Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564124",
    "label": "Transcripts - 05/17/1972, 05/31/1972, 06/08/1972, 06/29/1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564124"
}

{
    "id": "118564124",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564124",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 05/17/1972, 05/31/1972, 06/08/1972, 06/29/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564124",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-015-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-015-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-015-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564124",
    "naId": 118564124,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-015-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "7ea2e508d95552dc",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n05/17/1972, 05/31/1972, 06/08/1972, 06/29/1972\nBox: P03\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSENATORS JOnN HARMER, FRED MARLER and RUBERT LAGOMARSINO\nand ASSEMBLYMEN WILLIAM BAGLEY, ROBERT MONAGAN and JOHN STULL\nHELD MAY 17, 1972\nReported by\nBèverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their convenience\nonly. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as\npossible afterthe conference, no corrections are made and there is no\nguaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGNN:\nWe are all here in connection with the\nannouncement that I am going to make, the legislative leadership\nand those who are going to handle the piece of legislation that I am\nhere to announce.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read release No. 300)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Now, I think you gentlemen wanted to add\nanything to this before we have Ken go into the details of the tax --\nSENATOR LAGOMARSINO: No, Governork only to add that I think --\nI think this is a measure that is -- as you say, worth of consideration,\nand the support by the legislature. It meets two of the biggest\nproblems we face, the issue of school finance and of course the issue\nthat we have had for many years, as you pointed out, of property tax\nreform. And the thing that is very appealing to me about it is that\nthis is able to be donc without increasing the income tax.\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: I might point out procedurally that since\nwe have ABe1000 which is a familiar number, the Moretti package, in\nthe Assembly, we want to start this bill on its course in the Senate.\nSo that Senator Bob Lagomarsino -- and he and I were together a\ncouple of years ago, and I have Leroy again with me -- Senator Lagomar-\nsino will be the main author of the bill to be introduced very shortly,\nwithin days, in the Senate. I'll be the Assembly co-author. If\nnecessary, I got a couple of spot bills, too, but the whole point is\nwe will start in the Senate with this bill. Just by way of conclusion,\nI have been on a Serrano kick now for a year or so urging that we meet\nthe mandate of Serrano, because it is perhaps the most important finance --\ngovernment finance issue of the century, and all'I want to do, I really\nmean this, is commend Governor Reagan for facing the reality of Serrano,\nfacing the realities of the unequal educational opportunity that is built\ninto our system now, and repairing that inequality, and I do commend\n-1-\nGovernor Reagan for that, and I thank kim for his leadership.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Gentlemen, anyone else? Well, you will all\nhave a chance at all of us here in just a few moments for questioning,\nbut first, and this might anticipate some of your questions, I'll ask\nKen Hall and Bill -- I appreciate those words, except I have to turn\nand give the credit to my staff and the -- Verne Orr and Ken and all\nof the people over in finance who have been working so hard on this\nwith legislative leadership help.\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: You want me to move, Kenny?\na\nMR. HALL: I just want to try and run through a couple quick\nconcepts and then maybe cover the general questions with the Governor\nand the principles, and then if you have detailed questions I'll be\nhappy to come back to those. The proposalsis a major property tax\nreform proposal balanced upon two different issues. One attempting\nto try and provide guaranteed and lasting property tax relief to\nCalifornians beleaguered homeowners and others. And at the same time\nto provide an equal educational opportunity program to California\nschool children. The educational portion is approximately 860 million\ndollars of additional money, State support, for schools, of which\n210 is a program increase for the poorest school districts. The\nbalance, 650 million dollars, is a roll back in the property tax\nrate currently supporting local education. This will take the State\nsupport to 50-50 sharing in terms of the basic educational program.\nThe details as to how it works is to take -- build upon the existing\nfoundation program and expand the support for -- expand the State\nsupport from a present level of a guaranteed of 480 dollars per student\nfor the elementary school to $687. For a high school student, to\nincrease the support from the current level of $560 to a $900 level.\nThe typical school district in California would receive approximately\n85 per cent additional state support. 95 per cent of California's\nschool children would receive additional State support.\nThe property tax relief portions are as we mentioned, $650\nmillion rollback in the school property tax rate. Plus increasing\nthe homeowner's exemption to first $1250 effective with this December's\ntax bills, and increasing $100 incrementally for a period of four years\nto a total of $1550. Also for the property taxpayer to limit property\ntax increases for the future to a vote of the local electorate, unlike\nWatson which gives a limitation in terms of the property tax that the\nvoter has no option of going above this proposal, would give the option\nof the local electorate to go above that level for cities, counties and\nschools. A total 0 property tax relief, $650\nthe roll back of\nthe rate, $242 for additional homeowners' exemptions, a total of\n$829 million dollars worth of property tax relif within the proposal.\nIncomettax relief in three different parts. $84 million for\nrenters in order to try and balance the sales tax indreases that\nwould be imposed upon them. Also increasing the singles exemption.\nSingles e credit from the current $25 to $35 andgive those who have had\nhousehold returns the potential -- the advantage of using and claiming\na credit for their first dependent. Replacement revenues are dedi-\ncating $100 million dollars of State surplus that will be announced\ntomorrow. A, dedicating that state surplus for property tax relief\nrather than for additional spending for state services. Secondly,\nthe funding is from federal revenue sharing to the extent of $240\nmillion dollars. When the question is raised as to the potential of\nfederal revenue sharing passing this legislative session, we think\nthe potential is excellent, but just in case there is a difficulty in\nterms of adopting federal revenue sharing, there is a reserve fund\nestablished of other surpluses in the state budget which would offset\nthe $240 million dollars worth of increase -- of revenues coming from\nfederal revenue sharing. If this reserve fund is not needed, because\nof the advent of federal revenue sharing, then any reserves in this\nsurplus would be returned to the taxpayer in terms of an income tax\nreduction.\nThe eevenues in terms of tax increases do not include any type\nof an income tax increase. Theyare a sales tax going up one per cent\neffective next May; luxury tax increases on cigarettes and liquors,\n5 cents per pack, 50 cents per gallon, and a gank and corporation tax\nincrease, 1.4 per cent.\nLocal government. As we mentioned, property taxes are limited\nfor cities, counties and school districts to a vote -- vote of electorate.\nWe are providing cities, counties and school districts with an\nincrease on additional revenue from the VLF. The Vehicle in Lieu Fee.\nThe Vehicle In Lieu Fee would be increased .85 per cent and would be\nshared equally between the three jurisdictions, counties, cities and\nschools. This would be the first time that schools will have partici-\npated in the VLF program. It is a tax on automobiles in lieu of\nproperty tax, automobiles and trucks. At the same time it would\nrequire the State of California to fully fund any new mandated or\nincreased programs that are mandated by the State of California, tTo\n-3-\ntry and round out the package, the constitutional amendments, some of\nwhich the Governor has mentioned, are three. One is to authorize a\ncarbon copy for the State income tax returns on -- of the federal tax.\nThe issue has been in front of the electorate in the past. There\nare two -- two new features that we think are important in terms of\nthat electorate decision. One is the advent of withholding. We\nfeel that in part maybe the local electorate's changed their mind,\nand secondly in the Mills revenue sharing bill the federal government\nis proposing to check state income taxes with no administrative charge.\nSecondly, that as you will note in your handouts, since the Governor\nmentioned an option for the electmrate to choose either a two-thirds\nor majority vote for all tax increases, and third, we'd eliminate\nbasic aid for the highest school districts in compliance with Serrano.\nMaybe- that kind of rounds out the package, Govenor, maybe someone has\nsome general questions that they can\nto you and the legislature\nand then I'll be happy to come back and respond to specific questions\nat the conclusion of that.\nQ.\nGovernor, are we now talking about -- do you have -- are you\nable to do this because you now have something like $350 million in\nsurplus? Is that what enables you to set aside $100 million in\nsurplus for -- one phase of this and then a reserve fund to make up\nfor\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, now, I'm not going to jump the gun\non the Finance Department, which Tom will be reporting to the legisla-\nture. As nearly as we aan estimate what our situation is -- but I\ncan ohly tell you that I've been happier than I've been in a long\ntime. You know, we have been fighting desperately for years to get\ngovernment's expenditures to within the fremework of our present reven-\nues.\nWe have occasionally had single time surpluses, single time\nsavings. Two instances in which we have rebated them by way of the\nincome tax, the last one this April because of the additional revenues\nfrom the overlap of withholding. For the first time we now are\nreasonably optimistic. Optimistic enough to see that -- two things\nhave happened. One is the -- evidently the President's programs are\nworking. In recent months the stimulation of the economy has gone\nbeyond our estimates of such things that reflect citizen confidence\nsuch as the sales tax. But more important, if you will remember, last\nyear when we were being told over and over again that we needed $750\nmillion dollars to balance the budget and we insisted we didn't, and\n-4-\nyou will remember tha we were constantly told tr our estimates of\nsavings from welfare and Medi-Cal were exaggerated, and that we were\nphonying them up simply to get the reforms passed, and WE insisted that\nnot only were they not phony but that we honestly believed that WE were\nbeing modest, that we were being conservative because if we were going\nto be surprised we wanted to be surprised on the happy side. Well,\nwe were right in everything we said. We not only didn't need the\n$750 million but our welfare and Medi-Cal reforms are producing as we\nourselves thought they would, far more in savings. We now believe that\nwe have enough of a view to know that some of thas savings are going\nto be ongoing. So, for the first time, not just suggesting a single\ntemporary rebate, we are able to commit $100 million dollars that we\nknow will be ongoing and we believe that there will be additional on-\ngoing relief or surplus. And therefore if the federal revenue\nsharing plan should go through the State's share over and above the\nlocal and county and cities share -- the State's share would be around\n$240 million. We are willing to commit that $240 million to this pro-\ngram of tax relief. fTo guard against the possibility of Congress' unpre-\ndictability and that they might not pass the revenue sharing we will\nhold in trust the additional surplus funds that we are going to have\nand use those in place of the -- the federal sharing if that should not\ntake place. If that does take place, we believe that we are going\nto be in the position then to propose for the first time an across-the-\nboard reduction in the state income tax.\nQ.\nGovernor, why did you change your position, though, as far as\nyou took the money from income taxpayers, but you are giving it back\nto property taxpayers? Who may make up only 55 per cent of the income\ntaxpayers.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Right.\nQ.\n40 per cent of renters, you know, you are not giving the renters\nthe same property tax, ongoing program.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nA.