Gov.’s Bad Sequel: ‘Running Man 2’

The best sign that you’ve become a true national political figure is that people start putting you up for president. If you have more name recognition than

discernible political philosophy, so much the better.

This must be what’s driving the Arnold Schwarzenegger-for-commander-in-chief boomlet. Today, as he begins his second year as California governor, a

TV campaign is being launched on behalf of a constitutional amendment to admit foreign-born citizens like him into the presidential sweepstakes.

The effort is one more sign of the gap between the governor’s public image and his record of achievement in Sacramento.

On the one hand: high popularity ratings, throngs of onlookers at every public event, worldwide media attention. On the other: a state credit rating that remains the worst in the nation; an unaddressed budget deficit; higher fees for university tuition and other services cherished by the middle class; and a blank check for big business.

The one-year report cards published over the last week by California newspapers suggest that the governor’s lack of solid accomplishment isn’t a secret to many state residents, even as they continue to admire his personal elan.

National reporters, meanwhile, notice only the public image. The governor charms them out of their shoes by inviting them in to smoke a companionable cigar under his Capitol tent, join him on motorcycle jaunts along PCH and watch him bask in the adoration of crowds.

The harvest is certainly ego-fulfilling. Fortune magazine, for example, called Schwarzenegger’s budget “a credible economic recovery plan” and applauded his “courage to take big risks,” although it couldn’t find any to mention by name.

That’s hardly surprising, for Schwarzenegger has spent the year since he took over from Gov. Gray Davis running from big risks.

A big risk would have been to suggest that the property tax regime created under Proposition 13 requires a serious updating; Schwarzenegger silenced his one advisor who raised the issue, Warren Buffett. (To his eternal discredit, Buffett put up with the muzzling.)

A big risk would have been

to acknowledge that without higher taxes, California will spend beyond its means not only this year, but also next year and into the foreseeable future. Instead, Schwarzenegger chose to balance the budget by extracting sacrifices from the poor, the medically needy, children, teachers and families supporting college students. (The Legislature eventually forced him to abandon a few of these choices.)

The idea that Schwarzenegger’s budget reflects a sustainable strategy is mystifying. Consider the consequences of his decision to cut $4 billion in state revenue by rescinding the car-tax increase and to replace the money through bond sales, bookkeeping stunts and raids on local governments and educational institutions. The whole package looks very much like the one that helped get Gov.

Davis pilloried.

The $11.3 billion in bonds will be repaid from a portion of the sales tax for up to 14 years. The governor extracted $366 million in higher fees from state college and university students and got $210 million from schoolteachers by canceling a tax credit they had coming. (Owners of private yachts and airplanes also gave up a tax break, but that cost them only $26 million.)

An additional $1.3 billion came from the budgets of cities and counties -- a wash for Californians. Then there are things like a $288-million gain from

deferring Medi-Cal reimbursements to doctors and hospitals by two weeks, so the charge doesn’t show up until the next fiscal year.

Many of these chickens will soon come home to roost. The $11.3-billion mortgage will drain state resources for the better part of two decades. Many of the other tricks will expire in a few years. Thanks to such failure to take strong action, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill now projects the deficit to be $6.7 billion next year and as much as $10 billion in 2006-07. Hill’s two-year deficit forecast has widened by $3 billion since her last report in September.

What part of this plan does Fortune find “credible”?

There are other reasons for concern about Schwarzenegger’s legacy. His governing style is one often seen in organizations run by a charismatic leader: He creates a system that only he can manage. It’s one thing for the governor to get his way by intimidating university deans into accepting budget cuts and tuition raises, electioneering for (or against) ballot initiatives and crafting specious solutions to real problems in the name of “action.” But it leaves the rest of state government hobbled.

What will happen once

some pallid mortal succeeds to Schwarzenegger’s chair under the cigar tent? The Legislature will be left with zero credibility. The deans will discover they can’t force Sacramento to deliver on the promises for which they bargained. And a citizenry addicted to election-booth legislating will be bereft of a voice to tell them which hole to punch.

All the while, the potholes Schwarzenegger pretended to fill will remain, deeper than ever.

Some of the one-year reviews given to Schwarzenegger speculate that he has deliberately laid off the big challenges so far to preserve his popularity, and that now he’ll start rolling up his sleeves. This may be wishful thinking, but the prospect is worth looking forward to.

If it happens, we may finally get an answer to the most important question Californians should be asking about Arnold Schwarzenegger: Is he really a better governor than Gray Davis, or does he just play one better on TV?

*

Golden State appears every Monday and Thursday. You

can reach Michael Hiltzik at golden.state@latimes.com.