Like clockwork, pols in thrall to the teachers union are lining up to denounce Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposal to allow more charter schools to open in New York City. Yet their arguments are blatantly ridiculous.

In a joint statement, Sens. Shelly Mayer (D-Scarsdale and State Education Committee chair), John Liu (D-Queens) and Robert Jackson (D-Manhattan) claimed that new charters would “increase the financial burden on NYC traditional public schools, taking much-needed resources away from schools serving the vast majority of our children.”

Nonsense. The only cash existing schools lose is the amount dedicated to that particular student. The way school funding works, they’re actually left with more money per remaining kid.

Plus, the same Hochul budget plan that allows for more city charters also boosts funding for regular public schools by 10%, more than enough to make up for any difference.

The only threat posed by new charters opening in the five boroughs is to the vested interests that profit off the regular system — especially the United Federation of Teachers, which loses roughly one member’s dues for every dozen or two kids who move to a charter.

Never mind that the many failures of the regular system have far more families fleeing than just the ones who go charter: Enrollment in Department of Education schools is down by a fifth in recent years; growing ranks at charters is practically the only hope to save public education in this town.

No surprise that UFT boss Mike Mulgrew says he’ll fight Hochul’s plan tooth and nail, nor that UFT-owned politicians will jump when he says “frog.” As The Post’s Zach Williams reports, the UFT’s parent union recently dropped $25,000 on the Democratic State Senate Campaign Committee, along with donations to every legislator who showed for last Friday’s City Hall rally against the gov’s more-charters plan.

Meanwhile, a recent poll found that over 60% of city parents want more charter schools and want the cap lifted. Naturally: In neighborhood after neighborhood, charters succeed in teaching even as nearby “district” schools fall short.

The only way the Mayer-Liu-Jackson-Mulgrew position makes sense is if the real purpose of public schools is to benefit the adults in the system — and if the established schools “own” children whose families would rather send them somewhere else.

The UFT has milked the public schools for enough resources to buy vast political power, which it uses to keep the gravy train going. Kudos to Hochul for standing up for the kids anyway. Here’s hoping, yet again, that she fights to the knife for the children against the machine.