Next Year, Do It Right

Back in the 1960s, the leader of the state Senate was Hugh M. Burns, a grizzled pol from Fresno who had little truck with the modern full-time California Legislature with its thousands of bills and slick professional staff. “Well, boys,” Burns would opine to reporters, “I think we ought to come up here, pass the budget and then go home.”

Much has changed. But the budget remains the single piece of business the Legislature must accomplish each year. It is the centerpiece of state government. It outlines the state’s priorities. It appropriates the cash that keeps the wheels of government turning.

The process is basic to government. The governor submits his budget in January. The Legislature revises it over the next five months and then passes it by a minimum two-thirds vote in each house before the start of the new fiscal year July 1. With his line-item veto, the governor can reduce or eliminate any spending item. The Legislature can override any vetoes by a two-thirds vote (but rarely has).

Simple enough. But the process has become virtually dysfunctional in recent years. This year, even with a flush state treasury, California went six weeks into the new fiscal year before legislative approval of the budget--second only to the 63 extra days needed in the recession year of 1992.

Now, there is talk of reform. The most popular proposal is being pushed by Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward). It would allow passage of the budget by a simple majority rather than the two-thirds vote, the latter a holdover from the Great Depression.

Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and others argue that the only reform needed is for lawmakers to start on the budget earlier and get the job done. The change to a majority vote makes sense, however. No longer would a minority of members be able to delay the budget for ideological reasons or hold it hostage to their own pet spending projects. The governor still could wield his veto if he thought the Legislature was too extravagant.

Fairness demands another change. The Legislature should resolve major budget decisions itself rather than defer them to the Big Five, an informal negotiating committee composed of the governor and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the two houses. The Big Five really is the Big Three, since the two members of the governor’s party will support him on most issues. This gives a governor inordinate power over the Legislature’s appropriations process. He gets to make his own demands in the Big Five before the budget passes. Afterward, he gets another shot with his veto pen.

The secret deal-making of the Big Five is bad for California. It blurs responsibility for actions. It is not even efficient--witness the budget fiasco this year when all major decisions were left to the Big Five. And it fails to meet many of the long-neglected needs of California.

Next year, the Legislature does need to start earlier. The process should be reformed. Junk the Big Five negotiations. And then, perhaps, California will get budgets on time and the quality of the work will improve as well.