Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564130",
    "label": "Transcripts - 01/09/1973, 01/16/1973, 01/30/1973, 02/13/1973, 03/13/1973",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564130"
}

{
    "id": "118564130",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564130",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 01/09/1973, 01/16/1973, 01/30/1973, 02/13/1973, 03/13/1973",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564130",
    "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-P04-002-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-002-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-002-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564130",
    "naId": 118564130,
    "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-P04-002-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "41c38146bb2e8b5d",
    "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 -\n01/09/1973, 01/16/1973, 01/30/1973, 02/13/1973,\n03/13/1973\nBox: P04\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\n1/9\n\\\\\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JANUARY 9, 1973\nTranscribed by: Governor's Press Office (FEB)\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's Press Conference is furnished\nto the members of the Capitol press corps for their convenience only.\nBecause of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible after\nthe conference, no corrections are made and there is no guarantee of\nabsolute accuracy.)\nQ. Governor, as we move through the year people increasingly are\nasking you about your political future. I hesitate to do so again but\nHenry Salvatori said yesterday he is counselling you not to run for any\noffice in 1974 and you ought to keep your powder dry for 1976. Have you\nany comments on his remarks?\nA. No. No. I don't know that Henry Salvatori said anything of that\nkind so obviously that is a subject that has come up so often so no\ncomment.\nQ. On Bill Clark did you put him through the procedure you say you\nhave been using where different review committees review his credentials?\nA. No, that procedure is not used in that case. I followed the same\nprocedure I used in the only other appointment I had to the court and\nthis was not just occasioned by the tragic death of Justice Peters, he\nhad written me that he was going to resign so we have been reviewing a\ngreat many names, a great many individuals, discussing them with people\nin the legal profession just as we did with regard to the chief justice's\nappointment so it simply moved up the time of appointment, the tragedy.\nQ. INAUDIBLE\nA. It is one of not only reviewing all of the names but seeking out\nthose people that we think can give information. Of course, in the case\nof Bill Clark I had a greater personal knowledge than I had of most others,\nHe was an appointment by me to the Superior bench but after he had served\nhere in this administration where I had the closest possible contact with\nhim and, therefore, have the greatest confidence in his integrity because\nI have seen him in action and his ability.\nQ. If Justice Peters had written you that he intended to resign when\ndid that communication transpire?\nA. Last year. It was quite some time ago.\nQ. Is it a fact you have a state qualifications committee to pass\non this?\nA. That is right. It is a state qualifications panel that passes on\nthese contrary to just the regular judicial appointment.\nQ. What about his only having four years on the bench, is that\nsufficient?\nA. I think he has actually had a legal career that has been pretty\noutstanding for about 15 years. He served on the bench with 150\ndecisions, none of which was ever overturned. It was a rather unusual\nrecord. After he had been appointed to the Superior Court he then had\nto stand for election and after he had served there in that area people\nreelected him by a 3-1 margin. He has handled and participated in some\n250 cases as an Appellate Justice and I think I knew all about him. I\nhave complete confidence that he is going to become one of the outstanding\nSupreme Court justices in the history of the State of California.\nQ. Did you communicate with Judge Clark prior to the death of\nAssociate Justice Peters regarding the appointment?\nA. No. He was just one of the names.\nQ. How many other names were there?\nA. I can't give you an actual number but there was a great number of\nnames not only of other appointments in mind but other individuals,\npeople who from time to time are suggested even when there is no\napparent vacancy, they are suggested for future reference. There was\nquite a list of names. I never have actually added up the total.\nQ. You don't think it was a case of personal favoritism toward someone\nworking on your staff?\nA. No. I think it was a plain case of having an opportunity of knowing\nhim and seeing him there. If he had not impressed me as having those\nqualifications on the staff then he would not have been appointed. I\nhave to add this, and I think I would be speaking for anyone who has ever\nbeen in this job or will be, I think that it is too serious. I don't\nthink you ever are tempted to that in a position of that kind. Too much\nhangs on it and you have too much of a feeling of responsibility to the\npeople of the state to be guided by friendship or personal favoritism.\nQ. In the past you have said you wished the makeup of the court were\nsomewhat different. Is this going to create a court more like what you\nthink it should be?\n- 2 -\nA. Obviously the philosophy of the man is taken into consideration\nand again I am aware of his philosophy as well as his integrity that\nwas a factor. As I look at particularly his work in the Court of Appeals\nI have to say that I think he has demonstrated not only an understanding\nbut a great respect for the law and for the Constitutional principles.\nQ. You said the same thing about Donald Wright?\nA. Yes. The record proved it. Maybe sometimes it also proves that\npeople change their views or outlook as time goes on.\nQ. Has he been a disappointment to you?\nA. No. I am not going to criticize the Chief Justice. I have spoken\nout very openly on particular decisions and continue to do that, but I\nthink it is my right and responsibility to do that. No I have no\ncriticism of any of the members of the court.\nQ. I thought I heard Dan Rather say that President Nixon consulted\nwith you before he decided to renew the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong.\nIs this right or wrong?\nA. You thought you heard Dan Rather say that? No. The President\ndid that without bothering to consult with me. I approve of his decision\neven though he didn't consult me.\nQ. According to the subdivision map it indicates you are putting up\nfor sale your 700 acre property in Riverside County. What is the\nsituation?\nA. On that property I am not sure. I have followed the practice that\nsome of the other owners have done, having it zoned so that it can be\nsold in smaller parcels if it comes to that. I have a problem, wondering\nwhether I have got the time to start from scratch as I hoped to do but I\nbought the property with the idea in mind that I had enough so that if I\nwanted to dispose of some of it I would still have a ranch ample for my\nneeds but this makes good sense to have this engineering work done to have\nthis zoned for smaller parcels in case you want to sell off.\nQ. What is your present plan? Do you expect to establish a ranch and\neventually or is it uncertain, or what?\nA. I am just wondering. I am getting a little impatient about having a\nranch and the thought has entered my mind that I might have to look for\none already established instead of starting from scratch.\nQ. Too many problems in building?\nA. The power hasn't come in and so forth.\n- 3 -\nQ. How do you feel about the reorganization of the legislature and the\nfact that they can proceed with appropriation bills before the budget\nis signed?\nA. We are speaking of something now with regard to this new two-year\nidea. Any appropriation bill that is passed I have to then review it on\nthe basis of whether it will fit within the revenues because that is a\nresponsibility I have that there can be no deficit. I think they are\ntaking a chance, a risk it may be a program, no matter how worthy, that\nwe can't fund.\nQ. Governor Rockefeller proposed life sentences for offenders who are\npushers of hard narcotics. What is your attitude toward that kind of\napproach, do you favor that?\nA. I feel with regard to pushers that almost any penalty is justified,\nI think it is one of the worst and most evil of all crimes. The only\nreason I hesitate and don't give you a flat statement is that we\nourselves are working on our whole comprehensive drug program and I\nhaven't yet sat down with the people we have had on that as to what their\nviews might be and what they might be contemplating, so I would rather\nnot comment but I certainly don't disapprove of what he said. I think\nthe battle against the drug culture which has swept over our land is one\nthat is going to take the best that's in us.\nQ. Do you contemplate stiffening penalties?\nA. I can't comment. With all the things that have been going on I\nhaven't sat down with our people on this entire subject.\nSQUIRE: Thank you governor.\n######\n- 4 -\n1/16\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JANUARY 16, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and\nthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nAnybody got any suggestions for moving\nthe rain from the north to the south down there? We need it. That\nis my opening statement for this morning. In lieu of anything else\nwe talk about the weather.\nO.\nGovernor, is there any chance you may withdraw your nomina-\ntion of Mr. Clark because of the things that have been disclosed about\nhis educational background?\nA.\nAs far as I'm concerned, nothing has been disclosed that\nI didn't know already.\nIt's been part of the consideration that --\nin the appointments that have taken place so far. No, there is not\na chance in the world that I would withdraw that. I think that\nwhat is -- let me just put it simply as this, what kind of a fuss\nsomeone is trying to raise about it, I think that Bill Clark is\nan example of something that's in the finest American tradition.\nMillions of people have had distinguished careers in this land of\nours and who had to work their way through school and get an\neducation and work at the same time as he did Supporting his fan ily.\nIt's made their getting an education more difficult. His appointment\nis based on not on how he performed as a student, but the results\nof his studying which have been indicated by a 15-year brilliant law\ncarrer and the fact that two judicial appointments that I made of\nhim prior to this he was screened in the regular process and by his\ncontemporaries in the law was found unanimously and overwhelmingly\nqualified for those positions. And I would just like to point out\nto those individuals that are trying to say that an appointment should\nbe based on thediploma that a man received back in his days as a\nstudent; I can think offhand of at least a half a dozen individuals\nwho on that basis would be eminently qualified for the appointment\nbut we'd have to wait for them to get out of jail.\nQ.\nWho?\n-1-\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI'll protect their privacy.\nO.\nGovernor, I've been doing a little figuring with your -- the\n850 million dollars ---\nQ.\nI've got another question on Clark. Did you know that when\nhe applied to take his bar exam that he said he graduated from\nStanford?\nActually --\nA.\nHe did not, the never did.\nQ.\nNever did what?\nA.\nHe never said that he graduated. No, as a matter of fact\nit has now been revealed that he himself had forgotten that when he--\nthe card which only said \"graduate of what law school,\" and when he\nhad written the schools down there that he himself had crossed out the\nword \"graduate\" and that has since been brought to light by the State\nBar.\nO.\nGovernor, you said on your two prior appointments to Clark\nhe was screened by committees, I don't think that's true. I think\nyou -- you eliminated these committees when you named him to the\nSuperior Court because you knew him personally and you remember that\none was objected to by the local bench?\nA.\nNo, we still went ahead and put him through the entire\nprocess and everyone has been put through that process. And I'd\nlike to --I'd like to just add, as long as you brought this subject\nup, if there is one thing that even some of the most die-hard\nopponents of my philosophy or my administration have admitted is\nthat our some 400 juidicial appointments, all of which have been\nwithin the scope of the promise I made of taking the appointments of\njudges out of politics. Let me just rehash and remind you that I\ntried very hard to get the legislature to make that an official\npolicy, and when the legislature refused to do this I voluntarily\nfor six years now have followed thepolicy that I tried to get put\ninto law, into statute. And these opponents themselves have admitted\nthat the judicial appointments under that process of this administration\nhas surpassed anything in the history of the State of California and\nhave raised the level of the judiciary higher than it has ever been\nraised by any administration and Bill Clark was put through that\nprocess and came back rated as high or higher than almost anyone that\nhas been appointed.\nThe same was followed with regard to the\n-2-\nAppellate appointm t. His record stands for tself, he never had\na decision reversed as a Superior Court Judge, and now it seems to me\nstrange that anyone could believe that having for six years given up\nmy prerogative to name judges on my own basis that someone would think\nthat with one of the highest appointments I have to make that I would\ndepart from that philosophy.\nO.\nGovernor, were you aware that Justice Clark when he was in\nthe private practice of law in San Luis Obispo County apparently\nhad a case\n1967 case just prior to the time of the\nadministration where apparently he had a judgment of $236,000 reversed\non him for failure to show due diligence, he served in process, which\napparently he was so criticized by the Court of Appeals?\nA.\nNo, I wasn't aware of any specific of that kind in all\nof the cases he hired. I knewhe was a successful lawyer, a well-\nthought of lawyer, a highly respected lawyer. I was -- actually\nwas not very well acquainted with Bill Clark prior to his aming to\nwork in this administration and it was here that I learned from\npersonal observation about his integrity and about his ability and\ncan tell you that there have been few people associated with this\nadministration who have had a higher, more wide-spread respect than\nBill Clark. I think he's going to turn out to be one of the best\nappointments that I made in the judicial field.\nO.\nAnother subject.\nA.\nWell, if we have, we have got one down here.\nQ.\nOver here.\nA.\nOh, there.\nQ.\nOn your treasury surplus of $850 million, the SB 90\napparently in fmnancing requires $215 million from revenue sharing\nand $236 million from budget surplus. If you deduct that it leaves\nyou $399 million which you could possibly return to the taxpayers.\nAnd if Verne Orr says he might recommend saving a hundred or two\nhundred million of that, that leaves you maybe two to three hundred\nmillion that you could possibly return to thet taxpayers. Is that --\nVERNE ORR: Governor, the figure he's quoting came from\nAlan Post's figures which were published in December, and Alan says\nthey would have to be updated by the new revenue systems. Alan Post\nhasn't done that.\nQ.\nWhich figures?\nVERNE ORR:\nAlan Post figures that SB 90 takes 250 or\n300 million from the surplus.\nO.\nBut it does take some plus revenue sharing?\nVERNE ORR: If it does not -- if you come to the briefing\nat 11:30 we will try and cover it.\nO.\nGovernor, because of the large state surplus, would you\nfavor a delay in the enactment of the higher sales tax?\nA.\nThere are a number of alternatives with regard to the one-\ntime surplus. Let's keep it so there is no confusion, when we talk\nnumbers. Let's remember that there are two things we are talking.\nA tax policy, on-going, the future. And a one-time surplus to be\ndisposed of. And there are a number of alternatives. That is\nobviously\none\nof\nthem. We have not settled on one form as has been\nerroneously suggested.