\nOne of the outgrowths of all of our studies has been the fact\nthat the prorated share of the renter in paying property tax is only\nabout 30 per cent of what it is for the person who is providing his own\nhome, and therefore they don't have the same property tax inequity,\nthe renter does not that the homeowmer has. So the need there is not\nas great.\na.\nGobernor, why did you wait SO late in the session to present\nthis?\nThey are supposed to wind up by June 39 or thereabouts.\n-5-\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nLet me tell you, it wasn't a case of waiting.\nIt was a case that, as I told you, I guess, last week in the press\nconference, that as we have gone on through these several years of\nattempts and -- we started out with, as you know, quite complicated\nprograms, trying to cure every problem across the way that we could,\nWe have learned a lot, and what we learned revealed that the problem\nwas more complicated and the more we knew the harder the problem became.\nWe also faced, this year the fact that very much a major part of any\ntax reform had to be the solution to the school financing. It was\nridiculous to talk about altering the tax structure and ignore Serrano\nhanging over you. So this has been the result of an awful lot of\nwork and a lot of different proposals that we have debated and --\nand burned the midnight oil on and turned down. And so finally I\njust have to tell you this, this was as quick as we could come up with\nsomething.\nI would point out that the only other alternative to Watson\nthat the legislature has is really only being introduced -- well,\ntomorrow, as a matter of fact.\nQ.\nGovernor, this freezing of the tax rates, the '72-73 level,\nisn't that more in the spirit of Watson than Serrano?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, no, we feel that if Be are going to --\nand we recognize that this is going to be -- not received joyously\nby local government, it never has been, the idea of controls -- but\nwe are not keeping the controls in the hands of the state ourselves,\nwe are putting them in the hands of the people. But we believe\nthat by freezing for a brief period that it is only fair to the people\nwho from then on are going to have the responsibility and the right\nto raise those property taxes, that they should have time to see\nthose bills come in and reflect this difference in the property tax.\nSee if the structure is working before someone should start trying\nto induce them to go ahead and raise their own property tax.\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: The Watson initiative doesn't allow --\ntakes the right of the voter away. Cannot raise the local rate even\nif he wants to enrich the program.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Fixed in the constitution.\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: That's the difference.\nQ.\nGovernor, how do you accomplish this rollback of local property\ntaxes and which taxes will be done and who will decide that?\n-6-\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Ken or somebody.\nASSEMBLYNAN BAGLEY: Let me try to indicate --\nCOVERNOR REAGAN: Bill.\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: -- let me try to indicate, we are talking\nabout a rollback only in the school tax rates. We are talking about\na rollback inthis -- in this sense. As the chart showed the present --\nand let's take an elementary district. The present elementary district\nguarantee is a program of only $355. That goes up to $687. Let's\ntake a district that is now spending $1,000 but has an assessed valua-\ntion that's low enough to -- to benefit from the increased state\nmonies, and let's assume that it gets a couple of hundred dollars\nof new state monies out of the -- almost -- well, $210 million that\nwe have gr.t per child. So what you do is to the extent that the\npresent district is above the foundation program, i.e. 687, and to\nthe extert of new money, they are forced to roll back their rates,\nlet's say, of $3.50 to $2.50 by the amount, if that's how it works out,\nof the new state money. Those districts that are below the foundation\nlevel now will not have to roll back. So we are rolling back those\ndistricts that are -- have a high tax rate and have a program which\nis above the foundation basis. However, you are not forcing program\nrollback because you get an exact commensurate amount of money for the\nrollback that is caused.\nQ.\nWell, now, just to pursue that a little bit further, if you\nhave an impoverished school district, as far as assessed value is\nconcerned, and they are taxing high to reach the minimum level, now,\nso the state increases that guarantee of the minimum level, but that\nschool district still has to -- to stay up there, still has to maintain\nits high property tax --\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: No, sir. No, sir, because the lower\nthe assessed valuation the more on those charts -- the more new state\nmoney you are going to get and therefore the -- the more tax rate\nreduction. But they will stall stay at their -- at their high rate\nbecause that's what the people have voted. Not their high tax rate,\nbut their high expenditure rate.\nQ.\nHow far will this go to equalizing school property tax rates\nbetweenddistricts which now vary from $1.00 to $7.00?\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: The other way to answer it is that more\nthan 95 or 97 --\nKEN HALL:\n95.\n-7-\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: 95 per cent of the districts of California\nwill be equalized. There will still be those few districts that have\nthe unique very high assessed valuation, which will be able to rely\nupon that assessed valuation without any state monies. And that, we\nmaintain, is quote, unquote, substantial compliance with Serrano. And\nwe would say that if that's what the legislature enacts and when the\nlegislature finds a specific series of facts which will add up to a\nbasic foundation education and we make a finding that that is basic\neducation, then we go back to the courts. Then the court is on the\nhook. Are they going to say, you didn't do enough, the whole system\nis still unconstitutional, and risk the system blowing up in the\nState's face? I don't think SO.\nQ.\nCan you identify those few districts?\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: Oh, I can't by name.\na.\nIs San Francisco one that has an urban factor in the program?\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: In addition to the monies we are talking\nabout the elementary district, for example, at 687, high school at 900,\nall of the present categorical programs, compensatory ed, special ed.,\ndontinue and are in addition to these monies because they are specially\nbudgeted programs.\nQ.\nThese 90 Oer cent -- 95 per cent that are equalized, is this\nabsolute equalization or is it --\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: Not in terms of dollars, because the\npublic in those various districts has voted a varying enrichment of\ntheir own programs. But 95 per cent of the districts will have the\nbasic foundation program or more. All of the basic foundation program.\nP.\nWhat about tax overrides?\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: Well, we will eliminate all of the per-\nmissive overrides that presently skew education financing and provide\nonly for -- only for overrides permissive without a vote of the people\non\nfinancing and earthquake safety. The rest\nof\nthe\npresent\noverride will be eliminated and everything abovetthe rate of spending,\nnot the tax rate, but the rate of spending, i.e. $1,000 a month, if\nthat's the present rate, from this point in the future will be subject\nto a voter override with the exception that the State guarantees cost\nof living whichi is not now the case.\nQ.\nGovernor, the school district is but one of the local govern-\nmental agencies which use the property tax. Do you have any concern\nthat as the school property tax is rolled back that, say, county\n-8-\nsupervisors may feel reer to raise their proper tax?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: They are covered by this same voting provi-\nsion.\nAll property tax will require a vote of the people to increase\nit.\nThis was the only way finally, after years of trying, that we\nfelt we could come down to a -- a system of control that would keep\nthe State's nose out of -- of actually dictating local policy. We\ncouldn't -- we couldn't find the control that applied to local govern-\nment without tt being state dictating, so we gave the power to the\npeople and we figured that that was asdemocratic às you possibly could\nget, democratic, small d.\nQ.\nHave you considered next year, instead of cutting back the --\ncutting theincome taxes, of rolling back the sales tax?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: That what?\nQ.\nIf you are able to cut some tax next year, had you considered\ninstead of -- you said you might -- you would aut the income taxes,\nbut did you consider instead rolling back the sales tax?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I didn't close my mind to anything. But\nwe have found that with the people -- the one is, believe me, much\nless popular than the other. All of our -- we haven't done this\nblindly without trying to find out the feelings of the people, and\nwe have found out that there has been -- in just the last year or so\nan increasing feeling about the income tax as compared to the property\ntax.\nQ.\nGovernor, what does Senator Bradley think about your program\nthis year?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: What's that?\nQ.\nSenator Bradley.\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY: He likes sales tax.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I don't know, I haven't had a chance to inter-\nview him.\na.\nGovernor Reagan, you indicated Mr. Moretti's bill is coming\nup tomorrow in the Assembly. Now, you have some similarities here\nbetween his bill and yours. What are the fundamental differences\nas you see them?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Fundamental differences from that -- that\nhe has no control. There is no way to keep property taxes after\nthe one time reduction or the first reduction from going right back on\nup.\nThe second basic difference is that he has about two-thirds of\na billion dollars in tax increase in that bill, and where we are\nreducing net income taxes by these changes in exemptions about $14\nmillion dollars his bill increases the state income tax $800 million.\nASSEMBLYMAN BAGLEY:\nAnd lastly, no Serrano solution proposed.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nThat's right, no Serrano solution proposed.\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\nQ.\nAs one of the previous questions indicated, a number of local\nagencies depend on theproperty tax for revenue. Isn't this asking\nfor a -- a morass of ballot proposals every time some agency wants --\nasks to raise the property tax?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, as I say, we are giving them an\nadditional source of income that they haven't had with the Vehicle in\nLieu Tax. We have taken away once and for all that big sore spot\nthat has -- that has soured relations between state and local government\nand that is the state mandating things on local government, without\nproviding the revenues. We have now -- we will now fix by law that\nthe state can't mandate anything additional on local government without\nproviding the revenut itself. So it would be us who would be faced\nwith the problem of funding revenues more than they are. I don't\nthink that -- you see, they still have, of course, the growth that\ncomes from increased assessment. There is no effort to try and say\nthat property has to stay the same value and that is -- that is an\nappreciable growth for local government in its property tax revenues\nevery year. The building development and simply the added value\nof these things. If any of you do have any special or specific or\ntechnical questions, Ken will be very happy to stay after we return\nto our duties here and answer yours on the details of the program.\nOther than hhat, no one else has anything to offer for the good of\nthe community, thank you very much.\n000\n-10-\n5/31\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGEN\nHELD MAY 31, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press eronce is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol Press corps for thoir con-\nvenience only. Because of the need to get it to thepress as rapidly\nas possibly after the conference, no corrections are made and thero\nis no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I thought maybe I might anticipate a\nquestion in view of a recent happening here, and also because there\nstill seems to be a certain amount of confusion in people's minds\nabout just what happened.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Release Number 334)\nQ.\nHave you signed it, Governor?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nHave you signed it?\nA.\nNancy wouldn't let me in the house until I signed it.\n&\nGovernor, do you think by simply failing to sign this and\nsaying in effect they accept the Supreme Court's decision, they\nare speaking -- we are speaking in a loud, clear voice?\nA.