Wilson’s State Budget Proposal

* The Times’ critique of Gov. Pete Wilson’s budget proposal (editorial, March 8) dwells far more on where there is disagreement than on the fundamental areas where there is agreement. For example, the budget’s economic and revenue forecasts--the most critical of budget assumptions--are in sync with those of the legislative analyst (and are actually more conservative).

But on several key areas where The Times takes issue with the budget, we simply disagree. Far from being “fantasy federal money,” the budget’s assumptions regarding federal funds and law changes are reasonable, and they are already being acted upon by the new Congress. The anti-crime package passed by the House of Representatives in February requires that California and other states be reimbursed for the costs of illegal immigrant incarceration before other funds in the bill are spent. In addition, the welfare reform package now being considered by the House contains many of the reforms that Wilson called for in his budget--reforms that will lead to significant savings. Compared to recent years, Washington is moving on these issues at light speed.

Regarding the budget’s restructuring plan for state and local government, several points should be borne in mind. Though The Times suggests that giving counties a greater stake in welfare and social service programs will force hardships, the alternative is to perpetuate a system that most agree needs fundamental reform. Cash grant that are administered by counties without any stake in the program will continue to lead to growth in program costs and a dependency on aid that can span several generations. Until counties receive some of the financial rewards, and promote improved outcomes that come with a greater share of program responsibility, we will not be as effective in moving people from dependency to self-sufficiency.

The other part of the restructuring equation, assuming a greater share of trial court costs, will relieve counties of a large and potentially growing share of local budgets. This alone will save counties $600 million next year; allowing counties to keep local fines and penalties will save an additional $300 million.

As for the $241 million difference in the restructuring plan, the governor has again stated his willingness to free county governments from state mandates that limit their ability to achieve savings and set spending priorities for their communities. He has issued an open invitation to county officials to provide this administration with suggestions, and we are committed to working with counties to achieve greater mandate relief.

RUSSELL S. GOULD, Director

Department of Finance, Sacramento