Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564136",
    "label": "Transcripts - 08/07/1973, 08/14/1973, 08/28/1973, 09/05/1973, 09/18/1973",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564136"
}

{
    "id": "118564136",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564136",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 08/07/1973, 08/14/1973, 08/28/1973, 09/05/1973, 09/18/1973",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564136",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-005-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-005-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-005-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564136",
    "naId": 118564136,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-005-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "84d9d4641b1a3ef7",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n08/07/1973, 08/14/1973, 08/28/1973, 09/05/1973,\n09/18/1973\nBox: P04\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\n8/7\n/\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nAugust 7, 1973\nSUBJECT: Sales Tax Increase Deferral\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is furnished\nto the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their convenience only.\nBecause of the need to get it to the press as rapidly as possible\nafter the conference, no corrections are made and there is no guarantee\nof absolute accuracy.)\nEd Gray:\ninaudible\nin regards to the sales tax and we ask that you\nlimit your questions to that one subject.\nGovernor: Well gentlemen, as you can see I have two guests with me.\nAre you plugged in yet? O.K.\nQ.\nGentlemen?\nA\nLadies and Gentlemen.\nGovernor: I hadn't seen you. Pardon me. I have two, as you can see,\nguests with me. Each of these gentlemen has a bill before the legislature\nnow with regard to the sales tax problem, and now that the Stiern bill\nis out of the way I just want to--I now that you're interested in what\nthat are\nsome of the things might be/possible in regard to this problem. We have\nbeen trying, as you know, since early in the year, to get as a part of\nthe rebate a return to the people by way of the sales tax. We proposed\na deferral of the increase that was scheduled as a subsidy for propoerty\ntax. We got one month of it. Most people have over looked the fact that\nat least one month it was deferred until July 1 and we were asking them\nfor an additional six months. One of the bills that is before the\nlegislature now is a six-month bill a deferral of one penny for six\nmonths which could begin on October lrst, another one Assemblyman\nfrom\nBagley's bill is one to -actually/ the standpoint of the merchants\nis to stop this yoyoing back and forth with regards to changing the cash\nregisters perhaps now, start October 1 st a cutback of 2/2 cent and continue\nthat for a full year to have some stability. Either one of these bills\ncan be passed and can be passed immediately and resolve this issue and we\ncan go forward with whatever the people want to do with regard to the\nbalance of the\nrebate of the/surplus. If you have any questions that you might have on\nthis subject I brought along the two authors here actually from my stand-\npoint, I am flexible and I would go either way.\nQ\nWell that was my question. You would support either approach?\nA\nThat's right. As I expressed the other day to you, however, it\nseemed to me that the cent thing did have some factors of stability in\nit that made it attractive. I wish perhaps we had thought of it earlier\nthe idea of not having the frequent changes and the fact that with 1/2 cent\nthere is less chance of the kind of dislocation of the people's buying\nhabits they aren't inclined to regulate them for 1/2 cent as much as thev\nO\nGovernor, what kind of cooperation are you likely to get at\nthis point from the majority party of the legislature. Have you had\nany conversations with the Speaker or anybody else?\nabout this.\nA\nWell : there were conversations as you know, yesterday/ We are\nall concerned with this problem. Very frankly, I have to tell you my\nopinion, had we not qualified the initiative, we would not be discussing\ngiving the money back. Our opponents in the legislature gave no indica-\ntion of wanting to give the money back in any way until after the\ninitiative went on the ballot. Now the debate for the first time is down\nto how should the money be given back?\nQ\nDid you say the Bagley bill starts October lrst.\nBagley: It has two alternative- it is two alternative proposals. The\n&\nbill, Jack, would be heard, it is AB 341 in the Senate Revenue/Taxation\nCommittee next Wednesday. As\nproposed, it would be for a\nfull calendar year, January to January, 1974, 1/2 cent decrease $320\nmillion. An alternate proposal, and I have amendments prepared in\naccordance with what the governor just said to go from October to\nOctober with the thought, the even further thought, if there is enough\nsurplus after we see what the figures are to possibly even going 15\nmonths so October '73 to December 31, 1974. That's a viable alternative\nand is one that I want to pose to the committee and say - which do you\nentitled to a\nwant fellows you're /part of the deliberative action as they are.\nA.\nAnd the governor has no preference there as between October lrst\nand January lrst.\nA\nNo. I think, and I think most of us after we talked it over,\nagree that the people want this to happen as quickly as it can. And\nI am also agreeable -- I believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible\nto go beyond six months at one cent or one year at the 1/2 cent. This\nwe are sure we can cover. I am agreeable, however, to saying that if,\nas time goes on, and this is accomplished and our projections then reveal\nthere is\nthat\n/\nmore rebate\npossible to any triggering device that would say\nthen we could go on for the additional period.\nBagley:\nCan we please say one thing? I even wrote Dick Rodda a note\nlast night at seven o'clock. I really did Dick. As I was reading the\nBee\nand that's the fountainhead of my\nAs I was reading the Bee\nthere's the t one little paragraph in there that the \"one cent collection\nbrings in $50 million dollars more on top of the $825 million surplus.\nIt doesn't because the one cent is now budgeted to cover the total\ncost of SB 90. We're spending the one-cent. When we talk about deferring\nfor a year or six months we are simply talking about not having that one\ncent and in using the surplus to supplant-to replace that--so the surplus\nis not going up $50 million a month. That money has been budgeted and is\nbeing used for property tax relief.\nGovernor:\nNow that's\ninaudible\nthat have told you that when\ndo you go to print?\n2\nSo the surplus is staying where it is instead of going down\nas you\nA\nThat is correct. that's right.\n2\nBill you said that the sales tax increase is going to have to\nbe repealed.\nBagley:\nNo no. Never repealed. You can't repeal it. SB 90 committed\nthat money. $560 million to education and finance relief.\n0\nDidn't you say in a statement last week that eventually it is\ngoing to have to be repealed?\nBagley:\nNo sir. No. Never, that's totally irresponsible. Those\npeople who are running around yelling out repeal are wrong. We committed\nand that number goes up,\none billion one hundred million/last year to be budgeted starting in this\nfiscal year. And that billion comes from---and you guys and gals know--\ncomes from the sales tax increase, comes from partially the surplus,\nand revenue sharing. You can't repeal a half of the funding of SB 90\nand still have education equalization and property tax relief.\n/Lagomarsino\nThe figure that would prove that is that the on-going surplus\nsomething like\nfor this year is/what $300 million?\nGovernor\n$175 million.\nLagomarsino Well something in that range, and you get something like\n$600 million from this one cent sales tax so obviously the figure shows\nthat you cannot repeal it you would have a gap right away.\nO\nGovernor, do you see a great deal of difference between a bill\nthat simply suspends the sales tax for six months with the idea that\nyou may suspend it further if we have the revenue at the time and a bill\nlike Senator Marks which repeals it with the idea that you can always\nreimpose it if necessary.