Senate OKs Budget, but Plan Falls Short in 1st Assembly Vote : Spending: Upper house approves Wilson’s $57-billion package, 31 to 9. But proposal finds little support in lower house amid disputes over abortion funding, welfare.

With surprisingly little debate, the state Senate on Saturday approved Gov. Pete Wilson’s $57-billion budget, giving schools a major increase for the first time in five years and adding pressure on the fractious Assembly to approve the spending plan.

But as the night wore on in the Capitol, Republicans and Democrats in the lower house were decrying several parts of the budget, ranging from abortion funding to charges that the budget is in the red.

In its initial vote, 44 Assembly members voted against the budget, 17 abstained, and only 19 voted for it--nowhere close to the necessary two-thirds margin of 54 votes needed for passage. The session was expected to last into the early morning.

In the upper house, however, the budget won approval at midday by a 31-9 vote, four more than the 27 needed for a two-thirds majority. The Senate budget vote came 29 days after the constitutional deadline for approving the 1995-1996 budget.

“This is a good budget,” Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) said. “There are important victories for education, opposition to student fees, and reasonable priorities that reflect California’s needs.”

Lockyer and Senate Democrats could claim significant victories, for example, killing Wilson’s proposed three-year, $7.6-billion cut in income, banking and corporation taxes. The governor helped get the budget deal by compromising on his original proposal for a 10% tuition increase at California universities and colleges. As a result, for the first time in this decade the budget calls for no tuition and fee increases for students at the University of California, California State University and community colleges.

The governor also agreed to soften welfare cuts, which he originally set at more than 10%, and supported the increase in public school funding.

The day included some symbolic slaps by the conservative Republicans at the GOP governor and his presidential aspirations. State Sen. Tim Leslie (R-Carnelian Bay) interrupted Senate proceedings to introduce Wendy Gramm, wife of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, a GOP presidential candidate.

In the Assembly, Republican Bernie Richter of Chico wore a Gramm for President lapel pin. Richter was among the most vocal Republican foes of the Wilson budget in the lower house.

Wilson remained in his office Saturday, signing bills and watching the floor debate on closed-circuit television, but not talking to legislators other than the leaders--and then only on occasion.

Perhaps most vexing for the Republican governor, 20 of the Assembly’s initial 44 no votes came from fellow Republicans who are opposed to abortion funding, including Speaker Doris Allen.

“We’re hoping to negotiate with the governor to get some movement,” said Assemblyman James Rogan (R-Glendale).

The role of intermediary fell to Assembly GOP Leader Jim Brulte. “There hasn’t been a day that has gone by in the last 10 that I have not raised the [abortion] issue with the governor, or his senior staff,” Brulte said.

But by late Saturday, Wilson was not budging from the proposed $40 million for abortions, in addition to $70 million in the budget for family planning.

As the budget’s promoters saw it, the key element of the budget was a provision, embodied in a related bill, that boosted schools by $1 billion. The Department of Finance placed the increase in per student spending at $201, providing $4,435 for each of the state’s more than 5 million students, moving California to about 40th among the states in per-pupil spending.

The education bill cleared the Senate on a 40-0 vote and 62-4 in the Assembly.

Lockyer called it “one of the major accomplishments of this legislative year.” Brulte described the education bill the “best piece of legislation that leaves this floor.” Democratic Leader Willie Brown, lead author of the bill, labeled it “the shot in the arm that public education needs.”

Brown has taken a leading role in fashioning the past 15 budgets. But the budget up for a vote on Saturday may be his last, because he is running for mayor of San Francisco. When Brown came to the Senate to watch the vote on the education bill, senators gave him a standing ovation.

But Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), although an advocate of education spending, called the bill a “short-term fix . . . that long-term bankrupts the state.”

Vasconcellos, who opposes the budget, said that based on the complex formula by which schools are funded, the budget will require ever-increasing spending in years to come that will reduce what can be spent on higher education, welfare, prisons and other state-funded programs.

