A Zombie Called Budget Gimmickry : Quick-fix trickery seems to be reanimated in Sacramento every year

Gov. Pete Wilson and the state Legislature are resorting to machinations in trying to come up with a state budget. Yes, the budget is nearly three weeks late and agreement must be reached quickly, but why turn to gimmicks that will only wind up in court? Wilson is insisting that the schools repay what he calls a loan. He also plans to divert to other uses funds intended for anti-tobacco programs. These budget moves are similar to past actions by Wilson--actions that failed to survive challenges in court. Yet here the governor is again, trying to do the same thing.

Wilson has proposed a $26-billion budget for the public schools, which includes the first cost-of-living increase for employees in four years. But at the same time, he wants to withhold $810 million from the schools for the “loan” repayment, which would mean that Los Angeles County would lose $175 million and Orange County $48 million.

What the governor sees as a $810 million to the state was actually an accounting maneuver used to help end the 1992 budget impasse. Although school officials never agreed to any loan, Wilson called it that so the money would not be considered basic funding under the provisions of Proposition 98. School advocates successfully sued in Sacramento County Superior Court, contending that the loan was illegal and that the state owed the money to the schools under voter-approved Proposition 98. They were right: The money should go to schools.

Just as wrongheaded is the scheme for redirecting Proposition 99 funds, which come from a cigarette tax of 25 cents a pack. Earlier this year, in a suit by anti-smoking and health groups, the Sacramento Superior Court ordered the state to stop diverting more than $128 million in Proposition 99 funds. The state is appealing that decision.

Another court challenge is likely if the state goes through with shifting $64 million in Proposition 99 funds to pay for indigent health care, including care for pregnant women and children. The shift, approved by the Legislature in a four-fifths vote required by the Proposition 99 initiative, may serve a legitimate need but that use is not one stipulated for the funds. This fact was the basis for the successful challenge to the earlier diversion of $128 million. The voters approved Proposition 99 to pay for anti-tobacco education and research programs; they did not mean for the money to cover the state’s other health care obligations.

Wilson should not sign the bill for the $64-million diversion, nor should he withhold the education money. Officials should know by now that the piper always must be paid--often at huge cost--when he plays the tune of quick and easy fixes.