The Alberta government releases their annual report showing an $8.7 billion surplus -- technically $9.9 billion, but who's counting -- and surprise, surprise, everyone sticks up their hand asking for more money.

The ink was barely dry on the 2005-06 Annual Report when Edmonton's Catholic School Board came-a-calling. The school board, who through poor accounting practices and various cost over-runs ran a $10 million deficit last year, complained that they needed an extra $1.5 million to make ends meet.

Board trustees publicly vilified the provincial government for being awash in cash while forcing them to make cuts (read: be fiscally responsible and pay off a deficit they were solely responsible for).

This is the same Catholic School Board who only a year earlier fawned over the provincial budget, saying it was "good news for education."

The following day the provincial NDP launched their "Education Funding Campaign," claiming that the government is failing to properly fund schools.

Next up was the Alberta School Boards Association, claiming that there was a $13 million shortfall in education funding this past year.

They were followed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union who held a protest outside of Education Minister Gene Zwozdesky's constituency office demanding both more money for education and the minister's resignation.

A CUPE spokesperson, not-surprisingly, played the surplus card claiming that "despite massive surpluses, public education is still being funded like the province is in debt."

Most disappointing, however, was PC leadership hopeful and former cabinet minister, Dave Hancock, who also jumped on the under-funding bandwagon. He claims Minister Zwozdesky isn't fighting hard enough for more education funding.

Obviously Hancock must have been absent from the meetings when education funding was increased by nine per cent from 2005 to 2006. He must have been napping when the government slipped an addition $93 million into the education department between the original 2005 budget -- remember the one that was "good news for education " -- and the fiscal year end. Oh, and he probably doesn't remember when the government budgeted another nine per cent increase in funding in the 2006 budget.

Unfortunately, it appears Hancock is buying into the "chronic under-funding of education" myth that opposition parties and union-types have been perpetuating.

At first Minister Zwozdesky appeared to be holding strong, rightfully pointing out that the government provides "over $9,200 per student in K-12 education- the highest amount per student and it's also the highest amount per capita anywhere in Canada."

However, only a day later Minister Zwozdesky announced an additional $8 million in education funding, capitulating to the pressure from the coalition of hands.

Using a one-time surplus that was created by unstable, unreliable resource revenues to fund important on-going programs like education is a recipe for disaster. Alberta already budgets nearly 20 per cent of its core program spending to come from these windfall revenues.

Question: What happens when (not if) oil and gas prices fall What happens when these surpluses dry up and the government has to find an additional $5.3 billion in revenue

Answer: Spending cuts, teacher layoffs and increased taxes.

Now put your hands down.