Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564132
label
Transcripts - 03/22/1973, 03/27/1973, 04/10/1973, 04/24/1973, 05/02/1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564132
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 03/22/1973, 03/27/1973, 04/10/1973, 04/24/1973, 05/02/1973
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564132
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5f49348073b58bc0
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -
03/22/1973, 03/27/1973, 04/10/1973, 04/24/1973,
05/02/1973
Box: P04
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at:
[email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
3/22
PRESS cr ERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD
CAGAN
HELD MARCH 22, 1973
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to thepress as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
o00
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Senator Lagomarsino and these people
will be at your disposal in a few moments.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 164.)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: That's the statement. Bob and I and
these people are now at your disposal. Bob, doyou have something?
SENATOR LAGOMARSINO: Just this, Governor. I can't say
how proud I am that you have asked me to carry this constitutional
(tax limitation)
amendment for you and for the People of California in the. legisla-
ture. I know it is going to be a very, very difficult task and one
that we have -- we have seen oems -- we may not be successful in the
legislature, but we are going to give it a real try. And I would
hope that we would receive the kind of response, particularly from
the Senate, that we expect we should have. I think this is a
very imaginative program. It may be perhaps a most significant
piece of legislation that your administration has intiated, and you've
had plenty of them. And I think it is something that all of the
states in this nation will be watching very closely, and I imagine
our friends in the federal congress and the President himself will
be watching this very closely, too, so as I say, I'm very proud to
have a part in this important effort.
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Bob, I'm grateful you are doing it.
(The following questions were asked and responses given by Governor
Reagan.)
O.
Governor, how are you going to finance this whole business
about getting signatures and so forth?
A.
This will be financed the same way as -- as the citizens
committees that were built up with regard to the welfare reform.
And we have already had such evidences of support from various
groups throughout the state and they will, simply by contribution,
finance it.
O.
How do you propose to overcome the likelihood or Mr. Moretti's
-1-
statement yesterda that he won't support the oney for this
special election?
A.
Well, it is hard for me to believe that if some several
hundred thousand people sign petitions asking for the -- their
constitutional right to vote on that -- on the ballot, it is hard
for me to believe that a great many legislators would be so petty and
vindictive as to force this cost onto the local government.
Q.
Isn't that one way that they -- the opposition could stop
your drive?
A.
No, because I have the constitutional right to call a special
election. Now, there is a legal question as to whether this
constitutes a new mandated cost on local government. That hasn't
been decided yet, the legal question. The election will be held,
then if local government believes that this is a violationof that
new law regarding mandated costs, they would then have to take their
case to the courts, to the state, and the court would make a
decision. But I can tell you that I will associate myself with local
governments because there is a way to pay for this special election
without invading the taxpayer's resources at all. We have accumu-
lated interest on this surplus that we have been holding. And out
of this interest this cost could be -- could be paid. And I
just happen to believe that -- frankly that the state should pay
for it. Whether it is actually -- whether we are obligated under
the new law or not, I would like to see the state make the gesture
ofpaying for the election.
Q.
Governor, why don't you just wait a year and put it on the
June ballot of 1974?
A.
Well, because the consfitutional amendment has passed.
There are certain parts of it, just as in passing the constitutional
amendment about the death penalty, there are certain parts of it that
will cause -- call for implementation by statute. And the delay
would = take as well -- over two years, it would take us into the
next legislative session following that general election. And
there is no need for this delay, no need to wait onthis.
O.
But it would save a condiderable amount of money, wouldn't
it?
A.
I don't think enough to make it worthwhile. You'd be
sitting here all this time holding the surplus -- again, as I say,
the delay would be so long and because of the implementation that
would have to follow, and I think that it -- that we should get at
-2-
First of 11, we want to -- we would ant to start imple-
menting the income tax cuts before that time, and we can do it. It
would delay the savings to the people.
O.
How much would the delay difference mean , Governor, if you
were to delay the election and the taxpayers would not get the
benefit of this tax cut? Do you have a comparison with that -- how
it would compare with the ten million cost of the special election?
A.
Well, yes, it would be far in excess of that, because if --
you are talking of -- just the on-going income tax cut along is in
the neighborhood of two hundred million dollars a year savings to the
people.
O.
Governor, will you permit circulation of these petitions
in state facilities by state employees on state time?
A.
You are asking a legal question. I don't think that
that's allowed, is it?
ED
MEESE:
No.
No, we would not.
A.
No.
Q.
Governor, how much did it cost to finance your task
force study of this plan?
A.
I can't tell you the total cost because much of the cost
was underwritten by -- again, by contribution, by an outside founda-
tion.
O.
How much of the state's funds?
A.
In state funds, the only actual expenditure that I know
that we have put down is $19,260, over in welfare. But this is
not unusual. And contrary -- in fact we have issued a statement
on this.
In these various task forces that have to do with
state government and making state government more efficient we
cross all the lines of all the departments. We get personnel, we
get material, we get support from these various departments.
O.
Do you normally get funding that is not specifically
authorized by the legislature?
A.
When a task force requires outside people and has to --
to bring in experts and so forth, when there is material that we
do not believe can be provided by one of our departments, this has
been done by outside contributions. But in this inter-office play
some departments furnish personnel, some departments furnish services
of this kind. Welfare, which is one of the biggest of our spending
-3-
units provided this ash money. But this is ly a part of the
return on that task force.
Because the task force was also entrusted
with the whole idea again of reviewing the work of our citizens
task forces of several years ago and finding out where again we can
find improvements leading to legislation that will make further
efficiencies and economies in government.
Q.
But governor, the. legislative analyst has questioned your
taking the liberty to use that money without going to the legislature
How do you react to that?
A.
Well, because we interpret this as a legitimate function
in the executive branch and what we are trying to do, we are entrusted
with executing the programs of government and of trying to make them
more efficient and we think that this is a normal and a logical
function.
Q.
Even though that the spending of that money had no direct
relation to any welfare function of the state?
A.
Oh, yes, because as I say, it is not all embodied in this
tax program;to make such things as this task program work will
depend on many of the efficiencies and the saving S that came out
of the whole findings of the task force.
O.
Governor, the statement issued yesterday said that one
of the departments which assisted in funding some of the administra-
tive costs of the task force is the Department of Social Welfare.
It seems to indicate there were other departments involved.
A.
oh, there is a whole list and I think you'll find them in
that statement and many of those, though, provided services, time,
equipment.
Q.
In direct funding.
A.
Well, no, there is no way to pin it down. In their
normal funtion.
If "x" number of people in a department devote
"x" amount of time to this task force, that is a contribution of
that department.
Q.
Governor, you mentioned a foundation assisted in the
funding, can you tell us what the foundation was and how much
money was involved in that?
A.
That I don't actually know, I haven't inquired as to what it
was.
ED MEESE: It is the Foundation for Research on Education
and Economies located at the University of California at Los Angeles.
They conducted a good deal of research. They also received contri-
butions from citizens to support that research. The activity went
on outside of govt ment and is primarily resuonsible for the economic
conclusions that support this particular proposal. The in-state
activity which was funded from various departments was primarily
to survey programs within state government as to cost cutting
possibilities. I might also add, if I may, Governor, that the
ocial Welfare funds was a properly appropriate use of of appropriated
funds because it came out of the administration funds of welfare,
not the program funds and is a part of the proper welfare management.
O.
Governor, the initiative is described as a citizen's tool
to combat a do-nothing legislature. This tax limitation really
hasn't had its goal before the legislature. What is your response
to that?
A.
Well, it isn't really that, I'd like toijust call back to
you a little history, when all of us in the -- the bi-partisans here
in the legislature or most of us, the majority of the legislature
on both sides of the aisle and myself found ourselves faced with
the possibility of passage of the Watson amendment, last year, which he
believe would have brought chaos to state finance. It was our
decision here in the executive branch that we were going to engage
in all-out program against this -- the Waston initiative, as we had
done against Proposition 9, which we thbught was equally ill-suited
to solve our problems. Now, you will recall last October we were
aware there was going to be a one-time surplus. We also were
aware that we could offer the people an on-going tax cut. We had
tried for four years to get tax reform. At the time of the election
we still didn't have it. I said to the people -- in fact I made
the first announcement at a meeting of the annual meeting of the
California State Real Estate Association and I made the statement
that we were going to continue to try, but that I could assure the
people after I outlined what I felt was wrong with the Watson amend-
ment, and I did this with full knowledge of the legislative leader-
ship on both sides of the aisle. They were aware of this and there
was no disapproval -- that I would say to the people that if we could
not succeed in getting these measures through -- through the legis-
lature that we would guarantee the people then a right to make the
decision. Now, a great many people and a great many legislators
have said that it was this program that won us the victory over the
Watson amendment. And we are now keeping the promise. The
legislature did do its part. They came back and they passed SB90
which was a part of the whole proposal. That was the property tax
-5-
reform. And you will recall that a great majority of the legislators
had been for that for the last three years. We were always
obstructed by not quite being able to get the two-thirds majority.
in one house. They passed it and we have that. This left the
other issues. The surplus, the on-going tax cut and in the mean-
time we did not know the finding that was going to come in from this
task force which is a constitutional amendment. So it must go to
the people, whether the legislature sends it to the people or whether
we -- whether the people themselves put it on the ballot, it has to
be voted on by the people, because it is a constitutional amendment.
So I feel that I have a pledge to keep. On these other matters,
I hope - Senator Lagomarsino has said we both hope that the
legislature will deal with this. But we cannot ignore the flat
statements that have been made to us, not only through you, the
media, through the press, but made to us personalby that they are
not going to allow this to go to the people. We can't ignore that.
And we are not going to wait for severalmonths to find out what
apparently we have already been told is true. So we are going
forward in a parallel course trying our utmost with the legislature
but trying at the same time with the people and at any time that
the leglsiature will take the action and allow the people to vote
on this we will stop the petition drive and then carry forward for
the campaign in November.
Q.
Governor, why have you wrapped into this constitutional
amendment at least two items that do not require amendment?
That is the one-time reduction of income tax and the on-going
reduction of income tax.
A.
For the same reason, we have been told also that those
will not go. Now we have been encouraged by what happened
yesterday in the Senate committee on the Senator's bill with regard
to the one-time surplus. And we have a severability clause in the
sonstitutional amendment thatanything that in the interim is
adopted by the legislature is just separated out from that consti-
tutional amendment.
Q.
Governor, is there any provision in this new idea of yours
for reducing or cutting out any of the tax liabilities in California
for individual taxpayers?
A.
Now
Q.
Excluding some groups from paying taxes?
-6-
A.
Oh, are you talking about are we trying to put into this
constitutional amendment some loopholes?
(Laughter)
A.
Huh? No, and contrary to what some people have sounded
off about without apparently knowing what is in the measure, any
change in the tax structure, anything that is involved in the
actual raising of a tax, lowering of a tax, eliminating or creating
any exemptions or exclusions of that kind, that is still the
legislature's prerogative.
They still have full control.
All we are asking for is a limit on the total percentage of the people'
earnings that the state can take. That's what will be the
constitutional item. And no, they have all the authority to
change the tax structure that they -- that they presently have.
Incidentally, let me correct a misapprehension on something else.
Some people have interpreted the putting into the constitutional
amendment of the on-going income tax cut -- have interpreted that as
meaning that we are permanently freezing the present or the changed
income tax as a constitutional measure. That is not true.
Following this original cut the legislature, if the ceiling is passed,
if the limit is passed within the limit, is free to do anything
they want to do to the income tax. This is not a permanent consti-
tutional provision. It specifically authorizes a beginning,
a start that -- on-going cut in the income tax. If the legislature
wants to change that, wants tomake it a bigger cut, wants to make
it a lesser cut, in the days to come in the future that is their
prerogative.
