Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564136
label
Transcripts - 08/07/1973, 08/14/1973, 08/28/1973, 09/05/1973, 09/18/1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564136
contentType
document
title
Transcripts - 08/07/1973, 08/14/1973, 08/28/1973, 09/05/1973, 09/18/1973
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Conference Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564136
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
84d9d4641b1a3ef7
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -
08/07/1973, 08/14/1973, 08/28/1973, 09/05/1973,
09/18/1973
Box: P04
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at:
[email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
8/7
/
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
August 7, 1973
SUBJECT: Sales Tax Increase Deferral
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is furnished
to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their convenience only.
Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible
after the conference, no corrections are made and there is no guarantee
of absolute accuracy.)
Ed Gray:
inaudible
in regards to the sales tax and we ask that you
limit your questions to that one subject.
Governor: Well gentlemen, as you can see I have two guests with me.
Are you plugged in yet? O.K.
Q.
Gentlemen?
A
Ladies and Gentlemen.
Governor: I hadn't seen you. Pardon me. I have two, as you can see,
guests with me. Each of these gentlemen has a bill before the legislature
now with regard to the sales tax problem, and now that the Stiern bill
is out of the way I just want to--I now that you're interested in what
that are
some of the things might be/possible in regard to this problem. We have
been trying, as you know, since early in the year, to get as a part of
the rebate a return to the people by way of the sales tax. We proposed
a deferral of the increase that was scheduled as a subsidy for propoerty
tax. We got one month of it. Most people have over looked the fact that
at least one month it was deferred until July 1 and we were asking them
for an additional six months. One of the bills that is before the
legislature now is a six-month bill a deferral of one penny for six
months which could begin on October lrst, another one Assemblyman
from
Bagley's bill is one to -actually/ the standpoint of the merchants
is to stop this yoyoing back and forth with regards to changing the cash
registers perhaps now, start October 1 st a cutback of 2/2 cent and continue
that for a full year to have some stability. Either one of these bills
can be passed and can be passed immediately and resolve this issue and we
can go forward with whatever the people want to do with regard to the
balance of the
rebate of the/surplus. If you have any questions that you might have on
this subject I brought along the two authors here actually from my stand-
point, I am flexible and I would go either way.
Q
Well that was my question. You would support either approach?
A
That's right. As I expressed the other day to you, however, it
seemed to me that the cent thing did have some factors of stability in
it that made it attractive. I wish perhaps we had thought of it earlier
the idea of not having the frequent changes and the fact that with 1/2 cent
there is less chance of the kind of dislocation of the people's buying
habits they aren't inclined to regulate them for 1/2 cent as much as thev
O
Governor, what kind of cooperation are you likely to get at
this point from the majority party of the legislature. Have you had
any conversations with the Speaker or anybody else?
about this.
A
Well : there were conversations as you know, yesterday/ We are
all concerned with this problem. Very frankly, I have to tell you my
opinion, had we not qualified the initiative, we would not be discussing
giving the money back. Our opponents in the legislature gave no indica-
tion of wanting to give the money back in any way until after the
initiative went on the ballot. Now the debate for the first time is down
to how should the money be given back?
Q
Did you say the Bagley bill starts October lrst.
Bagley: It has two alternative- it is two alternative proposals. The
&
bill, Jack, would be heard, it is AB 341 in the Senate Revenue/Taxation
Committee next Wednesday. As
proposed, it would be for a
full calendar year, January to January, 1974, 1/2 cent decrease $320
million. An alternate proposal, and I have amendments prepared in
accordance with what the governor just said to go from October to
October with the thought, the even further thought, if there is enough
surplus after we see what the figures are to possibly even going 15
months so October '73 to December 31, 1974. That's a viable alternative
and is one that I want to pose to the committee and say - which do you
entitled to a
want fellows you're /part of the deliberative action as they are.
A.
And the governor has no preference there as between October lrst
and January lrst.
A
No. I think, and I think most of us after we talked it over,
agree that the people want this to happen as quickly as it can. And
I am also agreeable -- I believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible
to go beyond six months at one cent or one year at the 1/2 cent. This
we are sure we can cover. I am agreeable, however, to saying that if,
as time goes on, and this is accomplished and our projections then reveal
there is
that
/
more rebate
possible to any triggering device that would say
then we could go on for the additional period.
Bagley:
Can we please say one thing? I even wrote Dick Rodda a note
last night at seven o'clock. I really did Dick. As I was reading the
Bee
and that's the fountainhead of my
As I was reading the Bee
there's the t one little paragraph in there that the "one cent collection
brings in $50 million dollars more on top of the $825 million surplus.
It doesn't because the one cent is now budgeted to cover the total
cost of SB 90. We're spending the one-cent. When we talk about deferring
for a year or six months we are simply talking about not having that one
cent and in using the surplus to supplant-to replace that--so the surplus
is not going up $50 million a month. That money has been budgeted and is
being used for property tax relief.
Governor:
Now that's
inaudible
that have told you that when
do you go to print?
2
So the surplus is staying where it is instead of going down
as you
A
That is correct. that's right.
2
Bill you said that the sales tax increase is going to have to
be repealed.
Bagley:
No no. Never repealed. You can't repeal it. SB 90 committed
that money. $560 million to education and finance relief.
0
Didn't you say in a statement last week that eventually it is
going to have to be repealed?
Bagley:
No sir. No. Never, that's totally irresponsible. Those
people who are running around yelling out repeal are wrong. We committed
and that number goes up,
one billion one hundred million/last year to be budgeted starting in this
fiscal year. And that billion comes from---and you guys and gals know--
comes from the sales tax increase, comes from partially the surplus,
and revenue sharing. You can't repeal a half of the funding of SB 90
and still have education equalization and property tax relief.
/Lagomarsino
The figure that would prove that is that the on-going surplus
something like
for this year is/what $300 million?
Governor
$175 million.
Lagomarsino Well something in that range, and you get something like
$600 million from this one cent sales tax so obviously the figure shows
that you cannot repeal it you would have a gap right away.
O
Governor, do you see a great deal of difference between a bill
that simply suspends the sales tax for six months with the idea that
you may suspend it further if we have the revenue at the time and a bill
like Senator Marks which repeals it with the idea that you can always
reimpose it if necessary.
A
Well, know, I think that the two bills that we are talking about
right here, the same amount of money different period of time and what
we're talking is just what Assemblyman Bagley said- Appropriating some
of the surplus to temporarily delay the imposition of a tax that has
already been budgeted and is already being spent and spent not on
replace or to
government costs but to/repay local government for the loss of revenue
from giving homeowners and the renters some relief from the property tax.
And I just don't think. I disagree with Senator Marks on his proposal
and I disagree on his proposal that we are gouging the people. This was-
Senate Bill 90 was not a tax increase it was a tax shift and it is some-
ly
thing that we have been trying-bipartisan, both parties, for the last three
years to get an acceptable way of reducing the homeowners' tax.
-3-
Bagley:
Last ten years.
2
Governor, you feel that the sales tax ought to be inaudible
separately, would you oppose any effort to tie in an income tax rebate?
A
No, from the very first, and this is Senator Lagomarsino's bill,
from the very first, even though we were gaing to the people and we included
the income tax---we could not technically put the sales tax rebate on
the initiative, because that was supposed to take place long before the
initiative would come to a vote, but we did put the income tax rebate on
there but at the same time said to the legislature and the Senator intro-
duced the bill--that they could accomplish the total rebate of the one
time surplus by legislation and then the initiative would simply apply
to the on-going income tax cut and the tax limitation plan without the
rebate the 20 percent rebate. Now that's still my position, if the
legislature wants to tie those two together and do it in a manner that
can
I believe-- that we all/believe is fair then that's fine with me, and I'll
stand with the proposals I have made on that so far.
2
Governor either of the 20 percent or that sliding scale that came
up at the last time
A
Yes I made that statement and that in good faith. As a matter
of fact we would have made it in the first place if we had the knowledge
of the amount of the surplus that we now have. We didn't know at the
time that we could go that far.
Bagley:
We might mention what Bob Lagomarsino mentioned that the fact
of the conference committee on SB 90 this is another vehicle.
Lagomarsino: That's another vehile which is perhaps more immediate than
either of our bills as a practicle matter because we are there with the
conference committee and we can, we the conferees can agree with
the matters on the floor in both houses immediately.
Bagley:
We met this morning.
O
inaudible
or
do you have any plans to meet?
Lagomarsino: We had ourmeeting this morning and we are having another
one this afternoon.
Bagley:
This morning at ten o'clock, Bob Moretti isn't here, he's
out of the capitol we understand he is coming back at four so we are
going to meet again at four, hopefully with him and we are going to explore
all of these alternatives.
Of
Governor, what's the real stalemate between you and Bob Moretti?
real
A
Well yes, I'll tell you very bluntly what the/stalemate is.
From the very first, I want to do what I said seven or eight months ago
I want to give the money back. He very frankly, and he's made no secret
of it---he wants to find some device in this proposal now that he thinks
can be used to make the initiative in November 6th less attractive
-4-
0
Governor, are you determined that that will not happen on this
issue?
A
I've been determined about that a long time. And now I think
it is a matter of simple honesty and faith. Under our law the required
number of citizens that put a matter on a ballot--and I, this is what
was wrong with the proposal that was made. I don't think that you can
change the rules on them now, it's easy enoughto in advance, give them
as much or more than that proposed. And thus make it unnecessary for
them to vote on that one part of the issue. But I don't think that it was
proper to suddenly say we've changed the rules on you and even though
you're going to be voting on November 6th--even though you vote"yes" we
can't make good on what we've, or what you've put on the ballot.
O
Do you have any reason to believe
A
Wait, wait
just a minute
Isn't it a fact that anything that would take away the budget
surplus and allow you to have on the initiative a rebate, would make it
less attractive, and you say you are going to go ahead with that.
A
That's right, and I was from the first, and again I come back
to the point, that those gentemen who are fighting so strongly on this
would not be in this fight at all or raising their voices if that
initiative had not qualified.
Q.
What else could they do besides take away the rebate--the
initial rebate to make
A
That's all they could do and we knew that from the first. We
only put the 20 percent one-time rebate on the initiative as a back-up
if we could not through the legislature get the rebate of the one-time
surplus to the people. That was a back-up position. Now, granted you
can look at it and say that that's additional bait to make people
vote "yes". Well I was willing to forego that to begin with and I am
now.
then
Ω
I don't quite understand--quite follow/you're statement just a
to
moment ago that one thing you will not stand for is/let them do something
that they could have done before the initiative was a
A
No, no - to do something now that not just makes it less attrac-
tive but it changes the terms. In other words to suggest a manner of
rebate which takes away the thing the people circulated the petitions for:
in other words if they pass, if the legislature adopts a rebate in a
combination of the sales and income tax, that meets that 20 percent
proposal or betters it--that is on the ballot in November, that's
fine with me.
-5-
0
Like
inaudible
that's even provide for in the initiative.
A
Yes. As a matter of fact it is specifically mentioned there that
in
if/the meantime the legislature has done this
a
You're tontingent then is that the Stiern bill did not do this?
A
No, the Stiern bill took one segment of the taxpayers and said
you're not going to get 20 percent.
O
But Governor, if the Stearn bill had passed and if your initiative
at least
is approved, isn't it then true that everybody in the state gets/a 20
percent credit and the lower and income people get 30 percent.
A
No, no. He put a ceiling, he put a ceiling.
Ω
Wouldn't the initiative supersede or chapter out the
A
No
Of
Why not?
A
Cause he chaptered out the money.
Mr. Meese: The initiative
inaudible
only if extensive money is
available, so it wouldn't work.
Q
Governor, do you think the public really cares about whether
there is a flat rebate or whether you have a $200 limit. Don't you
think that both you and the legislature end up looking bad when you're
talking about this and they want to know why all that money is still
locked up and they can't get their hands on it?
think I
A
No, I don't think so because I--I just/believe in the fairness
of people. And I think you may find some people that say o.k. if I
doesn't
get mine I don't care if the other fellow/get his. But I think that
most people recognize
I have divided this for purposes of discussion,
an explanation- the income tax paying public into three brackets.
From $8,000 down including $8,000 and down, those people pay - they earn
about 15 percent of all of the state revenue, they pay 3.3 percent of the
tax. FroM 88,000 to $30,000 which takes in the whole middle income range,
obviously, they earn 70 percent pf the revenue they pay 57 percent of the
tax. Now by coincidence the people above $30,000-they earn 15 percent
of the revenue, the same as the lower segment, and they pay almost 40
percent of the income tax. Now it seems to me, we're not changeng the
tax structure, we're not saying that the income tax structure should be
changed as to brackets higher of lower---we're talking about a refund.
Now from $8,000 down, we have said we'll forget 100 percent
just eliminate them from paying any income tax at all. From here on up,
the people that are paying the 97 percent of the tax, we've said should
get a 20 percent rebate, regardless of what they pay. And the progres-
sivity of the tax remains the same. To use their own examples, if some-
body owes $100 and gets a $20 rebate and somebody owes $1.000 and gets
and say "look, he's getting $200 back, but he's 11 paying $800 and
this fellow is paying $80. They are paying 10 to 1 exactly as they are
in our sax structure. Now we have done this before, it isn't new, we
did this with the rebate that all of you took that came from the windfall
of withholding. And it's fair. To suddenlyu say no, we're going to
pick the biggest number of voters and we're going to give them a rebate,
and
then we don't care about the minority of voters up here we'll
just leave them and not give them any rebate. Now, we've already, and
we have compromised and gone along, I think, on things that first of all,
I was willing for the sliding scale if we could do it, if we could do it,
in an attempt to settle this on that last day, and they stopped at that
one point, no they want to be punitive with regard to one group of tax
payers and not pay them. Well tet me point out what we have done with
the property bill in SB 90. By going to a flat exemption, we have made
the homepwner's property tax progressive, where the tax has historically
and by the constitution been a flat percentage across: if you're home
is worth one price and this one is worth only half as much this fellow
pays twice as much as this fellow. But by making it a flat exemption
instead of a percentage cut in the property tax $1,000 well $1,000
is now $1,750 total exemption well that's ten percent of the cost of
$17,000 house but that is only 1 percent of $170,000, so we have made
that progressive. And I think there comes a point at which just simple
fairness says, particularly in the form of a rebate, we're giving money
back to people who gave it to us and we didn't need it. If we had known
two years ago what Welfare reforms and Medi-Cal reforms were going to do
we would have cut the tax by this amount.