\nA\nWell, know, I think that the two bills that we are talking about\nright here, the same amount of money different period of time and what\nwe're talking is just what Assemblyman Bagley said- Appropriating some\nof the surplus to temporarily delay the imposition of a tax that has\nalready been budgeted and is already being spent and spent not on\nreplace or to\ngovernment costs but to/repay local government for the loss of revenue\nfrom giving homeowners and the renters some relief from the property tax.\nAnd I just don't think. I disagree with Senator Marks on his proposal\nand I disagree on his proposal that we are gouging the people. This was-\nSenate Bill 90 was not a tax increase it was a tax shift and it is some-\nly\nthing that we have been trying-bipartisan, both parties, for the last three\nyears to get an acceptable way of reducing the homeowners' tax.\n-3-\nBagley:\nLast ten years.\n2\nGovernor, you feel that the sales tax ought to be inaudible\nseparately, would you oppose any effort to tie in an income tax rebate?\nA\nNo, from the very first, and this is Senator Lagomarsino's bill,\nfrom the very first, even though we were gaing to the people and we included\nthe income tax---we could not technically put the sales tax rebate on\nthe initiative, because that was supposed to take place long before the\ninitiative would come to a vote, but we did put the income tax rebate on\nthere but at the same time said to the legislature and the Senator intro-\nduced the bill--that they could accomplish the total rebate of the one\ntime surplus by legislation and then the initiative would simply apply\nto the on-going income tax cut and the tax limitation plan without the\nrebate the 20 percent rebate. Now that's still my position, if the\nlegislature wants to tie those two together and do it in a manner that\ncan\nI believe-- that we all/believe is fair then that's fine with me, and I'll\nstand with the proposals I have made on that so far.\n2\nGovernor either of the 20 percent or that sliding scale that came\nup at the last time\nA\nYes I made that statement and that in good faith. As a matter\nof fact we would have made it in the first place if we had the knowledge\nof the amount of the surplus that we now have. We didn't know at the\ntime that we could go that far.\nBagley:\nWe might mention what Bob Lagomarsino mentioned that the fact\nof the conference committee on SB 90 this is another vehicle.\nLagomarsino: That's another vehile which is perhaps more immediate than\neither of our bills as a practicle matter because we are there with the\nconference committee and we can, we the conferees can agree with\nthe matters on the floor in both houses immediately.\nBagley:\nWe met this morning.\nO\ninaudible\nor\ndo you have any plans to meet?\nLagomarsino: We had ourmeeting this morning and we are having another\none this afternoon.\nBagley:\nThis morning at ten o'clock, Bob Moretti isn't here, he's\nout of the capitol we understand he is coming back at four so we are\ngoing to meet again at four, hopefully with him and we are going to explore\nall of these alternatives.\nOf\nGovernor, what's the real stalemate between you and Bob Moretti?\nreal\nA\nWell yes, I'll tell you very bluntly what the/stalemate is.\nFrom the very first, I want to do what I said seven or eight months ago\nI want to give the money back. He very frankly, and he's made no secret\nof it---he wants to find some device in this proposal now that he thinks\ncan be used to make the initiative in November 6th less attractive\n-4-\n0\nGovernor, are you determined that that will not happen on this\nissue?\nA\nI've been determined about that a long time. And now I think\nit is a matter of simple honesty and faith. Under our law the required\nnumber of citizens that put a matter on a ballot--and I, this is what\nwas wrong with the proposal that was made. I don't think that you can\nchange the rules on them now, it's easy enoughto in advance, give them\nas much or more than that proposed. And thus make it unnecessary for\nthem to vote on that one part of the issue. But I don't think that it was\nproper to suddenly say we've changed the rules on you and even though\nyou're going to be voting on November 6th--even though you vote\"yes\" we\ncan't make good on what we've, or what you've put on the ballot.\nO\nDo you have any reason to believe\nA\nWait, wait\njust a minute\nIsn't it a fact that anything that would take away the budget\nsurplus and allow you to have on the initiative a rebate, would make it\nless attractive, and you say you are going to go ahead with that.\nA\nThat's right, and I was from the first, and again I come back\nto the point, that those gentemen who are fighting so strongly on this\nwould not be in this fight at all or raising their voices if that\ninitiative had not qualified.\nQ.\nWhat else could they do besides take away the rebate--the\ninitial rebate to make\nA\nThat's all they could do and we knew that from the first. We\nonly put the 20 percent one-time rebate on the initiative as a back-up\nif we could not through the legislature get the rebate of the one-time\nsurplus to the people. That was a back-up position. Now, granted you\ncan look at it and say that that's additional bait to make people\nvote \"yes\". Well I was willing to forego that to begin with and I am\nnow.\nthen\nΩ\nI don't quite understand--quite follow/you're statement just a\nto\nmoment ago that one thing you will not stand for is/let them do something\nthat they could have done before the initiative was a\nA\nNo, no - to do something now that not just makes it less attrac-\ntive but it changes the terms. In other words to suggest a manner of\nrebate which takes away the thing the people circulated the petitions for:\nin other words if they pass, if the legislature adopts a rebate in a\ncombination of the sales and income tax, that meets that 20 percent\nproposal or betters it--that is on the ballot in November, that's\nfine with me.\n-5-\n0\nLike\ninaudible\nthat's even provide for in the initiative.\nA\nYes. As a matter of fact it is specifically mentioned there that\nin\nif/the meantime the legislature has done this\na\nYou're tontingent then is that the Stiern bill did not do this?\nA\nNo, the Stiern bill took one segment of the taxpayers and said\nyou're not going to get 20 percent.\nO\nBut Governor, if the Stearn bill had passed and if your initiative\nat least\nis approved, isn't it then true that everybody in the state gets/a 20\npercent credit and the lower and income people get 30 percent.\nA\nNo, no. He put a ceiling, he put a ceiling.\nΩ\nWouldn't the initiative supersede or chapter out the\nA\nNo\nOf\nWhy not?\nA\nCause he chaptered out the money.\nMr. Meese: The initiative\ninaudible\nonly if extensive money is\navailable, so it wouldn't work.\nQ\nGovernor, do you think the public really cares about whether\nthere is a flat rebate or whether you have a $200 limit. Don't you\nthink that both you and the legislature end up looking bad when you're\ntalking about this and they want to know why all that money is still\nlocked up and they can't get their hands on it?\nthink I\nA\nNo, I don't think so because I--I just/believe in the fairness\nof people. And I think you may find some people that say o.k. if I\ndoesn't\nget mine I don't care if the other fellow/get his. But I think that\nmost people recognize\nI have divided this for purposes of discussion,\nan explanation- the income tax paying public into three brackets.\nFrom $8,000 down including $8,000 and down, those people pay - they earn\nabout 15 percent of all of the state revenue, they pay 3.3 percent of the\ntax. FroM 88,000 to $30,000 which takes in the whole middle income range,\nobviously, they earn 70 percent pf the revenue they pay 57 percent of the\ntax. Now by coincidence the people above $30,000-they earn 15 percent\nof the revenue, the same as the lower segment, and they pay almost 40\npercent of the income tax. Now it seems to me, we're not changeng the\ntax structure, we're not saying that the income tax structure should be\nchanged as to brackets higher of lower---we're talking about a refund.