A Leader Can Get Lost Following the People

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has always said he wants to be “the governor of the people,” executing their commands. But there is a problem with that notion. Too often, the people don’t have a clue.

Oh, they have a clue about what they want. They know where they want to wind up -- but have little inkling of the route or the fare. Nor what’s feasible and what’s fantasy.

Frequently they’re confused. That’s partly because they’re misled by demagogues -- and also because, being human, they try to avoid pain by living in denial.

“Voters are conflicted,” says Mark Baldassare, pollster for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. “They want almost everything. They want to continue to spend more money and tax other people. Or borrow.

“There’s not a whole lot of fiscal discipline in the public.”

That’s why Americans are carrying $2 trillion-plus in consumer debt.

In that respect, Schwarzenegger is the people’s governor. His latest $125.6-billion budget plan would have state government spending $6.4 billion more than it takes in during the next fiscal year. That “moves the state in the wrong direction,” says nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill.

This is the “live within your means” governor, remember? Why didn’t he propose a “live within your means” spending plan? a reporter asked him at the Jan. 10 budget unveiling.

“It is easier said than done,” Schwarzenegger replied. “When I ran [for governor], I thought it was easier to balance the budget, to be honest with you. But it’s very, very difficult because you’re not sitting ... alone in the Capitol. You’re making decisions together [with legislators]....

“If I do my [family] budget at home, yes, it’s easy to just say, ‘Oh, we spend less here.’ End of story.... It’s easier than working at the Capitol.”

That was refreshing: a Republican admitting that it’s much simpler for a family to balance its budget -- although many don’t -- than for a clan of elected representatives.

Last week, at a Sacramento Press Club luncheon, Schwarzenegger again blamed the Democrat-controlled Legislature. While the “structural deficit” has been whittled to less than a third of what it was when he took office, the governor said, “the legislators are still unwilling to only ... spend what they have.”

Why doesn’t he himself just propose deep spending cuts? “You have to do it together with the Democrats -- as much as you have to do it together with the Republicans to increase taxes.

“You saw what happened when we didn’t give education last year [its expected] money, and they were all over me with a lot of [TV ads] and a lot of beating.... One has to be very careful. This is a very, very sensitive thing of how far you can go.”

Actually, to his credit, Schwarzenegger doesn’t have the stomach to slash where he’d have to: deeper into programs for the impoverished aged, disabled and poor kids who don’t have health insurance.

So, for the umpteenth time, he’s asked why not raise taxes to finally eliminate the deficit -- as did Govs. Pat Brown (his new hero), Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson when they truly lived within their means?

“Because I think that we want to keep the money out there with the private sector and stimulate the economy,” Schwarzenegger answered, noting that even existing tax rates are generating revenues beyond expectations.

It’s fiscal policy paralysis: Democrats refuse to significantly cut spending. Republicans refuse to raise taxes. The governor won’t do either.

And the voters are sending mixed signals. These are examples from a Public Policy Institute poll last week:

* Asked whose approach they preferred on taxes and spending -- Schwarzenegger’s, Democratic legislators’ or GOP lawmakers’ -- voters sided with Democrats. They answered: Democrats 40%, Republicans 24% and the governor 20%.

* Queried whether they’d rather pay higher taxes and receive more state services, or pay lower taxes and get fewer services, voters opted for increased taxes and services, 56% to 36%.

* Most thought the state should spend more on K-12 schools (66%), roads and other infrastructure (59%) and health and human services (55%).

* They overwhelmingly favored raising income taxes on the wealthiest people (66%) and on cigarettes (70%).

* But 58% would oppose a ballot measure making it easier to raise their own local sales taxes to fund transportation projects.

* And the preference for financing a statewide infrastructure program was to “use only surplus budget funds.” Of course, there are none. A tax increase “for all Californians” was the least popular.

But another recent poll showed that the public possibly could be persuaded by a strong leader to pay higher income taxes, across the board, for the right cause.

The Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State asked voters how they’d feel about hiking the income tax by 2.5% to raise $1 billion annually for public schools. People were closely divided: 45% for and 48% against.

A bold governor has options. Voters usually are more flexible than their elected representatives.

“In a way, this is on-thejob training,” Schwarzenegger told the press club. “I did not go to school to become a governor.”

Here’s one vital lesson: The best way to be the people’s governor is to lead them, not try to follow. When a governor tries to figure out where the puzzled people are headed, too often nobody gets anywhere.

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.