One of Arnold Schwarzenegger's centerpiece proposals back in his State of the State address earlier this month was a constitutional amendment to ensure the state spends more on higher ed than prisons. It sounds like a pretty good idea in the abstract. Since the early 1980s, California has built dozens of prisons, but only 3 new UC and CSU campuses - even though the construction cost is about the same, and even though students bring money into the system and create value when they leave it, whereas prisoners suck up resources and generate no value.
So something that would take money from prisons and give it to higher ed sounds like a great idea, right? Not according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, which slammed the proposal as "an unnecessary, ill-conceived measure that would do serious harm to the budget process" and concludes "we recommend rejection of this proposal."
KQED's John Myers offers a good overview of the issues:
The budget odd couple left almost everyone scratching their heads, though on its face it's pretty simple: in four years time, there would be a cap on prison spending at 7% of the state's general fund and a corresponding floor for the UC and CSU systems, combined, of at least