Bite the bullet

Californians face a special election Tuesday amid deep recession, fiscal emergency, voter anger and the latest chapter of an ongoing quandary: Pay more when we can least afford it, or cut essential programs when we need them most?

It would be easier to embrace or reject any of the six ballot measures if they answered that question by providing enough money or imposing sufficient cuts to balance the state’s budget this year and next. They don’t. The two best things to be said for a majority of the propositions are that they would leave the state with a crisis appreciably more manageable than the one that looms if they don’t pass, and that they were produced during an extraordinarily rare and brief political truce that won’t recur any time soon. Voters should grab the resulting compromise while they have the chance, and while they still have genuine choices to make about California’s future.

After the election, the partisan shouting about choices will grow louder, as the budget woes provide cover and rationale for individual Democrats’ and Republicans’ ambitions for statewide office in 2010 and for the parties’ efforts to capture as much as they can of the Legislature. But despite the noise, if Propositions 1A, 1C, 1D and 1E fail, the actual choices will be severely limited. Closing every school or laying off every state employee won’t fill the budget hole. Increasing taxes will raise revenue only on paper, because a bigger tax bite means a slower economy and diminishing revenue. If the measures pass, cuts can be somewhat shallower and more carefully targeted.

The Times recommends as follows:

Proposition 1A: Yes. This is the heart of the solution to this year’s budget deadlock. Each of its three parts brings Californians some pain but alleviates the far deeper pain they’re otherwise in for. It establishes the larger “rainy day fund” that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and most previous governors have sought, and in so doing requires a portion of revenues to go into the fund each year, allowing money to be disgorged only in case of fiscal emergency or when the fund has reached capacity. It gives Republicans their brass ring: a cap on spending, so that outlays don’t outpace growth. It gives Democrats an extra year to two years of slightly higher income, vehicle and sales taxes. We need the tax revenue. We should in theory be able to function without the spending cap and rainy day fund, but experience over the last decade shows that for now, with partisan standoff, we can’t.

Proposition 1B: No. This measure would ensure that despite this year’s and probably next year’s deep cuts, schools eventually would be returned the large portion of the state budget guaranteed by voters 21 years ago. Unlike four other measures, it doesn’t give, it only takes: It provides no revenue to balance the budget but blocks cuts that might otherwise be necessary.

Proposition 1C: Yes. Schwarzenegger floated this plan last year: Get money out of the state lottery now by selling to investors the right to future proceeds over a limited period. The lottery would be “modernized,” which probably means more games and more marketing. The guarantee of proceeds to schools would be replaced by a commitment to repay schools from future budgets. It’s a less-than-thrilling proposition, but the $5 billion it would pump into the state at a time of economic crisis is indispensable.

Proposition 1D: Yes. This measure diverts to the state budget, for five years, the tobacco tax money that voters in 1998 allocated to the “First 5” preschool and child services programs. Without the money, the state would have to cut other programs that children and their families rely on -- foster care, in-home care, healthcare and hospitalization. 1D provides backfill funding for some programs, and in the meantime First 5 organizations will have to survive on the surplus they have built up. The organizations may well suffer from the diversion, but the Californians they serve will suffer more without it.

Proposition 1E: Yes. This measure also diverts funds from an earlier ballot measure. In this case it’s Proposition 63, which imposed a “millionaire’s tax” to pay for mental health programs. The diversion lasts only two years, and some of the programs are backfilled.

Proposition 1F: Yes. Why not? This is the measure angry voters love, apparently in the mistaken belief that it punishes lawmakers by stopping their pay, or cutting it, when there is no budget. It does neither. It merely blocks pay increases when California is running a deficit. If this measure applied to all state employees, it could be substantive. As it is, it’s merely symbolic.

Los Angeles city attorney: Carmen Trutanich. He’s a lawyer with solid prosecutorial and defense experience and would bring some needed new perspective to the city attorney’s office. Opponent Jack Weiss is running a progressively negative campaign that underscores his unfitness for the post.

Los Angeles City Council, District 5: David T. Vahedi. It’s a close call between Vahedi and experienced pol Paul Koretz, but Vahedi gets the edge for his energy, encyclopedic knowledge of city functions and ideas for balancing citywide needs and his district’s quality of life.

Los Angeles Community College Board, seat 2: Angela J. Reddock. Reddock, an attorney and city commissioner, has served well as an appointee to fill a board vacancy and should now get a full term. She’s the easy choice over her challenger, who displays little grasp of how the colleges operate or how to spend their money.

Los Angeles Community College Board, seat 6: Nancy Pearlman. Although The Times respects Pearlman’s commitment to environmentalism, she too often puts that interest ahead of the needs of students. Still, she is far more qualified for the job than her opponent, who can state no case for improving the colleges and the lot of their students.

--

For The Times’ endorsements in their entirety and other coverage of state and local elections, go to latimes.com/voteorama.