O
Governor, when you say "they" do you really mean Speaker Moretti?
A
Well, he's not alone I wish he were.
O
Bill, what kind of chance to see of getting, have you talked with
Moretti?
A
I have talked with all of his staff, just phoned Bob this morning,
and found he is out of the capitol, so no I have not talked to him I
couldn't see him yesterday. He has said his mind is open after the
excercise of the overridehis mind would be open. I know, I hope, I hope
this is correct. I know his opposition to the initiative but I don't
understand his opposition to the initiative, I hope though and I really
do
that he is going to be responsible enough that when faced with the
prospect of trying to ruin the initiative chances by ruining state govern-
ment that he will choose not to pull the rug out from under government.
And that's what some of these proposals would do because they would reduce
for example, one cent for a year---one cent for nine months would reduce
the revenue base upon which the initiative is based by $600 million or
$450/and that kind of proposal is the kind. think the Coxernor moant
is calculated to maybe destroy the initiative, but you destroy government
in the process and I be Bob Moretti doesn't war to do that.
O
What about you Senator, do you see any chance of getting your
bill through?
Lagomarsino:
I think we have a better chance of working something
out in conference, very frankly.
Bagley:
One last thought, one of the major points that I have been
trying to get through to my colleagues is the total lack of confidence
of the public in the system, and I have said this before, it really
relates to the whole Watergate scene, and all of sudden adding injury
to insult, people are paying more taxes and they don't understand why.
We have got to solve that problem. Property tax relief will take effect
when the tax bills come out. You have heard the stories assessments
may be going up, But where assessments go up because of our school
because of our school expenditure limit, not tax rate limit, but
if
expenditure limit,/assessments go up the tax rates go down. In November
our public is going to understand with your help that the sales tax
has decreased their property tax very substantially, as much as $2.50
out of $6.00 in some school districts. Regardless of whether assessed
value goes up the expenditure is going to be the same therefore, tax
rates are going to go down because of SB 90 and the sales tax increase
and also because of assessments going up.
Thank you Governor.
#######
-8-
8/14
PRES CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RO LD REAGAN
HELD AUGUST 14, 1973
Reported By
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press coros for their
convenience only. Because of hhe need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and
there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
claw entorcement)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: I have a statement here I'd like to
open with this morning.
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 439)
Q
Governor, why do you choose this particular case to do this
if it is the first time this happened?
A
Well, as I say, this law was passed in 1970 and this
crime -- in so many of them there are suspects and the case goes
(Rilling of Officer Food Early)
forward and there are arrests made. But we have here a, case, and
I don't recall any exactly like this, where there -- in my tenure,
in which there -- since this law was passed, in which there has been
absolutely no trace -- there is no case to build, there is no suspect
whatsoever. And we we are using this just as some newspapers today
are using the Hidden Witness reward idea, to see if we can't break
this case loose and -- get on the trail of those whocommitted the
crime.
Q
Would you suspect that there would be others in the future
you are going to -- generally use this as a precedent, to do this
from time to time?
A
Yes. If circumstances warrant.
Q
On a related subject, the Assembly Criminal Justice
Committee is meeting right now regarding the death penalty. We
are told there won't be a vote, but are there minimum provisions in
a capital punishment bill that must be included in that bill before
it is acceptable to you?
A
Well, now, we are getting dangerously near the area of my
commenting on legislation before it comes down here. I don't know
what the committee is doing to the bill. I know the bill was
satisfactory the way Senator Deukmejian had introduced it, and I
would have signed it in an instant. I don't know what possible
-1-
changes would be made. I would be inclined to take -- whatever
implements the death penalty that was passed by the people and if
there are additional crimes that should come under that, to seek
that in additional legislation.
0
Would you sign the bill if it did not include peace
officers?
A
Oh, again you are in that area that I don't comment on.
Don't ask me to comment on what I would or would not do. on that.
Any other questions for the gentlemen up here on this subject?
(Barly reward)
Q
Governor, on a technical one, the $10,000 that you were
offering today is on top of the L. A. Police Protective League's
$10,000 as well?
VOICE: Yes.
A
Yes. Any more on that subject? Well, gentlemen, I want
to thank you for coming up.
VOICE: Thank you very much, Governor.
0
Governor, can I ask you on something else, what is your
position onlowering the drinking age to 18? There is an inftiative
movement starting out with college students to try to lower it to
B.
I wonder if you'd comment on it.
A
Well, I think the position that I've taken up until now
has been that I respect the right of the people to vote on this
and it being a constitutional change it would require the people's
vote. And that's the way it should be settled.
Q
How would you vote, Governor?
A
Huh?
Or
HOW would you vote?
A
Well, I must say that I am personally inclined to believe
that we should take a long, hard look at just the legalizing of
voting age and citizenship having been moved down as to opening this
up. I think there is -- I think driving statistics, we have some
other states that I think should be checked on who have, as I under-
stand it, lowered the drinking age. I'd like to know what's
happened in their -- in their accident statistics on the highway.
Q
Governor, what was the problem with Time Williams? Why
was -- why was his contract not renewed?
A
Well, we just felt that we were not achieving and had not
achieved what -- what should be in resolving some of the problems
that beset the Indian community in California. And so we are --
the program is going to go forward. We are seeking a replacement.
-2-
The replacement W1_1 be a California Indian, we have some
dandidates already that we are -- that we are screening.
2
Mr. Williams said that he attempted to see you several
times but was not permitted to by your staff.
A
Well, now, this is --- anyone mn my staff or anyone in any
department could make that statement, just on the plain basis of
scheduling problems. But it is not true that we did not meet and
it
we did not see each other and/wasn't too long ago that we had a
meeting with representatives of the Tribal Council and of the --
of California Indians and other Indians here with him. He's been
present in cabinet meetings, and those who are closer to the problem
and more responsible for that particular area just felt that we could
get a better rate of achievement.
Q
Governor, another subject. Cap Weinberger, with respect to
reporters that you are -- spme of your backers wanted him to run for
Governor, said it is time to ask you anew to run for a third term.
This is gust last week, long after your third term -- no third term
declaration. And I'm just wondering if many more approaches have
been coming your way.
A
No, and my statement still stands.
O
Governor, have you had some meetings with David Paekard
on politics, including that subject?
A
I have -- I've had some meetings that have to do with the
initiative and - twice. In the very beginning in organizing to --
when we first decided to go the initiative route, and we have had
a second meeting since now about the -- the planning and the
campaigning for the initiative now that it is on the ballot. I know
what this is leading up to and some of the storees and I just have
to say that the speculation and the stories are not sound. I am aware
of -- of what is going on. I think you'd have to live under a rock
not to be and all I can tell you is that there are some people
in California, and they are not any so-called kitchen cabinet --
as a matter of fact, I've never known what that meant - there are
people both north and south who feel that Cap Weinberger would be
their choice for a candidate. And I understand that they are going
to try and appeal to him by way of an out-in-the-open legitimated draft,
but I also understand that there is no attempt on anyone's part or
no belief that there should be an attempt to persuade anyone who is
presently in the race not to run. And that's where it stands.
They -- all people supporting all of the candidates know my own posi-
I have to remain ne Tral.
O
Didn't you at one time say, Governor, that if you thought it
was best for the party you would drop the neutrality?
A
I still stand on that. If any change -- if anything
should happen in which I would -- was convinced that I could serve
the purpose of party unity better by not being neutral, I reserve
the right to change my mind, because the goal remains the same.
2
Governor, what kind of circumstances do you envision in
causing you to do that?
A
I can't right now, that's why I doubt that anything would
happen, but I still think that lest you have me with my feet in
concrete again, I want that reservation that I am interested in
party unity and going forward with successful elections, so I feel
it is my responsibility to do whatever will further that. I can t
really foresee what the circumstances would be.
Q
Governor,
these reports. obvieusly originated some
place and apparently with some purpose. Do you know what that is?
A
Oh, I think as you come near the campaign season rumors and
reports, and taking one thing that took place and adding to it is
pretty commonplace, and pretty typical. I think it is starting a
little early because of the number of candidates in the rase on both
sides, but I don't find anything really unusual about it.
O
In these meetings you refer to, was politics discussed?
A
Yes, as I say, there's been no secret.
People who feel
this way and who have felt that they wanted -- actually felt that
they wanted to communicate to me that this was their belief, and
what they were going to do. And I have expressed each time my own
mosition with regard to neutrality and have emphasized, as I said
before, no king-making which -- which led to the assurances that
no one has in mind seeking to shove someone out of the race.
Q
Governor, did one of those meetings take place last Monday?
San Francisco?
A
I don't know whether it was Monday or not, but it wasn't
a meeting on that. I was -- I was in a meeting in San Francisco.
Was it Monday? It was Monday. I tell you, I've been yo-yoing
back and forth so much that I don't know. If it was Monday, that
was a meeting that I went over on the matter of getting the campaign
S tarted for the --
-4-
0
Was politics discussed, the gubernatorial race?
A
Informally there were present people -- people present
there who were discussing among themselves this matter of trying
to get a draft.
Q
Was that the meeting at the airport? Did you participate
in that discussion?
A
What?
Q
Did you participate in that informal discussion?
A
Only to the extent of what I said, expressing again my
belief and my hope that no matter what happens, when it is over
everybody gets together behind a candidate, and number two, that
nobody goes out and tries to persuade people that they shouldn't
run.
0
Who called the meeting, Governor?
A
I asked for the meeting to -- as I say, to discuss the
initiative.
Q
That was to arrange financing of the initiative?
A
Uh-huh.
Q
What's your budget?
A
I don't know yet, actually.
O
Kind of related subject, Governor. What do you think
the proper remuneration for the Governor of California should be?
A
There are days when you haven't got enough money in the
budget. There are other days when I'd consider doing it like
doing a benefit. No, it is -- I don't know. I do know this, that
it is awfully easy with regard to -- to public officials, to ---
to think that some way it should be a calling in which they should
be -- it should not be compared to outside activities. I suppose
you take a look at somparable jobs all through government and what
the pattern is. By that standard California does not rate very
a
high in its salary level. We/are teather puritan state here with
regard to our politics and that goes for such things as pay. I
understand the Governor of New York is $85,000. And they -- they
range. I know that the - some of our local officials, not only
mayors, but police chiefs, superintendents of education, at our local
levels in some of the metropolitan areas are receiving comparable
salaries to the top of the scale here. I know that of the top 133
salary positions in the government of California, 117 of them are in
higher education. Mostly at the university level. As a matter of
fact, the President of the University has a higher salary than the
Governor. And the Vice-President has a higher salary than
Lieutenant-Governor
The Treasurer has a high
salary than Ivy
Baker Priest, the Treasurer of the State of California. So I think
the thing to do on that, and the best desision is something that
has been going forward and that's led to the present salary increases
we are asking for, and that is an outside form of specialists working
with people in government, with the personnel board, on what should
be a proper scale. One of the things that recently put some of --
or increased some of the department heads and agency's secretaries
salaries up was impaction. That as we go an keeping pace with
growth and inflation and raising the salary of our civil servants,
those who are on civil service, we find that we suddenly come up to
a lid in which no more raises are possible unless you start promoting
them over the heads of their employers en their chiefs, their
supervisors. And so every once in a while you have to have some
experts come in and look at this scale and see how you can raise
those salaries to permit salary increases of the rank and file
workers.
O
Governor, do you support the proposal to raise the
Governor's salary to $60,000?
A
Well, I haven't even paid any attention to it since I
won't be around for that. But, as I say, I think -- I think that
all of them are going to have to be looked at,
Q
Do you -- do you find it difficult to get good people
because of the salary scales that you can offer for the top jobs?
A
Well, no.
(Laughter)
A
No, but I want to tell you why. We have run particularly --
no, at that level, of younger men, young fellows with families.
and getting under way -- we have had more problems that way, but we
have been very fortunate in this administration, as I said. at the:
beginning, we were going to go out and try to find people who
were willing to put in time with government, do time as a contribute
ion to government, And that were not anxious to make government a
career, and so we have -- we have a number of people who have
been willing to come at great personal sacrifice. They couldn't
come all the years that we have been here. That is why we have
the turnover we have had, There comes a time a Gordon Luce, for
example, can no longer turn down the opportunities on the outside,
and when he goes from here to a salary several times what you could
make in government, you have to realize that there is -- that we have
-6-
had access to som
retty fine, high-caliber
lent.
Q
Do you expect the Director of Finance to leave soon for
that reason?
VERNE ORR:
For some reason anyway.
O
Another subject.
A
All right.
0
Same: subject. Have you been party to any discussion about
the Gordon Paul Smith becoming a --
A
I heard rumors to that effect, that he's been considering
this.
Q
Governor, Lieutenant Governor Reinecke said yesterday he
would favor the resumption of offshore drilling in Southern
california
, what's your position on that?
A
Well, I found he was -- I'm very much in agreement with
is position. I know he also expressed that he wants to have
assurances with regard to greater protection from accidents of the
kind that we once had offshore. But there is no question about our
but
needing it. And there is also no question with that great progress
has been made now in safety precautions, not only regarding drilling
but pumping and the harnessing of a spill, if such a spill should
occur. I don't think anyone can ever say that we will never have
an accident. As a matter of fact, however, I'm beginning to think
that we probably have a higher possibility just in the law of
averages of accidents from tankers and sea tragedies of the
kind that have always beset the men that go down to the sea in ships
than we have from the pipeline type of thing or from drilling
offshore.
