Deukmejian’s Soft Speech Belies a Bashing Budget

On Monday Gov. George Deukmejian proffered an olive branch to California’s Democratic legislators. On Tuesday he told them exactly what to do with it.

Sacramento’s “era of good feelings,” heralded by the governor’s State of the State address--and the moderate response of state legislative leaders--lasted roughly 16 hours, until Department of Finance Director Jesse R. Huff unveiled the Administration’s budget. As a result, the “window of opportunity” for policy-making that Deukmejian opened with his withdrawal from next year’s gubernatorial race may have prematurely been slammed shut.

The events of last week again called into question the governor’s leadership posture as well as his political acumen. Not only did he place his policy legacy in jeopardy, he has also spotlighted his role in the gridlock hamstringing the Capitol--something the Legislature, controlled by Democrats, has often been blamed for.

As California legislators met to hear the governor “comment upon our strengths and our needs,” there was reason for optimism. This year’s State of the State address, like last year’s, did show a middle-class bias. But, in a rare and welcomed departure from his relentlessly upbeat rhetoric, Deukmejian acknowledged that problems exist threatening California’s “golden” life style. Growth, drugs, waste management and transportation were among issues addressed.

In the face of criticism for his obstinate refusal to “reach out” to the Legislature and his “all-mine-or-nothing” tactics, Deukmejian held out the hope that “with peace breaking out all over the world--with Reagan talking to Gorbachev and with the U.S. talking to Arafat, and with Speaker Willie Brown talking to the Gang of Five--surely we ought to be able to work together peacefully and productively, here in the state Capitol.”

Robert Forsyth, press aide to Sen. David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), observed that “personal interaction” between the governor and legislative leaders “is progress which can’t be minimized.” But even before the budget landed on the laps of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and Senate President pro Tem Roberti, there were indications that the promise of the State of the State would not--indeed could not--be met.

Ultimately, just as U.S.-Soviet progress depends on movement by both sides on difficult issues, there needs to be real movement on issues by both Deukmejian and legislators. Along those lines, Assembly Democrats point to the “functioning majority” they won in the November elections as a key to doing policy. But that increase in numbers doesn’t add up to a vital two-thirds majority--and may not, even with the governor’s backing.

As a case in point, consider budget reform and restructuring the Gann spending limit--two goals outlined by the governor in his address. In his budget message, Deukmejian accurately blamed “constitutional amendments, statutes, court decisions and other legal requirements” for hamstringing the budget. Democrats, especially, would like more flexibility. One Democratic legislator labeled the Gann limit “perhaps the most important constraint to face the state.”

But budget reform and changes in the Gann formula, like approval of the budget itself, require a two-thirds vote of each house. That means lining up Republicans. So if Deukmejian and the Democratic legislative leadership want policy, they all must worry about delivering votes. That will be difficult in the contentious Assembly. And Deukmejian may have a hard time across the board because, by choosing not to run for reelection, he has deserted Republicans on the thing they care most about--reapportionment. This may not encourage them to bail him out in his dealings with the Democrats.

Not surprisingly, none of these obstacles were immediately apparent in the State of the State glow. Indeed, like last year, what wasn’t heard in Deukmejian’s remarks was as important as what he said, in terms of both politics and policy. Politically, for example, there is an interesting sidebar to Deukmejian’s call for revising the Gann limit. If, as polls seem to indicate, voters will spend more money on specific government programs, but are still chary about lifting the general Gann ceiling, the political fallout from such a move might be more damaging to the Democratic legislative majority than to a Republican governor exiting the scene.

And Deukmejian’s call for putting to the voters a proposal requiring prisoners to work and pay for their upkeep just coincidentally might give the Republicans a popular law-enforcement issue on the 1990 ballot.

Of greater significance to Californians was the omission of policies for the homeless, health care, insurance reform and various social services. Programs not mentioned on Monday generally got shorted on Tuesday--in a budget document that challenged Democrats to surrender their policy concerns to Deukmejian’s middle-class world view.

Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said Deukmejian’s budget “represents a cannibalization of California’s least fortunate” and vowed that he “will not allow this budget to be implemented in this fashion.” This does not auger well for detente.

The budget has been attacked as a shell game because it appears--although Huff has denied it--that tobacco tax revenues raised by Proposition 99, passed last November, will be used to fund existing programs, rather than to support new initiatives.

A veteran Sacramento fiscal analyst characterized the governor’s budget as being built on quicksand. First of all, he suggested, Proposition 99’s constitutionality may be questionable. As a result of Proposition 13, adopted in 1978, California’s constitution reads, in part, “any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues . . . must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature.” The tax increases in Proposition 99 are statutory provisions adopted by a vote of the people--not the Legislature. Therefore there is a possibility they may be challenged in court.

Secondly, balancing the budget as the governor has assumes passage of legislation suspending cost-of-living allowances. That was a naive assumption even before the governor got hit with legislative reaction. He and his people should have known that such a feat would be difficult. In today’s political environment, Democrats are loathe to jeopardize an important safety net--even on a “temporary” basis or as a political trade-off to protect other social welfare programs.

Despite all this political maneuvering, and regardless of the fiscal confusion engulfing Sacramento, both the governor and legislators have expressed a growing sense of urgency about the need to govern. And that is important. Now all they have to do is get down to business.

What can Californians expect from the Capitol now? The jury will be out--as it is every year--until the last deal is made, the last appropriation blue-penciled, the last vote taken and the 1989-90 state budget is signed into law.

And even then, Californians may see fragile solutions trampled in yet another round of overnment by initiative.