Check Is Not in the Mail : Bill should be passed to let state pay its increasingly desperate vendors

It’s not fair that the state’s 95,000 vendors are being victimized by the inability of Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature to come to an agreement on the state budget. State law doesn’t allow the vendors--who haven’t been paid since July 1--to be reimbursed absent a budget or special legislation authorizing payment.

Because it’s anybody’s guess when the six-week-old budget crisis will be resolved, legislators and the governor must do the responsible thing and pass legislation allowing vendors to be paid.

A bill that would do just that is pending in the Assembly. But getting the required two-thirds vote there, as well as approval in the Senate, could be tricky. In an Assemblycommittee, the bill’s support fell along strictly partisan lines, with Republicans voting “no” or abstaining. That bodes ill for passage on the floor.

There is hope that enough GOP supporters can be rounded up to put the measure over the top, however. Assembly Republican Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks, for example, said he would support the measure if it was narrowed to permit payment only to vendors and not to social services programs, which are now included in the bill. The bill’s author, Assemblyman Rusty Areias (D-San Jose), said he would make that concession.

As for the governor signing the legislation, Wilson’s office said this week that he is torn between helping the vendors and keeping up the pressure on the Legislature to come to the bargaining table. Wilson has a point, but he still should support the Areias bill. It’s wrong to use the vendors--many of whom are in danger of losing their businesses--as a way to force the budget process to an end.