Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564134",
    "label": "Transcripts - 05/15/1973, 06/27/1973, 06/28/1973, 06/29/1973, 08/02/1973",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564134"
}

{
    "id": "118564134",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564134",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 05/15/1973, 06/27/1973, 06/28/1973, 06/29/1973, 08/02/1973",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564134",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-004-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-004-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-004-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564134",
    "naId": 118564134,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-004-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "d4867f9436452092",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n05/15/1973, 06/27/1973, 06/28/1973, 06/29/1973,\n08/02/1973\nBox: P04\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\n5/15\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD MAY 15, 1973\nReported by: Governor's Press Office (FEB)\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is furnished\nto the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their convenience only.\nBecause of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible\nafter the conference, no corrections are made and there is no guarantee\nof absolute accuracy).\n-0-\n(Whereupon the Governor read Press Release #262)\nGovernor:\nNow on this matter, Win Adams and representatives of EPA\nare here and will be able to answer any questions you may have on this\nmatter after the press conference. I am sure they can give you better\ninformation than I can give you.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, in general terms can you tell us what it means\nto you that the state will, in fact, enforce the same law that federal\nauthorities otherwise would?\nGovernor:\nWin. Win, I am going to start right in with you. I think\nI know the answer but I'll let Win do it.\nQuestion:\nWhat is the major difference in that the state will\nenforce the law. I mean, in effect, it's the same law that you will\nenforce.\nWin Adams:\nYes, we have had a state law. Last year there was a new\nfederal law just for water quality and in that there were provisions to\ndelegate that authority to the state to operate the program. Otherwise\nwe would have had a dual program.\nQuestion:\nThen it's the same thing you have been doing?\nWin Adams:\nYes.\nQuestion:\nIt is the same thing now that you were doing before, right ?\nWin Adams:\nYes, this makes it official.\nGovernor:\nWithout this authority, however, there would have been a\ndual system, with the federal government and state government enforcing,\nvirtually, the same kind of regulation.\nQuestion:\nAre the requirements the same as federal or are the local?\nWin Adams\nWe have amended our law to comply in all essential respects\nto the federal law.\nQuestion:\nI realise they comply but in some respects aren't they\ntougher?\nWin Adams:\nYes, they can be more stringent than federal law.\nState laws will supersede the federal. They will be administered as\none program.\n- 1 -\nQuestion:\ninaudible\nGovernor:\nWhich is somewhat normal situation in a lot of areas.\nQuestion:\nHow is the signature campaign going on for your\n(fax)\ninitiative?\nGovernor:\nI hope to have a report later on there. I don't know what\nthe count is on that. I know that we have a great many in the field.\nWe know we have asked for a very tough job to do this, but we will know\nlater on just about where we stand at this point in the drive.\nQuestion:\nAre you confident you will get enough signatures?\nGovernor:\nWell, you know me, I always run scared and I think in any\nkind of election or a matter of this kind you run scared. So I run\nscared. As I said we have asked for a very difficult thing in asking for\na volunteer movement in the limited period of time to get these. We knew\nwe were really handing them a tough assignment but let me just say that\nI am hopeful.\nQuestion:\nThere have been complaints that state employees have been\npressured to circulate petitions and so forth.\nGovernor:\nIf there is any such example we haven't heard any complaint\ndirectly. Contrary to that we have been impressed by the enthusiastic\nvolunteering of civil service employees who want to participate in this\nand who have in great numbers expressed themselves by saying it is high\ntime that something of this kind was done. If anyone has been persuaded\nin any way that they believe it was pressured then it is in total violation\nof any instruction that we have given.\nQuestion:\nYou said last month you were going to keep things completely\nseparate from your office and the conduct of this private campaign.\nGovernor:\nThis is for on their own time. It is for anyone who wants\nto participate such as last week on the Saturday blitz a number of our own\npeople did this. As I say there is great enthusiasm in the departments\nand individuals are volunteering in great numbers and it is completely\ncontmary to anything we have heard about somebody complaining\nQuestion:\nAre suggestions being made that they volunteer during\nmeetings being held during daylight hours?\nGovernor:\nNot that I know of. I don't know how the department heads\nhave informed them of this.\nQuestion:\nYou are suggesting that they volunteer on their own time.\nIsn't that sort of a pressure? I mean if somebody's boss comes along and\nsuggests that he do something on his own time that's putting pressure on.\n- 2 -\nGovernor: No. And I again we only suggest a thing of this kind. I\nwill stand on our six-year record. In all the elctions and all the\nprograms that have come up that call for participation by people I'll\nstand on our record against any record of any administration in the past\nof California because no letters have gone out from us reminding people\nof what their salary is and what they are expected to contribute. No one\nhas been pressured in any way and if anyone is pressured I want to know\nabout it, because action will be taken. By the same token these people\nare citizens and when these people employed by government want to use\n(tax)\ntheir weekends and their free time to circulate petitions and they\nvolunteer and they tell us they believe that this is a worthwhile thing\nthat should have been done a long time ago I don't think they should be\ndenied that practice of citizenship.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, if this is really a grass roots movement for\nreducing taxes why is it necessary to call on state employees to volunteer\ntheir services?\nGovernor:\nState employees are a very large segment of the active\npeople here in Sacramento. We're the biggest industry of Sacramento.\nThere are a lot of these people and they have the same interests that\nother citizens have, the same desire to see their taxes lowered, they are\ntaxpayers too.\nQuestion:\nThe organization has various committees formed in various\ncounties. Weren't they successful in getting volunteers just on a\ngrass roots level?\nGovernor:\nOur volunteers cover the entire spectrum. We have probably\nhad the biggest answer in response to our mailings that any mailing has\never received and the contributions that average around $12 a piece\nindicates the broad grass roots level of support for this. So are you\nsuggesting that these people be denied some participation in community\naffairs because they are employed by government?\nQuestion:\nI am just wondering whay it is necessary to conduct a\nblitz using state employees if there is a great\nGovernor:\nThe blitz was not just for state employees. We had a blitz\nof people who would walk precincts, people who would go out to shopping\ncenters and so forth and we had it as a device in this getting of\nsignatures. I had it last Saturday. Many of these people have\nparticipated in that but no one is being suggested that they do this on\ngovernment time or in any way because of their government employment.\n- 3 -\nQuestion:\nThere has been some speculation that the initiative drive\nis not going as well at this pointas you had anticipated is that correct?\nGovernor:\nI don't really know. I do know this that when I say it\nwas difficult we do know that it was a difficult task in the limited time.\n/on a volunteer basis\nI don't know if anyone has even gotten petitions signed in the numbers\nwe need in this limited period of time. It is also true that without a\ngeneral election going on, without precinct organizations active and at\nwork where they simply take this on as another assignment as they did in\nthe last election with the many ballot issues, there is a tendency for\nthe volunteers even though they are enthused to take their petitions and\ninstead of actually going out and spending hours doing it there are a lot\nof people who think well, if I drop in on someone or someone comes to\nvisit me I\"11 get their signatures on the petition and we are concerned\nabout the time element.\nQuestion:\nI haven't heard of any Republican legislators getting\ndeeply involved in this drive; is that in any way contradictory to your\nstatement that there is a broad grass roots movement?\nGovernor:\nNot at all. As a matter of fact, many of them have made\ntheir offices available in their districts, and many of their own\nassembly district chairmen are heading up the drives in those districts.\nQuestion:\nCan you name any?\nGovernor:\nI don't know, I've\nNo I wouldn't want to pick them out\nbecause I don't know who all have and who all haven't. In the meetings\nwith the assembly leadership and members of the assembly and the senate\nthere have been evidences of this and they have asked about it, and a\nnumber of them volunteer.\nQuestion:\nOn your fact sheet here you say subject 4 that Californians\nare paying 44 percent of their income in taxes. Do you pay 44 percent of\nyour income in taxes?\nGovernor:\nI have a hunch that back over the years I have paid more.\nthan that.\nQuestion:\nHow much more do you think?\nGovernor:\nWell, I don't know but when I was in television and in\nmovies I don't know of anyone in that business who had attained stardom\nwho got to keep two thirds or almost 60 percent of their salary. You\nworked for far less than half. I was in the 70 percent bracket and before\nthat before they reduced it I was in a 90 percent bracket.\nQuestion:\nAre you getting back how through tax loopholes by not\npaying as much or are you paying 44 percent\nGovernor:\nNo.\nd I don't know what those tax loopholes would be.\nQuestion:\nAre you paying 44 percent?\nGovernor:\nYes, I would have to say probably more. 44 percent is an\na verage and the governor's salary happens to be above average. So\nobviously there are some people below the median line who are probably\npaying a little less than that and some above who are paying more.\nQuestion:\nThis question of whether. the government is taking 44 or\n32 percent is controversial and argumentative. Would you be willing to\nsubmit that question to someone neutral, like the Brookings Institute\nsince this figure has been used in advertisements?\nGovernor:\nI'll take exception to one thing that you said there.\nI do not consider the Brookings Institute neutral. The Brookings\nInstitute is one who has loved to make the figures come out based as\ntaxpayer against gross national product. As I said yesterday speaking\nto the AFL-CIO meeting to use gross national product which is a favorite\ntrick of some politicians is to ignore the fact that you are double\ncounting, that the government can increase the gross national product\nby building a battleship but it doesn't make people any richer. The\nonly way you can actually figure out what does government cost is to take\nthe total cost of all the governmental institutions in the United States\nand take the total revenues of all of the people in the United States and\nfind out what percentage of those revenues it requires to meet this cost\nof government over here. That comes out at 44 percent. Now the nitpicking\nthat has gone on upstairs of trying to make this a confused issue, where\nthe one figure or the other is the right way to figure, to compute this,\nwould like to suggest that because we take the total cost of government,\nall of the things that contribute to running the departments and in some\ninstances those are toll bridges and the revenues that the postal\ndepartment gets but it is all paid for by these people over here.. The\nfunny thing is when you take and reduce this to pure taxes and then reduce\nthe people's income to pure cash income the figure still comes out almost\n43\npercent.\nNow\nthe\nI\nwould suggest that 44 percent, 43 percent or\nthe other figure that has been used by some on a different basis of\n37 percent, or even down to the 32.6 percent which is totally falacious\nbecause it is related to gross national product, that any of those\nindicate that the overall issue must not be lost sight of and that is\ntaxes are too high. They are the biggest single expense that any family\nhas. This is what must be reduced and I think if you took a public\nopinion poll, as a matter of fact we had a survey at the Governor's\nConference in New York the other day, that revealed that the overall\nissue in the people's minds is the pocket book issue of the cost of\ngovernment==of taxes.\nEd Gray:\nI would like to point out that in the material that\nhas been provid ed to you there is a copy of the letter from the tax\nfoundation itself, the same organization that Alan Post used in making\nhis report and that letter confirms the fact that it is about 44 percent,\nin terms of revenue.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, on these things you gave us at the start of the\nconference, why are you changing your policy after six years of not\ncommenting on subjects not related to California about which you have no\npersonal knowledge. You have been doing this for six years why change\nnow?\nGovernor:\nWell, I don't know. I have said \"I don't know\"in here\na lot of times, when you have asked questions about something outside.\nQuestion:\nThere has been no flat rule, no prohibition.\nGovernor:\nNo, I made it for a very obvious reason.\nQuestion:\nDoes this just hold for Watergate or?\nGovernor:\nNo I made it all inclusive here so that we could talk\nabout state issues for a while, because for quite some time now I have\nbeen a little frustrated in that a lot of things are going on the state\nof California and we have been spending time talking about things that are\nnone of our business. It's none of my business in here anyway.\nQuestion:\nAre you going to discuss Watergate outside of this news\nconference every week?\nGovernor:\nNo.\nQuestion:\nNot at all? Inside California or outside California?