\nNow from $8,000 down, we have said we'll forget 100 percent\njust eliminate them from paying any income tax at all. From here on up,\nthe people that are paying the 97 percent of the tax, we've said should\nget a 20 percent rebate, regardless of what they pay. And the progres-\nsivity of the tax remains the same. To use their own examples, if some-\nbody owes $100 and gets a $20 rebate and somebody owes $1.000 and gets\nand say \"look, he's getting $200 back, but he's 11 paying $800 and\nthis fellow is paying $80. They are paying 10 to 1 exactly as they are\nin our sax structure. Now we have done this before, it isn't new, we\ndid this with the rebate that all of you took that came from the windfall\nof withholding. And it's fair. To suddenlyu say no, we're going to\npick the biggest number of voters and we're going to give them a rebate,\nand\nthen we don't care about the minority of voters up here we'll\njust leave them and not give them any rebate. Now, we've already, and\nwe have compromised and gone along, I think, on things that first of all,\nI was willing for the sliding scale if we could do it, if we could do it,\nin an attempt to settle this on that last day, and they stopped at that\none point, no they want to be punitive with regard to one group of tax\npayers and not pay them. Well tet me point out what we have done with\nthe property bill in SB 90. By going to a flat exemption, we have made\nthe homepwner's property tax progressive, where the tax has historically\nand by the constitution been a flat percentage across: if you're home\nis worth one price and this one is worth only half as much this fellow\npays twice as much as this fellow. But by making it a flat exemption\ninstead of a percentage cut in the property tax $1,000 well $1,000\nis now $1,750 total exemption well that's ten percent of the cost of\n$17,000 house but that is only 1 percent of $170,000, so we have made\nthat progressive. And I think there comes a point at which just simple\nfairness says, particularly in the form of a rebate, we're giving money\nback to people who gave it to us and we didn't need it. If we had known\ntwo years ago what Welfare reforms and Medi-Cal reforms were going to do\nwe would have cut the tax by this amount.\nO\nGovernor, when you say \"they\" do you really mean Speaker Moretti?\nA\nWell, he's not alone I wish he were.\nO\nBill, what kind of chance to see of getting, have you talked with\nMoretti?\nA\nI have talked with all of his staff, just phoned Bob this morning,\nand found he is out of the capitol, so no I have not talked to him I\ncouldn't see him yesterday. He has said his mind is open after the\nexcercise of the overridehis mind would be open. I know, I hope, I hope\nthis is correct. I know his opposition to the initiative but I don't\nunderstand his opposition to the initiative, I hope though and I really\ndo\nthat he is going to be responsible enough that when faced with the\nprospect of trying to ruin the initiative chances by ruining state govern-\nment that he will choose not to pull the rug out from under government.\nAnd that's what some of these proposals would do because they would reduce\nfor example, one cent for a year---one cent for nine months would reduce\nthe revenue base upon which the initiative is based by $600 million or\n$450/and that kind of proposal is the kind. think the Coxernor moant\nis calculated to maybe destroy the initiative, but you destroy government\nin the process and I be Bob Moretti doesn't war to do that.\nO\nWhat about you Senator, do you see any chance of getting your\nbill through?\nLagomarsino:\nI think we have a better chance of working something\nout in conference, very frankly.\nBagley:\nOne last thought, one of the major points that I have been\ntrying to get through to my colleagues is the total lack of confidence\nof the public in the system, and I have said this before, it really\nrelates to the whole Watergate scene, and all of sudden adding injury\nto insult, people are paying more taxes and they don't understand why.\nWe have got to solve that problem. Property tax relief will take effect\nwhen the tax bills come out. You have heard the stories assessments\nmay be going up, But where assessments go up because of our school\nbecause of our school expenditure limit, not tax rate limit, but\nif\nexpenditure limit,/assessments go up the tax rates go down. In November\nour public is going to understand with your help that the sales tax\nhas decreased their property tax very substantially, as much as $2.50\nout of $6.00 in some school districts. Regardless of whether assessed\nvalue goes up the expenditure is going to be the same therefore, tax\nrates are going to go down because of SB 90 and the sales tax increase\nand also because of assessments going up.\nThank you Governor.\n#######\n-8-\n8/14\nPRES CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RO LD REAGAN\nHELD AUGUST 14, 1973\nReported By\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press coros for their\nconvenience only. Because of hhe need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and\nthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\nclaw entorcement)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I have a statement here I'd like to\nopen with this morning.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 439)\nQ\nGovernor, why do you choose this particular case to do this\nif it is the first time this happened?\nA\nWell, as I say, this law was passed in 1970 and this\ncrime -- in so many of them there are suspects and the case goes\n(Rilling of Officer Food Early)\nforward and there are arrests made. But we have here a, case, and\nI don't recall any exactly like this, where there -- in my tenure,\nin which there -- since this law was passed, in which there has been\nabsolutely no trace -- there is no case to build, there is no suspect\nwhatsoever. And we we are using this just as some newspapers today\nare using the Hidden Witness reward idea, to see if we can't break\nthis case loose and -- get on the trail of those whocommitted the\ncrime.\nQ\nWould you suspect that there would be others in the future\nyou are going to -- generally use this as a precedent, to do this\nfrom time to time?\nA\nYes. If circumstances warrant.\nQ\nOn a related subject, the Assembly Criminal Justice\nCommittee is meeting right now regarding the death penalty. We\nare told there won't be a vote, but are there minimum provisions in\na capital punishment bill that must be included in that bill before\nit is acceptable to you?\nA\nWell, now, we are getting dangerously near the area of my\ncommenting on legislation before it comes down here. I don't know\nwhat the committee is doing to the bill. I know the bill was\nsatisfactory the way Senator Deukmejian had introduced it, and I\nwould have signed it in an instant. I don't know what possible\n-1-\nchanges would be made. I would be inclined to take -- whatever\nimplements the death penalty that was passed by the people and if\nthere are additional crimes that should come under that, to seek\nthat in additional legislation.\n0\nWould you sign the bill if it did not include peace\nofficers?\nA\nOh, again you are in that area that I don't comment on.\nDon't ask me to comment on what I would or would not do. on that.\nAny other questions for the gentlemen up here on this subject?\n(Barly reward)\nQ\nGovernor, on a technical one, the $10,000 that you were\noffering today is on top of the L. A. Police Protective League's\n$10,000 as well?\nVOICE: Yes.\nA\nYes. Any more on that subject? Well, gentlemen, I want\nto thank you for coming up.\nVOICE: Thank you very much, Governor.\n0\nGovernor, can I ask you on something else, what is your\nposition onlowering the drinking age to 18? There is an inftiative\nmovement starting out with college students to try to lower it to\nB.\nI wonder if you'd comment on it.\nA\nWell, I think the position that I've taken up until now\nhas been that I respect the right of the people to vote on this\nand it being a constitutional change it would require the people's\nvote. And that's the way it should be settled.\nQ\nHow would you vote, Governor?\nA\nHuh?\nOr\nHOW would you vote?\nA\nWell, I must say that I am personally inclined to believe\nthat we should take a long, hard look at just the legalizing of\nvoting age and citizenship having been moved down as to opening this\nup. I think there is -- I think driving statistics, we have some\nother states that I think should be checked on who have, as I under-\nstand it, lowered the drinking age. I'd like to know what's\nhappened in their -- in their accident statistics on the highway.\nQ\nGovernor, what was the problem with Time Williams? Why\nwas -- why was his contract not renewed?\nA\nWell, we just felt that we were not achieving and had not\nachieved what -- what should be in resolving some of the problems\nthat beset the Indian community in California. And so we are --\nthe program is going to go forward. We are seeking a replacement.\n-2-\nThe replacement W1_1 be a California Indian, we have some\ndandidates already that we are -- that we are screening.