Q.
Governor, can you explain why your proposed amendment
also sets maximum local property tax rates? Wasn't that done by
the bill of last session?
A.
That's done by SB 90 but that again is a statute.
Q.
You want to freeze that?
A.
The reason for putting in in here is because you have
to be aware of what in future days some -- some government, some
administration, some legislature could do and we wanted to protect
against the possibility that having a state limitation on taxes,
some future government might be tempted to foist off present state
services onlocal government and pretend that they were still observ-
ing the tax limit. So we simply are just making that one
particular part of SB 90 constitutional so that you can't have that
-7-
Q.
It will be the same provisions?
A.
That's right.
Q.
Governor, what is your estimation of the chances for your
constitutional amendment passing?
A.
By the people?
Q.
Yes.
A.
I think very good. I don't see -- I don't see any change
in the people's attitude. They have made it plain that one of their
biggest concerns is cost of government. And as I have said, the
one figure that just -- to me is the unanswerable argument, government
today -- governments, federal, state and local, are taking more
money out of the people's pockets than the total cost of feeding,
clothing and sheltering the family. It is three times the cost
the percentage that is taken for food. And these economists, these
experts that we have had have told us that we -- we cannot continue
our system taking the present percentage from thepeople. Not just
the state, but governments in general. And the unanswerable argument
to me is, if we don't have such a limitation, if we don't start now,
when do we start? or do we wait until the system breaks down.
Q.
Governor, af all the potential Republican candidates for the
Gubernatorial nomination, do you know how many favor this pran?
Who they are?
A.
Well, I know one for sure that favors it. He's been
a part of all the planning, the Lieutenant Governor.
Q.
Besides Mr. Reinecke.
A.
No, I don't. I'll be very interested. I think that
any candidate for public ofvice in California ought to be giving
some pretty serious political thinking to where he's going to stand
on this issue because -- I think it would be awfully easy to get
on the wrong side of the angels.
Q.
Controller Flournoy the other day said he thought more
emphasis should be put on economy rather than any artificial limits.
A.
Do you know any government or any administration that has put
more emphasis on economy than ours? You have all been calling
me Scrooge for the last six years, and we still haven't been able
to hold the budgetdown by this process. I think an editorial in one
of your papers today put it very soundly. I don't mean to sound
critical of the Controller and he's entitled to his opinion, but the
-8-
simple truth is the is only one way to cure e extravagance of
government, and'that's to cut off their allowance.
Q.
Governor, are these petitiors ready to be signed now,
circulated right away?
A.
They are being printed in the next several days.
Q.
Governor, can we expect to see you down at the corner of
10th and K petitions --
(Laughter)
A.
Well, I tell you, I don't know whether they will give me
time to do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nancy was on one of
those street corners. She got familiar with a lot of those corners
on the death sentence initiative.
O.
Do you have any quota or estimate at all what the total
cost of raising this would be, the citizens group?
A.
Not only the petition drive, but going all the way
through -- and the promotion of it, I don't know -- I know that
issues of this kind in the past, the spending on the Watson initia-
tive, the spending against it, and so forth, comes to several
hundred thousand dollars. I think part of this would be determined
as time goes on to find out how hard you have to -- to work. If
there is just a widesparead public acceptance and surveys indicate
this, obviously you don't have to spend as much money in convincing
the people to vote for it.
O.
Governor, I think you ought to get it clear, you haven't
even asked for a title yet, have you? So you can't do anything
about petitions until you ask for a title.
A.
That's right. That's right, that's why we are -- the
holdup on the printing of the petitions.
MR. GRAY: Any further questions?
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
000
-9-
3/27
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD MARCH 27, 1973
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's prese conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitl press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
O
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Well, I opened first the last time,
you can open first this time. No statement.
Q.
Governor, a number of months ago, in fact I think itwas
in October, when the presidential campaign was going on, you indi-
cated then that you ghought Senator McGovern. and democrats were
blowing Watergate way out of proportion. And that furthermore
you said a certain amount of political spying was fairly routine.
or accepted in politics. What is your evaluation of Watergate now?
A.
Well, the courts made a decision, the courts found them
guilty. You will remember at the same time I also said I did not
look with favor on that sort of thing and thought that where the
law was broekn the law should take its course. Evidently it is --
it has done that.
O.
Well, do you think , though, it is as minor an issue as
you did at that time or that it has gotten considerably larger or
what?
A.
I said that I thought it was far more customary than
anyone had been led to believe, and I imagine that if you could
have the same kind of apprehensicn of individuals in trials going
back through the years, you would find that that has been more
characteristic of more campaigns on both sides than this just being
a single incident.
Q.
To the degree that it is in this case, do you think?
A.
What?
O.
Do you think it is to the degree that it is in this
case, the amount of spying?
A.
The degree in this case is they caught them.
O.
It seems that it is getting closer to the White House.
-1-
Does that make you think any more seriously or have any more
concern about it?
A.
Well, the President had a statement made with regard to
this and whether it was close to the White House, I said before
and I'll say again, I doubt very much that any candidate would ever
have been involved in this or anyone really high up in the campaign
structure would have known about it. Because it was obviously a
very foolish thing.
Q.
Do you know that for sure, Governor?
A.
What?
O.
Do you know that for sure, have you talked to the President
or have you talked to anybody?
A.
No, I never brought the subject up with him. He was a
truthful man, I read his statement that he just made the other day.
As I said, I expressed that as a belief because I just don't think
that candidates for that high an office behave that foolishly.
Q.
Do you see any new evidence of this affecting the
Republican party in any way, for example, in 1976 and what your
involvement may be?
(Laughter)
A.
That's a long way getting around to that.
(Laughter)
A.
No, and I think the fact that it is the government that
sprosecuting should also be takensinto consideration on this.
O.
Governor, do you think President Nixon is trying to
cover anything up in this whole Watergate affair? Is he trying
to cover anything --
A.
I see no evidence of it.
Q.
What do you think --
A.
I assume that whatever is -- hasn't come out in the
trial will come out in the continuing investigation.
Q.
Do you think at this time the public is satisfied with
what is known about Watergate? Don't you bel ieve there are a lot
of unresolved questions still in the public mind?
A.
I am quite sure there are a lot of unresolved questions
in the public mind and I think because, in addition to the normal
straight reporting of this particular incident it's also been the
object of probably more political smoke than has been raised over
anything in a long time, and I'm sure the people are quite confused.
O.
What about the statement of McCord, One of the --
A.
I don't know. We will know more when the judge finds out
what it is he has to say.
Q.
Governor, in your mind has theeffectiveness of the FBI been
compromised at all by its role in this affair, particularly providing
raw files to White House staff members?
A.
I can't say that. I've always had a great respect for
that particular ogganization. I think it probably has a finer'
record of integrity and efficiency than most government agencies and
bureaus. And again you have to say there about any such organiza-
tion that it never bats a thousand per cent with regard to all its
personnel.
Q.
Governor, do you condone any sort of political espionage?
I mean your statement that the thing that went bad here was they
got caught -
A.
I made statements before and I made them earlier in this
room, the fact that I wished we could have elections without that.
I. have only been a candidate two elections myself. I was very --
made aware very early in the first campaign that people who had more
experience, professional campaigners, were almost instinctly on guard
and just took it for granted that there would be attempts at
espionage in -- and spying and disruption and that sort of thing.
O.
Change of subject?
O.
Governor -
A.
No, one more. I've got one more question. Have you
ever known any actual instance of espionage in campaigns?
A.
Any what?
O.
Have you ever known an instance of bugging in campaigns,
wiretapping or anything?
A.
You've always heard about it.
Q.
Have you ever known of any?
A.
I have not to my personal knowledge known of it.
O.
How much responsibility do you think the candidate should
bear for the actions of the people working in his campaign?
A.
Well, this is like the commanding officer's responsibility.
You are ultimately responsible, and the -- I think that anyone,
however, must recognize that the candidate, where he will have to
take the responsibility and say yes, these were people working in
my behalf -- I think any reasonable person who wants to be honest and
-3-
and fair must recognize there is no way in theworld for a candidate
to know what everyone who is working in his behalf does. You are
working in many instances with volunteers. You are working with
people you don't -- or working with people working for you you
don't even know about, you might never even meet in the course
of a campaign, but who take it upon themselves to form an organiza-
tion to campaign in your behalf. There is no way in theworld that
you can know all the activities, all the actions. I don't know of
a campaign even in such limited districts as councilman, supervisorial
or assembly districts that you come out with frequent charges of
pieces of campaign literature or mailings that were sent out and
the candidate did not know until they had gone out and he disavowed
them when they came out. This type of thing happens because it's
just thenature of a campaign.
Q.
Are you satisfied, particularly in your last campaign
rather than the first one, where you had the experience of the
previous campaign, did you have a --- do anything to sort of set a
tone of the campaign with your high campaign people?
A.
Yes, I think the campaign --- I think the campaigner always
does this, but as I say, you cannot know at firsthand what thousands
of people scattered over a state as big as California, for
example, and certainly in a presidential campaign what literally
millions of people scattered over a nation -- what they might be
doing at some level in your behalf or what they might be saying.
But, yes, you set the tone, as to what you want and what you believe
and the manner in which you are going to campaign.
Q.
Governor, are you:responsible that President Nixon has
shown ultimate responsibility for the Watergate instance?
A.
I said in the hypothetical thing that the commanding
officer at the top eventually can be held responsible for what
anyone in the command does. But that if anyone is reasonable and fair
it has to recognize that there is no way in theworld for the commanding
officer to know what the lowest individual in the ranks did some
place out in the country.
Q.
Are you satisfied that the President has personally taken
ultimate responsibility for this?
A.
I think that the President has made it very plainand the
testimony has indicated that the President has said he wants a full
-4-
disclosure of this.
That the -- that he himse
wanted the
prosecution to go forward on this.
O.
Governor, why, then, do you suppose the President will not
make his White House aides available for questioning from the Senate
Committee?
who
A.
Because there is no president in history has. And there
is a matter involved there of executive privilege and the separation
of powers. I think the President himself, why ask me, the
President explained this and I was in complete agreement with his
explanation that he made on the air publicly to all of the people
of America as to why, and that he said any lists of questions they
wanted to submit could be sent and he would approve the answering of
those questions. But that he was not going to change what has
been a 200 year tradition in this country and in the separation of
powers, of abandoning the executive privilege.
O.
Governor, didn't Sherman Adams go down and appear before
the congressional investigative committee?
A.
I don't recall whether he did or not, and I don't recall
whether hd did it on his own or whether the -- what E isenhower did
about it. You may recall better, you were covering the news at
the time.
Q.
I think the facts showed that President Eisenhower did
send him to the Congressional committee.
A.
Well --
O.
We can check that later.
(Laughter)
A.
You can, I don't know.
You see, I was a democrat in those
days.
;
(Laughter)
Q.
Governor, doesn't the President -- the President's invoking
of the executive privilege in this particular instance, though,
merely -- doesn't it serve to feed public suspicion and distrust,
doesn't it lobk like he's trying to --
A.
When it is helped along by a lot of people who dispute
the explanation that he gave or who cloud it or who kept continuing
to come up with charges that have already been answered by the
President.
Q.
Do you think we can get all the facts we need to know in
this case even if the President's staff does not testify before the
-5-
Senate?
A.
I would th ink so. The judge seems to be satisfied with
what he's done. The sentences certainly weren't a slap on the
wrist.
Q.
New subject, Governor. On a recent news conference,
Ev. Younger said that he didn't want to be characterized either as
a Nixon Republican or as a Reggan Republican. Do you think that this
kind of split in the party is going to be important in the Republican
gubernatorial primary?
A.
