This editorial appeared in today's Times. Their opening sentence is pretty blunt:
"The cuts in state money for public schools in the proposed Senate and House budgets are unnecessarily deep. They need to be shifted to programs less urgent."
Their discussion was over cutting a state program for adults who can't work but aren't covered by other programs. Their take:
"Some in the Legislature would save the unemployable program and cut public education on the belief that the people would vote to tax themselves to save education. But what if they don't?"
That's a big gamble on the part of the Legislature (if, indeed, that's the thinking; make cuts in education and ask voters to pay more elsewhere to restore them) and a big question. Would voters, some of whom aren't parents with school-aged kids and some of whom have very bad opinions of public education anyway, vote to add more taxes to their bill?
I think the answer might be a very scary no. And then what? Dip into the state reserves even more to restore cuts they thought voters would pay for?