\nOne form of tax rebate is the means of\ngiving this money back. But we have antask force on taxes that have\nbeen working on a long-range tax program and obviously has taken\nthis into consideration, this one-time supplus. And we are having\ncabinet meetings on this. We recognize there are several ways\nthat can be -- we have considered all of them and there are several\nalternatives that any one of them we think would be just and fair\nwith regard to returning it. But we haven't made a final decision\nyet.\nC\nDo you think the legislature should make the decision?\nA.\nThat would be included. What's that?\nQ.\nDo you think the legislature should make the decision?\nA.\nWell, they have already discussed various ways of not only\nspending it but even a few individuals up there have talked about\nways of giving it back. And as I have said, when we finally come down\nto the final anternatives, I intend to go andtalk to the legislative\nleadership about this. We would -- I want to work with them on\nthis if we can -- if we can do it in that manner, get it returned.\nO.\nBut you are not --- you are not shutting the door on possible\ndelaying of imposition of the sales tax?\nA.\nNo, that's one of the alternatives under consideration.\nQ.\nYou have been in favor -- at least you have said you were\ngoing to recommend a reduction in the income tax at one point, have\nyou not?\nA.\nYes, this we have talked of as a on-going way and it is\nalso one of the alternatives for at least returning part of the\nsurplus, on a one-time basis. Twice before we have used the income\n-4-\ntax, as you know,\ngive one-time rebates of\nn per cent and twenty\nper cent.\nQ.\nGovernor, doyou see this policy shaping up as some kind of a\npackage, maybe a delay, maybe a part rebate, maybe part capital outlay?\nOne-time capital outlay?\nA.\nI think when you talk about the surplus, I think there is a\ncertain percentage of it that it would be wise to retain as a capital\nreserve. And yes, I myself have suggested that here is our opportunity\nfor the rebuilding of the capitol to make it earthquake proof.\nO.\nAnother subject.\nQ.\nOne, one more please. Assemblymay Cullen has suggested\nthat you consider using some of the surplus to redeem bonds that-are\nnow redeemable which would save a lot of interest money in the long\nrun, is that one of the things you are considering?\nA.\nHe sent me a letter on that and I have responded already.\nWe had already looked into whether there would be an advantage on\nthat, and it develops that that's not as ---- an attractive a possibility\nas it might have at first appeared, that a number -- that the amount\nof bondsthat we could recall and the amount of interest saved is\nnot all as great as one might think. Some of those bonds just\ncan't be recalled and also some of the bonds that can be recalled\nare attractive from the standpoint that they are out at a very low\ninterest rate before inflation set in.\nc\nGovernor, your state support budget becomes public Thursday.\nIs it premature now to talk in general terms about how you treat U.C.\nin that budget?\nA.\nNo, you'll be having a briefing on the entire budget at\n11.30.\nO..\nThat's for later publication.\n(Laughter)\nA -\nBut you wouldn't want me to steal Verne's whole routine\nthere, would you?\nDo.\nGovernor, now that the Watergate 7 is the Watergate 2,\nbecause five have pleaded guilty, had this been known before the\nelection do you think there might have been any difference?\nA.\nNo, I don't think there's been any particular change there\nin that nothing certainly has been established or brought out that\nindicates that anyone higher up had any knowledge of this.\nIn\n=5-\nfact, one of the mei, as I recall, has stated very frankly that this\nwas his own. idea, one of the accused. And this is theposition,\nI think, that had been taken by people in Washington prior to the\nelection and it was my own opinion, I said before, that I didn't\nbelieve that anyone of any responsibility in the campaign of the\nadministration would have been a party to that.\nO.\nWhere would he get $25,000 send tohim in a plain envelope,\nas he said?\nA.\nAll I know is that so far in the trial and I don't know\nhow far I can go in talking about something that's still before the\ncourts, I don't want to stick my neck out legally --\nO.\nThey pleaded guilty.\nA.\nBut one of them said that he had been employed to find out\nwhat he could with regard to planned demonstrations to disrupt\nRepublican activities and Republican campaign activities and it was\nfrom there that he proceeded on his own initiative to go beyond the law\nand --\nQ.\nYou mean to bug the Democractic headquarters?\nA.\nYes.\n(Watergate\nAttain)\nQ.\nGovernor, supposed he had found some evidence that there\nwas a planned campaign to disrupt -- disrupt Republican campaign\nactivity, do you think Senator McGovern should have bore some of the\nresponsibility for that -- for the decision to implement a campaign\nlike that?\nA.\nWell, that would depend on whether the evidence actually\nlinked him or whether again it was done at some level of the campaign\nwithout his knowledge. Let's say hadthey found some evidence of a\nplan to disrupt the Republican campaign the least surprised people\nin theworld would have been the Republicans.\nQ.\nWell, why should it be any different, you know? Why should\nthe least surprised people be Democrats, that Republicans apparently\nwere doing the same thing? All I'm trying to say is shouldn't\nPresident Nixon have to assume -- doesn't the buck stop there for the\nparty activities?\nA.\nWell, if you are taking -- if you are taking the tact that\nwhen you go up to thetop of the command and then he is responsible\nand if something happened that he didn't know about, it still is his\nresponsibility, that he should have known about it, I think that's\nstretching things in a campaign very far. When you have a nationwide\ncrampaign organization and then you have 50 states with their own\norganizations and State Chairman and Regional Chairman to claim\nthat the candidate canpossibly know what these people in their\nenthusiasm may be doing in his behalf, that he would not condone if\nhe knew about it -- that's asking an awful lot of a candidate.\nO.\nGovernor, if something like this should happen in another\nelection, do you think the trial should be held before the election?\nA.\nWell, in this particular instance you found the defendants\nwere the ones -- how far are you going to go in imposing on their\nlegal rights? It was the defendants who were asking for and their\nlawyers who were asking for the delays. Here -- the very administration\nif you say who is theleader and who is the top of something or other,\ntheman that is President was also a candidate, but it is the Nixon\nadministration, it is the Justice Department that is prosecuting\n(watergate\nthis case, and it was the defendants that in their protection of\nAftair)\ntheir clients' legal rights their lawyers that were asking for the\ndelays. And this is common. I don't know of -- in fact, I've\ncomplained about that, if you remember, in my last speech to the\nlegal profession that this thing of the constant delays and delays\nin bringing someone to trial for any kind of lawbreaking has become\nSO commonplace that I think it is one of the reasons why our system of\njustice has had th e failures it's had.\nQ.\nWould you have rather seen it held before the election,\nthe trial?\nA.\nI don't think it would have made much difference. Wouldn't\nhave made any difference to me.\nO.\nANother subject; Governor, with your opposition to construc-\ntion of a new legislative building or capitol, do you think that\nwill make it tough for you to get funds for a start on the Mansion\nthis year?\nA.\nI haven't found --- I was interested in the reaction of the\nState of the State Address, to my proposal that the -- or my remark\nto the effect that I would hope this capitol would continue to be used\nas it is used and there seemed to be quite an enthusiastic response\nfrom the members of the legislature, but I have talked to some of\nthe legislative leadership about this and to a man they agree that\nthe problem of a governor's residence is a separate item and they\nsee no way in the world that it could be tied to or that they would be\na party to tying it to any -- anything to do with capital office\nspace.\n-7-\nc.\nDoes that include Senator Collier?\nA.\nWhat?\nO.\nDoes that include Senator Collier?\nA.\nNow I haven't seen Senator Collier since we came back, I\nhaven't had any consersations with him.\nO.\nWould that include Willie Brown?\nA.\nI haven't discussed that subject with him. I have seen\nhim, but I haven't discussed that subject with him.\nQ.\nI'd like to follow up just a little further. Does your --\ndoes your opposition stem basically from -- from the idea of moving the\ntwo chambers or would you also be opposed to having a new --\nlet's say strictly an office building for legislators? Do you think\nthat this is something that they should determine?\nA.\nIf there is an actual need for space and there possibly is,\nthen I think you face that particular problem. Yes, I would --\nlet's just now put it on the sentimental side. This historic old\ncapitol, I think, is a thing of pride. I think it is one of the\nmost distinguished capitols in the nation, the state level, and one of\nthe most beautiful. And if those chambers can be made safe and\npractical as they can apparently, I would hate to see them move out\ninto some new skyscraper type of building. Now, once you agree to\nthe reconstruction of the capitol to make it safe, then I think you\nreview and find what are the office space needs not only of the\nlegislative branch, but are there some other uses of the capitol\nbuilding that might better be in some other building andthen you\nalso take inventory of the space that is presently available, in\nsome of our capitol structures, in the whole complex here. But\nI think the people feel by and large attached to this capitol. Then\nyou come to the echnomic problem. The economic problem is that the\ncost of making this building as earthquake proof as a building can\nbe and still continuing to use it comes out at far less than pre-\nserving it as a -- just a historical monument plus building an\nadditional capitol building. The cost -- the cost for just making\nit a historical monument is virtually half of what it would cost to\ngo ahead and make it usable.\nO.\nGovernor, Assemblyman\nLowis\na constitutional\namendment that would protect newsmen from having to reveal confiden-\ntial sources to legislative bodies, grand jurors and so forth. The\nconstitutional amendment is opposed to Assemblyman's bill. Do you\nthink that's necessary or not?\nA.\nI don't know, I signed thebill that made it a statute.\nI\nhaven't\n:\nI\nhave\ntalked to Jerry about th\nand what he is\nproppsing.\nQ.\nHe's concerned that the courts may rule that law unconsti-\ntutional and thus wants to head them off by having a constitutional\namendment.\nA.\nCertainly that would do it. At the moment, of course, we\nare having a little trouble with the thing the people voted with\nregard to capital punishment, and implementing it. But it is no ques-\ntion but a constitutional guarantee -- it doesn't bother me, I made\nmyself clear I believe in the right of journalists to protect their\nsources.\nQ.\nGovernor, on another subject. You believe that skyjacking\nthat results in a death of someone, that that should be punishable\nas first degree murder or mandatory death penalty?\nA.\nWell, on the whole subject of what should be the mandatory\ndeath penalty, I have stated here before that I think that this is a\nsubject for experts and for a study by the people in the law enforce-\nment field and in the legal profession. I know that many people\nhave expressed this belief about skyjacking. As a layman, I would\nhave to say that this certainly should be studied and I have proposed\nthat before that study skyjacking and the death penalty because there\nis no question but that a man who skyjacks has planned and deliberated\nand he has done this with no retard to the threat to the lives of\nhundreds of people on an airplane.\nO.\nGovernor, regarding the anti-smog proposal yesterday by\nthe Federal agency, do you think that's a practical plan or not?\nA.\nWell, I don't know, but I think Mr. Ruckelshaus' explanation\nof it, now that I've heard it, makes a great deal of sense which is\nit is time to have these hearings and to find out and let people know\nand bring out into the open what -- what the problems are and what\nthe ramifications are, how far we are willing to go, that we feel is\nnecessary with regard to eliminating totally pollution and from that\nstandpoint I think that this is a fine test, a find thing to do, to\nbring out and to point out that perhaps some of the -- some of the\npolitical answer to pollution that has been passed, particularly at\nthe national level, has something of hysteria in it, that it is\npossible that they have passed things that absobutely cannot be\nimplemented and this is what he seeks to prove.\n-9-\nQ.\nWhat about\nto the merits of the prop\nal?\nA.\nWell, we have to get down to my own feeling, as I said the\nother day, is that if you got down to whether gasoline rationing would\nbe an answer to the smog problem, I have a feeling you'd find certain\nimpracticalities connected with it, particularly in the southern part\nof the State.\nc.\nGovernor, there are stories in Washington that Philip Sanchez\nis on the way out asthe head of OEO. Had you been in consersation\nwith anybody in the Nixon administration, have you expressed any\ndispleasure at his performance or --\nA.\nNo, no.\nO.\nGovernor, back to the subject of the Supreme Court nomina-\ntion.\nThere were reports issued earlier this week that Justice\nClark was not your first selection for the nomination, Was he your\nfirst selection, was he the first individual that you had discussed\nseriously?\nA.\nNow, the only place that I saw that was in Herb Caen's\ncolumn, and I know that I stand on terribly thin ice in ever suggest-\ning that Herb Caen was not totally accurate in one of his columns.\nBut in this instance he was totally inaccurate. Among many\nof the names that were suggested for the Supreme Court one of the\nfirst names that was recommended to me by members of the Judiciary\nand the leg.al profession by his contemporaries was the name of Bill\nClark. And it was --- it received, I imagine I'd have to say, higher\nrecommendation than any other name that was proposed. But there\nwere a number of names and there was never any question in my mind.\nNo, Bill Clark was my first choice.\nQ.\nGovernor, can WE go back justa moment to the anti-smog\nproposal of EPA. You mentioned hysteria and perhaps not feasible.\nBut it did work in World War II, thirty years ago. And we fought\na war while we did it and people got to work and got things done.\nIf it worked then, why wouldn't it work now?\nA.\nWell, it worked at a percentage however that was a little\nmore than a third of the percentage that they claimed that would be\neffective. Gas rationing in the Los Angeles Basin, and I was there\nand serving there, with all of the patriotism and the fervor of a war\nand the desire of people to help serve and to sacrifice for it, it\nis my understanding -- I may be wrong -- but it is my understanding\nthat the figures were in the thirty per cent range of the reduction\nof use of fuel and mileage traveled. But what they are proposing\n-10-\nnow is a rationing th would be effective to th extent of better\nthan 80 per cent and this is where I have to question that there are\nalternative sources of travel or that even the car pool would\nresult in this.\nQ.\nAre we to infer from that that the public might not be quite\nso patriotic with respect to environment as it was with respect to\nfighting a war?\nA.\nI think that one could believe that. You only have to take\na look at the litter along the highway. You only have to look at the\nbeer cans in a pleasant bank of a river or creek, to know that\nthere is not the same self-sacrificing spirit with regard to the environ\nment. Everybody wants to talk about it and I once proposed a law\nthat no one can complain about smog while throwing Kleenex out an\nautomobile window. And I don't think I can get the law passed.