I don't know the context he made such a statement, but
if anyone believes there is some way a collision course between the
White House and the State House in California -- I think you only
have to look at the facts. Over the recent years, I don't know of
any administration or anyone who has supported the White House
and the WhiteHouse policy more than my administration. I think
my campaigning record in behalf of the President, the fact that
I chaired his campaign for the whole state of California indicates
this and the fact that the President had the confidence to send
me on three trips abroad in his behalf I don't think there is
any -- any split. And I -- I hope that the - the Attorney General
wasn't suggesting there was such a thing.
Q.
Governor, will you endorse and encourage the California
housewife to endorse the meat boycott?
A.
Well, here again, I have to say I am a little torn and I
think again that the -- that there is a great deal of heat and a
great deal of smoke about this entire issue. Of course anyone
is upset when prices and particular food prices, necessities, go
up as much as they do. But again, as I have said about food
prices, I think that there has to be -- unless some blame can be
established that someone is unnecessarily profiting and one has to
recognize that food prices can be affected by acts of God, and in
this particular period they have been so affected --- we had winter
storms that destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
cattle. We have also had a wet fall, late summer and wet fall and
early winter that prevented many crops from being harvested
back in the midwest and many of those crops were feed crops that
are used in the feeding of cattle. But as was pointed out on one
of the channels here the other night, and which I thought were some
very excellent journalism, the beginning of a series of articles on
beef prices particularly, and pointing out that present beef prices
started two years a,d, and they started two years ago because of
a drought at the time you were bringing calves up to -- the butchering
stage -- there was no pasture. Suddenly the price of bringing them to
market was increased because they had to be fed, and this is all
reflected as we come down -- the other thing that I think ought to
be -- at least the people should be reminded of this, that in this
country as in no other country in the world, food is the lowest
part, literally, of the family expense. There is no country in
the world that can match the percentage of the consumer's dollar
or his earnings that must be used for food. We put food on the
tables of America for about 15 per cent of the people's earnings.
Now temporarily it is high, no question about it.
Q.
Did you answer the question, Gowernor, would you support
that boycott or not?
(Laughter)
A.
Well, I thought that anyone with any reasonable intelligence
here should figure out the answer, that it is not that easy for
somebody to parage around a market with a picket sign boycotting
meat. I think that laws of supply and demand will take over.
If the prices are too high for people to buy and they can find
other things they will eat instead, by the law of supply and demand
they will bring those prices down, even if it means someone loses
money in the process. But I would think that all I was trying to
point out was that it isn't as simple as just walking around with
a picket sign when no one knows exactly who to blame. Now, if I
am right, and I think I am right, that acts of God had something
to do with the present food prices, I'm not in favor of boycotting
him.
Q.
Weill you eat meat next week?
A.
What?
Q.
Will you eat meat next week?
A.
I had chicken last night.
Q.
Next week. You will eat it again next week?
A.
Yes, I haven't changed my diet very much. You have to
remember. I'm a farmer and we have raised our own.
Q.
Cattle owner, too.
Q.
Governor, a few years ago there was a revelation of your
investment in beef cattle. Do you still have investment in that
area?
-7-
A.
No, what I didn't have investment -- well, there were
beef cattle, they were bulls, breeding bulls, a small head of
breeding bulls, and I have been disposing of those.
Q.
Governor, have you decided on a course of action in the
East Bay's eucalyptus crisis?
A.
Oh, we decided that -- I can't say -- if you are
specifically meaning what we are going to do about the trees, but we
started taking action several weeks ago in that we have had a
number of our agencies and our people over there working with the
local people onthis particular problem and I am expecting momentraily
a report from them.
Q.
You haven't got the report yet?
A.
No.
Q.
Governor, how soon do you expect to set the special
election in the 80th Assembly District?
A.
I have a hunch that we are calling that very shortly in
all of the districts, where there are elections yet to be held.
Q.
Governor, Assemblyman Burton has criticized your proposal
for a special statewide election for your proposed initiative on
the grounds that there -- he says there will be sufficiently a low
turnout in the special election and so in effect you'd kind of be
rigging it by putting this question on a special election ballot
where you'd get maybe 40 per cent or less of the voters out.
A.
I'd like to have the biggest turnout we could possibly
have.
I'd like to have a hundred per cent on this particular issue.
**
Sometimes I think that Assemblyman Burton is the one man in
Sacramento who has the most to fear from the squirrels on the Capitol
grounds.
(Laughter)
Q.
Could you direct yourself to the specific question, do
you think it would be a low turnout or not?
A.
I hope it won't be.
O.
I mean do you think that's a reasonable -- I mean do you
think it would be -- you don't think there would be a low turnout then?
A.
I said I'm hoping there won't. I'm going to do everything
I personally can, not only to campaign for this issue, but to get
the biggest turnout that I possibly can, because I think that every-
body should recognize the issue and the problem of curbing the excess
-8-
taxation that is going on at the present.
Q.
O. K., one other question on that subject. Last week you
said it would be improper to circulate those petittions on state time
with state workers. If that is so, why is it proper to prepare
that petition on state time with state workers as you are doing with
your task force? In a sense you are preparing the whole thing
that's going on the ballot.
A.
Well, the only thing that we have to prepare is we have
to write the constitutional amendment.
Q.
That takes time.
A.
Yes, but we have to submit that to the legislature which
we have done and I will still hope that we never have to turn in the
petitions. I hope that the legislature will recover its balance
and recognize the right of the people to vote on this. And this
must appear on any petition also, but even without petitions we
must prepare the constitutional amendment.
Q.
Senator Mills has said he'd like to have some extensive
hearings on it and to invite expert witnesses to come to try
to analyze that plan. Do you plan on going ahead and circulati ng
an initiative even while --
A.
We said we will go on B parallel course, we cannot ignore
the statements that have been made by the legislative leaders that
they are not going to let it go to the ballot. Now, I'd be foolish
to just pretend they hadn't said those things, they hadn't made those
declarations and then months from now to say, ho-hum, I guess we got
to turn to the people. We went through an experience similar to
that with the welfare reforms. For months they loved it to death
and finally it was only public pressure that brought them into a
meeting where we were able to get the legislative passage of about
three-fourths of it. And this time I think -- I think the timing
of this is cush the fact that when we would like to implement the
tax decreases and so forth.
Q.
Governor, do you think --
A.
Wait a minute.
O.
You've tentatively agreed on the Harmer-Zenovich reapportion-
ment plan for the Senate. Subsequent to it they changed the line
to create a Chicano district from San Bernardino to East Los Angeles.
Does that meet your definition of "community of interest"?
A.
Well, in a sense I would say that it did. We are studying
-9-
that. We haven't had time to really get into that plan, but I
would have to say that a community of interest dees not necessarily
mean geographical lines and for six years I have been critical of
the reapportionment ten years ago that cut up the community,
particularly in southern California and East Los Angeles, of the Ameri-
cans of Mexican descent and doled them out hopefully to elect several
democrats instead of a representative for their own interest.
Q.
Are you still supporting that plan if it reaches your desk?
A.
Well, as I say, I am -- wehaven't had a chance to study
exactly what they have done, but I would think that a plan that --
that did try to take in that community and give it a -- and make it
a district as far as possible on its own would -- yes, constitute
a community of interest.
Q.
Does that mean you are leaning towards supporting that
bill, the Zenovich-Harmer bill?
A.
Wait till we have had a chance to look at all the other
districts, too.
Q.
Governor, Senator Collier said he diecussed the mansion
concept with you and he said that he expressed the idea that he would
like to see the executive offices and the residence together.
Do
you see this as a problem in getting your appropriation for the
construction this year?
A.
Well, we'd have a difference of opinion there because we
see this concept -- we see itin the White House at the national
lewel. There are a few states that have done it. But after the
several years experience I've had, the idea of living in the same
building where 90 oddpeople come to work every day is not my idea
of having a relaxing home to go to. I think it is kind of nice
to snap shut the briefcase and go home to a residence.
Q.
Do you think -- is he trying to get you to support the
Collier Towers in exchange?
A.
Well, he has said that he would like to present his case
for them to me personally when he is ready, and I have said when he's
ready I'll be delighted to hear it.
Q.
Governor, last week you spoke to some school board
officials and related to the Serrano decision. Is your opposition
simply one of the proposed solutions to Serrano statewide property
tax or do you disagree with the principle of Serrano itself that
wealth is a factor in deciding a quality of education available to a
child?
-10-
A.
No, my b.ygest disagreement has been with an interpretation
by many people of Serrano, that it would automatically level down,
that it would put a top on what any district could spend. This to
me is in violation of our concept of local control, school district
control. I am all for a floor and I think we accomplished --
went a long way toward accomplishing that if we didn't fully accomplish
it in SB 90, put a floor below which there would be no district whose
education would be inferior because it was not up to that floor.
But certainly I deny the right statewide to say to some community
here, some district, that if it wants to burden itself further with
taxes and add some frills which in that particular community they think
are desirable, raise the cost of education, I -- I do not think
that they should be prevented from doing that. I'm for leveling up
always and not leveling down.
Q.
Governor, like the price of meat the price of lumber has
been going up and up and up and up and a lot of people have said part
of the reason is the exportation of logs to Japan. Since California
exports quite a few logs I'm wondering would you favor clamping the
lid on exporting logs?
A.
Well, I wish you'd take -- I haven't taken that up with
Ike Livermore yet, maybe you should ask him that question. I
don't really know in California. I haven't gotten into nor have
wehad a discussion of why there is a shortage of lumber. What
could account for it. Whether the export has anything to do with it.
I really haven't, and --
Q.
Governor --
A.
All I can plead is that we have been tied up with a couple
of other things recently.
O.
You are making several stops acfoss country this week.
Is
that the mashed potato circuit that we hear so much about?
A.
No, that's the usual thing. I accepted an invitation which
I have turned down a couple of times before, and finally felt I
should accept to speak to the National Convention of the Young
Republicans in Washington. In connection with that, and as you
know as has been my custom, when you have to make a trip that far
you've always got invitations and you got invitations most of which
you have to turn down, but when you can tie a couple of them to a
trip such as that kidd that doesn't really extend the time of the
trip very much and you can tie them all together and one ---
Q.
How much of the staff are you taking with you?
-11-
A.
I don't k... I don't know. There, one.
Q.
You said two weeks ago that you planned to stay neutral
in the gubernatorial primary next year. Well, this week on two
occasions Lieutenant Governor Reinecke said in one case that
your support would be crucial to his campaign. Another case he
said that it would be very important and he's hoping for it. How
firm do you plan to be in staying neutral on that primary?
A.
Well, maybe I should simply say that I have announced as
I have in the past that I've been neutral in primary campaigns. I
think my first obligation is the unity of the party, and the success
of the party in the coming election. Now, if anything between now
and -- and June of 1974 should make it appear to me that I could
serve those purposes better by not being neutral, then I reserve
the right to change my mind. But at the moment as I see it I think
that neutrality is -- is important with regard to -- to the unity
and the success of the party.
Q.
Do you agree with Lieutenant Governor Reinecke that the Los
Angeles Times is a yellow rag?
(Laughter)
A.
Everyone -- everyone has his own way of expressing annoy-
ance with things. And I can understand the Lieutenant Governor's
irritation. Let me just say that I would I think it is safe to
say that while I am friends and respect a number of the reporters
for that paper as well as a number of others, in its official
editorial policy I would have to suggest that the Los Angeles
Times is something less than objective about this admiñistration.
Q.
But they supported you both times, didn't they?
A.
Well, --
Q.
Editorially.
A.
Whether they did or not in between times, I 'vebeen reading
more and enjoying it less.
i
Governor, do you agree with Lieutenant Governor Reinecke
that one of the functions of his office is -- is it afunction of
your office to try and cut through red tape, bureaucratic red tape on
behalf of whoever --
A.