\nGovernor:\nNo. You'll have to put up with it.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, whether you are actively promoting it or not\nyou are being mentioned for a position of national leadership. Doesn't\nthat mean that your views on national subjects are of interest to a lot\nof people?\nGovernor:\nWell, they will do that after we solve the problems of\nCalifornia.\nQuestion:\nTo what extent do you feel betrayed by what you see going\non in Washington?\nLaughter\nGovernor:\nMay I refer you to my statement.\n- 6 -\nQuestion:\nGovernor, Moretti funds to fund a project for a steam car\nI was wondering what you think of the use of that kind of money like\ngoing around the corner,?\nGovernor:\nWell, the legislature has the authority to use their\ncontingency fund for things of this kind. Certainly there is no question\nabout the interest of California in non-pulluting sources of power but\nthat something I suggest you take up with the legislature to see how,\nwhether they are all in agreement that that is a proper use of the money.\nQuestion:\nSpeaker Morretti has also said that the chances of the\ndeath penalty bill passing the lehislature appear to be very slim this\nsession. If that seems to be true would you support an initiative to put\nthat question on the ballot?\nGovernor:\nYes I would and I think here is an example of Assemblyman\nMoretti, Speaker Moretti, commenting on this and saying that the chances\nare very slim, here is someone who must be accepted as an authorityfor\nthat statement because I would say that the fate of the death penalty\nlegislation is entirely in his hands in the assembly and his alone.\nQuestion:\nDo you think there should be an amendment to that bill\nthat would put hard drug pushers;, that would allow judges to give them\nthe death penalty? Connecticut has done something of that sort.\nGovernor:\nI haven't given that any consideration. I would like to\ntalk to our people on this whether there should be any additions to the\ndeath penalty legislation. Right now I have been concerned about what\nhas been proposed in getting it on there. I know it is awfully easy to\nfell vengeful about the drug pusher, the hardcore pusher. How you\nseparate them from the addict who does this to supply his own demand I\ndon't know. But as I say I don't know of any crime that is more heinous\nthan the pusher who is out soliciting that kind of trade. But I would\nwant to sit down with our own people in the field of law enforcement and\nparticularly in our own drug council to see whether that would be\nbeneficial or not.\nQuestion:\nOn this Watergate statement, there is increasing talk of\npeople saying that impeachment proceedingsought to be launched. If that\nincreases don't you feel you ought to be responsible as a leader of your\nParty to defend the President if you feel personally that he should be\ndefended? Might you break the rulein that case?\nGovernor:\nLet me say I will be willing as time goes on to review\nmy position at frequent intervals to see whether I still stay with it\nor not.\n- 7 -\nQuestion: A Reappo lonment bill 20-20 in the nate anda gain of\n/open\nRepublican seats in the Assembly, would you likely have anmind to sign it:\nGovernor:\nYou are on a subject now\nI have been gone for a week\nand I know there have been negotiations going on in the assembly and the\nsenate on these measures and I have only had a brief word with some of\nthe legislative leadership about the progress they think they are making\nin that regard. I intend to keep abreast of it and intend to find out\nwhat's doing but I don't have enough informationto comment now on whether\nthey have made gains or not.\nQuestion:\nOn the death penalty, what if the legislature just sends\nyou a bill to say to have the death penalty for life convicts who kill a\n/provision\nprison guard or something, you know a very narrow death penalty, would you\nbe inclined to sign that or wait for something more broad?\nGovernor:\nWell, you know I always hesitate to comment on what I will\nor will not sign. I couldn't see any reason for rejecting if ******* I\nthought it was a proper crime that should have the death penalty. But not\nsigning that is a gain in trying to get the other crimes covered if I felt\nit was in some way designed to head off any further action in this effort,\nthen I would have to take that into consideration.\nQuestion:\nWould you consider a home in San Clemente a California\nquestion?\nLaughter.\nGovernor:\nYes, I would consider the purchase of a home in California,\nyes a California question, but I would also say that I have no knowledge\nwhatsoever of any details of any individuals who have made such purchases.\nLaughter\nQuestion:\nAre you taking any active steps in finding office space\nfor constitutional officers in the old wing of the Capitol? Are you\nletting them make their own decisions, or what is happening in that?\nGovernor:\nI don't know just what the process has been on this as we\nhave gone forward with the plans. We are working on it.\nQuestion:\nHave you talked to Senator Collier about the new legislative\nbuilding?\nGovernor:\nNo. You mean have I had any contact with him since then?\nNo.\nQuestion:\nYour position is still that you favor retention of the old\nCapitol.\nGovernor:\nFor Capitol purposes Yes, This does not rule our the\npossibility since there are a number of, or there is a great deal of\nrental space being occupied by former Capitol residents. I haven't made\nany final decision and I told Senator Collier I wouldn't as to whether\nthere might be a need for an additional structure but I still cling to\nthe idea that for a general Capitol purposes this building should be\nstrengthened and used not just kept as a museum.\nQuestion:\nYou would support a new office building as long as they\nmet in the existing legislative chambers?\nGovernor:\nI would want to know what the space requirements were and\nwhat the purpose was in having it but there must be some space require-\nments because we do know that there are people in offices outside this\npresent building.\nQuestion:\nIn view of all the attention that the legislature is\ngiving SB 90 cleanup bills can you be so certain that your initiative is\nwithout flaw, so without flaw that none of the SB 90 problems will appear\nwhen your initiative becomes law, if it does?\nGovernor:\nWell, other than it was engraved in two stones\nlaughter\nNo, we have provided that there will have to be legislation to implement\nthe facets of this program. May I say that as an answer to those who\ncharge us with bypassing the legislative process, I don't think it's as\ncomplicated as the SB 90 program which had to actually fit itself to more\nthan 5,000 taxing agencies within the state of California. This was what\nhappened to us there in finding the special districts because of the rules\nwere based on a base-year of taxation we found there were special district\n/if\nthat don't tax every year and we caught them and that was an inbetween\nyear for them we literally had closed some special districts out of ever\nbeing able to have a tax again. I think that was a far more complicated\nthing than this. I believe we have anticipated and thought of just about\neverything that would be necessary to give flexibility and yet still,\nremember, make plain that the legislature still continues with full\nauthority over what taxes, whether taxes will be increased or lowered,\nwe are simply applying that ceiling and the legislature will make the\ndecision about the tax structure as they always have.\nQuestion:\nWhat's your position on the Wakefield initiative, the\nterms of judges six years instead of twelve in the higher courts?\nGovernor:\nWell, I have had my own theorie about judges and the\nidea of appointing system similar to the Missouri plan of selecting\njudges. I have to say I do not believe that would improve the judiciary\nin California.\nQuestion:\nGovernor.\ninaudible\nthe state may have to allow the\nresumption of oil drilling7\nGovernor:\nThat the state ought to allow?\n- 9 -\nQuestion:\nMay h. e to because of the energy crisis.\nGovernor:\nBased on the presentation that has been made to us that\nwas not only made to the Governors' Conference but that we had here\nthat Congressman Chet Hollifield came out from his committee with experts\nemployed by their staff on the energey shortage. I have to say that I\nthink we are going to have to explore and find and utilize every energy\nsource that is available in the world and I still believe that this can\nbe done without suddenly throwing all environmental and esthetic\nconsiderations out the window. I think modern technology makes it\npossible to do all these things now with very little disturbance of the\nterrain or the ecology and this is even true, and we are beginning to\n601)\ndevelop I understand the ability to do underwater, drilling with no surface\nstructure whatever and underwater pumping.\nQuestion:\nAre you concerned about the safety of the press if we\nremain in the old Capitol building?\nLaughter.\nGovernor:\nI told Ed Gray that at the first tremblor I want him to\nrush right into your offices and say \"Everybody down to the Governor's\nOffice. We're in the safe wing. If it is true, as pointed out by\nexperts, that this building I do know I better knock on wood\nthere has been a long history of no servere earthquakes in this area but\nif there is a risk, a human risk, then everybody in that wing should be\nprovided for. I love you all, I wouldn't want to see anything like that\nhappen to you.\nQuestion:\nJust one final clarification if you will on the Watergate\nstatement. The prepared release said that this press conference should be\nto discuss California state issues. You seem to have amended that now.\nYou are including all press conferences anywhere. Did you really mean\nto do that? When you are wearing another hat, for example, as a\nRepublican Party spokesman, are you going to refuse to comment on\nWatergate?\nGovernor:\nI said I will give this statement constant review as to\nwhether it needs to be updated or not. But, as for the moment, I stand\nby the written statement.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, as you know, two weeks ago 18 munitions cars\nblew up in Roseville, As a result of that there seems to be growing\nconcern by local officials along majorraillines that it could happen again.\nDo you think that concern is justified and do you think we ought to take\na closer look at the movement of munitions cars in the state?\n- 10 -\nGovernor:\nI've always assumed. I hope I'm right. I have always\nassumed that trains with dangerous material did have some considerations\nwith regard to where they were parked on sidings and so forth with\nrelation to heavily populated areas. We know that these materials have\nto move. We know that every safety precaution and rule that can be\napplied is applied to them. The accidents are not just confined to\nmunitions. We know that now and then we get cars of industrial chemicals,\ntrains of industrial chemicals that have this kind of accident. I would\n/if\nthink, and I haven't gone into this as yet, I think that there are further\nsafety precautions with regard to where they would be involved on sidings\nand so forth this should be looked at. It is an infrequent thing. I\nguess there is no way to be accident-proof when you are dealing with\ndangerous materials of any kind. I know that the normal shipping of bombs.\nfor example, and shells of that kind, they have such a safety factor that\nyou can just litterally pile them in a truck and go down the highway with\nthem. As a matter of fact that is what happened with those that had been\nscattered and there was no risk to it but I am not an authority on whether\nwe need additional safety rules. I have been under the impression that,\nfor quite some time, in all kinds of transportation, including human\ntransportation, the United States is probably the safest place in the\nworld that we have the most stringent requirements for safety of any\ncountry in the world and this goes for air travel, for shipping for water,\nfor shipping by land, but if there's still something more that can bedone\nthen it should be done.\nSquire:\nThank you, Governor.\n######\n- 11 -\n6/27\nTRANSCRIPT F GOVERNOR REAGAN'S PRESS\nONFERENCE\nON REAPPORTIONMENT.\nJune 27, 1973\nQuestion:\nWhat is different about this from prior redistricting\nplans, from the Senate plan? Justice White seemed to think that\nit really wasn't horrendous to him.\nGovernor:\nI don't know what Justice White had to say. All I am\nsaying is that the fact that we have had a history of gerrymandering\nwhich has militated against fair reapportionment or fair districting for\nthe people does not mean that we should settle for it forever more because\nit has been a custom of the past. I grant you both parties throughout\nthe country have been guilty of this when each party was in power but it\nhas just grown worse and worse and now it has come down to the position\nthat I just don't think the people should have to put up with it.\nAll I can tell you is that in every word I have heard from the citizenry\nno citizen has asked me to sign this. Everyone who has contacted me has\nasked me to veto it.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, a few minutes ago the Speaker said you were\nreally not concerned with reserving the integrity of communities of\ninterest. He said the reason you are really opposing the Assembly bill\nyou want the Assembly to get back the Republican majority they lost\nat the ballot box.\nGovernor:\nWell, I tell you, I'd make a deal with the Speaker.\nRight now I would make a deal in which they sit down and reapportion\nthe State of California without taking into consideration party\nregistration.\nQuestion: Have you found any similar examples of gerrymandering in the\nSenate reapportionment bill?\nGovernor:\nAs I have said here, it isn't perfect. But I must say\nthe Senate did make an effort and had considerable success in meeting\nthe points that I had listed as my reasons for my veto of their\nprevious effort. I don't think you can ever get a perfect one. They've\ngot some areas and they did make an effort to go a lot farther in\ncorrecting it and I think with a clear conscience in recognizing that\nit is the function of the legislature. They have been entrusted withthis\nby law and I could sign that.\n/one of the Senate districts\nQuestion:\nWhy didn't you bring in to show us how much better you\nthink it is?\n- 1 -\nGovernor: I brought these in because this was the reason for the veto.\nSince I have vetoed and since I have told you that the other one was\nacceptable, I thought this was the thing that needed establishing\nand documenting.\nQuestion:\nAre there no Senate districts you would consider\ngerrymandering?