O
Do you think it is proper for a member of the Lands
Commission, like the Lieutenant Governor is, to express that opinion
prior to any public hearings or any open public examination of the
problem?
A
Well, I think he was expressing what's pretty much a fact.
You can go into a hearing and have your mind changed by things that
you learn. I thought that he was very outspoken in his -- from
what I heard you all report and what I saw on television, about the
necessity for having protection against the tragedy of a spill.
or
Governor, do you think the moratorium will be lifted?
What is your opinion?
-7-
A
I can't
I'm not going to specula on that. No.
But I do know that everything that we have been given with regard
to the energy crisis indicates that this country is going to have
to take a long, hard look, make some decisions about utilizing every
bit of energy source that we can find.
Q
Governor, from what you know about the state of the art (?)
now regarding safeguards and that sort of thing, if you were a member
of the Land Commission would you vote for resumption of drilling?
A
That's another way of getting the answer to his question
here. Unless I heard something very much to the contrary in the
public hearing, I would be inclined to, but I've learned enough going
into my own cabinet meeting here to again keep a foot back with the
knowledge that someone might present facts that I have not seen as
yet.
You must recall that the oil spill in the Santa Barbara
Channel could not have occurred had that well been drilled under
California regulations. That was under the federal government.
It was outside the three mile limit and since that time the federal
government has adopted the California regulations. As a matter of
fact, the head of the oil company involved said he had not under-
stood that there was any difference and that they were not meeting
all the full requirements. And voluntarily without waiting for
the fedemal government to act, they have now -- are now practicing
under the California regulations. I might also add that not
too long before that thing occurred, I had made a proposal to the
federal government that offshore in California -- that we would be
very happy to take over the supervising for the federal government
of their offshore drilling if they would adopt our regulations.
Q
Governor, would you say that the Lieutenant-Governor
Reinecke came up fully to your expectations in his performance as
Lieutenant Governor, and do you think he's fully qualified to be
Governor?
A
I certainly do.
Q
Different subject. Do you support the call for boycott
by several Jewish groups of Standard Oil of California, following
their letter to the stockholders?
A
Well, I'm quite sure Standard Oil wishes they had the
letter to write over again. It is my understanding that Standard
Oil, and they have been trying to explain this now, I don't think
a boycott accomplishes anything or is really justified on the basis
-8-
of their position.
Maybe the letter was poor
worded, but it is
my understanding what Standard Oil was trying to achieve was the
very thing that Israel itself is trying to achieve, that is peace
in the Middle East with the recognition that there are problems
on both sides, problems that must he answered; rights on both sides
that must be recognized.
O
Governor, are there any -- any of the major contenders
for Governor that you couldn't support? The Republican contenders.
A
You would have gotten a whole paragraph there if you
hadn't added those last coupèe of words.
0
For instance, Reinecke, Weinberger, Finch, Flournoy,
Younger, those five, are there any of those that you couldn't support?
A
No, as I said the other day, we have got an abundance of
riches on our side, and that may turn out to be a problem for us.
Q
Governor, what is your reaction to the State Board of
Equalization's call on the Orange County Assessor to take another
(propertn)
look at the President's assessment in San Clemente?
A
Well, I guess this is within their authority. It is my
understanding that the Orange County Assessors and their board is
perfectly satisfied with their assessment. Now it is up to them
as to whether -- they cannot be forced to, whether they want to do
it or not. They have made quite firm statements that they believe
they have assessed it properly. That it is a -- that they have
quoted, if I understand it correctly, the responsibility of an
assessor to recognize and that -- the difficulties of sales of
particular kinds of property, -- and the taking into mind the
potential or possible marketability of that property; that they be-
lieve it is assessed correctly.
0
Do you agree with that? Do you think it has been
assessed properly?
A
I'm not an assessor, I wouldn't know how to --
0
Based on --
A
I know my house, I don't think, is assessed correctly.
Q
Based on what the Orange County Assessor and everyone
attests to, would you suspect this might be the -- the State Board
might actually have some political motivation?
A
I'm not going to try to interpret them or what their
motive might be.
0
Governor, some of the bills to create new judgeship
-9-
positions seem to be getting bogged down in the Legislature.
Do you think there is a move on to limit your number of judicial
appointments?
A
What?
0
Is there a move to limit the number of your judicial
appointments for the rest of your term?
A
Oh, I wouldn't think that somebody would have rocks in
their head if they suspected something of that kind.
O
Governor, are you involved in the tax negotiations and
how arethey coming along, and are you confident the sales tax
will be reduced on October 1?
A
All I know about that, we are talking about the sales
tax problem now. All I know is that they have it in conference
committee, and it is my understanding that there is quite a bit of
optimism up there.
o
Governor, on another subject, what's your reaction to
State Architect John Worsley's latest idea to solve the capital
problem by constructing an addition around the three sides of the
existing east wing rather than building a separate building?
A
Well, I -- I've been shown that. This was in response
to a letter that Senator Lagomarsino wrote him for possible alterna-
tives to the capitol building problem. I've seen that as well as
a couple of others. I thought it made a great deal of sense. It
restored the capitol , it created under one roof the space needed
for the capitol to function in this building. But this was
what -- my position was with regard to the budget, that rather
than trying to solve that matter in the budget now with all these
àlternatives and the legislative process, and then go forward and
the people -- the public can have an opportunity to -- for their
input as to what they want -- after all it is their capitol --
and this looked like a viable alternative, so they do have some
choices to look at.
0
Which do you prefer?
A
Well, I hesitate to do this because I don't want to
recreate that idea that back at budgettime that somebody had that
the Senator and I were championing two different solutions to
this problem. It is a problem really for the people of California.
And I -- I've only seen just this rough drawing of a floor plan that,
as I say, made a great deal of sense to me. It seemed to be an
-10-
attractive building here and it restored the old capitol which
of course I think everyone has agreed must be done.
Q
You have taken a position in the past by saying you hope
they would stay -- keep the capitol, the working capitol.
A
Yes, I still hope that.
0
Wouldn't that solution be closer to your previous position?
A
Yes. All right, I'll go that far.
0
I don't want to push you.
A
Don't get me in a fight.
Q
In a slightly related subject, a local columnist suggested
this morning, in the morning edition of a newspaper, that perhaps
California didn't need a a Governor's Mansion, that a room in the
Senator Hotel would be sufficient. HOW about that?
A
Yeah, I read Tom's column. I think Tom is exaggerating
my week-end habits also, although I do have a - a home in the south.
No, I -- I feel the need -- he leaves the Governor all alone on that.
I think governors have enough problems without being a week-end
communter to his family and they ought to be around some place where
he can live with them and this is one of the reasons why I feel very
strongly about a location of the kind that has been selected where
the residence would be built.
No one who -- or anyone who hasn't
had the problem can never understand that raising a family, raising
children in this position presents some problems, a little different
than most jobs, and it is hard enough to maintain a normal family
life. And I think that the idea of living in a residential
neighborhood where your kids can come home from school and go out
the back door to play with the other kids in the neighborhood like
anyone else' is a great help in that. It is a great help in doing
the job because you don't have an added problem on your mind, a
problem that I did have for a few months when we tried living down-
town in the old residence. And the problem of what do you do with
an eight-year old healthy boy when he comes home and there is no one
to play with, and there is no place to go unless you send him across
the street to the oil station. And I think some of the people who
are talking about downtown for a residence, they are bhinking about
a tourist attraction and something they can drive by and point to
with pride, and they are not thinking about the governors who are
going to live here in the future and who are going to have children,
families to raise and all of this talk about they should be downtown
where the people are -- the people live out there. I think they
-11-
should be out livin where the people live, no. lowntown after
everybody goes home when the office buildings close.
2
Governor, does that mean you wouldn't want to live in the
White House which is downtown? Does that mean you wouldn't want
to live in the White House, which is downtown?
A
Well, now, let me answer the question.
Let
me
aswer
your question indirectly.
(Laughter)
A
I have heard the wives of two presidents talk about the
problems and how you go stir crazy before the week is out because
you can't even go downstairs and you can't even walk in the grounds.
like
You are upstairs/living above the store, while thousands of tourists
all day long, to say nothing of hundreds of employees are carrying on
the business of government downstairs. The White House at one time
was intended to be a residence. And it has become an office build-
ing and this is why Camp David came into being some time ago as one
way -- one place they can go. But you look back over the history
of presidents and you found that everyone of them feees the White
House come the week-end or come any vacation time.
O
Do you think perhaps the President should live on a bluff
overlooking the Potomac?
A
Well -- Washington did.
(laughter)
Ω
Governor, on a different subject, last week the Presidential
Commission on Crime came out with a report, some of the recommenda-
tions which were at variance with your own task force report on
crime.
Specifically with regard to marijuana. I was wondering
if you have any comment on that?
A
I found myself in great disagreement with that commission
on crime, in a number of the things that they proposed, including
this one with regard to the treatment of marijuana. The more that
our own crime studies group or drug studies group goes forward
here in our drug center in state government, the more we are learning,
strengthens the position that marijuana has been vastly underestimated
as to its potential for harm.
Q
What are some of the other areas where you disagreed with
the President's report?
A
I was in total disagreement with their proposal for the
-12-
confiscation of al hand guns in the United S :es, because I still
think that the answer to gun control and guns in the use of crimes
is the one that our own commission has proposed and the one that
we tried a few years ago and then found was bogged down on a
technicality, and that is to make -- to increase considerably
the penalty for someone carrying a gun in the commission of a crime.
Now, if you remember, in 1969 we passed a measure that added five
to fifteen years to the sentence of a person was convicted and had
a gun while he was -- while he was committing the crime. Even if
hedidn't use the gun. And the first year that cut armed robbery
31 per cent in California. But what happened immediately thereafter
was they found a little clause that you always try to have some
elasticity in laws -- that said "except in exceptional circumstances."
And evidently most of the courts in California decided that every case
of a man having a gun was an exceptional circumstance, and we found
that they no longer were using or giving that added penalty. And
so we have gone right back to the regular rate of use of weapons and
of armed crime -- armed robbery.
Q
Do you think the proposal that the task force makes on
abolishing the exclusionary rule would stand up under federal
courts' scrutiny?
A
Yes, I would. And I'm -- I've been a little shocked at
the carelessness with which that's been interpreted. This idea
that -- that the exclusionary rule proposal that was made by our
task force was aimed at permitting illegal search and seizure, it
was not -- and as a matter of fact that suggestion came from the
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Berger has made the proposal that is contained, along with
about 100 other recommendations, in what I think is one of the
finest, most comprehensive crime control reports that's ever been
made by anyone. And all we are talking about is not illegal search
and seizure -- right now if there is illegality or if there is
a violation in some way by accident or a mistake made, there is no
redress whatsoever for the -- for the citizen whose rights have been
invaded. This proposal is that you provide redress for the civilian.
But what it also provides is this situation where a policeman stops
a man for running a red light and then finds a sack of heroin on the
front seat, and he can't do anything about the heroin or use that
in evidence because he stopped him for going through a red light.
-13-
Now that's hardly illegal search and seizure. He had a legitimate
reason for stopping the man and then found evidence of an even greater
crime and can't use it under the -- this way I think is a misinter-
pretation. What we are talking about is the word "unreasonable"
search and seizure. We are talking about the mistake that is made.
The error and the fact of breaking into or -- breaking into; the
fact ofgetting a warrant and going to a house and looking for
bookmaking, and finding a body in the house, the victim of a murder.
We have reached some heights of foolishness with regard to the
exclusionary rule. But no one is advocating suddenly turning law
enforcement loose with no need for a warrant and to go ahead
with illegal search and seizure. We want the full constitutional
guarantees, including redress for the individual whose home has
been invaded.
Q
Governor, the local Board of Supervisors passed a resolu-
tion this week saying that property taxes, local, would go up very
sharply if your initiative passed. You are probably going to get
more of that in the campaign.
A
Yes, and this is because they found the best way the
opponents can do if they wanted to stop this. But I think this is
the same Board of Supervisors along with other people who said that
the property taxes would go up if we -- if we had the welfare reforms,
that we were going to dump a local government with that. And that the
property taxes would have to go up because everybody that was dropped
from welfare would go direct to county relief. Some 42 of the 58
counties have lowered their property taxes. I think you will find
some of the same charges were made with regard to Senate Bill 90, and
the things that would happen, and when you get your property bills
in November they are going to find out that the people are going to
find out that they are getting a reduction in their property tax.
Not all that perhaps they should get and we'd like to get in the future,
but this is an argument that is meant to confuse the people and the
plain truth of the matter is there is absolutely no foundation for it
whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the bill themselves, if they
bothered to read it, makes it sure that they cannot dump an expense
on the local government or increase the property tax. We have taken
Senate Bill 90 and put it into the nstitution under this measure.
And we cannot under this measure mandate an expense on local government
without the state picking up the cost.
VOICE: Thank you, Governor.
8/28
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD AUGUST 28, 1973
Reported by
Beverly D. Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
r apidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 454.)
O
Governor, what proof do you have that they were deliberate
distortions?
A
Because I cannot believe that the Legislative Analyst
with access to the information he has and all the information on
the initiative could in his position after these many years of
experience have been that mistaken as to deliberately make charges
of things that he says will happen that are absolutely prohibited
by the language of the initiative itself.
Q
Governor, the Tax Foundation backed him up initially.
Why -- he went on the basis of the statistics provided by the Tax
Foundation. How can you claim that was deliberate?