Oh, I love to cut through bureaucratic red tape.
Q.
Do you have people who do that in your office?
A.
I think one of the things that I'm going to be proud of
when the eight years are over is the extent to which we have been
able to speed up the bureaucratic process and -- when possible to
-12-
cut out red tape th was doing nothing but obs ructing progress and
keeping --
Q.
On behalf of some individuals? On behalf of some
individuals?
A.
Well, now, what kind of individuals do you mean?
Q.
Well, someone whois seeking an insurance license for instance
As in this case.
A.
No, now cutting through red tape does not mean short-
cutting any of the regulatory practicies that are necessary in govern-
ment. And Idon't think anyone in this administration has done
such a thing. But I have received letters from individuals with
welfare problems and through some kind of bureaucratic red tape they
are going hungry while somebody makes up their mind and I have on
a numberof occasions picked up our phone to our own state welfare
department and said, "Whatever you have to do, get on the phone and
find out why this poor individual is being denied what they were
receiving. And I am pleased to say that -- that when you do that
you'd be surprised how quickly they can solve the problem, and some-
body starts eating again.
Q.
Governor, you've proposed an administrative reorganization
of Cal-Expo. Are you also going to support some additional funding
or some additional changes in the program for Cal-Expo?
A.
Well, I'm going to wait to see what the recommendations
now
of William Mott are about this. He's been entrusted/with the
responsibility. I'm going to see what -- what he proposes.
Q.
Do you have a favorite movie for the best picture of the
year tonight?
A.
I haven't seen enough of them, and I don't know that I've
seen any -- well, I have seen the Godfather, that's the only one
that I can think of that I've seen.
ED MEESE: Excuse me, Governor, just one correction,
you'll be taking two staff on this trip, just so we don't have any
questions about it.
A.
We just went up a hundred per cent in the staffing for
the trip.
Q.
What did you think of the Godfather?
O.
On your trip you '11 be taking to the Georgia Republican
fund raisers, will you tell them that you are still available for
-13-
the presidency altl igh you don't want to run
r the Senate?
A.
I won't even mention the President.
Q.
What if they ask?
A.
I don't think they will ask because I'm not going to
give them a chance at questions and answers.
Q.
Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: To all of you here, I should have had
an announcement at the beginning, they had to give it to me now, our
guests there in the back are from the University of Redland,
political science students, and from San Diego State University
and they are journalism students. Glad to have you here.
o00
-14-
4/10
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD APRIL 10, 1973
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
oOo
GOVERNOR REAGAN: We have some visitors, some journalism
students from Contra Costa College in San Pablo, and their instructor
Mrs. Alma Oburst. Happy to have them here, and witnessing all
you professionals at work, and as usual you will now all be on your
best manners and will conduct a proper press.
Q.
Governor, a new study of the Capitol indicates that it -- it
would still cost about 41 million dollars to rebuild it so it can
be used. Do you still favor that approach?
A.
Yes, this was --- this is in the ballbark. This is very
close to the figures that we were talking about before. And
roughly half of that amount or perhaps a little less than half to
simply make it suitable to remain as a showcase for people to look
at, and it just doesn't seem to me that sincevou have to go to that
cost that that doesn't come out as a better bargain than I understand
that the estimate for -- for a new building would be from -- anywhere
from 65 to a hundred million dollars.
Q.
Governor, can you explain why it is not in the public
interest to disclose the details of the use of the executive jet
and specifically what state business you are on when you use the
plane?
A.
Well, there's never been any secret about where I'm going
and my schedule is generally known. And frankly I thought there
was -- if Senator Way or any of the other senators want to know
any further details about the trips, all they have to do is pick up
the phone and call me, I'll be happy to tell them about them. Now
there have been no change, really, in the travel patterns that I have
followed in these six years except that sometime ago as you know it
was deemed -- security people deemed it better that we do -- most of
-1-
our traveling and all that we could do outside of commercial air
travel. Now when that new rule went into effect we chartered on'
a one-time basis, trip by trip planesand that's where this charter
or long-time lease idea came out, because it is far more economical
to have a long-time lease and have this available at the same time
for -- well, so far seven other departments have used it, than it
was to do what we had been doing. And I'm a little amused at some of
the stories of luxury travel because I want to tell you something,
I was dragged kicking and screaming into this whole proposal.
Because I can tell you that while that's a nice little airplane it
does not compare with -- commercial aircraft for luxury and comfort
of travel or speed.
Q.
Governor, you had a busy week making television appearances
last week, and you talked about your initiative. Was the use of
the state airplane connected with that?
A.
Yes. The use of the state airplane was with that and I
don't see anything wrong with that. I think I -- part of my job
and my responsibility has been the taxes of the people of California
and the effort for the last six years to try and reduce them and
make them easier to bear. And I don't see anything partisan in this
proposal to dispose of a surplus, to cut an income tax, and to give
the people an opportunity to phace a limit on taxation. But also I
think you will notice on almost any trip that there are other things
that take place, numerous things that take place in almost any
stop that we make. And it is deliberately scheduled so. Whenever
possible we try to combine as many things if we have to go to a town,
instead of just one thing or one reason for being there. I would
also point out toyou that when that plane is used, as it sometimes
to
is, on a purely political person/deliver -- cr reason to deliver me
some place for a party affair, that is charged to party funds and
not to the state of California.
O.
Governor, if you have combined these flights to take maximum
advantage of it, why does your office give no comment when asked
for the purpose of specific trips?
A.
Well, as I say, I consider it, very frankly, the proposal
nitpicking harrassment and very frankly my own feeling is I'm
not going to just give into it, simply because this thing is going on.
Now, as I said before, if the Senator wants to call me and ask me
I'll tell him, including what time I expect to get home and change
my clothes.
O.
Governor, 1 picked this pamphlet up here the other day
in the State office building and it is -- it is a picture of yourself
(ton)
on the cover and you are answering questions about the initiative.
And although it says on the back, "not printed at government expense,"
it was in a state office building and it does have your picture on
it and I'm wondering if it is not a legal question, it certainly
isn't --- isn't it an ethical one as to whether or not you should be
on something like this?
A.
Why?
O.
State office property.
A.
Well, why?
O.
Talking about the initiative.
A.
It was not printed at public expense as a part of the
initiative campaign, it was printed - paid for out of contributions.
And again, why couldn't it be here in the office, I've got some in
my office, I give them to people that drop in, that I want them to
have and I don't think anything unethical is to be found there.
Are we going to suggest that those legislators upstairs who are so
opposed to the program should go outside the building every time they
want to sound off against it?
Q.
Well, Governor, doesn't this touch on the restrictions
of state employees not being able to circulate petitions or use state
time?
A.
They are -- who's using state time and who's circulating
petitions?
O.
You did last Friday, was that on state time?
A.
What? Well, me doing what I did there with the petitions.
I think that you will find that that fits the customs of the office
and has been going on for a long time.
O.
Will you permit your opponents to the tax measure to put
their literature in state offices also?
A.
Well, I'm guite sure if they have some it will be avail-
able to the state offices,
O.
Governor, is there anything in the law or the constitution
anywhere that would prohibit you from picking whatever kind of
action you want to promote legislation as long as you are Governor?
A.
I know of no such restriction and I know of no governor
who hasn't done this with regard to the programs that he favored and
-3-
supported.
I think the water program was probably as controversial
as anything, but several governors preceding me went all out and
devoted a great deal of time and effort promoting the need of the
water program to the people of California. And I'm sure those gover-
nors wer e ald sincere and I happen to agree with them, they were
correct that it was for the good of the state.
O.
Another subject.
A.
All right.
Q.
Governor Reagan, do you think that any man deserves more
than two terms as President of the United States?
A.
No, I've said I'm in favor of the constitutional limit,
even though I was a New Deal Democrat and voted for Mr. Roosevelt
all four times I was bothered by that violation of wha t then was
a tradition. It had never been -- the tradition had never been
broken before and I was happy to see the constitutional amendment
that limited the President to two terms.
Q.
All right, now there are a group of people in the country
that are trying to repeal the 22nd amendment so that President
Nixon can run for a third term. Would you openly oppose it?
A.
Yes, I'd oppose that.
I --- all I know is what I've read
and -- and this mysterious group that keeps being talked about
is supporting this idea. They are certainly free to promote their
idea, but I would be opposed to it.
O.
You would be cpposed to it even if Presidet Nixon wanted
to run for --
A.
You know me, I'm the one that wanted a constitutional
amendment that a governor ceuld only be a governor twice in
California.
Q.
been introduced recently?
A.
What?
Q.
Has a proposal to do that been introduced recently?
A.
No, not since we started and we failed in that on the
constitutional change.
Q.
Would you oppose that even if President Nixon supported
it?
A.
Well, I'm afraid we come to the parting of the ways, but
I waild be very suprised if he supported it.
Q.
Governor, last week a memo came to light that suggested
some of your agencies consider how history will view your administra-
tion.
At this point how doyou consider history will view your
administration or how would you hope it would view it?
A.
Well, actually I think a wrong interpretation has been
made of something that's been pretty routine for the last several
years.
Which was amplified now because of the -- where we are
in this second term. But every year we have had a program of
having department heads tell us their accomplishment S and their
goals for the future. And then I have met with those department
heads when -- when their reports come in, and on this basis we
have --- we have tried to keep abreast of where are we in the
things we set out to accomplish six years ago. We have asked for
again this same thing, but now as you come to thelast two years
of an administration and before files begin to be closed out or
disappear we started with wanting a review of the - recommendations
that were made by the task forces the first year to see if there
are some of those that we still should be pursuing and then to
fit where do the unfinished goals --- unachieved goals -- where
do they lie on a priority order in view of the time left to us.
And this was actually for our own interest in working and what
we intend to do in these two years. It was not to carve in tablets
of stone something that we thought might be then mounted on the
capitol grounds or anything.
Q.
Governor, since we are back on the capitol grounds, if the
legislature did put in money in the budget to -- or appropriation
bill to start work on a new capital, would you veto that?
A.
Well, now you know I never talk about what I will or will
not veto, and I hav epromised one of the Senators who is interested
in this that he and I can have a meeting when he's ready. He is
interested in this idea and I've said that I'll try to keep an open
mind and hear his presentation.
Q.
Is that Senator Collier you promised that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Governor, the state constitution says that the initiative
is reserved for the people, to the electors. You do not feel that
you are sort of impinging or expanding executive responsibility a
little bit in leading an initiative? You are the first Governor
to do it.
A.
No, I thought that -- in a sense you don't officially lead
you take a -- a position and I suppose your job -- this office gives
-5-
it kind of a leadership position. You will remember that last
October I came out in opposition to the Wasson amendment, for example.
And worked very hard against it. And in connection with that I
promised the people of California, I told them then there would be
a surplus, I told them then there would be a possibility for an on-
going tax cut, and I promised them that -- at that time, prior to the
election, there had been no action -- successful action on property
t ax reform. For three years we have been rebuffed in our attempts
to get property tax reform, and I lumped that in also and I told
the people that -- none of this could we do if the Watson amendment
passed, but I said if the Watson amendment is defeated we will try
again with the legislature, but so that it wouldn't be the empty
promise that it turned out to be before when we had defedted a
similar proposition, I said if the legislature won't act I will call
a special election for the purpose of letting the people make
this decision.
Well, the legislature did act on property tax reform. We
got that much of it. The other things remain to be done. So I'm
keeping a promise I made to the people, the citizen's committee has
been formed and I might say they did not have to be forced into it
This citizen's committee is moving like wild fire and the response
has been fantastic. And there is a chairman, Norman Topping,
who incidentally chaired the Citizen's committee against the Watson
amendment, and is now in favor of this. And I don't see anything
wrong with this.
Q.
