Budget Credibility

Friday, June 11, 2004

Page 7

CALIFORNIA COMMENTARY (Column)

Budget Credibility

By JON COUPAL

(The writer is an attorney and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.)

This week, much will be revealed on the floor of the California State Assembly. For all the whining about lack of money for critical programs, Democrats will be able to take a simple step to obtain additional funds for those programs to the tune of $11 million.

Admittedly, in a budget of over $100 billion, $11 million may not sound like much. But this is essentially found money—like walking down the street and seeing a $20 bill lying on the ground. All the Democrats have to do is pick it up.

The $11 million is the estimated cost of a 2002 law, Senate Bill 183 by Senator John Burton. Backed by Gray Davis, the legislation was a blatant pension giveaway to public employees. It is due to take effect on July 1st but, if it is repealed before that date, the state will not incur the $11 million cost.

If allowed to go into effect, SB 183 would grant special “public safety” status to 3,200 state employees including DMV driving examiners and livestock inspectors—essentially treating them in the same manner as real law enforcement personnel.

The purpose of public safety pensions is to reward law enforcement personnel and firefighters both for putting their lives on the line.

But the higher benefit is highly coveted by all bureaucrats no matter what their job.

Because public safety retirement comes with such a steep price tag, there are long-recognized procedures for determining whether a specific job should get the higher benefit. Normally, if a state employee has to carry a gun because of frequent interaction with bad guys, that would be a significant factor favoring the “public safety” classification. But what about the thousands of state employees who are not in harm’s way on a daily basis and, instead, sit behind a desk? Despite its name, the California Union of Safety Employees (CAUSE) has a large number of regular bureaucrats.

It should be no surprise that the SB 183 giveaway was yet another example of Gray Davis’s “pay-to-play” style of governance. After the higher benefits were initially rejected by the negotiating arm of the administration, the Department of Personnel Administration, CAUSE got the commitment it wanted directly from Davis. Of course, Davis denies that one million dollars given to him and other Democrats by the union had anything to do with his decision to sign the bill.

Taxpayer stalwart Sen. Tom McClintock has taken up the cause. His Senate Bill 9 was originally an effort to reduce California’s burgeoning bureaucracies based on the federal military base realignment process, an excellent idea. But Governor Schwarzenegger has his own state government reorganization plan on the drawing board so Senator McClintock is proposing that SB 9 be amended as a bill to repeal Burton’s SB 183. As of this writing, the bill will be taken up on the floor of the Assembly this week and will be carried by Assemblyman Tony Strickland, another friend of the taxpayer.

Here’s where we find out who the real constituents of the Democrats in the Legislature really are: Recipients of social program spending and education, or the public employee unions?

Taxpayers would prefer the money go for debt reduction or lower taxes. But the reality is that, given the makeup of the Legislature, further tax cuts beyond the car tax reduction are unlikely this year.

Thus the debate has boiled down to where would we like to see “found” money spent: Giving huge retirement benefits to meat inspectors, or to put a few more kids on the Healthy Families program?

If Democrats kill the proposal, we will know who their real constituents are. Those of us who work within blocks of the State Capitol already have our suspicions about the answer.