As the budget battle in Harrisburg rages on, a central part of the disagreement is over funding for public education. Gov. Ed Rendell wants to increase funding for education by $418 million. But a national recession has taken its toll on Pennsylvania, causing a $3.2 billion budget gap that elected officials in Harrisburg are trying to close. After offering spending reductions, Rendell is pushing for increased taxes. Republicans say they want to avoid recurring tax increases, preferring spending constraint.

One familiar tactic of politicians is to publicly lament cuts to programs tied to children, including public education. Rendell has blasted what he says are proposed GOP cuts to education saying, "The state budget impasse is really a fight for our children's future."

Joining forces with Rendell, comedian and Philadelphia native Bill Cosby joined protesters in Harrisburg recently, chanting out "No more cuts."

But John Baer, a columnist with the Philadephia Daily News, suggests charges of cuts to education should be examined more closely. Baer points out that "school funding grows annually, no matter which politicial party's in charge."

And Baer contradicts Rendell, saying, "Nobody in the budget battle is talking about cutting education funding. Republicans just want a smaller increase than Democrats. And it has ever been so."

Whether this difference is related to the financial and political support Democrats receive from teachers unions is unclear.

Baer slices through the political rhetoric, saying, "When Democrat Rendell rails against GOP 'cuts,' he means cuts in a few areas such as early education or teacher development or cuts in his own proposed increases. Whether those areas should be cut is debatable. But any notion of education funding being cut is not."

Similar arguments over cuts are heard from Washington, D.C., and there, too, the reality usually turns out to be something other than what most people understand cuts to mean. When politicians protest spending "cuts" they generally are talking about spending increases less than they would like to see.

So when Pennsylvanians hear protests over "cuts to education," it's time to do some research or ask follow-up questions.

The partisan bickering coming out of Harrisburg over the budget impasse is familiar — and tiring. It seems that just about every time there is a spending disagreement, politicians in favor of more spending roll out the old "it's for the children" argument. Indeed, spending for children is important, and the future does depend on today's children being educated and healthy.

But when politics is involved, sound bites about children don't tell the whole story, or the truth.

Do cuts mean actual cuts, or just spending increases that are less than desired by some group? And, beyond that, it's worth asking how the money helps students. The money obviously doesn't go directly to the children, but where does it go? Does it go to new textbooks, new technologies, tutors, building renovations — or to pay for 6 percent pay hikes in generous teacher contracts?

The budget battle in Harrisburg threatens to rage on for weeks. And some people, including children, are being harmed by the stalemate. But when politicians talk about what's at stake and what the other side is proposing, it's important to look beyond the surface.

There are differences between Rendell's and Republican plans, such as the amount of federal stimulus money diverted to education. But Baer's conclusion is, "Both parties want more for education. And the politics of a standoff make no sense at all."

That's not the message from Rendell and others in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvanians deserve better.