EDITORIAL PR OR PROPAGANDA? TOO MUCH POLITICAL SELF-PROMOTION ON THE TAXPAYERS' DIME.

THE scene: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, standing before a 25-foot model of the state Capitol. He reaches for a spigot, and triumphantly turns off the flow of red ink.

Message: This governor is serious about cutting government waste.

Cost of this dramatic performance: $4,543 - paid for, at least initially, by you, the California taxpayer.

Talk about sending mixed signals!

Schwarzenegger's campaign promises it will reimburse the cost of the governor's nifty prop, but that's not the point. Why should state carpenters and painters work on nakedly political jobs in the first place?

For all the commendable work Schwarzenegger has done to rein in state government, he happily uses taxpayer money to promote his agenda and bolster his public image. The story about the mock capitol is just the latest example. His office has also been known to create bogus video ``news'' stories touting his administration's work, which it sends out to small-market media outlets that run the spots as unvarnished truth.

At what point does the taxpayer-funded P.R. cross the line into propaganda?

That's a question not only for Schwarzenegger, but for officials at all levels of government.

From the City Council to the U.S. Congress, politicians now all have P.R. staffs - public-relations assistants, speechwriters and spin doctors working on the public payroll. Some of these, to be sure, are legitimate. It makes sense, for example, that the Department of Health might want to publicize ways people can avoid West Nile virus, or even that a high- profile politician would need a press officer to manage media inquiries.

But when is enough enough?

Is it when the Department of Water and Power mismanages a lucrative deal with a private P.R. giant that's advising the mayor, for free, on the side?

Is it when the Los Angeles Community College District spends as much as $395,000 in bond money to tell voters, in effect, that they were wise to approve the bonds in the first place?

Is it when $164 million from Proposition 10, the tobacco tax that's supposed to provide universal preschool, bankrolls a massive P.R. campaign?

Is it when the White House doubles P.R. spending over the course of four years, including paying at least one commentator to tout its programs?

It may be unclear where, exactly, the line between information and propaganda lies, but certainly we've crossed it on too many occasions. And while some government initiatives may need public exposure, successful programs, like successful politicians, ought to be able to generate their own good publicity.

It's time to re-examine the P.R. operations of government at all levels, and turn off the spigot to taxpayer-subsidized propaganda.