\nOh, I'm sure that this is true. Although this is such an\namateur operation that there are -- I don't know how many thousands\nof people -- hundreds of thousands of people who don't even know\nthat even yet that the petitions are being circulated or where to\nsign them. I know Nancy has been getting calls and the unusual\nthing is that she has people with no hesitation who tell her they are\nopposed to capital punishment, agree completely that it should be\non the ballot and they sign the petitions to get it on the ballot.\nBut this is -- she hasn't run into any refusals -- well, one, she\ntold one incident, and incidentally she has gottenea great many\npetktions signed, but -- this is -- I think that the big problem\nhas been that without any commercial public relations firm handling\nthis as handled so many of initiative propositions, it's just there's\nbeen no advertisements, there is no widespread knowledge of this.\nQ.\nGovernor, have you been asked to sign the coastline initiative\nor if you are asked will you sign it?\n-1-\nA.\nThe coastline nitiative.\nWell,\nnow,\ny\nhave me in that\nin that position here of my saying the right of the people to vote\non something. I would be inclined not to on the basis that we do\nhave a legislative solution that is being advanced. I've always\nrecognized the petition or the initiative as something that when the\nlegislature fails to act this is the people's recourse. There is\na bill moving in the legislature, we ourselves have sent the\nCoap (phonetics) report up. And I would think that the time for\nthe initiative on the coastline would be if the legislature took no\naction.\n3.\nWell, Hasn't the legislature still got a proposal on capital\npunishment, it isn't dead yet, it is still alive.\nA.\nWell, unfortunately we ran into a deadline date there on this.\nFor the November ballot.\nI don't -- the author himself has joined\nthis initiative, in fact is in charge of this initiative move,\nbecause he does believe it is right.\nQ.\nGovernor, on the cutbacks -- welfare cutbacks for April were\nannounced, they showed that 300 blind people were cut off the rolds.\nWhat happened to these people?\nA.\nNow you are talking about the -- the decline of 11,000 in the\nwelfare rolls for this last month. I haven't gotten into the details\nof -- of what these people have been. But I would assume, knowing\nthe department, that they were -- then probably these -- possibly\nthese could be people who did not meet that qualification. Or these\ncould be people who have been rehabilitated and -- because our\nrehabilitation program has been operating at a level about ten times\nas high as the level several years ago.\n8.\nHow do you rehabilitate a blind person?\nA.\nOh, --\nQ.\nWhat's that mean?\nA.\nOh, there are a great many who are totally self-sustaining\nand you see some of them are working right here in this building,\nwho have never let this interfere with their ability to earn a living\nand be independent. I would also suspect that -- you have interested\nme now, I think I'll try to find out what this is, but I don't think\nanyone who is helplessly blind and couldn't provide for themselves\nwas thrown off the rolls.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, before we meet you again there will be a primary\nelection in the state. I wonder if you'd like to try the role of\npoliticat forecaster and tell us what you think we will see in the --\nin our own races and perhaps in the presidential race as well.\nA.\nWell, I don't\nnow.\nThe Jnne ballot\ncourse I'm quite\nsure that the Republican nominee for President is going to be the\nincumbent president. And that doesn't exactly take a crystal ball\nto figure out. On the Democratic side I wouldn't guess between\nHumphrey and McGovern.. I think they are very close, and they are\nstaging their run down the stretch now. I think there again it is\neasy, going to say it is going to be one of the two of them. The\ngreat chorus of the candidates we have had, it seems to have narrowed\ndown, at least in California, to those two. If I were at the track\nand had to choose between two of them, I'd bet both of them to place.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nWhat is your reaction, Governor, to the debates between Senator\nHumphrey and McGovern?\nA.\nWell, I don't think any earth-shattering facts came out. I\nwatched last night and there was disagreement, but you had to take\nyour choice on which fellow you thought was the more pronounced in\nhis disagreement because neither one of them seemed to prove his\npoint with any facts or figures on the disagreement as to whether it\nhad to do with defense or whether it had to do with taxes. I was\ninterested when Mr. Novack tried to pin down the tax potential\ncontained in some of Senator McGovern's proposals, and he came up\nabout a hundred billion dollars short of having enough money to do\nit. Now maybe he's counting on making bum dimes in the basement\nof the capital if he gets in, I don't know. But there was never\nany answer that spelled out and said yes, this is how we will fund\nall these grandiose plans. But if it was a pilot, I don't think\nit will have a long run.\nQ.\nGovernor, abere's one ballot measure that affects you directly\nand I haven't heard you comment on it yet, that is Proposition 5,\nwhich would give the Senate the right of review over appointment of\nRegents.\nA.\nBless you. That's true, with everything that's been going\non. I think the people should reject it. I think the system has\nworked for about 90 years under governors, Democrat and Republican.\nIt has worked to create what all of us agree is the greatest univer-\nsity system in the country, if not the world. And actually I could\nsee injecting politics into education, not removing it. The terms\nare long enough that no governor, or very seldom does a governor\nand perhaps through tragedy or a set of circumstances, manages to\nget an unusual number of appointees. But right now with the politics\nthat are being plaved upstairs in the Senate with regard to some\nappointees reveals what would happen with the university itself.\nQ.\nWell, by the same token, governor, would you then support a\nmove to have the trustees -- the method of appointing trustees the\nsame as the method of appointing Regents?\nA.\nYes, I doubt that the legislature will ever give that up, but\nI think we would be better if we had that. Let me just propose one\nthing that could take place in the last couple of years of a\nGovernor's regime. Since the people can serve on the board by\nthe Governor's appointment without being confirmed by the Senate, it\nwould be possible for an opposition party to refuse confirmation.\nIn those last few years, knowing then that at the end of a Governor's\nterm the incoming government, if it should be of their party --\nwell, whichever party, would have virtually a clean slate to make\nappointments because then all of those who had keen riding on the\nGovernor's appointment without confirmation would lose their posi-\ntions.\nQ. Governor, lookingtbeyond next week's primary, do you antici-\npate campaigning for any VOP legislative candidate for the November\nelection in order to boost the GOP's margin in the election?\nA. Oh, sure. As a matter of fact, there is a fund-raising dinner\ntonight in Los Angeles that I'm going down and speak to. Yes,\nI'd like I had just one brief taste once, and I liked it, having\na legislature of my own party up here, and I didn't know when they --\nwhen I got elected governor that it was an obstacle race. And I\nenjoyed it so much that I'd just like another crack at it before\nI get out of here.\nQ.\nGovernor, what do you think of the State Social Welfare's\nboard decision that a third child be taken away from a welfare\nmother?\nA. Oh, that goes back a long time ago, and I remember when that\nwas proposed. I know what they were trying to point out, and I think\nit is of great coneern to a lot of people, is government subsidizing\njust the promiscuity and the careless having of illegitimate child\nafter illegitimate child add yet you always run into the other problem\nof do you punish the children. I think that the laws that we have\nregarding the fitness of a household, the ability to take a child\naway from a household on the basis of moral unfitness, is sufficient\nif it is properly enforced.\nQ.\nGovernor Reag\non your major tax reform\nlan,\ndoes\n70\nper\ncent of the property tax relief go for business and commercial relief?\nA.\nNo, that's some more of that new math we keep hearing upstairs.\nNo, it is true that a postion of our property tax relief is a rollback\nof the school tax on all property. Now, this was because part of\nour problem in all the efforts of tax reform has been trying to\navoid dividing of the tax rolls. It sounds simple at first to say,\nwell, let's have a different rate of taxation for homes than we\nhave on other property. And then you find yourself with a situation\nlike Minnesota, I think they have 44 different classifications of\nproperty for taxation purposes. So we have tried to avoid that.\nBut then we have in addition the increase of the -- of the exemption:\non the homeowner, which increases his property very much. This\nfigure was taken just as a careless and a very inaccurate statement\nthat on the rollback that a majority of the property is -- is\nbusiness or commercial property. I think that figure is exaggerated\nbut it also ignored the fact that the -- that business pays between\n30 and 40 per cent of the sales tax that we are going to increase.\nIt ignored the fact that we are increasing the bank and corporation\ntax at the same time that they would be getting some rollback and\nit also ignores the fact that much of business -- great fleet opera-\ntors of tfucks and automobiles and so forth, and we are increasing\nthe in-lieu tax which would affect them.\na.\nCould you explain the rollback, I'm not sure I understand.\nYou mean rolling it back to the same level that the house owner pays\nor to a previous level?\nA.\nWell, there is -- on the education portion of the property\ntax there will be a rollback in the level that schools -- that\nschool districts can apply and the state then makes up with these\nother taxes the money, so that we can equalize the school districts\nand guarantee $745 every student in elementary school, and $930 for\nevery high school student. And then on top of that our tax relief\nis going to increase from $750 to $1250, the exemption -- property\ntax exemption, and each year as our revenues grow that's going to\nbe on up, so in five years the exemption will be $1550.\nQ.\nWhat porportion does go to business and commercial property\ntax relief?\nA.\nWell, the only proportion which -- would be that percentage\nof property tax relief that comes from the -- just the rollback to\na kind of equalizing tax for schools.\nThat will cover all property,\n-5-\nfarms, apartments, business as well as homes. Now, it is true that\nmore than half of property is owned by business. But then the\nexemption thing would only apply to homes. So the figure of 70\nper cent is way off, when youfigure in the other increase in taxes.\nBusiness is probably going to get some minor break out of this,\nbut it would be very minor.\nQ.\nGovernor, your Finance Department experts project that the\nimpact of your tax reform program would be to deprive San Francisco\nschools of $9 million dollars. If the local taxpayers have to make\nthat up, that would be a boost of 377cents on the tax rate. How\ndo you propose to modify or do you, in order to give San Francisco\ntaxpayers a break?\nA.\nWell, we know that there are certain urban areas and certain\nproblems that we are looking at because we don't want to penalize\nanything, but let me point out something about San Francisco also.\nSan Francisco has one of the richest property bases for taxation\nof any place in California. And San Francisco with a fairly low\nschool tax rate on all of that is spending more than $1400 per\nstudent in their school system. Now, for point of comparison,\nLos Angeles only spends $860. It is possible that San Francisco\ncould find some of the answers to their problems within their\nown school system, and the way they are operating it. But we are --\nwe are not just saying we are going to throw them to the wolves,\nwe want to look at this problem, we don't want to penalize anyone,\nas I said before.\nQ.\nDo you definitely plan to put in an urban factor for subh\nschool districts in San Francisco?\nA.\nAll I can tell you is that we are studying this and studying all\nelements. We'd like to be able to give everybody a tax -- a\nproperty tax relief.\n&\nGovernor, on another subject --\nQ.\nSame subject. Samessubject. Governor, yesterday a large\ngroup of about 50 legislators, because of a study in surplus, suggested\nputting -- I think the figure was a hundred -- $250,000,000 in the\nbudget to aid school districts. Could you live with that figure?\nIs it too high?\nA.\nNo, I think that we are apart on the figure. We ourselves are\ntalking in the neighborhood of a hundred million dollars earmarked\nfor the school districts that are disadvantaged, that are in trouble.