The bumper sticker says, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

This year, the California State University system is expected to turn away more than 10,000 qualified students due to budget cuts. For Cal State San Marcos and the other CSU campuses, the budget cuts also mean decreasing the quality of education by cutting back class offerings and increasing class sizes.

For those who think cutbacks in higher education are a good thing, that a less-educated generation is what California needs, the budget caps of Proposition 1A are ideal! The system's budget is already stuck at 2002 levels, and Prop. 1A would set a standard for the next 10 years of reduced enrollment, fewer course offerings, larger classes, and more tuition increases.

Prop. 1A focuses on capping spending while enlarging a "rainy day fund." These two approaches have their appeal, given the low confidence in the Legislature's budgeting ability. However, even though confidence in the governor is also low, Prop. 1A gives unchecked, unilateral power to the governor to make budgetary decisions -- without input or review by other elected legislators.

Add to that the question of how Prop. 1A increases the existing "rainy day fund." Prop. 1A mandates increasing the "rainy day fund" no matter what the state of the economy. With California already cutting back on essential services, do we want to further harm the people of California in the name of increasing the "rainy day fund" -- when it's already a deluge of budget problems?

Considering these questions, why is the California Faculty Association's position different from the position of some other teachers groups? Because public higher education (i.e., the CSU and UC systems) is supported by the state's general fund, which is what Prop. 1A will cap. In contrast, public education of grades K-14 (i.e., including community colleges) has funding guaranteed through 1998's Prop. 98.

While the California Faculty Association supports the need for adequate funding of education for everyone, it opposes a solution that comes at the expense of not only the state's universities, but at the expense of other health and human service programs that are part of the general fund.

If the voters defeat Prop. 1A, California's budget will not immediately collapse. The increased taxes that 1A would extend are already in place through to 2012. What 1A would do is restrict the budget to a point in the past that would hurt the entire state, particularly rapidly growing areas such as North County and the Inland Empire.

Let's not use Prop. 1A to tie the hands of future legislators and give more power to the governor. Instead, let's demand that Sacramento come up with a more realistic approach, one that does not sacrifice the services that are essential to both our local and California's future.

For more information on our position, go to www.VoteNoOn1A.com

Fritz Kreisler is president and Don Barrett is vice president of the CSU San Marcos chapter of the California Faculty Association.