\nBut I pointed it out to this, having a place in the country I can\ntestify to the energy and effort of people who will go to the trouble\nof renting a trailer to hitch onto their automobile on a week-end\nand come out into the beautiful countryside and then dump an\naccumulation of old stoves and mattresses and bed springs and things\nof that kind down off the side of the highway in some very beautiful\nscenic country and there were a few cheaters, I know, and a few people\nwho wanted special privilege during the war, but for the most part\npeople -- everybody had someone in the service, people wanted to help.\nSo, yes, the evidence indicates that it is easier to talk about\necology than it is for everybody to do something about it.\nQ.\nGovernor, doean't the extreme nature of his suggestion or\nidea kind of contradict the claims of your administration that we\nturned the corner on smog in the Los Angeles area?\nA.\nNo, becau se you can't -- you can't deny the figures, the\nvqst reduction that has taken place. We are continuing. I think\none of his targets has not been the effort that has been put forth.\nI think one of his targets has been acts passed by Congress that just\ncannot be met within the time frame and somebody looked awfully good\nin getting the bill passed and presenting the bill, but if I understand\nit correctly what he's pointing out is that we better face up to some\nrealities before we come to a 1975, for example, and find that every-\nthing grinds to a halt because there is a law that cannot be met.\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-11-\n1/30\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JANUARY 30, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press corps\nas rapidly as possible after the conference, no cerrections are made and\nthere is no gauranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nWell, this morning we have 22 journalism\nfellows from Stanford University here with us. You are very welcome.\nLet me make this clear, this is not a journalism class as we sometimes\nhave.\nThese are fellows -- fellow professionals of yours from all over\nthe world.\nDel ighted to have you here.\nO.\nGovernor, what is your current status of your thinking on\nwhat to do with the surplus?\nA.\nWell, we are continuing to meet on that. There isn't any\nalternative or any suggestion that has been made. It is not a\nconsideration of ours. One of the things that's causing us to not\ncome forward with a plan at the moment is the fact that we are trying\nto involve this -- if we just treated it separately, the disposition of\nthe surplus, I'm quite sure we could come in almos immediately with\na decision. But we are trying to relate this to the whole subject\nof tax reduction and an on-going tax policy, for which we have\nappointed this task force that's been working on this for us. And\nthat's what's holding us up with having an answer on this subject.\nQ.\nDo you have a timetable, Governor? Do you have a timetable?\nA.\nNo, no. I\nQ.\nGovernor, Bill Bagley is quoted as saying that there is a\npackage being put together that would include refund of income tax,\ndelay of the sales tax and cancellation of bonds. In other words,\na compromise, and he says it is -- implies that it is your program.\nA.\nWell, no, just as I said, all of these things -- everything\nthat's been proposed is -- all of these alternatives are being\nconsidered by us, and I suppose where this has come from is yesterday\nfor example talking in this room to the students who were visiting\nhere. I said that we are considering not only the alternatives but\nwe are discussing combinations of them. The -- basically what our\ngoal is, what we are trying to arrive at, is what is the fairest way\nto proportionately return the money on the basis of those who\ncontributed to the surplus in the first place. There is no --\nI don't think there any one of the single way that necessarily\nbenefits in that manner everyone who contributed. But some\nspeculation on this, he's correct in that this too is one of the\nalternatives that is under discussion.\nO.\nGovernor, you spoke of an on-going tax reduction.\nWouldn't\nthe only way to meaningfully do that would be to cut state spending?\nThe budget went up this year.\nA.\nThe budget went up this year, but 73 per cent of the budget\nincrease was SB 90, the taking over by the state of a tax burden that\nis now carried at the local level principably by the homeowners. By\nreducing that, by taking on a bigger share ofthe school funding at\nthe state level, yes, and we said at the time that we are asking it to\npass from the political standpoint you had to face the fact that we\nwere willingly raising the budget a billion dollars by taking on this --\nthis burden. We think it is still a good idea and it is fair.\nI\nhope the people will understand and I think they do, that this it not a\nlegitimate increase in government spending.\nO.\nWouldn't you have to cut state spending to give a permanent\ntax reduction?\nA.\nWell, no, we have accumulated a surplus which means that\nour revenues must be coming in at a greater rate than our outgo, and\nthat state -- that one-time suprlus and the on-going surplus can largely\nbe attributed to the economies and the cuts that we have already made.\nI would call it a dividend on cut, squeeze and trim.\nQ.\nGovernor, on that cut, squeeze -- you came into office in\nthe role of cut, squeeze and trim Scrooge. You are going out of\noffice as a bountiful Santa Claus.. How -- you know, what's happened?\nA.\nWell, what's happened is some journalists I think have gone\noff the track and have now recognized the facts. There isn't anything\nin the world that has changed in my attitude. I'm just as Scroogey\nas I always was about government spending.\na\nYou are not a Santa Claus after all?\nA.\nNo, and from the very first, for several years, first year\nII was here we have tried to get a transfer to statewide taxes of\nsome -- if not all of the homeowner tax burden, and we finally succeed-\ned with SB 90. It was compromised down from what we first asked for\nfew years ago. We would have gone even farther if we could have\nhad our way on this. So I don't see that any policy has changed.\nNow, I notice the papers in the east, let me just say about journalists\ngetting off the track -- papers in the east, particularly that one\nof a large city up there that centers on an island just off the Atlantic\nCoast, the gray lady of journalism has cited the fact that suddenly\nCalifornia is back in the lead, where I suppose fairly it always should\nbe, we are the biggest state in the union, budget-wise, but instead\nof being behind New York State our budget is now bigger. Well, I'm\nsorry to disappoint them and I don't mean to cast any disparagement on\nmy colleague, Nelson Rockefeller, but if we compute the California\nbudget involving the same factors that they put into the budget in\nNew York, we are still a billion dollars less than the New York\nState budget, because they don't give any money back to subsidize\na property tax reduction. They do not include their bond spending in\ntheir budget, they have separate bonding authorities. And we include\nit in our budget, and when you subtract the things they do not have the\nsame formula of revenue sharing that we have with regard to local\ngovernment, when you change those factors our budget suddenly comes\ndown to 7,770,000 dollars, instead of their $8,880,000,000 or our nine\nbillion two or three.\nA.\nGovernor, your criteria about proportionately cutting --\nreturning the surplus to the taxpayers that paid it, the suggestions\nby Democrats to cut the sales tax or not to increase the sales tax\nwould not meet that criteria, proportional criteria, would it?\nA.\nNot if you if you made the entire surplus given back on\nthat basis. I don't believe that it would. It wouldn't recognize\nsome people that pay -- that also pay in addition to the sales tax\nincome taxes, both federal and state, and this is a consideration, too,\nbecause part of that surplus comes from the federal revenue sharing.\nQ.\nGovernor, even if you call the budget 7 billion, that's pretty\nnear double Pat Brown's last budget. Haven't you doubled -- haven't\nyou mellowed a little bit on cut, squeeze and trim?\nA.\nNo, we fought just as hard as we can, and one of the reasons\nwe have a taxk force is the recognition that if an administration that\nhas held down spending to the extent that we have, that has held back\non this and that has created so many more efficiencies, we don't have\n30 or 30,000 more employees as we would have had if we continued the\npolicy of growth in government we have held even on so many things,\nand if we still see this increase in the budget this is a problem\nthat -- as I say, one of the reasons we called the task force, this\nis a problem that is going to require more effort because an adminis-\ntration not as dedicated to saving as we have been, the budget would\nbe far higher than it is now.\nO.\nGovernor, who is on the -- who heads the task force you've been\ntalking about?\nA.\nFrank Walton. It is a both -3- in-hour and out-of-house task\nforce, combination.\nO.\nGovernor, on that, there is another angle on the Santa Claus\nbit, what about this increase for the state employees, even your\nFinance Director says it is a whale of an increase.\nA.\nYeah. Yeah, and two years ago we didn't give them even a\ncost-of-living increase. We made them swallow it themselves, but at\nthe time that we did it we announced thet we were studying and going\nforward with a study that was based on inequities that have grown up.\nThis is not an across-the-board increase. We find certain divisions\nof state employees who in comparison to their counterparts not only in\nother government, but in the private sector, are way below the\ncomparative seale. Likewise we find other classes of employees who\nare more or less as the Constitution requires equal to their counter-\nparts. And what we promised was that we would try to bring about\na correction in these inequities and we did it in two installments.\nNow, you had to recognize with these two installments that when we went\nthe year without even a cost-of-living increase we further widened\nthat gap. We times got better I think we guaranteed that what\nsome officials of CSEA were unwilling to believe was true, that our\nproblems had always been fiscal in this regard, and that we have\nalways intended and wanted to be vair with regard to our state\nemployees. I think they are the finest state employees or the\ngovernment employees that can be found in any level of government, any\nplace in the United States, and I've had a pretty good opportunity to\ncompare. We are doing it in the two installments but we are con-\ntinuing the study. We have -- we are actually having outside help\nin determining a study even beyond this second installment to make\nsure that this did it, and if we on the basis of preliminary studies\nwent too far in some areas, then through a kind of attrition in the\nfuture we will have to bring that back into line that way.\nQ.\nGovernor, on the surplus, have you reached the point where\nyou actually decided to include any one factor in this package, or\nhave you definitely discarded any factor?\nA.\nNo, we have had a lengthy meeting. We have asked for\nmore information and facts and figures. And in some areas -- and we hav\nscheduled more meetings and we are working -- you askedif there was\na timetable, no, there is no timetable, but simply our own pressure\nthat we want to find an answer to this as quickly as possible.\nWe\nare going forward as fast as we can.\n-4-\nQ.\nGovernor, can you confirm however that it is a package\ndeal that you are working on? If you couldn't return the money in\none way and still meet your criteria of proportional return could -\nA.\nWell, I have to say that we don't believe so far -- now, re-\nmember we are continuing the negotiations, we haven't ruled anything\nout, but so far we have not been able to put our finger on one way, a\nsingle method of rebate that turned out to be totally fair to all the\ncontributors.\nQ.\nCan I change thesubject?\nAV\nQ.\nO.\nSQUIRE: Wait.\nA.\nSomebody here wants to talk money.\nO.\nAlthough I realize you haven't agreed on one way, haven't\nyou -- you are still firm that you want some sort of an income tax\nreduction, both the rebate and on-going, didn't you say that just\nyesterday?\nA.\nMy own feeling is that, as I say, there are people who\ncontributed to this suplus by way of other taxes and then those that\ncontributed in the same taxes plus the income tax, and it:is my feeling\nthat this should also be included.\nO.\nSo you are pretty firm that that would be a part of your\npackaging, would be income tax reduction?\nA.\nWell, if you will agree that if I can say that while I may\nfeel firmly that way, I feel that way with an open mind because --\nc.\nRight, there will be no mention of concretetoday.\n(Laughter)\nO.\nA couple of other questions, about the increase in the size of\nyour budget over six years, do you happen to know how much of that\nis inflation?\nVERNE ORR:\nNo, but I think you'd be fairly save to go\nat about five per cent a year for six years, around 30 per cent.\nA.\nThirty per cent.\nVERNE ORR: That's : off the top of my head.\nQ.\nAnd on the question of bonds, I wasn't -- didn't hear your\nremarks yesterday, but I read in the newspaper where you said that\nyou didn't approve of that because that's a future generation should\npay -- in other words, a pay-as-you-go system you are discarding.\nA.\nYou are saying now you are not discarding that entirely\nand it could very well be a part of your over-all package, a portion\nof it?\nA.\nWell, the question the other day dealt directly with the\nsuggestion that the entire surplus be given back in this manner, and\nI questioned whether it was right to ask one group of taxpayers\nat one time to be totally responsible for some things that are going\nto be built in perpetuity for uncountable future generations.\no\nWould you also question our placing this tax burden on one,\ntwo and three generations ahead of us and using up all of their\ncredit? In other words, overextending their credit where we could\ndo it on a pay-as-you-go basis?\nA.\nWell, I don't think we are in a position to have to worry at\nthe moment with regard to bonds about overextension of credit.\nO.\nNo.\nA.\nI grant you there are people who would pay no attention to\nthat, but we have worked very diligently and I think the proof that\nwe have been successful in our work is the fact that Moody's for the\nfirst time in thirty odd years gave us a triple A raging which very\nfew states, if any, have on our bonds, and we are within our bonding\ncapacity and have not been foolish.\nO.\nGovernor, let's get all this taxes out of their system.\nQ.\nJust one other question on your objection to using the pay-\nas-you-go.\nDoesn't that contradict your position of a Regent where\nyou approve of the use of U.C. -- University of California tuition money\nfor capital outlay?\nA.\nNo, as a matter of fact, I voted for thaton a temporary\nbasis because of the fact that in our budget exigencies of the past\nfew years there were times when we could not go forward with some\nthings that needed to go forward with, and I -- I voted for that.\nI would not like to see it a permanent basis. Again, I don't think\nyou should have students paying tuition to build buildings for students\na hundred years from now. I have always thought that tuition should\nbe exactly what it is in any other school, it should be used to --\nfor the educational quality and to improve the educational quality\nand to maintain it for those students who are paying the tuition,\nbut I have also insisted with tuition must go a plan that no student\ncan be denied an education because of inability to meet that tuition\nfund, that you must have provision for student loans and aid and so\nforth, which we have done.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you think that Collier Towers might be a good\nsubject for pay-as-you-go?\n(Laugheer)\n-6-\nA.\nJust betwee us, I've never thought that Collier Towers\nwas a good subject for discussion any time.\nc.\nGovernor, just to clarify what you told the high school kids\nyesterday, and you are telling us today, do you back off on anything\nyou told the students yesterday?\nA.