A
No, I don't know how you can say that because the Tax
Foundation not only supported us, but provided much of the informa-
tion and theplanning for our -- for our initiative.
O
They subsequently supported you, they initially supported
him, didn't they?
A
No, no, he used a 1971 figure at one time which the
Speaker of the Assembly then used frequently based on the average
tax burden nationwide. And this was 1971. Subsequent to that
time there have been additional figures or at that time there were
available figures for the later years of '72 and projections for
'73 from the Tax Foundation and also the fact that California's
tax burden is several persentage points higher than the national
average.
O
Governor, may I ask two questions. First, what is the
probable reason you refer to in your last paragraph and second, what
do you anticipate the impact on the '74-'75 state budget will be if
the initiative passes? Will there have to be any reduction in
state spending next year?
-1-
A
No, we are goigg ahead with the normal planning on the
budget.
Q
The agency heads have not been told to cut back?
A
The probable reason is what I think I indicated in the
earlier part of the statement here, the fact that he is doing the
bidding in a partisan sense of the leadership of the Assembly
which has announced its opposition to this plan and rather than
analyzing the plan objectively he is trying to produce an analysis
that will support their position.
Q
Excuse me, Governor, I wonder if I could follow up. Did
you say that there will be no need to cut the budget next year
because of the tax initiative?
A
Well, no more than the -- than the tax initiative will call
for. The basic one tenth of one percent cut. I know this is
the charge in which they are claiming that somehow technically and
under language that the fact that we are giving the rebates reduces
the base year tax level, and that subsequent years we will have to
follow through on that. Well, we have already stated and I've
stated to you several times, we do not agree with that. We do not
believe that you can substitute, in order to give a rebate on a
previous year's overpayment -- that you can give a rebate as a
substitute for a portion of the tax and not consider that rebate
as a part of the base income of the state.
Q
Do you have a legal opinion to support that?
A
We haven't even sought such a legal opinion. This was
the intent of the legislation as we proposed it. It's been our
intent or we never would have proposed this in the first place.
O
Governor, George Murphy, the Legislative Counsel, has
issued a legal opinion supporting Post's views. Now doyou put him
in the same category as --
A
Well, I consider him less than objective, but I would
also like to say that -- if there is one characteristic of the law
it is that lawyers differ, That's why they are on opposite sides
in legal cases.
Governor,
/
2
/Didn't you say last week that it would be the Economic
Council that makes its final decision on the base that will be used
and isn't it conceivable that they they could go that way and
that it would affect the budget next year?
A
Well, we
rtainly don't anticipate
,
but what I
was also saying about them, and this has bearing again on the dire
predictions of Mr. Post, that the -- this Economic Council has not
even met yet. We don't even, as of yet, have the official figures
on the -- on last year as to revenues and expenditures. And to go
this far ahead in saying what will happen to a budget -- again, as
I say, the record speaks for itself. And I consider this projection
just as wrong as all the others.
Q
What I'm saying is that it is conceivable that the Council
could decide that way on the tax base, isn't that correct?
MR. MEESE: Could we be sure now -- be precise. This is
the Economic Estimates Commission provided for in the initiative
and they had to do it on the basis of revenues as provided in the ---
in the initiative itself. They are very carefully guided on what
are revenues and this point is a legal point. There is contrary
legal advice to what the Legislative Counsel has said. This will
be filed with the Secretary of State. And as the Legislative
Counsel himself has said in his opinion, this will be very persuasive
in what way a court would interpret the initiative if that ever
becomes necessary.
O
Governor, if now at theend ofAugust you don't have final
figures on the last fiscal year, how do you expect this initiative
to work with -- basing the limits for each year on -- I would
presume sometime in. spring on the current year's budget?
A
Well, because we have tied percentagewise -- we have tied
the tax burden to the projections for economic growth, inflation,
population increase in California, based on the historic pattern
of the past and the lines up. And acgually there is a great
difference in what we are talking about here and that kind of
projection. Suppose, for example, we have underestimated inflation.
And suppose that the economic growth does this. The line on the
chart does this. Well, the line of our tax limitation does this.
It is tied percentagewise to this. Suppose this levels off; this
levels off. And by the same token state expenses would. If
inflation has been overestimated and inflation should be licked
completely and we would have none, then as these two percentage
curves change and level off, so would the need for state expenses.
Salaries would reflect this, which is one of our major costs. Pur-
chase of supplies and equipment would measure it because of the
-3-
decline of inflation.
0
Governor, Mr. Post came out with his report sometime ago.
Why is it just now that you are issuing this statement?
ED GRAY: It came out on the 21st.
A
I have been refufing and as a matter of fact called your
attention to some of these things earlier in state -- public
statements that were made. But now for the first time has come the
release of what is going to be the ballot statement. And I think
that it is -- I think that the people are entitled to know the
other side to thi S.
0
Governor, who will present the opposite side for you?
A
What's that?
Q
Who will present the argument on the opposite side for you?
VERNE ORR: I'm one of the signatories.
A
Yes, Verne Orr is one. And Dr. Topping.
MR. MEESE: I pointed out, though, this purports to be
the impartial analysis required by statute by the Legislative
Counsel and Legislative Analyst, and it may well be that legal
action could ensue over whether this is in fact an impartial
analysis. This isnot the opposing argument. They are supposed
to -- I don't think anyone expressing an opinion is entitled to lie
about something. But this is supposed to be the impartial analysis
of the measure. Take Richard.
O
Governor, one of your own tax experts, Bill Bagley,
expresses the same fears about the impact of this -- well, this tax
cut, for instande, on the budget.
A
I know. Bill said this right after -- Bill had thought
that maybe the Legislature could do smething to -- a technicality
to ensure that there was no such question about this. From the
very first we have been in disagreement with him on that. That
it isn't needed. It might be added, the Legislature, if there
was any question about this -- the Legislature could solve it
very easily, require just a very technical change.
O
Governor, Orange County Superior Court Judge Bruce
Sumner and a former Republican Legislator who was chairman of the
State Constitution Revision Commission from '64 to '72, says he's
"appalled" at your tax limitation initiative. He says it is in
direct contradiction to the
revision process
which was to make the constitution short, readable and understand-
able.
MR. GRAY
But he was not critic: ng the initiatve
but rather the size of the initiative.
not
A
He was/criticizing the initiative but rather the size of
the initiative. He was criticizing the number of words contained
in this, and that would be a very easy thing to solve. All the
Legislature had to do was what we requested in the first place.
If the Legislature had approved this plan it would not have required
the highly technical and verbose language that it did to ensure that
all the holes were closed in it.
O
Couldn't you have put that in the second statutory
initiative?
A
What's that?
O
Put thecomplex language in a second statutory initiative?
MR. MEESE: Well, you have the practical difficulty in
this case because you had to get the signatures of the people
because the legislature would not act and that was the reason for the
decision to have one piece of paper that people signed. Otherwise
you have tremendous confusion. So it really was the fact that
the legislature did not act that caused this.
O
Following up on what Mr. Meese said, did you plan to --
to go to court or to sue to have Mr. Post's statement removed from
the ballot or have it rewritten?
A
We haven't discussed that or made any decision on this yet.
MR. MEESE: I think that, Governor, would be a question
that the committee itself -- the Californian's for Lower Taxes would
have to decide.
A
I think SO.
Q
Governor, just to clarify my understanding of your response.
Mr. Post said that if the initiative passes that you 11 have to
cut the budget next year by -- from $620 million to $286 million,
depending on how the '73-'74 revenue estimates are assessed.
Do you deny those figures?
A
I do deny those figures.
Q
Do you have any estimates of your own, sir?
A
Well, our own estimates, as well as -- in our Finance
Department that we can do, and we are going ahead, as I said ---
we are planning the budget just the same as we have always gone
forward on it.
Q
Suppose it is determined that you can't include the surplus
-5-
as revenue for '73- 74, wouldn't that drastically alter the way that
you approach the budget?
A
No, it really won't.
We have got a great deal of practice
with austere budgets, but in -- he is ignoring one other thing, and
that is that the passage of this provision ensures that you cannot
reduce below present state levels. In other words, at any point
that the tax limitation would appear to go below what is necessary
to maintain present government levels of service, adjusted for
inflation and growth -- that's where it stops.
Q
Yeah, but the level is a distorted level because those
revenues won't be included. The revenues that you are not collect-
ing from the sales tax cut, the revenues that you are not collecting
from the --
A
Well, this is only --
2
-- above 20 per cent, --
A
This is only part of it. Even with some of that involved
it wouldn't be as horrendous as he says. And we would still go
ahead with a normal budget. He has included a great many things
that we dispute fery definitely that he claims cannot be considered
as state revenues, that have nothing to do with the bill that was
just recently passed for the rebates, and we dispute those, have
never considered them ourselves.
o
Governor, I still don't understand, why it is that in
your view the Legislative Analyst would want to deliberately make
distortions in his analysis of the tax limitation plan.
A
Well, I think you'd have to look at who employs him.
He's employed by the legislative leadership.
Q
Do you think he's become a tool of the legislative
leadership?
A
I thought that I sort of indicated something like that
in the statement.
Ω
Well,
or not, Governor, Mo. Post had achieved
the reputation over some twentyyears of service as being rather
objective and non-partisan. Why do you suppose suddenly he'd become
partisan now as you say, doing the bidding of the Speaker?
A
Well, you'd have to ask him that. Butall I can point
to -- I have given you a factual record of his recent pronouncements,
projections in recent years, his analyses, supposedly, for the
legislature as to what was going to happen with one after the other,
-6-
the major issues that have been presented by this administration.
And in every instance, as I indicated to you, ne has been wrong.
His figures have not held up and the proof is in the fact that
they -- that the instances have now passed and we don't have to
project. We look to the past and can say he said this and this is
what actually happened. And he was wrong.
Ω
He was right on withholding, wasn't he?
A
What?
@
He was right on withholding, wasn't he?
A
As a matter of fact, if you want to go back to 1963 you
will find that he predicted the need for a gigantic tax increase
prior -- just prior to the 1966 election. He didn't know then
that they were going to change the bookkeeping system to get by the
1966 election. But at that time he made a statement that he was
opposed to withholding because he said that taxes should hurt.
And all this time you fellowsthought that was original with me.
That was back when I was quoting him.
O
How does that make him capable of deliberately -- maybe
he simply committed honest distortion.
(Laughter)
Ω
Why deliberate?
A
Well, then, he ought to check the staff somewhat and
maybe change his books.
Q
Do you have any evidence to suggest that he is deliberately
out to oppose you on everything?
A
I answered that question once. I told you -- I have
to assume that a man with his experience, with the staff that
he has that's been doing this for so many years, with the
documents in front of him, could not make these kind of mistakes.
0
Have These distortions been repeated, say, at the committee
level, where Mr. Post testified side by side with Mr. Orr?
A
Yes, and they will continue to be made. I think
starting very shortly there will be a committee hearing, as I
suggested, where he will be the star witness and will carry these
on and the entire purpose is to confuse the people of California.
You cannot point to a single argument that's been made by the
opponents of this proposal that is based actually on the terms of
the proposal, disputing them as something that should be or shouldn't
be changed or that would be wrong. They have created and attempted
to create fears in the minds of people of dire things that they
say will happen if this initiative is passed. And they --
they
have no bearing on che actual terms of the initiative. And the
whole purpose, and it's -- it's been revealed to us, there are no
secrets in this building, they have a theory that if the people of
California can be confused the people will either stay home and
not vote at all or vote no.
O
Governor, why would Post want to confuse the people?
o
-- deliberate distortions on your --
A
Wait.
Q
Why would Post want to confuse the people?
A
Well, because the legislative leadership wants this
defeated.
0
On this issue of deliberate distortions, your description
of Mr. Post's incorrect calculations on the welfare reform don't seem
to mention the fact that most of the time he said he could not de-
termine if there would be savings or costs because information from
the welfare department wasn't made available to him, and leaders of
both parties made the same accusation.
A
This was the charge that was made repeatedly trying to
pin down and say that we could not dollar for dollar say there would
be a dollar saved here and a dollar saved there. But at the time
he was refuting our own estimates of what the savings would be.
And I will recall to you that time after time in this room, in
press conferences I told you that we believed our estimates were
conservative, that we had erred on the side of being conservative,
that we felt that probably in our own hearts the savings would be
much greater than those we were predicting, and it turned out to
be absolutely true. The savings have been greater. We thought
that the decline in the welfare rolls would probably continue for
several months and then level off. Well, now here we are, two years
and about -- what, about three or four months later, and we have
just added another -- the last time, in fact, about 48 hours ago,
I used the term 352,000 fewer people, and today I'm able to say
it is 368, 000 fewer people on welfare, but he did refute ours and
claim that there was no substantiation for them. And this is when
he made the charge that no information had been given him. He had
all the information we had. He just insisted that some way you
had to actually be able to point to and say, well, this year we
will save "x" number of dollars." And our people -- experts in the
field of welfare, expert in having to project ahead what welfare
-8-
needs would be, tried to explain that these predictions were based
on that knowledge and that information. And they were right.
0
The question was about the issue of distortion, and you
(walfare)
say in your prepared statement that Post claimed that the reforms
would not result in substantial savings and didn't he really say
that he could not determine whe ther they would result in savings or
costs?
A
I don't recall that he ever gave any indication that
there would be savings and he did -- was one of those who indicated
that there could be increased costs, as he said not, at the local
level and increases in property taxes because general relief at the
county level would go up.
C
Governor, are you saying thatafter twenty years -- more than
twenty years as legislative analyst that Alan Post is not worried
about his job?
A
I don't know whether he's worried about his job or not.
Q
You implied --
A
I'm just saying -
2
The point about legislative leadership, he has to be
careful what he says.
A
I would assume that anyone knows who they are working for.
Ω
You think he's in fear of being fired by Bob Moretti If
he doesn't take Moretti's side?
