In the endlessstream of panicked budgetary suggestions, there is one area which oftenreceives the most unpleasant amounts of irrational hatred from itsopponents, and which spawns the greatest number of guilt-basedarguments from its proponents. That area is California's educationbudget, a massive, Leviathan entity which consumes more than 40 percent ofCalifornia's budget.

Of course, the mere suggestion of removing funding from such a behemothis almost as risky as trying to suggest cuts to the Social Securityregime, and indeed, especially given the proclivity of manyhigh-profile liberal activists to use heart-wrenching language indefense of education, it's understandable where this risk comes from.After all, the activist line of argument runs, suggesting cuts theeducation budget must mean that one wants the children to eat dog food,or read out of textbooks that stop at Nixon.

This is a nonsensical argument that the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiatanticipated when he wrote "we object to a state-sponsored education, sothe socialists say we are against education...it is as though thesocialists were to accuse us of not wanting people to eat because we donot want the State to raise grain."

The problems with California'sschool system have nothing to do with funding -- as already mentioned,40 percent of the budget is consumed by education spending. However, it iseasy to mistake funding for the issue when heartrending stories aboutchildren trapped in failing schools hit the news reels. Moreover, localissues make this massive budget expenditure seem bewilderingly absent.For instance, as Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz pointed outin a piece in National Review, "The sprawling L.A. district has morethan 700,000 children in 791 schools." Where is that 40 percent of the budgetgoing to, if this sort of abject failure is still allowed to persist?

The answer is ugly, and nothing to do with tight-fistedlegislators, anti-intellectual sentiments, businessmen thirsty for thereinstitution of child labor, or other conventional Leftist bogeyman.Rather, the answer has everything to do with a reliable voting base forthe Democratic Party -- namely, teachers' unions. These groups, whicharguably serve a purpose in private schools, are a massive, parasiticdrain on California's budget, and have already sunk their claws deeplyinto the State's educations system. Already, 87.5 percent of California's teachersare members of teachers' unions. The California Teachers' Associationmakes revenues which number in the hundreds of millions, and LosAngeles Unified, that supposedly impoverished place, regularlysacrifices over $30 million to teachers' unions.

And make no mistake, these resources are not spent on education. A Los Angeles Times storyfrom October 17, 2008 reveals that the California Teachers' Associationspent $1 million of their over $100 million jackpot opposingProposition 8. Yes, that is right - the tax money of California'speople is being funneled into political causes with which a majority ofthem have already expressed their disagreement.

This alone is an argument for curtailing teachers' unions power,but given the budget crisis, it is time to take serious action. Notbeing able to curb the oligarchy of teachers' unions, schools aremaking cuts in places that affect students more drastically, leading topotential for paperthin educational requirements, poor teaching and smashed dreams. The educational problems of California's schools have already become nationwide news, while her Charter Schools have become miraculously successful, which puts the lie to the notion of money correlating with good public education. It's probably obvious, but guess how the Teachers' unions feel about Charter Schools?

As such, these entities, which obviously have no intention of fosteringgood teaching methods and which are not even performing the traditionalfunction of a union (countering producing cartels) ought to have theirpowers sharply reduced, if not eliminated altogether. Otherwise, we'lllearn a very hard lesson about the dangers of letting the tyrant withthe chalk control the budget.