Formula for Conflict, Not Gridlock Erasure : Why Prop. 165 won’t ease budget or welfare problems

Voters frustrated by rising welfare costs may be tempted to vote for Proposition 165. Half of it would reduce welfare benefits. And its other half, which would give the governor new powers over the budget, may attract voters who are turned off by the budget-gridlock display in Sacramento. But these so-called reforms would fail to solve either the welfare problem or the budget problem--and could create new difficulties in the process.

NEW POWERS: Prop. 165, an initiative constitutional amendment that requires only a simple majority to pass, should be defeated to preserve the limited budgetary checks and balances in Sacramento. Time-tested constitutional safeguards must not be discarded because of all the Angst over recession and gridlock.

Gov. Pete Wilson argues that he needs more power over the budget because a recalcitrant Legislature can’t be trusted to do anything right. But the current system already makes the governorship more powerful than that in many other states: It requires a two-thirds vote bythe Legislature to pass a budget, whereas most states require a simple majority.

That’s not enough for Wilson. The change he wants would permit him and future governors to declare a fiscal emergency if a budget wasn’t passed by July 1, the official deadline. Then the governor could assume unilateral authority to cut any program not specifically protected by the state Constitution, including health programs.

The hitch is that 165 is in fact a potential formula for increased politicization. The budget process could be held hostage by a minority of legislators, who could throw the budget into the lap of the governor by refusing to pass it by July 1. Then the governor, without the agreement of the Legislature, could solely determine the spending priorities of the state.

Is that what the people of California want?

HURTFUL CUTS: Concern about skyrocketing welfare costs could prompt some Californians to vote for this initiative, which would cut benefits by as much as 25% for those who received welfare checks for longer than six months. Educated female welfare recipients with older children--women who typically are on welfare temporarily in a divorce or medical crisis or when jobless benefits expire--might be able to find work; but most poor single mothers would be severely hit. In theory, recipients could compensate for the loss by working several hours a day. Although that trade-off appears reasonable, most recipients lack the skills or experience to get hired. And their chances would be even slimmer in this horrid job market. Prop. 165 is an unintended formula for greater poverty and homelessness.

New mothers would have the most to lose. If a family grew through a birth, the mother would have to make do with the same welfare check. Proposition 165 would prohibit the standard increase in benefits for additional children. All new mothers would have to go to work immediately to compensate for the initial 10% cut and the expense of child care. Six months later, they would face an additional 15% cut.

Teen-age mothers would get an additional $50 monthly if they stayed in school. That’s a good incentive that belongs in any true mix of welfare reform--as does greater investment in GAIN, the state’s successful training program. Prop. 165, however, provides too few incentives to trade a welfare check for a paycheck.

NEW PROBLEMS: Californians want to reform welfare, but not by punishing poor children who through no fault of their own must depend on government to provide shelter, clothing and other necessities. Californians also want budget reform, but their elected representatives should retain a say in how state money is spent. Unfortunately, Prop. 165 is not the answer to either crisis.