Hd,Smorgasbord Politics
It shouldn’t have come as a big surprise when Sacramento lawmakers took so long to agree on a budget, especially in a year when there was $4.4 billion in unexpected tax revenue to divvy out. As with the typical household, it is often more difficult to decide where to spend than where to cut.
Those doing the dealing Gov. Pete Wilson and members of the legislative leadership represented different constituencies with different agendas, thus compounding the dilemma. It was pretty obvious early on that the final package would involve significant compromise from all sides. The question became one of degree: Which side would compromise the least and get the most?
The agreement reached last week on a $76 billion state budget and the 60 bills that will implement it leaves that question unanswered. This budget compromise has a little bit of everything: A 25 percent reduction in the annual car tax (which translates into an average $42.75 a year in savings per automobile), a 7.9 percent increase in monthly checks for welfare recipients, an added $818 million for public schools, and an added $59 million for food stamp recipients who are low-income legal immigrants.
Such a smorgasbord approach to legislative compromise has its advantages namely, the fact that all sides can declare victory. Yet it also points up the state’s fractionalized nature. Even as legislators prepare to vote on the deal this week, grumbling already can be heard. The tax cut was too small, the food stamp payout was not enough, the education package was too diffuse, and so on.
Beyond any specific line item, the budget points up a decided lack of economic, political and social vision about where California is headed in the 21st century. The priorities laid out are all over the map; it is a mish-mash of ideologies and policymaking that add up to very little.
Obviously, the lack of cohesion can be tied, in part, to having a Republican governor and a Democratic-led Legislature. That combination has its appeal, from a checks-and-balances perspective, but it leaves something to be desired when it comes time to cut deals (a scenario that’s also being played out in Washington).
Some sort of budget however cobbled is better than no budget at all. But it’s too bad that given the state’s much-improved fiscal condition, a more reasoned approach couldn’t have been agreed to conflicting interests and all.
