NEWS ANALYSIS : Democrats Jettison Poor in Effort to Broaden Appeal

In their efforts to solve the state’s massive budget crisis, Democrats in the California Legislature are backing away from one of their longstanding constituencies--poor families on welfare.

Facing a $14.3-billion state budget deficit, Democrats have been forced to choose among the various interest groups that depend on the state for funding. The decision, reached after a series of closed-door meetings, was to sacrifice welfare benefits in favor of school funding.

It is a major shift that some Democrats hope will help redefine their political base and broaden their appeal to the middle class. It also has caused some top Democrats to recognize that, despite their majority status in the Legislature, their hands often are tied when it comes to making financial decisions.

In negotiations with Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, Democratic leaders of both houses have agreed to the largest welfare cuts in state history and a five-year suspension of automatic cost-of-living increases for recipients. In the Senate, Democrats have gone even further, approving a bill that also would eliminate the automatic annual increases.

“Schools were more important than the current welfare formula,” said Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles). “It is an unfortunate choice, but one that had to be made. As important as (welfare) is, that cannot be the only program on our agenda.”

In the past, Roberti and Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown of San Francisco have been adamant about preserving California’s level of assistance to poor mothers and children, which is among the highest in the nation. Year after year, they have resisted Republican attempts to eliminate the automatic cost-of-living increase.

This year’s unprecedented budget crisis, however, forced Democrats into a corner. When it came to budget negotiations, they said, they simply didn’t have as much power as the governor and his fellow Republicans in the Legislature.

Despite the fact that Democrats hold a majority in both houses, they cannot muster by themselves the two-thirds vote needed to pass a budget or increase taxes. Furthermore, once the budget reaches the governor, he can use his line-item veto to cut spending.

“On the budget, we are the minority,” said Roberti, the Senate’s top Democrat. “That’s not defeatist. It doesn’t mean you abandon your cause, but it means you recognize the limits on what can be done.”

For some Democrats, the decision to cut grants and give up the automatic cost-of-living increase for welfare recipients represents an attempt to redefine their constituency. While the party has long been identified with the interests of poor people, some leaders would like Democrats to stand just as much for the middle class.

“We can’t just talk about one program like it’s a mantra,” said Roberti, who has long been one of the Legislature’s champions of the poor. “The call on our attention, our emotional appeal, has to be to a broader constituency. That includes the middle class as well.”

In negotiations with Wilson, Democratic leaders had two priorities: preserve the school funding guarantees of Proposition 98 and make sure at least half the budget shortfall was made up by enacting tax increases, not program cuts.

The Democratic leaders accomplished their two main goals, but gave ground on many other issues. Their biggest concession was in welfare spending.

In meetings with Wilson, Democrats agreed to a 4.4% cut in welfare payments, which will reduce the average grant for a family of three from $694 to $663 a month. Wilson initially proposed a cut twice that size.

More importantly, the Democrats agreed to bring an end to one of former Gov. Ronald Reagan’s most enduring legacies: the automatic cost-of-living increases that have made California’s welfare grants among the highest in the nation.

Reagan, during similar negotiations with legislative leaders in 1971, agreed to an annual cost-of-living increase for welfare recipients as a trade-off for other concessions. But as welfare grants have soared over the last two decades, other Republicans have come to regret his deal and believe that Democrats got the better of the bargain.

This time around, it appears that Republicans have been the tougher negotiators.

An agreement reached by Wilson, Roberti and Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy would suspend cost-of-living increases for welfare recipients for the next five years. During the fourth and fifth years, the Legislature could increase welfare grants--but only by the amount of additional money the state collects from absent fathers for child support. After the five years, the cost-of-living increases would be eliminated.

The proposal passed the Senate and was sent to the Assembly, where some Democrats balked at eliminating the cost-of-living increase altogether. They have put together an alternative bill that would make similar cutbacks during the next five years but then restore the automatic cost-of-living increase.

“I don’t think there’s a lot of support here for a permanent suspension,” said Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar). “I don’t think the Assembly is going to be willing to balance the entire budget on the backs of poor people.”

Michael Reese, Brown’s press secretary, said the Assembly leader is willing to go along with the 4.4% cutback in grants and five-year-suspension of the automatic annual increase because it is far less severe than Wilson’s original proposal of an 8.8% cutback and elimination of the cost-of-living increase. He said Brown was forced to give in to political realities.

“It could have been a lot worse,” Reese said. “Given the Republican ideologues in the Assembly, this was the best we can do. Far from being an abandonment (of welfare recipients), we ensure that the safety net would at least still be in place.”

The Assembly proposal and the long-term fate of the cost-of-living allowance must still be negotiated with the governor. Wilson has threatened to veto the Assembly plan, contending that it would throw the state’s $56.4-billion budget out of balance.

In dealing with the governor, the Democrats’ position has been eroded by a string of political defeats and a widespread public contempt for the Legislature. Last November, the voters elected Wilson governor and passed Proposition 140, the initiative to limit the terms of legislators. Now, with the huge budget deficit threatening their favorite government programs, some Democrats are feeling beaten down.

For Senate Democrats, it was important not to delay passage of the budget and arouse the public’s anger at the Legislature again. But this made it all the harder for Democrats to hold out and protect programs important to their constituents.

“A major consideration was the sake of the institution and the need to pass the budget on time,” Roberti said. “The longer we fail to deal with this $15-billion deficit, the worse and worse it’s going to get for everybody.”

Welfare Payments: A Comparison of 10 States

Here is a comparison of the 1990 AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) payments for the 10 most populous states. Amounts represent the maximum aid payments available to a family of three in each state. Among all states, Alaska leads in welfare payments.

STATE AMOUNT California $694 New York $577 Michigan $575 New Jersey $424 Pennsylvania $403 Illinois $367 Ohio $334 Florida $294 North Carolina $272 Texas $184

SOURCE: California Health and Welfare Agency

Compiled by Times researcher Michael Meyers