Now the fourth-term governor has new evidence for his case. A comprehensive new report by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University that looked at every state’s audited financial documents from 2014 ranks California 44th in its ability to meet short-term bills and longer term obligations. The report makes the case both for caution on expanding new state spending and for putting as much as possible in the rainy-day fund that voters approved in 2014.

In two categories, the Golden State is in the middle of the back.

On budget solvency — which Mercatus defines as “can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues, or does it have a budget shortfall?” — California ranked 23rd.

On service-level solvency — “how much ‘fiscal slack’ does a state have to increase spending if citizens demand more services?” — California ranked 28th.

Long-term picture for California is grim

But in three categories, the Golden State was far worse than the national average, buttressing Brown’s call to beef up the state’s rainy-day fund.

On long-run solvency — “can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?” — California ranked 46th.

On cash solvency — “does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?” — California ranked 47th.

On trust fund solvency — “how much debt does a state have? How large are its unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities?” — California ranked 42nd.

A recent New York Times story about Gov. Brown depicted him as having put California on solid fiscal ground and guided the state’s economy into a “period of prosperity.” The Times account suggested Brown and the Golden State could be a model for national Democrats.

The Mercatus study indicates that this narrative is based on perception more than hard data. Recent U.S. “U-6” unemployment data, which covers not just people without a job but people who work fewer hours than they want, backs up Mercatus. As of August, only six states had more residents unable to find jobs or full-time employment than California.

Napolitano’s success last fall in getting UC regents to approve a five-year, 28 percent tuition hike conditioned on how much state funding UC receives is what triggered the fight.

In his newly released state budget, the governor not only ignored her call for more funding, he indicated a preparedness to micromanage UC over whom it admits. The Los Angeles Times’ George Skelton depicted Brown as having …

… essentially stiffed UC President Janet Napolitano and the regents, who have threatened to raise tuition again unless the state chips in substantially more money.

Brown re-offered only last year’s deal: a 4% increase, or about $120 million, if the university keeps tuition flat. UC previously said that wasn’t enough. “The $120 million is not chump change,” the governor insisted.

And he threw in a new condition: No additional out-of-state students, who pay triple tuition, crowding out California kids. UC was “created by the people of California … for the citizens of the state,” he declared.

The populist quality of his admissions maneuver will serve Brown well politically — even if it goes against his normal posture of budget pragmatism. Out-of-state students pay so much in tuition that they shore up financing for UC and relieve pressure on the state budget.

Brown, Legislature > Napolitano, regents

But the insiders and UC watchers I have spoken with think the governor is playing three-dimensional chess and Napolitano is playing tic-tac-toe.

Brown and the Legislature want to get credit for tuition relief for the middle class. Napolitano wants to have a bigger budget but has yet to convince the public or the media that UC is in dire straits.

The governor just won a landslide re-election by making the case he is a careful fiscal steward of the state. Napolitano has no political base in California after years as governor and attorney general of Arizona and homeland security czar for the Obama administration.

Given these facts and circumstances, it’s difficult to see how Brown can lose this fight. The more interesting question is whether Brown will allow the UC president to save face by making some concessions. To this point, he’s not just content to accept the narrative of her as an adversary, he’s actively encouraging it.

Skelton thinks this may be the end game:

Brown wants to negotiate with Napolitano over university cost-cutting, which could include professors spending more time teaching and less researching.

But that would only be a further humiliation for Napolitano, who has repeatedly declared her intention to keep the UC system as one of the world’s great centers of research.

If Napolitano went along, it would also likely trigger a sharp reaction from the UC Faculty Senate.

The former Arizona gov may already regret challenging the current California gov so directly.