\nNo, no, I -- whether it was understood or not, I think you\nwill find that I tried to explain to them with regard to this\nparticular question we have been on for so long, that the -- the\ncomplexity of it and that some of the considerations and all of the\nthings that we were trying to consider to ensure the fairness of this\nand evidently to some, including some of our own people I gave an\nimpression that I might favor something over the others. Just as a\ncombination. Well, I think I've revealed here that my own Feaning\nis that as we study this problem it begins to come down to more than\none way of returning it.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions on this taxes? Guy in the back\nrow there.\nA.\nNo, he's a subject-changer.\nSQUIRE: There is another one there.\nQ.\nI was wondering if the time had arrived where you were\nprepared to say what your political plans were for 1974.\nA.\nNo.\nQ.\nWhy not? Are you going to do it this week-end at the\nRepublican Convention?\nA.\nNo.\nO.\nWhy? What's the delay?\nA.\nHuh?\nO.\nWhat's the reason for delaying?\nA.\nI'm just a fellow that can't make up my mind.\nQ.\nThat's not characteristic of you.\nA.\nThank you. That's the nicest thing any of you have said to\nme in a long time. Print that. No, I just --\n(Laughter)\nA.\nI'm -- I realize it is a subject that must come up and be\nsettled one way or the other very shortly. I haven't WT and I've\njust been busy with the things that are going on. And I've -- I\nhaven't felt that the time was that pressing, you know. The filing\ndate is not immediately facing me.\nO.\nAre you being urged to run for a third term by any of your\nleaders in the Republican party in California, to change your mind on\n-7-\nthat position?\nA.\nNo, I have had people, as I get out around at public\naffairs, I have had people come up and say this to me, and that I\nshould, but no, there is no such thing as a leadership group in our\nparty in California who says to somebody, \"you do this or you do that.\"\nQ.\nCould you be convinced to consider a third term?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nCould you be convinced to consider a third term, Governor?\nA.\nNo.\nO.\nAbsolutely not?\nA.\nNo.\nO.\nWould you respond to a draft?\nA.\nWe have just eliminated the draft, I've always been for a\nvolunteer army. No, -- no, I don't, nor do I think there is going\nto be any such thing.\nQ.\nHave you set a deadline for when your decision will be?\nA.\nNo, I have no timetable on that either.\nO.\nDoesn't have anything to do with the snows or the stars or\nanything?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nNo, except I think I did say to somebody that it would be\nsafe to say that you'll probably have the answer before the snows melt\nin the Sierra.\nO.\nThat' next spring.\nO.\nIn Mammoth or here?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nWay up high, on the mountains.\nQ.\nGovernor, there continues to be some efforts made on both\nsides of the aisle to try to get a reapportionment bill of some kind\nthrough. Do you think there is a chance of that happening or do you\nthink it would be even worthwhile to Gry to do that?\nA.\nAs far as I know the court took over jurisdiction as of the\nend of December. It is in the hands of the court. I am still\nopposed to the idea of any gerrymander. I'm opposed, I guess, to\nreapportionment on the basis of party affiliation, and I was ld hope\nthat the court, if it is going to carry forward with this, -- that\nthe court would reapportion on a basis of population and the contiguity\nof communities, and interests of communities that would give them a\nbasis for having a representative at the state level and with no\nregistration.\nQ.\nDo you thin. the legislature is the bes body for reappor-\ntionment itself or should there be someone else?\nA.\nNo, I have always felt that there is a built-inlconflict of\ninterest with regard to the legislature. There can't help but be, and\nI don't blame them for it. And to -- there might be a cure if there\nwere laid down specific sonstitutional considerations, that -- and\nthose and only those could be involved in the arriving at district\nlines. And then the legislature could go forward with that. But\nit is asking an awful lot of an encumbent, for example, to -- even if\nfairness dictates it to the people, asking an encumbent to vote his\ndistrict out of existence. And perhaps we should find a better way\nof doing it.\nQ.\nWould you prefer guidelines or do you think some other body\n:should be responsible for reapportionment?\nA.\nI can't -- I couldn't say that I've given it that much thought\nto know, but I just -- as I say, I just think we have got to come to\nan end of this every ten years cutting up the state like a melon to suit\nwhoever happens to be in power at the moment.\nQ.\nDo you also feel the governor then should have no say in it\neither?\nA.\nWell, if there is -- if there is a formula set up where\nsomeone outside the legislature does it, fine. If you are going to\ngo by way of the legislative process, then the governor has got to be\ninvolved.\nO.\nGovernor, do you plan to send a statement of support in any way\n(Clark)\nwhen your Supreme C ourt appointment comes up -- in a hearing for your\nappointment to the Supreme Court, or plan to go yourself?\nA.\nNo, I think the very fact that I have appointed him is -- my\nstatement of support, and if any such thing is called for I think it\nwould be redundant. I think everyone knows my position that's\ninvolved in this. Certainly the commission must know it or they\nwouldn't bavebbeempappointed.\nQ.\nGovernor, on the subject of the state hospitals, Senator\nBiddle says the administration seems to be changing its attitude about\nhow fast it wants to close some of them. Specifically Patton State\nHospital, and may want to leave it open for a number of years more.\nIs that correct?\nA.\nWell, I think this again is a subject that should be taken\nup with Secretary Brian, Earl Brian. But I think that very\nshortly we will be presenting a plan. He will be presenting a plan\nof\nthis constant specu¹ tion and rumor and fear that goes on about closing\nof individual hospitalsand so forth. But a long range plan in the\nentire field of mental hygiene and such a plan is in the works, will\nbe presented and it will be premature for me to comment on it now.\nQ.\nGovernor, have you made any inquiry with your Department of\nFinance or the Department of C onsumer Affairs as to why bureaucratic\nred tape has held up the program to monitor the flow of legitimate\ndrugs in illicit hands, which you support very --\nA.\nYes, as a matter of fact, there is no bureaucratic hangup in\nthis. This is a program that I asked for, it was my legislation that\nI had submitted to the legislature with regard to the tracking of\nlegitimate drugs to ensure that they do not get into illegitimate\nhands, and illegitimate channels, because this has been one of the great\nparts of the drug problem, is the actual use of such things as\namphetamines, things of thatkind that were created for a medicinal\npurpose and then wind up in the illicit market and is part of the\ndrug culture. So I asked for the legislation. Now, this is to be\nset out -- this must be computerized because you are talking about\nmillions of transactions and being able to track them. Well, anyone\nthat's ever been involved with this knows that you don't just instantly\ncomputerize an operation, and actually this process started last July.\nAnd there are many problems inherent in it, we are going forward as fast\nas we can with it. We still have some of the computerizing in other\nareas of the state government that we started in the first year we\nwere here, and they are sti 11 not completed. It is a tremendous\nund ertaking and for anyone to suggest that we are footdragging on our\nown program is a little silly.\nQ.\nWell, is the one year past the deadline in your own legisla-\ntion footdragging, Governor?\nA.\nNo, not when it involved the computerization of this entire --\nthis entire task.\nQ.\nYou say the program is operational now?\nA.\nNo, I can't say that, no. It is still in the process of\nmaking this computerized operation. I can say it means the tracking\nof millions of transactions throughout the whole United States.\nQ.\nIs it possible that part of the delay is because of questions\nbeing asked by the pharmaceutical companies themselves about techniques\nnot used to follow these drugs?\nA.\nI don't know what part they would play in that at all. or\nwhat their participation -- I don't know enough about the computerizing\nthat goes forward to know how much information you must have from\nthem. I'm sure you ...ust have some, that's where the -- that's where\nthe drugs start out in the first place.\nQ.\nBut do you know whether -- if they are cooperating at all?\nA.\nI'm sure they are, I've had no complaints that they aren't.\nThere's been no evidence that they aren't.\nQ.\nWould you say that the fact that it isn't fully operational\none year after the deadline, that that kind of delay is justifiable\nin your mind?\nA.\nYes, I would say that there is no physical way to get around\nit.\nIf Senator Moscone wasn't running for Governor I doubt if the\nsubject would ever have come up.\nO.\nGovernor, do you think the Vietnam war was war it for this\ncountry?\nA.\nWell, I think you can ask that about any war that's ever\nbeen fought. Always afterwards you can look back and find a way in\nwhich the war could have been avoided. For example, this war could have\nbeen avoided if the North Vietnamese had stayed home and hadn't tried\nto conquer South Vietnam. There didn't have to be a single shot\nfired.\nAnd now we go back 19 years to 1954, in the Geneva Accords,\nand the country that didh't obey them was North Vietnam, not South\nVietnam, because South Vietnam and the United States never signed the\nAccords. And the reason they never signed them was because the\nNorth Vietnamese refused to agree to international supervision of\nelections.\nQ.\nBut do you think it was worth it for this country to fight\nthe war?\nA.\nI think the war was badly fought for many years. The\nquestion that will have to be answered, wheribsomeone knows all of the\ninformation, and obviously none of us do, that was available to Presi-\ndent Kennedy when he sent the first combat troops in against a great\ndeal of advice, and certainly centrary to the policy that had been pursus\nby the Eisenhower administration before him, I don't know how to\njudge that action because, as I say, we don't have the facts. Once\nin it was a constant case of escalating. Today there are indications\nand there have been testimony before Congressional committees that\nindicate that the military said from the very first that once them\nembarked on that trail it would have to go up to in excess of a half\na million people if they were to complete the job. My greatest\ncriticism down through the years of the war was that under two\nadministrations they apparently were unwibling to win it and unable to\n-11-\nend it. And I chall nge and question the right of any gobernment\nto ask men to fight for their country and die for their country if\nthat country isn't willing and doesn't believe in the cause enough\nto go forward and end the war by terminating, by winning it. And\nwhether -- no, there is -- I think there is a great useless sacfifice\nat any time. We can go back in World War II to 1938 when President\nRoosevelt asked for a quarantine of Nazi Germany, a sealing of the\nborders, the ending of all communication and trade across thos e\nborders. If somebody listened to him then we might not have had\nWorld War II. We do have wars and unfortunately it doesn't take\ntwo to start a war, itonly takes one aggressor who is willing to make\nslaves of other people and CIO sses a border with the guns going off.\nO.\nAnother subject.\nA.\nYes.\nO.\nCurrently there are two no-fault automobile insurance bills,\nand attthe time they do not require mandatory immediate reduction\nof premiums. Would you support a bill that did not do that?\nA.\nWell, we are watching those bills, and you know my reluctance\nto comment on legislation before it gets down -- watching those and\nwe understand there are a number of amendments that the bar wants to\nalso introduce to those bills, and we are closely monitoring those.\nMy own approach is one in which there -- no-fault insurance should\nbe based on an advantage to the consumer.\nQ.\nWould you like to see a direct reduction of premiums?\nA.\nWell, I would hope that that -- although I don't know that\nthat would -- could be the only advantage, but whatever -- the bill\nmust improve the situation for the wolder of the insurance policy.\nThat's who we are seeking to benefit and I would think that a major\nfactor in there would be consideration of a lower cost for insurance.\nQ.\nYour Department of Consumer Affairs suggest they world and\nyour Insurance Commissioner said they would like to see a direct ten\nto fifteen per cent reduction in premiums.\nA.\nNow, those figures that you are putting down are figures\nthat you thought of. I wouldn't have the information or the knowledge\n\"to name a figure.\nQ.\nAny more questions?\n0.\nYes, just one follow-up question. With regard to the Clark\nnomination, do you have any indication that the State Bar will render\na report to you prior to the action of the commission on Judicial\n-12-\nAppointments in San F. cisco?\nA.\nI don't know whether I'm on the list or not. It is my\nunderstanding that whatever report they are going to issue is going\nto be confidential and is going to be to the members of the commission.\nI wouldn't see any necessity to render one to me unless they thought'\nin some way that there was some information that they needed from me\nor some reference from me. But it is to be confidential.\nO.\nWhat would happen in the event that the commission should\nturn down the Clark nomination, would you press the matter further\nor would you pick another nomination or have you crossed that bridge\nyet?\nA.\nNo, I haven't even anticipated crossing that bridge. One\npossibility is if I can find a way for the administration to secede\nfrom California.\nO.\nGovernor, forgive me, I just have one followeup question on\nCillinit downo)\nthis. Realizing the real difficulties in developing a computer\nprogram, that is the reason for the delay, but were you aware that they\ndidn't begin development work on the computer program for six months\nbeyond the deadline because your administration refused to accept\nfederal funds for the program?\nA.\nNo, and I don't believe that that's true.\nVOICE: That's not correct.\nA.\nI don't know of anything.\n:\nIt is a $119,000 grant from the C.C.C.J.\nVOICE: Mr. Turner from our office is in the back of the\nroom. If he wants to contact him and get the information later.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-13-\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD FEBRUARY 13, 1973\nReporter by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, nocorrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accumacy.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We have visitors again today.\nRichard Reinharts of the University of California Journalism class\nfrom Berkeley. 17 of them, I understand the number, are here with\nus. So I'm sure that you will all carry on in your customary manner\nand show them the integrity and responsibility of the working press\nso that they will be inspired to go forth and do likewise.\nO.\nGovernor, one quick question on the tax program.\nwho\nin the Finance Department is thebest man to talk to for technical\ninformation?\nED MEESE: Verne Orr.\nA.\nVerne Orr, yes.\nQ.\nGovernor, how would you have felt aming into office with\nan income tax limitation or locked in the Constitution?\nA.\nWell, it is not necessarily income tax limitation,\nO.\nWell, it can't be raised without a vote of the people.\nA.\nNo, no, within the framekwork of the over-all limitation\non the percentage of revenues the legislature has the full power to\nchange the tax structure by their votes, raise one, lower another,\nAll that the permanent plan is asking is that over a 15-year period\nwe come down to a limitation on the percentage of the total gross\nincome of the people of California. That we simply say government,\nstate government cannot take above this certain percentage.