There is still the constitutional question as to whether
a government can lead an initiative doive, is there not?
A.
Well, why wasn't that brought up then with regard to the
other governors who were out in front and leading the drive for
the bond issue for the water program?
ED MEESE: Governor?
GOVERNOR REAGAN: What?
RD MEESE: Technically, you are not the elector
proposing the constitutional amendment, it is Dr. Topping.
A.
No -- yes.
Q.
But the genesis of the idea came from the governor.
A.
Well, I take a little author's pride in that. No, this --
and I'm quite sure that the -- the genesis of the bond issue came
-6-
from the governors, 00, with regard to the wat : program,
other things of that kind. No, officially I'm acting as governor
in this. I hold no title in that citizen's organization. That
is a totally separate organization raising funds, getting volunteers
to circulate the petitions. But I have made thepromise to the
people, as I say, that I would give them an opportunity by agreeing
to call a special election which is my constitutional right.
Q.
Governor, there seems to be so many trailer bills involving
SB 90 that it seems to have created more problems than it solved.
And I don't -- don't you conceive of this same thing happening with
this comprehensive tax limitation that you are going to -- if
it succeeds.
A.
No, there will be certain things that have to be passed
to implement certain parts of this constitutional reform. It is
true that in SB 90 when you were dealing with more than 4,000
separate districts in the state several hundred communities and
58 counties and attempting to -- to set a property tax limit there
were a variety of problems raised by individual districts that could
not have been foreseen and that required checking -- for example,
one district whose need for money was so small that they only
periodically for one year at a time would put on the -- on the
property tax bill the tax for running them till the next time
they needed it. Well, our limitation on raising property taxes
for that district fell in between, and fell in the year when they
didn't have the property tax on the bill, and in effect unless we
took care of that individual problem they would be forever banned
from getting back on the ballot with their tax. It was things of
this kind that there was no way to foresee in the limitation.
But I think the accomplishment of giving the people nearly a billion
dollars worth of homeowner and renter relief outweighs any of the
pesky problems that have faced us now and the bill has been introduced
that -- the roundup bill to clean up SB 90.
Q.
Governor, you said the response has been fantastic toyour
initiative proposal. Could you give us some example, and would
you give us your assessment now of the chances and could you tell
us when you plan to call the special election?
A.
Well, we have said -- we have already announced that the
date we hope for is November 6. This will tie into a great many
local elections throughout the state, and this will depend, of course,
on our -- our getting the petitions signed. But that's the date
O.
Yes, Governor, the Lieutenant Governor has written a
letter to President Nixon telling him
and time being he should
give any money for ecnomic assistance to North Vietnam. What is
your feeling on that in light of what we are hearing from P.O.W.'s
and so forth?
A.
Well, I certainly understand what the Lieutenant Governor
did.
And I think also that he is aware and the President has
indicated that he is not going to simply be open-handed with any
aid to North Vietnam until and unless we get satisfaction in all the
areas of agreement in the gease fire, including identification of our
dead and our missing in action. We have already had the return
of the prisones and I think he's shown already to them that -- that
there is a quid pro quo and that in order to get that aid they are
going to have to to have that help, and I think what the Lieutenant
Governor did fits in with -- with something that perhaps all of us
should do more of, and that is to strengthen a President's hand
by letting him know that there is support for the firm action.
I remember in the past when there was disagreeement and there were
demonstrations against some policies in connection with the war -- I
have heard two presidents say that they believed that the pressure
on them was coming from minority groups, and I use minority now in
numbers, I'm not talking about the use of it as to any special
ethnic group. But a minority of the people were opposed to their
position, but that they never heard from the so-called. silent
majority that remained silent and it would have been very helpful
to them at times to have been able to point to -- visible support
in the form of letters and wires and so forth. So I think it is a
good idea.
Q.
Governor, do you still share President Nixon's interpreta-
tion bhat we do have a peace with honor in Southeast Asia?
A.
Yes, and I think the men in the prison camps have made it
plain that they feel that way. I think that specifically of the
one man on television who said that had McGovern gone there as he
said he would and begged on his knees for their release, that he
feels that bad as it was he would have refused to come home under
those circumstances.
Q.
What is peaceful about Southeast Asia, though, at this
point?
A.
Well, I think this is an indication that those noble sons of
nature that so many I ple were concerned with n th of the demili-
tarized zone were what -- just what a lot of us always thought they wer
hard-core, hard-nosed, vicious Communists who had a goal and who
still have that goal and who are going to fudge, cheat and seeal
every chance they get. And I think the President is aware of this
and they are pushing as far as they can -- as they can push.
I don't think this fools anyone who has ever dealt with that kind
of people before. President Thieu told me quite sometime ago
when I met with him in Saigon and I asked him specifically how did
he envision the end of this war, and he said, "I think it wi 11 fade
away.' "I think for the next ten years we will have forces in
the hills, fighting guerilla bands," because that's the way the
communists fight and that's the way they do business. It will
really just for them enter a new phase.
Q.
Governor, there have been some suggestions that some of
the P.O.W. stories of torture have been exaggerated. You spent
considerable time with P. O. W.'s since they have been back. How
do you feel about the stories they have been telling?
A.
oh, I think those stories are absolutely true, and I don't
think anyone has made any effort to say anything to them. As a
matter of fact, befor e they talked about their mistreatment several
prisoners told me that they themselves, the first ones released,
had banded together and made a decision that until everyone was out
they would maintain silente about any mistreatment. And it so
happened that we were having the second of our P.O.W. dinners, the one
in Los Angeles, and that night we learned from them that the last
prieoners were in American hands, and that the next morning the pris-
oners of war would be freed to tell their stories and they were telling
them in a group -- in a numberof simultaneous press sessions, it was -
conferences.
No, I believe them and I don't think they were -- anyone
ever did -- you can't get acquainted with those men and believe
that anyone could brainwash or indoctrinate them or tell them to
say anything they didn't intend to say. This is quite a group of men
and what has happened to them and the -- and the -- in surviving this
you are aware of iteas you talk to them. Because something in the
experience of meeting with them and talking to them in a group
that -- first of all, they have the greatest bond with each other that
I have ever seen among human beings anywhere, and they have a strength
that -- you just know that what they are saying is what happened.
-9-
Q.
Governor, on that same subject, one of the returning P.O.W. 's
who is now a General, suggested that ther e be no charges filed
against any P.O.W's who may have signed anti-war statements. Would
you have that same sympathy?
A.
I'll défer to them. They know what happened. And I've
heard -- also I've heard several remarks -- now I don't know whether
it might develop that here and there there was an informer. We are
tglking about a large group of people and whether there was someone
who literally went over. But in the yielding and confessing, I know
one -- oneman told me in our home that he said, you know, we
weren't always this way. He said, "Every one of us at one time or
another broke," and he said it was only the strength of the others
then who would buyy us up and hold us up. And get us back on our --
on our feet. So they are aware that -- as I think a number of them
have said, that eventua 11y you talked.
Q.
Governor, did you talk to any of the P.O.W.'s about Mai
Lai, what they thought about that, and the conviction of Lieutenant
Calley?
A.
No, I never had any conversation about that.
Q.
They have never said anything about it?
A.
I've never heard any information volunteered about it.
Q.
Governor, a few weeks ago you were asked about the request
to excavate under the Governor's Mansion a site for an Indian
village, and you didn't seem too enthused about it then. Has
your office now told Senator Rodda that you will sign an
emergency measure on that issue?
A.
Yes, we never had any objection to it at all. I said --
I was being a little cynical at the last press conference, I
said I had to wonder why all of a sudden at this point that
became the site of -- it may be, and I asked the question if they --
had they found anything on either side where construction is going
on, of that particular spot to indicate this. But I'm not one for
just wanting to ignore that. And there is no problem at all. As
a matter of fact, we are very willing to make the money available
for excavation of that site before guilding takes place.
Q.
Governor, again on your initiative, what would you say the
chances are that you will qualify and make the November 6th election?
A.
Oh, I think -
-10-
Q.
Do you have any doubt?
A.
No, I think they are very good. I think the people feel
very strongly about this. The indication is to be found in the
volunteers already that have signed up and that little foray I made
into one precinct last week which was, believe me, un --
unscheduled as far as the people were concerned. They were caught
completely by surprise, six of the homes were Democrats, three were
Republican, and -- but none of the nine could wait for me to finish
(initiative)
my pitch before they reached for the pen to sign the petition.
Q.
Governor, will all these petitions be circulated by
volunteers?
A.
What's that?
Q.
Will all the petitions be circulated by volunteers?
A.
Yes, I believe that's the plan.
That's the committee's
plan.
Q.
You don't know of any plans to hire professional petition
circulators?
A.
None is now. Although I'm sure that the committee
wouldn't rule that out if it become necessary, but right now their
plan is an all volunteer effort.
Q.
Will you wait until you qualify them before you call
the -- actually issue the proclamation?
A.
I'vegot -- wait till I talk to my lawyer here. What's
the legal situation with regard to that calling of the election,
you have to wait until youqualify, don't you?
ED MEESE: That's right.
A.
Yes.
c
Governor, the joint legislative audit committee is saying
that you have spent about a hundred two thousand dollars of state
agency money in preparing the initiative.
Doyou now concur with
that? Your office had said a while back --
A.
We are trying to -- we are trying to round up the entire
story of this. And as I said last week, this is nothing different
from what we have done before. We believe it is the limit. 6f
resources that you have administratively in the executive branch
for things of this kind in the interest of people. The have had
a number of task forces before. We call on people from various
departments that we bèlieve have aptitudes that would make them
useful to the task force Sometimes they stay on salary. The salary
of their particular department. Sometimes there is a contracting
arrangement to another department but it is always out of
administrative funds and we think serves a useful purpose for the
people of California. But we are --we are gathering all of that tow
gether in one place so we can have a single answer for you.
Q.
Governor, do you have any fears at all that in calling
a special election on an initiative, viewing the bad history of
special elections and getting out people to vote, that whatever
happens to the initiative might not be representative of the state?
A.
Well, I 'm going to do my best to help and I know the
committee wants to get the biggest turnout we possibly can get for
the vote. I just deplore elections like the recent one in Los
Angeles, elections that only turn out a small percentage of voters.
And I recognize this goes on. Butwe are going to do our utmost
to get the biggest turnout possible.
a.
Governor, many of the cities and counties are now
deciding what they are going to do with revenue sharing money.
Most of them seem to be deciding touse them in capital outlay
projects and so forth instead of reducing taxes. Is that working
out the way you thought it would or had you assumed that there
would be a reduction in taxes at the local level?
A.
Oh, based on the last six years experience, no, I hadn't
anticipated a great rush to reduce the people's taxes at the local
level, by way of revenue sharing.
SQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.
o0c
-12-
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD APRIL 24, 1973
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and
there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
300
GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Well, once again, all of you on your
good behavior because we have journalism students from Stanford
University with their instructor, Dr. Bill Rivers. Glad to have you
here.
Q.
Governor, Time Magainst says Watergate is probably the
most pervasive instance of top-level misconduct in the nation's
history. What's your reaction to that description of it?
A.
Oh, I can think of a few worse crimes that have happened
in the nation's history. There is no question about it, the wrong-
doing was done, I think the law has taken it S course and I hope,
as I am sure everyone hopes, that it will be cleared up completely
and quickly.
Q.
Governor, yesterday you were quoted as saying you thought
the whole affair had been blown out of proportion. I wonder if
you could expand -- explain that statement.
A.
Well, I think in relation to this -- this quote here from
Time Magazine, that is to the nature of it, it has been blown out
of proportion. In view of past practices in election history
in this country, I made a remark this morning to some of our own
people that perhaps out of this might come something of great value
to the people of this country if we could have a bi-partisan commission
do a study and a research going back into history of what have
become rather common election practices, including the stealing of
votes and the stuffing of ballot boxes and all of the things that
have cynically been taken for granted by the people, and maybe we
could return balloting and voting to what it always was intended to
be.
