Commentary: A Conversation with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Sacramento Bee
January 20, 2008

On Wednesday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger met with The Bee's editorial board to discuss the state budget and its $14.5 billion shortfall, among other topics. Following are edited excerpts from his 90-minute conversation.

On how a recent poll showed Californians still give him high marks even as they dislike the direction the state is headed:

I don't think I'm Teflon. I think people are sophisticated enough that they know that as governor you're not the only one that runs the state. We do not have a dictatorship. There is me. There's 120 people, and I think that they recognize that it takes 120 legislators to go along with those kind of things. The budget situation: They have read that same story many times before. They know that this is not a new problem. They know that Gray Davis was in the same situation. They know that Pete Wilson was in the same situation. They know that (George) Deukmejian was in the same situation. They know that Jerry Brown was in the same situation. … Even Ronald Reagan was in the same situation. Earl Warren talked how about we ought to have a rainy day fund. … I cannot enforce this budget. I need the two-thirds of the vote or the people's vote.

On why the state should cut spending by closing state parks instead of raising fees:

Now people are going to get creative with the fees to find ways of keeping the parks open, which I think they should be kept open, but users should pay for the usage of this. … Nothing is going to be closed. They're going to have people pay for it. … We never said you close it. We just said that under budget restraints we cannot pay for those parks.

So now there is already talk, that maybe we should have fees and maybe that's what will keep the parks open. … The budget is always a proposal … that stimulates the conversation, and everyone starts then getting into the mix. And what I was doing with this budget is just say, "Here's the reality," and the reality will rattle the cage, and everyone will wake up and there's no time anymore to wait; this is the time to act.

On his new support of Proposition 93, which would modify term limits for legislators:

When I first came into office, I did not at all favor the idea of legislators staying a long period of time up here. Then when I came up here, and I started working with the legislators, I really got a feel for the whole thing up here, who's controlling what.

It became very clear that the special interests and lobbyists are much better equipped to make decisions up here than the legislators are and represent their companies, their industries, much better than the legislators can represent the people that they're supposed to represent.

It is because the lobbyists and the special interests up here are just very well skilled, and they've been here for a very long period of time. … The legislators, there's continuous turnover. … It sounds good to go and say, "Let's take the time away," … but the reality of it is when you work in there, and I've now just started working with Fabian (Núñez, the Assembly speaker) and with (Senate President Pro Tem Don) Perata and (Sen. Dick) Ackerman and all those characters together – you start building a trust, and all the sudden they're gone next year.

It's the same as with (former Senate President Pro Tem John) Burton. I just got this groove going with this guy and we could understand each other, and all of a sudden he's being ripped away because of the law. I liked him even though we were totally different in our philosophy, but you could work with him.

Now I have to start all over again with Perata. I always told Fabian I would never ever endorse this (Proposition 93) if you don't go and do redistricting. … Everyone came in and tried different ways; they just could never get it done. And we're still negotiating … the redistricting.

On how he views the California presidential primary:

It is wide open. Anyone could win … We in California are now in a perfect place, because they all have to look at California in a very serious way, unlike what a lot of people said would happen. I think California will be very relevant.

On presidential candidates and climate change:

Well, I think it is important to see what their vision is of the future and what they would do. What kind of changes would they make with energy? I want to see if someone is daring enough to say, "I want to cut our usage of fossil fuels 5 percent a year for 10 years." Or that we will put money behind it as a country to explore alternative fuels. There is certain technology out there, but there could be even better technology out there. We don't know.

(Sen. Barack) Obama has talked a lot about the Kennedys' putting a man on the moon and stuff. I want to see the candidates talk on that level: "If I become president, here is what I would do. In 10 years from now, we will be the A, B and C, and really make drastic changes in the way we look at cars, the fuels that cars are using, the fuels we use to create energy in this country, all of those kind of things."

America has such an unbelievable opportunity here. There is such a vacuum in this area and such a need in this area. We know we have to clean the world and clean the environment. We are being taken hostage with the oil prices, and everyone is suffering because of it. We can do better than that.

This administration has just not done it, and an extraordinary opportunity was lost because of it.

On who will get his vote on Feb. 5:

I will let you know after I vote.