Public Education in the Crosshairs
This is an opinion piece. I have a strong bias in favor of strengthening public schools. I'm not suggesting taking unconstitutional action...just making a deal.
Taxation With MisRepresentation in Washington
California's financial tango with Washington reveals a toxic and dysfunctional relationship, though the truth is a bit opaque and data fluctuate from year to year—estimates suggest the Golden State ships approximately $380 billion annually to federal coffers while receiving a meager $270 billion in return, creating what some studies calculate to be a $110 billion deficit, roughly $2,800 for every California resident, though other analyses suggest the gap may be closer to $83 billion or as little as $13 billion, depending on the methodology (see this for context).
Californians currently find themselves trapped in the absurd position of subsidizing federal programs that may face devastating cuts even as Californians continue paying premium rates—essentially funding a members-only club that routinely votes to revoke their benefits while cashing their checks. According to the California State Association of Counties, this situation leaves state leaders forced to choose between abandoning essential services or raising local taxes to compensate for federal shortfalls. NOTE: Massachusetts ($4,846 per capita) and New Jersey ($4,344 per capita) surpass California in supporting the rest of the country.
The effects of this unhappy circumstance are in full bloom. Given that the federal government is dismantling public education, which in my view is tantamount to butchering the golden goose for Christmas dinner, it behooves those of us Californians who value our status as Americans unquestioningly devoted to democracy to speak to our President in the only language he understands: dollar bills. How do we leverage this overpayment so that we get to fund our own public schools since the federal government isn’t interested in the matter? Can we just stop sending the dollars to the federal government?
The Democracy Deficit
We can start by understanding the Democracy Deficit. Some states have more democracy than California. Our President talks about trade imbalances; the democracy imbalance is an even bigger problem. California could use its overage dollars to negotiate for better representation in Washington.
Senate Representation: California has one senator per 20 million residents, while Wyoming has one senator per 300,000 residents - a 67-fold difference in representation.
Electoral College: A vote in Wyoming has 3.7 times the presidential election impact as a vote in California.
House of Representatives: Due to the cap on House members, California has one representative per 760,000 residents, compared to one per 580,000 in many smaller states.
Consequences of the Imbalance
The Condominium Analogy
Imagine a condominium where one owner pays 15% of the total rent but has the same vote in building matters as each of the other tenants. The building management decides to replace the windows in everyone's units except this tenant's, using funds that the high-paying tenant provided. This tenant is then told they cannot install their own windows because building rules forbid it.
The Business Partnership Analogy
Picture a business partnership where one partner develops profitable international relationships that benefit the entire company. The majority partners then implement policies that damage these relationships, threatening the entire business's income, while ignoring the objections of the partner who built the relationships. The majority partners justify this by saying, "We voted and you lost."
Economic Subjugation
California's economy is uniquely vulnerable to trade disruptions:
The Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach handling 40% of U.S. imports.
An agriculture industry dependent on exports ($22 billion annually).
A technology sector reliant on global supply chains and international markets.
Entertainment industry revenue derived substantially from international distribution.
When federal tariff policies are implemented with no meaningful input from California, it's like letting distant relatives make decisions about your career that could get you fired, while claiming they have your best interests at heart. If the goal is state’s rights, hands off California’s economy.
The Constitutional Trap
The current constitutional framework places California in an impossible position:
Amendment Process: Changing the system requires approval from small states that benefit from the status quo.
Judicial Remedies: Supreme Court jurisprudence has consistently favored federal power over state autonomy.
Political Solutions: The very imbalance preventing fair representation also prevents political resolution.
Beyond Inequity to Abuse
What California experiences goes beyond simple inequity. It constitutes a form of economic and political abuse. When a relationship involves exploitation of resources without adequate compensation, systematic silencing of voice and concerns, implementation of policies that cause direct harm, prevention from taking self-protective measures, gaslighting about the nature of the relationship ("This is federalism working as intended"), it meets any reasonable definition of an abusive relationship.
California lacks proportionate say in federal decisions, but that’s not the biggest issue. The federal system actively extracts California's wealth while implementing policies that undermine its economic well-being, all while denying it the means to protect itself. This isn't mere imbalance; it's systemic exploitation that requires structural reform.
