There are approximately 33,871,650 people living in California, and they all have a stake in the state's budget crisis. That is a lot of individuals to satisfy. The state of California tries to satisfy the desires of these people through the budgetary process.

A budget is the state's tax-and-spend plan. The budget is a question of distributive justice. Who should be taxed and who should get the benefit of the spending plan? The answers to those questions are based on arguments about fairness.

For Republicans, who have the power to block the budget in the Legislature, fairness in the budget means no new taxes; thus, arguments about fairness in the budget revolve around spending plans.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a pure equality model for his spending plan. His idea of fairness is to take the pie and slice it equally, regardless of who needs the slices the most. As he acknowledges, his proposed budget treats the most vulnerable Californians like any other Californian: "I took an across-the-board approach to make these difficult decisions as fair as possible."

But is that really fair? When making choices about which programs to cut, why not take into account who needs the programs the most? Shouldn't the most vulnerable among us be given priority in the budget? Aren't the most vulnerable in society the youth, the disabled and the elderly? And don't they rightly deserve to be our budgetary priorities? Making equal cuts to spending programs without regard to need is regressive.

Assemblywoman Nell Soto, D-Ontario, has rightly criticized the governor's budget. Soto says: "The governor's budget will do permanent damage to California by knocking the air out of public education." Indeed, the cuts to education are hard to comprehend.

Investment of $1 in primary education yields about $10 in revenue to the state when the student later becomes an employed taxpayer. Investment of $1 in the California State University system yields about $3 in revenue to the state after a student graduates, and the return is relatively fast. Political economists have long argued that an educated work force is a productive work force, which means revenue for the government in the form of tax payments and the concomitant ability to provide social services.

The governor's proposed cuts to education have resulted in turmoil at California's schoolhouses and on its campuses. Rather than focus on the education of their students, educators are forced to organize politically and fight to protect funding for their already under-funded schools. In some neighborhoods, like The Preserve development in south Chino, a just-built school ready for students may not open due to the budget shortfall. School districts across the state are facing layoffs of teachers, and sometimes these layoffs are threatening schools that already have a shortage in teaching staff. With such uncertainty in the education system, teacher retention and burnout is a significant source of turnover in the teaching corps in California. Most teachers are overworked and underpaid. They need and deserve our support.

Failing to protect education funding in favor of other priorities in the proposed budget is a mistake by the governor. A more nuanced approach to the budget is necessary and prudent. Focusing on funding the education of our children (who need to learn for their sake and ours), especially during the primary years (pre-kindergarten and kindergarten), is simply good policy. Education is a crime-prevention tool, and it is an insurance policy against future revenue shortfalls, because we will have trained an excellent work force to create, attract and keep businesses here in California.

Focusing on education during the elementary and secondary stages is also a way to lower health care costs through the development of good eating and exercise habits in the youth. A more educated community is a safe community, and a more educated community is a healthy community. We know that when it comes to smoking, for instance, college educated people are significantly less likely to use tobacco than non-college educated people. As corporate profits continue to slide, we need to invest in a productive and competent work force that can re-energize the economy with their human capital.

I call on the governor and the Legislature to protect education funding and to maximize the funding allocated to education. We should not make across-the-board budget cuts. We should be protecting our students, protecting our deaf, blind and disabled citizens, and making sure our seniors living on a fixed income are taken care of appropriately.

Before we cut funding for the general welfare, we should cut funding for corporate welfare. As Winston Churchill once said, you can judge a society by how well it treats its most vulnerable members. The governor's budget ignores this wisdom, and continues the trend of caring for the well-off before the worse-off. The way to slice the pie is by looking to take care of the hungriest and neediest people first, before taking care of those who can take care of themselves.

Ken White is a Democrat running for state Assembly in the 61st District.