\n2\nMr. Williams said that he attempted to see you several\ntimes but was not permitted to by your staff.\nA\nWell, now, this is --- anyone mn my staff or anyone in any\ndepartment could make that statement, just on the plain basis of\nscheduling problems. But it is not true that we did not meet and\nit\nwe did not see each other and/wasn't too long ago that we had a\nmeeting with representatives of the Tribal Council and of the --\nof California Indians and other Indians here with him. He's been\npresent in cabinet meetings, and those who are closer to the problem\nand more responsible for that particular area just felt that we could\nget a better rate of achievement.\nQ\nGovernor, another subject. Cap Weinberger, with respect to\nreporters that you are -- spme of your backers wanted him to run for\nGovernor, said it is time to ask you anew to run for a third term.\nThis is gust last week, long after your third term -- no third term\ndeclaration. And I'm just wondering if many more approaches have\nbeen coming your way.\nA\nNo, and my statement still stands.\nO\nGovernor, have you had some meetings with David Paekard\non politics, including that subject?\nA\nI have -- I've had some meetings that have to do with the\ninitiative and - twice. In the very beginning in organizing to --\nwhen we first decided to go the initiative route, and we have had\na second meeting since now about the -- the planning and the\ncampaigning for the initiative now that it is on the ballot. I know\nwhat this is leading up to and some of the storees and I just have\nto say that the speculation and the stories are not sound. I am aware\nof -- of what is going on. I think you'd have to live under a rock\nnot to be and all I can tell you is that there are some people\nin California, and they are not any so-called kitchen cabinet --\nas a matter of fact, I've never known what that meant - there are\npeople both north and south who feel that Cap Weinberger would be\ntheir choice for a candidate. And I understand that they are going\nto try and appeal to him by way of an out-in-the-open legitimated draft,\nbut I also understand that there is no attempt on anyone's part or\nno belief that there should be an attempt to persuade anyone who is\npresently in the race not to run. And that's where it stands.\nThey -- all people supporting all of the candidates know my own posi-\nI have to remain ne Tral.\nO\nDidn't you at one time say, Governor, that if you thought it\nwas best for the party you would drop the neutrality?\nA\nI still stand on that. If any change -- if anything\nshould happen in which I would -- was convinced that I could serve\nthe purpose of party unity better by not being neutral, I reserve\nthe right to change my mind, because the goal remains the same.\n2\nGovernor, what kind of circumstances do you envision in\ncausing you to do that?\nA\nI can't right now, that's why I doubt that anything would\nhappen, but I still think that lest you have me with my feet in\nconcrete again, I want that reservation that I am interested in\nparty unity and going forward with successful elections, so I feel\nit is my responsibility to do whatever will further that. I can t\nreally foresee what the circumstances would be.\nQ\nGovernor,\nthese reports. obvieusly originated some\nplace and apparently with some purpose. Do you know what that is?\nA\nOh, I think as you come near the campaign season rumors and\nreports, and taking one thing that took place and adding to it is\npretty commonplace, and pretty typical. I think it is starting a\nlittle early because of the number of candidates in the rase on both\nsides, but I don't find anything really unusual about it.\nO\nIn these meetings you refer to, was politics discussed?\nA\nYes, as I say, there's been no secret.\nPeople who feel\nthis way and who have felt that they wanted -- actually felt that\nthey wanted to communicate to me that this was their belief, and\nwhat they were going to do. And I have expressed each time my own\nmosition with regard to neutrality and have emphasized, as I said\nbefore, no king-making which -- which led to the assurances that\nno one has in mind seeking to shove someone out of the race.\nQ\nGovernor, did one of those meetings take place last Monday?\nSan Francisco?\nA\nI don't know whether it was Monday or not, but it wasn't\na meeting on that. I was -- I was in a meeting in San Francisco.\nWas it Monday? It was Monday. I tell you, I've been yo-yoing\nback and forth so much that I don't know. If it was Monday, that\nwas a meeting that I went over on the matter of getting the campaign\nS tarted for the --\n-4-\n0\nWas politics discussed, the gubernatorial race?\nA\nInformally there were present people -- people present\nthere who were discussing among themselves this matter of trying\nto get a draft.\nQ\nWas that the meeting at the airport? Did you participate\nin that discussion?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDid you participate in that informal discussion?\nA\nOnly to the extent of what I said, expressing again my\nbelief and my hope that no matter what happens, when it is over\neverybody gets together behind a candidate, and number two, that\nnobody goes out and tries to persuade people that they shouldn't\nrun.\n0\nWho called the meeting, Governor?\nA\nI asked for the meeting to -- as I say, to discuss the\ninitiative.\nQ\nThat was to arrange financing of the initiative?\nA\nUh-huh.\nQ\nWhat's your budget?\nA\nI don't know yet, actually.\nO\nKind of related subject, Governor. What do you think\nthe proper remuneration for the Governor of California should be?\nA\nThere are days when you haven't got enough money in the\nbudget. There are other days when I'd consider doing it like\ndoing a benefit. No, it is -- I don't know. I do know this, that\nit is awfully easy with regard to -- to public officials, to ---\nto think that some way it should be a calling in which they should\nbe -- it should not be compared to outside activities. I suppose\nyou take a look at somparable jobs all through government and what\nthe pattern is. By that standard California does not rate very\na\nhigh in its salary level. We/are teather puritan state here with\nregard to our politics and that goes for such things as pay. I\nunderstand the Governor of New York is $85,000. And they -- they\nrange. I know that the - some of our local officials, not only\nmayors, but police chiefs, superintendents of education, at our local\nlevels in some of the metropolitan areas are receiving comparable\nsalaries to the top of the scale here. I know that of the top 133\nsalary positions in the government of California, 117 of them are in\nhigher education. Mostly at the university level. As a matter of\nfact, the President of the University has a higher salary than the\nGovernor. And the Vice-President has a higher salary than\nLieutenant-Governor\nThe Treasurer has a high\nsalary than Ivy\nBaker Priest, the Treasurer of the State of California. So I think\nthe thing to do on that, and the best desision is something that\nhas been going forward and that's led to the present salary increases\nwe are asking for, and that is an outside form of specialists working\nwith people in government, with the personnel board, on what should\nbe a proper scale. One of the things that recently put some of --\nor increased some of the department heads and agency's secretaries\nsalaries up was impaction. That as we go an keeping pace with\ngrowth and inflation and raising the salary of our civil servants,\nthose who are on civil service, we find that we suddenly come up to\na lid in which no more raises are possible unless you start promoting\nthem over the heads of their employers en their chiefs, their\nsupervisors. And so every once in a while you have to have some\nexperts come in and look at this scale and see how you can raise\nthose salaries to permit salary increases of the rank and file\nworkers.\nO\nGovernor, do you support the proposal to raise the\nGovernor's salary to $60,000?\nA\nWell, I haven't even paid any attention to it since I\nwon't be around for that. But, as I say, I think -- I think that\nall of them are going to have to be looked at,\nQ\nDo you -- do you find it difficult to get good people\nbecause of the salary scales that you can offer for the top jobs?\nA\nWell, no.\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo, but I want to tell you why. We have run particularly --\nno, at that level, of younger men, young fellows with families.