Jobs as lifestyle-killers: When growth isn’t free

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a dozen bills that the California Chamber of Commerce alleged were anti-business “job-killers.” In the chamber’s view, the governor’s action will create jobs.

Fine. How is this deficit-plagued state going to pay for the jobs?

Yes, of course, they’re private-enterprise jobs, not government.

But who’s going to pay for the roads and transit to get these people to work? To educate their kids? To provide police protection?

And as we’ve been uncomfortably reminded, somebody will have to foot the bill for fighting any fires that threaten these workers’ homes. Especially when houses keep being built snug up against tinder-dry chaparral or in forests.

Who’s going to pay? All of us taxpayers.

Not the new employees by themselves, contrary to chamber spin. Nor the employers, even if their profits do rise with growth.

There is no economy in numbers because of an exploding population. No discount for volume. This is not like widget-making.

There’s a premium to be paid for living in California, and it keeps rising -- that is, if we want to maintain any semblance of the lifestyle that drew many millions here in the first place.

The more people, the more pricey California gets. Land costs rise as demand increases, this temporary housing slump aside. Transportation costs escalate with longer commutes, regardless of a few hybrids. Student fees at crowded state university campuses are rising faster than the national average and many times faster than inflation. And beyond all that, state spending also keeps climbing disproportionately.

Excuse me if you’ve read this here before, but it bears repeating: In 1950, when California’s population was about 11 million, state spending per $100 of personal income was roughly $5, according to the Department of Finance. In 1975, when there were about 22 million of us, state spending amounted to $7.50 per $100 of personal income. In the last fiscal year, with around 38 million Californians, Sacramento spent $9.60.

There are at least two partial explanations unrelated to growth: State spending increased when Medi-Cal -- healthcare for the poor -- was introduced in the mid-1960s, and it went up again in the late 1970s when Proposition 13 shifted much of local government’s funding burden from the local property tax to the state treasury.

But the ratio of state spending to personal income has been rising steadily in recent years without any extraordinary developments. Meanwhile, in this no-tax political climate, Sacramento continues to spend more than it takes in, papering over the deficit hole with borrowing.

When state and local taxes are combined, the burden on Californians has remained fairly steady over the decades. Today, it’s 11.5% of income, according to the Washington-based Tax Foundation. That’s slightly above the national average. We rank No. 12 among the states.

But while the combined state-local tax hit has remained relatively constant in California, hardly anyone would argue that the qualify of life has. It noticeably has deteriorated: clogged traffic, overwhelmed emergency rooms, unkempt parks, smog-befouled San Joaquin Valley.

And we’re losing to the wildfires. As a native Californian, I’ve never seen destructive blazes this widespread, engulfing seemingly all of Southern California.

Commentators keep talking about a “perfect storm:” Santa Ana winds, hot temperatures, drought. But there’s also another kind of perfect storm: poor land-use planning, population sprawl, refusal to raise taxes for fire suppression.

Firefighting doesn’t mean just trucks, planes and personnel, although more of all that certainly is needed. It also requires preemptive vegetation removal and disciplined land-use planning that doesn’t permit developers to intrude into fire’s natural path.

State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), a leader in land-use planning, says: “I don’t know how you find room for new people without placing them in some kind of jeopardy. The answer is we need more resources.”

But it wasn’t surprising that four months after the devastating 2003 Cedar fire in San Diego, voters there rejected a hike in hotel taxes to improve fire protection.

Schwarzenegger refuses to raise taxes -- except for his proposed healthcare expansion -- and Republican legislators are even more rigid. Democrats are gun-shy.

“There’s a disconnect between the rate we’re growing and our willingness to pay for services associated with that growth,” says Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), chairman of the Natural Resources and Water Committee. “We need to have a real debate about how we pay for our growth, because growth isn’t free. Growth doesn’t pay for itself.

“Unless we start doing things differently, I’m afraid we’re not going to be able to accommodate all the growth.”

I called Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto. “The number of companies that move out of state is infinitesimally small,” he says. “It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

“There’s been all this debate about competitiveness. ‘Do we have to give them regulatory relief? Tax cuts?’ We’re not competing for a paint factory or low-wage manufacturer. We’re competing for talented people who are on the cutting edge and can live and work anyplace. They demand good schools, transportation that moves people, clear air. We compete by making California a great place to live and work.

“That damn well takes investments. Investments cost money. It means money coming from the private sector.”

Here’s an idea: Impose a surtax -- call it a fee -- on each new job that’s created, paid by the employer.

A job-killer, you say. OK. Then find another way to raise revenue and keep job creation from becoming more of a lifestyle-killer.

george.skelton@latimes.com