\nGovernor:\nI think the element of encumbency, as I mentioned again\nin my statement, here, is taken into consideration. There is no way\naround that and I don't challenge that the Senate was able to be\nsuccessful in a more effective compromise of their differences because\ntheir present 20-20 ratio added to their objectivity.\nQuestion:\nYou said that you recognized the legislature's\nresponsibility in this. Do you think they should continue to have that\nresponsibility?\nGovernor:\nWell, I wonder if it was ever envisioned when they were\ngiven it, as I have said many times in the past, it does constitute an\nalmost automatic conflict of interest. It is pretty difficult to ask\nsomeone to legislate himself out, vote himself out of a district when he\nhas won election in that district. But what I have often thought is\nthat perhaps the legislature could still do this but I don't believe that\nin reapportionment it was ever in the beginning envisioned that it would\nbe based on party registration.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, the Supreme Court's masters resume their hearings\ntomorrow, do you plan to testify before them?\nGovernor:\nNot personally, but we have reserved time to explain, I\nsuppose, our position and veto on this.\nQuestion:\nYou don't think it is important enough for you personally\nto explain why you vetoed this?\nGovernor:\nWell, there are times when you think maybe your lawyers\nought to represent you.\n/fixture,\nQuestion:\nGovernor, this district looks like a plumbing do you\nthink that's the worst of all?\nGovernor:\nI think this has to be recognized as the worst of all.\nIt was also, we were informed, the only non-negotiable one, that there\ncould be no compromise that involved this district, in its present state.\nQuestion:\nIn your lawyers' testimony tomorrow will you support the\nSenate reapportionment plan?\n- 2 -\nGovernor:\nI think we will reiterate what I stated in my veto\nmessage. I stated in the veto message that had these come down in\nseparate bills I could have signed the Senate bill and would have.\nQuestion:\nHow about the Congressional plan?\nGovernor:\nThe Congressional Plan I hadn't paid too much attention\nto because there was this one. There wasn't a need to go into it.\nI have to say this about the Congressional plan---it is better than this.\nThey did not make as much of an effort to meet the objections in the\nprevious veto as did the Senate. There are some definite shortcomings\nin that one too. I couldn't tell you honestly that we have studied that\nwell enough to know whether faced with that one alone whether it would\nhave been vetoed or not.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, could we go back to the San Diego one?\nQuestion:\nWhat is the problem of La Mesa having five votes instead\nof one?\nGovernor:\nI think that the people have reason to believe that when\nyou look at the tiny number there that would be in each district that\ntheir particular problem and needs would not have very much influence\non any one of the legislators. They are not important votewise.\nQuestion:\nDoes the city have problems? Isn't five votes better\nthan one?\nGovernor:\nAs I say this is one way to look at it, the other is\nthe fact that are the people so divided that there isn't any one\nlegislator that would feel that he should stick his neck out on any\nparticular issue for the community.\nQuestion:\nGovernor, your representatives have been working the floor\nupstairs, I am sure, as of this moment what is the vote count? as you\nsee it.\nGovernor:\nI wish I knew.\nQuestion:\nDo you expect your veto to be sustained?\nGovernor:\nI hope so. But I have to say that this was an element\nthat we realized the possibility, the potential that there was an\noverride but you can't let that scare you into not doing what you feel\nhas to be done. in behalf of the people. I bet the people would sustain\nmy veto.\nQuestion: A former chief consultant to the Senate Reapportionment\nCommittee testified before the Supreme Court hearing in San Diego last\nweek that the Senate plan was written for the benefit of the incumbents\nand not the people and this was testimony before the court and she told\n- 3 -\nof how in Northern California two districts were shaped as to prevent\ntwo incumbents from running against each other and described the ripple\neffect that occurred all the way down the state and somebody said that\ndown in San Diego---and this has subsequently been changed one district\nwas shaped so that a fellow who was running for Congress Claire\nBurgener that should he lose would not be forced to be in Senator\nSchrade's district. So there seems to be the same kind of gerrymandering\nin the Senate as in the Assembly.\nGovernor:\nAs I said, of course the element of incumbency is always\ngoing to be a consideration, the element when it is done by the\nlegislature is going to involve party registration. And I also said\nto you that I think just the coincidence of the Senate coming out with\na 20-20 tie did add to their objectivity and therefore in compromising\nthese views they came out with a far better situation than we had here\nin the Assembly. The districts I have shown you, I think is a difference\nof degree. The Assembly didn't feel the necessity to work as hard as\nthe Senate did to reconcile some of the differences and to eliminate\nsome of the points that had caused the original veto. Again, I hold my\nline. I said that isn't perfect but it sure came a lot closer and I\nthink is less of a gerrymander and shows less of that kind of influence\nthan the other plans.\nQuestion:\nThe same Assembly plan resulted in a 40-40 tie despite\nthe odd shapes of the districts.\nGovernor:\nNo, I don't think partisanship had to do with this and I\nthink if you will look at the feeling on the Assembly floor I cannot\ncharge that this is a partisan effort.\nSquire: Any other questions? Thank you Governor.\n- 4 -\n87/9\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JUNE 28, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nquickly as possible after the x conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\nGOVER REAGAN: Well, you are all waiting. I'm sorry\nthat I'm late and kept you waiting. About seven minutes, according\nto mine. It's been a bad day. Somebody who was supposed to\nknock on the door this morning had a wrong schedule. So I was\nsleeping in. I appreciated theextra time, but it has set us back\na little bit.\nQ\nWere you watching television hearings regarding a certain\napartment complex on the Potomac River ?\nA\nNo, I was sound asleep. As a matter of fact, I was having\na wonderful dream when they knocked on the door.\nQ\nWould you like to tell us about the dream\nQ\nAbout 1976?\nA\nNo, I'm not going to tell you about thedream because I think\nit m8ght be amended.\nQ\nGovernor, in your six and a half years in office have you\nelected or kept a list of political enemies that you might have\nin California?\nA\nNo, I just figure meeting with you people on a regular\nbasis here takes care of any problem of thatkind. No, I'm kidding.\nIt is a bad joke. No, I've no such list.\nQ\nGovernor, it seems to be a dispute as to how much this special\n(tax)\nelection will cost. Do you have any figures at all to dispute that --\nthose of the Secretary of State?\nA\nThe figures that we had, that we have given out, as to the\nactual cost of a special election has to do with -- well, we did this\nby checking with a great many counties, large and small, to get a\ncross-figure what the costs were. I think what has happened, the\nconfusion now is that the Secretary of State is interpreting the\n-1-\nspecial election to mean that - that being ewide itwould auto-\nmatically become a holiday for state employees. And he is adding\nthe cost of such a holiday into the cost of the special election.\nWe haven't checked that out. We are going to get a legal opinion as\nto whether this - a special election --- it certainly doesn't --\nit isn't statewide on our special legislative elections, it doesn't\nnecessitate a holiday. We are going to get a legal opinion on that.\nBut I think on the other hand you -- you might figure that with\ngovernment taking a day off the people might be the net winners.\nQ\nGovernor --\nQ\nGovernor, in the past you've said repeatedly that the old\ncapitol building aught to remain as the working seat of government.\nYour administration now has agreed to the inclusion in the conference\nreport on the budget, $82 million, half of which is earmarked for a\nnew capitol building on the other end of the park. How do you\naccount for your change of view?\nA\nIt isn't a change of view. There has always been the reali-\nzation that if you were going to restore this old wing, there is --\nis a need, a present need, before restoration, for additional space.\nThere is a great deal of leased space right now, both the legislature\nand the executive branch. And out of this, as to the need for\nadditional building -- if this --- and if this capitol should be\nrestored there is, of course, as you know, the view on the part of\nsome upstairs that there should be a legislative building. Now,\nfrom this came the consideration as to whether this capitol building\ncould be a just partially -- a part of the expense, could be shored up\nand continued here as a landmark or a museum or whatever else. We\ndon't have that alternative any more. To the surprise of all of us,\nwe were given a legal opinion from the Attorney General's office that\nfor governme nt to go forward on a rebuilding program for a building\nthat would not be up to the ultimate and the best in safety standards\nwould vastly skyrocket our liability. That to do that, and then\nto open this for people to use or to go into and have to be in the\nposition of saying we O. K'd the rebuil ding of a building to less\nthan maximum safety standards --- makes this a liability that the\nstate couldn't afford. be we are down to an alternative of totally\nrestoring of this building and/or whatever additional space is needed\nand how that would be brought about.\nNow, it had been proposed by some of the legislators that\nthe money go into the budget for both.\nFor\na\nnew\nbuilding,\nwhatever\n-2-\nthat dimension would be, and for the restoration of the old capitol.\nAnd in such a way that this would then be an accomplished fact that\nwe would have decided on a building and decided on the refurbishing\nof the old capitol. My own view was that this was bypassing the\nlegislative process. And part of the process of allowing for public\nhearings and for the input from the people of California, and it was nor\nmore than just building a building. We are talking about what\ncould conceivably become a new capitol. So my own proposal was\nthat we take the total amount of money and simply set it aside in\nthe budget for this purpose of capitol construction and then follow\nup with legislation as to how we are going to meet the problem of\nspace as well as the safety of this building. And thus let public'\nhearings and all the legislative view, all the committee hearings take\nplace so that we find out not only the alternatives presently suggested\nbyt are there other alternatives. And I think there probably will\ncome a number of other alternatives, but at least when we then go\nforward, not only will the money have been held aside, whatever the\nneed might be --- it doesn't mean that you have to appropriate all\nof that, if it doesn't require all of it - but everyone will be\nassured that they have had full public hearings and that all the input\nnecessary to find the answer to the problem. For example, an\nalternative that has already been talked around about the capital\nthat I'm sure you have heard, is -- would be that in restoring the old\nwest wing, this does not mean that it has to be built back in\nexactly its present capacity, which is rather limited as to office\nspace in addition to the two legislative chambers. But take the\nlocale of that west wing and the possibility of building a wing that\ndoes have the capacity we need, butwithin the same architectural\nspirit of the present structure, and maintaining the dome and the\nhistoric rotunda out here. That this could be an alternative. But\nI think all of those things will -- will be the ideas that will come\nbefore -- out of the legislative process.\nQ\nGovernor, are you saying that in view of the Attorney\nGeneral's report on the liability involved that you can no longer\nin good conscience hold onto your view that the present capitol\nought to remain as the seat of governme nt because there is just no\nway to restore it, adequately?\nA\nNo, no, no. I --- and I've never expressed anything but\nmy personal opinion and feeling which I think is echoed by a great\nmany people about this historic buildigg and the affection that\npeople have for it. What I think is that one alternative has been\neliminated, that if there is a need -- reservation or restoration of\nthis building it must be all the way to full earthquake safety\nstandards. We no longer have the alternative of simply shoring\nit up, strengthening it somewhat, yet not bringing it back to --\nto full use standards because there still would be some use and you\nwould have created something -- recreated it, which would be less\nthan the safety standards that --\nQ\nGovernor, as far as your personal choice is concerned,\ndo you still prefer keeping the old section as to working capitol?\nA\nWhen you say the old section, I almost hestiate to give any\npersonal opinion here because personal opinion so far -- is what\nled to the acceptance that I'm an advocate of some kind for this.\nI'm interested in the other alternative that has been suggested,\nthat if you could retain the general appearance, the architectural\nstyle of this building, the dome, this beautiful rotunda, in there with\nall the history associated with it, and at the same time provide the\nneeded space in a wing that would meet those criteria and give us the\nbuilding in the present location, I think that's an alternative\nthat ought to be seriously considered.\n0\nGovernor, what is the --- aside from full restoration of the\nold wing, what - what alternatives are there, simply to raze the\nold wing or -\nA\nWell, that's -- you see, that's what came out of the\nelimination of the -- of the alternative. Then of course you have\nto say if you were simply going to restore then yougot to look at cost\neffectiveness. You have got to look at the price in relationship to\nthe -- to the use -- the amount of usable space other than the chambers,\nNow one of the alternatives that is -- that's been proposed by some\nlegislators has been a building that will provide chambers and thus\nyou would have two sets of legislative chambers. There is no\nquestion about the need for additional space for staff and legislative\ncounsel, add the legislative analysts' office, and all of these. And\nthat's why I think that - that this probably belonged as legislation\nwhere there be an opportunity for all these things to be considered,\nnot just okaying it in the budget.