In their article "Lockyer Vows to Seek Funds for General assistance," Carl Ingram and Virginia Ellis report on the struggle being waged between Democratic Senate Leader Bill Lockyer and Republican Governor Pete Wilson over welfare reform. Lockyer proposes that the state not pay $300 million of future local court costs, as currently planned. This shift would free up money for General Assistance welfare for the "poorest of the poor." The underlying issues involved include budget limitations, humane treatment of the needy, the political struggle and compromise of democratic institutions, and the impact on the court system and court employees of Lockyer's proposal.
The political context of public administration at the state and local levels is emphasized in this struggle over welfare. Not only is the policy being implemented, it is being formulated according to the compromise the two party leaders can create. The state and national requirements for cutting welfare shape the debate. Lockyer is trying to keep as much welfare as he can and is here fighting for the minimum money for the poorest people in the state. In order to get the funds for such aid some other area must be affected. The proposal to get the funds from court costs requires local government to take over those costs. It also requires approval from the Governor. Lockyer must in turn give up his demand for collective bargaining for court employees, which Wilson opposes. Clearly, this aspect of public administration involves a balancing act between competing economic, social and political forces. It is debatable whether the process is truly democratic, however. Certainly the Governor and Lockyer are elected democratically, but their juggling of resources and union rights minimizes public input. What the solution will involve is political wrestling between the two top leaders in the state. Lockyer may win minimal payments for the poorest of the poor, but he is also giving up ...