Quiet multiple-choice question is shaping up on the Campaign for Fiscal Equity: Who should pay for the addition school spending — anywhere from $4.7 billion to $10 billion over several years — that’s supposedly owed to the city and how: A) the state alone pays; B) the state pays for 60% and the city for 40%; or C) the city and state come up with some other way of splitting the bill? From the perspective of New York’s already oppressively taxed citizens, clearly the answer is: D) none of the above.

Yet New York’s politicians seem to be spending their time these days trying to pick among the first three options. The CFE-mandated spending increases have already opened a rift between Mayor Bloomberg and the Democratic gubernatorial contender, Eliot Spitzer. The mayor argues the city shouldn’t be on the hook for any of the additional school money, while Mr. Spitzer is said to be contemplating turning against the city with a demand that it bear up to 40% of the cost.

The state-only option is easy to reject. Hardly anyone, least of all the CFE plaintiffs, has ever maintained that the state should carry the entire burden. As it is, the state is estimated to be facing a budget shortfall off between $9.8 billion and $13.9 billion over the next two years. The 60-40 split apparently favored by Mr. Spitzer is illogical. Such a compromise has never before gotten off the ground, despite support from politicians like Governor Pataki and Comptroller Hevesi.

This is why doing none of these things — the position of the Republican John Faso — is the best option for taxpayers. The whole 13-year case has been premised on the fiction that more spending will improve education, despite voluminous evidence to the contrary. Refusal to budget any money be one way for the legislature and governor to reclaim their constitutional budgetary .

Rather than bickering over who will pony up an amount of money that the courts have no right to spend, the state and city have no way to pay, and the schools have no productive way to use, it would be far better for candidates to be discussing innovations like school choice that would allow parents who want to decide where to send their children to contemplate any of the many private schools that offer better educations for less money than city schools currently spend. The CFE will cost a lot more than billions of dollars if it denies parents that choice.