\nQ\nGovernor, where do you think the capitol ought to be, here\nor in another building? Where should the legislature meet, hold its\n-4-\nheadquarters?\nA\nWell, I've expressed my personal view. I believe we\nshould thinkslong and hard before we ever abandon this as the\ncapitol. I think this is the capitol and most people feel that\nway.\nQ\nGovernor, if you Build another building up there, though,\naren't you providing the office space that would make a rebuilding\nof this place economically worthwhile? That is, I mean are you\ngoing to revamp this place and put in new offices, what would be the\nneed for them if you have already - if you have built a brand new\nbuilding up at the other end?\nA\nWell, this, I say, is what's going to come out. All the\nalternatives in a legislative hearing -- in the hearings before commit-\ntees on the legislation. I'm quite sure the legislation will come\nin for a building down there, as well as for the rebuilding of\nthis capitol. But then in that process other alternatives will\nbe provided. For example, if we need additional office space,\nnot for legislators, but for staff and so forth, there is a great\ndifference in the kind of regular office building that we emect,\nAnd it its cost, than there would be for duplicating a capitol\nbuilding. There is a difference in the construction, the floating\nwalls that you put in the normal offices that we have here would\nreduce the cost a great deal.\nQ\nWhich one are you going to call Collier Towers?\nA\nI'll leave that for the public hearings also.\n0\nGovernor, was this a result of any deal on -- concerning\nthe federal --\nA\nNo.\nQ\n- - surplus?\nA\nNo, no. When I was told that they wanted to put the\nmoney in for both projects, the two buildings, I expressed my view\nthat ---- that, as I have said before, this -- this should not become\na budget matter in which the decision as to what is going to be built\nis made on the budget with no opportunity for publid hearings, or\ncommittee hearings to take place. That I would -- I would Q. K. the\nidea of sequestèring the money, holding the money aside and then\nfollow it up with legislation to make a determination as to what we\nwill do.\nQ\nGovernor, the budget is coming out of the conference\n-5-\ncommittee and specifies that money for the framework on the west\nwing cannot be expended until money is appropriate for construction\nof new legislative offices. Doesn't that preclude your options?\nA\nNo, because I think once legislation has tobe introduced\nthere isn't any piece of legislation that cannot be altered and\namended as it goes through and that itself would be subject to\namendment. The language doesn't disburb me at all as long as\nwe know that they are going to have to go through the legislative\nprocess, and get a bill passed.\nQ\nGovernor, was there any horse trading on your part with the\nlegislature or with the conference committee insofar as you would\ngo along for setting aside this money, requiring legislation in\nreturn for thekind of treatment you wanted on the federal revenue\nsharing funds?\nA\nNo, no. The s nator came to me simply with the proposal\nabout the money for the ideas they had to solve the problem and\nI gave my opinion that it should not be decided in the budget. That\nI would agree to setting the money aside.\no\nWhat -\nA\nNo, no, as a matter of fact, on that matter, the federal\nrevenue sharing funds, I have held the position, and this first came\nup some months ago, and I was suprised and I spoke to the Speaker of\nthe Assembly and to Wilson Riles, and all three of us were in\nagreement that we believe that Senate Bill 90 had been based on the\npledge of using the federal revenue sharing funds for the school\nsupport. And therefore I would have thought -- I said my view\nwould be that any retreat from that was going back on what had been\nagreed to by the legislature and myself as to Senate Bill 90.\nO\nGovernor, aside from deals, didn't you wonder that if\nyou had not agreed to go along with the $82 million appropriation,\ndidn't you have any doubts that maybe Senator Collier would not go along\nwith $215 million? Maybe you didn't even have to talk to each other\nabout that.\nA\nNo, he never brought that up and I didn't bring it up with\nhim. As I say, several -- well, it's -- I keep wanting to say\nseveral weeks, I think it is actually months ago, that when this\nfirst came - there was legislative talk about the federal revenue\nsharing funds, I checked with Wilson Riles and said, \"Isn't my\n-6-\nmemory correct,\" and Wilson Riles said it must be, \"I've been making\nspeeches all over the country on the basis that California had done\nthis with its refenue sharing funds.\" And I said, \"Well, so have\nI,\" and I called Bob, and the Speaker came down and he said,' \"Certainly,\nthat's my agreement or my understanding.\" He said, \"All of us\nwere agreed that that would be part of the funding for the school\naid in the -- in Senate Bill 90.\nQ\nGovernor Reagan, Senator Stierns has said the reason he\nwon't sign the conference report, that was yesterday, is because he\nwas concerned you'd use that money and give it back to the people\nand not put it into education. If this was very clear to him, why\nwouldn't he sign the report?\nA\nWell, since they were so secretive about the conference\nreport, I don't know what went on in there. But I - evidently\nif this is his statement, then he has a lack of understanding, about\nwhat was agreed to. We proposed at the time of Senate Bill 90,\nwe -- and it was about that time that revenue sharing came into\nbeing -- we proposed at that time, we will pledge our revenue sharing\nto educational support fully.\nQ\nAnd this will not go into the funds to be returned to the\npeople, if you can -\nA\nWell, there's the one check that is in that. See, we\nreceived one -- when revenue sharing came in there was one chtroactive\ncheck we have received already. Senate Bill 90 had not even gone\ninto effect yet, so that was just simply added to all the money\nthat we already had on hand to surplus.\nor\nHow much money are you talking about going into education, is\nit $200 milbion?\n--\nIt is more than $200 million. I think it comes out to around\n$215 million and it varies as the years ago on, the next four years.\n230, 240 million, something of that kind.\n0\nGovernor, how mugh was that initial check?\nA\nThe initial check, I think it was 230, I think.\nQ\nThat' going to the tax rebate, right?\nA\nKen says that's right.\nQ\nDoes that go into the tax rebate?\nA\nThat we just added $230 million to the surplus.\n2\nThat's current fiscal year? 24 more hours or whatever?\nI mean that money is in this current $800 or $750 million?\n-7-\nA\nYes, yeal\nQ\nGovernor, on another subject. Do you still stand by your\nprior statement on those involved in the Watergate case, that they\nare not criminals at heart?\nA\nI made you a statement a few weeks ago, gentlemen, about\nthat and nothing has happened to change that. I think this press\nconference should -- since you were unable to meet with me for the\nlast several weeks, E think we whould limit ourselves to the very\nmany state issues before us.\nQ\nGovernor, what about the delay of six months in the sales\ntax?\nThat seems to be hung up.\nA\nThere is a bill upstairs that - theDills bill and my\nposition is that the original legislation actually was a package and\nit was our intention, part and parcel of our whole proposal on tax -\non this tax programwas involved after six months delay in the\nimposition of the sales tax increase. The legislation gave the\nlegislature an opportunity to do both -- or do that to make some\nof the surplus funds available for the Bagley fund for conservation\nand to make -- and to do the income tax rebate. Well, now the\nBagley fund money, it is my understanding, has been put in the budget.\nThat's accomplished. We have qualified for the ballot our proposal\nof the 20 per cent income tax rebate. The only thing left undone,\nexcept for thevote of the people on that is the -- is the sales\ntax delay. And I'll sign it the instant it gets to my desk. And\nI have so informed the legislature, that -- all they have to do is\nsend that down. And I know that the Dills bill, as I say, is up\nthere. It calls for just that, a six months del ay in the imposition\nof the sales tax. That would amount to around $300 million that we\nwould be using of the surplus to subsidize the homeowner's tax relief\nand the renter's relief instead of that addition of the sales tax.\n0\nGovernor, how about if it is amended to a year delay?\nA\nNo, I can't do that now. Because to amend it to a year's\ndelay would take the money that is now awaiting a decision of the\npeople on the -- on the special election.\n&\nGovernoe, if you dn't get the federal revenue sharing\nmoney, if per chance Senator Stierns' position should be upheld in\nthe legislature, would you cut enough out of the budget to make --\nto provide enough of a surplus to provide the 20 per cent cut?\nA\nI have to tell you, I can't answer that question. The\n-8-\nmanner in wnich this has been done, and the -- the lack of\ninformation that we have, and the same as we were last year, the lack\nof any information as to the some 200 amendment S that have bren\nmade and the proposals that now therumors are raising the budget\nway above our submitted budget - I don't know what our problems\nare going to be. I really don't.\nQ\nGovernor, you mentioned a secretive nature of the\nconference committee deliberations on the budget. Do you think\nthose hearings should be open?\nA\nI have - would have no quarrel with that. I don't know\nof anything that we do up here that's more important to the people\nthan how we spend 9.3 billion dollars of their money. And I don't\nsee any reason why the conference committee should not -- not be\nopen and public information about it.\n2\nIs there any reason why your cabinet meeting shoul dn't be\nopen?\nA\nOh, I think that there would be quite a scramble if you had\ncabinet meetings that were open because a great -- a great deal of\nthe cabinet meeting deals with -- with personnel matters. It\ndeals with all sorts of matters with regard to land acquisitions and\npurchases and so forth. Any number of things that are presently\nexempt from open meetings, because advantage could be taken of\nthat information.\nQ\nThose things don't apply to the budget conference commit-\ntee?\nA\nWell, no, I don't really believe so.\nQ\nWhat about other committees, Governor? Would you be in\nfavor of having all committees open to the press all the time?\nA\nOh, well, I think there are some that are going to have\nto invoke the provisions of the Brown Act about - that might be\ndiscussing personnel or might be concerned with land acquisition or\nthings in which suddenly opportunists could go rushing out and line\nup along the highway with their purchases.\nO\nGovernor, in the several weeks since we met under circum-\n(gubornatorial)\nstances like we are today, there has been a lot of speculation, some\nof it from Washington, some of it from here -- that pressure is\nbeing applied to you and that you are considering changing your\nposition on seeking a third term. What is your position and do\nyou foresee any cireumstances that would cause you to change your\nmind?\nA\nMy osit. 1 is unchanged. I've rea all of this, I\nhaven't felt any of the pressure that everyone is speculating about.\nThere are people that - yes, have expressed a wish that I would, but\nno, no, nothing has happened to change my mind. I think I made\nthe right decision.\nor\nGovernor, is that a Sherman-like statement? There is no\nway that you would - that you absolutely will not run?\nabout\nA\nIf\nit is not as Sherman as I can make it now; I couldn't fore-\nsee anything that would change my mind.\nQ\nIf It appeared that none of the Republican presently+\n:\npotential Republican Governor candidates could win as Senator Biddle\nhas suggested. Would that be a circumstance that would make you\nchange your mind rather than turn your administration over to a\nDemocrat?\nA\nI think they can win and - to speculate about that now --\nyou know, if we'd gone by that then I'd never have run the first\ntime because I certainly was pretty far down the line in people's -\nO\nGovernor, --\nQ\nNow, wait a minute.\nQ\nDid you have any discussions --\nSQUIRE: Wait a minute, finish up this Governor's thing.\nQ\nWhat's your view now of Liettenant Governor Reinecke as a\npossible candidate in view of his latest statement on the ITT and\nSan Diago convention matter? Changing his story again.\nA\nI don't see anythingthat's happened to change any\nassessment of that. I think he's been very frank about all that\nhe has done. He never was asked before whether he'd made any phone\ncalls or not.\nQ\nI was going to ask, you say because he wasn't asked he\nshouldn't have volunteered that information on the phone call?\nA\nI don't know whether he ever even thought about it, and I\nthink that you wouldn't -- you'd understand yourselves. You could\nask me questions in here and I would have to go back and check\nmyself, my record of all of the phone calls and appointments and\nso forth that I have. If you asked me did I talk to the Mayer of\nLos Angeles or something, I'd have to go back many times and check.\nI don't think he's attempted to evade anything.\n0\nDo you feel just --\n0\nDo you think he didn't remember? He just said that\nnobody ever asked him.\n-10-\nA\nWell, then take that up with him.\nQ\nDo you feel just as enthusiastic about the Lieutenant\nGovernor as you always have? Has there been any change in your\nview of him?\nA\nNo, no. N9.\nQ\nGovernor, you were quoted in à wire service interview in\nflight that one of the Lieutenant Governor's problems was that he\nreally hasn't started to campaign.\nA\nWell, I didn't say this is a problem.\nQ\nDo you think he should be campaigning? He's been Lieutenant\nGovernor now for I don't know how many years. Shouldn't he have\nthis thing wrapped up by now?\nA\nI don't think SO. And I didn't suggest thiswas a problem.\nor I was asking -- asked a question with regard to - did he have\na campaign that was \"faltering? And I just said that my own\nunderstanding of it was that his own timetable hadn't called for him\nto launch a campaign to get under way and until he starts you can't\nsay he's faltering.\nO\nGovernor, would the possibility of a divisive primary\naffect your decision on whether or not to run again?\nA\nNo. Obviously we are concerned about that with the long\nhistory that we have had in California of - in a party strife.