A Loner and the Legislature: California Becomes the Loser

SACRAMENTO —  When Gov. George Deukmejian signed the state’s new $44-billion budget on July 8, he praised California’s lawmakers. “I would like to commend the Legislature,” he said, “for making a serious effort to send me a balanced budget with a prudent reserve.” It was a rare, conciliatory sop from a frequently contentious chief executive.

Politically the ride has been a little bumpy for Deukmejian lately. The so-called “Iron Duke” has sustained large chinks in his armor. What has happened to Deukmejian over the past year highlights a pattern of behavior fraught with political risks: playing “the loner” in public office.

In politics, as Sam Rayburn said, “to get along, go along.” It is a lesson that Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic presidential nominee, seems to have learned. He lost the governorship in 1978, knocked out by a headstrong, uncompromising approach to government. Reelected in 1982, Dukakis made peace with the Legislature and traditional Democratic constituencies while broadening his appeal to business interests and fiscal conservatives.

Dukakis’ first term failures taught him, according to a former adviser, “that the coalition-building aspects of government are as important as the issues for which he’s fighting.” That is a lesson Deukmejian seems unwilling to contemplate.

It doesn’t have to be politically hurtful to be a loner in California. Governing in isolation is affordable when things are going well. Elected in a era of economic prosperity and protected by a Democratic Legislature, Edmund G. Brown Jr. proved that--until the Medfly, the Rose Bird court and the fallout of Proposition 13 began to interfere.

And Deukmejian had far less trouble in his first term when the Gann limits had not yet hamstrung government spending and the rancor in Sacramento hadn’t reached fever pitch. But as the political and fiscal environment eroded, so have Deukmejian’s political fortunes.

In the June elections, a major transportation bond issue, strongly backed by the governor, went down to narrow defeat. For Deukmejian, the loss underscored the pitfalls of going it alone. He never enlisted broad-based support from a major constituency, the business community. Deukmejian wanted his program on his own terms. He lost. Then he was handed another setback by a state Supreme Court that was supposed to be his--with five of seven justices appointed by Deukmejian. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the nomination of Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), to replace the late Jesse Unruh as state treasurer, did not meet the constitutional test for legislative confirmation; the state Senate rejected the nomination.

The treasurer’s post continues to remain vacant--as it has for almost a year of crucial debate over California’s fiscal priorities and direction. And it again pinpointed the governor’s stubborn approach to getting what he wants.

First of all, Deukmejian bypassed Sacramento to choose an obscure Long Beach congressman, who could do little to lobby his own appointment through the unfamiliar legislative maze. And Lungren didn’t have much help from the man who nominated him.

A two-vote switch in the Senate would have filled the treasurer’s post months ago--and there were Democrats just waiting to be asked. But Deukmejian did little except point out that anyone who wanted to talk to him knew where the telephone was. That is not the way to ask political favors. Once again, he lost.

Not only has the governor isolated himself from the alliances and compromises necessary to make policy, but his staff tends to be insular and unassertive. The small inner circle is populated by a coterie of like-minded aides who don’t have the heft to challenge Deukmejian’s decisions. And they’re not always privy to the governor’s thinking, so they’re unable to head off mistakes. One legislator complained that he’s seen staff commitments made in Deukmejian’s name countermanded because they were not what the governor wanted in the first place.

There is no better example of the risks of playing political loner than the governor’s peevish response to the recent budget shortfall. Last May, surprised by his Department of Finance’s overestimation of state tax revenues by more than $1 billion, Deukmejian unilaterally proposed “temporary minimal adjustments” in state taxes (including a freeze on income-tax brackets). Then the governor abandoned his own program when the press labeled it a “tax increase.”

Rather than risk his image as a tight-fisted fiscal conservative, Deukmejian ruled out any “actual or perceived tax increase” and steadfastly refused to work with the Legislature to effect a compromise to ensure a balanced budget without further retrenchment in education, health care, infrastructure and other areas of government funding.

Said State Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), “The governor put the ball in our court because he decided he didn’t want to play anymore.” Democrats responded by taking control of the ball and voting out--two weeks after the constitutional deadline and only hours before the start of the new fiscal year--a bare-bones $44.2-billion budget. The bulk of cuts came from programs important to the governor--including $350 million that Deukmejian earmarked for the court system to allow the counties to shift more of their funds to other service areas.

To focus the governor’s attention on the need for tax restructuring, the Legislature tied refunding for these pet programs to a companion tax measure that would raise revenues by speeding up state tax collection. The bill passed the Senate but stalled in the Assembly, a victim of continuing internal Democratic warfare and the intransigence of Assembly Republicans.

When the budget hit the governor’s desk, the governor retaliated by going after Democratic programs with his line-item veto, and then setting aside the money to attempt to restore programs already cut by the Legislature.

He set aside about $190 million to restore partial funding for the trial courts. Much of that money comes out of the $191.5 million Deukmejian eliminated from health and welfare programs--the largest amount cut from any individual categories. Education barely holds its own in this budget.

In the heat of the Legislature’s budget debate, Sen. Alfred E. Alquist (D-San Jose) observed, “Taxes are the price you pay for civilization.” Indeed, no policy statement says more about the values and priorities of a society and its leadership than the budget. California’s budget is cynical and political. It ignores the growth and change and deterioration occurring in this state to pander to a perceived “no new taxes” mentality.

When you play the loner in politics, you may win in the short run, but the long-term loss can be devastating. And the risk here is not only that Deukmejian may lose, but so will the state’s schools, hospitals, law enforcement, infrastructure--and its citizens.