As the state's budget stalemate grinds along, chances are increasing that when Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature finally reach agreement, it will be another expedient, gimmick-filled deal that builds on the state's already miserable record of fiscal irresponsibility.

That's how the annual budget dance concluded in 2001 and 2002, and subtly, but unmistakably, the state's political "leaders" -- the quotation marks denote the inapplicability of that honorable word -- are indicating that expediency will once again triumph in 2003.

There is already broad agreement that the state's existing deficit will be refinanced with a multiyear bond, perhaps running as long as 10 years, and a number of accounting tricks and backdoor loans will be used to balance the 2003-04 budget on paper, even though it's likely to lead to even wider gaps in future years.
There are some differences between Republicans and Democrats, but they generally involve the degree of face-saving gimmickry, and Republicans have the whip hand. They've demonstrated a high degree of unity and discipline in resisting new taxes. Inch by inch, Democrats are giving ground, led by an increasingly desperate Davis.

The latest incarnation of that movement is the so-called "tax swap" ploy reportedly being floated by Davis minions that would finance the deficit rollover bonds with a complicated maneuver that, in essence, would take some of the money from schools and/or local governments and the remainder from the state's general fund. Republicans would be protected from voting for new taxes.

Some Capitol insiders believe that a get-out-of-town deal could be concluded by the end of this week, when the Legislature is to begin a month-long summer recess. Whether done then or later, however, such a deal would leave the state with large future deficits.

Davis flatly stated in his State of the State address that he would "not sign a budget without substantial structural reform," but that promise vaporized as the recall solidified. He'll now take almost anything labeled "budget" to quiet the furor.

Politicians' chronic inability to deal rationally with fiscal matters -- they managed to convert a $12 billion surplus into a $30-plus billion deficit in three years -- indicates that the crisis is merely a symptom of a larger disease.

Legislative term limits, often cited by Capitol insiders, is one factor. They weaken legislative leadership, erode institutional memory and relieve current members of responsibility for past decisions, thereby diluting policy consistency and accountability.

A greater factor in the current stalemate, however, is the bipartisan gerrymander of legislative districts enacted in 2001. It virtually eliminates two-party competition, thereby making incumbents impervious to constituent pressure and reducing the ranks of compromise-minded moderates. Minority Republicans can maintain unity and force majority Democrats to give ground.

Still another factor is the two-thirds vote requirement for budgets and taxes -- the prime source of the GOP budget leverage. The most expedient way to obtain a two-thirds vote is to play lip service to all factions while ducking the hard choices of taxes and spending, as this year's budget seems destined to do once again.

A union-led coalition is now proposing a ballot measure to do away with the two-thirds vote, thus giving majority Democrats sole power to pass budgets and taxes, while enveloping that important systemic change in voter-attractive language purporting to punish the Legislature for stalling on budgets.

Under the circumstances, the two-thirds vote probably should be eliminated. Those who are pushing the measure, however, should consider the law of unintended consequences that seems to govern every major California political decision. It could, indeed, result in more spending and higher taxes, as the backers want, but that could lead, in turn, to a backlash from voters who didn't realize they were voting for more spending and taxes (much as they have turned against Davis for fudging on the deficit).

California's electorate is fairly conservative on fiscal matters, and a backlash could produce another Proposition 13-like revolt that would impose even tougher budget vote requirements.