\nMy own believe is that we go forward with several candidates and\nwe have an open primary. And I'm going to use every bit of -\norwhatever influence I have in the party to see that we will do what\nwe have done in the last several years, and that is that everyone\nagrees that when the primary is over we will abide by the party\nchoice and that we will go forward united in support of whoever is\nthe -- is the nominee.\n0\nBut you are still opposed to the king-maker approach\nbefore the primary?\nA\nI'm opposed and we haven't had any.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have any favorites now?\nA\nI can't answer that one. I told you, I'm neutral.\n0\nRockefeller seems to feel the longer he serves the better\nthe state is served.\nA\nWhat is that?\nQ\nGovernor Roekefeller seems to feelthe longer he serves\nthe better the state is served. Don't youagree with him on that?\nWhy shouldn't you --\nA\nWell, we ad a difference of opinior\nHe and I\nevidently, about this idea of terms. I felt so strongly about\nmine that in '66 I campaigned on the promise that I was going to\ntry to get California to limit governors to two terms. I failed\nin that. I couldn't persuade thelegislatuve that was a good idea.\nBut I still feel as strongly as I did before. Now he's certainly\nentitled to his feeling about that. And he's been a good governor\nof the State of New York.\nQ\nHave you considered an initiative to do that?\nA\nIt is there for the people if they want to do it.\nQ\nGovernor, Mayor Allioto was saying the other day, if\nhe gets the Democratic nomination the man he most likely would like\nto face would be you. Does that hold any term for you?\nA\nWell, I tell you - you tell me that the wild tiger\nthat was out in the hall here has disappeared now, I'd feel free to\nstand inside the door and say, \"I'm going out there.\"\nQ\nGovernor, what's your objection to more than two terms for\na governor? What's the problem with more than two terms for a\ngovernor? Why are you so opposed to that? Why should a governor\nonly serve two terms?\nA\nWhy should a Preisdent only serve two terms? Why did --\nwe had a tradition that was followed and that the people apparently\napproved of for many years. Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke that\ntradition in a time of extreme emergency in this country and when the\nwar was over the people having experienced that as well as the\nhundred years of - of tradition, decided that they would now\nimplement the tradition and see that in the future, emergency or\nI\nno emergency, we'd limit presidents to two years, and/figure that\nCalifornia is big enough to act like the country.\nQ\nGovernor, on a subject of elections, do you think the\nconstitution should be amended so that if a ==-df it can be proven\nthat the elected official is elected by fraud that the election\nshould be held again?\nA\nWell, isn't that - I just assumed that that was the law.\nIn other words, if you would demand a -- well, youcan demand a\nrecount of course, that would change the outcome of the election.\nI suppose that would be the first decision if any kind of fraud\ncould be established, that the other candidate really won --- then\nthat doesn't require a new election. I don't know if there -\nit is a new thought. If there could be some kind of fraud in which\n-12-\nit was gmdefinite and you could not decide which man won --\nQ\nNo, the kind of fraud used toget other people out of the\ncampaign, to discredit them with lies or whatever they are.\nDo you think -- that is not in the United States Constitution.\nDo you think perhaps we need this kind of law?\nA\nWell, I don't know, but in the only two campaigns that\nI've been in, I figured that there was a lot of -- attempt to\npersuade the electorate by lies. In fact, I used to get a little\nangry about some of them.\nQ\nWe are talking about malicious lies and information\nprinted on you under someone else's name. Things that are really\nfraud. We are not talking about the usual political rhetoric.\nShould there be a way b6 have another election?\nA\nWell, not if, in spite of the lies, you win.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nNo, not facetiously, Governor Reagan, seriously, should\nthere be another way to have another election if a man is elected by\nfraud.\nA\nWell, as I said, this is a whole new thought. I had always\njust taken for granted that we had that protection by way of the\nrecount, by way of the charge, that then would reveal that the other\nman was the winner. It is hard for me to see that if you could\nactually establish such fraud and then establish that the vote\ncount would have belonged theother way -- or that you would establish\nthat fraud -- tnat there would be WO way then to determine what the\noutcome might have been, how would youprotect against just the\nautomatic charge by any loser that he had beenvictimized and he\nwanted another crack at it.\nQ\nOn evidence.\nA\nHuh?\nQ\nOn evidence.\nA\nWell, it is something to think about, but I must say I\nhaven't thought about it before.\n0\nGovernor, now that your tax plan is qualified and you set\nthe date for election, do you think you might be inclined to re-\nconsider Speaker Moretti's challenge to debate or series of debates?\nA\nWell, as I said before, at this point I don't think it\nwould serve any useful purpose.\n0\nWell, you said before that you did not think it would\nserve any useful purpose because the only issue at that time was\n-13-\nwhether or not it snould be approved for the ballot. It's been\napproved for the ballot. Don't youthink that the merits of the plan\nitself warrant some kind of exchange between you?\nA\nWell, if at any time I deci de that it can better inform\nthan\nthe people /theydre being informed then I might change my mind.\nBut I don't see that at the moment. I see a great effort at the\nmoment on the part of some opponents to obfiscate things and to cloud\nthe issue and hope to confuse the people, but right at the moment it\nseems to me that to have such a debate I might have to give equal\ntime to a half a dozen of those other candidates up there.\nQ\nYou said you couldn't tell us today, anyway, who your -\neven ifyou have a favorte in the Republican primary, to say nothing\nof who it is. Is that going to be your position right through the\nprimary?\nA\nWell, I said earlier, let me just repeat, I think that --\nI've made that statement clear in the previous press conferences,\nI said I believe that the best way that I can serve the party and\nour cause is through the neutrality that I've practiced in all\nthe other elections that have taken place. I did, however, say\nthat if anything changed my mind and I believed I could better serve\nby not doing that, I would. But I don't see anything at the\nmoment.\nO\nGovernor, would that be a form of king-making, if you\ndecided to endorse a candidate in the primary?\nA\nWhy, I'd be -- no, that's - king-making in my mind is\nthe smoke-filled room in which by whatever pressure you can\nexert you persuade someone not to run and you hand-pick a candidate\nand he's going to be the one. I think any individual has a right\nto make an endorsement if h e wants to. I have chosen to be\nneutral because I found myself ina position where I was better able\nto serve by helping préserve the - the party unanimity that we had not\nhad prior tol966.\nQ\nWell, are you pledging to remain neutral through the filing\nperiod?\nA\nThat's a decision for me tomake.\n0\nAre you peedging to remain neutral through the filing\nperiod?\nA\nI don't see anything that would change my mind on that.\nAs I said before, -- but nothing has changed in the position that I\ngave you earlier.\n-14-\nQ\nAre there any of those prospective candidates, at least\nthose who have surfaced to date in the Republican party, for your job\nthat youwould feel uneasy about endorsing in a general election\ncampaign?\nA\nNo, they are all fine public officials, and all have been\nelected by the people of California to their present offices.\nQ\nGovernor, I think you've been among those who said that the\nvote of the people on Proposition 17 last year shoud be considered\na mandate on the legislature to enact some kind of death penalty\nbill this year. Why then don't you think the vote on Proposition\n18 last year and the Clean amendment in 1966 should be a mandate\non the legislature to quit mokkeying around with the things people\nread and the movies they see, etcetera?\nA\nWell, the court has -- you've never seen me -- I disagreed\nin that - in that particular vote on obscenity. I think it is\nout of hand in our state, but you've never seen me suggest that\nwe should throw this out, but the courts made a decision, and the court\nmade a decision that puts this back in the communities having a\nright to set their own standards, community standards, and it is\nmy understanding to more or less set this at a state level as a\ncommunity. So we have been handed through a court decision a\nproblem.\nQ\nGovernor, Senator Moscone says in the press release that\nsh he's confident that you will sign his conflict of interest bill\nwhich recently got out of the first senate committee requiring\nappointed elected and public officials to make an annual disclosure\nnot only of those interests which might have an effect on the area\nof their public decisions, but other - other areas. It is pretty\nextensive, Can you give us your view on that type of legislation?\nA\nWell, you've asked me another one here and which I don't\nknow the details of that, and it's never been brought to my\nattention before, and I'll -- so I can't --\nQ\nDo you have any general thought on that type of legislation?\nA\nI think anything that is required to reveal a conflict of\ninterest, if it needs strengthening, it shoud be strengthened. I\nthink the people should have that right to that knowledge.\nI\nthink there are limits of personal privacy beyond which you don't\nhave to go. All that is needed is the establishment of is there\nor is there not a conflict of interest.\nQ\nA guy in the back row wants to end it.\nQ\nOn that milar subject, Governor, a buple of bills have\nbeen put in which would outlaw political contributions by lobbyists.\nWhat do you think of the general principle?\nA\nWell, I don't know whether outlawing of contributions is\nthe answer or whether public knowledge is the answer. It would\nseem to me that anything that is out in the open and the people\nknow about can then be evaluated by the people in their judgment.\nI don't know that any place along the line we have a right to deny\nindividuals participation in the political process.\nI don't think\nit is needed. I think that gets very drastic.\nQ\nGovernor, how many signatures on your initiative were\ncollected professionally and what did it cost?\nA\nI'm not sure if - Rudy or if anyone does know, it was\nmy understanding that only about 180 or 80 thousand of thepetitions\nwere taken by -- by paid -- paid workers. And we contracted for\nthose in some areas where we didn't have much volunteer activity.\nAnd we contacted at a point when we had been advised that maybe this\nwas a good insurance for the cushoin that you need and the bulk of\nthem, however, as you can see fromthat number, were turned in by\nvolunteers. And according to the Registrars of Voters, the\nvolunteers did a better job, got a higher percent age of valid\nsignatures.\nQ\nWould they be - would the initiative have qualified\nwihhout the professional signatures?\nA\nI haven't seen the final figures. I don't know. P know\nwe did have a comfortable cushion.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nOOO\n-16-\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nJune 29, 1973\nSUBJECT: Sales Tax Increase Deferral\nQ\nGovernor, are you referring the plan--the Stiern bill--that the\nAssembly has just passed?\nA\nI'm referring to all of them up there\nO\nThe Stiern bill is not acceptable to you?\nA\nI say that this doesn't have to be resolved now. The urgency is,\nwhat can be harmed if everyone up there wants a delay in the implemen-\ntation of the sales tax increase, and the only difference is that no\none wants less than six months and some people want more than six\nmonths---what harm can come in assuring now before day after tomorrow\nthat we at least get that period of time in the deferral, and all of\nthe rest of this can then be debated and should have been discussed\nand debated over the last six months.\nQ\nWhat items are you talking about, Governor? What's being attached\nthat you don't\nA\nThey're now attaching wanting to attach other proposals for the\nrebate of the rest of the surplus. And of course the other deal is\nthere is a measure upstairs also calling for a total year's delay in\nthe implementation of the sales tax which would, of course, eliminate\nthe possibility for any other method of returning the rebate.\nO\nDo you specifically object to that proposal of theirs?\nA\nWell, it is contrary to my views, yes, in a number of ways. But\nI'm certainly willing to sit down with them and discuss and negotiate\nthis.\nQ\nGovernor, given that bill on your desk, and only that particular\nbill with the gimmicking that's been done to it, would you then allow\nthe sales tax to go up on Sunday?\nA\nTom, you're now asking me to do something that you know I never\ndo with regarding to pending legislation and what happens when it comes\ndown. I have legislators waiting in there now to see me on this.\nWhat I am saying is, that it is so obvious of the cheap politics of\nsitting there with this matter with all these months, with no intention\nof resolving this issue, until now they're faced, panicky with the\nimposition of the sales tax increase they know has been coming. They\nwaited until the last minute on the one-month deferral, when it was\nslated to go into effect last June 1st, and then in a twelfth-hour\njust\neffort, they suddenly delayed it one month. Now, here we are with/a\n-1-\nmatter of hours to 5 again, and they want an stant decision on their\nidea of a compromise with little or no time for us. And unless we can\nsit down and talk and discuss this and get it settled almost instantly,\nthe sales tax will be increased. I say that the increase of the sales\ntax is on their heads, not mine, because I made the offer several\nmonths ago, and the proposal, that we delay the increase of the sales\ntax for seven months. They've given us one month so far. And now\nthey've waited throughout this month. Having delayed it for one month,\nthey didn't come around the next day and say now let's sit down and\ndiscuss this. They waited until the end of the one month and now,\nthey're doing it again.\nQ\n(inaudible)\nA\nNo, no, I don't think it is. I think the total responsibility\nfor us having reached this point is the legislative leadership of the\nmajority party.\nO\nDid you make any effort to move the issue along, Governor?