\n-6-\nBut then we also, as we pointed out to these legislators -- the\nanswer to their problem is the type 6f thing that we have included\nin our tax reform program upstairs, which will go allong way toward\nmeeting the Serrano decision and equalizing schools. IVf we are\njust going to dump another couple of hundred million dollars intone\nthe present archaic and outmoded formula. we already have, no guarantee\nthat we are going to improve the quality of education, no attempt\nto equalize, that is not a solution to the problem. Now, part of\nthe big problem over and above the hundred million dollars new money\nthat we can see for schools for this purpose, Los Angeles which has\na very real problem has within their hands a possible solution that\nwould bridge any time gap until we could get this equalization in\nbecause Los Angeles teachers will join the State Retirement program\nwhich will be advantageous to them as individuals. There is anywhere\nbetween 100 and 140 million dollars in Los Angeles that some teachers\nare insisting is theirs, but it shouldnot be. It is taxpayer's\nmoney that was paid in excess of their needs. And wehave been\ntalking to the Superintendent of Schools in Los Angeles and he's very\nmuch in agreement about the idea of yes, giving some of that money\nto buy into the State system for the teachers over about a five year\nperiod, using some of that money to return to the taxpayers and then\nusing the balance to meet the school problems of Los Angeles until\nwe can get this new system operating.\nQ.\nGovernor, with the disagreement over this tax package and\nother major issues, are you and the legislature heading for the same\npartisan impasse that you reached last year to prevent any accomplism-\nments this year?\nA.\nI hope not. I have talked to all of them. We briefed them\ncompletely on our plan. We told them the things that we still feel\nin our shop adamant about, which is that the guarantee that the\ntax reduction will remain, that it wonld be a usury and just disappear\nthe first time somebody wants to raise their taxes. That is the\nbiggest single item. There are some differences with regard to the\nsubstitute taxes, what we use to -- to get the money to afford the\nproperty tax reduction. But I told the Speaker the other day in a\nmeeting that as far as I was correrned they were now two proposals.\nWe didn't attack his proposals, we provided the votes, the Republicans\ndid, to get his proposal before the Senate as we introduced our own\nto the Senate, and it would seem to me in the normal legislative process\n-7-\nnow that the legisl ors ought to get together id find out how\ncdose we can come to solving this problem.\na.\nGovernor, the program didn't include any open space money this\nyear.\nWhat was the reason for that?\nA.\nNo, we simplified it, we just decided that much of what we have\nbeen trying to do in the past was trying to cure too many problems.\nAnd to solve every program into one package. This is not the end\nof the line with a thing of this kind, we can treat with other\nproblems as we go on, but the principal problem -- well, is double.\nIt is school financing and the equalization and it is the relief\nof the homeowner.\na.\nGovernor --\na.\nGovernor, is the hundred million dollars you are talking\nabout over and above the 65 that you had in the budget?\nA.\nNo.\nQ.\nOriginally.\nA.\nNo, that includes -- that's the 65 and now -\nQ.\n35 more?\nA.\n-- we see our way clear, yes, we believe that we can do that.\nQ.\nGovernor, did the Assembly Republicans vote for Moretti's tax\nproposal at your request, you ask them to vote for it?\nA.\nNo, except that in -- in meeting with them and talking with\nthem made it plain that -- that we had no intention, we did not\nbelieve that we were entering our bill or introducing our bill\nin some way to kill his, beauause that would just be a fruitless\nexertise, and then they'd kill ours, that we thought it should move.\nQ.\nGovernor, the Riverside City Council yesterday passed a resolu-\ntion at a special meeting asking you to declare a state of mmergency\nbecause of smog in the greater Los Angeles air basin and order the\nconversion of all vehicles in the basin to non-polluting fuel, such\nas propane and natural gas over the next two and a half years.\nAnd they are coming up to especially see you on that in a couplesof\nweeks. What is your response to that, do you have the power to\ndo that and would you do it?\nA.\nWell, I'd have to check very -- all the things out that you\nhave asked me. Yes, I'll see them, of course. I'm very happy to\nsee them. I don't know, first of all, that what they have proposed\nis practical. I remember when the first experiment came up with\nnatural gas in automobiles, I was informed by the gas company that\nif everybody did it there isn't that much gas. They just couldn't\nprovide it. And I'd have to check on the mv legal ability to\ndeclare this.\nQ.\nThe Mayor said he doesn't think that Governor Reagan realizes\nthe plight we are in. They are sort of charging you with not being\ntoo excited about the smog situation down there.\nA.\nWell, you know, I don't know -- I could go out and I suppose\nbeat the side of the capital building every day to prove that I am\nconcerned. The best thing I can tell you is that I own some\nproperty in Riverside County and so I know something about the\nproblem. I know that Los Angeles is probably the ++ climatically\nand geographically the worst spot in California regarding the control\nof smog. When you get a certain weather condition it doesn't make\nany difference that we have made gains, and we have made gains in\nreducing the emissions from automobiles and standing sources. You\nare going to have bad smog and it is going to go through that pass\nout there. The answer to it is, of course, and they have pointed\na finger at it with their proposals, whether it is a valid proposal\nor not, and that is you have got to continue with everything we can\ndo to reduce it at the source, to see that the automobiles and the\nplants that are upwind of them do not release the same amount of\npollumants they are releasing.\nQ.\nGovernor, to return briefly to the elections, do you see any\nsurprises in our own state legislative races, perhaps incumbents who\nmay not be among us?\nA.\nOh, I wouldn't want to talk about that. I think that -- I\nthink these are confusing times. I don't know, I think there's\nbeen some animus toward the legislature as a whole on the basis of\nsome things like tax reform. However, that's going to be carried\ninto the polling booth. I don't know, and of course we have got a\ngreat many races that are up for grabs with no incumbents, so it is\nconfusing the air.\nQ.\nGovernor, I'm curious about the comments you made earlier\nabout the two leading candidates, your comments and criticisms\nseem to be a lot more subtle than the term \"extremist\" you are\nreported as having used for Senator McGoverno. Did you use that\nterm?\nA.\nYes, I -- as a matter of fact, I was quoting several other\nDemocratic candidates who said that of him, but I said to the --\nthe other night to the Republican State Central Committee, \"If I\n-9-\nsounded more gentle today it's because I learned never murder anyone\nwho is commiting suicide. \"\nQ.\nWere you quoting someone else or were youusing your own\nterm when you caleed him an extremist?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nWere you using some of your own words or were you quoting --\nA.\nWell, they have been used by other candidates, and I -- and I\nhave to say, I think his views are, and Mr. Humphrey is making it\nrather plain, our Senator Mumphrey right now, that Senator Humphrey\nbelieves that he is far more extreme, McGovern, in his views than the\nSenator believes the party will follow. And I think that when you --\nwhen you start advocating some of the drastic resharing of revenues --\nincome at a $12,000 line, you are going beyond something that anyone\nhas ever proposed in the Democratic party before.\nQ.\nAnd, too, I'm curious, it seems a bit ironic, since when you\nfirst ran for public offices five years ago, the term \"extremist\"\nwas a -- a smear term used foryyou. Do you feel a bit uncomfortable\nusing the same term?\nA.\nNo, because you see, I wasn't an extremist.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nGovernor, what percentage of the vote -- Republican vote will\nCongressman Ashbrook have to get to indicate or sound a note of\nwarning to the party regulars that there was great dissatisfaction\nwith Mr. Nixon in California among California Republicans?\nA.\nI think a lot larger than he's going to get. I would think\nthat if he got up there in a sizable -- around a third of the vote\nor something, this would be of concern. Now, I don't know what --\nwhat might happen now in the changes -- well, I guess it is too\nlate for anyone to reregister from, say, the Wallace side, if they\nwould decide to turn their intention to him -- I guess itis too\nlate for them to do that in the primary. The polls have indicated,\nand I assume they are somewhere reasonably close, some place less\nthan ten per cent, and I think that -- that's just normal. You\nexpect in any election -- history shows that about ten per cent of\nany party always goes another way.\nJACK: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-10-\n6/8\nPRE\nCONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JUNE 8, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conferense is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their conven-\nience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly\nas possible, after the conference, no corrections are made and\nthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\n(Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 351.)\nQ.\nEnd of statement and you are on your own.\nQ.\nGovernor, aren't these people going to compete with the 60 --\nmore than 600,000 people who are out of work? Shouldn't they get\nfirst priority?\nA.\nNow, you see, you haven't read the latest news items here\nbecause it isn't 600,000, it is down to around 440,000 because as of\nthis week we have announced a reduction in unemployment in California\ndown to 5.9, when one year ago it was 7.4. But also none of these\njobs, remember, in this particular program, are to compete with the\nregulatory market. We wanted to work closely with organized labor\nand to -- with our own government employees to make sure that this\nis not some kind of a cheap substitute for regular jobs. These are\nthings that are not now being done because of lack of funds and man-\npower, and they would not -- they aren't jobs that you caid possibly\nafford at the present time, they just -- they wouldn't call for that\nkind of payment that people would go out seeking these jobs. We\nhave a long list of community projects that could be made available\nto you, as I think already were, but you can get again if you have\nmislaid it, of the type of projects; playground monitors, crossing\nguards, that sort of thing.\nQ.\nWill this require a structure of administrators to put them\nin work and see that they keep working?\nA.\nNo, no, the only additional cost to this program is one that's\ngoing to be borne by the federal government, which is an evaluation\nof it, because this is a demonstration project. And so they are\ngoing to bear the cost of evaluating to see whether this is a success-\nful way of getting people back to work.\nQ.\nGovernor, how can you start this program in Ventura County\nuntil you have gotten some sort of court ruling in Los Angeles that --\n-1-\non this waiver the you are asking for.\nA.\nNo, no, you see, it's been blocked by court actions and we have\nwon in those court actions, and it is not -- it has now been declared\nthat we can go forward, but we just -- we have been harrassed by\nthese -- these actions so much that now that it is declared valid and\nwe can go forward, we are asking for this Meclaratory judgment to\nkeep someone from simply holding it up while they test this again\nwith some other case.\nQ.\nWhat are these people going to be doing in Ventura County?\nCan you outline a little bit the jobs that are --\nA.\nAs I say, they are -- the list is almost endless, and we do have\ninformation and you can get it from the Press Department on the long\nlist of the jobs that have been -- that have been proposed. for this.\nAnd I wouldn't be able to tell you right now how they break down or\njust what the nature of the jobs would be, but this -- a great many of\nthem are in the category of what would be called aide jobs. Like\nin other words, a regular worker that is presently employed -- this\nperson would become a helper to that individual. Now, wait a minute,\nyou.\nQ.\nGovernor, is this similar to the program that was initiated\nin New York, the WIN Program?\nA.\nNo, we have the WIN program and the same as they have, and\nan experiment was started in certain areas in New York based on our\nidea sometime ago, but the difference in that case was that New York and\nHEW had agreed upon a plan of this -- of 8 similar type of employment\nbut with additional funding provided by the federal government to\nsimply take them from welfare and put them on a -- on a salary.\nAnd this is a case of the person actually working in return for his\nwelfare grant.\nQ.\nGovernor, wasn't there a provision in the Welfare Reform Act\nlast year that said there could be no new programs until the WIN\nprogram and the New Career Programs were filled?\nA.\nNo, this was a part of the Welfare Reform that was passed,\nand scheduled for implementation and -- before it could be done\nthe state and the national welfare rights organizations started legal\nactions and kept interfering.