College Bill Had Lots of Support, but No Votes

SACRAMENTO — A week ago, nobody around here would have bet against Assembly Bill 13. But sometimes, bad things happen to good legislation.

Such was the case Friday, when AB 13--a modest proposal to create a state-run, tax-free savings program for parents of college-bound kids--hit a wall and exploded like an overripe tomato.

The bill’s fate has left its author dazed and disgusted. Assemblyman Brooks Firestone, a Republican from Santa Barbara County, can’t understand how his most popular piece of legislation could wind up on the capital junk heap of 1997.

“It’s a shame,” he said Monday. “This bill deserves to live. It has a lot of friends.”

Or so it seemed.

Earlier this year, AB 13 triggered a love fest as lawmakers lined up like woozy suitors to add their names to the bill. In the end, 50 co-authors signed on--liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike--and the bill sailed through two committees without encountering a single whitecap of dissent.

But on Friday, in Room 4202 of the Capitol, AB 13 appeared before the powerful Assembly Appropriations Committee. And there, with nary a word of debate, the bill’s silky slide through the Legislature ended, as all 13 of the committee’s Democrats gave it the thumbs down.

All of this might seem humdrum, if not for one odd wrinkle: Among the Democrats opposing the bill were five co-authors, including one--Speaker Pro Tem Sheila Kuehl of Santa Monica--who had sent out a news release in April extolling its merits.

“As the cost of a college education increases,” Kuehl’s release said, programs like Firestone’s “become more and more important for California families.”

How could such support have withered so? Were partisan politics to blame? Had Democrats smothered AB 13 to ding Firestone, a likely Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in 1998?

Firestone and his backers think they smell a rat: “This would not be the first time,” the assemblyman said, “that politics inhibited good policy.”

But the Democrats who tanked the bill insist that there is no such agenda at work. Firestone, a moderate Republican, is “a very agreeable type,” said Assemblyman Don Perata (D-Alameda), and “we don’t wish him ill at all.”

“No, no,” agreed Assemblyman Mike Machado (D-Linden), another co-author who withdrew his support of AB 13 in the end. “It’s not a personal thing.”

Instead, these and other Democrats said, it was money--or a lack of it--that did in AB 13. With a limited amount of money to spend, they said, some bills simply didn’t make the cut.

“You have to balance the good ideas with the finite pool of resources,” said Assembly Majority Leader Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), another co-author who put the skids on the bill. “The idea [of AB 13] is one I support--that’s why I put my name on it. But given other pressures, it’s not a top priority this year.”

To be sure, the Appropriations Committee was faced with far more requests for money than its members could afford. By one preliminary estimate, the committee had $8 billion worth of proposals before it this year--and sent less than $200 million worth of bills to the Assembly floor.

Firestone understands that the competition for dollars is fierce--especially for a member of the minority party--but he insists that when it comes to AB 13, the fiscal argument doesn’t hold up. True, his program--dubbed Scholarshare--required start-up funding of $1.1 million, but he proposed to repay that amount from earnings from the Scholarshare program once it was in business.

“Scholarshare is designed to be self-supporting,” Firestone said. “This was absolutely not going to be a drain on the general fund.”

Though the picture is bleak for AB 13, Firestone says he has not given up. On Monday, he made a motion to have his bill heard on the Assembly floor. That motion requires a majority of votes and is a longshot at best, Firestone said.

Should that tactic fail, Firestone may try another option--persuading a Democrat to take over the Scholarshare bill as leading author. Perhaps then, he said, Democrats would consider the legislation a high priority this year.

“If that’s what it takes, we may do it,” Firestone said.

Scholarshare--modeled after programs in other states--would pool parents’ investments in a government-run savings plan, allowing them to obtain a higher rate of return than an individual could. Families could invest at whatever level they choose, and their earnings would be federally tax-free and subject to state income tax only when the money is withdrawn to pay for college.

A competing proposal is pending in the state Senate. Sponsored by Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), the bill aims to allow parents to entirely prepay their children’s college tuition--locking in tomorrow’s education at today’s rates.

But Hayden’s bill has one problem--an opponent in Gov. Pete Wilson, who considers the plan risky. Wilson has vetoed Hayden’s bill once, and there is no indication that he feels any warmer about the concept now.