Our View: Budget strategy unwise

In what's becoming an annual ritual, state government again is on track to have an even greater-than-expected budget deficit. And once again, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says there must be across-the-board spending cuts. He's half right.

Spending cuts are essential. State government anticipates up to a $7 billion shortfall this year and another $7.4 billion in 2010-11. But cutting indiscriminately across the board is as imprudent as approving all kinds of spending, with little concern for whether it's proper or justified and with even less foresight about the consequences. The governor might as well resort to a dart board.

Now that the necessity to reduce spending is undeniable, the governor and legislators need to exercise some of the discernment largely absent from previous budgetary deliberations.

Politically, the governor may prefer shifting responsibility for hard decisions to the Legislature — and consequently to numerous lobbyists representing their many affected constituencies. That way he can appear to take the high ground, insisting deprivation be shared equally. Both these political postures are disingenuous. We suspect they're designed to avoid the responsibility of making hard decisions, and to maximize public outcry by spreading the pain over as many sectors as possible.

Schwarzenegger knows not all government spending is created equal. In short, some government operations deserve deeper cuts than others.

Californians elect legislators and the governor to make these decisions, however unpleasant or politically unpalatable. That's what representative government is supposed to do. We urge the governor and Legislature to identify the most appropriate areas for budget cuts and then make the most significant cuts there. There's no shortage of ideas; various commissions have studied the question in recent years. Bloated payrolls and regulatory agencies are good places to start.

Unfortunately, there are many disproportionately influential constituencies, such as public employee unions. The inherent risk in that is those lobbies effectively could be the ones to decide what and how much to cut — unless the governor and legislators show leadership. That's all the more reason to pare payroll first.