With the Senate’s budget approval, pressure mounted on the Assembly to follow suit. But like Republicans, Democrats in the lower house saw little reason to vote for the budget. Only three Democrats, including Brown, who helped write it, supported the spending plan on the first vote. Several Democrats said they opposed the spending plan because of welfare cuts that they said would harm children.

“I find the dialogue here so callous,” Vasconcellos said in the debate over a budget-related bill to ease state mandates on counties to fund social services.

“Eat the children,” Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame) added mockingly.

Los Angeles Democrats also held out for deals to help the county with its $1.2-billion budget deficit, including one to shift $75 million to county coffers from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s subway project.

Assemblywoman Barbara Friedman (D-North Hollywood) called it a “matter of life and death.” But with no package for the county emerging by late Saturday night, Los Angeles Democrats said they could not vote for the budget.

The state has been without legal spending authority since July 1, when the new fiscal year began. While most bills have been paid, state payments have been delayed to vendors who deal with the state, nursing homes that provide care for poor people, and scores of political appointees.

As legislators see it, perhaps the most important bill comes due on Monday--the day on which their paychecks are due. By approving the spending plan this weekend, lawmakers can assure themselves they will receive their monthly checks, plus $109 a day in tax-free expense checks.

The Department of Finance placed the final budget sum at $57.3 billion, up from $56.3 billion Wilson proposed in January because of stronger than expected tax revenues, and an increase from last year’s total of $55.1 billion.

The winners in the new budget include:

* People who have taxable income of more than $100,000. They will find that their state income taxes will fall. Upper income tax brackets on high earners will expire at the end of the year.

* Public schools, which receive the first cost of living increase for schools in five years. Spending on elementary and secondary education will increase by more than $1 billion over last year. Schools will have a total budget from all sources of $28.4 billion.

* College students. State general tax fund spending on the UC and California State University systems will be $3.9 billion, up from $3.8 billion last year. Spending on community colleges will be $1.43 billion, up from $1.31 billion last year.

* Prisons. Spending is up 17% to nearly $3.6 billion.

By far the biggest losers stand to be the poor and disabled. The Department of Health and Welfare budget will fall to $13.4 billion from $13.9 billion last year.

Monthly checks for a mother with two children will fall to about $566 from the current $595 in the high-rent parts of the state, including Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties. In lower-cost areas, including San Bernardino and Riverside counties, monthly welfare checks will fall to $539. Disabled people, who now receive $614 a month, will get $584 in higher rent areas, and $556 in lower-rent areas.

Lockyer managed to soften the blow somewhat, insisting that the cuts will be for only one year. Under current law, next year’s budget will include a cost of living increase for welfare recipients, their first since 1990.

Still, Los Angeles Democratic Sens. Teresa Hughes and Diane Watson opposed the budget, citing the welfare cuts.

Arguing that “hungry children cannot learn,” Watson said she was voting against the document because the people hurt most by the budget are in her district. She noted that more than 100,000 people in her district are on welfare.

In the Senate, seven Republicans voted against the budget. Their “no” votes followed the failed attempts by Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside) to strip the budget of $40 million earmarked for abortions for poor women.

But led by Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy, 10 Republicans voted for the spending plan. Maddy noted that revenue has remained almost flat for the five years in which Wilson has been governor, growing by a mere 1.76% during that period, and forcing lawmakers to continue to cut money for “the least fortunate” Californians.

“There is no longer smoke and mirrors,” Maddy said, calling for support of the budget. “There is no reserve. There is no nothing.”

Democrats, however, cited the ever-growing prison budget as one place to find further cuts. Despite the fact that senators pared $125 million from Wilson’s original proposal, prison spending will still grow $600 million beyond the $3 billion spent last year.

Lockyer called prison spending a “fiscal tapeworm,” while Sen. Daniel Boatwright (D-Concord), chair of the Senate prison subcommittees, said the state is “slowly but surely being bankrupted” by the cost of prisons.

Times staff writers Max Vanzi and Dave Lesher contributed to this story.