McKenna and Math

So speaking of how Robert Reich can't add, I wonder whether Rob McKenna can. He says we should spend the same amount of money -- as a percentage of our budget -- should be the same now as in 1980. I don't have all the numbers (and would greatly welcome them if someone's got them), but I suspect this might end up giving us much more money, even adjusted for inflation, for education than we had in 1980.

Where is the significance, except in pure symbolism, of a percentage of the budget? I can see none at all. And what especially bothers me is that, as I understand it, per-pupil spending for K-12 has increased dramatically since 1980. So where's the actual need for more spending on education at all?

And don't even get me started on higher ed: we should slash it to the bone. We shouldn't fund any of it, at all.

But even if you disagree with me about relative levels of spending on education ... can we at least agree that tying those levels to the size of the budget makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?