\nQ.\nBut didn't the other two programs have priority?\nA.\nWell, yes, but there's been no slowdown or this does not in\nany way interfere with those -- those programs continue.\nMR. HALL: This complies completely with that requirement of\n-2-\nthe welfare reform act which means that you have to refer the recipient\nfirst to a WIN slot if it is available. That's the provision in the\nlaw.\nQ.\nAnother subject, Governor. Next Saturday is the first meeting\nof the California delegation in the -- the Nixon delegation in Los\nAngeles. Is there any actual business to be performed there, election\nof --\nA.\nYes, there will be the election of the officers of the delega-\ntion.\na.\nAnd what about national committeeman and committeewoman?\nA.\nWell, those are part of the officers that are elected at this\ntime.\nQ.\nIs there any kind of competition for these positions or are\nin fact these -- are the recommendations of the party going to be\naccepted?\nA.\nI don't -- I actually don't know. All I know is --\nQ.\nI understand the name of Ed. Mills and Janet Johnson has\nalready been proposed for committeeman and committeewoman\nrespectively.\nA.\nYes, there are a number of hames have been suggested for all\nthe officers, but I haven't heard of any -- anyone that has suggested\nany other names, but -- the meeting will be open for nominations.\nQ.\nGovernor, another subject. In view of the outcome of the\nSouthern Crossing proposition vote, do you think that plebiscite\nwas really necessary?\n8.\nWhat?\nQ.\nDo you think that plebiscite was really necessary?\nA.\nWas it really necessary? I think -- yes, this thing has\nbeen so controversial for so many years, that as you recall this was\nthe legislation that I asked for, and I said I would be willing to\nsign, to let the people in the Bay area make the decision, and they\nhave evidently made their decision.\nQ.\nBut, Governor, didn't the legislators in the Bay area tell\nyou that that would be the outcome if it were put to a --\nA.\nWell, they predicted this and yet, as I say, the issue was\none in which the entire state by way of the legislature was trying\nto make the decision. It seemed to me that this was one that\ncertainly wasn't of too much interest to the people of Los Angeles or\nSan Diego and that the people around the Bay should make up their own\n-3-\nminds and decide W ther they wanted this bricod across the bay.\nQ:\nGovernor, getting back to the delegation, you do expect to be\nthe Chairman of the delegation?\nA.\nWell, not if somebody should decide I shouldn't. It is --\nI would think that it is somewhat customary, yes.\nQ.\nYou expect then to be -- you are campaigning mostly in California\nfor the President?\nA.\nWell, I'm the Chairman of his campaign out here.\nQ.\nI realize that, but you think your efforts will be concentrated\nin California as opposed to some other region of the United States?\nA.\nWell, yes, this will be number one priority. I have no\ndoubt but that along with a lot of other governors I will -- when\nI can make a foray out of the state for fund raisers and that sort\nof thing in otheraareas, but this is -- this is the priority target.\nQ.\nGovernor, can youclarify your remark of yesterday to the\nforeign newsmen that are ready to retire to a ranch in two and\na half years? Does that rule out any other public office again?\nA.\nNo, I've told you -- I've told you many times that I keep all\nmy options open, but when they were getting down to specific plans\nas to probably taking some position in the administration following\nthis election, is what I interpreted, and I told them now that I'd\nbe looking for a ranch. But I -- I haven't ruled out anything or\nmade any decision as to what I'm going to do two and a half years\nfrom now. Incidentally, I couldn't help but wonder, that is a non\nsequitur, I don't mean to pick on you fellows, but when that whole\nbattery from all of those various countries conducted a press\nconference in the language of our host country here, our own language,\nI couldn't help but wonder of the similar American press delegation\nhow many countires they could go in and conduct press conferences\nin the language of the country. Now, I expect all of you to enroll\nin the nearest Berlitz school in case that's going to --\nQ.\nGovernor, do you read the California Republican's rejection\nof John Ashbrook and John Schmitz as any swing away from the conserva-\ntive position the party's appeared to have had in the recent years?\nA.\nOh, I had -- no, the only analysis I've had on the national\nlevel, the Ashbrook candidacy, and he has now withdrawn, I say I\nthink this was -- it was obvious to all Republicans that Ashbrook\nwas carrying a message and was really not seriously contesting for the\noffice. He's made that plain today by his withdrawal from the race,\n-4-\nand I think that it howed the solid support tl the President has\nin the party, aa great party unity. What has happened in the several\nraces in California and both parties wherein incumbents -- in our case\nthe only one who lost in a primary was Congressman Schmitz; Democrats\nlost the senior member of the delegation, and one that does give you\nsome cause to think is the chairman of the Space Committee there\nwhich is very important to California. They also lost the primary\nwith regard to one of the legislative incumbents. I don't know, I\nthink -- I don't think there is any way to read those unless you go\ninto the area and do a survey and find out what was the reason.\nQ.\nThere has been a struggle, has there not, among California\nRepublicans, sort of a moderate wing VS. a conservative wing, or\nadherence to either\n, do you believe the rejection of Schmits\nand Ashbrook indicates a move toward center on the part of the\nRepublican party?\nA.\nNo, I think it is a continuation of the unity that -- well,\nI can't include Schmitz in this Because I don't know what happened\nthere in a local congressional district race. There have been\nchanges in that district, the shape of the district. It was the\nplan that I vetored, but it was in force or put into operation,\nreapportionment, bu the court. And whether that was a factor or not,\nthe -- the changed lines in the district, I don't know. But on\nthe national scene, I just think, as I say, that it is an evidence --\ndivergence in the party prior to 1966, we had a Republican party\nso split you couldn't get them in the same building, let alone the same\nhealed\nroom. And we have he/o that, and I think this is evidence that the\nhealing has taken.\nQ.\nWith the convention having moved to Miami do you anticipate any\nof the delegates will not be able to afford the trip there and any\nefforts by the party to help them pay their way out to Miami?\nA.\nYes, most delegates are expected to -- and do pay their own\nway. But our delegation this time, we went out of our way, as you\nknow, to try and make it more youthful, to get participation in the\nactual delegation by young people. That is who -- in other words,\nare not just the normal beneficiaries or rewards for long party\nservice. And we recognize that we now may have imposed -- well,\neven going to San Diego would have imposed a burden on some of these\npeople, so yes, we are -- as a matter of fact, the honorary delegation\nand regular delegates who can are themselves contributing to help\n-5-\nand provide the -- he means for some of these eople.\nQ.\nGovernor, why do you think Senator McGovern defeated\nSenator Humphrey?\nA.\nWell, here again, how to analyze -- I think he had -- he\nhad more money, he had a -- as a result a great organization, quite\nan organization. I think it was significant that what was estimated\nto be a very wide lead began to diminsh and I think that reflects\nSenator Humphrey's pointing attention to some of the fallacies\nin the -- in the McGovern proposals. And people were beginning\nto find out that some of the rhetoric that sounded so impressive\nwas ignoring the details of the -- of the promises for the bright\nnew America. And I think that this is -- they should be --\nthis is going to be, I think, much more prevalent come convention\ntime, that the many people in the Democratic party are going to want\nto really pin down some of these ideas. I myself have been pricing\nsome of them out, and that it comes out that he'd been adding\nupwards of 150 billion dollars a year to the cost of government,\nto the cost of the federal government.\nQ.\nSir, where do you get that figure?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nWhere do you get that figure?\nA.\nFrom his figures. You seep not contained in his advertise-\nments or in many of his speeches, he has position papers. For\nexample, he has spelled out, as you know, in about a 36 page paper his\ndefense plan. And he claims that for this great reduction in the\ncost of defense that he can provide a defense that is adequate for\nthis nation and he spells it out, how many ships, how many men in\nthe army, how many airplanes, how many missiles and so forth. The\nPentagon has already priced this out and found he made a ten billion\ndollar error there. It will cost more than ten billion dollars\nextra to have what he claims he can have for his amount of money.\nP.\nGovernor, does your 1968 Sherman-like statement on the Vice\nPresidenty still stand?\nA.\nUh-huh.\nQ.\nGovernor, which candidate of the two do you think would be\nmore difficult for President Nixon to defeat?\nA.\nI just knew that question would come up. That's the question\nI never want -- if I knew the answer I wouldn't want to give the\nanswer.\nI don't want to help the other side. I hope they will\n-6-\nchoose the wrong an, the easiest man to beat.\nQ.\nWhich one is that?\nA.\nAs I say, no, I won't -- I won'g give the answer. I\ncould, you know, play games, and -- and name the strongest man hoping\nthen that this might influence someone, but I won't do that. I'll\njust -- it is going to be a tough election. We are a minority party,\nit is going to be touch, whichever way they go.\nQ.\nDo you think there is that much difference between the candidates\nit really would make a difference which one ran?\nA.\nOh, yes, I think -- there is a wide factionalism in the\nDemocratic party, I think it was evidenced right here in the state\nin this primary and I think we are going to see a little blood\nletting at their convention, which I eagerly look forward to, not\nbecause I like blood, but because I just like to see the enemy\nin a shambles.\nQ.\nHow would you assess Senator McGovern's chances of carrying\nCalifornia against President Nixon based on his performance in the\nprimary election?\nA.\nWell, again California is a tough state for the Republicans.\nWe are outnumbered better than three to two. But we are going --\ngoing to stage a fight and I'm confident that we will carry California.\n8.\nGovernor, what are your -- what, as his campaign chairman\nin California -- what do you think the President will hit McGovern\non? The same issues that Humphrey did?\nA.\nOh, I don't know whether the President will hit on those.\nI have a hunch that the President will campaign mainly by being\npresent. I think that -- and this is usually true of an incumbent,\nI think you'll find the President largely doing what has to be done\nas he's been doing so well so far. But a number of the rest of us\nthe\nwill be -- will be doing/campaigning and I know one of the things\nI'm going to do is what I've already started going, is point out\nwhoever the candidate is on the Democratic side, point out the\nmythology that all of this pretense that these are brand new people\nwho just rode out of Sherwood Forest to save the poor from the rich --\nthey have been around for a long time, and if they had all these\nmiraculous cures, why didn't they do them for 38 out of the last 40\nyears? They have had a majority in the Congress. There wasn't\nanything they couldn't have done if they wanted to do it. And now\nthey have suddenly discovered all the ills of the world. In the\n-7-\nmeantime I think the President in these three and a half years has\ngone allong way toward curing some of those ills. I do not know in\nmy entire adult lifetime a period when unemployment was going down\nas we went from a war to a peacetime economy. The only time that --\nunder Democratic rule that we have been abletto have full employment\nor an increase in employment has been by the -- by virtue of revving\nup for a war and we have unemployment going down at this very moment\nthat we have also cut inflation more than half. We are winding down the\nwar.\nAnd I think the people have the common sense to see this sort\nof thing.\nQ.\nGovernon, do you want Nixon to keep Agnew as his running mate?\nA.\nYes.\nQ.\nThat was my question.\nA.\nOh.\nQ.\nGovernor, you frequently said that opposing parties need\nall its members. What appeal, has Chairman, will you make to reclaim\nthe Ashbrook kinds of Republicans in your party? How will you get\nthem back into the fold?\nA.\nOh, I told those gentlemen here from those -- ladies and\ngentlemen from the foreign press yesterday that I've got the front\ndoor wide open, a lamp in the window, and I've got a pig on the fire\nroasting. I'm --\n(Laughter)\nA.