\nA\nWell, we have been, yes, throughout the entire year. And it was\nmade very clear what was on their mind that from the very first they\nrefused to consider anything that involved the income tax as a means\nof rebate.\nO\nYou want a six-months' delay in the sales tax?\nA\nAn additional six months on top of the one that we've had.\nO\nAnd that's the only thing that's acceptable to you?\nA\nWell, again, you've had me answering it another way, like Tom's\nquestion here. As I say, there are legislators in here. But what I\nam suggesting to them is that to come down here now, on the basis of\ntheir timing, at the last minute, with them holding--and I put it as\na price, you could call it blackmail--holding the deferral of the sales\ntax which all of us were agreedwe wanted, holding that as a price unless\nI accept their idea for the rest of the rebate, when the rest of the\nrebate wouldn't actually have to be implemented until next April 15th.\nI think there is a matter that's going to have to be discussed where\ndo I stand honorably now in the face of the hundreds of thousands of\npeople who have signed the petitions.\nQ\nWould you go for a delay until October 1st, Governor?\nA\nWhat?\nO\nWould you go for a delay to October 1st?\nA\nYes, although I realize we'd simply be putting off, again, this\nsame hassle in going through this. In other words, you mean a quarter?\nDo it for one quarter.\n-2-\no\nA compromise.\nA\nYes, just as they did the one month. Yes, I would accept that\nif it had to be done, but I would also insist at the time, then, that\nany further negotiation that they want to do now be done, between now\nand October 1st, and not wait until September 29 and come in with\nit\nanother take/or leave it offer.\nO\nGovernor, on your initiative, isn't there a specific provision\nin that, particularly on the income tax rebate, that provides for the\nchance that the legislature can solve that problem?\nA\nThat's right. And also there is that regulates that if the money\nshould not be up to the level that we've proposed, that it could be\nreduced. But, as I say, now, this is not compromise; this is not\nsitting down and working a difference of opinion; this is attaching\ntheir view to the necessity now for deciding the necessity for the\nsales tax deferral and saying, take it or leave it, or there will be\nno sales tax deferral. And this is why I have to tell you this is on\ntheir heads, not mine. If I find that it is necessary to veto this,\nit would be on the basis that they have made me an offer I can refuse.\nQ\nAren't you say, take it or leave it, too?\nA\nWhat?\nA\nAren't you saying take it or leave it; that I'll sign at six\nmonths or three months and that's it??\nA\nNo. No. I've said, now look, if it's signed for six months, this\nhasn't even precluded the possibility of it being an agreement coming\nout to make it even longer. This simply gives us six months, and\nthat\nassures/the people will at least get about a $350 million rebate by\nway of the sales tax.\nor\nWon't they lose their bargaining power, though, if they give you\nthe six months with anything else?\nA\nWell, you see this started out when you start talking compromise\nand the effort always being made to portray us as not being in the\ncompromise mood. Fundamentally and philosophically, I think every one\nof you in fairness has to agree, that the difference with regard to\nthe rebate of the surplus is their belief that there should be more\nemphasis on the income tax as a source of revenue and our belief that\nit is more fair in the face of a federal tax to have the emphasis on\nsales tax. Now, had I proposed a total rebate by way of the income\ntax, as they proposed a total rebate by way of the sales tax, isn't\nit logical to assume that we would have settled up meeting someplace\nin the middle, with giving half of it back one way and half the other.\n-3-\nNow, we didn't even wait for that. We didn't even make this kind of\na thing and say well we'll sit back now, here, and dicker with them.\nNo. We said, alright, let's meet them in advance. Let's say, we'll\ngive it back both ways, your way and our way and about half way down\nthe middle, which I think is a compromise in advance. Now, my main\nobjection, and what actually has me very upset is that all of these\nmonths, when they should have come back and said we've got some other\nideas, maybe we can find a meeting ground here. No, they wait until\nhours before the sales tax is to be increased, and then suddenly come\ndown with what they would like to call a compromise. And it's simply\nan offer with no chance for us to study it, with no chance to debate\nwhether there are other possible alternatives or not. And I say that\nthe simple matter that is before the people and before the legislature\nthat does have a time element involved, is the matter of are we or are\nwe not going to defer the increase in the sales tax. And this can do\nand continue to negotiate the other.\nO\nYou said yesterday that the delay beyond six months infringes upon\nyour tax initiative, and the tax initiative also includes a 20 percent\nincome tax credit; where would there be room for negotiation, then,\nshort of your way?\nA\nWell, the terms are whatever they may want to decide they have\nalready suggested different terms with regard to the income tax\nrebate. What I was objecting to the other day is their flat declara-\ntion that they wanted the full year's sales tax deferral which would\nhave used up the total surplus and then left us with an empty promise\nthat couldn't be fulfilled on the ballot initiative.\nQ\nWhat you object to in their proposal now is up to a $200 income\ntax rebate for a couple. Do you object to any sort of limit on the\namount of rebate you can get back? Do you favor a percentage across\nthe board? That's what I'm asking.\nA\nI think that this is something that I shouldn't answer in here\non that flat a question. As I say, if they want to open negotiations\nand discussions of how we go about this, or any differing in the terms,\nthat is something, then, that I should take up with them, and not make\nsome declaration here as to what might be my position\nO\nIs it possible that you will negotiate that type of thing today,\nthen? or would you prefer not to.\n-4-\nA\nI resent very much, now, being pressured on a Friday, 48 hours\nbefore the thing is going into effect or less, Or being pressured to do\nthis. I think if there is actually any honesty on their side, and any\nsincerity in this proposal, they' 11 go ahead and send down a bill to\ndelay or defer the sales tax increase by six months.\nQ\nGovernor, aside from the fact that it has worked in the last\ncouple of years, and that seems to be the way we can resolve major\nissues now between the administration and the legislature is advance\nnegotiations on what a bill contains, isn't the traditional way for\nthe system to operate that the legislature sends down a bill and the\ngovernor then decides either to accept or veto---I mean, isn't that\nreally what you're faced with today--the traditional concept that\nif the legislature passes this, and you decide to veto rather than the\nway it has worked\nA\nWell, except that it's the same trick that the Congress has been\npulling in Washington in the last few days. It's attaching the portion\nbe\nthat I might/tempted to veto--it's attaching that something that I\nmyself have said I favor and want to give the people, which is the\ndeferral of the sales tax. And, therefore, it becomes a political\ntrick. It is not good legislative process in the interest of the\npeople.\nQ\nGovernor, if the legislature did send you a bill that extended a\nmoratorium until January 1st, is their any conceivable circumstances\nunder which you would agree past that point to keep that moratorium?\nI mean would you go for a delay beyond six months under any circumstances\nA\nI think this is something to be negotiated and talked over with\nthem in the months following their doing this, just as I say, if they\nhadn'\nyou know they didn't do it in the last six months, if they\nhad even come around after they had extended it even the one month\nand said let's sit down and talk about this before we get to July 1st;\nthey didn't. They waited until it's virtually July 1st\nQ\nYou're not frozen on an absolute six months?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nGovernor, are you ruling out the possibility that you would accept\nanything but a flat, simple six months' delay?\nA\nWell, I think I just answered that question. I said no, I'm\nwilling to sit here and discuss with them a need to get some figures\nas we come closer to the time, as to the total amount of surplus, is\nthere some flexibility in there for additional time? But, again, this\njust further illustrates the fact that this isn't a decision that\ncan be made instantly, now, on their demand. One simple issue is before\nthe people- to defer the increase in the sales tax.\n#\n(ras)\nPRES. CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RON. D REAGAN\nHELD August 2, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly D. Toms\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 428)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: End of statement, and you will have\nyour copies soon.\nΩ\nGovernor, what, if anything, isthe advantage of a half\n(sales tax)\ncent for a year over one sent for six months?\nA\nWell, I think there are a number of things. I wish we had\nthought of it before, frankly, when this whole thing was up. I\nwish we had thought of this. One of the things is there is evidence\nthat a one cent deferral for alimited period of time for a short\nperidd of time, does have a tendency to throw the normal trade\nchannels out of kilter. People, particularly with large purchases\nin mind, are tempted to go into that period. When they -- with the\nextra half cent in the Bay Areafor Bart this did not occur.\nEvidently the difference, the one half cent, is -- is not that much.\nThe other thing is that the -- now that it has been implemented,\nnow that they let July first go by and put the sales tax -- the\nincrease into effect, this thing of yo-yoing the tradesman, the\nstorekeeper, becomes a costly thing administratively, in his overhead\nto him, in this chain. So if we are going to have a change, this\nwould at least give them stability over a whole year's period.\n0\nWhen would you have this become effective, Governor?\nA\nAs soon as possible. Well, I think it should -- we have\nalways -- we have learned that it is administratively a hassle\nand an expense for the State, too, to have it occur in the middle\nor the -- of a quarter. So the next quarter beginning would be\nOutober 1.\n2\nWhile the State now, I assume, or the merchant or somebody\ncollects what might be referred to as the breakage on a retail\nsale, on a one cent basis; isn't there more of a breakage involved\nif you start going to a half cent or a fraction?\n-1-\nA\nI -- som he else -- I don't think :\nI know that\nwe have found sometimes, you know, there have been proposals about\nquarter cent taxes and so forth. We found that there is great\nresistance to that, but it seems that a half a cent is a breaking\npoint that -- that works out all right.\nMR. ORR: The State collects on the total that the\nretail merchant sells. He collects enough on individual sales\nto make that up and you adjust your charts to try and keep the\nbreakage to nothing.\n0\nWell, isn't there -- just by the nature of things, isn't\nthere more of a breakage involved in a fraction of a cent than\nthere is in --\nMR. ORR: I don't think so, but I'll be honest, I\nhaven't checked it. I think itcan be adjusted, instead of changing\nfrom three to four cents at 55 cents, for instance, you may change\nat 56 or 57. And it keeps the breakage about the same.\n0\nGovernor, what did the Republican leadership of both houses\ntell you as far as the possible overrides? Since two-thirds of\neach house passed the bill originally.\nA\nThey didn't seem to think that there was much of a possi-\nbility. They recognized also that we could complete -- we could\nhave complete chaos in an override. How do you retroactively\noverride the sales tax that's gone into effect and has been\ncollected now for --- more than a month? And I -- I don't know\nhow you would how you rebate on that.\nQ\nAnother subject.\nA\nAll right.\nQ\nGovernor, I'm wondering are you in agreement that the\nprice freeze should be lifted on beef and if you are, have you had\nany communication with the President to change his mind on the\nsubject?\nA\nWell, no, I haven't had any communication on any subject\ndirectly with the President on this. But I believe that the whole\nproblem of the beef market today is -- is one in whi we literally\nare forcing them to seek other markets than the domestic market.\nThis has been evidenced by some beef growers in just the last few\ndays, because if you cannot pass on the -- the actual cost that you\nhave in the -- in the animal and therefore you can multiply your\nloss by the number of animals you sell, it is going to reduce the\nnumber of animals he sells and right now in the export market, the\nThe beef problem, I think, is very little understood. And the -\nthe thing that the people have to realize is that the farmer is not\na villain in this. In fact I don't think there is a villain along\nthe line any ace. We are faced with an outright shortage and part\nof that shortage is due to the fact that in the last several years\nthe American Consumer has gone from an annualconsumption per capita\nof 86 pounds of beef to 116 pounds. And you also now have an export\nmarket inwhich other countires in the world growing more affluent\nhave begun to increase their diet and the quality of their diet.\nAnd have provided a market for beef. But added to this, and\nprobably far more important than just the law of supply and demand\nhas been the fact that we have had the current crop of cattle,\nthe beef that you would be eating, they have had in their brief\nlifetime,, those animals, a drought that forced them to start being\nfed commercially at an earlier time when hormally they are eating\nfree on pasture. And this was coupled with last year's severe\nstorms that -- well, as I have pointed out before in:one storm\nin Texas alone wiped out a hundred million dollars worth of cattle.\nAnd you can't -- I know that everyone is conscious of inflation and\nthey try to tie everything into thesame inflationary pattern.\nWith farm stuff, with food stuffs, this doesn't work. We had a\nyear last year that wiped out a great deal of our vegetable crop.\nWe lost in the south, because of the heavy rains, most of the\nsoybean crop. And all of these things are reflected now in the\nmarket. You add a few labor disputes at the same time, and I\nthink all of us saw the horrifying pictures of California fruit\nbeing picked up in the skiploaders and dumped because of the recent\ncannery strike.