\nand getting under way -- we have had more problems that way, but we\nhave been very fortunate in this administration, as I said. at the:\nbeginning, we were going to go out and try to find people who\nwere willing to put in time with government, do time as a contribute\nion to government, And that were not anxious to make government a\ncareer, and so we have -- we have a number of people who have\nbeen willing to come at great personal sacrifice. They couldn't\ncome all the years that we have been here. That is why we have\nthe turnover we have had, There comes a time a Gordon Luce, for\nexample, can no longer turn down the opportunities on the outside,\nand when he goes from here to a salary several times what you could\nmake in government, you have to realize that there is -- that we have\n-6-\nhad access to som\nretty fine, high-caliber\nlent.\nQ\nDo you expect the Director of Finance to leave soon for\nthat reason?\nVERNE ORR:\nFor some reason anyway.\nO\nAnother subject.\nA\nAll right.\n0\nSame: subject. Have you been party to any discussion about\nthe Gordon Paul Smith becoming a --\nA\nI heard rumors to that effect, that he's been considering\nthis.\nQ\nGovernor, Lieutenant Governor Reinecke said yesterday he\nwould favor the resumption of offshore drilling in Southern\ncalifornia\n, what's your position on that?\nA\nWell, I found he was -- I'm very much in agreement with\nis position. I know he also expressed that he wants to have\nassurances with regard to greater protection from accidents of the\nkind that we once had offshore. But there is no question about our\nbut\nneeding it. And there is also no question with that great progress\nhas been made now in safety precautions, not only regarding drilling\nbut pumping and the harnessing of a spill, if such a spill should\noccur. I don't think anyone can ever say that we will never have\nan accident. As a matter of fact, however, I'm beginning to think\nthat we probably have a higher possibility just in the law of\naverages of accidents from tankers and sea tragedies of the\nkind that have always beset the men that go down to the sea in ships\nthan we have from the pipeline type of thing or from drilling\noffshore.\nO\nDo you think it is proper for a member of the Lands\nCommission, like the Lieutenant Governor is, to express that opinion\nprior to any public hearings or any open public examination of the\nproblem?\nA\nWell, I think he was expressing what's pretty much a fact.\nYou can go into a hearing and have your mind changed by things that\nyou learn. I thought that he was very outspoken in his -- from\nwhat I heard you all report and what I saw on television, about the\nnecessity for having protection against the tragedy of a spill.\nor\nGovernor, do you think the moratorium will be lifted?\nWhat is your opinion?\n-7-\nA\nI can't\nI'm not going to specula on that. No.\nBut I do know that everything that we have been given with regard\nto the energy crisis indicates that this country is going to have\nto take a long, hard look, make some decisions about utilizing every\nbit of energy source that we can find.\nQ\nGovernor, from what you know about the state of the art (?)\nnow regarding safeguards and that sort of thing, if you were a member\nof the Land Commission would you vote for resumption of drilling?\nA\nThat's another way of getting the answer to his question\nhere. Unless I heard something very much to the contrary in the\npublic hearing, I would be inclined to, but I've learned enough going\ninto my own cabinet meeting here to again keep a foot back with the\nknowledge that someone might present facts that I have not seen as\nyet.\nYou must recall that the oil spill in the Santa Barbara\nChannel could not have occurred had that well been drilled under\nCalifornia regulations. That was under the federal government.\nIt was outside the three mile limit and since that time the federal\ngovernment has adopted the California regulations. As a matter of\nfact, the head of the oil company involved said he had not under-\nstood that there was any difference and that they were not meeting\nall the full requirements. And voluntarily without waiting for\nthe fedemal government to act, they have now -- are now practicing\nunder the California regulations. I might also add that not\ntoo long before that thing occurred, I had made a proposal to the\nfederal government that offshore in California -- that we would be\nvery happy to take over the supervising for the federal government\nof their offshore drilling if they would adopt our regulations.\nQ\nGovernor, would you say that the Lieutenant-Governor\nReinecke came up fully to your expectations in his performance as\nLieutenant Governor, and do you think he's fully qualified to be\nGovernor?\nA\nI certainly do.\nQ\nDifferent subject. Do you support the call for boycott\nby several Jewish groups of Standard Oil of California, following\ntheir letter to the stockholders?\nA\nWell, I'm quite sure Standard Oil wishes they had the\nletter to write over again. It is my understanding that Standard\nOil, and they have been trying to explain this now, I don't think\na boycott accomplishes anything or is really justified on the basis\n-8-\nof their position.\nMaybe the letter was poor\nworded, but it is\nmy understanding what Standard Oil was trying to achieve was the\nvery thing that Israel itself is trying to achieve, that is peace\nin the Middle East with the recognition that there are problems\non both sides, problems that must he answered; rights on both sides\nthat must be recognized.\nO\nGovernor, are there any -- any of the major contenders\nfor Governor that you couldn't support? The Republican contenders.\nA\nYou would have gotten a whole paragraph there if you\nhadn't added those last coupèe of words.\n0\nFor instance, Reinecke, Weinberger, Finch, Flournoy,\nYounger, those five, are there any of those that you couldn't support?\nA\nNo, as I said the other day, we have got an abundance of\nriches on our side, and that may turn out to be a problem for us.\nQ\nGovernor, what is your reaction to the State Board of\nEqualization's call on the Orange County Assessor to take another\n(propertn)\nlook at the President's assessment in San Clemente?\nA\nWell, I guess this is within their authority. It is my\nunderstanding that the Orange County Assessors and their board is\nperfectly satisfied with their assessment. Now it is up to them\nas to whether -- they cannot be forced to, whether they want to do\nit or not. They have made quite firm statements that they believe\nthey have assessed it properly. That it is a -- that they have\nquoted, if I understand it correctly, the responsibility of an\nassessor to recognize and that -- the difficulties of sales of\nparticular kinds of property, -- and the taking into mind the\npotential or possible marketability of that property; that they be-\nlieve it is assessed correctly.\n0\nDo you agree with that? Do you think it has been\nassessed properly?\nA\nI'm not an assessor, I wouldn't know how to --\n0\nBased on --\nA\nI know my house, I don't think, is assessed correctly.\nQ\nBased on what the Orange County Assessor and everyone\nattests to, would you suspect this might be the -- the State Board\nmight actually have some political motivation?\nA\nI'm not going to try to interpret them or what their\nmotive might be.\n0\nGovernor, some of the bills to create new judgeship\n-9-\npositions seem to be getting bogged down in the Legislature.\nDo you think there is a move on to limit your number of judicial\nappointments?\nA\nWhat?\n0\nIs there a move to limit the number of your judicial\nappointments for the rest of your term?\nA\nOh, I wouldn't think that somebody would have rocks in\ntheir head if they suspected something of that kind.\nO\nGovernor, are you involved in the tax negotiations and\nhow arethey coming along, and are you confident the sales tax\nwill be reduced on October 1?\nA\nAll I know about that, we are talking about the sales\ntax problem now. All I know is that they have it in conference\ncommittee, and it is my understanding that there is quite a bit of\noptimism up there.\no\nGovernor, on another subject, what's your reaction to\nState Architect John Worsley's latest idea to solve the capital\nproblem by constructing an addition around the three sides of the\nexisting east wing rather than building a separate building?