A Man of Contradictions Wilson would spend now and rein in future governors

Gov. Pete Wilson’s final state budget may be balanced in terms of income and outgo, but it’s part of a picture colored by political and fiscal schizophrenia. On the one hand, the formerly tightfisted Republican governor seems to be winding up his gubernatorial career as a big spender. On the other, Wilson wants to write strictures into law that would limit the spending ability of California’s future leaders.

The 1998-99 budget that Wilson sent to the Legislature Friday proposes $7 billion in bond issues for capital investments. And at $74 billion, the new budget is $4 billion fatter than this year’s.

For a full week, the Republican governor’s office has been touting a flurry of initiatives and new spending measures. In fact, his spending plan is rather modest--never mind that some conservative Republicans are accusing the governor of embarking on a binge. Many of Wilson’s proposed expenditures and bond funds are needed to make up for cuts imposed during the recession of the early 1990s, including deferred construction and maintenance.

But it’s also true that the rebounding California economy has given Wilson the money he needs to overcome the Scrooge image he suffered during the recession. That Pete Wilson was a skinflint who snatched money from welfare children and socked hard-working Californians with $7 billion in new taxes.

Now that times are good and Wilson’s got his, he is seeking to tie the hands of future leaders by tightening the Proposition 4 spending limits approved by California voters in 1979 as a follow-up to Proposition 13.

In another curious twist, Wilson is proposing an educational reform ballot initiative that mandates in state law an annual outlay of at least $1.5 billion in class-size reduction funds--a requirement that could be changed only by another vote of the people or an extraordinary four-fifths vote of the Legislature.

This is the same governor who used to chafe under the teacher-backed mandate of Proposition 98, which dictates that at least 40% of the state’s general fund be spent on public education. Wilson, the born-again education governor of today, even proposed back in 1992 that the Proposition 98 minimum also be the maximum. (On Friday, administration officials proudly noted that Wilson is spending more than Proposition 98 requires this year.)

There is no need to compel future governors and legislators to maintain the present class-size reduction program. Rather than cut those funds, they are far more likely to expand the program.

Nor is it wise or necessary to lower the threshold of Proposition 4 spending limits, which were liberalized by voters in 1990 to more accurately reflect California’s economic conditions. The governor says you can’t trust future legislatures not to spend all the tax money that comes in. By implication, he also is saying you cannot trust future governors to be as vigorous as he has been in vetoing legislative spending measures he considered excessive.

As eager as Wilson may be to leave a lasting legacy, California does not need more fiscal mandates written into law. Tomorrow’s spending judgments are best made by tomorrow’s leaders.