Wilson Regrets Tactic of Fusing Prop. 165 Issues : Elections: Governor says criticism of the budget powers provision of the initiative sank his welfare overhaul plan. He says he may try again in 1994 if Legislature fails to act.

Gov. Pete Wilson said Monday he regrets trying to seize budget powers from the Legislature with a ballot measure last year because he believes criticism of his so-called “power grab” sank Proposition 165 and with it his hope for an overhaul of the state’s welfare program.

Wilson, who is asking lawmakers to approve a welfare reduction plan this year that is similar to the one voters rejected in November, said his welfare proposals never got the debate they deserved.

Speaking to reporters at a Sacramento luncheon, Wilson said he might go to the ballot again in 1994--this time with a measure focused solely on welfare--if the Legislature turns down his latest proposal.

On another issue, the Republican chief executive said he talked with Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Monday about his request for more federal money to cover the state’s cost of providing services to immigrants.

A Feinstein spokesman said the senator, who was defeated by Wilson for governor in 1990 and in turn defeated his handpicked replacement for the Senate, vowed her “full support” for Wilson’s proposal.

The governor said he would consider suing the federal government if the money does not come through.

“They owe the money,” he said. “They ought to pay it.”

On welfare, Wilson said he did not believe that there was a “real debate” about his proposals before the voters’ 54% to 46% rejection of Proposition 165.

“Everything I saw every time I turned on a television set was an argument about power grab,” Wilson said. “There was a successful, clever tactic employed by the other side to divert attention away from the welfare debate.”

The initiative proposed reducing welfare stipends for poor families by 10% immediately and another 15% for families with an able-bodied adult on aid after six months. It also included several provisions that Wilson said would encourage recipients to seek work, or, in the case of teen-agers, stay in school. Before the voters acted, the Legislature rejected most of the measure but passed a 5.8% reduction in grants.

The budget powers part of the measure would have given the governor authority to order cuts in state spending whenever the Legislature failed to pass a budget on time or when revenues and expenditures deviated from projections by 3% or more. It was this portion of the proposal that opponents characterized as a power grab.

Wilson said the measure would have passed had it not included the budget powers provision. In retrospect, he said, he regretted putting those issues into the initiative because of the opening they gave his opponents to criticize it.

Asked if he would put another welfare initiative on the ballot in 1994 if the Legislature rejects his proposals, Wilson replied: “It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.”

One opponent of the initiative interviewed Monday disputed Wilson’s contention that the welfare cuts were not sufficiently debated.

“It is true that the ‘No’ campaign stressed the power grab, but it can in no way be said that welfare was ignored,” said Casey McKeever, a lobbyist for the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “If you totaled up all the time and space devoted to the welfare issue compared to the power grab, there was a lot more attention paid to the welfare issue.”

Polling done during the campaign did not reveal the depth of voters’ knowledge or opinions about either the welfare or budget provisions of the measure. But a Field Poll that sampled Californians in early 1992 found widespread opposition to cutting monthly stipends.

That poll found the public split 61% to 34% against cutting welfare grants from $663 monthly, which they were at that time, to $597. By a 53%-40% margin, the poll found that Californians also opposed reducing grants further for families on welfare after six months.

McKeever said Wilson’s reintroduction of the welfare proposal shows that the governor is not interested in having the wealthy share in the burden of overcoming the state’s revenue shortfall.

“It is largely a part of his whole perspective, that those who will pay the price for the state’s financial crisis are going to be the weakest and the most powerless,” he said.

Wilson said higher taxes on the affluent or anyone else would lessen the incentive for people with money to invest it in companies that create jobs. Fewer jobs, he says, mean more misery for everyone and less tax revenue for the state to spend on social programs.

“There is a necessity for us to make cuts,” Wilson said.