\nA\nWell, I -- I've been shown that. This was in response\nto a letter that Senator Lagomarsino wrote him for possible alterna-\ntives to the capitol building problem. I've seen that as well as\na couple of others. I thought it made a great deal of sense. It\nrestored the capitol , it created under one roof the space needed\nfor the capitol to function in this building. But this was\nwhat -- my position was with regard to the budget, that rather\nthan trying to solve that matter in the budget now with all these\nàlternatives and the legislative process, and then go forward and\nthe people -- the public can have an opportunity to -- for their\ninput as to what they want -- after all it is their capitol --\nand this looked like a viable alternative, so they do have some\nchoices to look at.\n0\nWhich do you prefer?\nA\nWell, I hesitate to do this because I don't want to\nrecreate that idea that back at budgettime that somebody had that\nthe Senator and I were championing two different solutions to\nthis problem. It is a problem really for the people of California.\nAnd I -- I've only seen just this rough drawing of a floor plan that,\nas I say, made a great deal of sense to me. It seemed to be an\n-10-\nattractive building here and it restored the old capitol which\nof course I think everyone has agreed must be done.\nQ\nYou have taken a position in the past by saying you hope\nthey would stay -- keep the capitol, the working capitol.\nA\nYes, I still hope that.\n0\nWouldn't that solution be closer to your previous position?\nA\nYes. All right, I'll go that far.\n0\nI don't want to push you.\nA\nDon't get me in a fight.\nQ\nIn a slightly related subject, a local columnist suggested\nthis morning, in the morning edition of a newspaper, that perhaps\nCalifornia didn't need a a Governor's Mansion, that a room in the\nSenator Hotel would be sufficient. HOW about that?\nA\nYeah, I read Tom's column. I think Tom is exaggerating\nmy week-end habits also, although I do have a - a home in the south.\nNo, I -- I feel the need -- he leaves the Governor all alone on that.\nI think governors have enough problems without being a week-end\ncommunter to his family and they ought to be around some place where\nhe can live with them and this is one of the reasons why I feel very\nstrongly about a location of the kind that has been selected where\nthe residence would be built.\nNo one who -- or anyone who hasn't\nhad the problem can never understand that raising a family, raising\nchildren in this position presents some problems, a little different\nthan most jobs, and it is hard enough to maintain a normal family\nlife. And I think that the idea of living in a residential\nneighborhood where your kids can come home from school and go out\nthe back door to play with the other kids in the neighborhood like\nanyone else' is a great help in that. It is a great help in doing\nthe job because you don't have an added problem on your mind, a\nproblem that I did have for a few months when we tried living down-\ntown in the old residence. And the problem of what do you do with\nan eight-year old healthy boy when he comes home and there is no one\nto play with, and there is no place to go unless you send him across\nthe street to the oil station. And I think some of the people who\nare talking about downtown for a residence, they are bhinking about\na tourist attraction and something they can drive by and point to\nwith pride, and they are not thinking about the governors who are\ngoing to live here in the future and who are going to have children,\nfamilies to raise and all of this talk about they should be downtown\nwhere the people are -- the people live out there. I think they\n-11-\nshould be out livin where the people live, no. lowntown after\neverybody goes home when the office buildings close.\n2\nGovernor, does that mean you wouldn't want to live in the\nWhite House which is downtown? Does that mean you wouldn't want\nto live in the White House, which is downtown?\nA\nWell, now, let me answer the question.\nLet\nme\naswer\nyour question indirectly.\n(Laughter)\nA\nI have heard the wives of two presidents talk about the\nproblems and how you go stir crazy before the week is out because\nyou can't even go downstairs and you can't even walk in the grounds.\nlike\nYou are upstairs/living above the store, while thousands of tourists\nall day long, to say nothing of hundreds of employees are carrying on\nthe business of government downstairs. The White House at one time\nwas intended to be a residence. And it has become an office build-\ning and this is why Camp David came into being some time ago as one\nway -- one place they can go. But you look back over the history\nof presidents and you found that everyone of them feees the White\nHouse come the week-end or come any vacation time.\nO\nDo you think perhaps the President should live on a bluff\noverlooking the Potomac?\nA\nWell -- Washington did.\n(laughter)\nΩ\nGovernor, on a different subject, last week the Presidential\nCommission on Crime came out with a report, some of the recommenda-\ntions which were at variance with your own task force report on\ncrime.\nSpecifically with regard to marijuana. I was wondering\nif you have any comment on that?\nA\nI found myself in great disagreement with that commission\non crime, in a number of the things that they proposed, including\nthis one with regard to the treatment of marijuana. The more that\nour own crime studies group or drug studies group goes forward\nhere in our drug center in state government, the more we are learning,\nstrengthens the position that marijuana has been vastly underestimated\nas to its potential for harm.\nQ\nWhat are some of the other areas where you disagreed with\nthe President's report?\nA\nI was in total disagreement with their proposal for the\n-12-\nconfiscation of al hand guns in the United S :es, because I still\nthink that the answer to gun control and guns in the use of crimes\nis the one that our own commission has proposed and the one that\nwe tried a few years ago and then found was bogged down on a\ntechnicality, and that is to make -- to increase considerably\nthe penalty for someone carrying a gun in the commission of a crime.\nNow, if you remember, in 1969 we passed a measure that added five\nto fifteen years to the sentence of a person was convicted and had\na gun while he was -- while he was committing the crime. Even if\nhedidn't use the gun. And the first year that cut armed robbery\n31 per cent in California. But what happened immediately thereafter\nwas they found a little clause that you always try to have some\nelasticity in laws -- that said \"except in exceptional circumstances.\"\nAnd evidently most of the courts in California decided that every case\nof a man having a gun was an exceptional circumstance, and we found\nthat they no longer were using or giving that added penalty. And\nso we have gone right back to the regular rate of use of weapons and\nof armed crime -- armed robbery.\nQ\nDo you think the proposal that the task force makes on\nabolishing the exclusionary rule would stand up under federal\ncourts' scrutiny?\nA\nYes, I would. And I'm -- I've been a little shocked at\nthe carelessness with which that's been interpreted. This idea\nthat -- that the exclusionary rule proposal that was made by our\ntask force was aimed at permitting illegal search and seizure, it\nwas not -- and as a matter of fact that suggestion came from the\nChief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice\nBerger has made the proposal that is contained, along with\nabout 100 other recommendations, in what I think is one of the\nfinest, most comprehensive crime control reports that's ever been\nmade by anyone. And all we are talking about is not illegal search\nand seizure -- right now if there is illegality or if there is\na violation in some way by accident or a mistake made, there is no\nredress whatsoever for the -- for the citizen whose rights have been\ninvaded. This proposal is that you provide redress for the civilian.\nBut what it also provides is this situation where a policeman stops\na man for running a red light and then finds a sack of heroin on the\nfront seat, and he can't do anything about the heroin or use that\nin evidence because he stopped him for going through a red light.\n-13-\nNow that's hardly illegal search and seizure. He had a legitimate\nreason for stopping the man and then found evidence of an even greater\ncrime and can't use it under the -- this way I think is a misinter-\npretation. What we are talking about is the word \"unreasonable\"\nsearch and seizure. We are talking about the mistake that is made.\nThe error and the fact of breaking into or -- breaking into; the\nfact ofgetting a warrant and going to a house and looking for\nbookmaking, and finding a body in the house, the victim of a murder.