Politics of Clenched Teeth . . .

Sacramento’s annual indulgence in the politics of clenched teeth and budget deadlock is all too familiar. But this is no ordinary deadlock. This time it bears directly on the kind of place California is and will be. This time Sacramento is about to decide whether to keep California’s beacon of excellence shining, or to start turning out the lights that mark the path to the future.

For being so complicated, the decision is quite simple: Should state government give back to a relatively small number of taxpayers about $700 million in relatively small amounts because the money exceeds an arbitrary limit on the amount of money that Sacramento can spend? Or should the money be invested in public education?

Gov. George Deukmejian has presided over increases in the education budget of about $1 billion a year since the state began trying to pay teachers what they are worth, getting back to basics on curricula, lengthening the school day and making other adjustments in the name of reform. Despite that, and because other states tried harder, California fell from ninth to 33rd place in spending per pupil. But this year Deukmejian’s education budget, adjusted for inflation, was a step backward. The state, he explained, was short of cash.

Then a surge in state revenue produced much more extra money than it will take to maintain the momentum of school reform. The windfall would put the state over the Gann spending limit in both this fiscal year and next, but the limit does not apply to state funds that “are distributed to local government”--a category that includes schools.

The deadlock took shape when Deukmejian insisted that the Gann amendment forces the state to give away its new-found money. The deadlock hardened when the governor began to mark down those who debate the point as common criminals with no respect for the law. It turned to stone when the governor, barely giving the ink time to dry, vetoed a bill, separate from the budget, that diverted $700 million of the excess to schools.

Now Republican legislators, many of whom disagree with his position in private, have rallied behind the governor, blocked the budget, and said that they are prepared to wait until July 1 when the fiscal year ends. That would trigger the Gann limit, and excess money would have to be refunded unless voters chose, in a special election, to let the state keep it or turn it over to education.

Republicans argue that the surge in revenue is temporary and should not be used to raise the base of income to which schools would want to add next year. They have a point. But if the extra funds are a one-time event, they could be used to meet one-time needs like air-conditioning for schools that operate year-round and new classrooms to relieve overcrowding.

If the impasse continues, public health will be as much at risk as education. As with schools, the governor has supported health programs as the needs became apparent. Just last month he revised his budget to restore major cuts that he had asked for in the Medi-Cal program. The deadlocked budget includes new money for programs for the medically indigent in county hospitals for which state funding had seriously deteriorated in recent years, and a $20-million fund to help make it possible for financially distressed hospitals to reopen their trauma centers. The budget also would maintain Medi-Cal at present levels and provide a 20% fee increase for obstetricians to try to revive a very cost-effective prenatal program. But unless California schools are given the $700 million in excess funds, the final budget must savage education or health or both.

Next Monday the California Legislature will try to override the veto and free the $700 million for education. For something so complicated, the vote will involve a simple choice: Turn up the beacon of excellence, or start turning out the lights that mark the path to the future.