Governor needs a New Deal on budget

With apologies to the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen:

Governor, I knew FDR. He was a frequent guest in our home over the radio. FDR got my dad back to work during the Depression and was a reassuring voice in the war. In our family, FDR was God.

Governor, drop the FDR bit.

In fairness, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn’t really been claiming to be FDR -- no more than Sen. Dan Quayle was masquerading as JFK in the 1988 vice presidential debate. The Indiana Republican merely was equating his congressional experience to JFK’s when Bentsen (D-Texas) nailed him: “Senator . . . I knew Jack Kennedy. . . . You are no Jack Kennedy.”

According to a gubernatorial insider, Schwarzenegger got the idea of linking himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt from Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, a Republican ally and fellow former actor. At issue was how to rationalize plowing ahead with an ambitious $14.4-billion healthcare proposal when the state was facing a $14.5-billion budget deficit over the next 18 months. Autry’s answer came out like this in Schwarzenegger’s State of the State speech last week:

“I understand the concern that we have now a deficit, and that our plan is maybe too daring or too bold or expensive. But sometimes you have to be daring, because the need is so great. I mean, you want to hear about daring?

“Think about FDR. FDR did not ignore the problems of the Depression because times were tough. No, he addressed those problems in big visionary ways because times were tough. He saw the problems and he acted on behalf of the people and the nation. . . . So we too must act boldly on behalf of the people and the state.”

That justification spilled over into Schwarzenegger’s announcement of his budget butchering two days later. A reporter asked how he could justify whacking current healthcare benefits while simultaneously advocating a costly expansion of healthcare -- how he could explain slashing education funds after previously declaring that 2008 would be “the year of education” reform.

Even though Roosevelt faced the Depression, Schwarzenegger replied, “he did not just wait and hope for something to happen. He was acting; he was making a move. And he started building bridges; he started building highways. . . .”

The answer didn’t really track, but a lot of politicians’ responses to reporters’ questions are that way.

The truth is, FDR could print money. Schwarzenegger can’t. And his credit card is about maxed out.

The state Constitution requires a governor to balance the budget, something mostly done in recent years with winks and sleight-of-hand. To Schwarzenegger’s credit, he helped outlaw many of the old budget tricks. In FDR fashion, Schwarzenegger last week proposed $38 billion in construction bonds for water, K-12 schools, universities, courthouses and seismic retrofitting. But little of the $37 billion in state infrastructure bonds approved in 2006 by voters has been spent.

If the governor really were eager to get moving on rebuilding California, he’d be trying to shove that construction money out the Capitol door.

To the contrary, he vetoed a $610-million bond appropriation for water facilities and levee repairs sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland). Republican lawmakers urged Schwarzenegger to hold the money hostage in an effort to force Democratic approval of dam building.

That’s not very FDR-like. Roosevelt would have spent any money within reach.

But what’s particularly outrageous about Schwarzenegger’s embrace of FDR is that Roosevelt wouldn’t be closing state parks, firing prison guards and wardens, shortchanging school kids and -- you can bet it all on this one -- denying benefits to the impoverished aged, blind and disabled.

Schwarzenegger’s trying to talk like FDR while acting like Ebenezer Scrooge.

The FDR analogy “is a stretch,” says Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College and a former Republican National Committee official. “All politicians like to touch the hem of his garment. But the situations just aren’t comparable.”

FDR, after all, created Social Security, and that became “the basis for the federal welfare state,” Pitney says.

Rather than lay off people in hard times, Roosevelt created the Works Projects Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The historical figure that Schwarzenegger should be trying to emulate is Ronald Reagan, a fiscal conservative but pragmatist.

To plug a huge deficit his first year as governor in 1967, Reagan raised taxes by a then-record $1 billion. He never had to worry about red ink again. Back then, the total budget was only $5 billion. The budget Schwarzenegger just proposed hit $141 billion, even with 10% across-the-board cuts.

A more recent role model for Schwarzenegger should be his political mentor, Pete Wilson. In 1991, the new governor faced a $14-billion hole in a $43-billion general fund. (Schwarzenegger’s proposed general fund is $101 billion.)

Wilson raised taxes by a staggering $7 billion -- on income, sales, cars, liquor, candy. Name it. Then he filled the rest of the gap with cuts and magicians’ tools.

Schwarzenegger’s draconian plan “is a wake-up call for the public,” says Assembly Budget Committee Chairman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz). “This is reality. If you don’t like it, what’s your alternative?”

Pitney says: “I don’t think taxes are avoidable.”

Schwarzenegger still thinks they are. Or so he says. I believe him -- believe that he’s living in denial.

The governor should think hard about who he is and how he wants to be remembered. I doubt it’s reflected in the budget that bears little resemblance to the statesmanlike policies of Reagan and Wilson -- let alone FDR’s New Deal.

george.skelton@latimes.com