Gann Limit

This year's state budget stalemate had an uncommon twist in what is otherwise a fairly common political event each June. The impasse was far more than a repetition of the political pyrotechnics that cynics have come to call the annual budget-ritual dance. The discord reflects a progressive loss of fiscal responsibility in state government, for which the 1979 Gann Initiative amendment to the Constitution is a significant contributor.

Your article "State Seeks New Cuts in Budget" (May 21) paints a disturbingly accurate picture of the state's fiscal situation. And, while our elected officials work to figure out how to deal with the deficit, they must make certain that the actions they take today will not irreparably harm California's tomorrow. One way to avoid destroying in one year what has taken eight years to build is to make certain that public education is not on the chopping block for fiscal 1992-1993. Schools have already been forced to absorb more than $1.2 billion in lost revenue in the current fiscal year.

The Board of Supervisors has voted to merge the finances of the county Harbors, Beaches and Parks District into the county government's general fund in a maneuver aimed at avoiding the Gann spending limit. County auditors warned that the government could reach its legal spending limit this year if preventive measures are not taken. If the government reached that limit, imposed by voters statewide in 1979, it might have to refund money to taxpayers or ask voters to temporarily raise the limit.

In a sharp setback for cities and counties, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state government need not pay for programs it imposes on local communities that can be funded by local user fees. The justices unanimously upheld a state statute that is being used with increasing frequency by the state during lean budgetary times to finance scores of state-required local programs involving millions of dollars.

The Board of Supervisors dismantled the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District on Tuesday in order to raise the spending limit for the county's general fund. The action, taken on a 4-0 vote, with Board Chairman Harriett M. Wieder absent, allows the county's general fund spending limit to rise by $54 million more than was allowed under spending limits imposed by the successful initiative sponsored by Paul Gann.

Is Proposition 111 a ruse to blow the lid off spending altogether . . . to allow government to seize even more of our paychecks? Absolutely not. Yet these allegations are being made by fringe elements that oppose Proposition 111. There has been no visible opposition campaign so far, but such irresponsible statements have been spread throughout the state in the ballot pamphlet that is being mailed to every registered voter. Opponents, including Los Angeles County Supervisor Peter F.

In a surprising development, the Commission on State Finance said Wednesday that state government will collect $958 million more in taxes in the budget year ending June 30 than it can legally spend. The disclosure came in a report accepted unanimously by the blue-ribbon commission composed of seven state political leaders led by Treasurer Jesse M. Unruh.

Facing the prospect of being unable to spend millions of tax dollars and other revenues, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday agreed to ask voters in June to raise the so-called Gann spending limit. By a unanimous vote, the supervisors, seeking to "untie the county's financial hands," authorized a ballot proposition that, if approved by a majority vote, would adjust the Gann limit to enable the county to spend all funds generated by taxes and state grants.

In a bid to keep the county from reaching the so-called Gann limit on government spending, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a plan to dissolve the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District. Under the plan, revenue that traditionally has gone to the district would go into the general fund, though county officials say the money still would be limited to district uses and the parks system operation would be unaffected.

Some view it as a curse on government. Others say it is just what the doctor ordered to curb the free-spending, program-happy appetite of the Legislature. It is blamed when patients are turned away from hospitals. Its name is invoked when old and battered textbooks are distributed at public schools. Disapproving fingers are pointed at it when government is too slow to fill potholes in the streets.

Proponents call Proposition 111 the Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990 and the "road to the future." But experts on government spending and tax policy call it the "road to ruin." Proposition 111 is not a blueprint to attack the state's traffic mess. It's a blueprint to institutionalize pressure from the growth and development lobbies and blow the top off the Gann spending limit.

Fearful that Proposition 111, the gas-tax initiative, is doomed to fail in June, county officials have begun laying the groundwork for a November ballot measure asking voters to waive the government spending limit for a major flood control project, officials said Monday. Should Proposition 111 pass, the spending limit would be waived for certain kinds of capital projects, the $1.4-billion Santa Ana River flood control project among them.

Is Proposition 111 a ruse to blow the lid off spending altogether . . . to allow government to seize even more of our paychecks? Absolutely not. Yet these allegations are being made by fringe elements that oppose Proposition 111. There has been no visible opposition campaign so far, but such irresponsible statements have been spread throughout the state in the ballot pamphlet that is being mailed to every registered voter. Opponents, including Los Angeles County Supervisor Peter F.

California is no Cinderella these days, but its budget will turn into a pumpkin Friday at midnight unless the Legislature and Gov. George Deukmejian complete complex negotiations over the future of school spending in the state, an $18.5 billion transportation program and the ability of the state to finance other basic needs in the years to come. This is a three-dimensional puzzle that is complicated by the clashing of political personalities. But the cost of failure is too great to consider.

In bargaining over a modest relaxation of the Gann limits on state spending, some Republican legislative leaders have come up with one of the most absurd proposals ever to surface in Sacramento. They want to pass a state constitutional amendment that would require a statewide vote on any plan to increase any state tax. Why not repeal representative government altogether and revert to the town meetings of Colonial days? Government in California is virtually in paralysis now because of restrictive amendments and laws adopted through the initiative petition.

Gov. George Deukmejian recently reported that state revenues will exceed expectations by $2.5 billion. Starting July 1, however, the state will have to reduce the public services that it provides and its bank account will be empty. How could these seemingly contradictory statements both be true? The long and short answer is that the state's budget laws prevent the governor and the Legislature from allocating these additional funds to address California's budget problem. It is important to note at the outset that the announcement of $2.5 billion in additional revenues does not mean that the state already has these funds in the bank.

Your article on the state's Gann limit (Part I, Nov. 2) clearly presented the impact of this spending limit on state and even local services. You also showed how Deukmejian has hidden the spending limit to justify cutting funds for public education. However, your article failed to explore how excess revenues are being rebated and what alternatives to those rebates were possible. "The check is in the mail!" We will soon see the results of collecting more revenues than the Gann limit allows the state to spend--income tax rebate checks.

Just as Gov. George Deukmejian and legislative Democrats were about to begin their annual slugfest over the budget, $2.5 billion fell out of the sky over Sacramento. The latest state tax windfall will not automatically solve the problems inherent in the governor's proposed $48-billion budget for the fiscal year starting July 1. But there's nothing like $2.5 billion to generate comity in the Capitol. The good news is that the Republican governor pledged to work with the Legislature to allocate the funds to critical state programs, including California's deteriorating transportation system.

Former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein laid out an ambitious agenda for California on Friday, but when asked how she would pay for some of her ideas if elected governor in 1990, she said she was not certain. "A decade after Proposition 13 there is an ennui, a lack of leadership and forcefulness. . . . I want to be an activist governor, a governor who isn't afraid of taking a position," Feinstein, who is exploring a run in the Democratic primary, told reporters in Los Angeles.