A
Maybe he's just anti-Governor, because if I remember, my
predecessor had quite a hard time with him, too. That his analyses
usually were counter to the proposals made by Governor Brown.
o
He's not necessarily non-partisan?
A
What?
O
He's not necessarily partisan, as you claim?
A
Well, if I remember rightly, under the leadership of the
former Speaker, Jesse Unruh, there was a certain -- whether it was
party partisanship -- there was a partisanship between the
legislature and the governor, they didn't get along.
0
I don't think he's ever denied that, he claims that he's
impartial to the legislature.
A
Well --
O
Will you go on to something else, Governor?
A
All right.
-9-
0
Can you comment on the statement by the Grand Jury ---
by the Jury foreman in that -- in the Santa Cruz murder case?
It blamed you and the state for letting this murderer out of a
mental hospital to commit all these murders.
A
Yes, I -- you are speaking about the Muleen -- the man who
was convicted?
O
Yes.
A
Yes, I think that the jury foreman was uninformed, as a
great many people are, about the workings of the mental health
program. I say that with regard to his statement that Mr. Mullen
was released as an economy move. No patient has been released
for that reason. Under our law, when the counties develop their
own mental health care programs at their request we release patients
to them. Patients who were not sentenced for violent acts or
something, in other words, of -- under a penal sentence. Mental
health patients cannot be held against their will, unless it can
be proven that they represent a threat to themselves or to someone
else. Now, psychiatry is an inexact science. They are right a
great many times; theyal somake mistakes in this. Obviously he
was a threat to others. Andobviously should have been held in,
but may I -- may I point out to you that we ourselves, recognizing
this, weakness in psychiatry, that these mistakes do occur, have
been trying and our legislation is still having a rocky road and
a rough going upstairs -- we have been trying in connection with
the -- the neuropsychiatric unit at U.C.L.A. to embark on a study
of violence to see if there isn't some way that we can not only cope
with the problem but detect this earlier inpeople and, as I say, the
legislation is still stalled upstairs. It is a problem. But
he was absolutely wrong when he says that we are dumping out onto
the street mental patients for some economy move. If anyone
wants to look at the budget they will find we are spending more and
spending more per patient than has ever been spent in the state's
history, and I dcn 't usualby brag about spending money.
O
You don't think the release of Mullen was any administrative
error by the state?
A
No, it was a psychiatric error.
a
Governor, if Vice-President Agnew were to resign, would
you consider a nomination?
(Laughter)
-10-
A
I'm not ing to deal in hypothetica of that kind.
I think that everyone should hope that there will be no need for his
resigning.
Q
Has anyone from the Nixon administration actually talked
to you about that possibility?
A
Heavens, no. I don't think they have talked to anyone
else about it. I don't think it's even being considered.
I
think all of you heard the press conference and the President's
total and above-board defense of the Vice-President or expression
of confidence in the Vice-President.
?
Governor, have you been advised not to go out too far
on the limb in defense of the Vice-President?
A
No.
B
Governor, do you think it would have been more prudent of
Mr. Nixon to have made public from the start thearrangements under
which his house was purchased, such as you did in your case?
Do you see any parallel in the situation?
A
I have to say, and I'm just basing it on nothing but
my own experience here -- I think it is thekind of thing that
probably was handled in his behalf and that he didn't pay any
attention to it. You can't and do the job. It is why you appoint
trustees to take care of your own personal affairs. Because you --
you are busy with some other affairs. I just don't think it ever
became a problem to him. Somebody decided to try and make it one.
o
Governor, on another subject. What is your reaction
to the resolution passed by the Senate asking the state to explore
all possible alternatives béfore renewing the existing contract for
gasoline with Standard Oil? Particularly with reference to the
letter that their company sent out to the -- to the Middle East.
A
Well, I'm never opposed to reviewing contracts with
anyone, and I think we always ought to stay abreast of them.
I
don't think that should necessarily be the reason. I think that
the President of Standard Oil has made it very plain that someone
has misread his intent, that he was really pleading for peace and
for -- both sides to find an answer to their problems. It was
unfortunate in the wording of the letter. One reason why I always
figure that you ought to leave a letter on your desk overnight
before you answer it; you'll be surprised how many good ones I tore
up.
SQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.
0
Governor, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is
now on record as opposing the American River site of the mansion.
Supervisor Pat Mellarkey says he doubts whether a satisfactory
environmental impact statement can be made on that mansion.
Are you still going to go aheadand break ground in October despite
that?
A
I don't see anything that should prevent it. I recognize
his position, he's been quite a leader in that. I think the
controversy really is between those in the city and in the county
here who think of the Governor's residence as a kind of tourist
attraction and therefore they want it in the downtown development.
And I happen to represent a viewpoint of someone who's had to live
both downtown and now in a residential area as Governor, raising a
family and I'm thinking of it interms of the problems of future
governors who will also have families that will haveto grow up
under those circumstances, and I don't think that downtown is
a place for them to live. Ihave no concern about the environmental
effect. The archeelogival dig has revealed that we are not
violating an Indian burial ground. Indeed, $110,000 has been spent
of the taxpayer's money simply on the charge of the opinion by someone
that this was a burial ground. Wewent forward with it and apparently
now they aredown to base and -- and nothing has been -- has been
uncovered yet. It is a single piece ofground between already
developed ground along the bluffs on either side -- on both sides.
It is an attractive piece of ground. I think that it could --
would be an ideal setting for that kind of residence. And I don't
think that that residence for the future governors of California --
because I'm not going to live in it -- I don't think that residence
should be considered to its value as a tourist attraction for people
driving by to look at it, and that's just exactly what their position
is.
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
ED GRAY: I'd like to repeat before you go, that
correction which I talked about earlier. It is at the end of the
fifth paragraph of the statement itself. It should read, "Indeed,
without them there would be no surplus," instead of "a surplus."
000
-12-
PRES CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RON D REAGAN
HELD SEPTEMBER 5, 1973
Reported by
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference
is furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience. only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
That's my opening statement.
0
Governor, last week after your press conference here, Mr.
Gray said that your remarks were -- good morning -- your remarks
about Alan Post were not supposed to have beenpersonal, rather
professional. But when you cast doubt upon a man's integrity
isn't that pretty personal?
A
Well, let me make reference to some of the statements
that -- just one, for example. I was called attention to the
fact and yes, I am disturbed -- I'm disturbed about not only Mr.
Post but about someone else who by law is supposed to be above
the fray where election rules and so forth are concerned, the
Secretary of State. But when they descend from that position or
wear another hat and become advocates of a view with regard to
something about which they are supposed to be neutral in their
duties, then I think they call some attention to themselves and what
they are doing. And Mr. Post has been an advocate and has appeared
publicly making statements in opposition to this initiative which he,
is supposed to analyze in a neutral manner. I will give one line
as an example. Mr. Post calls attention to the fact in his
neutral analysis that the legislature by a two-thirds vote can
authorize local communities to have an income tax. Now, this is
true. As far as it goes. But he leaves it there. And I challenge
that any one of you reading that your assumption would be, or the
citizen's assumption would be that this means, for heavens sake, we
are now going to have local income taxes in addition to our steeply
progressive state and federal income taxes. What he should have
added was the exact opposite, that yes, it will require a two-thirds
vote for a local government to have an income tax if this initiative
-1-
cities
passes. But at esent some / claim the r it to have one
without any vote at all and the rest of them can have it with only a
simple majority vote. It changes the meaning completely. It was
the use of a half truth to distort the meaning and reverse the mean-no
ing of the initiative. We have made it mare difficult for local
government to have an income tax. As a matter of fact, I have been
told by some local government officials that even though they are
sympathetic to the limitation plan and they believe that it is
an idea whose time has come and that government must do something
of the kind to protect the people in their own communities, they
have had ah eye on the possibility of such a tax and therefore they
are going to have to be against the initiative because they want --
they want it to be easier for them to get a local income tax.
We are trying to make it a little more difficult to get any kind
of a new tax.
O
Governor Reagan, this morning Herb Caen's column, he said
a vote for Reagan's tax initiative is a vote for Reagan for
Pres ident.
A
Well, I think Herb Caen ought to stick to the pubs and
the restaurants in San Francisco. He's got more knowledge there.
0
Well do you think there might be some truth to it?
A
Well, this is a very funny thing. You know, I read that
A
item, too. I like to know where the good places to eat are in San
Francisco. I read his item and it seemed very strange to me.
If this is such a destructive initiative and if this is such a
thing that is going to be so against the good of the people, why
would somone then suggest at the same time that someone would be
using it as a gimmick by which to win an election? He must be
saying -- admitting then that the people would find themselves very
much in favor of this. And they can't have it both ways.
Q
Governor, what are some of these local officials that want
the local income taxes?
A
I'm not going to name them because these were in conferences
with me as to why they had to take the position they took and I
respect their right to say that. But I don't think there is any-
thing wrong in me pointing out the discrepancy, the fact that today
we have some elements who are opposed to this initiative because
they claim it is going to raise local property taxes. The Speaker
of the Assembly has said that property taxes will go up on November 7
if this is approved on November 6. But the League of Cities is in
-2-
opposition to the ogram because they say it kes it more
difficult or impossible for them to raise property taxes.
Now here are two groups aligned against the initiative
for opposite reasons. I would say we must come pretty place --
pretty well down the middle between those two viewpoints with
our initiative.
0
Governor, on the Presidency issue, you have said in the past
that that's one office that seeks the man. Should it seek you,
will you let it find you?
(Laughter)
A
Well, it is getting increasingly hard to find -- I mean
hard to hide in this country. But not only from that. No, I've
always believed that. I think it does, and that's why I've always
said that it is the time -- as the time draws nearer events yet to
come, to take place, will probably bring a great many names into
prominence that will be considered.
Q
Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly said this morning that
he didn't think you'd run for a third term because of having been
defeated you might then haveto dim your chance to be the President.
What do you think about that?
A
Squire, I will quotethe scriptures. Job 35:16 He
multiplieth words without knowledge.
O
Governor, new subject.
(Laughter)
A
How come you want to get away from the Bible so quick?
O
As a Republican you -- vetoed reapportionment plans now
considering that the Democrats and Republicans seem to concede
that the Democrats come out better with the Masters Plan.
A
No, as a matter of fact, I've had meetings with the
Republican legislative leaders and it seems that everybody on both
sides is claiming some gains out of this. Although individuals --
individual encumbents on both sidds will have problems. No, the
legislation that was psssed that I vetood would not have gone
into effect. It was simply 3 guidoline to the Masters. The Court
had taken jurisdiction. I don't believe that my signature would
have made any difference to the court and think that's beenproven
by the course they followed. They obviously took a course that was
entirely different from all those that had bear followed in the
previous attempts to arrive at a reapportionment.
-3-
O
Governor the Masters were particul ly harsh on the
Senate plan that you thought was acceptable. Can you respond to
some of their criticism, particularly about the -- the treatment
of minorities and Spanish surname citizens.
A
Yeah, but I saw a little -- little discrepancy there.
They are having it both ways, too, I must confess. They were
critical of the Senate plan because it did try to create, particularly
in East Los Angeles and extending out to San Bernardino, a district
that would give the Americans of Mexican descent in that very
large community an opportunity for representation. But I noticed
in their own statements the other day, in presenting their plan,
that they were quite proud of the fact that they had created several
districts of my -- of the minority communities in which it could
increase representation for both Americans of Mexican descent and
for Negroes. So I just don't know how they could find fault
with the Senate's attempt to do that and their own plan which does
the same thing and probably even more SO.
O
Governor, some of the Republican. Senators have indicated
they are going before the Court with a number of protests against
this plan. Will you support them in that?
A
Actually I haven't made any decision because I think this
is so complex that there's been no chance to analyze it and
have a view on it, and frankly, as long as it has to go before the
court yet it is just a plan. And there are going to be hearings
and presentations. I'm in no position to comment on it at this
time. I don't think the very fact that the Masters must submit this
to the court is an indication that it is a plan that --- and they
are having open hearings, that it is still subject to change and
alteration. There is no way to have a perfect reapportionment plan.
O
Governor, what's your philosophy on direct election of
BART directors?
A
Well, again we are talking about a piece of legislation
that hasn't come down yet. So I won't comment on that and discuss
it.
0
Governor, you mentioned Edmund Brown, Junior, a little
earlier when you were talking about Alan Post on that subject.
Do you feel that Mr. Brown was less than fair with the voters by
his latest decision to delay the printing of the ballot pamphlets?
Because of --
A
Well
-4-
0
Because what he says are distorted srepresentations?
A
I found his calling of the press conference a little
strange. The fault with the particular pamphlet he was talking
about was the fact that it had been printed before the legislature
decided to give in and -- and give the one-time rebate. And the
legislation I have just recently signed. The committee -- Cali-
fornians for Lower Taxes had written the Secretary of State volunteer-
ing torchange the pamphlet now that that particular part of the
initiative had been achieved through legislation. If you will
recall, we ourselves, months ago, asked the legislature to adopt
that part of the initiative. We put it on the ballot in case they
didn't, and then stipulated in the ballot that of course this tax
cut, the 20 per cent reduction and so forth, would take place
provided the legislature had not already taken action. But they
had written him a letter asking him if they -- andstating their
willingness to change the pamphlet. And he -- obviously must have
had this before he made his statements of yesterday, to suggest
that that was fraud in some way œ a distortion. Obviously ignoring
the fact that it had been written prior to the passage of the
legislation, and had beenprinted prior to that time. Now Mr.
Post's analysis did not contain any reference to the one-time rebate
because Mr. Post did not turn his analysis in on the date that is
required by law for turning it in. He turned it in after the legis-
lature had taken its action.
O
Excuse me, Governor, but we were informed that -- by Mr.