\nNow, this is an idea that is, I think, far more widespread\nthan just California. We happen to be the first ones that have moved\nbut there is coming a in economic circles to be a recognition that\ntoday with the total tax burden at 34 and 84/100 cents out of every\ndollar earned in the United States, and with the fact that the -- the\ngrowth rate or the increase rate indicates that within a very few\nyears we are going to pass the 50 per cent mark, most economists have\n-1-\ncome to the conclus' that this is an economic raq, that we cannot\nlick inflation and we can -- and we are headed for disaster unless\nwe reduce the percentage of the people's income that government is\nccsting. And we have sought to do whis without any serious disruption\nover a 15-year period on a gradual reduction down to a percentage\n(tax)\nthat would never fall below at any time thism] imitation will\nnever fall below the present per capita tax burden dollarwise in\nconstant dollars if - as it stands now we believe that the two\nlines, the line of -- of decreasing at one tenth of one percent a year\nfor 15 years is above the line of constant dollars based on the '67\ndollar which was 300 the per capita burden was $360 in California,\nthat -- for state government. That if we stay at this, letting\nthis 360 go to whatever figure it has to go to, to equal inflation\nwhich is the meaning of constant dollars, and I know that many people\ncan get confused by that - so that the burden never falls below\nthat, we find that actually at that 7. == 7.15 per cent limit that\nwe have projected 15 years ahead, we are still above the constant\ndollar. If at that point they wanted to take alook and keep on\ngoing to get to the constant dollar thing, it might even be as low\nas five or six per cent.\nO.\nYeah, but, Governor, would you have done -- taken all the\nremedial measures that you claim to have taken had this stricture\nbeen on you when you came into office?\nA.\nThe thing that we would have faced was this, that I\ninherited some spending strictures that had been imposed by a\nprevious administration:in the last few months of the previous admini-\nstration they implemented the Medi-Cal program. This\nprogram\nitself, they only had a few months of operation, we were the ones\nthat discovered that it had been vastly underrated as to cost,\nthat their estimates of what it was going to cost didn't begin to\ntouch the program. We announced that within six months, I think, of\nbeing in office or less, and started right then trying to wrestle with\nthat problem. Now, if they had imposed a revenue stricture on us\nand then passed a program that went far beyond that limit, of course\nwe would have had a problem, but we have met that emergency in this\npresent proposal. That any time there is a spending measure or a\nservice of government that -- that they want to propose, that the\npeople by their vote can lift the income ceiling on the basis of -\nthat they would rather have that service than the money.\nO.\nGovernor, a number of democrats haven't been too receptive\nto your plan and one of them, John Burton, says that they are going\nto kill it. Will you comment on that, first, and secondly the\nDemocrats also said they may offer an alternative plan. Would you\nbe amenable to any changes in yours?\nA.\nWell, I'd like to seewhat - what the changes are proposed\nwith regard to John Burton and some of the others who have commented.\nI think it would be very interesting if they would bring their open\nminds to the briefings that we intend to hold for them since they\nmade their comments with no briefings on the plan. We will be happy\nto tell them and we intend to tell them all about it and they can\nmake any of their objections or their questions known at the time.\nI think that some of the proposals that Assemblyman Burton suggested\nabout an alternative plan smacked of the same kind of demagoguery\nthat has led to the economic mythology that is so prevalent today.\nFor example, most of what he was proposing were efforts to get more\nrevenue from the people, not less. So he centered on, of course,\nwe will close the oil depletion allowance, and this is going to be\nthe magic word that makes everything happen well in California.\nWell, if you totally wiped out the oil depletion allowance you\nget about 22 million dollars and this -- I don't know just exactly\nwhat this is supposed to solve or to cure. You also put out of\nbusiness not the major companies but you put out of business a number\nof marginal independent small operators in California. You wipe out\na certain amount of employment in doing it and the 22 million dollars\nthat you get by closing the oil depletion allowance will be made up\nby the increased price you will pay for gas and oil at the oil\nstations because it has to be passed on to the people. So it is\nagain, as I say -- it is pure demagoguery and it is economic nonsense\nand there is no other way to portray it. We are talking about\ntrying to get a handle on and reduce the 43.84 cents that the people\nof California are paying now, and which in 15 years will be 54.56\ncents unless something is done.\nO.\nActually, Governor, wouldn't your plan allow the legislature\nif it chose within the confines of the constraints you propose --\nwouldn't it allow the legislature to close loopholes if it wanted to?\nA.\nThat's right, all of this is provided for. It has been\nleft to the legislative process. It has been left to the legislative\nprocess as to how they will reduce the tax burden to meet the one-\ntenth of one percent. Actually I think the 10 per cent income tax\nreduction that we have proposed will go a long way toward -- in\nthe first year, at least, possibly longer, in meeting that one\nper cent cut.\nO.\nGovernor, did you discuss this with President Nixon\nyesterday?\nA.\nNo, he made a remark that he was aware of the fact that\nwe were proposing giving some 850 million dollars back to the people\nand he asked if we had any for him and I told him that in arriving\nat the surplus we had to save the federal government about 350\nmillion dollars a year in welfare and Medicaid costs or we wouldn't\nhave had that surplus in California.\nO.\nGovernor, your schedule calls for you to make a number of\nstops across the state in talking with various organizations and\npress groups about this plan, yet you have yet to meet with the\nDemocrats in the legislature.\nA.\noh, no, we have met with the leadership of the Democrats.\nWe met last week with them. We had a briefing first with our own\nlegislative leadership which I thought was a courtesy to them and\nthe caucus and the following one was with the Democratic leadership.\nWe have met with them, we intend now to continue having briefings\nfor all of the legislature, for committee members, and so forth,\nand the briefings that I'm going to do we have done on a number of\noccasions with a number of programs all the way back to '67.\nWe\nare going to one, two, three, four points in the State. We have\ninvited in all of the editorial beards of all the communication\nmedia in those four areas to have at us with a complete background\nbriefing and all thequestions they want to ask.\nO.\nAre you going to be willing to take suggestions or make\nchanges in your proposal to use up the surplus?\nA.\nWell, so far none came. In all of the briefings we went\nin and we told them -- after all of our hours of study, that this\nwas the best proposal that we felt was the fairest, but we - we\nsolicited this, we said any input Terms welwelcome any input that anyone\nmay have. So far there have been no specific suggestions to us.\nQ.\nWould you be willing to change your mind on some of these\nitems or compromise?\nA.\nI would think in this one area that we would be certainly\nhappy to look at anything that we might not have considered that\nmight improve or make more fair, if possible, the redistribution\nof that money.\nc\nGovernor Reagan, if you must take your bill to the people\nand the Democrats have said they will take another bill to the people,\n-4-\nare you perfectly satisfied with letting the people decide between\nthe two of them?\nA.\nSure. All I have asked of the legislature now, with the\nexception of the things that simply call for legislative action\nand the constitutional amendment, it has to go to the people and all\nI've said to the legislature, I don't ask for their approval\nor disapproval, do what I have done a number of times in signing\ntheirs, the legislature put several measures on the ballot --\nGray\nPAUL BECK: Seven.\nGOVERNOR\nREAGAN:\n- and I have signed those even though\nI disagreed with many of them, but signed them on the basis that I\nagreed with the right of the people to make the decision.\nO.\nGovernor, how long are you willing to wait for the legisla-\nture to act on this program before you make up your mind that you\nare going to go to the people directly and put it on the ballot?\nAre you going to wait for two years? This is a two year session.\nA.\nNo, I'm not going to wait any two years in a two-year\nsession. I think that as long as it looks like the legislature\nis honestly dealing with this problem, and ready to make a decision\non it, I'll wait for them. If, on the other hand, they start\nloving it to death and making constant public utterances that they\nare in favor of similar tax reform, they just disagree with the\nprovisions of this one, and it goes on that they never come up\nwith anything on the other side, then I don't think I'll have any\nalternative. Actually, I don't think it would be a case of me\nhaving to go to the people, I think the people will come to them,\njust as they did on welfare.\nO.\nIn the briefing for the press the other day wasn't the\nmonth of October and November mentioned -- mentioned as the time\nit would be put on the ballot?\nA.\nThiswas an estimate that we believed -- if the legislature\nwill act on this we believe that the election could be held next\nSeptember. If we didn't, I said that I felt that we would know\nby that time that it was going to have to be a people's initiative\nand that would delay it until a November election.\nO.\nGovernor, where -- how would you go about getting signatures\nfor a thing like this?\nA.\nWell, I think there are -- by that time the familiarity\nwith the program that we are going to try to achieve, I think that\n-5-\nthere are enough groups that are going to be interested in this\nwho for a long time have been seeking some kind of tax reduction\nthat they will take over -- they will take care of that.\nO.\nHow would you pay for the gathering of the signatures,\nwould you do it on your own? Where would the money come from?\nA.\nNo, you'd have to get enough people in the public who are\ninterested in raising the money and going forward with the effort\nand circulating the petitions to do this. Actually the capital\npunishment amendment didn't take any money, the people just did it\non their own.\nQ.\nNew subject.\nA.\nNew subject.\nO.\nOr are you -\nQ.\nGovernor, I was just wondering, with the high preponderance.\nof the large number of POW's being from California, I was wondering\nif you were going to take any specific action or had any plans in\nmind relating to the return of POW's to the United States.\nA.\nWe have a liaison right now with the federal government on\nthis. Anything that can be done, we of course have been quite in\nthe lead already on Vietnam veteran employment programs and so forth,\nand we are working closely with them for anything that will\ncoordinate and anything that they can point out that we can do in\nthis regard.\nO.\nGovernor, the California Trial Lawgers Association has\nissued a resolution calling your appointment of Justice Clark\nindefensible, and stating that it has created widespread opposition.\nThere is widespread opposition to this appointment in the highest\nof circles, what is your reaction on that, it calls upon you to with-\ndraw it.\nA.\nWell, I have to differ with the idea of how widespread is\nthe opposition because we have quite the contrary reaction, And\nI'm quite sure that if they will look into Justice Clark's record,\nas much as and as thoroughly as we have and the others who have been\nconnected with it, they will agree with a great many distinguished\nlawyers in the State who will find that it is totally defensible\nand that he has a record that justifies this appointment. I just\ndon't believe that they are aware of that as yet.\nO.\nCan you name such a distinguished lawyer who has endorsed\nthis appointment?\n-6-\nA.\nOh, for heaven's sakes, they are in the scores and scores.\nAs a matter of fact you will know the answer to that, I think, on\nMarch 2. You will see a great many people present at the open\nhearing who will be testifying.\nO.\nBut offhand you can't think of a one?\nED MEESE: I think there are a lot of them, but --\nA.\nYes, a great many and I think for me to just fish out a\nname\nO.\nCan you issue any kind of a list?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nCan you issue any kind of a list since you -- since you keep\nmentioning this and you don't give any specific names.\nA.\nYou are questioning my word?\nO.\nNo, but -- if you keep mentioning it, why not back it up.\nA.\nWell, a great many of them, I think there have been public\nstatements that some have been printed, some have appeared of\njurists who have expressed their approval of him. I don't think\nthis is any great secret. And my personal correspondence contain\nmany others. I can think of names, I know of names. I've always\nbeen a little hesitant about my repeating what someone else has\nsaid to me without going to them and saying, \"Do you mind if I make\npublic the fact that you have said this to m.\"\nED MEESE: I suggest, Governor, if there are any\nadditional names that are not included in the 2nd of March hearing\nwe can then talk about making that available.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: All right.\nO.\nGovernor, do you have any suspicion that Chief Justice\nWright might be opposing Bill Clark?\nA.\nNo, no, I haven't at all. As a matter of fact Chief\nJustice Clark is a member of the three-man panel that approved him\nunanimously for his appointment to the Appellate court.\nED MEESE: Chief Justice Wright.\nA.\nor Chief Justice Wright, that wasn't a Freudian slip.\nO.\nGovernor, much has been made of the fact that Clark hasn't\nhad his opinions or decisions reversed, butisn't that because the\nAppellate process is so slow that he's been on there too shore a\ntime to have any reversed?\nA.\noh, no, he's -- as a matter of fact, one of the - one of\n-7-\npluses on his side, 8 certainly as a Superior urt Justice\nand I would think it would be true in that other position here, was\nthat he was able to speed up at least in his own court the process\nand not have as big a backlog as seems to be the average throughout\nthe state.\nO.\nAnother subject.\nA.\nAll right.\nO.\nGovernor, are you familiar with the hospital and nursing\nhome program that Dr. Brian and Bielenson laid out here about a half\nan hour or so ago?\nA.\nWell, I know the general idea. I think if you get too\nspecific I'd have to refer you to ---\nO.\nWell, the program contains a provision for price control,\nto set up a state agency to control prices in hospitals and nursing\nhomes, to control rate inc reases in hospitals add nursing homes and\nmy question is, would it be better -- do you believe that the state\nshould do this or do you believe that the market should regulate\nprices?\nA.\nWell, this is -- this is presently the situation. We\nare not proposing any new price control that does not already exist\nin this field. What we are proposing is that the federal government,\nwhich has an economic stabilization board controlling this now, that\nit properly should be at the state level.\nQ.\nBut the President -- hasn't the President just disbanded it\nin effect in Phase 3, so that these price controls are --\nA.\nI think this is one of the areas where it has not been\nED MEESE: Health Industry Board was continued.\nO.\nGovernor, on another subject. Have you been given any\nestimate at all as to what effect the federal government cutbacks\nare going to have on higher education in California in terms of the\nUniversity and so on?\nA.\nNo, as a matter of fact, all of these plans and what\nthey are doing, we don't have details and specific information on\nthis. We are trying to keep abreast of it. I think there is\nstill some uncertainty in Washington of what is going to be done.\nQ.\nAre youconcerned about the possibility that this could\nhave rather a serious effect on the revenues that the University\nand State Universities have to get?\nA.