The right way to borrow

Leading legislative Democrats insisted last week that they wouldn’t accept any budget deal that relies on money confiscated from city and county coffers. But rumors persist that just such a plan is in the works, and with good reason: The state has robbed local governments before. In the 1990s and into the 2000s, California lawmakers weathered a bad economy and weaseled out of their own budget mess by swiping millions of dollars earmarked for local use. “Sorry,” they told their counterparts on city councils and boards of supervisors. “We got ours. Now you get yours.”

Sacramento boasted that the shift saved crucial programs and taxpayer money, but of course it did nothing of the kind. It simply allowed the governor and the Legislature to shirk responsibility for inevitable service cuts or tax hikes that now landed in the laps of the locals. “See?” the thieving state lawmakers said. “We were prudent, but you voters should teach those prodigal supervisors and council members a lesson.”

In 2004, voters adopted Proposition 1A, which requires the state to pay locals back within three years, with interest, for any future larceny. Now it’s the local governments smugly chiding Sacramento lawmakers for failing to balance their budgets.

In fact, a state tax hike and a local one reach into the same pockets, and a state service cut and a local one undermine the quality of life in the same communities. Herb J. Wesson Jr. may be the only one in town who understands that, or at least is willing to openly acknowledge it. The former Assembly speaker, now on the City Council, told his self-righteous colleagues last week that he took local money when he was in Sacramento and would expect his successors to take it now. The important thing, he said, is to work with the Legislature and the governor to make sure that any take-aways do as little damage as possible to the people at home. Besides, the Proposition 1A payback requirement converts the theft into a slightly less outrageous forced loan from the taxpayer’s front pocket to his back one.

A state money grab would throw the city off its schedule for resurfacing streets, and that’s a big deal -- but not as big a deal as slashing school funding, healthcare reimbursements or any of the other state programs needed by the same people who want their streets paved. Cuts to county government would be more painful, trading off one package of human services or transportation for another. But they shouldn’t be shoved off the table if they can be part of a comprehensive budget reform that takes care of this year’s problem and moves state and local governments toward a more sustainable future.