Q.
Governor -- Governor, what in your estimation is going to
-1-
be the long-term imr t of Watergate on the Rept lican party looking
specifically toward 1974 and 1976?
A.
Well, I doubt that the people are going to blanket indict
entire millions of Republicans for something that perhaps a few
people have done and over which they had no control and certainly
of which they had no knowledge, and disapprove as much as anyone
disapproves. And I think the American people are fairer than that.
I think the answer is to come out, as the President has said himself,
and establish once and for all who was involved, what was the extent
of their involvement and let the law take its course.
Q.
Isn't there a question of credibility involved, though,
Governor, that reflects on the party as a whole?
A.
Oh --
O.
Party leadership at least.
A.
Oh, I think there are a number of people on the other
side who would love to pretend that is SO. But what credibility?
What-- how could someone three thousand miles away herein the State
of California, for example, know that a small group of men had
embarked on what was a -- I think referred to in one story of it, -
using the President's expression at a cabinet meeting, as jack-assery.
Q.
Governor, last month in discussing this you said that,
"you doubted whether anyone really high up in the campaign structure
would have known about it." Do you still believe that?
A.
Yes, I still do.
Q.
Well --
A.
But I -- look, gentlemen, I know no more than you know
or that has been printed about Watergate. I have no personaly inside
information of any kind. I am as curious as I am sure all of you
are. It is now being investigated and is before a Grand Jury,
d I think that that would mean that there is no comment that would
be appropriate from me or whatmy opinion is of it. I've said before,
I
think it was a wrong thing to do. Some men have already been
intenced. If there are others involved they will be and the law
1 take its course.
Another subject, Governor.
You bet.
Q.
One more. One more on a similar subject. Governor, there
was a recent gallup poll that said 40 per cent of the people thought
-2-
President Nixon was had some knowledge of Wat gate. Now, they
thought. Now the question is, why would the people think this?
That's a pretty large --
A.
Well, I would say if forty per cent of the people, according
to
the
gallup
poll,
--
and also think that the President had some
prior knowledge of it, that is a tribute and a testimonial to the
ability of those who have been doing their best to blow this and carry
it as far along as to the next election as they can.
Q.
Who arethey, Governor?
Q.
Who are they?
A.
This will involve elements of the communication media,
this will involve representatives on a Senate Investigating Committee.
They have got a hold of a good thing from their standpoint.
O.
But, Governor, why should Republicans on the Senate
Investigating Committee -- what would they have to gain other than
fearing that there really is something that is wrong high up in
the nation?
A.
Well, I didn't refer to any Republicans onthe Senate
Investigating Committee.
Q.
There are Republicans who have been almost as critical as
Democrats.
A.
There is one that has said he wants onceand for all to
find out. I want once and for all to find out. I wish you fellows
were interested in the tax program as you are in this. I know more
about that.
(Laughter)
Q.
Governor, I take it you don't think the Washington Post
should get a Pulitzer Prize as has been suggested?
A.
Let me just say that I'm glad I do not live in the city
where my only source of news is the Washington Post.
O.
Is that a plug for the Bee?
(Laughter)
A.
Why, that 's a plug for all the local papers.
Q.
Governor, the Environmental Protection Agency has set
significantly higher standards for California than the rest of the
nation. Do you think this is a good thing for California or do you
think that California is being picked on, should somebody else be the
guinea pig?
-3-
A.
Well, I -- no, I can't say that because California -- it
was only a short time ago, was in Washington pleading for permission
to have higher standards because our standards were higher than those
set by the Federal Government. And I don't think that they have
upped those standards for us any more than we already had them set at
that level. I know also that Mr. Ruckelhaus has said that California
leads the nation and has done more with regard to finding an answer
to air pollution than any other part of the country.
O.
Are you pleased with their with this higher standard
for California?
A.
Oh, sure. I -- I think it is -- we just become accustomed
to being first in everything.
Q.
Governor, there's a --- some talk that people -- there are
financial backers that people would like to see you become the
President have decided among themselves they'd like to hold back on
any kind of contributions to a Gubernatorial candidate, keep the
mony in seed money for your own Presidential ambition.
A.
I never heard anything of that kind, and I know that any
rpominent Republicans involved in fund raising right now are doing
their utmost to -- to raise funds for the State Central Committee which
after the big computer expense involved with reapportionment is in
kind of bad financial shape. And I've heard nothing about holding
back any conbributions of any kind for that. As a matter of fact,
those same people have bren most generous in their support in the
special elections that have taken place so far following the last
election.
Q.
So then those contributors who are associated with yourself,
would you urge them to fund the other Gubernatorial candidates, the
Gubernatorial candidates?
A.
I have done so already, that infamous luncheon that was
supposed to have been held I urged them to get together and to provide
the support for the party organization that it needs.
Q.
Governor, a couple of weeks ago Evelle Younger was critical
of President Nixon's campaign force in California. He said they
were ruthless in getting every nickel out of Republican contributors
and that now he and other potential candidates are broke and having
difficulty. Do you think that the there was some overkill in
fund raising by the Nixon campaign in California?
-4-
A.
Well, you'll have to ask the Attorney General about that.
Or what he meant by it. I do know this, that there was no question
that the State of California -- this is rather typical in the years
that I've been a Republican, it's been true that this state is more
generous and does more with that -- in that regard than most other
areas of the country and did so in the last Presidential campaign.
Now, I can't blame the people if they are tired of being tapped
again. But I would also point out thatin the last Presidential
election the same people here in California raised more money for
legislative races, state races than had ever been raised before in
the history of the party.
Q.
There is a problem now in the party, though, raising money
after this fund drive.
A.
No more than just the fact that people are -- have been
tapped.
When you take Los Angeles, which is the biggest concentra-
tion of people in the state, you follow the national election the
very next year, as we have, with -- with a local election and it
must seem sometimes to the people that the -- it just goes on year
after year with no break in between.
Q.
Does this include this tapping of everybody for these
legislative dinners that they are having over the state?
A.
Again, as I say, there is -- there is fund raising going
on and much of it has been for the special elections. What is it,
four or five special elections that we are faced with here
immediately following the Presidential election, because of deaths
and - and men who won other offices, such as going to Congress
and have their positions open.
Q.
Governor, how exactly would you describe your role with
the Blair House group?
A.
I don't know anything about -- I've never been in the Blair
House, I was invited to a meeting that was -- not a meeting, a
dinner, social gathering, that wassupposed to honor those Californians
who were taken from our administration and served in the national
administration, This was right after the election. I didn't go,
couldn't go, and I just don't know who is supposed to be the Blair
House group. This luncheon that was held recently, I was told,
was a luncheon to discuss mobilizing party support behind the State
Central Committee, behind the party as a whole, and was assured that
-5-
it was not directed ward any individual, primary campaigns but
toward making sure that there would be support for whoever was the
party nominee and I went and spoke for about fifteen minutes endorsing
that viewpoint.
Q.
You are talking about this Los Angeles meeting now?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Where is the Blair House down there?
Q.
Governor, on -- on your tax initiative, have you taken any
steps to completely separate the functions of your official --- the
functions of your official of fice and that of the Citizen's Committee
so there won't be any doubtiful areas such as where your office mailed
out booklets throughtout the nation and then later billed the
committee for them?
A.
There is a complete separation except that people in my own
administration are volunteering and on their own time are helping
out such as walking precints on Saturdays, that have been planned
and so forth. No one is going to lose his job if he doesn't do that.
But I think that the administration is pretty much united behind
this plan. And no, there is -- there is no violation of anything --
no separation that is being bridged with regard to support of this.
Q.
Even in the mailings that --
A.
No, the mailing -- we printed the blue books in two printings.
The first printing was for the legislature. Then because this is
so widespread and it is our intention that the people should vote
on it, we had a second printing and we made them available to all of
you, we made them available up and down the state to editors and
publishers and so forth in the communications media, and we then sent
some of those to the communications media outside the state, but for
those we have been -- the committee has reimbursed the state for
the printing and the mailing of those.
Q.
Governor, were those -- were those booklets solicited by
the media outside of California?
A.
Some were, and so we just sent on a mailing list because
we were interested in getting as much editorial comment and support
as we could get.
Q.
Why outside of California?
A.
Well, because I think it is very impressive when you
can show the Wall Street Journal supporting the basic philosophy of
this. And when you can show that the word has spread and that
-6-
elsewhere -- and many of them certainly did this unsolicited, these
editorial comments. It is very helpful in getting volunteers, it
is very helpful in refuting some of the arguments that are being
used against the program.
Q.
Governor, are you deeply concerned now that you are not
(tax initiation
going to be able to get enough signatures to qualify it for the
November ballot?
A.
Oh, listen, you always run scared and you should in any
kind of an election or anything of this kind. Our problem is time.
The mechanics of getting these in and in the limited time. We find
that too many people just seem to think that they have got all summer,
that if you are talking about an election next fall they don't realize
that there is a deadline by which these petitions have to be turned
in. That's a mechanical problem. As far as the interest of the
people in signing them is concerned, those who are circulating
petitions say they have yet to meet anyone who refuses to sign,
that everyone across party lines wants to sign this petition.
Q.
Governor, last night you came out with a new estimate for
the cost of this special statewide election, that's two and a half
million. Could you state the source of that estimate.
A.
Yes, Finance Department has been -- I asked, when all
these figures started being thrown around several weeks ago, about
the cost of a special election, no one knew so I asked for us to find
out, what really was the cost of a special election, particularly
that would be held on a day when there were also a number oflocal
elections. Now, the cost would go up if we couldn't hold it
on that day.
Q.
If it is a single issue election it would be higher?
A.
That's right. Possibly -- rough estimate would probably
be five million dollars. But certainly not the tenand the fifteen
that's been talked about.
Q.
The Secretary of State's office has estimated it at 3.5,
not 2.5.
A.
Verne, was I wrong last night when -- and yesterday
when I made the remark two and a half, did I misunderstand?
VERNE ORR: Not quite, Governor, it is a range from 2,9
to 3.5
A.
Well, then I was wrong then, it is a little bigger than
2.5.
-7-
VERNE ORR:
May I say, Governor, we L led the ten
larger counties, we called ten medium counties, we called ten small
counties, so we took 30 out of 58 counties for our estimate.
A.
Now you want to make me a liar for a half a million dollars
fellows.
Q.
Governor, Bob Finch in Los Angeles said he was very concerned
about the initiative and he didn't favor it as theroute to go. That
puts him and Flournoy together as to what -- at distance to the
init iative, and Lieutenant Reinecke and Evelle Y ounger seem to be a
little more favorably disposed. Are you not afraid that -- that this
issue could be divisive within the Republican party as you head towards
'74?
A.
I never made a claim that this is totally on party lines.
The issue of this tax reform. I would like to feel that -- that all
Republicans support it. I don't know what Mr. Finch has said, I know
that Mr. Flournoy has asked for more information on the program
and I do not believe that he has come out in any statement against
it. He made a positive statement in a speech so me weeks ago to the
effect that he felt the way to go was to reduce government spending.
Well, here's an administration that's done a better job of that than
any administration I know and we still were not able to hold down
the growth of government. The reason for appointing a task force was
to findout why and find out if there was a better way we could go.
And as I have said before, I think if you are faced with extravagance
you can lecture on extravagance all you want to or you can cut
somebody's allowance and cure the extravagance.
We think that's the
way to go.
Q.
But you don't interpret this as an issue of good Republican-
ism or -- can you be a good Republican and be against the Governor's
proposal?
A.
Well, in Democratic eyes you could. In my eyes, no.