\nWell, you always have to be concerned and it would be a\n-8-\nproblem. On the other hand, I have taken the pos ion that\nwith the administration in Washington trying to do thevery thing\nthat we believe in and that we have tried to do here statewide, I\ncertainly would not be one who wanted to say make whatever cuts you\nwant to make but make them in some place other than California.\nI think if we are actually going to reverse this big spending trend\nand start trimming fat as we must, if we are to avoid a catastrophe,\nan economic catastrophe, I think that all of us have got to put in\nour share.\nQ.\nAnother subject. You said in your last news conference\nthat you thought that reappoitionment was now in the hands of the\nState Supreme Court. Does that automatically mean you would veto\nany reapportionment bill that came to you no matter how favorable\nit would be to Republicans?\nA.\nNo, I was simply explaining that as far as I know the\nCourt had not rescinded from its position of saying that if it had\nnot been done in the last session it was in their hands, and they\nwere going to take it over, Actually, with all of these last several\ndays concentrating on the tax preggam, I have not had an opportunity\nfor a briefing with the legislative leadership as to what is going\non with regard to reapportionment. I am expecting a -- such\nmeetings and to find out what is going on. But, no, I -- you know,\nI don't comment in advance whether I would or not veto.\nQ.\nAre you aware of any major erosion in the Assembly in\nsupport of the Democratic reapportionment plan?\nA.\nOnly what I've read in the papers.\nO.\nDoes that concern you?\nA.\nWhat?\nO.\nAre you worried about it?\nA.\nWell, I'd be concerned anyway. I still -- I subscribe\non\nto one belief and one only,/reapportionment, the first requirement\nmust be fairness to all the people.\nQ.\nGovernor, would you like to backtrack to the POW's for a\nsecond.\nWould you sign Assemblyman Karabian's bill exempting these\nprisoners from tax while they were --\nA.\nAs quickly as he could get it to my desk.\n2.\nGovernor, Senator Harmer said several weeks ago in\nreapportionment he had talked with you and had gotten an absolute\ncommitment from you that you would look at the Senate Bill with an\nopen mind.\nDidyou makethis commitment?\nA.\noh, certainly. Heavens, contrary to what maybe some of\nthe people in the back of the room bel ieve, I look at everything with\nan open mind before I vote no,\n(Laughter)\nA.\nNo, the last line was a bad joke, I didn't mean thqt.\nNo,\nsure I made that commitment, very willingly.\nQ.\nYou aid in your briefings with the legislators on the ---\nyour plans for giving back the surplus to the people that no one had\ncome up with any other proposal other than the onessyou have put out.\nDid no one support Alan Post's recommendation that we spend the\nmoney on construction projects instead of issuing bonds?\nA.\nNo, no one has as yet. We told them in the briefing that\nwe had taken that one as well as all the others and had examined\nthat one thoroughly, and came to our own belief that this was --\nthis was not a fair way to do it. To suddenly take a group of\ntaxpayers who had made possible this great surplus and then make\nthem pay for almost a billion dollars worth of projects that would\nbe created in perpetuity over for dozens and dozens of future\ngenerations to enjoy. That's the principal behind bonding, to\nspread the cost of these long-time benefits over all the people.\nO.\nGovernor, many of unforeseen and undesirable problems\ncaused by SB 90 are now coming to light and Finance people have some\npeople working on resolving some of those problems. Doesn't that\nfact concern -- wouldn't that make one a little slower on these\nproposals, to put a lid on state spending or state taxes powers?\nA.\nWell, I think what you are talking about with SB 90, yes.\nLike any big and major complicated piece of legislation that did a\nlot of things such as transferring hundreds of millions of dollars\nof local costs to state costs, imposing then a limit on the local\ncosts so that the people wouldn't be just simply having a tax\nincrease. Yes, you find bugs in a program of that kind, and our\npeople are working with the lgislature upstairs. These are mostly\ntechnical problems that are being eliminated. We have had a task\nforce working, as I said before -- we have had many hours of our\nown on this whole program of the supposed limitation or it is a\nlimitation but I think it is being misinterpreted by many. Most\npeople think that what we are going to do is start here at a point\nand state revenues are going to do this. They are not. They are\ngoing to continue increasing. All we have done is flatten out a\n-10-\nlittle the rate of increase, so that it does not come on a converging\npath with the people's earnings. Presently if you go far enough\ninto the future and you don't have to go too far, these two lines\nare going to cross, the people's earnings and the cost of government.\nAnd what we are saying is some place someone has to meet that\nproblem and you'd better meet it before we are already up there\nwithin ten per cent of that. So we are meeting it here and all\nwe are doing -- there will continue to be increase inthe state's\nrevenues. It will not be increasing as fast as the people's income.\nSo that as the people grow more prosperous they will be getting a\nbigger shareof their own earnings or keeping a bigger share than\nthey are presently keeping. And I've often thought maybe we did the\nwrong thing, maybe before we talked about this being a program of\ntax reduction maybe I should have stood up here in front of you and\nsaid we have been projecting forward what we think should be the\ncosts of government, and we now are projecting forward doubling the\npresent budget in the next ten years, tripling it in the next 15\nyears, and see how many of you would go screaming out of here of how\nextravagant old Scrooge had suddenly become. Because under this\nso-called limitation the state will be able to have a budget if it\nuses all the revenues available to it, of 18 and a half billion\ndollars in ten years. And a budget of over 27 billion dollars in\n15 years. And I think that if the future governments or administra-\ntions and legislatures of California can not keep their spending\nwithin that limit, then we might as well throw up our hands.\nO.\nYes, but my question was, when you -- wouldn't it be wiser\nto wait and see what thelong-range effect of SB 90 is on local\ngovernment before you start applying that principle to state govern-\nment?\nA.\nWell, I think it is pretty apparent what the long-range\nthing is. Actually, we haven't made that much of a dent. They\nare still -- before SB 90 local government was getting about six\nand a half billion dollars of its revenue from the property tax.\nNow we have rolled back that -- that back slightly in the area of\nthe school tax but the bulk of other government -- local government\nexpenses are still dependent on the property tax. And it\njust\nhasn't been that much of a major change.\n-11-\nQ.\nGovernor, sn't this a problem, though\nthat should be\nresolved by future legislatures and fugure governors rather than\nlocking them into a constitutional amendment? Under the whole\nprocess of government under which we operate shouldn't they have\nthis flexibility to determine what they want to do?\nA.\nExcept that you have to face past history. As I said\nbefore, and in our briefings, you know that no administration\nthat you can recall has worked harder and had more of a policy of\ntrying to reduce the cost of government, and we have found there are\nirresistible pressures. We have reduced where we have actually had\ncontrol of departments administratively -- we have reduced them.\nBut that's the smallest part of our budget. Two-thirds of our\nbudget we are giving back to local government. But past history,\nthe fact that 1930 government's federal, state and local were only\ntaking 15 cents out of the dollar; the fact that 20 years later\nthey were taking 30 cents; the fact that today they are taking 43.8\ncents and that in 15 years they are going to be taking almost 55 cents\nout of thedollar indicates that something different mus t be done\nif we are to preserve this economic system and the people be\nallowed to provide for themselves and their own livelihcod.\nQ.\nIsn't there something different that ought to be done, is\nto elect public officials who agree with your philosophy, not locking\npublic officials in under the constitution?\nA.\nWe are locking them in only to the extent that the people\nwill have the final decision as to whether this limitation would be\nraised and at any time they want to the legislature can submit this\nto the people. The legislature has the provision within its hand\nto meet any emergency. The people can -- can delay by their vote\nthe imposition of any decrease in the future. The people can\npermanently change the limit. We have also made the provision that\nin the event of other changes, for example, a Serrano decision, that\nwould take from local government a big chunk of expense and transfer\nit to the state, we don't say that has to be fitted within the limit.\nWe say then that adds to the limit over here, but in return the people\nmust be guaranteed that their own local governments cannot just\nsuddenly take that as a subsidy and put their taxes right back up\nto wherethey were before they were relieved of that expense.\nThe final authority for this being in the hands of the\npeople, I don't think is anything contrary to our present system.\nAs a matter of fact, one of the legislators in the briefing the other\nday with the utmost C. sincerity said to me -- We , he said\n\"with the people voting against bond issues and voting them down,\nwhat makes you think the people would ever vote to increase the tax\nlimit?\" Well, I have a question in response. What makes him\nthink that if the people knowing what the money is for are absolutely\nopposed to spending it and would rather keep it in their own pockets,\nthen what makes him think that some little group of people up here\nin Sacramento should have the authority to impose it on them?\nWe are not omnipotent up here. We don't have a market on brains\nand I don't think that we were sent up here to rule the people's\nlives. Now maybe the fault is that in our system some place back\nmany years ago, both at the federal level and at the state level,\nwe didn't have a provision that said that any time a legislator\nadvocates a spending program he must advocate at the same time a\nrevenue measure to pay for it. But they sit there with no responsi-\nbility whatsoever, promise the people a seven billion dollars project\nwith no way of paying for it and then waiting, hoping that the\nonus of paying for it will fall on someone else. And I don't think\nthere is anything wrong with the - with a major program of this\nkond of the people being given the opportunity to decide whether\nthey want that service at the price and maybe they will. I'm quite\nsure there are many programs that right now, if you said to the\npeople, \"We are going to cancel this program and it will save you\nthis much,\" the people would say, \"We'd rather pay.\" As a matter\nof fact, we did a poll on this a few years ago with regard to the\ngasoline tax. We said, \"Would you prefer a two per cent -- two\ncent cut in the gasoline tax and here is the reduction that would\nresult in the building of the present highway system, Master Plan\nof Highways.\" And the poll revealed that the people overwhelmingly\npreferred to pay the tax and keep on with the present pace of\nhighway building.\nSQUIRE: Any more que stions?\nQ.\nGovernor, isn't one of the reasons that the amount of the\ndollar going to taxes has increased up to this amount is that over\nthese 30 or 40 years we have got unemployment insurance, social\nsecurity, Medi-Cal and Medicare and all the rest, and aren't you\nsaying you want to go back to the days before that?\nA.\nNo, no, we -- ours is based on the present setup with\nfactored-in fnflation and growth and I think some leeway for new\nprograms. We are talking about, as I said, a budget that will\nthat point as to how uch bigger it will become and we are recog-\nnizing the fact that a great many of these things that we reached\na pleteau here where we have this one-time surplus and where we have\nenvisioned an on-going surplus and we think this is the moment at\nwhich this could be done. Now, youcould not have done this back\nin 1965 or '66 and then passed Medicare as it was passed on tap of\nit without -- without blowing your program. But, again, as we have\nsaid, if somebody comes up in the future with some type of social\nreform that we have never even considered, and that no one can envision\nnow, that the provision is there for the people to buy that if they\nwant topay the price. Now, if they don't wgnt to pay th e price\nit must be a service that the people do not actually believe is\ngood for them or worth that price.\nO.\nWould you consider this to be your legacy, your final mark\nas being a Governor, ifyou were go get this?\nA.\nWhy, I think that the whole six years of brilliant business\nadministration of the State of California is the legacy.\nO.\nAny more questions?\nA.\nNo, I think --\nQ.\nThis is the most important thing you ever did, if this\nh appens?\nWould you consider that to be --\nA.\nI never thought of it that way. I've thought of it as\nabsolutely necessary and necessary on a wider basis than just\nCalifornia. As I have told you before, a leading economist ---\nthe men we consulted in the country have recognized that we\ncannot continue the upward rise in the percentage of the people's\nearnings. Government, yes, is going to increase in cost due to\ngrowth in the economy, due to inflation. Due to growth, numbers\nof people and so forth.\nO.\nGovernor, let me ask, do you think that this could be\nextended to the federal government, too, that this would work on a\nfederal scale?\nA.\nYes, I do. Yes, I do.\nSQUIRE: Back over there.\nO.\nI was wondering if you could tell me whether your projections\nof state tax revenues are made on the basis of present population\ngrowth within the state?\nA.\nWe have factored in a percentage of growth that is about -\non an average of about two per cent growth and we have factored\nin an inflation rate also into these projections. Now, again, this\n-14-\nis why the emergency I ovisions are in there, be se obviously\nyour projections can go awry. But on the same time, we look back\nthrough history at the economic processes we have. The people\nthat are used throughout the state to give us our estimates of\neconomic growth and state revenues, and we find that their percentage\nof error is down so minor that it is -- it is almost unbelievable.\nThe highest error that has ever been -- that has been made in the\nyears that we went back and looked was, Ithink, a 2.9 per cent error\nbut -- that was exceptional and most of the time -- and that 2.9 per\ncent error was in our favor. In other words, the conomists had\nunderestimated revenues. Most of the time it has run six-tenths of\none per cent, eight-tenths of one percent, one percent, one and a half,\nthis kind of margin of error.\nO.\nI don 't question your accuracy as well as I might question\nthe advisability of planning in a set rate of growth for the state\ngiven certain unvironmental curves for planning a population in the\nfuture.\nED MEESE: May I make a suggestion, the whole plan is\nbased on the State's gross income and that has a factor with popula-\ntion. In other words, if we have a great increase inpopulation\nobviously --\nA.\nWe have a -- the growth income of the State will go up\nand therefore the limit on taxes goes up. If that levels off\nnaturally that comes down and then our percentage comes down with\nit.\nO.\nGovernor, would it be your intention to promote this on\na federal level to try to get --\nA.