PERSPECTIVE ON PROPOSITION 158 : Watchdog Caught in the Cross-Fire : With no friends in high places, the nonpartisan budget analyst’s office needs voters’ protection against political assault.

For more than 50 years, the California legislative analyst’s office has been the place to go for ideas on how to make state government more efficient. Now, the taxpayer’s best friend in Sacramento is on the verge of being silenced by stray bullets from political cross-fire. What may be the public’s best chance to save the office comes on Election Day.

The analyst’s office is easy to overlook. The name on the door suggests psychiatrists--or maybe claims adjusters--toil within. The size of the office’s budget--accounting for less than 9 cents of every $1,000 spent by the state--gives no clue to the importance of its function. Yet the office has had such a profound effect on government decision-making in California that it has served as the model for similar agencies around the country.

Independent, highly professional and nonpartisan, the California analyst reviews every line of the state’s $80-billion budget (including federal funds), as well as the thousands of bills introduced each year to raise spending or increase taxes. Based on these reviews, the analyst makes recommendations to prevent unnecessary spending and increase the effectiveness of state programs. In the past 10 years, the analyst has identified ways to reduce the cost of state government by more than $4.2 billion. Annual cost: About 23 cents per Californian.

It will come as no surprise that the analyst’s recommendations are frequently unpopular--especially with the interest groups, bureaucrats and politicians whose programs are cut as a result of these recommendations. In fact, the analyst has managed to antagonize just about every member of the Legislature and every governor from Culbert Olson to Pete Wilson. As a result, the office is no stranger to criticism--or to threats of retribution.

Yet the California analyst remains the most respected and trusted state government agency. While its recommendations to cut spending are often criticized, its integrity and professionalism are never questioned.

How can an institution admired by liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, be in such jeopardy that its continued existence is in doubt? The explanation has nothing to do with the importance of the analyst’s work--and everything to do with its nonpartisan orientation.

The “stray bullets” that now threaten the office were fired in the wake of Proposition 140, which the voters approved two years ago. Proposition 140 required the state Legislature to reduce its own budget by nearly 40%. As the measure’s sponsors made clear, the cutback was intended to force reductions in the legislators’ perks and political staff.

Because the text of Proposition 140 neglected to specify which activities should be reduced, however, politicians have been able to circumvent its intent. So, they cut the nonpartisan analyst’s office by nearly 50%--with further cuts lurking in the wings.

To save the California analyst’s office, a bipartisan coalition has placed Proposition 158 on the November ballot. If approved, it will move the analyst’s budget outside the limits established by Proposition 140. Hence, a “yes” vote will ensure that the politicians’ efforts to keep their political operatives do not put the analyst out of business.

Were Proposition 158 merely a referendum on the California analyst, it would have virtually no opposition. Some groups, however, are attempting to recast the measure as a referendum on legislative spending and perks. They are urging a “no” vote on Proposition 158, arguing that removal of the analyst from the Proposition 140 limits would give the politicians more money to spend on themselves. In effect, they are hoping that by defeating Proposition 158, the voters will force the politicians to cut their political staffs to save the analyst’s office.

Fat chance. Calling the politicians’ bluff in this instance is like telling kidnapers you don’t think they’ll harm your child if you refuse to pay the ransom. Clearly, the politicians are not bluffing. They have already cut the analyst’s office by more than half. And there can be little doubt that whenever the politicians are forced to choose between cutting their personal entourage and further reducing nonpartisan staff, the California analyst will be the loser. If this happens, the real losers will be the people of California.