No. Look, people are going to have -- have differences of opinion
on this. I happen to think that we have made a study of this and
if anyone wants to come add question us on what we are trying to
do, he can and I'm quite sure that he would find out that this --
that there is quite a body of evidence supporting what it is that
we are attempting.
Q.
Governor, what's your reaction now that the Nixon administra-
tion hints that there be a tax increase, that they are thinking about
-8-
that to curb inflation.
A.
Well, I just read the statement in the paper this morning.
I also read that Mr. Stein had made this, and that he said he doubted
if such a thing would happen.
Q.
They are considering it.
A.
My own -- my own view as a student of economics is that
to suggest a tax increase to cure inflation is like telling a
drunk that another drink will cure him.
Q.
Governor, earlier in your administration the task forces
were civilian and volunteer. The pattern seems to have changed now,
your recent task forces are -- consist of hundred dollar a day
consultants and -- and that kind of thing. What's -- what shaped
the change in approach?
A.
Well, no, if you remember, the first civilian task force,
it is true, there were 250 odd volunteers in those task forces, but
they also -- the business community raised money to employ a manage-
ment consulting firm on a contract basis to bring all of the loose
ends together and to supervise exactly what it was, so that you
just didn't have these people stattering out and gust coming in with
loose recommendations and the result was a codified set of about
1800 -- to 1900 specific recommendations and proposals.
Now, the number of the people that first got their taste
of public service in serving and helping these task forces are now
in our shop and they are people who have been most successful in re-
ducing the cost of a number of departments.
We have turned to
them as we did -- the first time was in the welfare reforms, and we
turned to them for an in-house task force with the knowledge that
they could go out and get, as they did, volunteers from the outside
to help. And some of those task force members, a few of them,
have been so successful in that that we used them again in the tax
task force, and we are going to use them again in the local government --
the government structure task force, and in that instance you make
a contract arrangement with them.
Q.
My impression is there is less citizen participation now.
Is that impression right?
A.
Well, we have never hesitated to call on the citizens.
We had several task forces of civilians, volunteers on the over-all
subject of taxation and tax reform leading to property tax reform.
-9-
As I say, these in-house task forces, now we have something we
didn't have at the beginning. We have men within government who are
very familiar with theproblems and have been dealing with them
and it is -- it just seems a very practical way to go.
ED MEESE: Governor, all of our task forces, including
those in being now, have as many people from outside government as
they do have on inside government, as a variety of arrangements.
Q.
Governor, when you talk about tax reform, what aboutall
the property in the State of California that is not taxable, is tax
exempt, it seems like the cost of government goes up and the amounts
of property that we can tax in California goes down. Therefore fewer
people are sharing more of the burden. Is that really fair?
A.
In the case of property tax that's true, but the greatest
villain in that is public ownership itsel f. Every time that we take
miles and acres of land off the offthe tax rolls to build a
highway the federal gobernment owns about 52 per cent of the State of
California and when we buy park and beach lands as we have, we take
it off the tax rolls.
Now, to a lesser extent you do have some charitable opera-
tions, schools and so forth, whose property is tax exempt. I think
it is foolish to talk about putting them on the tax rolls because
they are already earrying a burden that is of benefit to the tax --
to the other taxpayers in that there are some it is around 40 -
no, it is more than 40,000, several hundred thousand children in
California that are getting education at private expense who would
be thrown out of the public school system if those private schools
didn't exist. And I'm quite sure that they are on enough -- a
close enough margin that if you made them pay property tax for the
property they occupy you'd put them out of business.
Q.
Would there be anything in the works now to get some of the
property back on the tax rolls?
A.
Well, we try as fast as we can. We have been inventory-
ing since I first became Governor, government owned land, to -- to
get it -- dispose of it and get it back into private ownership as
much as we can. There's been controversy at times as to whether
we are still hanging on to some of this and shouldn't. I think
the people who said that have not realized the difficulties of
inventorying, making sure that the -- that we are moving as fast as
we can, but we are, and it is very complicated. You take -- in
highway and freeway building we wind up with little parcels of land
that are virtually Baleable because they are a little odd piece
of land on the fringe of a turn around or something in a freeway,
an interchange, and to suddenly say that you can just go out and put
this on the market and dispose of it -- well, it's been for sale for
a long time and you just don't have that many takers for that kind
of property. But we have -- we are very conscious of this, trying
to do it. But I don't think you are suggesting that we sell the
parks. I was accused of that in 1966 because in my campaign I said
that I proposed an inventory of park lands to see if they were still
needed, and if we were holding all land or any kind of land that we
shouldn't be holding, and dispose of it, and we have followed through
on that. But at that time I remember I was charged with wanting to
sell the state parks. We haven't sold any yet.
Q.
Governor, on the subject of highly taxed private land,
have you completed any negotiations yet to sell your Riverside County
ranch and buy one elsewhere?
A.
No, when I do I'm going to buy a new suit.
(Laughter)
&
Governor, on the Watergate, you said it had been character-
ized as a case of jack-assery.
A.
I said that I read -- I read a story in one of your papers
this morning that at a cabinet meeting the President was quoted as
referring to it as that.
Q.
Yeah, but I mean do you agree with that assessment?
And when you say that -- and when you say that you are confident the
people high in the administration were not aware of it, even Mr.
Mitchell has -- has testified that he was aware of the discussions
although he said he did not approve the bugging himself. I mean
how high is high?
A.
Look, you keep -- in your efforts to keep this thing you
will go at anyone hoping that someone will say something that can
then be used as a lead line.
I told you I only know what I read
in your papers and I hope you are all scrupulously accurate.
Q.
Governor, what irritates you most about this? You seem
very irritated to be asked questions about Watergate even though
you are a high ranking Republican official.
A,
Well, I'm irritated at a fly that keeps buzzing around my
head and won't go away. You've been doing this for weeks. And
I have nothing new to offer. I know nothing except what I've read
in the papers or heard in the air, as I have said before. And I
think that all of you if you will analyze it you selves know that
I have no access to information that you don't have. Probably not
as much, because I don't get to talk to other people as much as you
do.
Q.
Governor --
Q.
Governor, your initiative doesn't dispose of your -- of
the one-time budget surplus, and your legislation to do that seems
to be symied in the Assembly. What are you going to do about that?
A.
The initiative does make provision for a part of the one-
time surplus.
Q.
It leaves five hundred million depending on the size of
the surplus,
A.
No, we estimate about 368 million for the seven months
delay of the sales tax if that will go through. There was no way
that that could be put on the initiative because that must take --
that's scheduled to take plade June 1. I hope that the legislature
will take action on that. I think that's a proper way to dispose
of -- of a part of the surplus, is to delay the imposition of the sales
tax increase. The arguments upstairs, no one seems to argue
against that. They just want todispose of the bulk of the surplus
in that way and I think that's unfair to those people who contributed
to that surplus by way ofthe income tax. What we have proposed is
roughly a 50-50 split between the sales tax and the income tax.
As a matter of fact, the latest figures now indicate that it will
be more than half --- would be sales tax or a greater proportion would
be sales tax on a seven month rebate than it would be by way of
income tax.
Q.
One more question back there, Governor.
Q.
Governor, you said last time that your staff was waking up
a report on how much of state agency money was spent on preparing
the initiative. Have you worked out that report and arrived at
that figure?
ED MEESE: Actually this was the amount of money that went
into the tax reduction task forze which is -- has quite a few
products beyond the initiative itself. This report will be forth-
coming, it is not completed yet.
Q.
Governor, do you think that on the budget, on your --
the budget surplus, the bills, that it is going to get a point of
-12-
negotiation like on fare and tax reform, betw n you and the
Speaker or perhaps you and the speaker and the Senate leadership?
A.
Well, it is very difficult for me to see now how that can
be. Certainly we presented those to the legislature. We
presented briefings. We invited proposals, fromthem, if anyone had
any alternative proposals. All we received was a barrage of criticism
and a denial of the entire plan which has caused us to go to the
public. I think now -- I don't see any way for compromise. I
think it is a pretty good compromise that they want to give the --
the bulk of thesurplus back by thirteen months delay of the sales tax
increase. We proposed seven months and the other, as I say, roughly
half be given back by way of anincome tax rebate. Now, how much
more room is there for compromise, we are only six months apart with
regard to the sales tax. I think it is very unfair to suggest that
the entire surplus should be given back by way of the sales tax when
we aan absolutely establish that more than four -- 475 million dollars
of that surplus was contributed by income tax payers.
Q.
So your ruling on negotiation is it is a non-negotiable
thing?
A.
No one has proposed any.
SQUIRE: Any more questions?
Q.
Governor, last week Congressman Joe Waldie made his tax
returns available to the press. Will you do the same with your
income tax returns this year?
A.
No, and I paid income taxes.
Q.
Will you reveal the amounts of income taxes you paid this
year?
A.
No, and I don't think that that's -- that that's smart or
required any more than I think that we should ask any d you to make
yours available.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
-13-
5/2
2
FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR REAGAN MADE TO
NEWSMEN AT A PRESS CONFERENCE IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE MAY 2, 1973 IN
RESPONSE TO CHARGES BY ASSEMBLY SPEAKER ROBERT MORETTI AGAINST THE
GOVERNOR'S REVENUE CONTROL AND TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM:
"Dear Bob:
"Thank you for your letter regarding a televised debate on our tax
reduction program.
"As I see it, the only issue presently before the legislature
and the people is whether or not the people themselves should be allowed
to vote on a program to control and reduce their tax burden. You do not
believe they should be allowed to do this and I believe they should. A
debate on what is apparently a simple difference of opinion between us
would be the shortest debate on record.
"Public debates are an effective means of clarifying complicated
issues for the public, or for comparing candidates for office. Deciding
whether the people should be allowed to vote or not is hardly a
complicated issue, and I'm not a candidate for office so there really
is no need to air our difference.
"I'd still like to give you a briefing on the program--I think
if you understood it, you'd like it as much as you did the welfare
reform.
"You are disturbed, for example, that the refund of the surplus
might benefit unfairly those of higher income. You'll be pleased to
know that almost half the people, those at the lower end of the earning
scale, will have no income tax liability at all, and there will be no
rebate at all for corporate income tax or capital gains."
Governor: Let me say a few things to you about some of the points
that he has made to you this morning in his press conference and elsewhere
previous to this. His request that I withdraw my comments regarding
Alan Post I am sorry to say I don't feel that I can withdraw those. I
think the record has been rather conclusive that repeated opposition to
the things we proposed and, in most instances if not all, in recent years
his facts and figures have turned out to be wrong. The point with regard
to the 44.7 percent of the people's earnings that is taken by government
and the contrasting figures say that this is much lower, say 32,6 percent,
which, incidentally, is a pretty high figure itself. But this is just a
case of which way you look at it. The 32.6 percent is based on net
(national) product. This is similar to taking the gross national product
which is sometimes used and then weighing the tax burden against that.
This is not a valid figure in my view. The government can raise the net
(national) product by spending more government money. The figure that we
have used is what is the total cost of government and into that we have
then taken what is the total income of the people, the spendable income
of the people and what percentage of that is going to government.
- 1 -
Now this comes out at the 44 percent figure that we have been using.
On the other hand, if you want to take the actual cost of government and
boil this down, limit this down to simply that cost of government that
is funded by taxes then in all justice and fairness you have to take not
the total revenue or income of the people and the imputed income, but
you've got to take earned income and if you do that it also comes out at
around 44 percent. So to quibble over a percentage point here or there
or a few percentage points in this issue is to try and cloud the fact
that taxes are too high and government is too big and costly in the
nation and the reputable economists who came to our aid in the task
force made that perfectly clear and made it clear that they believe we
are at a crossroads and that we cannot continue with the present tax
burden.
