GovernmentExecutive.com

The federal budget deficit wasn't being talked about much in the 1992 presidential campaign until Ross Perot spent incredible amounts of his own money to make it an issue.

There are at least as many differences as there are similarities between what Perot was able to do in 1992 as what Arnold Schwarzenegger just did in successfully running for governor in California. But for the first time since the federal surplus disappeared and the deficit began to reach previously unimaginable levels, and for the first time since Perot put something on the national agenda that most likely would not have otherwise been there, a national celebrity with the ability to attract an extraordinary amount of media attention has again made "the deficit" an issue.

The California recall and Schwarzenegger's campaign were both based to a large extent on the Golden State's deficit. Voters took to the issue in part because candidate Schwarzenegger effectively focused attention on it - and on those he said should take the blame for not dealing with it. And in the weeks following his election, Schwarzenegger has continued talking about that deficit and what needs to be done to eliminate it.

One of the most prominent solutions he has floated is increased assistance from the federal government. That has forced federal policymakers in the White House and on Capitol Hill - as well as pundits, analysts, economists, and voters - to wonder out loud how Washington could find any additional dollars for California when the federal budget situation is actually in much worse shape than the state's. They have also been asking whether a Republican governor will be able to push for additional assistance from Washington at a time when "more federal spending" has become the fiscal equivalent of something you can't say on network television.

The media have already begun to cover this extensively. Indeed, it was one of the main questions being asked by columnists and reporters when President Bush met with Schwarzenegger last week in California.

In a speech following his meeting with the governor-elect in San Bernardino, the president talked about three things that he and Schwarzenegger had in common. He said they both married well, some accuse both of them of not being able to speak the language, and they both have big biceps. The president also could have included a fourth thing they share: big budget problems.

It's not clear how much longer the president will be able to avoid the budget and deficit if Schwarzenegger continues to stress them. Schwarzenegger's deficit talk also will provide a license for others to raise the issue because, as a popular Republican with a nationwide audience, he will provide the political air cover that others have lacked for the past year or so.

It is hard to see how the federal deficit doesn't become an issue if, as many people expect, the White House rejects the additional aid for California that Schwarzenegger is seeking. The likely reason for the rejection will be the need to limit federal spending, which will allow others to talk about how Bush budget policies are hurting the states, making it hard for the government to respond to new needs, and making people wonder if, in spite of the federal tax cuts, they are actually better off economically.

One of the biggest reasons Perot's presidential campaign stalled in 1992 was that both major parties eventually moved to claim the deficit issue for themselves. Bush and Clinton each became avid deficit hawks as they realized the issue was propelling Perot into the limelight and had the potential to derail their election efforts. Such issue-poaching was bad for Perot's White House hopes but key to ensuring that his main issue got attention even after Election Day.

Despite the fact that he is a fellow Republican and that he will not be running for president, Schwarzenegger's victory on California now makes that same type of situation possible at the national level. As a result, the federal deficit could be more of an issue next year than some had hoped or many had expected.

Question Of The Week

Last Week's Question. Last week, "Budget Battles" devotees were asked to recommend a nontraditional way to reduce the California budget deficit. So many "interesting" possibilities were suggested that it became apparent that the pool of potential candidates to become the governor-elect's budget director is much larger than anyone had imagined. Many people suggested annexing adjoining states or, in the modern-day equivalent of the plot from the movie "The Mouse that Roared," suggested that California invade another state or country and then immediately surrender so that the deficit would then become that state's responsibility.

The winner of the "I Won A 2003 Budget Battle" mouse pad, however, is Tom Bradley, who works for the Congressional Budget Office in Washington. Bradley suggested that California's constitution be changed to eliminate the right of the public to walk on the beach below the mean high tide line, then have the state auction off the strip of land between the mean high tide line and the mean low tide line. According to Tom, the state would get the purchase price, the coastal counties would get the property taxes, and the moguls in Malibu would finally get rid of the surfers.

Honorable mention (but no mouse pad) to Pete Davis in Washington, D.C., for his suggestion of promoting tourism with a "Terminator" movie festival that would raise money with the tremendous increase in sales and income taxes as millions of fans flocked to California.

This Week's Question. If you have been in one of the big department stores lately, you know that most of them already have their holiday decorations up in the hope of getting shoppers to start buying gifts now that won't be opened for almost two months. But if it's good enough for Neiman-Marcus, it's good enough for "Budget Battles." The question: What federal budget-related saying will be most appropriate for a holiday card this year?

Click here to send in your response, which must be received by 5 p.m. PDT on Saturday, Oct. 25, 2003. You must include a mailing address so we can send you the mouse pad if you win.

Note to government employees: Because of security procedures at many offices and facilities, your home address will be the best way to make sure the mouse pad actually gets to you.

COMMENTS

• Good job Stan. Keep telling the truth and I will keep reading. Only the guilty are tired of the truth. If you have nothing to hide, the truth shall set you free. GovExec.com reader Posted November 4, 2003 8:30 AM
• Stan's drumbeat criticism of the President is tiresome. GovExec.com amplifies it. Is there a political agenda at work here? Ben Lesser Posted October 30, 2003 7:07 PM