SACRAMENTO, CA -- Not everything that comes out of Sacramento these days is terrible. The trouble is, for every good thing that occurs, there seem to be two or three horrible happenings. The last couple of weeks are a case in point.

At the end of July, Governor Gray Davis showed guts by vetoing SB 44, which would have allowed government agencies to implement race-based outreach programs in employment. In his veto message, Davis pointed out that although he opposed Prop. 209, he believed that the outreach programs envisioned in the bill violated the initiative, which was approved by 54 percent of voters in 1996.

Race-preference zealots were, unsurprisingly, apoplectic over Davis’ action. "This is outrageous," said Oren Sellstrom of the San Francisco-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. In contrast, Prop. 209 chairman and UC Regent Ward Connerly probably spoke for most Californians when he commented that Davis "showed great courage in resisting those on his left who have tried to drag him into the briar patch by putting on his desk a bill that is clearly unconstitutional."

Davis, unfortunately, balanced out his commendable action on SB 44 with his ill-advised signing of SB 26 which will prohibit employers from dismissing workers over 40 and hiring younger people to do the same job for less money. Using salary levels as a basis for a new definition of age discrimination defies fundamental market economics. The market wage for workers is determined by supply and demand for labor. Employers who demand an experienced work force usually pay higher wages for that experience since the supply of older experienced workers is usually lower than the supply of younger inexperienced workers.

However, if experience isn’t valued by employers, then the market wage will be lower because the supply of labor will be larger since both older and younger workers will be included in the labor pool. Older workers who demand higher wages even though their skills are valued no higher than those of younger workers can only succeed through the intervention of socialistic government. Governor Davis gladly provided that intervention even though it meant eliminating business’ basic economic right to use financial considerations as the basis for management decisions. A representative of the California Manufacturers Association rightly noted that the law sends a message to older employees that "the state has granted them almost a guarantee for employment."

Finally, the State Auditor recently issued a report on shocking mismanagement at the California Department of Education (DOE). According to the report, the DOE "mismanaged oversight of the federal adult education program in the State." Further, "As a result of its ineffective monitoring practices, the department has paid community-based organizations [mostly liberal activist Hispanic groups] for services these organizations cannot substantiate." The report found that the DOE’s newly drafted monitoring procedures "do not include steps to determine whether claimed services are documented."

Governor Davis has yet to comment. State schools chief, Delaine Eastin, punished those who blew the whistle on the misconduct, in which millions of dollars were wasted. Yet, Eastin continues to insist that taxpayers should cough up more money for her department to spend. Now that’s ugly.

-- Lance T. Izumi