Question:
Do you include such things as postal stamps and things
like that?
Governor:
In the first figure, we do when they are used as state
institutions, whatever supports the institution of government.
Question: Is that really a tax? Your ads say this is a tax.
Governor: Well, perhaps there the technicality of using the word
revenues as versus tax to deny the paying of a postage stamp on a letter
to say this is a fee for a service, well all taxes are fees for service
and an ideal tax is when you can actually assess the service against
the user. But as I have said before there are two ways to take this, you
can take out all those figures and just limit this to tax revenue and then
limit the other figure to earned income and you will still come out with
about the 44 percent figure.
Ed Gray: I would like to ask you to let the governor make his points
and then ask your questions.
Governor: Now the denial that $17,000 that this would require an
income of $200,000 a year in order to make $17,000 savings over 15 years
is so ridiculous that I am a little embarrassed to even have to talk
about it. He must have been concluding that this was all to come from
tate income tax and that's not true. We are talking about what will be
the per capita reduction of the tax burden on the people and you will
find that our $17,000 figure will hold up for a family of four. Now I
have figured in using the income level that I used for an average family
of four that I was taking at about the median income with the idea that the
median income then is going to be what is the average.
- 2 -
Obviously, some above its going to be more, some less who pay a lesser
tax burden because we are averaging. Now I might have been wrong on what
I consider the median income there are some I have heard and been told
today that instead of $10,000 this is nearer $11,000 of income. Well,
that's a small difference. It (the per capita result) still comes out
at this figure that we have used. That we are going to force taxes on
to the county taxpayers. This is absolutely untrue and reveals an
ignorance of what is in our program. First of all we have put SB 90
into this Constitutional initiative freezing that limit. But the other
thing is that to say that by limiting the state revenues that we are
going to take over the years is going to force a reduction of state
support now for local county programs, ignores the fact that we have a
safety limit underneath the eventual 7 percent limitation and that safety
limit is that at no point will the limit ever be allowed to go below
what are the current services of government, state government, augmented
by what is needed to meet inflation and population growth. Now about two
thirds of our budget, as you know, goes back to local and county
government. That will continue to be so. So if in 15 years under our
projection the state should be taking in taxes $27 billion, then two
thirds of that is going to be going to state and local government, and
this provision, this limitation under our projections allows not only for
the total percentage required over the 15 years to meet inflation and
population growth but it also includes quite a considerable percentage
to meet any new projects or new programs that government might think of.
As I said the other day if this is a strait jacket it's about the loosest
strait jacket that's ever been created. The minimum income tax---we
actually can see no way in which we are eliminating the minimum income
tax. To use an example of a 1/2 million dollar or a million dollar a year
person who can get their adjusted gross income through exclusions and
exemptions down to an $8,000 or less income so that they would be free of
any income tax is so farfetched that it would be virtually impossible,
but again let me point out that if by some manner of means there is some
affluent individual with a high income who actually can find such a way
to do this, then the provision for closing such loopholes is provided in
this bill because the legislature has full authority to, by statute,
take care of any such problems. I can't actually foresee one and I think
it is the most farfetched case I ever heard of to suggest that such a
thing could be done, The last is the deferral of the sales tax and the
alleged deficit that results.
- 3 -
This is suggesting the if we delay the sales tax Increase for the seven
months we have proposed, use the surplus to supplant or subsidize that
proposed sales tax increase, this will lower the income tax base
technically on which we base the future reductions in the tax limitation
program and thus we would be suddenly getting less revenues than we need
to carry on the normal functions of government. Well, first of all there
is that safety provision that you cannot do that, that we cannot go below
present services and their cost adjusted for growth and inflation. That
is number one. The second thing is it is true I simply assume that by
substituting this surplus money for the tax increase, which by coincidence
came along at the same time, that this would count as a base of revenue
we need for the state. If that is, as some people suggest now,
technically incorrect, there is still a way to do it. It takes a minor
adjustment of the bill that is upstairs now. It would require
implementing the sales tax increase but at the same time cancelling out
for the period of several periods the 1 cent of sales tax that goes to
local government, that we simply collect for local government, and
supplanting that with the same portion of the surplus and thus the
effects on the taxpayer would be the same, he would be paying 5 not 6
cents of sales tax for these several months yet it would leave the
revenue base the same for future computations. Failing that, if they
don't want to do that in the legislature and they certainly have the
ability to do it right now, the only thing I would ask them to do is, if
they are unwilling to do that, is I would like to have them postpone the
increase for one month. We have been told by the tax people that to not
start this at the beginning of the quarter complicates the administrative
problem not only for the merchants but for government itself and that
just to delay it till July 1 would be something to do and that would
start the fiscal year out. Now if they don't want to do this other and
make it possible to defer the imposition of the sales tax then that
money remains in the treasury as a surplus and under this very measure
it would be, we hope, adopted by the people, the legislature would have
full authority then to return it to the people and I would hope they
would return it to the people by way of a decrease in the sales tax that
could be implemented for a period of time whatever the money, whatever
the amount of the surplus would pay for, that could be implemented at any
time and just temporarily reduce for a period the collection of sales tax,
and it would not affect the base upon which we were computing our future
tax limitation. Those I believe are the main points that he made with
regard to this and now any questions that you may have:
Question:
ina
lible
make a minor adjus ment to the
Constitutional amendment your initiative now is out in print and as I
understand it cannot be amended at all.
Governor: The initiative doesn't have anything to do with the
deferral of the sales tax, that does depend on the legislature. All
they have to do is amend the bill (SB 238, Lagomarsino) upstairs on that
or as I said I wish they would take care of the one month, June. They
all know, as well as we know, that SB 90 calling for that to begin on
June 1, did create, we have learned, an administrative problem when it
was passed last year just for that one month. They could take enough
out of that surplus for that one month and that's in this fiscal year,
so it does not apply to the tax base of the coming year and all they
would have to do is to say All right, we are implementing under SB 90
the tax increase, the sales tax increase, but at the same time amend the
bill to say that for a seven-month period, or then it would be a six-
month period if they did the other, six or a seven-month period, we are
temporarily relieving the people of the one cent that goes to local
government and we will subsidize local government with an appropriation
from the surplus.
Question: Governor, in your letter to Mr. Moretti aren't you saying
in essence that the people of California should sign the petition without
knowing the merits of the proposal being presented to them?
Governor: No, that brings up the other point that he did make and I
didn't turn to here. This idea that only through the debate that he is
suggestion can the people of California be informed of this bill, that's
pretty ridiculous. You fellows know that I have gone up and down the
state and made myself available to every kind of organization, on the
air, on radio programs, on talk programs, on panel shows and to you of
the media, more so than on any issue since the reelection campaign. I
have gone to publishers of the media up and down the state to explain
fully this program which he says we are keeping under some cloak of
secrecy. And tonight I will be speaking at the convention of the PTA
and giving them a briefing with charts on this entire program, and then
as I have done in every meeting, opening myself to questions from the
audience. Now this is hardly keeping the program in the dark. I have
no reason to keep it in the dark, I am very proud of it and I think it is
avery forward, progressive thing for this state to undertake and I don't
think any purpose would be served by appearing in tandem. He certainly
has had no difficulty in getting his erroneous ideas about the program
before the public.
- 5 -
Question:
You have INC yet given Mr. Moretti a
iefing on your
program?
Governor: Yes, Mr. Moretti has had a briefing. I must say he walked
out of the briefing because of a previous engagement after about ten
minutes of the chart briefing and then we have sent up the 67-page
booklet, and as I have said before I believe in Bob Moretti's honesty,
I think he believes these things he is saying about the program. I
would like to be able to explain to him, if he would take such a briefing
that the fears that he has expressed about what will happen with this
program, are groundless, that we didn't sit here in a room and say let's
sweep under a rug everything we don't like that might happen under it,
we found an answer to it. We tried to make it as flexible as we could
to meet every problem the state might be faced with.
Question:
Bob suggested that you figured income tax appropriations
but not
corporations' income on the other side.
Governor:
No, that's not true.
Question:
You figured taxes on corporations but not the income on
the other side.
Governor: They are talking about the undistributed income that goes
back into investment of plant and machinery and so forth. We are
talking about the money the people themselves have en toto for their
use and their spending and then what percentage do they not have the
use of because it goes to support the institutions of government.
Question:
Mr. Moretti charges this will raise local property taxes.
He said this was based on ignorance on your part. He was saying exactly
the same thing Alan Post said. Was this Mr. Post's ignorance too, or
how do you
?
Governor:
I don't understand this position at all because certainly
every protection is in this bill that we cannot mandate services on local
government, we cannot let something go over to local government that the
state is now doing in an effort to keep within our limitation, and there
is, as I said before, projected revenues within the limitation. There is
more than enough money to meet any of the needs that might arise in the
future unless some local government dreams up something on their own
that they want to do that no one has ever thought of and then I think
that's up to the people in that local community, but again, as I say our
projections of revenue two thirds of which will go to local and state
government as it does now, must come above the line which we've drawn
as a safety line. That we will never go below present services adjusted
for inflation and growth.
- 6 -
Question: Earlier Mis month, let's get back tc the $17,000 tax
saving for the average family of four. Go over that again.
Governor: When you talk per capita tax burden in government you don't
say per capita tax burden for those who are just paying the income tax,
it is traditionally divided on the basis of how this will pro-rate out
for every individual because presumably every individual is receiving the
benefits of government. So it is based on every man, woman, child and
baby. Now if there is a family of four and only one of the four is
earning money and paying the tax, the tax burden and the cost of
government pro-rated is pro-rated on the basis of four people and he is
responsible for four of those people.
Question: The impact on the individual wage earner with a wife and
two children, would that be $17,000 then?
Governor: Yes it would. There might be some difference with choosing'
the method to try and illustrate this so the people could understand it
I tried to use the line in the middle, and you could just as well say
average, because the average is right now at the moment $300 and some per
human being. For a family of four multiply that by four, that's our
state tax burden. It has been pointed out to me that possibly I should
have figured out what it would be at $11,000 of income. Family income
situations change dramatically over 15 years. Not only will average
family income rise with growth in the economy and inflation, but
individual family members will change income status with age and
experience.
Question: Assuming the initiative does qualify would you then debate
Speaker Moretti on its merits?
Governor: Well, I am going to wait and see what is necessary to the
program once I know that if and when the people sign the petitions to
put on the ballot I think there is going to be a lull and then I think
you have to determine how much campaign is necessary to get the people
out and further convince them of what this is all about and solicit their
vote for it. I intend to do whatever I think is best to keep the people
informed on this.
Question: Are you ruling out the debate before the qualification
deadline but not necessarily ruling out a debate after that until
November 6.
Governor: As I say we will do whatever we wll decide in our counsels
here is the best way to sell this program, and to inform the people
which I think is the only way to sell it, they ought to know what they
are buying.
- 7 -
Question: The speaker was speculating the othe_ day, he said he had
heard that some counties will refuse to put the initiative on the ballot
unless the state picks up the cost in advance under SB 90, which would
be their right. Have you also gotten such indications?
Governor: No I haven't gotten such indications. I would be very much
surprised if they did. I think they would have a lot of explaining to
do to their own people. But the thing is there is still an argument
with regard to whether a special election is covered by SB 90. The
Constitution makes it plain that the governor has the right to call a
special election. If that is true they would have the same right then
in demanding that the state pick up the tab on the special election
that's being held, I guess the primary was yesterday in one or two
districts down there, and the other two that we've already held. I
contend that this is not a newly mandated service. I also contend
though that if the legislature upstairs really wanted to serve the
people of California in this instance they ought to volunteer right
now to pay for the cost of such an election because with this kind of
surplus we are talking about there is no reason why we shouldn't. As
I have said before it could be paid for out of the interest.
######
- 8 -