Re "More ballot-box budgeting for education will only make a bad problem worse" (Editorial, March 29):

The Bee may not want education funding to be cut, but the editorial board's recommendation to vote "No" on Proposition 1B betrays a profound lack of understanding of education-funding issues.

It is ironic that only Proposition 1B is accused of being "ballot-box budgeting" when, in fact, it does nothing more than set up a payment schedule for money already owed to public education by the state.

Meanwhile, The Bee is comfortable with all the other initiatives, including 1A, which locks in a ridiculously high reserve requirement of 12.5 percent without any consideration of the state's current needs and priorities, and 1C, which commits the state in perpetuity to $1 billion of thinly disguised debt service. And Propositions 1D and 1E, notwithstanding any reasonable arguments that can be made in their favor, represent the very epitome of ballot-box budgeting.

The Bee lacks the courage of its convictions. It recognizes that these propositions are not solutions to the state's very real problems, but can't quite bring itself to call upon state leaders to head back to the drawing board to develop a long-term plan that honestly deals with those problems. And opposing the one proposition that would actually help public education just compounds the offense.

- Scott P. Plotkin, West Sacramento executive director, California School Boards Association