\nNo, what I'me always felt the position of the state could\nbe, and we did this with welfare, I came to a conclusion -- I\nthink perhaps I said it to you at one point in our deliberations on\nthe welfare reform, that for too many years everyone, including\nstate governments have kept throwing the ball to Washington and\nsaying, you know, this is wrong and that's wrong, solve it. And\nwhen you stop to think about the inertie, the effort of trying to\nturn around the gigantic bureaucracy of federal government on a\nnational scheme, national level to try and make them take an\nexperimental move in something where if the experiment proves wrong\nthere can be chaos, that perhaps the duty of the states would be\nfor us to innovate and for us to try reforms and changes and then\nthe federal government could see whether they worked. And California\nis peculiarly fitted 0 do this. We are a micr osm, we are\nliterelly a nation in ourselves here. We have everything that you\nhave at the national level, in every kind of spread. Economicwise,\npopulationwise, diversity, whatever. Now, we made the welfare\nreform work, and they are beginning to spread. Suddenly in\nWashington there is talking now of Washington doing its best to\nimplement on a wider basis the type of things that have succeeded\nhere. My belief is if California tries this, if in a few years\nyou found for some reason or other you had to cancel it, this is\nnot great -- go great chaos or national situation has developed or\neconomic crisis, but if it does work the federal government could\ntake a look at it and say, \"Why can't it be the solumion to the\nproblem there.\" Right now we see the President trying to enforce\na spending limit, trying to reduce the size and the centralization\nof authority in Washington. Well, we may have found a pattern.\nWe did not dream this up in our own minds. As you know, you have\nthe list of the economists, some of the most brilliant, scholastic\neconomists in the country. One from Berkeley and one from U.C.L.A.,\nfrom Virginia Polytech, from the University of Chicago, from all\nover the country were in on this idea. This was their proposal,\ntheir idea, and their plan, and their belief that it is absolutely\nnecessary, nationally.\nO.\nYou said you talked to the President, what was his reaction\nto your proposal for California?\nA.\nI did not go into detail with him on all of this, on this\nplan.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor,.\no00\n-16-\n3/13\nPRESS ONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONA, REAGAN\nHELD MARCH 13, 1973\nReported by: Governor's Press Office (RAS)\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is furnished\nto the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their convenience only.\nBecause of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible\nafter the conference, no corrections are made and there is no guaranty\nof absolute accuracy.)\n-0-\nGOVERNOR REAGAN read Press Release #137 dated March 13, 1973.\n8\nGovernor, does this mean you'll run for President?\nA\nThis means I have made a decision as to what I will not run for\nin 1974, and what I'm going to do beyond 1974, there's no change in\nthe answers that I've given you in the past.\n8\nDoes that exclude the possibility of running for governor again?\nA\nI again have made that very clear on a number of occasions to you\nthat I am not running for governor.\n8\nGovernor, would you elaborate a little more, please, on why you\nmade this decision, is it because you think Senator Cranston can't be\nbeaten?\nA\nNo, I think that Senator Cranston can be beaten and should be\nbeaten if the State of California is to be adequately represented in\nWashington. But I've made it very clear here what I feel. We have\nseveral very important, very major projects in these last two years\nbeginning with the tax limitation program. We have task forces work-\ning the field of law enforcement, in the field of education, and in\nthe field of the whole governmental structure of California involving\nthe local levels of government and special districts. I don't see any\nway that I can do what has to be done with all of those programs in\nthese two years, and be constantly facing questions as to whether this\nwas a part of a political campaign for some other office, or whether\nI\nor be out campaigning myself. And I prefer to be governor for the\nnext two years, not a candidate.\n8\nHave you any thoughts at this point who might be or should be a\ncandidate?\nA\nOh, I think the woods are full of them. You've seen all the\nnames speculated about them among yourselves, and I'm quite sure an\nopen primary will make the decision who our candidates are.\nQ\nGovernor, do you see yourself spending a lot of time here in\nCalifornia over the next two or three years, or do you think you might\ngo out on what some people call a banquet circuit?\n-1-\nA\nI think the nex two years I'm going to spe an awful lot of\ntime on these particular programs. I know that I'm going to spend as\nmuch time as it takes up and down the state on this one on tax limita-\ntion. But also, I'm going to do what I have done over the last several\nyears. I recognize, as I've said so often, you have a box office away;\nI'm going to try to do what I can for the party nationally. I'm going\nto, I'm quite sure, accept some invitations to fundraisers, and\nparticularly I'm interested in trying to spread this philosophy that\nI've talked about\nthis exploding the economic and political my the\nand I shall do that, but not at the cost of neglecting these tasks that\nI've outlined for the administration.\n8\nGovernor, Assemblyman Speaker Moretti rejected your proposal rather\nout of hand, but President Pro Tem Mills said they would study it care-\nfully and painstakingly over the next months. How long are you going\nto\nto give them/study it, or love this thing to death as someone mentions\nit?\nA\nWell, I think that's going to depend a little bit on them and on\nthe people. I am sending it up there with the hope that they will\nrecognize that all we're asking them to do is put this on the ballot\nand allow the people to vote on it, one way or the other. Now, I'm\ngoing to start immediately, of course, on explaining to the people and\nmaking sure that the people know because one or the other, it will be\ntheir decision. Now it does call for a constitutional amendment, so\nthere's going to be no delay in going to the people about this program\nin presenting every facet of it to the people so that they 'Il be able\nto make the proper decision.\nconsideration\n8\nIs there any personal\nthat went into this decision\nsuch as an unwillingness to serve as junior senator to John Tunney, or\nperhaps your wife's recommendations?\nA\nUh, no, no, this was the main one. I've expressed myself about\nthis particular job, and it's importance, and what I feel about it. I\nwant to do that and I want to do it without any competition from any\nother causes during these last two years. I would have to tell, yes,\nyou asked for a personal consideration\nthis was one of the lesser\nthings, because I do accept the idea of responsibility. But I would\nhave to say that I personally am not attracted by the idea of participat-\ning in a legislative body after having held an executive position of\nthis kind.\n-2-\nQ\nIf you can see that far down the line now, how do you see the two\nyears after that? What plans do you have then?\nA\nWell, there's one reason---you'd have to look at the two years\nbeyond that, and I'm just not looking.\nQ\nGovernor, do you still stand by your statement that you won't\nseek a third term as governor?\nA\nThat's right.\n2\nGovernor, regarding your tax limitation plan, Republican Senator\nBiddle put out a strong statement against it in which he says, for\ninstance, that you are choosing. (inaudible) in trying to circumvent\nthe State Legislature, and if by sad circumstance you should have to\ncarry out that threat, you will destroy constitutional order in this\nstate as surely as if you were to lead a non-rebellion.\nA\nWell, I read that statement, and it was released quite some time\nago and long before the message was sent upstairs, and I'm looking\nforward to a conversation one of these days with Craig Biddle, because\nif he hasn't changed his mind already, I think when he looks at that\nblue book, 1f he 11 look at it, he'll find that what we're doing is\nnot in any way circumventing the legislature. If it is so, then why\ndid the legislature send me eleven measures that they wanted put on the\nballot for the people to vote on. There's no way that we're circumvent-\ning the processes at all. One item would go into the constitution call-\ning for a limitation on a percentage basis which I don't think is any\nmore extreme than the present constitutional limitation which says that\nthe state cannot have an unbalanced budget. All of the tax structure\nof the state would be in the hands of the legislature; they would have\nhave\nall the prerogatives that they/today.\nQ\nGovernor, how would you finance the campaign to get the signa-\ntures and that sort of thing?\nA\nWell, that would have to come from the people\nQ\nBut 500,000 signatures would probably take a lot of money.\nA\nWell, sometimes it didn't take very many to get capital punish-\nment.\nQ\nWhat about the cost of the special election? That's been estimated\nat $5 million or so.\nA\nWell, in the first place, if we call a special election on a\ncertain date when there are a great many local elections being held.\nBut for the other part, as I've said, I personally in favor of the state\nadhering to SB 90 and funding it.\n-3-\nQ\nYou don't think he cost is too much?\nA\nNo, not when we're talking about saving the people of this state\na hundred and eighteen and a half billion dollars over the next 15\nyears.\nQ\nGovernor, on your announcement as to the Senate race, is this a\ndecision you had made some time ago, and are announcing today, or had\nyou just made the decision?\nA\nMy personal feelings were such as I have already given you. But\nas I told you before, I did want to try to keep an open mind and hear\nall of those who felt that perhaps I should do otherwise, and I have\nheard them and I have listened to them, and frankly, with the sending\nof that message upstairs yesterday, that more or less crystalized it\nin my mind. I realized that that was the most important thing I have\nto do.\nQ\nDidn't you say this whole thing in Washington last week?\nA\nNot this I didn't say in Washington last week. I said the same\nthings in Washington last week that I've been saying to you at every\npress conference, but in Washington somebody decided to put their own\ninterpretation into it.\nQ\nGovernor, if you accomplish your goal in the next two years,\nwouldn't you say that p6litically speaking that would be a good base\nto run for president on in 1976?\nA\nYou'd have to make that judgment.\nQ\nYes, but I'm sure you anticipate the Democrats will claim you're\nrunning away from a race with Senator Cranston. How confident are you,\nthat had you decided to run against the senator, you could have defeated\nhim? Or are you confident?\nA\nWell, my only answer to anyone that speculates that I'm running\naway from a fight is, you haven't seen me run away from any in the last\nsix years, have you? As a matter of fact, if there's anything that\nwould have tempted me, it would have been to take on that fight.\nQ\nIs it a fight that you could have won?\nA\nWell, let's just say I'm not running away from it.\nQ\nDo you think a man 66 can run for the presidency and win?\nA\nDo you want me to tell you about Stradivarius and what age he was\nwhen he made a violin. I've done that before. No sense in doing it\nagain.\n-4-\nQ\nYou're not going\n(inaudible)\nfor the presidency, are you?\nA\nI'm not discussing what happens beyond 1974.\nQ\nGovernor, we went through this, you know, a couple of years ago.\nWhat is your particular reason in not discussing 1976 now. Who's\nharmed if you do?\nA\nBecause I plain don't know. You fellows all know what you're\ngoing to be doing four years from now?\nQ\nGovernor, to what extent are you going to play kingmaker in 1974?\nThere's been some talk that Mr. Flournoy, there's been pressure on Mr.\nFlournoy to go after the Senate seat rather than the governorship.\nHave you talked to Mr. Flournoy about this?\nA\nI'm not only not going to play kingmaker, but I'm going to oppose\nanyone else in our party who tries to do the same thing. I think my\nmain political function now, as far as the party is concerned, is to\ninsure that we continue the unity that we have had since 1966 and that\nRepublicans make up their mind that the people of this party are going\nto choose their candidates, and having chosen those candidates, that\nwe as a party are going to unite behind them, and not go back to the\nways of 58, 62 and 64.\nQ\nGovernor, along that line, would you be opposed, then, to this\nreported prospective meeting of some of the heavy Republican financial\nbackers to try and get a consensus on who they support for governor\nin 1974?\nA\nWell, now that's an interpretation before such a meeting has even\nbeen held. I'm invited to that meeting; I'm going to that meeting, and\nI'm going with exactly the same message, and exactly the same idea and\nunderstanding that I've just expressed here\nthat this is a meeting\nthat is going to be concerned with mobilizing the power of the party\nbehind the official organization, which is the State Central Committee,\nand then making sure that after a primary, when the candidates have\nbeen selected, that the same people can get together in rooms and go\nforward unified in support of the party's candidates.\nQ\nBut you would oppose any attempt to designate a candidate for the\nprimary at this point?\nA\nYes I would.\nQ\nWill you stay neutral in the governorship primary?\n-5-\nA\nYes, I think I ve no other choice but to ;ay neutral.\nQ\nWell, before you wouldn't declare an answer.\nA\nWell, maybe I was anticipating some of the actions of other\npeople and maintaining my options.\nQ\nSo you won't back Mr. Reinecke or anyone else in the primary?\nA\nI think that what I have done in previous elections of staying\nneutral is something that is necessary if we're to have the unity that\nwe should have.\nQ\nGovernor, on another subject please, would you explain how local\ncommunities which claim, and say, that they are losing millions and\nmillions and millions of dollars because of the freeze in Washington\ncan make up the monies that they need for ongoing programs which have\nalready been started and which will now have to be stopped?\nA\nWell, I think there is a great bit of confusion about what is\ntaking place in Washington, and I think a lot of them are Chicken Littles\nagain, running and screaming that the sky is falling. This budget\nthat the president has introduced calls for an increase of eighteen and\na half billion dollars in spending, and when they start talking about\ncuts, what they're really talking about is the same as the University\nof California for the last six years has talked about me. They kept\nusing the term \"cutting the budget, If when all I've done is cut requests\nfor increases. Now the president perhaps is not giving everybody all\nthe increases they want, but he is giving an increase of eighteen and\na half billion dollars or more in this budget, and he has proposed\ndifferent methods of delivering it. And one of them is the very thing\nthat local government and state government has been asking for for\nyears. He has increased in all the areas of social welfare and social\nreform, education, and everything else\nthere are increases that he\nhas advocated and asked for. But he has proposed giving the money in\nspecial revenue sharing in those areas where local and state governments\ncan administer this money as they've asked to do for years without a\nduplication of administrative headquarters in Washington and without\nall of the red tape and the strings attached to it. Now, I'm quite\nsure that if the Congress, which doesn't look kindly on that sort of\nthing says no, that does not mean that that money disappears and that\nthose same programs are not going to be supported. But I have been\nshocked at how far some local administrators and mayors have gone and\nhow far some of our legislators have gone in trying to frighten the\npeople into the belief that necessary services are going to be\n-6-\nA (cont.) eliminateu, The things that have been suggested for elimina-\ntion are programs that have been made clear they didn't work in the\nfirst place, and no local government should pick them up. But there\nare increases in health, there are increases in education money, there\nare increases in welfare money---all of these things are in there with\nthe proposal by the President that they be administered as special\nrevenue sharing. And I see no reason in the world for everyone to be\nS aying that we don't know what's\nthere are some things that we don't\nknow\nwhat's going to happen with regard to specific programs that hasn't\nbeen made clear yet; this is a gigantic undertaking back there. But\nI see no reason for panic, and I certainly disagree those people that\nhave suggested that this is going to interfere with our $850 million\nsurplus. The surplus is there; the surplus should be given back to\nthe people, and there's nothing being suggested in Washington that\nchanges that fact.