New Powers for the Governor? : Wilson’s proposal raises too many questions

Gov. Pete Wilson’s bold proposal to shake up the state’s budgetary process is an attempt to force the Legislature to accomplish in a timely fashion its most important job: adopting an annual spending plan. But, though some aspects of the statewide ballot initiative that Wilson is sponsoring are laudable, other parts would tip the balance of power dangerously in favor of the governor.

Wilson’s frustration over the state budget is understandable. Last summer’s budgetary debacle finally ended July 16--more than two weeks after the start of the fiscal year. But Wilson himself helped delay the process by his last-minute ploy to enact workers’ compensation reforms. In the end, the budget imposed deep cuts and substantial tax increases--hardly a first-year Republican governor’s ideal legacy.

A MARK: The protracted events obviously left their mark on Wilson. His initiative would address two fiscal issues: welfare costs and the budgetary process itself. But these are subjects that should be addressed separately. (The Times will comment soon on the welfare proposals.)

Some aspects of Wilson’s ideas to reform the budgetary process seem fine. For example, he proposes to instill some urgency into the process by withholding his own and legislative salaries for each day the budget isn’t adopted past the June 15 deadline. Wilson also proposes to delay submission of his budget in order to take advantage of up-to-date revenue projections.

So far, so good. But the governor also desires the power to declare a fiscal emergency if the budget isn’t passed and signed by July 1, or if, once a budget is passed, economic conditions create a budget imbalance of at least 3%. In the first instance, the state’s prior budget would remain in place and the Legislature would have 30 days in which to enact a balanced budget by two-thirds majority--the same majority as is now required. In either instance, the governor would have unilateral authority to reduce programs not already protected by the Constitution (as are, for example, most education programs).

A MONKEY WRENCH: But these changes would freeze into the Constitution solid new powers for the executive branch. Wilson says that the Legislature “need have no fear if (it) simply does (its) job.” But he would have done better to address a different problem: the power of a few legislators to throw a monkey wrench into the budgetary process. That power exists because California--unlike most other states--requires a two-thirds majority vote on budgets rather than a simple majority. Thus a small minority of legislators have the leverage--which they haven’t hesitated to use--to hold up the budget process to try to extract a partisan agenda. Under Wilson’s proposal, there would be an even greater incentive for this sort of game-playing because the budget could end up solely in the hands of a governor of their own party.

All told, Wilson’s argument for a constitutional amendment to change the budgetary process, offered during a peculiarly harsh budget crisis, is not convincing.