Turning the Tide

As the governor of California two decades ago, Ronald Reagan pledged to start a prairie fire that would roll back the excesses of government, as he perceived them. The result has been two decades of scorched-earth public policy in California. But in Tuesday’s primary election California voters have an opportunity to take a small step back from the wasteland and to plant some seeds for a better future that includes all Californians and their needs.

The Reagan era brought cafeteria government and tax policy by voter initiative to California. Californians have taken to picking and choosing the services that they have wanted and to selecting the financing schemes that would cause the least pain or sacrifice for themselves.

In subtle ways Reagan made it acceptable to resent assistance to poor people. No longer was there emphasis on the citizens fulfilling their collective responsibility to society through the common vehicle of government. Taxes had to be linked to some tangible benefit. Tax reductions were locked into the Constitution or law against tampering by elected representatives. Business had to be given a free rein because constant economic growth was needed to keep shrinking the relative burden of social services that had to be provided by government.

The process was abetted by state legislatures cowed by the public support for Proposition 13 and the Gann spending-limits initiative. The fiscal squeeze on government limited the legislative agenda. And, with the growing cost of election campaigns, too many lawmakers turned their attention to the narrow demands and desires of the special interests that financed their elections.

The result was predictable, although few had the courage to say it. Straitjacketed government would cut corners, make do for today and put off planning and building for tomorrow. The result is a massive backlog of state needs, led by transportation and education. The irony is that the economic growth that is the holy grail of the Reagan-Deukmejian programs will be threatened unless these needs are met.

One key vote on Tuesday will be in favor of Proposition 71, the ballot measure that would modestly ease the constraints of the Gann spending limits, putting them on the more realistic basis of California economic indicators rather than national indexes. Proposition 72, a rival measure, promises to free funds for transportation, but only by further restricting spending for education and social programs. It should be defeated.

Another positive step that Californians can take is to enact campaign-financing reform through the passage of Proposition 68. A Legislature less beholden to special interests might be more inclined to consider the long view of total state needs and responsibilities.

Then voters can defeat Proposition 74, which would provide an insufficient amount of transportation funds in the wrong way--by floating general-obligation bonds. California always has financed highway construction through current gasoline-tax revenues. The bond proposal is another of the fiscal gimmicks symptomatic of the Proposition 13 era--a contorted attempt to persuade voters that they will get something without higher taxes. As with all such gimmicks, the price will have to paid. The price on Proposition 74 is far too high: a possible $790 million in interest just to build $1 billion worth of roads.

Elections rarely are watersheds, and certainly the 1988 primary will not be one. But a slight turning of the tide back toward California’s progressive tradition on Tuesday would be a welcome, constructive development.