\nShould it be a fatted calf, whatever. it is, he's welcome. And\nwe will make every effort. As a matter of fact, I know that a number\nof us will probably be talking to -- not only the Congressman, but\nреорые who have been in his camp, and we not only want them just to\njoin the parade and march in our parade, we want them to actually\ntake positions of importance in the campaign.\nQ.\nGovernor, if Mr. Agnew is retained on the ticket, figure then\nhe would be in the best position to be the Republican's standard\nbearer\nin 1976. Do you think he has the qualities to be President\nof the United States?\nA.\nWell, I have said from the very beginning, as a Vice President\nthat, God forbid, any tragedy should occur, knowing him as a governor\nas I did, I have full confidence in his capacity to handle that job.\nQ.\nGovernor Evans N. Novack had a call earlier this week in\nwhich they indicated that national Republican officials were hopeful\nthat you would do mostof your campaigning for Nixon outside California,\nin areas where, as they put it, you are considered a Republican folk\nhero, and the inference geing that you are not as popular in\nCalifornia now as you might be. Would you comment on that?\nA.\nWell, yea, I sort of -- I sort of thought that maybe Mr. Novack\nwho was responsible for that, I thought, maybe he was doing pennance\nfor that kind of conservative sounding speech he made at a college\nback east a few weeks ago, he had to do something to get back on his\nnormal side, because I was not shocked when he appreached me with\nthat matter as he said I was. As a matter of fact, I was amused.\nI don't think there is any foundation for it and there's never been\nany evidence of it and it is as simple as this. If they felt that\nway, I don't know why they came out here and asked me to be the State\nchairman for the President's campaign.\nQ.\nGovernor, two legislative committees have already decided\nto investigate the San Francisco vote foul-up. Do you think the\nlegislature is the proper agency to investigate that? Would you\nlike to see the Secretary of State or the Attorney General investigabe\nit?\nA.\nWell, I think -- as far as I can read in the separation of\npowers, that's a legislative function and proper for them to do it\nif they -- if they want to. Sometimes looking at it, I don't know\nwhether it should be investigated or that we ought to just shake our\nheads and try to forget it and walk away. Certainly there must have\nbeen evidence to those responsible, including the Secretary of State,\nthat such a foul-up was possible, that there was a potention for it.\nAnd they with a little leadership had plenty of time to do something\nabout it in advance, until waiting till election night.\nQ.\nGovernor, it was announced this week that the number of abortions\nin the state have now reached 116,000 a year under the bill you signed\nin 1967. I wonder if you are satisfied with the way that law has\nworked out or would you favor any restrictions to be made in it?\nA.\nWell, I haven't thought about specific restrictions. No, I\nam distrubed by the way the law has worked out because the law was\nbased on policing by the profession itself, committees, medical and\npsychiatric, to determine whether the individual wanting the abortinn\nmet the requirements of endangered health, life, mental health and\nso forth. And I think it is very apparent that people are literally\ngetting abortions on demand. And since about a third of these are\nbeing paid for by the taxpayers on MediaGal, aarid since more than a third\n-9-\nof them are under the age 19 -- as a matterof fact, we have quite a\nsizable number last year that were between the ages of 10 and 14 in\nthis state, I would -- I had confidence that we could depend on the\nprofession itself policing this bill. They failed in that responsi-\nbility.\nQ.\nGovernor, last week Speaker Morotti accused you of not follow-\ning up on your environmental policy address of last April. He said\nthe Democrats don't really know, for instance, what you want in the\nway of coastline protection, is that correct?\nA.\nNo, that is not correct, and every once in a while the Speaker\nplays fiddler on the roof, off key.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nNo, this administration, and the record is very plain -- it\nseems that the constant repitition of the failureof certainbbills,\nand therefore the resultant disappointment of the author of that\nbill to either pass -- or those bills to pass, and then be vetoed by\nme, has been taken as apathy on the part of the legislature and\nthe administration -- or not even apathy, but opposition to environ-\nmental programs. That's not true. To veto or vote down in the\nbegislature a bill that does not do the job, because you have in mind\na betterwway to do it should not be interpreted as being opposed to\nthe goal. And this is true of coastline protection. The voting\ndown of this I don't think reflected on anybody's part a resistance\nto coastline protection, but somebody had pro -- made a proposal\nthat was -- was similar to Proposition 9, that it wouldn't do the\njob and it would probably bause more harm than good. But this --\nthe legislature andtthis administration, I think, has gone forward\nwithout question. The record speaks for itself. There isn't any\nstate in the union that can match the actual programs that we have\nin operation. Two years ago there was a great score taken of the\nfailure of -- oh, about 100 or more environmental bills in the\nlegislature, and that was meant to imply to the people that the\nlegislature had refused to treat with the matter of environment.\nNow these were bills that had been introduced by various pressure\nand special interest groups from without the state, I'm sure they\nwere sincere and they believed in their bills, and their bills did\ngo down to defeat because they were not well thought out bills, but\nno one paid any attention to the fact that 77 bills introduced by the\nDepartment of Natural Resources, by the administration, by government\n-10-\nhere in Sacramento aimed at the very same prot ems did pass. And\nwere signed into law. Our standards are tremendously high.\nOur\nprograms are going forward. We still have reorganization proposals.\nThere is still a coastline protection bill before the legislature,\nand one that incorporates many things that our own findings agree\nwith. And we want coastline legislation. But we don't want some\nof the -- the bad bills that have been proposed.\nQ.\nSame subject, Governor.\nA.\nAll right.\nQ.\nDoes that mean that you are putting your name behind the bill\nby Senator Carpenter on coastline legislation?\nA.\nWell, that's a bill that is going forward and let me just say\nwe are watching that bill very closely with regard to some of the\namendments as they come along in that.\nSo don't pin me down.\nQ.\nThank you, Governor.\nA.\nYou had two people in the back row with their hands up.\nI've got to abide by him, it is your party.\nQ.\nAll right, let's have them.\nA.\nJust the two.\nQ.\nLast month you referred to certain demagogues in the legisla-\nture, whr were blocking your program. Specifically who were you\ntalking about and what were the programs?\nA.\nOh, I wish you could give me more surrounding things.\na.\nWas it Cal Expo talking to state workers, we will say?\nED MEESE: Maybe if you will see Ed he will give him a\ndetailed list.\nA.\nMaybe you look it up and --\nQ.\nYou mean Democrats?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nWhy, in all my life I'd never met a Republican demagogue.\nQ.\nGovernor, what is your reaction to the recommendation yesterday\nthat the Ecology Corps should be called something else, it should be\nraised to federal minimym wage and conditions changed? And also\ncalling it the Ecology Corps was misleading.\nA.\nI don't think it is misleading. I think that, as I have said\nbefore, that sometimes an individual with his hands getting blistered\ndoing a job has a hard time reconciling this with probably what was his\ndream of preserving butterflies. And he doesn't see the big picture.\nBut I don't know where any name would -- name would be better than\nthat or not. We have upgraded it ourselves with regard to salary and\n-11-\nother provisions. it was a brand new effort by us. And it had to\nbe -- it was done, as you know, as a replacement for types of things\nthat previously had been carried on by young juvenile offenders in\nour honor camps, and now with probation system working so well those\ncamps are non-manned. But we have upgraded a number of things,\nincluding salary. I would have to -- to look at specifically what\nthe proposals are and what we could afford and what we could do.\nVOICE: Thanks, Governor.\no0o\n-12-\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JUNE 29, 1972\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their conven-\nience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly\nas possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is\nno guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I don't have any press release on the one\nsubject that I'm quite sure would be one of the first ones that would\ncome to your mind this morning, so let me just tell you this is with\nregard to the U. S. Supreme Court decision on three cases before it,\nthree particular cases. We haven't had time to go into the whole\nmatter of the decision, so perhaps there are points on which I would\nnot be able to comment. But apparently two members of the -- or\nthree members of the Supreme Court -- U. S. Supreme Court ruled\nbasically against the constituionality of the death sentence or\npenalty. Four justices ruled in favor of the constitutionality.\nAnd the two additional justices ruled that the death penalty was\nconstitutional apparently under certain -- within a certain framework\nto be decided by legislatures. Now, since these were decisions\ninvolving three specific cases and the penalty with regard to those\nparticular cases, we happen to believe that this makes the initiative\non the ballot more important than it was even before, and we believe\nthat the people of Valifornia once and for all should make their\nfeelings known on this particular issue by their votes on that issue,\nand then I would say that from there on it is a matter of us finding\nout within what framework we would believe here as a state -- and our\nlegislature would determine that the death penalty should be invoked.\nNow, that's as far as we have been able to interpret it. Apparently,\nas I understand, there were about 11, even though there are only 9\njustices -- different statements that were made because of the fact\nthat it involved three -- more than one case.\nQ.\nSo you will still urge a yes vote on that initiative then?\nA.\nYes, I think even more SO, More than ever now.\nQ.\nAnd have you heard from Mrs. Reagan on the subject?\n(Laughter)\n-1-\nA. No, but I have a hunch that when I see her she will be asking\nme for an explanation of what it means.\nQ. Governor, your interpretation then of the Supreme Court decision\nis that it has not struck down the death penalty?\nA. That is my interpretation now. You have, as I say, four who\nvoted on -- who said it was constitutional in the cases they were\ndiscussing. And three others who said that they believed that the\ndeath penalty as such was constitutional within certain - framework\nto be set by legislatures. It means there must be some crimes that --\nin which it could still be invoked.\nQ. You feel then it makes a possibility that the death penalty\ncould be outlawed rather brighter?\nA. I -- now we are getting into the area that I haven't seen a\nfull analysis of the -- of the whole matter. But again I reiterate,\nI think that what we -- we had here was a decision that was based on the\nthe crimes committed by these different individuals and the assigning\nof the death penalty for those crimes.\nQ. Another subject, Governor. Are we through with this?\nQ. Governor, if the initiative passes, what would be the next legal\nstep to be taken?\nA. I think the next legal step then would be for the legislature\nof Calffornia to determine as these other justices have pointed out\nthe framework within which it would be invoked. In other words,\nwhat crimes would be liable to the death sentence. Because this\nseemed to be basically the issue -- the determination, not of whether\nyou could or could not in any circumstance have the death penalty,\nbut the determination in these cases seemed to be on the basis of the\ncrimes to which it was assigned, that it was cruel and unusual punish-\nment for those particular crimes.\nQ. Wouldn't this await some kind of guidelines from the Congress,\nfederal guidelines?\nA. No, because this still lies in the -- at the discretion of the\nstates.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you have any thoughts along those lines about what\ntypes of crimes perhaps should have the death penalty?\nA. Oh, I think they should be very definitely limited, and I think\nwe do have limitations in California, always have had on them. But\nI'm not a member of the legal profession on this and I think that\nthe -- I think it should be very careful. I've always felt that there\n-2-\nshould be a defini limibation. Certainly the area of cold\nblooded premeditated murder, this is one of the things we talk about.\nBut one of these cases, for example, was a crime committed against\nanother person in which -- in which death was not involved. There\nwas no murder committed. And I think this is where there has to be\nsome very definite and well thought out provisions that would recognize\nthat this is the ultimate penalty and therefore the crimes for which\nit should be exacted should be very limited.