Schwarzenegger’s Pettinessand Generosity
Recently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California visited China, first stopping in Hangzhou to attend Alibaba Group’s 7th Entrepreneurs Conference on Sept. 11, where he was a special guest speaker. Of course, this wasn’t strange, because Schwarzenegger’s trip to Asia was sponsored by Alibaba, at a cost of $550,000.
How could the important governor of California be so stingy, to visit China and ask for sponsorship from a Chinese entrepreneur? Keep in mind that California has economic powerhouses such as Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and San Francisco, making it an extremely wealthy region. Its GDP, over $1.85 trillion, would make it one of the top 10 economies in the world, if California were thought of as a separate country. Moreover, Schwarzenegger’s official reason for coming to China was to bring major businessmen from his state who would sell Californian products.
The “big society, small government” model that America advocates causes politicians to slash taxes and cut government spending as much as possible to gain favor with voters. For this reason, even though California’s GDP is very large, the government’s financial resources are less than some of China’s provinces. Some go so far as to say this model caused California’s government finances to be in such a sorry state. This year, the state’s financial deficit reached $190 billion, leaving the government with no choice but to force state workers to take several days of unpaid leave. But I don’t think these are the real reasons. Just think about China’s case, and it all makes sense. If China had poor regions and some work units had financial difficulties, would China spend less public money? In a nationwide inspection in 2009, China’s Ministry of Supervision investigated 165 cases of public money used for travel outside of the country. The cases involved 634 people. According to reports, the number of business group trips, individual trips and expenditures made by employees of the Chinese Communist Party has declined on average, compared to the previous three years, by 49 percent, 45.5 percent and 37.6 percent. As a result, the Communist Party saved $1.631 billion yuan. Whereas from August 2007 to April 2009, members of the Jilin Provincial Coal Industry Bureau left the country a total of 51 times in nine instances, using illegally purchased invitations, illegal non-official documents, and fabricated agreements to cheat the approval system and ultimately squander 3.36 million yuan in public funds for travel outside of the country.
The manner for using public funds to travel abroad has been going on for quite some time; furthermore, China’s rules are explicit and severe. In that case, why is it that despite repeated orders, these Chinese officials still are finding ways to get around official policy? And why is Schwarzenegger so jittery? Why is he not trying to get around America’s official policy?
First of all, media supervision influences Schwarzenegger’s decisions. If America’s top officials say something careless, the media will ruthlessly attack them. Last year, some of the members of England’s Parliament used public funds to paint their houses, buy light bulbs, fix leaky pipes at tennis courts near their rural residences, and buy dog food. After a considerable amount of negative media attention, Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin was forced to resign.
Second, transparency and openness are the best policemen. Not only are all the details of the financial budgets of American state governments required to be made public, but they have to be reviewed and approved by the state legislature. Otherwise, California’s budget will yet again be difficult to draft. The 2010-2011 financial budget, which was supposed to be drafted in July, has already been delayed two months without approval from the legislature, due to large gaps in the budget.
Third, Schwarzenegger’s own behavior directly affects the number of votes his party will receive in the upcoming election. If an economic scandal occurs, not only is it unlikely that Schwarzenegger will be re-elected*, but the nominee for the Republican Party is also unlikely to be elected. In some systems the conduct of government officials is determined by public support; in others it is determined by acquiring the favor of one’s superiors. This is an important distinction.
For this reason, it seems as if Schwarzenegger is stingy, but actually he is quite magnanimous. He does not recklessly spend taxpayers’ money, and he uses his celebrity to seek business opportunities for California without spending any money. Of course, we cannot use this information to affirm that Schwarzenegger is a noble politician. Actually, the merits and drawbacks of an individual official’s personality are not so important. The important thing is that the government has a transparent system with public supervision, which makes presumptuous officials unable to hide once their misdeeds are exposed.
*Editor’s Note: Governor Schwarzenegger is not eligible for re-election.
How could the important governor of California be so stingy, to visit China and ask for sponsorship from a Chinese entrepreneur? Keep in mind that California has economic powerhouses such as Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and San Francisco, making it an extremely wealthy region. Its GDP, over $1.85 trillion, would make it one of the top 10 economies in the world, if California were thought of as a separate country. Moreover, Schwarzenegger’s official reason for coming to China was to bring major businessmen from his state who would sell Californian products.
The “big society, small government” model that America advocates causes politicians to slash taxes and cut government spending as much as possible to gain favor with voters. For this reason, even though California’s GDP is very large, the government’s financial resources are less than some of China’s provinces. Some go so far as to say this model caused California’s government finances to be in such a sorry state. This year, the state’s financial deficit reached $190 billion, leaving the government with no choice but to force state workers to take several days of unpaid leave. But I don’t think these are the real reasons. Just think about China’s case, and it all makes sense. If China had poor regions and some work units had financial difficulties, would China spend less public money? In a nationwide inspection in 2009, China’s Ministry of Supervision investigated 165 cases of public money used for travel outside of the country. The cases involved 634 people. According to reports, the number of business group trips, individual trips and expenditures made by employees of the Chinese Communist Party has declined on average, compared to the previous three years, by 49 percent, 45.5 percent and 37.6 percent. As a result, the Communist Party saved $1.631 billion yuan. Whereas from August 2007 to April 2009, members of the Jilin Provincial Coal Industry Bureau left the country a total of 51 times in nine instances, using illegally purchased invitations, illegal non-official documents, and fabricated agreements to cheat the approval system and ultimately squander 3.36 million yuan in public funds for travel outside of the country.
The manner for using public funds to travel abroad has been going on for quite some time; furthermore, China’s rules are explicit and severe. In that case, why is it that despite repeated orders, these Chinese officials still are finding ways to get around official policy? And why is Schwarzenegger so jittery? Why is he not trying to get around America’s official policy?
First of all, media supervision influences Schwarzenegger’s decisions. If America’s top officials say something careless, the media will ruthlessly attack them. Last year, some of the members of England’s Parliament used public funds to paint their houses, buy light bulbs, fix leaky pipes at tennis courts near their rural residences, and buy dog food. After a considerable amount of negative media attention, Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin was forced to resign.
Second, transparency and openness are the best policemen. Not only are all the details of the financial budgets of American state governments required to be made public, but they have to be reviewed and approved by the state legislature. Otherwise, California’s budget will yet again be difficult to draft. The 2010-2011 financial budget, which was supposed to be drafted in July, has already been delayed two months without approval from the legislature, due to large gaps in the budget.
Third, Schwarzenegger’s own behavior directly affects the number of votes his party will receive in the upcoming election. If an economic scandal occurs, not only is it unlikely that Schwarzenegger will be re-elected*, but the nominee for the Republican Party is also unlikely to be elected. In some systems the conduct of government officials is determined by public support; in others it is determined by acquiring the favor of one’s superiors. This is an important distinction.
For this reason, it seems as if Schwarzenegger is stingy, but actually he is quite magnanimous. He does not recklessly spend taxpayers’ money, and he uses his celebrity to seek business opportunities for California without spending any money. Of course, we cannot use this information to affirm that Schwarzenegger is a noble politician. Actually, the merits and drawbacks of an individual official’s personality are not so important. The important thing is that the government has a transparent system with public supervision, which makes presumptuous officials unable to hide once their misdeeds are exposed.
*Editor’s Note: Governor Schwarzenegger is not eligible for re-election.