Forget the ‘Ideal’--Be Real : A state budget is very possible now if both sides cool down and deal

If there’s one thing rising up oh so clearly from the political swampland in Sacramento, it’s that the state budget--now 59 days past deadline--is achievable only if the tolerable and possible is not sacrificed on the altar of the ideal.

From the perspective of Gov. Pete Wilson and those who share his view that the present structure of the state budget is fundamentally misconceived, an ideal budget would be one that prepared California for the future fiscal storms to come. This would mean, among other things, that the state’s support for public education, now encapsulated in the famous 1988 Proposition 98, be reconfigured to avoid baseline overcommitment in years to come.

But from the perspective of the statewide education lobby, its allies in the state Legislature and others who share the view that no expenditure is more vital than public education, an ideal budget would be one that doesn’t give up a dime proposed for the kids.

Both views are deeply respectable. Both views are endlessly arguable. But both views, bolted together as if Siamese twins, spell further potential G-R-I-D-L-O-C-K.

This most infuriating Legislative session could end on an actual uptick if several things were achieved. Among them is serious reform of the scandalous workers’ compensation system and passage of the much-needed L.A. Area Economic Recovery Act of 1992. Last but not least is a budget.

What’s needed now is a final reasonable lunge toward sensible compromise--a freshened version of the approach of two weeks ago that seemed to be working toward a true consensus. The work product of state Sen. Frank Hill, a Republican of Whittier, and Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg of Sacramento, a Democrat, the proposal would have settled on a 1992-1993 figure for public education that was (a) within the ballpark of what both the governor and his legislative allies were prepared to spend and (b) within the tolerance of the other side. But it would avoid the potentially deal-breaking question of lowering the future education spending baseline.

A new version of the Hill-Isenberg proposal, while not ideal for either camp, would be close to ideal for most Californians. Why? Because it would be a sensible budget.