\nQ. Are you saying then, Governor, that the people of California\nshould put the death penalty back in the constitution and the\nlegislature could decide --\nA. Yes, the thing that we are determining in the ballot here is\nnot the U. S. constitutionality. We are determining the State\nconstitutionality and therefore what this -- on the basis of these\nthree decisions at the federal level, I think we should determine once\nand for all how does California feel with regard to its own constitu-\ntion. Remember, our ballot has hothing to do -- this case was not\nbased on the federal constitution, it was based on is the death\npenalty within or without the state constitutionand I think that\ndecision should be made by the people.\nQ. Governor, if you should remove murder, however, from the death\npenalty, then what crimes could you see under the death penalty?\nA.\nOh, I said --\nQ.\nWasn't one of these cases involving a death, a murder.\nA.\nOne of these cases did not involve a death.\nQ.\nOne of them did.\nA.\nWhat I'm talking about is, I said no, that I would think that\none ofthe basic crimes would be the one that has always been considered\nfor this, would be the cold blooded premeditated, planned murder, would\nbe one of the issues, but I don't want to get into -- go into that too\nfar. I think this is one that calls for people with legal training\nas to when you would invoke the ultimate penalty.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you also think the death penalty should be\nadministered more swiftly and if so how would you do it?\nA. Well, here again, this has been one of the things that the\nCouncil on criminal justice has been studying for a long time. It\ndoesn't -- it is not alone to do with the death penalty. But with\nall of It. -- over the recent years the time has increased enormously\nbetween arrest and conviction and the carrying out ofthe sentence.\nThere was a little misunderstanding in some remark of mine recently\nwith regard to tha and with regard to the are of hijacking, and I\nused the word \"execution\" and evidently someone misunderstood and took\nthat to mean that I was suggesting a capital penalty. What I had\nsaid was that along this same line was that there must be swift\nexecution of the sentence brought. Brought to trial as quickly as\npossible and the carrying out of this. Swift and certain justice\nis the greatest preventive of crime. We once had it to a far greater\nextent than we have it now.\nQ. Is it your understanding that if it should by any chance be\nrestored legally in California that it would not be retroactive in the\nsense that those who have already been placed in --\nA. I'm looking at my -- my legal adviser over here with his head\nnodding. It's been my understanding that whatever we do now does not\napply and cannot applyrretroactively to the people now on death row,\nthat that decision has been made by the court.\nQ. Governor, with regard to skijacking, do you think that that\nshould be one of the crimes that should have the ultimate penalty?\nA. Oh, I'm not in a position to -- as I said, I don't have legal\ntraining. I would leave that to legal minds.\nQ. Governor, you have to sign a bill if that were to be the case.\nA. Yup. And I'd be surrounded by legal advisers when I did it.\nQ. You have suggested in the past you thought skijacking O-\nA. What's that?\nQ. I halieve you have suggested in the past, have you not, that\nskijacking should perhaps be a capital punishment?\nA. No, this was the misunderstanding that I just mentioned, that\nI was a little disturbed when I saw in the press -- and then I\nrealized that I was partly to blame for using the word \"execution.\"\nI used it as a verb after saying that what was needed was swifter --\nnot only apprehension, but then swifter trial and swifter -- I should\nhave said -- used that word, I guess, of carrying out bf the penalty.\nAnd because I said, \" and execution of the penalty\", I can see where\nsomeone got confused and interpreted execution to mean execution,\nand said that I had recommended it. No, I've never made a decision\nas to what the penalty should be. I don't feel qualified to do that.\nQ. How do you get swifter execution of the sentence? Could you\nreduce the number of appeals -- but how would you do that since we\nhave a problem --\nA. This is why we have got the criminal justice -- council on criminal\njustice studying this matter, to see how it can be done and yet we\nhave got to have full protection of the rights of the accused, no\nquestion about that. That's been the basis of/american judicial\nsystem since our beginning and it was because in the earlier days,\nprior to the American Revolution, the accused was virtually -- in\nmost areas was guilty until proven innocent. It was not given\nall of the safeguards that we now have. But it's just been in recent\nyears that increasing amount of legal technicalities have been\ninvoked to prolong and get additional trials. Some countries have\nmanaged to overcome this and yet with apparent protection for the\naccused, and I think we can, too. But don't ask me for the answer\nor I wouldn't -- I wouldn't have to have counsel studying it.\nQ.\nAre you blaming the lawyers then or the courts for these legal\ntechnicalities that come accross?\nA. Well, again the study will probably reveal that although I do\nthink that -- that there has been a tendency in recent years to -- to\nmake this kind of like a game of -- a matching of wits, not aimed at\narriving at guilt or innocence, but seeing can you save someone on a\ntechnicality regardless of guilt or innocence.\nQ. Governor, if I cankind of sum up what your opinion is so far\non the basis of what you know of today's decision, is in effect that\nthe proposed initiative is broadly worded enough so that it apparently\nwould not be automatically nullified by today's Supreme Court\ndecision. Is that in effect what you feel?\nA. That's right. My interpretation, as far as we have gone, is that\nyou haveggot three justices who ruled yes without question the death\npenalty is unconstitutional. You have four judges -- justices\nwho have ruled that it is constitutional. And you have the\nadditional two justices who have said it was not constitutional in thos\nthree cases, but that they do believe that within framework set by\nstate legislatures in certain circumstances the death penalty can be\ncarried out.\nQ. Governor, can we switch from death to taxes?\nQ. One more question.\n(Laughter)\nA. Both inevitable.\nto\nQ.\nThose are the opinions that come/the votes -- the vote itself\namounts to a simplied form of --\nA. Yes, but it was with regard to three specific cases as to whether\nthe death penalty in those three cases was constitutional.\nQ. Governor, 1f the initiative passes and the legislature fails\nto acg we would have a dormant death penalty, is that right?\nA. Well, now, wait a minute. Now, let me try one and see if I\ncan win legal approval on this. I'll give a layman's opinion. It\n-5-\nseems to me that 1 the people of California r ffirmed that the --\nthat und er the California constitution the death pemalty is valid and\nwe do have presently statutes by the legislature as to -- in what\ncases it can be applied, it would seem to me that the death penalty\nwould be valid in California until the U. S. -- and unless the U. S.\nSupreme Court on some appeals ruled with regard to each one of those\nparticular cases when it came before them. They would rule, in\nother words, on this same basis, that if -- if convicted criminal\n\"x\" sentenced to death, was the death sentence proper in his particular\ncase. And then if they ruled no, then they -- we would know that\nthey have ruled ungonstitutional at the federal level one of our\nstate statutes and that would have to be disappeared from the books.\nQ.\nDidn't you say that the legislature has to prescribe the crime\nsubsequent to the initiative passing?\nA. Well, I wouldn't --\nED MEESE: They said it could be set by state legislation,\nbut certainly the people acting themselves would have the same force\nand effect.\nQ. But how does the initiative read, would it reinstate all state\nstatutes?\nED MEESE: It reinstates statutes and it would be my guess\nonly that they would find probably that those where there was no\ndeath, such as we have of kidnapping statute -- it is a death penalty,\nthey might in a subsequent decision rule that unconstitutional,\nbut rule the penalty against murder constitutional.\nQ. State court or the U. S. Court?\nED MEESE: U. S. Supreme Court.\nA. Couldn't we foresee from here on anyone sentenced under California\nstatutes to the death penalty would undoubtedly on the basis of\nthese three cases appeal his case all the way, if he could, to the\nU. S. Supreme Court on the basis that -- that the particular statute\nunder which his client had been sentenced was outside the provisions,\nthat he would test that before the court.\nQ.\nAs a practical matter, however, with the waythings have been going\nin this state and the country and around the world, can you actually\nforesee anyone being executed in California again, ever?\nA. Yes.\nQ.\nNo matter what happens intthe election?\nA. Well yes, I could. Because you -- if you analyze the opinions\n-6-\nyou have a majority of the U. S. Supreme Court that said that they\ndo believe in the constitutionality of this under certain circumstances.\nAnd I would think that -- I don't think they have given any indication\nthey have changed their mind on that. So, yes, I could -- I could\nsee where they might rule some of our statutes invalid, that the penalty\nwas too severe for that particular crime.\nQ. Governor, if it should turn out that the court ultimately does\nrule against the death penalty in a blanket fashion, would you support\na move to amend the U. S. Constitution to reinstate --\nA. Well, you are asking a hypothetical question here. It would\ninvolve whether -- what the changes were or whether it was hopeless\nor not. Let me just say that I believe that the majority of the\npeople intthis country do support the death penalty.\nQ. Governor, I'm curious. Your comments so far at this press\nconference on the court have been very -- very subdued compared to the\ncomments you had this morning on the court. I believe you referred\nto them as acting kind of irresponsible. You used terms such as\nthat. You suggest the court had overstepped its bounds.\nA. What, this court? No, I made no statement about this decision\nat all. I didn't know about it until I -- until I arrived here\nthis morning and one member asked me, and at that point knowing\nI'd be meeting with all of you later, I said that I hadn't had a\nchance to -- to know more than that they made a decision. I didn't\neven know what the count had been or anything else. So I -- I had\nno answer. No, I haven't commented on them. I would say that\nfrom what I -- little bit I have seen now of the decisions of some of\nthe justices, they have been pretty critical of their own court.\nThere have been some opinions by some of the justices themselves\nthat the -- the court overstepped its bounds.\nQ. Can we get back to that question on the taxes now?\nA. Taxes.\nQ. Can you tell us the nature of your agreement with Speaker\nMoretti on school finance and tax reform and whether it is really. an\nagreement or a consensus or what?\nA. Well, there seems there's been a great deal of misinformation\nand I suppose it's grown out of the kind of rumors and gossip that go\nup and down the halls of the -- of a capitol. Let me say that what\nis taking place is what -- I suggested would take place, when we\nintroduced our own tax reform and school financing bill and I said\nthere was one already introduced by the Speaker. We had introduced\n-7-\nourspandtwe believ that the normal legislati' process -- our hope\nwas that these two would come to some acceptable meeting ground where\nwe could finally resolve this issue. But what has been taking place\nis that normal legislative process at the staff level, and our own\nstaff people. have been involved because of our own legislation, and\njust recently our staffs reported back that as staff members they\nbelieve they had worked out something which they on both sides could\nrecommend to their principals, as an answer to the problem. And\nthis was presented to the Speaker, was presented to me. There was\none meeting then in which a few little points were explained in\ndetail and a few little things ironed out as to what it was, and\nthen it was simply a case of the -- no agreement. This is up to\nthe legislature. The Speaker said that he could recommend this\nstaff plan to his side, and I said that I certainly found the staff\nplan acceptable and would do my utmost to see that -- whatever I could\ndo to see that it would be accepted by our -- our side of the legis-\nlature. But there has been no negotiations or meetings or flat\nagreements of the kind that we sought in the 16 days of negotiations\nlast year. Quite to the contrary, this was a staff plan, two staffs;\none representing the legislature and our own people involved that\nrecommended this plan back to us and it is my undeßstanding that from th\nsingle meeting we have had that the Speaker has found it acceptable\nand -- and I certainly can accept it.