Senate GOP Offers Cuts to Close Gap

SACRAMENTO -- A Senate Republican plan to close the state’s $38-billion budget gap without raising taxes would significantly scale back environmental protections, slash money to education and threaten health insurance for thousands of children, according to a draft obtained by The Times.

When introduced early next week, the proposal would be significant even if defeated by Democrats because it would show what concessions they would have to make to break the impasse in the Senate, where most officials believe a final budget deal could be brokered.

The draft calls for abolishing the California Coastal Commission, a frequent irritant to wealthy coastal landowners and developers, while also eliminating state review of logging operations in environmentally sensitive lands and rejecting the imposition of many fees on polluters that would pay for cleanups.

Although Senate Democrats are almost certain to reject most of the plan, some elements would wind up as part of the budget if a compromise could be reached.

For months, the Legislature has been at bitter odds over how to repair the state’s sagging finances, which rank among the nation’s most beleaguered. Democrats have balked at making deeper spending cuts, and Republicans have insisted they would not support new taxes.

Republicans now will use the Senate plan to combat charges that they have failed to back their stand against new taxes with specific cuts. Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to counter that the cuts are too severe and unlikely to play well with voters.

The GOP is preparing to push for the reductions in an effort to show that the budget can be balanced without a recently imposed increase in the state vehicle license fee, which tripled, and without raising sales taxes by a half-cent as proposed by Gov. Gray Davis.

The Senate Republican cuts to environmental protection would come on top of steep cuts to social services and health care similar to those already proposed by the Assembly GOP and -- to a lesser extent -- Davis. The Senate plan goes even further in some places, including ending Medi-Cal payments for supplies such as prosthetic limbs, cutting health care coverage for children and curbing reimbursements for prescription drugs for the poor. Also included are reductions to the state’s community college and public university systems.

The list of proposed cuts has not yet been made public, but activists are already mobilizing to fight it.

“This is a group of anti-environment leaders who want to take advantage of the budget crisis to benefit people who want to cut down our trees, pollute our air and water, and do it at the expense of taxpayers,” said Teresa Schilling, spokesperson for the California League of Conservation Voters.

Anthony Wright of Health Access California, a health care consumer advocacy coalition, warned that the GOP proposal to end 12-month Medi-Cal eligibility for low-income children -- and instead require families to reapply for coverage frequently -- could cost 450,000 children their health insurance.

“This is a thinly veiled attempt to push people off Medi-Cal by burdening them with paperwork,” he said.

Republicans have said such claims are exaggerated but declined Tuesday to confirm details of their latest plan. It is expected to be debated on the Senate floor next week. Even so, news of the proposal quickly spread through the Capitol.

Senate Republican caucus spokesman H.D. Palmer would say only that the official list of spending cuts will be released this week and will include many cuts proposed at one time by Davis, the nonpartisan legislative analyst and a budget proposal crafted by a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat in the Assembly.

“What we put forward will represent a bipartisan list of recommendations,” Palmer said.

Environmentalists said many of the programs Republicans want to cut provide relatively little budget savings. Many expressed shock at learning that the GOP would push for abolishing the Coastal Commission, a move that would make only a $10.6-million dent in California’s $38-billion shortfall.

“If we lose the commission, it would be gung-ho development with nothing to inhibit it,” said Ellen Stern Harris, co-author of the 1972 ballot initiative that inspired the commission. “The Republicans have tried to harm the commission in the past, by starving it of staff. But eliminating it would really be giving in to the developers’ wishes.”

The 12-member commission spends much of its time acting like a statewide planning board, approving or denying development permits on property along the state’s 1,100-mile coastline. It also is the legal entity that makes sure federal activities, such as offshore oil drilling, remain in compliance with state environmental protection laws.

Developers and property rights activists, who generally have better luck gaining the assent of local planning boards for their projects, have found it difficult to win over a majority of commissioners appointed from throughout the state.

Peter Douglas, executive director of the commission, said the Legislature has the power to abolish the commission.

Lawmakers, he said, “could do it.” But, he predicted, “It would set off a firestorm.”

“It’s a futile effort. Legally, they could do it. Politically, there would be a tremendous backlash.”

If the Legislature gutted the commission’s budget without repealing or altering the underlying Coastal Act, it would throw thousands of construction permits into legal limbo and create an enormous backlog of unapproved development permits.

Also targeted for elimination by GOP senators are the state’s earthquake preparedness efforts, under both the Seismic Safety Commission and a program operated by the Department of Conservation.

The 17-member commission, with an annual budget of $886,000, coordinates earthquake preparedness, advises local governments on safety standards, guides policymaking in Sacramento and produces a plan to minimize human and property losses in earthquakes.

“I understand that tough budget decisions need to be made this year, but living in the most seismically active state in the union, Californians need the important safety work the commission does,” said Andrew Adelman, a commission member and general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. “It’s a small dollar amount that brings a lot of benefits.”

At the Department of Conservation, Director Darryl Young said a proposed $5.4-million cut would shut down seismic response and preparedness and “gut our ability to help Californians prepare and respond to a major earthquake.”

Times staff writer Jenifer Warren contributed to this report.