needs of California really are. Two decades ago, the Los Angeles Times decried what Proposition 98 would do to the UC system and other public services, saying that Proposition 98 “(is) a nightmare of complicated revenue regulations that are, at best, bewildering.”

With the L.A. Unified School District as its shining example, it’s clear that K-12 system needs all the help it can get, but it is even clearer that Proposition 98 has played a large role in California’s inability to remain fiscally responsible.

Some have argued that the UC system should have its own version of Proposition 98, as community colleges attempted but failed to do in 2008, said Mitchell. Though the UC system could technically pursue such a route toward more required funding, if each public service the state of California provided did that, the state could very well mandate more than 100 percent of the budget to various required spending obligations.

While repealing Proposition 98 and creating a system of funding that gives lawmakers the flexibility to respond to the state’s needs would be the ideal situation, the California Teacher’s Association and K-14 overall would never allow it. A more likely solution then, is taxation.

While Brown argues for tax extensions to stave off further government cuts, the UC system ought to argue for taxes on something, anything, to help maintain the quality we hold so dear. The latest idea has been an oil severance tax, Mitchell said.

Whether or not Californians would really pay more money at the pump to keep their universities healthy is another column entirely. Still, it’s clear that something must be done to keep tuition costs down, and Proposition 98 surely hasn’t helped.

Willing to pay more taxes to keep UCLA alive? Email Zymet at [email protected]. Send general comments to “¨[email protected].