Does a Big Political Comeback Equal Good Public Policy? : Parts of Gov. Wilson’s ‘tough-love’ agenda raise serious questions

California, long known as a land where people remake themselves, now has a governor who looks different from the man who moved to Sacramento four years ago. Pete Wilson, who rode into office under a moderate’s banner, is suddenly a “tough-love governor.” As the Republican begins his second term, he has an agenda that would slash both taxes and welfare expenditures.

Gov. Wilson’s make-over--which fuels speculation that he has presidential aspirations--could take the state in wayward directions. Although the optimism about California’s economy that he voiced in his State of the State address on Monday is comforting, his continued targeting of groups like welfare mothers is divisive and only widens the chasm between the have and have-nots.

TAXES: In his customary politically alert fashion, Wilson is zeroing in on tax cuts. The mood of the electorate--an electorate that, it’s disturbing to note, is largely white at a time the population is increasingly nonwhite--clearly won’t tolerate business-as-usual government. Wilson has become part of the downsizing movement, but his tax cut would force a questionable reordering of state priorities.

He has proposed, beginning next year, a tax cut of $7.6 billion over four years. But if California’s economy is indeed improving--and we surely hope so--does it require a stimulus? If it does not improve as forecast, then tax cuts could be irresponsible. If a revived economy does generate more tax revenue, better to invest it in rebuilding the state’s higher-education system and in reducing some of the welfare cuts the governor is proposing.

WELFARE REFORM: Wilson correctly insists on greater responsibility by fathers. He also wisely insists on steps to reduce teen-age pregnancy, a major cause of long-term welfare dependency. He would shift the emphasis of GAIN, the state’s successful workfare program, from education and training to finding a job. That change would have a better chance of success if the state economy improved and jobs were once again widely available. But the governor’s proposal to shift 20% of the cost of Aid to Families with Dependent Children to counties in exchange for the state assuming 70% of county trial costs brings up thorny questions. The switch might net the state $240 million, but would it impose an unfair fiscal hardship on large urban counties such as Los Angeles, San Diego and Alameda that have large welfare populations?

EDUCATION: Some old ideas are still good ideas. We applaud Wilson’s emphasis on decentralization of elementary and high school education, moving more decision-making to the local level and requiring that parents’ wishes be taken into account. Proposing that job protections be abolished for teachers is another, more complex matter. That move would get rid of some inadequate teachers, but it doesn’t address the teachers’ biggest concern: students with family and social problems.

Wilson’s budget for the first time in three years does include an across-the-board increase (2%) in funding for higher education; and though fees are increased, Cal Grant student aid money is increased to compensate for the hike. Capital investment in higher education is only $150 million, however, in contrast with $2.35 billion for prisons.

LEGAL REFORM: The governor’s package of tort reform measures includes some ideas that make sense, including no-fault auto insurance, but others are more sound bite than substance. For example, proposals that mirror the Republican “contract with America,” among them sanctions against those who file frivolous lawsuits, may sound appealing but could prove unworkable. Who decides which suits are frivolous and which are not?

RED TAPE: A constitutional amendment to reduce red tape? Sounds like a Committee to Reduce Committees. The goal is correct; the method isn’t. Better to do this through a negotiating process in the state Legislature, not through amending the state Constitution.

CRIME CRACKDOWN: The Legislature passed dozens of crime bills last session, including the “three strikes and you’re out” law. California has gotten tough on crime. Now it’s time to wait for results before piling on more laws.

Wilson’s address this week outlined a plan for California that reflects a shrewd allocation of the governor’s renewed political capital. The question is: Does that translate into good public policy?