\nQ\nWould you like to see the freeze lifted?\nA\nYes, because this ties in with philosophically what I\nhave to say. They have to be able to pass on their added costs.\nPhilosophically I would like to see the government and for twenty\nyears I've been pleading this, I would like to see the government\nget out of the farm economy and turn the balance of the farm economy\nthat is still regulated by government and subsidized by government charges\nturn it back to the free market.\n2\nWould you place any antrols on the amounts of beef that\ncould be shipped out of the country overseas?\n-3-\nA\nWhat's th-t?\nQ\nWould you place any governmental regulations or controls --\nA\nNo, I'd like - I'd like to see the government stop\ncontrolling in this area. Only 25 per cent of agriculture has\never been in the government program, and that 25 per cent has been\nthe one that's been in trouble for all these years. The other 75\nper cent of agriculture that's out in the free market has year\nafter year been increasing the per capita consumption of its product,\nhas been getting along just fine. Except when we have periods\nas we have just had in which you have acts of God, weather conditions\nthat destroy crops.\nO\nGovernor --\nA\nRaise the price of it.\nQ\nWould you like to see farm subsidies lifted, too?\nA\nWhat?\n0\nWould you like to see -\nA\nEventually : would like to see agriculture, like industry,\nout on a free market.\n0\nGovernor, on another subject.\na\nOne more Die the beef question before we change.\nGovernor, how much of the current shortage -- you know, notwith-\nstanding droughts, and storms and all those other natural causes,\nhow much of the current beef shortage, the immediate beef shortage,\ndo you feel is due to this technique of saying we are going to\ncontrol prices today but next month they will be lifted? Somehow --\nI mean wouldn't a farmer be astute to hold his cattle for a month?\nA\nWell, if this -- if this were the case. I don't know\nthat it is, but I would think so. And this is another reason why you\njust -- I just don't think that government has ever been successful\nin this kind of regulation.\no\nWould you say the freeze was a mistake in the first place\nthen?\nA\nOh, I can't say that I have all the information that\nwas in the possession of those who put it into effect, to know why\nthey called it or whether it was psychological in part or whether\nit was to -- embridge some particular moment. I'd hesitate to\nanswer that.\nQ\nGovernor, the report filed by the Campaign Committee for\nyour tax limitation initiative indicates that a record or a near\nrecord amount was spent to qualify it for the ballot and also that\nyou required about 62,000 paid signatures. Now\njibe with your ear. description of it as a sroots movement?\nA\nWel 1, I think it was grassroots. I can answer that. I\nthink that thereport that was released, the Secretary of State was\nso anxious to get out to all of you with the report that I don't\nthink he read things very carefully. He included in that proposed\nrecord amount of money borrowing to get the campaign launched.\nAn amount of money that was borrowed that is going to be paid back.\nSo that the cost of the campaign was not the figure that he gave\nout and therefore it was not a record. When you stop to think\nthat this was a campaign in a non-election year that had to start\nfrom scratch and that brought in the signatures in a record time,\nshorter time than has ever beendone in any initiative before,\nobviously this had something to dowith cost features. But as for\nit being grassroots, I think we set another record in that we had\nover 16,000 contributors, who averaged somewhere down at a small --\nrelatively small amount of contribution which sounds pretty much\nlike grassroots to me.\nQ\nWhat about the -- your office withdrawn claims to the\nController's office for payment of some of the costs on the task\nforce report for your initiative?\nA\nWell, I think we are talking about something that has\nto do with accounting. As long as Verne is here, I can let him\ngive you --- he's in that accounting business, I'd let him give you'\nwhat the situations were that -\nMR. ORR: Well, we have told the Controller that to be\ncertain that claims are restudied from an accounting standpoint to\nsee where they should be properly allocated and it is possible\nsome of them may be allocated to private sector money.\nO\nYou said earlier that the cost justified the amount --\nA\nWe felt that it was and we still feel it was.\nQ\nYou disagree with the Controller?\nA\nThis is an accounting problem and technically if there\nis some of this that should be allocated to the committee, it\nwill be.\nQ\nWell, then, were you wrong to spend statemoney on it\noriginally?\nA\nNo, not when I thought I was right.\nMR. ORR: And we still do. This is just to remove any\npossible question.\nA\nHe said it. I wish I thought of that.\n-5-\nO\nGovernor, didn't comment on my ot question about\nthe paid signatures needed to qualify the initiative.\nA\nWell, wewanted to do this in such haste that, yes,\nthere was an insurance matter that we decided to sort of\ninsure getting enough by employing, which is done in most campaigns,\nthe idea of hired hands getting some of the signatures. It was a\nrelatively small amount. I haven't checked to see whether we\nwould have made it without them or not.\nMR.MEESE: We probably would have.\nA\nWell, he says we probably could. I haven't seen the\nfinal account.\nQ\nNot according to the campaign headquarters. I checked\nwith them and they listed the figure that was given -- they had\n122,000 valid signatures gathered by paid, and they -- they got a\ntotal of 586,000, so after you make the deductions you need at least\n62,000 of those valid signatures.\nA\nNow, let me ask, I don't know, did we go ahead and turn\nall of the petitions in or when we reached the --\nMR. MEESE: Yes, we did.\nA\n-- when we reached the limit did we just stop?\nMR. MEESE: There were probably some that were not turned\nin because we made our final figure that came in after that.\nBut this was an insurance factor and it was very close.\nQ\nGovernor, did I understand you a moment ago to suggest\nthat Mr. Brown was wrong in listing borrowed money expended as\nexpenditures?\nA\nWell, he lumped it all in. I guess he was counting some\nmoney twice.\nQ\nThen the loans have beenpaid back?\nMR. ORR: Basically, Governor, if I could give the figures,\nthe actual expenses were $361,000 which is somewhat less than what\nhe quoted, I think, as the record previously by C.S.E.A. at 394,\nwhatever that figure was, The difference between the 261 and the 436\nhad to do with the loans that were paid back, about $75,000 in loans.\nThe way the reporting system works is you have to count tn loan\npaybacks as part of your expenditures in the way they are reported.\nIf anybody is interested we can go into details later.\nQ\nYou are saying those were counted twice?\nMR. MEESE: So it was counted twice.\nO\nGovernor, have you been going to any parties lately?\n(Laughter)\n-6-\nA\nI had a\nall dinner party last nig'\nI think I -\n0\nDid you read the Washington Post yesterday?\nA\nThe Washington Post is not on mine. I know what you\nare referring to. But I don't know what they are referring to.\nI was a perfect picture of decorum.\n(Laughter)\n0\nEven at the party you don't know -- to which they are\nreferring?\nA\nI don't know, but you know the -- you have really caught\nme here with mixed emotions, because I don't know whether to get a\nsort of glint in my eye and let you think that there was a side of\nme no one knows or what not. But I'm afraid there isn't.\nQ\nGovernor, do you resent that kind of investigation?\nA\nOh, first of all I don't even know that there is anything --\nany foundation to it that there is any investigation going on. I\ndon't think really that there was. And I guess what I do resent\nis the tendency, whether it is done over a back fence gossiping,\nor whether it is done in ink or whether it is done inthe media or\nwhether it is done just between people walking up and down the\ncorridors, to just let fly with rumors. I don't know, maybe I ought\nto tell you once that back in the picture business once we decided\nthat a motion picture studio was the greatest place in the world\nfor gossip and rumors, and for sometime, until some people began to\nget onto it, we had a lot of fun. We used to start a rumor out\nat nine o'clock in the morning on our set, piece of totally false\ngossip and then we sort of make book, like a ships' pool, to find out\nhow quickly that rumor would come back to our set from some place\nelse statedto us as absolute fact, and then of course usually\ndistorted and added to. And as I say, for sometime it was -- we\nwere having a lot of fun with it, doing a little gambling with it.\no\nGovernor, you said you didn't think there was an\ninvestigation. Do you have any reason on which to base that belief\nthat --\nA\nI haven't seen anybody spying on me. Haven't been to any\nparties where I didn't know who was there.\n0\nWhat was that party like, Governor?\n(Laughter)\nA\nAs I say --\n0\nYou seem to remember what went on. What was it like.\nA\nHuh?\n-7-\n0\nIf there was nothing to investigate, hen what -- what\nwas the setting of the party? What went on?\nA\nI don't think I don't know of any party that anyone\nis talking about. Might have been the -- the annual clam feed that\nwe have with the legislature over here at the Sutter Club, or maybe\nit was last year's Senate President Pro Tem party.\nQ\nI think they were referring to a party with one of Mayor\nLindsay's brothers on the East Coast, do you remember that?\nMR. MEESE: No, that's not right.\n0\nNo, that's not right, Governor.\n(Laughter)\nMR. MEESE: What party was it, Dick?\nA\nYes, I'm all ears. I don't know that Mayor Lindsay has a\nbrother. I didn't know that.\n(watergate)\nQ\nGovernor, while we are on this subject, do you think\nthe President should release those tapes or not?\nA\nI think this is a decision that he has to make with regard\nto his trusteeship of executive privilege. He's standing in a\nposition that some 16 other presidents, including Lincoln, Washington\nand Jefferson and F.D.R., Teddy Roosevelt have all stood, and I\nassume he's on safe ground.\n0\nDo you think that a forcing of this issue is good for the\ncountry, though?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDo you think forcing this issue is good for the country?\nA\nWell, now, you aregetting into an area here that I'll\nstand on my statement of some weeks ago. I'm like the rest of\nyou, I only know what I see and what -- what I'm reading and I'm not\ngoing to comment onthat. Surely there are enough exciting things\ngoing on in California, and I haven't been here for several weeks,\nthat you --\n0\nHow about the investigation of the State Bar that was\nannounced yesterday?\n(Laughter)\nA\nI still stand on the previous statement.\n0\nGovernor, are you watching the Watergate hearings on\nT.V.?\nA\nOh, I've seen some. I don't run to the set and know\nthe schedule of when they are on exactly. If I happen to be at\n-8-\nhome and as I have en on vacation for a coup of weeks in\nfront of the set, I'll see whatever and whoever is there, that's\nall.\nQ\nGovernor, do you in your own office do any of the kind of\ntaping that's come out about the President's -- do you tape any\nphone calls or any of that?\nA\nNo.\nO\nConversations in your office?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nHas that ever been considered?\nA\nNo, no taping.\n0\nDo you tape meetings? Do you tape meetings for record?\nA\nNo. Only thing that goes on is Rudy back there tapes\nall my speeches, because it is the only way they can get a copy of\nthem.\nBecause, you know, I don't usually have an advanced copy,\nI wing it.\n0\nHave you ever thought that it might be desirable to do\nthat for any -- for any purpose such as your own memoir or anything\nlike that?\nA\nNo, I'm too lazy to write memoirs.\nO\nGovernor, I assume that you've been in the President's\noffice and you may be on some of those tapes. Did you --\nA\nCould be.\no\nDo you see anything ethically wrong with taping --\nwithout the consent of both parties?\nA\nWell, evidently in the District of Columbia it isn't\nconsidered. The law does not proscribe that. And it evidently\nis a presidential custom that has gone back as long as there has\nbeen this kind of surveillance. The records indicate that every\nPresident has done it and most of them to a far greater extent\nthan the present occupant of the White House.\nQ\nDid you know you were being taped when youtalked to the\nPresident?\nA\nNo. Wouldn't have changed anything I said.\nQ\nWhat was your reaction when you found out you had been?\nA\nWell, there were a couple of phone calls that if I\nthought he was going to release them I'd kind of like to have heard\nthem.\nAs a matter of fact, one or twoof them made me sound good.\nQ\nYou are not offended, you would not be offended by\nthat action?\n0\nChange the subject. Governor, with regard to the news\nconference and brie.ing that was held this morning on the\nexclusionary rule, with regard to repeal of the exclusionary rule -\nA\nYes.\nQ\n-- yes, how high on your scale of priorities would\nyou plase that?\nA\nOh, I think -- I may be wrong on this, this is just my\npersonal opinion, but out ofthe entire report I think that this one\nthing alone could be as significant as anything in the report or\nany of the changes suggested in helping thiskuse in the curbing\nof the ever-increasing crime rate.\nQ\nGovernor, when you campaigned against Governor Brown, one\nof your issues was that you complained that the rate of crime had\ngone up under Governor Brown.\nA\nYes.\nO\nAnd the report released yesterday shows that for the\nfirst -- for the seven years before you took office crime went up\n9 per cent and in the next four years under you it went up 94\nper cent. In view of that do you think you were fair in criticizing\nGovernor Brown?\nA\nNow, I don't know in the seven major crimes, it was my\nunderstanding that up until 1969 when we passed the -- some 40\nanti-crime bills that the annual rate of increase in serious crime\nwas about 15 per cent, and it's been down around 7 or 8 per cent since\nthen. The problem is the fact that we have cut the rate of increase'\nin two, but 10 is still increasing and you can't really say that you\nhave gotten a hold of this until you start pointing to a decrease\nin crime, just as today we can point to a decrease in the\nfatality rate on the highways. We haven't just reduced the\nincrease in death rate, we were actually decreasing, and I think we\nare the only state where that's happening. Well, this is what\nshould happen with crime.