\nWe have reached some heights of foolishness with regard to the\nexclusionary rule. But no one is advocating suddenly turning law\nenforcement loose with no need for a warrant and to go ahead\nwith illegal search and seizure. We want the full constitutional\nguarantees, including redress for the individual whose home has\nbeen invaded.\nQ\nGovernor, the local Board of Supervisors passed a resolu-\ntion this week saying that property taxes, local, would go up very\nsharply if your initiative passed. You are probably going to get\nmore of that in the campaign.\nA\nYes, and this is because they found the best way the\nopponents can do if they wanted to stop this. But I think this is\nthe same Board of Supervisors along with other people who said that\nthe property taxes would go up if we -- if we had the welfare reforms,\nthat we were going to dump a local government with that. And that the\nproperty taxes would have to go up because everybody that was dropped\nfrom welfare would go direct to county relief. Some 42 of the 58\ncounties have lowered their property taxes. I think you will find\nsome of the same charges were made with regard to Senate Bill 90, and\nthe things that would happen, and when you get your property bills\nin November they are going to find out that the people are going to\nfind out that they are getting a reduction in their property tax.\nNot all that perhaps they should get and we'd like to get in the future,\nbut this is an argument that is meant to confuse the people and the\nplain truth of the matter is there is absolutely no foundation for it\nwhatsoever. As a matter of fact, the bill themselves, if they\nbothered to read it, makes it sure that they cannot dump an expense\non the local government or increase the property tax. We have taken\nSenate Bill 90 and put it into the nstitution under this measure.\nAnd we cannot under this measure mandate an expense on local government\nwithout the state picking up the cost.\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\n8/28\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD AUGUST 28, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nr apidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 454.)\nO\nGovernor, what proof do you have that they were deliberate\ndistortions?\nA\nBecause I cannot believe that the Legislative Analyst\nwith access to the information he has and all the information on\nthe initiative could in his position after these many years of\nexperience have been that mistaken as to deliberately make charges\nof things that he says will happen that are absolutely prohibited\nby the language of the initiative itself.\nQ\nGovernor, the Tax Foundation backed him up initially.\nWhy -- he went on the basis of the statistics provided by the Tax\nFoundation. How can you claim that was deliberate?\nA\nNo, I don't know how you can say that because the Tax\nFoundation not only supported us, but provided much of the informa-\ntion and theplanning for our -- for our initiative.\nO\nThey subsequently supported you, they initially supported\nhim, didn't they?\nA\nNo, no, he used a 1971 figure at one time which the\nSpeaker of the Assembly then used frequently based on the average\ntax burden nationwide. And this was 1971. Subsequent to that\ntime there have been additional figures or at that time there were\navailable figures for the later years of '72 and projections for\n'73 from the Tax Foundation and also the fact that California's\ntax burden is several persentage points higher than the national\naverage.\nO\nGovernor, may I ask two questions. First, what is the\nprobable reason you refer to in your last paragraph and second, what\ndo you anticipate the impact on the '74-'75 state budget will be if\nthe initiative passes? Will there have to be any reduction in\nstate spending next year?\n-1-\nA\nNo, we are goigg ahead with the normal planning on the\nbudget.\nQ\nThe agency heads have not been told to cut back?\nA\nThe probable reason is what I think I indicated in the\nearlier part of the statement here, the fact that he is doing the\nbidding in a partisan sense of the leadership of the Assembly\nwhich has announced its opposition to this plan and rather than\nanalyzing the plan objectively he is trying to produce an analysis\nthat will support their position.\nQ\nExcuse me, Governor, I wonder if I could follow up. Did\nyou say that there will be no need to cut the budget next year\nbecause of the tax initiative?\nA\nWell, no more than the -- than the tax initiative will call\nfor. The basic one tenth of one percent cut. I know this is\nthe charge in which they are claiming that somehow technically and\nunder language that the fact that we are giving the rebates reduces\nthe base year tax level, and that subsequent years we will have to\nfollow through on that. Well, we have already stated and I've\nstated to you several times, we do not agree with that. We do not\nbelieve that you can substitute, in order to give a rebate on a\nprevious year's overpayment -- that you can give a rebate as a\nsubstitute for a portion of the tax and not consider that rebate\nas a part of the base income of the state.\nQ\nDo you have a legal opinion to support that?\nA\nWe haven't even sought such a legal opinion. This was\nthe intent of the legislation as we proposed it. It's been our\nintent or we never would have proposed this in the first place.\nO\nGovernor, George Murphy, the Legislative Counsel, has\nissued a legal opinion supporting Post's views. Now doyou put him\nin the same category as --\nA\nWell, I consider him less than objective, but I would\nalso like to say that -- if there is one characteristic of the law\nit is that lawyers differ, That's why they are on opposite sides\nin legal cases.\nGovernor,\n/\n2\n/Didn't you say last week that it would be the Economic\nCouncil that makes its final decision on the base that will be used\nand isn't it conceivable that they they could go that way and\nthat it would affect the budget next year?\nA\nWell, we\nrtainly don't anticipate\n,\nbut what I\nwas also saying about them, and this has bearing again on the dire\npredictions of Mr. Post, that the -- this Economic Council has not\neven met yet. We don't even, as of yet, have the official figures\non the -- on last year as to revenues and expenditures. And to go\nthis far ahead in saying what will happen to a budget -- again, as\nI say, the record speaks for itself. And I consider this projection\njust as wrong as all the others.\nQ\nWhat I'm saying is that it is conceivable that the Council\ncould decide that way on the tax base, isn't that correct?\nMR. MEESE: Could we be sure now -- be precise. This is\nthe Economic Estimates Commission provided for in the initiative\nand they had to do it on the basis of revenues as provided in the ---\nin the initiative itself. They are very carefully guided on what\nare revenues and this point is a legal point. There is contrary\nlegal advice to what the Legislative Counsel has said. This will\nbe filed with the Secretary of State. And as the Legislative\nCounsel himself has said in his opinion, this will be very persuasive\nin what way a court would interpret the initiative if that ever\nbecomes necessary.\nO\nGovernor, if now at theend ofAugust you don't have final\nfigures on the last fiscal year, how do you expect this initiative\nto work with -- basing the limits for each year on -- I would\npresume sometime in. spring on the current year's budget?\nA\nWell, because we have tied percentagewise -- we have tied\nthe tax burden to the projections for economic growth, inflation,\npopulation increase in California, based on the historic pattern\nof the past and the lines up. And acgually there is a great\ndifference in what we are talking about here and that kind of\nprojection. Suppose, for example, we have underestimated inflation.\nAnd suppose that the economic growth does this. The line on the\nchart does this. Well, the line of our tax limitation does this.\nIt is tied percentagewise to this. Suppose this levels off; this\nlevels off. And by the same token state expenses would. If\ninflation has been overestimated and inflation should be licked\ncompletely and we would have none, then as these two percentage\ncurves change and level off, so would the need for state expenses.\nSalaries would reflect this, which is one of our major costs. Pur-\nchase of supplies and equipment would measure it because of the\n-3-\ndecline of inflation.\n0\nGovernor, Mr. Post came out with his report sometime ago.