\nQ. Does your statement that you find it acceptable mean that you\nwould sign it into law?\nA. If the thing -- if it came down to us from the staffs, yes.\nIf this is passed by the legislature I would sign it into law, I\nthink it would be to the great benefit to the people of California\nand certainly it would be -- it would resolve to a great extent --\nin fact should cure the school financing problem.\nQ. I think this is still on the subject of taxes, Governor. The\nother day you gave a speech ontthe subject of what are called loopholes.\nYou said that the public receives benefits from these loopholes.\nI'm wondering specifically on the Reagan Cattle Corporation and\nthe Oppenheimer Industries what benefit does the public derive from\nthat.\nA. Well, the benefit that the public derived from that, from what\nyou call cattle holdings, are a few bulls that I own that are leased\nout and which were not any part of a loophole at all, because I\nactually made a few bucks on the cattle. And so I had to report\nit\nas income. Now, I don't know of any loophole that involves that.\nWhat I was speaking about the other day, and I'm going to continue\nto speak about it, 18 the cheap demagoguery that has been so prevalent\nin recent months from a number of sources regarding what are termed\nloopholes that are legitimate deductions that the Congress of the\nUnited States down through the years has seen fit to pass simply\nbecause they were necessary and they were vital to the economy, are\nnot loopholes, when we are trying to stimulate the buying and the\nbuilding of homes by the working menpand women of this country, to\nallow a citizen to deduct the interest on his mortgage and to deduct\nthe property tax payments that he makes; to suggest that that is a\nloophole as some political cnadidates have been suggesting, is\nridiculous. It is also ridiculous to suggest that citizens who want\nto contribute, as they do, $14,000,000,000 a year to hospitals, to\nschools, to libraries, to educational and charitable foundations,\nthat this should be taken away from them. The end result is inevi-\ntable. If you take that deductibility away from the individual\ncontributor you are going to wind up with total federal financing\nof all charitable institutions, of all medical research, of all\nmedical institutions, of all schools, because the individual will\nno longer be able to support those things or afford to support them.\nAnd the figures I used indicate that it is not at some level of\nrich who are getting some benefit by giving their money away. That\nthe greatest amount of thos e contributions and those deductions\nare taken by the working men and women of America.\nQ. But specifically even under the Reagan Cattle Corporation and\nthe Oppenheimer Industries, it is advertised notheir brochures\nas being a tax shelter, you said a moment ago in this answer hhat\nyou disn't know it was a loophole. If it is called a tax shelter and\nit is advertised and it is offered for that for people who have\nincomes of $500,000 or more, 75 per cent tax bracket, what is it?\nA. No, no incomes it was 50 per cent tax bracket or more.\nQ. O. K.\nA. And let me just point out something, an a technicality in that\nthis is not advertised as a tax shelter. The Securities Exchange\nCommission orders and forces certain investment opportunities in the\ncountry to specify the amount of risk involved. And cattle breeding\nis enough of a risk that the Securities Exchange Commission has to --\norders any corporation of the kind -- I don't have a corporation.\nI bought through a corporation bulls and they lease out these bulls\nfor breeding purposes. But this is such a risky business that they\n-9-\nare ordered by law to warn anyone that unless they are in a 50 per\ncent bracket this might not be the safest investment for them.\nBut if they are in a 50 per cent bracket and they lose, as you can\neasily lose, it only takee one blizzard and you can be out of business\nout there in the prarie states that if you are in that tax bracket,\nyou had a loss, if youhad one, it would of course be ameliorated\nbecause as a business loss it would be deductible. Now, that is forced\non them by law, that is not some venal corporation advertising oh\ngoody, we have a tax shelter and I am not in a position to go out buying\ntax shelters. I am in a pesition where I kind of like farming. As\nI said, when I couldn't run them myself I wanted to have a few cattle.\nQ. You have never seen your cattle.\nA. What?\nQ. Have you ever seen your cattle?\nA. That's right, but it makes me feel good to get the reports, and\nI get them. I get the weekly reports and it makes me feel like I'm\nstill a farmer. Now, can't I indulge myself that much?\nQ. Are tax shelters the same thing as loopholes?\nA. These terms -- let's get those terms straight. Well, the nick-\nmame sax shelter has -- has grown out of this same thing. There\nare risky investments and if a person is faced with giving -- well,\nwhere they really came into being was back when the tax ceiling --\nthe highest tax rate was as much as 94 per cent and people, athletes,\nentertainment figures, whatever, people with that high an earning\nhad a choice of paying 94 per cent of the additional dollars they\ncould earn to the government, now it is 70 cents that they can pay\nto the government, or they can say here are some investment Spportuni-\nties that have a high risk rate, but maybe I could take the gamble\nand I could invest some money in this over here, and if I lost, since\nit is a tax deduction at that high a bracket, I'm only losing a frac-\ntion of the amount of money, but they don't go into it to lose the\nToHey, because they still lose, some of their own money. They go\ninto it with the ope that it is going to become a worthwhile asset,\na valuable possession. And that is the so-called tax shelter.\nLet me give one last figure, then get some other hands here.\nThis whole demagogic thing all over the country we have heard the\nlast year that a hundred people with $200,000 incomes didn't pay\nany income tax. Now, number one, I'm not one of those with $200,000\nincomes. So I'm not -- there is no personal Conflict of interest\nhere. Actually, there were 106 people in the country last year.\nThe last year of the Johnson administration there were 300. Now, if\nthis means that there is some flaw in the tax structure at the\nupper income level, then you have to ask yourself what about the other\n15,200 people because there were 15,300 people last year in this country\nwho earned $200,000 a year or better. And 15,200 of them averaged\npaying $177,000 apiece in income tax. So if there was some great\nflaw in the tax structure you cald expect the 15,300 people would\nhave taken advantage of it. The Treasury Department has made\nperfectly plain without releasing the names, the 106 cases. They\nare available for all of you in a Treasury Department report.\nAnd\nthey explain that the 106, there were legitimate reasons. Some of\nthem had suffered great losses through lawsuits and litigation.\nSome of them had paid 77 per cent of their income because -- to foreign\ngovernments because their earnings were from outside the country\nand that's why they didn't own any tax in this country. There was\na legitimate explanation for that little handful of 106 people.\nEverbody else paid their tax.\nQ. I still have some questions.\nQ. Governor, the Democratic National Convention Credentials\nCommittee votedathis morning to split up Senator McGovern's\nCalifornia delegation, and to award proportional shares of the delegates\nto Senator Humphrey and the other candidates. Realizing this is\na different party's problem from your own, do you have any comment\nand can you see a situation under which the Republican party might\ngo against the winner-take-all concept in California?\nA. Well, that would be up to the party to make that decision.\nOf course in the Democratic party I'm surprised how much we have in\ncommon because we are counting on splitting up a lot of his votes.\nBut the party would have to make the decision to do that. I think\nthe primary as it has been run in the past here in California makes\na lot of sense. Each candidate sets out to -- to win the convention\ndelegates of the state on a majority rule basis, and he goes to the\nconvention with those to -- I don't -- I don't see very much the --\nwhat you do other than just simply postpone the decision until the\nconvention add then the delegates and the same proportional numbers\ncontinue to fight it out at the convention, after you have once\nmade that decision on the basis of all the voters at the state level.\nQ. Well, under -- under Democratic reform procedures they say --\nthey intend in any event to end the winner-take-all situation four\nyears from now. Do you think the Republicans should do the same?\n-11-\nA.\nI don't know, I'd have to -- I'd have to be shown some very good\nevidence that this was an improvement. First of all, the whole\nprimary thing has become somewhat ridiculous with the variety\nof rules and all. For example, here is Senator McGovern profiting\nfrom a great number of delegates from the State of New York and his\nvote was less than 6 and a half per cent of the Democratic party of New\nYork. You know, this is not -- that's not exactly a landslide.\nQ.\nGovernor, we have a man all the may from New York here who would\nlike to ask you a question. I said I'd get your attention for him.\nQ. That's very gracious of you.\nA.\nI hope you are an immigrant and not a visitor.\nQ. Thank you, sir. Nave you any comment to make on your --\nyour European itinerary? I've seen no details released as yet.\nA.\nNo, I've left all those announcements to Washington because\nit is at their request. There are several countires to be visited,\nand I will be having this week-end before departure for rather\nextensive briefing. So I don't have very many answers. I know\nthat it is -- it is going to be an arduous trip and I know that there\nare going to be a number of specific assignments for me. I look\nforward to that.\nQ. Is it largely western Europe?\nA. Pardon?\nQ.\nWill it be limited largely to western Europe?\nA.\nYes, all Western Europe.\nQ.\nGovernor, since the President has dropped the import quotas on\nbeef, what do you think the effect will be on the California cattle\nindustry?\nA. Well, I expect the cattle industry is going to be unhappy and\nthey have got a reason to be unhappy. Generally, with the whole\nsituation and not just with this decision. I can understand what the\nPresident is trying to do. Food prices recently, and a number of\nthings from drought to bad weather to floods to infestations and the\nold outlaw, supply and demand, this is what has always affected the\nfood market. Some other things are affecting it right now. The\nplain truth is that the -- that the man growing cattle today is\nselling his cattle at the farm level for less money than he received\nin 1958. And the difference in the price of meat is from leaving\nthe farm -- between the farm and the kitchen and what happens in\nbetween there is what has accounted for the great increase in prices.\nWe do have an emergency situation in which inf atinn must be brought\nunder control, and I think that there are going to be some hardships\nin this. There are going to be probably, when you look back in\nretrospect after it is all over -- there will be some things that\nwill be unfair to some individuals. But the over-all problem must\nbe solved, and I think the President has been -- his plans have been\nsolving it and the inflation rate has been reduced -- is being reduced.\nAnd food seems to be one of the things that is -- is inte fering with\nthat right now, slowing that reduction of inflation. But the -- I\njust wanted to get in a lick for the cattle raiser and the people\nwould know that he doesn't get a dime of subsidy, he's never been\na part of the government agricultural problems, he gambles every year\non -- on his business, and he's one of the few fellows in the United\nStates that's not getting any more money. He's getting less than\nhe used to get.\nQ. Governor, are you going to call a special legislative session\non reapportionment this year?\nA. I don't know, no decision has been made on that or no decision\napparently has been made upstairs as to what they are going to do.\nQ. Governor, on this tax plan, you said it was acdeptable to you.\nWhat is it anyway? What is in the tax plan?\nA. Well, now since --\nQ. Just four or five --\nA. I don't think it would be proper for me here to give you details\nsince we are still on both sides briefing our own legislature --\nlegislators on what's in the tax plan and I think that we'd better\nwait until they have been informed before they pick it up and read it\nin the paper.\nQ. Governor, there is one more question in the back.\nQ. There's only one more automobile no-fault bill barefly alive in\nthe legislature. Would you like to see that pushed on through?\nA. The Fenton bill?\nQ. Yes.\nA. Yes, I would. This bill certainly meets most of the criteria\nthat we ourselves felt should be included in such a bill and I think\nit should be passed.\nQ.\nDid you talk to Mr. Marler or Senator Marler about it?\nA.\nNo, but I'm going to do what I can to -- to help it along the\nway.\nQ. Will you be talking to him?\nA.\nI probably will.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor."
}