\nQ\nGovernor, Californians for a long time have been saying that more\nmoney has been going to Washington than has been coming back. How does\nthat stand now with the elimination of the categorical aid programs and\nthe substitution of revenue sharing? How does our balance of\nA\nWell, I think we come out better with revenue sharing. It is\ntrue there are a certain number of states like our own that are con-\nsidered the rich states, and we give more money, whether it's for\neducation, for welfare, for highway building, we give more money to do\nthese things for the smaller, poorer states than we get back. If\nCalifornia had, by the number of dollars it pays in, its share of the\nhighway trust fund, for example, if we weren't helping build highways\nin other states, we could really be pouring a lot of concrete.\nQ\nGovernor, specifically, what statements shocked you and by whom?\nA\nWell, when you're listening to the Mormom Tabernacle Choir, how\ndo you pick out who sang the sour note? It's been a chorus and some\nof my fellow governors on the democratic side, in the governors'\nconference in Washington, sat through a two-hour briefing in which\nthey were assured of all these things I've just said, and right out\nsinging the same song they had when they came in. There are two or\nthree things\nthere's a thing for example the child care centers. But\nthere again, all of this effort to panic the people, and to panic the\nyoung mothers who have got children in those child care centers. We\nknew that in an effort to clean up some very bad regulations, that here\nand there, there was a spot that was affected. And we knew it long\nbefore the holler started, and we were in Washington working with the\n-7-\nA (cont.) HEW official on 1t. This is why we su' ort the legislation\nupstairs. We think that they're going to try to correct this in\nWashington. If they don't, we will pick it up here. But we also\nrecognize that some of the regulations that they were trying to correct\nshould be corrected. Here and there, there may be some flack, something\nin a big program of that kind is overlooked or is not touched upon, and\nthen you pick it up and you take care of it. But there's been no panic\non our part about it. We've known for months that we were not going to\nallow those child care centers to close in California. And I get a\nlittle impatient with the people that are ready to terrorize their\nfellow citizens and victimize them and use them for partisan political\nadvantage. And I wish some of the candidates for office in 1974 would\ndeclare a moratorium on their campaigning until a little closer to the\ntime, instead of getting their names in the papers by yelling on every\none of these subjects.\nQ\nGovernor, how does this raising cries of alarm differ from what\nyou did with Medi-Cal and welfare when you first took office?\nA\nI told the facts about welfare and Medi-Cal and what we were\ngoing to try to do to it. And the cries of alarm were the other way.\nAs a matter of fact, you will recall that one day I had to come into\nthis room to a press conference and tell you that we had to withdraw\none of the reforms that we were trying\nlong before the general\nreforms\nwithdraw it because we had discovered we did not have any\nmeans at the state level to prevent some of the professionals who were\nopposed to what we were trying to do from victimizing some of the welfare\nrecipients which they had already done in order to drum up opposition\nto our plan. This happened to be with the home care programs, and I\nhad to come in here and tell you that we were withdrawing the reform\nbecause we could not protect the people that they were victimizing.\nQ\nGovernor, this is one of the few times in history we've had a\nrunaway inflation and fairly high unemployment at the same time. Now,\nthe president said this program will cut out jobs, in his cut, squeezing\nand trimming, about 14,000 that he mentioned. Is this the time to cut\njobs when the cost of food has become almost prohibitive?\nA\nWell, now, let me take issue with a couple of the premises upon\nwhich you based your question. Number one, it is not one of the first\ntimes in history we've had runaway inflation; the inflation rate is\nless than half what it was when this president took office because the\nguns and butter policy of the Johnson administration is what had led\nto runaway inflation that was up to like six and seven percent\n-8-\nA (cont.) Alright, W, that's number one. Nun. er two, coupled with\nunemployment. The employment rate is much lower than it has been most\nof the time in the last 40 years in peacetime. The only full employment\nor lower unemployment than we have right now that we've ever known in\nmy adult lifetime has been as a result of World War II, the Korean\nconflict and the Vietnam war. Now, the other day the Independent\nBusinessmen's Association, nationally, did a survey of all of business\nin America, and found that there are 2,950,000 jobs going begging. That\ninformation has been published. These are employers asking for people\nto fill jobs and cannot find people to fill those jobs. Now the\npresident\nwe have held\nif we'd followed the policies of the\npresent administration here in Sacramento, today there would be some\n25,000 more state employees. We do not believe here at the state level,\nand I don't think it fits at the national level, that the answer,\nbecause of unemployment, is a swollen bureucracy of people performing\nuseless jobs at the public expense, and certainly the federal govern-\nment is a swollen bureaucracy. Now there will be changes, and I think\nthe federal government has already announced, and it was reported in\nyour papers this morning, that in some of the notices that have been\nsent out in San Francisco, for example, regional offices, that also\nmost of those people, if not all of them, will be transferred into\nother areas of state government. And I know here in our own state\ngovernment we've made every effort.\nQ\nGovernor, other areas of federal government.\nA\nother areas of federal government, I should say. And we've\nmade the same effort. So I don't think you can justify when you have\nthe problem, if as you\nlet's take your premise that there is 5.1\npercent unemployment in the country. Four percent is considered normal.\nAlright. But inflation that is going down. Right now now wait a\nminute. Right now we have a food inflation. And the food inflation\nin\nthough is/an area that only take 15.7 percent of the people's income.\nThat's all it takes to buy food, including eating out in the United\nStates. But food prices cannot be geared to general inflation. Food\nprices fluctuate on a basic law of supply and demand that is dictated\nfrom heaven above in many instances, because when you've lost a hundred\nmillion dollars worth of cattle in one snow storm in Texas, you could\nbet the price of beef was going to go up. But right now, if you go\nto the beef market, not the meat market, the beef market, you find all\nsorts of people paying any prices for breeding stock because they want\n-9-\nA\n(cont.)\nto\nget\nin\nthe business of producing eef for the market.\nAnd just as sure as the green apples come, you're going to find that\nthe price will go down accordingly. In the mid-West, we had\nbecause\nof excessive rains in late summer and fall and into the early winter\nacres of\nwe've had millions of/farm land in which the farmers could not get\ntheir machinery in to harvest the crops corn crops that stood there\nclear into snowfall\nuntil the ground froze. And all of these things\nhave affected the food market. But these fluctuations, as I say, will\ntake place in food, and they can be based on drought, they can be based\non storm, they can be based on frost and freeze, and no way to control\nthat\non supply and demand. But they don't basically affect the\ngeneral inflation pattern that the president has been working against\nand which he has reduced to less than half what it was.\nQ\nCan we change the subject, governor?\nA\nI thought it was a pretty good lecture on economics.\nQ\nWill you sign legislation that Senator Rodda intends to carry\nto permit excavation under the site of the governor's mansion for\nprehistoric Indian artifacts?\nA\nWell, now there are two or three things that I'd like to know\nabout that. First of all, we have a great many educational institutions\nin California who have archaeological departments. I don't know where\nthis particular archaeologist has come from or who she is associated\nwith. I would also like to know why that particular piece of ground\nthat is now just discovered was the site of an Indian village, and I'd\nlike to know did they find any evidences next door when they built\nHoffman\nAncil/Golf Park, or golf course, and I'd like to know what's been true\nof the bluffs on the other side of that particular area. Now, believe\nme, if there are archaeological treasures to be found there, it's not\ngoing to delay the building of a mansion any to have somebody dig.\nWhether we've got to appropriate $81,000 for this or not, I don't know.\nOr it might just be that you tell the fellows that dig the first post-\nhole there on the land, that if they hit an arrowhead, to yell and\nwe'll stop digging and we'll bring somebody in to get them out.\nQ\nYou're saying you're not sure you're going to sign that bill?\nA\nI'm never sure I'm going to sign a bill.\nQ\nGovernor, if you have to go the initiative route to get your tax\nlimitation proposal, would you say that the best time to hold the elec-\ntion would be in November?\nA\nYes.\n-10-\nQ\nOkay, if you ha to take the maximum allow le three months to\nget your petitions, and then you have to wait another four months or\nso as the law requires to hold the election, that's more than seven\ngoing to\nmonths. Aren't you/have to get started pretty soon on that?\nA\nIt sorta would seem so, wouldn't it?\nQ\nIt sure would.\nA\nLet me just say that in discussing November 6, we have recognized\nthat we will have to make a decision fairly soon as to whether we're\ngoing to get petitions signed. Now I believe, as I say, it isn't any\nwasted effort for us to start talking to the people because it is an\nissue they're going to have to decide. But I think at the same time\nthat we will inform the people that they themselves, those people who\nfeel that they want to vote on this and want to vote for it, particu-\nout\nlarly, that we're going to have to point/to them that there is a dead-\nline date, if they want to have this election in November.\n8\nHave you or anyone else who desires this limitation filed the\nnecessary papers yet with the attorney general?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nGovernor, in your message to the legislature yesterday, you kind\nof combined your surplus return with the long-range plan. It indicated\nthat you would take both of them to the people. How do you undo that?\nHow are you going to take the surplus plan to the people?\nA\nOh, just give them a crack at it. Sure we can take it to the\npeople on the same basis. If you will remember, back when I was opposing\nthe Watson Amendment, before the election, I promised the people, because\nI felt that was such a destructive thing, I promised the people that\nif we could not get some action of these kinds, and I mentioned an\nincome tax cut at that time, I promised them that I would try with the\nlegislature, and if not through the legislature, I would give the people\nan opportunity to vote on that. Now we've sent this up to the legis-\nlature and they've shelved it. And all of these things that I've said\ncan be done with regard to the surplus, and with the money that we can\nbe giving back, if these are not passed by the legislature, then I'm\ngoing to give the people a chance to vote on it.\nQ\nGovernor, on another subject? Assemblyman Fenton has been\ncritical of you for what he says has been deliberate delay in calling\nspecial elections whenever there are democratic vacancies in the\nlegislature, such as waiting a month and a half or two months to call\nthe election to succeed Mr. Porter. Can you respond to that and indi-\ncate when you're going to call a special election for the latest\nvacancy---Mr. Townsend?\n-11-\nA\nWell, yes, we 're still brushing the con cti out of our hairs\nhad\nfrom the inauguration and we've/two elections already of the special\nelections. We couldn't call the one for the Assembly until we knew\nwhether John Stull was going to be elected, nor whether he was going\nto be elected in the primary or have to run in a final. So that one\ncouldn't have been called any earlier. One of them, tragically enough,\nis the result of a death that is so recent that I think it would be\nunseemly to have done it certainly before now. The Carley Porter race\nQ\nYou waited quite a while.\nA\nWell, I don't\nQ\nA month and a half to two months.\nA\nI don't know. There are certain courtesies that I've explained\nbefore that you always do. You talk to your party people and sit down\nto find out. You look at all the possibilities whether there's any-\nthing that you can tie the election in to on the saving of the balloting\ncost that is always a consideration. I think that we're calling them\nreasonably fast.\nD\nGovernor, the OEO is scheduled to be terminated June 30. Are\nyou prepared to have the state pick up\n(inaudible)?\nA\nNo. I think that most of the features that should be performed\neither\nhave already been\nindication has been that they/already have or are\nbeing passed into various other of the federal departments\nDepartment\nof Labor, HEW and so forth. And those programs that are simply being\ndropped because they were not successful, you have to remember that it\nhas been pointed out that they found out a number of OEO programs, by\nthe time the administrative expenses were paid, less than four percent\nof the money was getting through to the poor. That's not a very good\nammunition count if you're going to have a war on poverty.\nQ\nGovernor, on your statement to some members of the Academic Senate\nthe other day on collective bargaining, does that mean that you are\nunalterably opposed to any of the legislative efforts that are being\nmade this year to write some kind of, for lack of a better word, collec-\ntive bargaining statute this year?\nA\nWell, Tom, I'd like to see\nI'll look to see if they've found\nan answer to some of the problems we're talking about. We, ourselves,\nhave been working, as I explained to them, for a long time on trying to\nimprove the ability for employees at every level of state government to\nhave contact and to have their input. What I was saying to them was\n-12-\nA (cont.) that collective bargaining, which inevi tably must lead to\nindustrial union type collective bargaining with the possibility of a\nstrike at the end, we just cannot have in government, because government\ncannot accept the premise that public employees can strike.\nQ\nGovernor, is there any agreement, understanding, gentlemen's\nagreement, or whatever, between you and Senator Harmer an whether you\nthe\nwould or would not sign/Harmer-Zenovich reapportionment bill?\nA\nYes, I've had a big talk with the gentlemen on SB 195. And I\ntold them in advance on a number of points that were still, I thought,\ncovered by my veto letter of last year, that if they could be corrected,\nwhile I am not totally happy with the results have been, they have made\nthose corrections. It is certainly\ncannot\ndoesn't have the odd\nreaching out to sections of people and so forth that made it such a\nblatant gerrymander last : year. The fact that the Senate is so nearly\ne ven perhaps has made it possible to come down with a plan that, as\nlong as the legislature is entrusted with this responsibility, and I've\nmade myself clear on what I feel about that, this bill as it is now,\nthat is unchanged, I could sign.\nQ\nGovernor, I'd like to ask you one more serious question. Can we\nassume you had tongue in cheek when you said California state government\nruns on jelly beans?\nA\nI meant that the\nwe keep up the energy of our staff here by\nthose jelly beans. I always say that to the kids when they come in.\n# # #\n-13-"
}