Brown and the Attorney General's office that they did not submit to
the Secretary of State until last Thursday or Friday, the titling
for the initiative, so that of course would have happened after
the legislature acted on the tax.
A
I think you are talking about two different things. We
are talking about the committee's pro-argument for the bill which
is what he was so critical of; the matter of the -- of the
Attorney General's titling, that's between the Attorney General
and the Secretary of State, as to whether he --
O
Can you tell us whether reports were true that in the
discussions between the Attorney General the people from the
Speaker's office, Alan Post's office, that your administration did
not desire to have the 20 per cent reference deleted from the titling
by the Attorney General?
-5-
A
No, I -- no, I don't know of ything of that kind.
We just knew --- we were urging the passage of the legislation.
We wanted it. We knew at the time that if we did it, to remove
that from the November 6 election, but we knew there was no way to
take itout of the language of the actual amendment. That's why the
line is in there that states, "If the legislature takes action this
of course will not be."
0
Do you think the initiative will get fewer votes if they
take out the 20 per cent reference in the title?
A
Oh, no, I think we are going to make every effort to
explain to the people as clearly as we can what it is they are
getting. Theissue is very simple, those who have avvested interest
in big gobernment getting more money are opposed to any kind of
limitation or reduction in taxes. And we believe that we made
a promise several years ago when we had to raise taxes that we
were going to try to give it back as quickly as this state could --
could afford it, and the state can afford it now and we should be
reducing the burden on the people.
0
Since the income tax rebate has been settled by the
legislature and by you, should there be any reference .at all in
the ballot summaries or arguments to an income tax rebate?
A
No, this is what thecommittee wrote to inquire about.
That they were willing to take that out. Yes, it is much simpler
and less --- less confusing if we simply state that this has been
achieved already by legislative action. Now, the one-time rebate
may look spectacular to someone to put down all the figures, but it
was the least of the initiative. You are talking about the
return of some $700 million dollars to the people on a one-time
basis. We are talking about a programthat's going to save the
people over $118 billion dollars in the next fifteen years.
O
Governor, on another subject, Lieutenant Governor Reinecke
has come out against the establishment of a six county regional
air pollution district in southern California which is the opposite
position of that taken by your administration on that bill by
Moretti. The Lieutenant Governor charges that the district would
create more taxes and involve more red tape, etcetera. Do you
have any comments on that?
A
No, I actually don't know the situation.
ED MEESE: That's the position -- when you say "your
administration, that's the position of the Air Resources Board.
-6-
The bill has not yet come to you.
0
It is also the position of the Resources Agency and Ike
Livermore.
ED MEESE:
But it hasn't beenconsidered in cabinet or
by the Governor personally.
A
Again, to remind you of theprocedure, things like that -
and when I stand here and say I'm not aware of something like that
is because it has not been on theagenda and those things do not
become policy of the aministration before they have gone through the
cabinet process.
O
The Third District Court of Appeals prior to receiving
another judgeship, are you considering or would you consider
Senator Marler to appoint to that position?
A
Oh, I'm not going to speculate on the possibility of
judges.
The procedure -- the procedure for judgeships is and has
been for six and a half years that everyone who is interested or
everyone who is a potential for a judge is submitted to a series
of committees and we have appointed judges regardless of politics
on the basis of the rating of those committees when they come back
to us.
o
There's speculation -
A
And without exception.
O
Excuse me, there is speculation it might solve the
problem that the Assembly Judicial Committee does not want to
pass out new judgeships, allowing a lame duck, so to speak,
Governor appointing them and it will solvethe problem of Senator
Marler and Collier running against each other.
A
Now, if -- if our opponents upstairs should decide they
could get some political advantage out of giving us the much needed
judgeships to relieve the overload in cases, that would at least
be some good that came out of partisan politics.
Q
Governor, I'd like to return to this tax thing a second.
I assume that you think the committee ought to rewrite its
initiative argument to delete the 20 per cent reference?
A
Oh, sure, yes,
0
O.
K., are they going to do that?
A
Yes, yeah.
O
Governor
A
One second.
-7-
0
Governor we have heard a good deal
debate as to what
numbers will actually be like in next year's budget if we do in
fact have the tax limitation. plan.
0
Have you received any numbers from the Finance Department
and if so do they live up to your expectations as to what we might
see next year?
A
Let me say this, you are referring, of course, to Mr. Post's
argument that the budget or there is indication that the budget is
going to be some $620 million dollars less next year than this year's
budget if the initiative passes. We will not have all the infor-
mation that we normally have and that we want before we make some
preddctions or projections of this kind until October. By that
time the economic estimate commission has met, they have told us
what the economy is or their predictions of the economy, what
the tax structure will bring in. And so we have tried not to
join him in picking numbers out of the air and guessing. But
I'll make you a guess based on just the estimates, our own
projections and estimates that we have, and I will stand on the
prediction. He says the budget is going tabe some $620 million
less than this year's budget. I will predict that he is wrong
by a billion dollars or more in his projection.
o
Governor, isn't he really saying it is going to be $600
million less than itewould be otherwise without the initiative?
A
Oh, that's the question. What he ought to be saying.
That's what he ought to be saying. But it is a little bit like
the two-thirds vote on the income tax. He has not quitemade
that clear and it is very difficult and was before the committee
to pin him down as to which he was saying. I remember one legisla-
tor asking him repeatedly, andI don't think that a very definitive
answer came out at all with regard to that. If that's what he's
saying, here again his figures may be wrong. In fact, I would
suggest that they are wrong. But obviously, if the implementation
of the plan takes place, if the initiative passes, the budget is
not going to be as big as the budget would be without that
implementation. But it is going to be ample to meet all the needs
of the state and even provide for some things that we are not now
doing. And this is true for the whole 15 years of the limitation.
But we will halt this increasing growth in the cost and size of
government.
-8-
O
Are you lking about a $380 millior surplus next year?
A
What?
Q
You said --
A
No, no, no. No, no, now wait a minute here. You got
the camera running?
(Laughter)
A
All right. I hage to waste this good material on a dead
camera.
(Laughter)
A
Answering questions. I said that if Mr. Post is indica-
t ing to the people that the budget for next year, for the State of
California, will have to be reduced $600 million dollars below the --
this year's budget, which I'm sure everyone knows is impossible and
could not be done, would cause great disruption -- that if that's
what he's saying without making any specific projection to you
now of what the budget -- how much bigger next year's budget will
be than this one, I will still make the prediction that Mr. Post
is a billion dollars or more off. That it will not be $600 million
dollars less. It will be in the difference between that and the
billion increased over this year's budget.
0
Well, in other words, $400 million dollars. So it is
going to be $400 million dollars bigger than this year's budget?
A
I think that's a reasonable guess.
O
Is that from your Finance Department?
A
I'm not going -- I'm making the prediction, not Mr. Orr.
You hold me responsible. When we submit the budget before the
first of the year, by the first of the year, and when we talk on
the budget, you sit in here and then you will either say, "Uh-huh
you were right back on that September day." You probably won't
pay any attention to it, you'll probably put out a headline,
"Record budget for California."
(Laughter)
O
Why doesn't your Finance Department give the Willie
Brown committee that information?
A
What?
Q
Why doesn't your Finance Department give --
A
Because we say when you get it before a committee -
they have never -- never has bhe Finance Department been so care-
less as to go up and speculate on numbers before we get the readings
of the Economic Estimate Commission. At the same time none of us
-9-
live under a rock.
We also have ideas of wha seems to be
happening with the tax -- with our tax structure and rough estimate of
what revenues are going to come in. Very simply this limitati is
going to do one thing. The Ecmomic Estimate Commission is going
to make an estimate for us of what the total ear nings of the
people of California are going to be. It is then going to say what
the tax structure às it presently exists is going to bring in in
revenue, as a percentage of those earnings. And if the initiative
is passed it simply means that we reduce the percentage we are
taking of those total earnings by one tenth of one percent and that
leaves us a budget that will expand beyond the present budget and
the budgets will increase every year from here on out, if the
initiative passed.
Q
Would your prediction hold, Governor, if there is a
recession?
A
What?
o
Would your prediction hold if there is a recession?
A
Well, let me see, it depends on the extent of the
recession. Now, you know, no one could predict the -- what
happened with the calamity like 1929, and let's hope that we have
progressed beyond that and it can't happen, although there are
people today who say that it can and it is going to -- but in the
recession that we had three years ago the budget expanded, and
expanded by a few hundred million dollars over the previous budget.
o
But it wasn't tied to the income from the state.
A
Huh?
O
But it wasn't tied to the income from the state.
A
It was the same -- it was certainly the same tax structure
that we have today with thepossible exception that then we had not
t ransferred to the state a billion dollars of subsidy of local
property tax. But it was the same tax structure. And even in
the recession it was bringing us in enough to have an increased
budget.
O
Governor, if -- if the initiative were not at issue now,
and state government continued at its same basic level without
any program increases, wouldn't next year's budget likely to be
more than $400 million dollars greater than this year's budget?
A
Oh, it may even be now. I'm being a little conservative.
I'm just making a prediction here and I said a billion or more.
-10-
0
The
thing
'm trying to get to is do n't -- even your
projection, a conservative $400 million dollars more to spend
next year than - than we are spending this year, mean that there
will have to be some budget cutbacks to the extent that normal
growth won't continue at the rate it is growing now? And if so,
what -- what can be cut back?
A
Well, Tom, it depends on whose viewpoint you take.
There are people in the state and there are people -- legislators
upstairs who are opposed to this initiative who have been opposed
to every economy that we have made, including the welfare reforms.
They think that's wrong. They think the state should have more
revenue than it has. So from their viewpoint no budget has lived
up to what they think it should be. We, on the other hand, have
tried to practice austerity. We don't believe that government
should spend a dime morethan it has to. And we will have the
same philosophy on the budget that is coming up.
2
O. K., leg me rephrase it again. I'm not trying to trap
you, but I'm trying to get the --
A
I don't feel trapped, I thought I got in a good lick.
2
If there were no initiative, isn't it more than likely
that your Finance Department and you would submit to the legislature
next January a budget higher than $400 million dollars above what
the state -- what is budgeted this year, than the budget you
approved this year?
A
Again you are pinning me down to the $400 million dollars
figure and we don't know.
Q
Half a million, whatever you want.
A
Whatever it is going to be. Only to this extent, the
fact that the legislature does pass every year bills that increase
spending, and this is one of the reasons for the limitation. Right
now there are two bills before the legislature. One of those bills--
neither one of them has with it any proposal for raising revenues
to pay for it. One of those bills, if it was passed, would require
a tax increase automatically. The first year that tax increase
would have to deliver almost $400 million dollars, and in four
years it would have to be bringing in a billion dollars of added
new cost to government. Now this is one of the things that we are
trying to curb. You cah veto, and I have, and there's been great
complaint about my blue-pencilling of budgets, and vetoing back
through the years, but there's still some of those that just the
-11-
pllitical realiti being what they are, you n't say no to all of
them. And that's how government grows. And so without any limi-
tation the only thing that you have then to stop this constant
flood of spending measures that are proposed is the governor's
veto and always with the threat that someone may decide they want
it badly enough to override the veto. We are trying to put in a
limitation that will put the legislature in the position of also
having to look at priorities and having to decide is there revenue
for this, or do we want this badly ehough to say to the people,
don't you want this service at the increased cost.
0
Is this bill you are talking about, though, the Burton Wel-
fare Bill?
A
Yes.
O
Does that mean you are going to hav e to veto it and cut
it way back or whateveryou do to it ifit comes to you?
A
Again you are asking me now to discuss legislation. We
have made a proposal. We have made a proposal for implementing
HR 1 whd that's what thisis all about. And one that can be done
with no increased cost to the state. And that will give 80
per cent of the present recipients an increase over what they are
getting and the rest will get as much as they are presently getting.
His bill is simply taking advantage of HR 1 to go connter to the
welfare reforms that we passed. And to impose what can be in a
few years a bill of additional expense on the people of California.
O
Governor, realting to that -- the welfare situation,
there's considerable rhetoric yesterday between Dr. Brian and John
Burton on whether either side had been negotiating in good faith to
reach a compromise. The legislature has only got a week and a half
left here, and some legislation has to be passed to implement the
federal program. Do you think a compromise will be reached?
A
I don't know. I know that any suggestion ashas been
made that Dr. Brian hasn't been trying to negotiate is absolutely
false. He has been trying and he has been negotiating and the
subject of money how much money the bill should cost, up until
just a few days ago -- it is my understanding that the proponents
of the two legislative measures refused to discuss money at all.
So there was no possibility of -- of compromise on the most
important issue whi ch is -- is cost and they refused to discuss
that -- or negotiate on it at all.
-12-
0
Governor, are you going to call a special session if
it is --
A
What?
O
Are you going to call a special session if it fails to
be resolved by September 15?
A
I'll have to see what happens when that time comes.
O
Governor, Mr. Burton said yesterday that you apparently
were to call him saying that they were speaking for the administra-
tion in the negotiations, but he never received any such assurance,
so therefore he thinks or it is his opinion that no one is negotia-
ting to actually speak for you or Dr. Brian.
A
Oh, for heaven's sake. They are grasping at straws and --
the plain truth of the matter is -- and what the people don't
understand, and unfortunately a great many of the disabled and the
elderly are being victimized by proponents of a couple of spending
bills who are trying - the usual tactic of picking these people
in need and these people who can be frightened at the thought of
(welfare
something is going to happen to their grants, and they shouldn't
be. Now HR 1 is a bill in which the federal government sets
$130 nationwide as the federal contribution in these areas. The
elderly, the blind and the disabled. And if action is not taken
by a certain time by the state conceivably those people's grants
could be back down. At present they average around $212 in
California, they would go back down to $130. I want to state
right now and you will be doing a public service to those people
if youwill make sure this statement sees the light of day. That
is not going to happen. The State of California is not going to let
that happen to those people. When they will stop playing
politics we can have the implementation that ensures in addition
to the federal $130 the state augments the grant as it presently
does and this has been our point from the very beginning, and from
the very beginning we have made a proposal and continue to make one
which will not only maintain the present grants but for the bulk of
the people, 80 per cent or more, will actually increase their
grants.