California's gold mines played a critical role in financing the Union war effort. The state sent an estimated $46 million in gold east, which was used to purchase arms, food, and clothing for Union soldiers. This financial support helped maintain the Union's credit with foreign nations like Britain and France. General Ulysses S. Grant acknowledged California's contributions, stating that the Union might not have succeeded without the state's gold.
During World War II, California became a hub for military operations and production. The state housed shipyards, aircraft factories, and military bases that supplied critical equipment and personnel for the war effort. Over 800,000 Californians served in the war, with 26,019 losing their lives. California also processed millions of returning GIs through its depots and de-embarkation centers after the war. This support was unquestioned despite the unconstitutional treatment of native-born Japanese-Americans from California who were incarcerated under an Executive Order of the President—for which the federal government apologized decades after the crime.
Throughout the 20th century, California emerged as a leader in technological innovation, environmental policy, and infrastructure development. Silicon Valley became a global hub for technology, driving advancements that fueled both the U.S. and global economies. The state also pioneered environmental initiatives, such as vehicle emissions standards and renewable energy programs, setting benchmarks for others to follow. California's contributions solidify its role as a key driver of national and global progress.
Having established this pattern of California's unwavering commitment to national prosperity, we must now examine how the federal government's current approach to education threatens not just the state's future but the intellectual infrastructure that has made California's contributions possible in the first place.
What California Needs? To Be Part of a National Educational System (cf: Finland)
Washington's dismantling of its leadership role in public education is playing out through a series of calculated maneuvers that leave California particularly vulnerable—not just financially, but intellectually. President Trump has signed an executive order explicitly aimed at "improving education outcomes by empowering parents, states, and communities," which in reality initiates a dismantling of the Department of Education Fully eliminating the department requires congressional approval, but the administration has already slashed approximately 50% of its workforce—roughly 2,200 education professionals whose expertise spans policy development, research, and program implementation.
For California, this isn't about lost dollars—it's about severed connections to the nation's intellectual capital. The Department of Education has traditionally served as a nexus where "educational services and support" flow to students in communities most in need of resources. Beyond funding, it has connected states with expertise through discretionary grant programs that fund critical investments in early literacy, academic acceleration, enrichment programs, and teacher development—effectively serving as the nation's educational think tank.
Recent letters from the Department now threaten to strip funding from schools with diversity programs, placing rural districts like Lucerne Valley Unified in California's high desert—where 90% of students are economically disadvantaged—in the impossible position of choosing between federal Title I money and inclusive educational practices. The loss of Title I funding alone would decimate teaching positions nationwide with particular impact on California's ability to find teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools that serve low-income students and students of color.
California needs federal leadership that welcomes intellectual rigor, incentivizes scholarly research, and provides human resources for educational innovation. In this era of AI innovation especially, what has been AI chaos erupting in the schools could have become ordered inquiry with the right national leadership in place. When Washington severs these connections, it isolates California's educators from a nationwide community of practice, cutting them off from the cross-pollination of ideas essential to solving wicked problems that transcend state borders.
When educational policy becomes fragmented along state lines, we lose track of a national research agenda that has driven systemic improvement. California's unique demographic challenges and linguistic diversity call for specialized approaches, but these solutions emerge most effectively within a national dialogue that balances local innovation with evidence-based practices developed across multiple contexts.
California exemplifies national devotion despite systemic wrongs—it has done nothing to resist financially subsidizing federal programs while receiving diminished representation and services. This imbalance threatens essential institutions like public education while ignoring California's historical contributions to American prosperity. If federalism is the new way, it must balance states' autonomy with proportional influence in policy making.
The state's disproportionate Senate representation (one senator per 20 million residents versus Wyoming's one per 300,000) and diminished Electoral College impact illustrate a fundamental democracy deficit. Like the condominium owner paying premium dues while being denied basic services, California finds itself in an increasingly untenable position.
Tragically, we face a President who demonstrates complete disregard for education—slashing Department of Education staff by 50% and threatening funding for schools with diversity programs. When intellectual infrastructure crumbles under an administration that recognizes only financial leverage, California must speak the only language this President understands: cold, hard cash.
By strategically flashing its substantial federal overpayment before the President’s eyes with some outlandish, Trumpian proposal to withhold it (symmetrical, proportionate art of the deal), California can protect its students while arguing that investments in knowledge yield returns far greater than any tariff or tax cut. We are long past the time to restore balance before public educational opportunity becomes yet another casualty of political exhaustion and disgust.