SACRAMENTO, CA - Election season is the season for dishonest campaigning on the part of the special interests who want to keep Californians misinformed and scared. That's why California voters have been bombarded with 30-second commercials claiming that Governor Schwarzenegger's record on education can't be trusted. According to these propaganda pieces, he has "cut'' spending by $4 billion, refused to pay back a $2 billion loan, and is now grabbing power to enact more cuts.

One commercial features a teacher saying that with Proposition 76, the Live Within Our Means Act, "minimum school funding guarantees are wiped out, child immunization programs are threatened, and the governor gets new power to cut even more.'' The ad claims that Prop 76 "cuts $4 billion a year from school budgets….The governor gets more power but our kids pay the price.''

Another ad says Prop 76 would "destroy the careful balance between the governor and the legislature'' by giving the governor 'unlimited powers'' to cut funding with "no legislative oversight.'' The governor's picture appears as red lines are slashed through the words, "Schools. Public Safety. Health Care.''

Voters assaulted by these false claims should consider the facts.

The truth is that Prop 76 limits state spending growth to the previous year plus the average of the growth from the previous three years. If the budget does go into deficit, the legislature has 45 days to fix it. Only then can the governor make spending cuts.

Does Prop 76 "wipe out'' minimum funding and child immunization? It does not: Prop 76 only tweaks Proposition 98, which guarantees minimum school funding. Nothing is "wiped out.'' Child immunization is not mentioned in the proposition.

Does Prop 76 mean no legislative oversight on education? It does not: Any gubernatorial action would happen after the legislature had been given a chance to fix the budget, and only if the governor decides to cut education to resolve the deficit. (In any case, the legislature has hardly been a model of excellence. Every year it misses the June 15 deadline for the budget by weeks.)

Does Prop 76 mandate cuts of ''$4 billion a year from school budgets''? It does not: Prop 76 would repay the $3.8 billion, usually rounded up to $4 billion in the commercials, to the state education fund over a 15-year period. That's only a "cut'' to state bureaucrats and union bosses who think timely repayment of debts is not a virtue. What bothers Prop 76 opponents is that any additional bonuses spent on education will not be added to the base sum in the calculations for next year's growth. This is sensible, since it would better manage the "autopilot'' growth that has landed the state in fiscal trouble. Mandated education spending already consumes nearly half the state's general fund.

Ads against Proposition 74, which would extend the probationary period for new teachers from two years to five, are similarly dishonest. One claims that Prop 74 "would allow a principal to fire a teacher without reason or a hearing.'' The truth is that principals will only be able to dismiss those still on probation without a hearing. Teachers with tenure would be protected as they always have been.

Another ad ends with a parent telling the governor to get to "the things our kids really need.'' More money is not one of them. The governor may have not have increased school spending as much as his opponents want, but his most current budget still gave a $3-billion increase for education. K-12 spending alone got $1.6 billion more, up three percent from current levels. That's a a five-percent increase, to $7,377 per student . Only in TV ads does this increase become a "cut.''

What has all this money gotten California's children? The state's schools remain among the worst in the country. What our kids really need are schools with improved testing, more choice for parents, merit pay, better spending accountability, and principals with the flexibility to hire and fire teachers. Tomorrow, California voters can have their say on those key issues based on the facts, not fraudulent TV claims.

Xiaochin Claire Yan is a public policy fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. She can be reached via email at xyan@pacificresearch.org.