2
If you reach no compromise with the legislature before
they go home next week, how are you going to stop it from happening?
A
We will have to have a strategy meeting on that as to what
we can do.
-13-
Q
Will yo think a special session th
subsequent tothe
legislature's adjournment will detract from your campaign for the
initiative?
A
Oh, heavens no.
0
You don't think a flaring debate of the welfare would
detract on the debate of your initiative?
A
oh, no, no.
0
Are you budgeting now on the premise that the initiative
is going to pass?
A
Well, we are not to that stage yet. We haven't had our
meeting of our --
MR. ORR: Governor, I think in answer to that question
and Tom's that there have been no instructions sent to any
Secretary or any department that differ fromthe normal budgetary
instructions, and we are only just starting the meetings.
O
So you are not budgeting then on the premise that the
initiative will pass?
MR. ORR: We are budgeting on the premise it will pass, but it
has not made a fundamental change in our budgeting procedures.
0
What does that mean?
MR. ORR: Just what the Governor says, the budget is
going to --
Q
The procedures are the same, but what kind of dollars
and cents are you putting down for each program?
A
Oh, but that's still -- that's the thing.
MR. ORR: That's what budgeting is about.
A
That's still a little ways away. For example, we all have
the departmental proposals coming in and when the universities
and the state college systems ask for their amounts every year we
are faced with the problem then of priorities and where you are
reducing because every year everybody asks for more money than
they are going to get. Now, youhave a long time before you get
down to what is the final dollar level. For example, right now,
without the economic estimate commission having met there would be no
way that you could tell a department how much of their request they
are going to get because you don't know whatthe tax revenues are
going to be. Now actually without any change in plans at all
you won't be to that stage at all until after November 6, to where
you know finally thedollar amount. O. K., you can start them on some
rough things. You can say to one of them, wait a minute, you know,
BY "x" amount you'd better start seeing what you can -- what is
of least priority to you and you can do without. You might do
things of that kind, and have in the past.
0
Have you?
A
Huh?
O
Have you?
A
They are just beginning.
MR, ORR: There's never been a year we Hamen't done that.
There's never been a year that anybody comes close to getting
everything they asked for and this is no different.
Q
I think what Tom is trying to find out, the Assembly
Ways and Means Committee was trying to find out if passage of the
initiative results in less money being available to the state and
you need to fund everything at its present levelof growth, what are
your priorities going to be?
A
Well, the trouble with the Ways and Means Committee is
that they have lent themselves in these last few days, and I'm
sure in the weeks ahead to participants in the campaign against
the initiative. Normally they would not make -- inquire at this
time, about these figures because they know that weedon't have
the figures until after the Economic Estimate Commission has met,
and so I think their timing is a little off. But I could carry
on and say there is actually a provision for what you've just
said. We have said that the limitation -- whatever our projections
are, that the limitation can never fall below what it takes to
maintain present level of government services, Oh. You mean
somebody else asked it or you just got wore out?
SQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: All right.
000
9/18
PRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
HELD SEPTEMBER 18, 1973
Reported By'
Beverly Toms, CSR
(This transcript of the Governor's press conference is
furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their
convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as
rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made
and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)
000
GOVERNOR REAGAN: It's kind of reassuring to see that
things never change. I'm back on the billboards again out in the
corridor.
o
Governor, there have been recurring reports that the -- that
the President would like to see the Vice-President resign. The
Washington Post this morning quoted a top Republican official close
to the Vice-President as saying that he might be -- could be expected
to resign this week. Knowing the Vice-President as you do so closely,
what would you as a pesennal friend think the Vice-President's
inclination would be?
A
Well, I would be very surprised if that rumor were true,
but I know nothing more than you kn OW. It is a rumor and there
have been a great many voices raised, and those close to the Vice-
President, saying that there is no truth in ft.
O
Have you been contacted yet at all?
A
No, no.
C
Governor, considering the case and all that's involved,
do you think it is something that would cause a person to resign?
A
No, I think that the man stated his innocence and in this
country a man is innocent until he's proven guilty.
0
The reason for resigning or one of the reasons was stated
because of the pressure regardless of guilt or innocence.
A
Well, I wouldn't know anything about that. I know of no
evidence of it and the Vice-President denied that there is any.
0
Governor, if the Vice-President decides to stay in office
to fight this legally, do you think it could be detrimental to the
Republican party, regardless of how it comes out?
A
No, I can't believe that the American people ever blanket
indict millions of people far removed from any incident or
episode or any individual for what some individual has done.
I
think this has been proven already with the affair of Watergate.
0
Governor, if you were asked to step in and serve as Vice-
President what would you say?
A
Before or after I fainted?
(Laughter)
0
If you were asked that question.
A
I -- that's a hypoehesis. That is a hypothetical question
that I've never even thought about or considered because I just didn't
think that anything like that was -- is going to take place.
Q
Does the job appeal toyou in any way?
A
I like the job I have.
O
Doyou think the Vice-President should continue to serve
if he is indicted?
A
Well, an indictment is nothing more than what has already
been leaked and said. It is a form of accusation; conviction is
the difference.
Q
But it is a cloud?
A
What?
O
It is a cloud, is it not?
A
Yes, but isn't it kind of tragic in this day and age that
we have come to the point that all you have to do is accuse someone
of something today and you have created a cloud and they are
therefore presumed to be guilty instead of innocent in the minds of
a great many. I think we'd better get back to the place till some-
body can prove it a man is innocent.
0
Meanwhile, back in California.
A
Yes.
0
What's your impression of how Proposition 4, the two year
session has been working so far for thelegislature? Do you see
any difference in the way bills are coming to you?
A
No, just a little difference in the season. They used
to come down in July and they are now coming down in the fall. And
there was the same round-the-clock, 24-hour last minute flurry of
hundreds and hundreds of bills being passed, but little or no
consideration with legislators protesting that they hadn't voted,
but that their'votes were being recorded on the wall and so forth.
-2-
And I've -- I have begun to sign some of that flood of bills and
I have to say about a great many of them that none of them, while
I was signing them, gave me the aura of being present at the exercise
of statesmanship.
Q
Governor, one of those bills that was sent down to you
this week-end is one by Senator Biddle which he is calling upon the
citizens of Riverside County to send you letters about urging you to
sign it. Which is something he rarely does. And that is the bill
to establish mandatory automobile inspection of cars in the Los
Angeles air base..
A
Well, that's another bill. There are several -- there
are several bills. I spoke lightly of these others, and the routine
mass of bills that come down. Thereare severab important bills that
have -- are on my or reached my desk, but are awaiting cabinet
analysis that we have not analyzed them yet. Many of them bills
that have been amended on the way down -- numerous amendments, and
so I have no answer on them until we have analyzed them.
O
Governor, how do you feel about the Warren-Alquist power
plant siting bill. Do you think it would possibly be a criticism
of you because of your former employment with G. E. which was the
most anti-logbyist of the bill, if you vetoed it?
A
I don't know -- you are talking about another bill that --
O
I'm talking about the power plant siting bill that's
before you now?
A
Yeah, but again, as I say, we haven't had the analysis of
that piece of legislation yet.
O
Well do you think your former employer could prevail on
youto veto that bill and would it be valid if you did?
A
Well, my former employer, when I was doing General Electric
Theatre, their television program, which is what you are referring
to -- my former employer once risked a loss of $50 million dollars
in business because they stood on a principle that they would not
tell me what I should or should not say in a speech that I was making.
Even though it might cost them $50 million dollars in goverment
contracts. And I wouldn't think that now after all these years that
they would come around and attempt to influence me on what I should
do in this particular job.
0
Maybe they would want to recoup the $50 million.
A
What?
0
Maybe they would want to recoup the $50 million.
A
No, I -- they just don't do business that way.
0
Governor, when are you going to act onthe death penalty
bill?
A
Probably the early part of next week. You, I know, are
wondering why any delay on that. Let me just explain that there
are a number of people that participated and were most helpful in
this. These people would like to be present, I think they should
be, to at least be acknowledged for their help in this, so that there
will be a bill-signing ceremony in connection with that.
0
Governor, does the last-minute flood of bills require
you to have -- sign some things faster than you would ordinarily?
That is, you only have -- I believe you only have a limited time in
which to act.
A
Yes, one of the adverse changes in this is when that flood
of bills used to come down in the spring at the end of the session
I had 30 days. And all of us, the cabinet and the legislative
unit and myself had 30 days in which to get these signed. Now there
are only 12 days.
o
Well, do you see any result from that in your own quality of
the bills?
A
I think you increase the possibility of error. I think
the fact you have got to do in 12 days what you used to do in 30 --
(legislative)
in other words, the original idea of the two-year session, I assumed,
was to spread this out over the entire year so that you didn't have
that last-minute rush that you had bills coming down with proper
consideration and then you had the time to individuall treat with
them and sign them throughout the year. And I think all of us, and
I think a great many good legislators, are terribly disturbed and
surprised to find that we are having that same period of rush, and
lack of consideration for many of them.
o
Governor, you now have two vacancies to fill on the Air
Resources Board, Dr. Haagen-Smit and Allen Lemmond. And the five
member board -- the board's been under criticism by the legislature
in recent months as being ineffective. Are you going to use this
influence to change the direction of the board in any way, or are
you satisfied with the way it's been going?
A
I think the beard's been fulfilling its mission and doing
everything that it ould do. We haven't come to the point of
selecting the appointments for that board yet. Haven't had an
appointments meeting on it, but -- always we -- we are seeking to
improve every agency department commission, the boards of California,
if we can. But I think that they have been doing a good job.
O
Governor, I think this comes under old business. Af a
Sacramento Host breakfast you were talking about your tax initiative,
and you made this following statement. You said, "The good ladies
of the League of Women Voters have decided all on their own to
oppose it because property taxes will go up." Now, let's avoid a
discussion of the taxes, but at best that sounds kind of descending.
At worst it sounds insulting to the League of Women Voters. Just
what did you mean?
A
It wasn't intended to be condescending and it wasn't intended
to be insulting, but I tell you it was intended to be critical.
It was intended to be critical because from the first moment that the
head of the League of Women Voters made a statement that they were
going to take action, before they had taken such action to oppose
this initiative -- we had barely announced it. There had been
no opportunity for any public briefings at all and we have --
immediately informed them that we would like to, if they wer e going
to take action on this -- we would like to brief them. So far they
have always maintained a kind of objective position about initiatives.
This was a rather stunning announcement, and to this day they have
never accepted our invitation or invited us to participate or to
brie f them on this. And their position is what they are taking
and espousing right now reveals they still don't know what's in it
or they are ignoring deliberately what is in it.
Q
Governor, the counties also oppose the measure and I think
you omitted the words "all on their own." Isn't that just conde-
scending to women? It isn't something you would say to a man's group.
"They did it all on their own."
A
No, let me just point you one difference. I meant that
this organization -- what that phrase was -- you know that I speajk
from notes -- the phrase meant the fact that they had done this
without the benefit of a briefing. That they simply had made up
their minds all on their own about an issue without allowing the other
side of the issue to be presented. They must have done it from
simply reading that we had such an inffiative. They had no informa-
tion.
0
Do you SL, Jose they read the initiative?
A
I can't believe they had. Because I don't believe at the
time they made the first statement that we even had it in the actual
formal language when they first announced they were going to come
out against it. And as I say, they have refused these.
Now, let's take the County Supervisors Association and the
League of Cities. At least - I disagree with them, but at least
they have touched upon one point. They say they are opposed to it
because it becomes more difficult for them to raise property taxes.
Now it isn't any more difficult than it was without the initiative.
Senate Bill 90 is what made it difficult for them to raise property
taxes, but the contrast is that the League of Women Voters with
their lack of information about the initiative are claiming they are
against it because it will raise property taxes.
0
Had you suspected their objectivity before this?
A
I have thought that there have been indications ef bias.
I think that they -
Q
On which side?
A
What?
Q
Bias towards what?
A
Well, let me just put it this way, that in speaking to
a group of predominantly Republic women the other day, some several
thousand of them, when I mentioned the possibility that some of them
were members of this organization, and I therefore wanted to explain
some points, there came the loudest chorus of nos that they were not
members of that organization. Which would indicate that the organi-
zation must seek -- at least have its membership more predominantly
from another political viewpoint.
Ω
Governor, another subject. Controller Flournoy in announce
ing his candidacy for Governor said he is the only Republican that
can get Democratic votes.
A
Who is that?
O
Controller Flournoy. Do you agree with that or disagree?
A
Well, I don't know any of us that are holding an office
here can make that same claim, because, Although I wouldn't say only,
but since we are a minority, none of us would be here if we hadn't
gotten some Democratic votes.
0
How would you assess the other candidates' chances of
achieving that?
A
Well, the other candidates also, one of the offices they
hold -- if we are speaking of those constitutional offices that
are being talked of, some have declared, but those who haven't
declared, but have indicated that they are going to seek this office --
all of them had to have had Democratic votes to be elected and I
think it would be presumptuous for anyone of them to suggest that no
one else can do that. They have all done it.
Q
Governor, Speaker Moretti said last week that you are
really putting the screws on getting Republican officials to back your
initiative or at least stay neutral. He says you want this more
than anyone else because you want to use this to run on. Can you
comment on that?
A
You know, I read that and I rushed right to the mirror to see
the horn and tail that must have sprouted on me since them. The
truth of the matter is you can ask far and wide of any of our
legislators about that, and I think you'll find that all the
horrendous tales of torture that was inflicted on them were not
true. That not a -- that no pressure of that kind has been used on
anyone.
o
Well, Governor, could you support a candidate for Governor
who did not support your initiative? Flournoy seemed to think
there was some qualification.
