‘Power Grab?’ Not at All : Proposition 165: Opponents are using a phony argument against this fundamental reform.

The opponents of Proposition 165 don’t want to discuss its terms. Instead, they prefer to discuss terms it doesn’t have by raising a false issue: They claim it is a “power grab.” It is not.

But before explaining what Proposition 165 does not do, let’s talk about what it does do: Proposition 165 is a giant step toward the restoration of California’s fiscal health. At present--and unlike other states--the proportion of taxpayers and tax receivers in California is fundamentally shifting for the worse; tax receivers will soon outnumber taxpayers. To combat this, Proposition 165 would restructure one of the fastest-growing components of the budget--welfare--and give the governor limited authority to balance the budget when the Legislature fails to act.

First, Proposition 165 would reduce the level of welfare payments to encourage work; it would give teen-age parents financial incentives to complete school so they will learn employment skills that will keep them off the welfare rolls, and new residents would be limited for one year to the level of welfare payments granted by their home state. But Proposition 165’s opponents don’t want to talk about this.

Nor do they want to discuss its principal procedural provisions to restrain budget spending. Right now, California’s Constitution sets a deadline of June 15 each year to enact a new budget, but the provision has no teeth. Not surprisingly, the Legislature has passed only five of California’s last 20 budgets on time. Proposition 165 would dock the pay of both the governor and the Legislature if they don’t enact a budget on time. And if the Legislature fails to enact a budget by July 1, 15 days after the constitutional deadline, the governor can temporarily put in place the prior year’s budget until a new budget is in place. Under the initiative, this summer’s budget crisis could have been avoided. Opponents don’t want to talk about that.

Instead, they claim that it is a “power grab” because it also gives the governor the authority to cut expenditures (though not constitutionally protected education) to balance the temporarily reinstated prior-year budget. In essence, this is no more than an additional line-item veto: It allows the governor to line out appropriations in the prior year’s budget in order to balance it. Indeed, it is more limited than a line-item veto because Proposition 165 requires 30 days’ notice before any such reductions can take effect, giving the Legislature time to take alternate action.

The critics, however, won’t acknowledge this. Instead, they claim that because the initiative gives the governor the power to implement the prior year’s budget if no new one has been “passed and signed” by July 1, this eliminates (with the word signed) the Legislature’s power to override a gubernatorial veto. That argument has absolutely no legal merit, and an independent analysis by the state attorney general comes to the same conclusion. First, the initiative never says anything about restricting--let alone repealing--the Legislature’s constitutional power to override a budget-bill veto. The opponents’ argument is actually that the Legislature’s veto override power is repealed by implication. However, the California Supreme Court has been quite clear that constitutional powers are not blithely repealed by implication, particularly where the intent of the law expressly provides that no repeal is envisioned. And the proposition’s intent, as stated in the ballot arguments supporting it and responding to the critics, is that no such repeal is intended by the measure. Indeed, the whole purpose of the measure is to have a balanced budget in place when the Legislature fails to act on time, not to avoid having the Legislature enact a budget. Thus, the critics’ position is inconsistent with the purpose of the initiative.

Proposition 165 is a prudent, measured antidote to the relentless growth in government spending that, left unchecked, will continue to burden the California economy until it cannot support even essential programs. Unfortunately, special-interest groups are hell-bent on preserving the status quo for the sake of their own pet spending programs. But in this election year, when voters are demanding change, Proposition 165 offers a prudent way to begin to achieve it.