Budget: Decent but Hyped

Two decades ago, the content of the annual state budget was the best-kept secret in Sacramento. Details did not become public until the fat budget books hit legislators’ desks. In recent years, however, governors have leaked juicy portions in advance to the media. A one-day fiscal story blossomed into a multi-day media flurry of good news that portrayed the governor as beneficent on popular issues. Bad news was muted.

Republican Gov. Pete Wilson refined this process to high art. Democratic Gov. Gray Davis adopted it virtually intact. But this year’s leaks did not serve Davis well. They raised expectations that were not fulfilled when the 2000-01 budget was released Monday.

Not that it’s a bad budget. It’s basically sound, though there are gaps that need to be addressed by the Legislature. But in many respects, Davis oversold the $88.1-billion budget, particularly in his own State of the State address last week when he promised to spend $3 billion in “new funds” on transportation projects. It turns out this is not new money. Much of it is created by accounting gimmicks: speeding up the collection of future years’ revenue and taking over some local government transportation funds--both questionable tactics. The only real new money was $121 million, mostly for a variety of commuter rail improvements.

As he did last year, Davis properly set public education as his highest priority. He rallied prospective teachers to the cause much as a president might call on Americans to unite in wartime. Before issuing the budget, Davis leaked several initiatives--worthy ones, to be sure--intended to attract more and better teachers and to get students to work harder. “We must give our children the tools they need, and I will not rest until we do so,” he said Monday.

Public school spending will, as advertised, increase nearly $2 billion in the fiscal year beginning July 1, to $28.3 billion. However, all but a sliver of that is required by law. Davis’ education budget still leaves California in the bottom half of the 50 states in per-pupil spending. The budget also further erodes the discretion of local school boards by earmarking more money for specific programs dictated by Sacramento.

Some of Davis’ other initiatives are good ones, particularly the extension of Medi-Cal benefits to more low-income people and improved care for the elderly. However, Davis allocated only $10 million in new assistance for the homeless and mentally ill, areas that cry out for attention.

This is just the first step of a long budget process. It will be May before Davis has a good fix on just how much revenue the state will reap in the next fiscal year. If the economy remains strong, Davis and lawmakers should be prepared to make a greater investment in California’s future.