As California Goes, So Goes America : How can national recovery occur without recovery here?

Can a decent U.S. economic recovery occur without an accompanying snapback in the California economy? That’s the big question for the Clinton Administration as it comes out of the macroeconomic clouds and gets down to earth in producing a detailed budget. California could be a problem--a big one--for the President.

The fact is that his plan could very well misfire unless California receives special attention. The Clinton approach now reflects broad-gauged national economic data and trends that suggest the economy in general may be on the mend. Maybe . But California--whose economy accounts for nearly 13% of the U.S. gross domestic product, an economy equivalent to the world’s eighth-largest--is struggling mightily, and so far ineffectively, to join the national recovery. Little relief is in sight.

California’s problem is caused in particular by the restructuring and downsizing of major industries, especially the defense business, hard hit by federal cutbacks. On today’s Commentary page, UC Berkeley professor Stephen S. Cohen points out that California has taken a disproportionate hit in the economic slump. The state, all by itself, accounted for 38% of total U.S. job losses between June, 1990, and December, 1992. All by themselves, the five counties of the L.A. metropolitan area accounted for a chilling 27% of U.S. job losses.

Job shrinkage appears to be continuing. The latest unemployment figures show that California’s unemployment rate rose while the national rate dipped. Even more troubling was that the unemployment rate for L.A. County rose to 11.2%, the highest level since July. The last time the county’s jobless rate was higher was a decade ago. These figures should grab the attention of the Administration. California’s problems, unaddressed, could kill any national recovery. State Treasurer Kathleen Brown, commenting on her meeting last week with President Clinton, said he vowed that he would be responsive to California’s needs.

Clinton also indicated he would incorporate in his budget plan Gov. Pete Wilson’s request for $1.5 billion in reimbursement for health and education services to immigrants. But he did not specify an amount. “He seemed to be concerned about how critical California is to the recovery of the national economy,” Brown reports. Good. But in Clinton’s national economic plan, California could well get lost in the budget allocations. The Administration should pay special attention to the state’s agonies.

The California congressional delegation came together last week, for only the second time in recent years, to meet with Brown. More than ever, the delegation needs to work together to ensure that California gets its fair share of Clinton’s investments in infrastructure programs (the subject of a series of Times editorials, Part 3 of which appears on this page today); in high technology; in the inner cities (especially South Los Angeles); in retraining programs for out-of-work defense workers; in mass transportation.

Despite its large size, California does not now get its fair share from Washington. The paradox is that the fortunes of the U.S. economy ride to a great extent on California’s fate. Without special attention, a continued poor showing in the California economy could take the sizzle out of the Clinton economic plan. We state this point as emphatically as we know how, not simply because we are Californians but also because we are Americans: If this state continues to lag behind the national “recovery,” there won’t be any national recovery.