Our View: Governor veto right 415 times

We so rarely applaud the governor, it's refreshing to send up a cheer for his veto of a record number of bills from the recently concluded legislative session.

Some say Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger killed some bills because the prolonged legislative session left too little time to digest them. And could it be the governor was lashing out, miffed as he was with the Legislature's struggle to adopt a budget either balanced or on schedule?

We don't much care what his reasons were. We suspect that like us, most Californians didn't think they needed 1,187 new laws when the Legislature convened for business last year, so they won't miss the 415 that were killed at the finish line.

Not since Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed 436 bills in 1990 has a governor shot down as many attempts to restrict, regulate or otherwise interfere with Californians. Deukmejian, an actual Republican, earned the nickname "Gov. No" for his vetoes, while Schwarzenegger, a faux Republican, almost lived up to his movie moniker, "The Terminator." Of course, there's that small matter of him signing into law a whopping 772 bills. Californians probably didn't realize they needed even that many new laws either.

Nevertheless, we applaud for now the governor's benevolence, however motivated, and commemorate his effort by singling out a few more notable vetoes.

Schwarzenegger spared Californians at least eight intrusive and expensive new health care laws that would have imposed additional costs. Most onerous would have been SB840 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, which would have created a new government-run, multi-billion-dollar socialized health care system requiring a tax increase of undetermined heft.

Similarly the governor killed legislation to impose new mandates for expanded mental health coverage (AB1887 by Assemblyman Jim Beall Jr.), acupuncture (AB54 by Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally), "durable medical equipment" coverage (SB1198 by Sen. Kuehl), maternity benefits (AB1962 by Assemblyman Hector De La Torre), hearing aid benefits (AB368 by Assemblywoman Wilmer Carter), HIV testing (AB1894 by Assemblyman Paul Krekorian) and cleft palate coverage (SB1634 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg).

Insurance coverage for these matters may be desirable for many consumers and even affordable for some providers. But when government imposes broad-brush mandates, costs rise for everyone. What's needed is fewer government mandates, not more. Only then can market competitiveness reverse or at least slow rising health care costs.

Schwarzenegger admirably vetoed bills to roll back Workers' Compensation reforms. The veto of SB1717 by Sen. Don Perata prevented arbitrarily doubling of permanent disability benefits. Returning SB1115 by Sen. Carole Migden without his signature, the governor said he found existing law adequate, and that the bill "could inadvertently create new ambiguities in the law and result in increased litigation."

Another Workers' Compensation-related bill, AB419 by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, was vetoed because Schwarzenegger said it "would increase costs to some cities and counties" by providing injured workers leaves of absence without loss of salary "in lieu of regular temporary disability payments," extending to park rangers, community college police and others a benefit already granted sworn peace officers. We're glad to see the veto of SB1661, also by Kuehl, which would have increased employers' contributions to the Unemployment Insurance fund.

The governor did the right thing, albeit for the wrong reason, by vetoing Senate Bill 1762 by Perata, which would have created the California Climate Change Institute within the University of California. The think tank was to be dedicated to studying global warming, something already much studied by government and the private sector.

Schwarzenegger objected that funding would redirect existing research money and come from a new surcharge on electric service provided by investor- and publicly-owned utilities. We find the new think tank duplicative and an unnecessary, costly burden on rate payers.

Schwarzenegger's complaint, however, was that the bill is "too limiting" by placing the institute entirely within the UC system, and "too premature" because the state Air Resources Board is developing plans to implement a law Schwarzenegger should have vetoed in 2006, the so-called Global Warming Solutions Act. For now, we'll count our blessings that even if for the wrong reasons Schwarzenegger spared California another costly, government-backed effort to curb what we find to be over-hyped pseudo crisis of global warming.