EDITORIAL UNCONSCIONABLE LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRATS LEAVE CALIFORNIA IN THE LURCH.

WHEN legislative Democrats blocked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's fiscal recovery plan, they pretended as though their base, political decision was really a principled stand.

``My grandchildren are being asked to pay a debt that, whoever created it, they didn't create it,'' complained Senate Majority Whip Richard Alarcon, D-Van Nuys. ``It's unconscionable.''

Hardly.

What's unconscionable is the stupid games politicians like Alarcon play with deceptive turns of phrase like ``whoever created it.'' It's no mystery who created the state's debt. It was Alarcon and fellow Democrats, who for five years had uncontested control over Sacramento, and spent the state into an economic catastrophe.

What's unconscionable is that, to this day, not one of them accepts responsibility for the state's busted budget. They continue to blame the sour economy, never admitting that they were the ones who set uncontrollable spending patterns that no economy could sustain for long.

Besides, Schwarzenegger's plan wouldn't have created much new borrowing. For the most part, it would have restructured the existing, arguably illegal, debt that the Legislature has already approved. Moreover, the governor was willing to compromise on the lifetime of his proposed bond, and how long Alarcon's grandchildren - and everyone else's - would have to pay the bills.

But what's most unconscionable is that by defeating Schwarzenegger's plan and not delivering a viable alternative, the Democrats have left the people of California in the lurch.

All that currently keeps California afloat is a dubious $10.7 billion bond that, like a $1.9 billion one before it, risks getting struck down in court because it never went before the voters as the state constitution requires. Should that happen, the state will need either to drastically cut spending or raise taxes, and fast.

By choosing partisanship over problem-solving, the Democrats have pushed the state to the precipice of fiscal crisis.

And for what? The cheap thrill of giving Schwarzenegger his first political defeat? Momentarily derailing meaningful reform, and thus postponing the day of reckoning?

All of the above - and fear.

It wasn't so much Schwarzenegger's proposed bond that bothered his Democratic opponents. After all, they spend money the state doesn't have all the time. What really disturbed them was his proposed spending cap, and the realization that if it passed, they could never again spend the state into ruin.

And that's a power they were unwilling to give up.

So instead of a fixed cap on future spending, Democrats offered simply a weak provision to try not to spend more money than the state brings in. But that's already the law of the land, and the experience of the past five years should prove that it's inadequate to prevent ruinous spending sprees.

Clearly the Democrats have yet to comprehend the message of recall. Perhaps they need to hear the message again; and they will, should Schwarzenegger succeed in getting his recovery plan on the ballot, and the voters approve it.

Yet that's only half the solution. The other is for voters to punish the anti-reformers at the ballot box in next year's election.

Sacramento Democrats must come to see that, in the voters' minds, there's only one word to describe their recent behavior:

Unconscionable.