Gov. Wilson, Come Clean on the Tax Hike : Instead of immigrant-bashing, let’s talk about the catastrophe left by his budget ‘solution.’

Old Glory. Bumper stickers and rubber chicken. Wet kisses lingering on the faces of helpless infants. Such are the traditional signs of an imminent election, a noble exercise of American democracy that for Yogi Berra fans is half business, half farce and half entertainment.

Alas, the fun and pride are dimmer this year. The traditional Reaganite optimism about greatness and opportunity for all is nowhere to be heard; instead, we have the largely artificial issue of illegal immigration, promoted with a crass demagoguery shameless even by California standards. Even the official estimates imply that illegals impose upon the public purse a net cost equal to a trivial 0.4% of state gross product. Does the government not waste that and a good deal more each year? And that excludes the benefits that illegals provide for the economy as a whole. By far the vast preponderance of illegal immigrants come to California in search of productive work. Who can believe that to be bad for us?

Let us talk instead about a real issue, to wit, the whopping tax increase that is almost certain over the next two years, engineered last spring by Gov. Pete Wilson to be pushed through after this election is safely past.

Climaxing a five-year descent from an AAA bond rating to one of the four lowest among the states, California ended its 1993-1994 fiscal year with a budget deficit so large that a two-year swing loan of $7 billion was obtained to “balance” the budget. This loan will cost taxpayers almost $500 million in interest and fees.

Because the deficit is so large, the lenders insisted on provisions for automatic spending cuts should the state begin to run out of money in fiscal years 1995 or 1996. Accordingly, a provision in the new two-year budget will force across-the-board reductions in non-education spending when--not if--the state runs out of money sometime in 1995 or 1996. In addition to the immunity of education spending, debt repayment cannot be cut because the effect on the state’s credit standing would be catastrophic.

The Republican candidate for state controller, Tom McClintock, points out in California Political Review that the spending reductions thus must come from the non-education operations side of the state budget. That means that severe pressure will be placed on prisons, mental facilities, state police, etc.--precisely the state services that loosely can be categorized under a “public safety” umbrella.

In short, the politicians generally and Gov. Wilson in particular once again are playing the Washington Monument Game: They deliberately have created a situation in which they will threaten to cut the most important public services (public safety) first in order to create irresistible pressure for a major tax increase.

Would some crack reporter please ask the governor which taxes he will propose for increases? An extension of the sales tax to services? “Modification” of Proposition 13 protection for property owners? If he claims that the budget is balanced, please remind him that the budget assumes an optimistic 5.9% revenue growth and an illusory $3.6 billion in federal bailouts. And if he claims to be the victim of the recession and of cuts in defense spending, please point out that Michigan, Massachusetts and Virginia recently have gone through economic downturns and defense cuts equal or worse proportionately, but Govs. John Engler, William Weld and Douglas Wilder, respectively, held firm on or cut spending and taxes. The result? Those states’ economies are in far better shape than that of California.

Quite happy to beat up on politically unpopular illegals, the governor has been a good deal less macho when it comes to standing up to the Sacramento spending constituencies. The irony is that even as Wilson accuses Kathleen Brown of planning to raise taxes, a Gov. Kathleen Brown would find it next to impossible to get a major tax increase through the Legislature, even if she would prefer to do so, because the Republicans would stop it. She then would have to cut spending in a serious way and thus would find it necessary to reject the pleas of myriad interest groups demanding that they be exempted from the budget knife.

If the reporters only would do their jobs, perhaps half business, half farce and half entertainment can be ours to enjoy once again.