A proposal to change Utah' antiquated system that earmarks income tax funds for public education has drawn a predictable reaction from teachers: They are against it, the same way they were in 1987 and 1988 when the same issue was raised.
Yet the opposition is more of an emotional reflex rather than a carefully thought-out response.Under the Utah Constitution, all income taxes are set aside for the public schools. That seems reasonable enough on the surface, but what it does is put the state budget into a straitjacket. It eliminates any flexibility in dealing with other pressing state problems.
What happens if income taxes produce more money than lawmakers are willing to spend on public education? This has not been the case so far, but that kind of situation could appear in the not-too-distant future. Does this mean a surplus just sits there, while other programs starve?
Utah is the only state in the nation that still uses the dedicated school fund structure.
Even some of education's staunch friends in the Legislature believe the time has come to revamp the system. The bill's supporters want a budget process that starts everyone on an equal footing, with the budget being divided up according to need - not some preset formula.
That makes sense. Besides, public schools would continue to get the lion's share of the state budget.
Even so, the Utah Education Association opposes the idea, apparently under the philosophy that the earmarked funds represent a guarantee that education will be properly funded.
But that ignores reality, since the Legislature not only spends all of the earmarked money on public schools, but adds considerable revenue from other sources.
Eliminating the earmarking would not imperil education but would give lawmakers more flexibility in building the budget, particularly as school growth changes in the future.
The UEA has tossed around some comments to the effect that changing the guarantee would heighten the threat of a strike by teachers. Why? Changing the law would not affect the education budget. Such careless talk does nothing but make the UEA look obstinate for no good reason.
If legislators wanted to get tough, they could treat the earmarked funds in very literal fashion, setting aside all state income taxes for public education but spending nothing more on the schools. Funds from other tax sources could then be applied to other needs instead of being added to the education budget. That kind of literal-minded approach would leave education with less money than it has now.
Legislators are always going to fund education by some balancing act between what they think the state can afford and what schools need.
The proposed change has been endorsed by the state Tax Recodification Commission and by the Constitutional Revision Commission. It drew unanimous support from the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee.
The full House and Senate should pass the measure by the necessary two-thirds majority and get the proposed constitutional change on the ballot in next November's election.