\nMR. GRAY: Whose report was that, Marty?\nQ\nIt showed -- it is in that booklet. It shows that since\n1960 the crime has gone up 184 per cent and of that 184 per cent\nnine per cent occurred during 1960 to 1967, and the other 90 or\n94 per cent was from 1967 to '71.\nMR. MEESE: The Governor is correct, though, about the\nannual increase being cut in halfsince '69. And also the fact\nthat since he took office the California Crime rate has considerably\nseparated and been lower than the increase in crime gener ally\nthroughout the COI\nry.\nQ\nIf that is the case, why is there a need to ban the\nexclusionary rule?\nA\nDo what?\ne\nWhy is there a need to ban the exclusionary rule if crime\nis leveled out?\nA\nBecause that rule more than any other has permitted\ncriminals and even confessed criminals, to talk free with no punish-\nment for their crime. Now, we recognize the problem of a police\nblunder in search and seizure or lack of complete reason in\na search and seizure causing inconvenience or distress or even harm\nto the inhabitants of a house. But if at the same time when they\ndo that they find incontrovertible evidence that leads -- can\nlead to the conviction of a criminal, there is something wrong\nas it stands at the moment that there is no redress for the person\nwhose home has been invaded. He is still a victim of this police\nblunder. But at the same time the criminal goes free because you\ncan't introduce the evidence in trial. What we have proposed is\nthat you set up now a system whereby the victim, the person whose\nhome was invaded, can be reimbursed by the local government entity\nor whatever government entity is in command of the police force,\nhe can receive damages, but at the same time you can introduce\nin evidence the -- what you have found that would lead to the\nconviction of the guilty.\nO\nCouldn't that person sue for damages now and don't you --\ndon't you feel that this might be in effect giving a blank check\nto some over-zealous law officers who might be --\nA\nNo, we don't, because the government entity -- supppose\nit is the City police and the City police -- the city then is\nliable for this damage and the City must also provide the legal\nexpense for the person whose home has geen invaded. There is no\nburden on them for seeking redress or damages.\nQ\nThey have to pay --\nA\nNow if the City has this happen enough I have a hunch that\nthecity will do something about the blunders being committed by\ntheir police.\n0\nWould they have to pay the expenses regardless of the\noutcome of the suit?\nA\nYes. Yes.\nQ\nCan persons sue now for damages?\n-11-\nA\nI assume anyone can,\nMR. MEESE: They can sue but it is an entirely different\npicture. You have a jury trial and you have whole different\ncircumstances that makes it pretty well unavailing.\na\nAre you proposing a Judge --\nMR. MEESE: Yes.\n2\nGovernor, what if the evidence was obtained legally, do\nyou think it still should be admissible in the court?\nA\nWell, I'm going to have to turn to lawyers when we get\ninto the differences between illegal or a police blunder. I\nsuppose a blunder is illegal if it violates --\nMR. MEESE: If the blunder is unreasonable and this\nwould be -- and we are not interested in illegal police conduct justi-\nfying that. And for this reason such things as illegal wiretapping,\nburglary, violation of people's rights by physical harm, such as\nchoking or things like this, to get evidence -- these would not be\npermitted under the proposed statute that's included in the report.\nO\nWell, doesn't -- those acts would not be permitted, but\nwould the evidence be admissible under your proposal?\nMR. MEESE: Probably not, because these would be viola-\ntions of the FifthAAmendment rather than the Fourth Amendment.\no\nDoesn't this give police carte blanche to go anywhere\nthey want to at any time?\nA\nNo.\nO\nWalk into your house at any hour of the day or night?\nMR. MEESE: No, it doesn't change at all the restrictions.\nIt merely returns the stae of the law to where it was in California\nprior to 1955, and I don't think there is anybody who is ledge-\nable in the field who contends that police conduct in this area was\nworse prior to 1955 than it has beensince.\nA\nSee, there is no language in either the state or the\nfederal Constitution, nor is there any legislation that has been\npassed either by Congress or a state legislature with regard to\nsetting up the exclusionary rule as itnow stands. This is a\njudicial decision that was made.\n0\nWell, then you feel that you could do this merely by a\nstatute?\nA\nIs this --\n-12-\nMR. MEES. Yes, it would be done by statute, but the\nstatute would be subject to review by the State Supreme Court and\nby the United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice Burger\nhas made it pretty clear that the court is no ready to overturn\nthe exclusionary rule if a state proposes a suitable substitute\nfor it, such as the -- award of damages for unreasonable search\nand seizures that the Governor referred to.\nQ\nThere were some emphases in the report on riot control and\nsniper suppression. Does that not suggest we are fighting the\nlast\nwar? Isn't that pretty much behind us?\nA\nNo, this is to improve the training of this, and I would\nthink that this in itself is to reduce the possibility of innocent\nvictims. What we are talking about, this comes under the heading\nof some more uniform training so that in a smaller community,\nsmaller police departments where they haven't had the means to\nhave the training, that some of our more sophisticated law enforce-\nment agencies have in the larger cities, that this can be uniform.\nQ\nDoes it suggest that you anticipate riots? 8 We have been\nI\nit's been qui te lately.\nA\nNo. I don't, but I think in government you have to be\nprepared for anything that might happen. Our government's\nresponsibility is the protection of the people.\nQ\nGovernor, another subject. Do you think Casper Wein-\nberger would be a worthy successor to yourself?\nA\nNow, restating my position of neutrality, with regard\nto the coming race and knowing that you arebasing this on some of\nthe newspaper accounts that have been held, I don't think anyone\nin the world can denythe capabilities of Cap Weinberger for any\njob that I've ever seen him assigned. He not only was great\nwhen he was here in our ownstate administration, but in Washington,\nthe Office of Management and Budget, and now as the Secretary in\nthe Cabinet for HEW. I think his performance has been brilliant.\nThis is a man of great capacity.\n0\nDo you know if any of the men who financially backed you\nare financially backing a run by Weinberger?\nA\nI don't, and as a matter of fact, I don't even know that --\nthat Cap Weinberger is interested in that at all. I do know that\nthere are people in the state who in the talk about candidates --\neveryone -- there is no secrets in politics. I know that there are\npeople of all persuasions in the Republican party, who have expressed\nthat -- the wish + t they could persuade him be a candidate.\nO\nDo you count many of them among your supporters, though?\nA\nI'm sure there are some that would be among mine. But, as\nI say, I'm not imposing on anyone. I'm maintaining my neutrality.\nQ\nGovernor, is there a Reagan-Reinecke rift?\nA\nOh, no. Yesterday afternoon we were three and a half\nhours together in a cabinet meeting sitting side by side and trying\nto work out some of the problems of the things that will now be\nfacing us with the legislature returning, and no, I don't think\nthere is any strain at all. I'm afraid old Herb has done it again.\no\nGovernor, in view of the fact you calledfor public hearings\non a new legislative building, why don't you go for public hearings\non the Governor's Mansion plans?\nA\nWell, for one reason the state accepted sometime ago the\ngift of some land as a site for a Governor's residence. The\nlegislature then approved that site. The legislature then put into\nthe budget money to go ahead with the building after some 40 years\nof trying to have a governor's residence and never having\nsucceeded. The process by which allof this was done, there is\na law that proscribes how the architect must be selected. The\narchitect was selected under the provisions of that law by a committee\nthat does not include me. A committee in state government. The\narchitect has proceeded to the point, I understand, of having plans\nworking drawings of the residence and I have seen some of the floor\nplans, I have not seen actual working drawings nor have I seen\nthe artist's concept, but I saw those because the legislature in\nputting this into the budget also put in language that said that\nit should be shown to the Governor and have the Governor's approval.\nAnd it is my understanding that the committee where that was done,\nand it was a Democratic Senator voicing this, believed that one\nof the ways to expedite this and finally end the 40-year stalemate\nwas to have sombody say yes instead of having it continue to be\nthrown around in various groups. So I did what the budget language\nprescribed.\nQ\nGovernor, the issue of the mansion has become one of the\nhottest ones in town again right now. How do you assess the\ndebate that's going on between your prospective successors on the\nissue?\nA\nWell, I think you have to recognize that candidates talk\ndifferent than other people, and they are sure talking different,\non the controvers bout it. I don't know W\nthere should be\na controversy. The legislature also -- ifthis concerns the\npossibility of a -- of an Indian village site, the legislature also\npassed anact which I signed and is now law which appropriated\nmoney for an archeological dig which is the only way to determine\nwhether that is the site of an Indian village or burial ground or\nboth, and the law also prescribed that if it is and the artifacts\nremoved, that any remains that are found must then be reinterred on\nthe same property in a location that will not be oovered by any\nstructure. And I mysel £ have said in my interpretation of that, if\nit should come to that while I'm stifl Governor, I believe that a\nspot should be picked that was appropriate on that property --\nthere is 11 acres of it that is appropriate, that it should be\nproperly landscaped, that it should be properly designated and\nmarked as to what it is and that all respect should be paid to it as\nit would to any other burial ground of anyone else. I must tell\nyou that I have to think that some of the claims of some individuals\nthat we are threatening the sanctity of their relatives' burial\ngrounds is a little far-fetched when if there is such a village\nthere archeologists seem agreed that it is probably 3,000 years old\nand I doubt if anyone alive today can trace back the location of\nhis ancestry and his particular family or even his -- ethnic group\nback 3,000 years.\nQ\nIf there are indeed remains found to be relocated,\nwould you envision that they would be open to the public, the\npublic could inspect that?\nA\nOh, I think that's something that could be decided then as\nto whether -- whether they would or not.\nO\nGovernor, back onthe sales tax problem, you say in one\nproposal you accept the half cent rollback for a year. What's\nanother one?\nA\nWhat's that?\nO\nWhat's another proposal you will accept? You say one is\na half cent rollback for a year. What other one will you take?\nA\nWell, as I say, this is the one that seems to have been\nproposed right now. And was discussed with the legislative leaders.\nBut our original proposal, add I still hold with that concept, was\nthat the fairest way to give the money back to the people was a\nhalf\nroughly / by way of income tax and half by way of sales tax. And\nif there is some other format for doing that sales tax wise, fine,\n-15-\nthat's\nall\nright\nW\nh\nme. I think inconnection with that, and\nas long as you broughtthe question up, let me-- let me say something\nthat I think most people don't understand and should understand\nabout the imposition of the sales tax increase. This is not adding\nto the surplus, as so many have written and so many have claimed.\nThat here we are with a great surplus and we are raising a tax to\nadd to it. This is not adding to it at all. The penny of sales tax\nincrease was not a net increase, nor -- remember this was Senabe\nBill 90, and the sales tax increase was a shift from property tax\nto sales tax. And the only place that the surplus came into it\nwas when we tried to figure how do you give back half of the one-\ntime surplus in a rebate to sales tax payers. There is no way.\nSome people on major purchases may keep their records. Most people\ndon't. So we -- here was the coincidence of having this tax shift\nand what we proposed was for a period of time using a portion of\nthe one-time surplus to subsidize the property tax reduction.\nInstead of having to implement the sales tax on the prescribed date.\nAnd this -- I asked for. And I'd like to point out that the idea\nof deferring the sales tax increase came from -- from me. This\nwas my proposal to the legislature. A good several months ago\nand for several months I have been asking for it. And I would like\nto suggest that the majority legislative leadership made it plain\nfrom the very first that it wasn't an argument over sales tax or some\nother means of giving it back. Their reply was they didn't want\ntogive it back. And very frankly, I dm't think still they want\nto give it back. We believe it is an overcharge, it should be\ngiven back to the people, and we have suggested what we think are\ntwo methods that will give the bulk of this money back to the\npeople who gave it to us in the first place.\n2\nGovernor, on specifics, would you still consider that\nfinal proposal that you made to the legislature in that last --\nA\nYes, from the very first I said to the legislature that\nthe idea of the income tax portion of the rebate, if the legislature\nwould pass that, that was fine with me. When it appeared that\nthey didn't want to do that, that was a balking point also, I made\nit very plain and right down to the last minute on that final day,\nto the Speaker of the Assembly, I said, \"Then, for heaven's sake,\nif we are all at least agreed onthe sales tax, send that down. Let\nus simply defer the sales tax increase and we can -- we have got\n-16-\nplenty of time to deal with the other, and in he meantime it is\non the ballot for the people to make the decision.\" But that same\nmajority leadership has a kind of arrogance about not wanting\nto let the people vote on such things, just as they don't want them\nto vote on the death penalty, and I just -- as I say, I think\nthat the real contest here is who definitely wants to give the\nmoney back to the people and who would rather keep it and find ways\nto spend it.\nThank you, Governor.\no0o\n-17-"
}