A
You know me and the 11th commandment. When
theprimary
is over, whoever has been nominated to be the Republican candidate is
going to have mysupport.
O
Governor, one of your chief aides said that he hopes that
there is a low turnout for the tax initiative election. Is that
your position?
A
No, not at all, and I don't think it is his. I think that
in quite a lengthy conversation he was talking about the probability
and possibility of this since it is a one-issue election, and
that special elections notoriously have a low turnout. And I think
that is what led to this misunderstanding, was his statements about
the fact that in the past and in special elections low turnouts
are in the affirmative in that those who are actually interested in
getting something passed have a greater tendency to go tothe polls
than those who are opposed. I don't think that's true in this
particular instant. I think the organized resistance by the tax
spenders, those who have a vested interest and a personal stake in
the state or government having more money, and unlimited taxing
-7-
authority are going
work very hard and they
e
organized,
to
get out and vote, and that's why we have presented to people, and
why I appealed to 2,000 women the other day, and weput at everyone's
place a volunteer card for them to form victory squads, to sign up
their friends to go out and walk precincts and to get out the vote.
We think this is one of the most important parts of this, and we
wouldn't be doing that if we wanted a low turnout. I want everybody
that can to get out and vote because if the taxpayers turn out and
vote this is going to pass overwhelmingly.
O
Governor, in this same vein, apparently there's been no
concerted -- concerted voter registration drive. Was that
considered and rejected or --
A
Well, in this particular instance that would be taking on a
chore needlessly. Since -- since your voter registration drive,
you world have -- it would have to be a drive for all voters, all par-:
ties. This is a non-partisan issue, crossing party lines. I
think the fact that you have to for the first time not only explain
the initiative to the people and convince them of the worth of it,
but the fact that you have to get out the votes, you don't have
candidates on the ballot getting itout for you -- I think that's
enough of a task. There is just a limit as tohow much you can do.
O
Governor, as time goes by on Proposition 1, more and more
people have additional time to analyze it. Assembly Speaker Moretti
today, just before we came in here, put out another press release,
which his Office of Research is quoting three former Presidential
Advisors on Council of Economic Advisers, that is. A number of
other economists. Galbreath, Symington, Brake, Heller. Each
having some criticism of your plan. Are you alarmed that as time
goes by that more and more holes may be found in your plan and that
the thing can go down?
A
No, because I don't think those gentlemen are finding holes
in the plan. I think they have a philosophical disagreement with --
you just mentioned some men there, Baake, Galbreath, Heller - these
are men who I have been in disagreement with and I think many people
are sharing my philosophy, have been for a number of years. These
are the men who espoused the new economics. Galbreath believes in
government spending the people's money. That Galbreath, his theory,
is that the people do not have the intelligence to spend the money
wisely and therefore government should spend bt for them. And I
-8-
just think that it 10 our American heritage, if you want to be
stupid in spending your money, you ought to be allowed to be stupid.
But there is a philosophical difference. On the other hand, you
might be interested, and if any of you are, I'm sure that our people
in the press section could provide you with a list, we are getting
increasingly calls and mail from economists on campuses all over
the United States who are volunteering their names or their services.
And they say, "Count on us." "Please include me among those who
endorse this program. Now, I think the men, Peter Drucker, Bernham,
Niskanen
Friedman, and Escannon, the Economics Department at U.C.L.A., which
is where this all started -- that's the first place we went for
economic help -- they are the ones steering us. Lowell Harris of
Columbia, all of these men find nothing wrong with the program.
They are whole-heartedly endorsing it. Brake evidently in the recent
so-called seminar at Berkeley, -- Brake was using the figure that
was absolutely inaccurate. Brake said that we had exaggenated the
percentage of taxes that government is taking from the people and he
said that it was nearer 32 per cent, than it was the 44.7 that we
are talking about as the cost of government. The only figure that
Brake could have been quoting is the 1971 National Average for taxes
which was 32.6. But back in 1971 when the National Average for
tax -- the tax burden was 32.6 per cent of thepeople's earnings in
California it was then 35.6. or three percentage points higher.
So if you -- if he'd come up to 1972 or even in that same year if
he'd only specified California, which is what we are concerned with,
California is one of the high tax paying states. Our percentage
tax cannot be judged by national averages. He also could have
added in 1972 the national average tax burden went up to 37.4 from
32.6. And if thesame ratio of California held and it does, then
California by last year -- on taxes alone, 44.7 is cost of govern-
ment or revenues taxes alone had to be around 40 per cent in 1972
and the authority for that statement is Lowell Harris of the Tax
Foundation in New York. Print all of that. I'll repeat the
figures if you want.
0
The concept aside for the moment, now that you have had half
a year more to look at the specific language of the initiative,
would you -- would your advisors, ifyou were writing that initiative
today -- writing that constitutional amendment today will you write
it thesame way? A lot of the criticism has been directed at how
-9-
the the specific inguage and how it would a₂ ly in California
today. Rather than the concept.
A
I wn't second guess oh that because here was the problem
that had to be met by some very capable lawyers who drew this up We
did not want the same thing to happen with this that happened with
the death penalty initiative. The People of California simply voted
approval of the death penalty and the constitution, which meant the
legislature then had to implement it and you have seen the dragging
of the feet onthe part of the majority party leadership and how long
they held out on this. The compromises that finally had to be made.
We wanted to put an initiative on the ballot that we could say to the
people, ifyou pass this it is in affect. You get your tax cuts, it
starts working, without any further action. Now, this required
very technical language and I haven't checked with our people and our
1 awyers. There are a couple of things -- to make sure that we covered
every point in this, maybe there are a couple of things that we
could have left out because they didn't change anything. For example,
when we put in there the fact of how an emergency could be called,
and this suddenly has been interpreted by people -- and yesterday
sitting in this room with those high school students, they revealed
misunderstanding when they said, "Well, this now gives the Governor
a power with regard to the calling of an emergency," when the truth
is we didn't change anything. All we were doing was stating
what is the procedure now by law. And maybe we could have left
something of that kind out and it would have taken a little ammunition
away from the other side, because now I have to waste time explaining
no, this isn't any different, we haven't put something into the
constitution that wasn't - that isn't already the present law.
And maybe we could have left a couple of things of that, but it was
just a desire to explain and make clear to everybody all the facets
of this.
O
Governor, in your opinion will your fiscal people be able
to meet that October 1 target for an estimate of revenue for next
year?
A
I think so, yes. We always have, known it about that
time.
Q
Governor, back on the Agnew thing. One report is that
the WhiteHouse has prepared a contingency list and that John Connally
the
is on/top of it. Don't you feel you deserve to be on the top of it?
(Laughter)
pretty
get
you
a
bigger laugh than th.
Q
Why should Connally get that kind of --
A
I doubt very seriously that there is such a list or that
that has been considered in any way. I really do. And if there
is, I wouldn't know anything about it. And I would have no feeling
about it one way or the other. I just hope that there's never any
need for such a list or for any consideration of that possibility.
Q
Governor, your initiative task force received some
criticism for using public support. Mr. -- Speaker Moretti's report
came out of the office of Research. Does that suggest that you
would want to return the criticism?
A
Well -- no. You see, one of the thingsis they keep
referring to the cost of government, meaning salaries of employees,
salaries of cabinet members and so forth, who served on the task
force. And they tie it to the initiative. That task force had
nothing to do with an initiative. There wasn't anyone when
they started the task force that knew it would come out with a
report that would lead to an initiative. I think that task force
was doing exactly what government employees are being paid to do.
They were trying to find a way to increase the efficiency and the
economy of government, and I think that's what we were sent here to
do. Now, the result turned out to be an initiative, and I would
think the same thing about the research. I would say this, that
Mr. Moretti, I think, would be a little more honest himself if he
recognized that what he is doing with government funds in analyzing
this is no different than the -- than the function of the task
force.
We proposed Þegislation in connection with this. We asked
the legislature to p ut this measure on the ballot once a task force
had come up with it. But the costs were associated with a task force
to find out the problem of how can you reduce the cost of government.
And I think that's a legitimate government expense.
2
GovernOr, are you encouraging Earl Brianto run for U. S.
Senate?
A
I am encouraging any of the young men in the -- well, young
or they don't have to be young. The men in our administration that
have leaned that way after they became part of government, and have
been in the inside of it -- some, as you know, have gone back and
will continue to return to the private sector, to their own careers.
Some, however, have seen -- having seen government have thought
in terms of running for office and without speaking about any specific
-11-
office to any of them when they have come and di cussed this
with me I have encouraged them. Earl Brian is one such who is
interested -- Brian and Van Camp is another.
0
How about Cap Weinberger?
A
No, Cap Weinberger, this is a totally different thing.
Cap Weinberger is in government as we know in Washington, he was
in goverment here. I have spoken of my high regard for him. The
only question there that never arose from Cap Weinberger at all.
That arose from a group of citizens whowanted to start -- a draft
movement on the basis of hi srecord in government so farm to draft him as
a candidate. It did not originate nor have I ever heard him approve
this other than to say that wherenever he can serve best is whatever
he will do. But I have simply encouraged these young men. It is
a good idea. I think they are the kind of fellows that belong in
government.
o
Do you think then that -- how long can Earl Brian remain
in your administration as an active candidate?
A
At the point that a final decision is made and he decides
to become a candidate, then , yes, he is going to have to leave
this administration. That's going to be a dark day for me, because
I think he's one of the extremely capable men that we have in the --
in the administration. But that would be done. It is -- I
realize that as a candidate that that would put him out of his job
quicker than legislators are put out of theirs for doing the same
thing. But --
O
Why?
A
That's the way the system works.
0
Why doyou say that?
A
Well, I mean I believe the Speaker can C ontinue to be
Speaker for qui te some long time, for example.
Q
Why does that preclude Brian from remaining as Health and
Welfare Secretary?
A
Well, I just don't see it that way. I think when there
comes a point when he's actually engaged in campaigning then he should
not be doing it from the vantage point of a cabinet position, and he
agrees with that.
O
Well, Governor, do you think there is a difference between
an appointed official and elected official inthat regard?
A
I have to say there is such a difference. It is in our
very structure. Candidates who have won elections can --- can become
If you will emember back in the violen days, a few years
ago, in the disruptions and so forth that finally came to a head, and
was proposed when the corridors of this Capitol were filled with a
mob -- with not only picket signs, but with some rather sizable clubs
in their hands, and so forth. And the people that came here on
legitimate business couldn't even get into the corridors and we
decided that a public building should be accessible to all and not
allow one group that can come inside the Capitol and make it
impossible for people to conduct their legitimate business here.
Q
Besides the bill itself, what do you think about Mr.
Simpson? Does he bother you at all? You never told us about
what your personal reaction to him walking around with your name on
his sign has been.
A
No, everybody has got to have a hobby. No, the -- Mr.
Simpson
--
0
DO you resent it?
A
No, Mr. Simpson was here when I came here, and the signs
that he carried carried the names of my predecessor and the then
Attorney-General. And I knew nothing about it and what it was.
Somebody told me that this was a protest at having been incarcerated
in one of our mental hospitals at a time when it was legal to do
it
that, and that evidently/had been proven when he was -- secured his
release that he should not have been committed, and this was a protest.
I went into his problem with him, and had him in the office, and had
air legal types in to find out, and all that we could say back to him
was that he had a civil case. And at that point he informed me he
knew that, but he said he'd never been able to get a lawyer to take
his case, and I said, "I'm sure you understand then that there isn't
anything we can do officially or legally as government in a case of
this kind." And he left my office and the next morning he was back
at his old stand but he put my name on the sign instead of the previous
governor. And it's been there ever since.
o
When was that, Governor?
A
What?
0
When was that?
A
1967, the first month I was here.
0
After your debut on the Dean Martin Show, are you considering
doing more shows like this?
A
No. No, once in a while you get an invitation from an
old friend to be on a show, and it just seems like kind of fun and
you shouldn't turn it down.
O
Do you really have a brother named Donald?
A
No
candidates for other sitions and continue to ho'd the one office
until they win or lose the other one. With the appointed positions
it just seems to be difference. Traditionally different.
Q
From where you stand in the Republican party, do you
think that the effort to draft Cap Weinberger is dying down?
A
Well, I haven't seen any -- I haven't seen any great
movement in it so far. So maybe they -- in their first outings
with it maybe they didn't attract the attention of leaders of various
groups and the party that they thoughtthey would.
Q
One of your former colleagues, Jerry Lewis was asking for
General Fund money for Muscular Dystrophy --
A
What's that?
O
Jerry Lewis was asking for General Fund money for
Muscular Dystrophy Research. How do you feel about that?
A
Well, that again -- this again is something we would have
to analyze here as to what's the state's position.
O
What's your gut feeling about that?
A
What?
O
What's your gut feeling about using tax funds for research?
A
Wel, where there is -- where they can be helpful in such a
tragic illness as that, or many others that we fought, I think
government has a place. On the other hand, I think some of those
illnesses have organizations that in the private sector have all
the money that they can use, and are raising the money that is
needed for the research. Just adding more money does not always
improve research.
Q
Governor, will you sign or veto the bill repealing the
Mr. Simpson law?
A
The bill -
0
The bill that --
Q
Picketing in the Capitol.
ED MEESE: Picket signs in the Capitol.
A
Oh. We haven't analyzed that yet.
(Laughter)
VOICE: Thank you, Governor.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Wait a minute, bet me just add one thing
and then we will go here. Many times some ofyou have referred to
that anti-picketing bill here as being aimed at the one individual,
at him. I happen to have been in -- as all of us in government were,
in the inception of that idea in the bill and it didn't come from
him at all. It had nothing to do with him.