\nWhy is it just now that you are issuing this statement?\nED GRAY: It came out on the 21st.\nA\nI have been refufing and as a matter of fact called your\nattention to some of these things earlier in state -- public\nstatements that were made. But now for the first time has come the\nrelease of what is going to be the ballot statement. And I think\nthat it is -- I think that the people are entitled to know the\nother side to thi S.\n0\nGovernor, who will present the opposite side for you?\nA\nWhat's that?\nQ\nWho will present the argument on the opposite side for you?\nVERNE ORR: I'm one of the signatories.\nA\nYes, Verne Orr is one. And Dr. Topping.\nMR. MEESE: I pointed out, though, this purports to be\nthe impartial analysis required by statute by the Legislative\nCounsel and Legislative Analyst, and it may well be that legal\naction could ensue over whether this is in fact an impartial\nanalysis. This isnot the opposing argument. They are supposed\nto -- I don't think anyone expressing an opinion is entitled to lie\nabout something. But this is supposed to be the impartial analysis\nof the measure. Take Richard.\nO\nGovernor, one of your own tax experts, Bill Bagley,\nexpresses the same fears about the impact of this -- well, this tax\ncut, for instande, on the budget.\nA\nI know. Bill said this right after -- Bill had thought\nthat maybe the Legislature could do smething to -- a technicality\nto ensure that there was no such question about this. From the\nvery first we have been in disagreement with him on that. That\nit isn't needed. It might be added, the Legislature, if there\nwas any question about this -- the Legislature could solve it\nvery easily, require just a very technical change.\nO\nGovernor, Orange County Superior Court Judge Bruce\nSumner and a former Republican Legislator who was chairman of the\nState Constitution Revision Commission from '64 to '72, says he's\n\"appalled\" at your tax limitation initiative. He says it is in\ndirect contradiction to the\nrevision process\nwhich was to make the constitution short, readable and understand-\nable.\nMR. GRAY\nBut he was not critic: ng the initiatve\nbut rather the size of the initiative.\nnot\nA\nHe was/criticizing the initiative but rather the size of\nthe initiative. He was criticizing the number of words contained\nin this, and that would be a very easy thing to solve. All the\nLegislature had to do was what we requested in the first place.\nIf the Legislature had approved this plan it would not have required\nthe highly technical and verbose language that it did to ensure that\nall the holes were closed in it.\nO\nCouldn't you have put that in the second statutory\ninitiative?\nA\nWhat's that?\nO\nPut thecomplex language in a second statutory initiative?\nMR. MEESE: Well, you have the practical difficulty in\nthis case because you had to get the signatures of the people\nbecause the legislature would not act and that was the reason for the\ndecision to have one piece of paper that people signed. Otherwise\nyou have tremendous confusion. So it really was the fact that\nthe legislature did not act that caused this.\nO\nFollowing up on what Mr. Meese said, did you plan to --\nto go to court or to sue to have Mr. Post's statement removed from\nthe ballot or have it rewritten?\nA\nWe haven't discussed that or made any decision on this yet.\nMR. MEESE: I think that, Governor, would be a question\nthat the committee itself -- the Californian's for Lower Taxes would\nhave to decide.\nA\nI think SO.\nQ\nGovernor, just to clarify my understanding of your response.\nMr. Post said that if the initiative passes that you 11 have to\ncut the budget next year by -- from $620 million to $286 million,\ndepending on how the '73-'74 revenue estimates are assessed.\nDo you deny those figures?\nA\nI do deny those figures.\nQ\nDo you have any estimates of your own, sir?\nA\nWell, our own estimates, as well as -- in our Finance\nDepartment that we can do, and we are going ahead, as I said ---\nwe are planning the budget just the same as we have always gone\nforward on it.\nQ\nSuppose it is determined that you can't include the surplus\n-5-\nas revenue for '73- 74, wouldn't that drastically alter the way that\nyou approach the budget?\nA\nNo, it really won't.\nWe have got a great deal of practice\nwith austere budgets, but in -- he is ignoring one other thing, and\nthat is that the passage of this provision ensures that you cannot\nreduce below present state levels. In other words, at any point\nthat the tax limitation would appear to go below what is necessary\nto maintain present government levels of service, adjusted for\ninflation and growth -- that's where it stops.\nQ\nYeah, but the level is a distorted level because those\nrevenues won't be included. The revenues that you are not collect-\ning from the sales tax cut, the revenues that you are not collecting\nfrom the --\nA\nWell, this is only --\n2\n-- above 20 per cent, --\nA\nThis is only part of it. Even with some of that involved\nit wouldn't be as horrendous as he says. And we would still go\nahead with a normal budget. He has included a great many things\nthat we dispute fery definitely that he claims cannot be considered\nas state revenues, that have nothing to do with the bill that was\njust recently passed for the rebates, and we dispute those, have\nnever considered them ourselves.\no\nGovernor, I still don't understand, why it is that in\nyour view the Legislative Analyst would want to deliberately make\ndistortions in his analysis of the tax limitation plan.\nA\nWell, I think you'd have to look at who employs him.\nHe's employed by the legislative leadership.\nQ\nDo you think he's become a tool of the legislative\nleadership?\nA\nI thought that I sort of indicated something like that\nin the statement.\nΩ\nWell,\nor not, Governor, Mo. Post had achieved\nthe reputation over some twentyyears of service as being rather\nobjective and non-partisan. Why do you suppose suddenly he'd become\npartisan now as you say, doing the bidding of the Speaker?\nA\nWell, you'd have to ask him that. Butall I can point\nto -- I have given you a factual record of his recent pronouncements,\nprojections in recent years, his analyses, supposedly, for the\nlegislature as to what was going to happen with one after the other,\n-6-\nthe major issues that have been presented by this administration.\nAnd in every instance, as I indicated to you, ne has been wrong.\nHis figures have not held up and the proof is in the fact that\nthey -- that the instances have now passed and we don't have to\nproject. We look to the past and can say he said this and this is\nwhat actually happened. And he was wrong.\nΩ\nHe was right on withholding, wasn't he?\nA\nWhat?\n@\nHe was right on withholding, wasn't he?\nA\nAs a matter of fact, if you want to go back to 1963 you\nwill find that he predicted the need for a gigantic tax increase\nprior -- just prior to the 1966 election. He didn't know then\nthat they were going to change the bookkeeping system to get by the\n1966 election. But at that time he made a statement that he was\nopposed to withholding because he said that taxes should hurt.\nAnd all this time you fellowsthought that was original with me.\nThat was back when I was quoting him.\nO\nHow does that make him capable of deliberately -- maybe\nhe simply committed honest distortion.\n(Laughter)\nΩ\nWhy deliberate?\nA\nWell, then, he ought to check the staff somewhat and\nmaybe change his books.\nQ\nDo you have any evidence to suggest that he is deliberately\nout to oppose you on everything?\nA\nI answered that question once. I told you -- I have\nto assume that a man with his experience, with the staff that\nhe has that's been doing this for so many years, with the\ndocuments in front of him, could not make these kind of mistakes.\n0\nHave These distortions been repeated, say, at the committee\nlevel, where Mr. Post testified side by side with Mr. Orr?\nA\nYes, and they will continue to be made. I think\nstarting very shortly there will be a committee hearing, as I\nsuggested, where he will be the star witness and will carry these\non and the entire purpose is to confuse the people of California.\nYou cannot point to a single argument that's been made by the\nopponents of this proposal that is based actually on the terms of\nthe proposal, disputing them as something that should be or shouldn't\nbe changed or that would be wrong. They have created and attempted\nto create fears in the minds of people of dire things that they\nsay will happen if this initiative is passed. And they --\nthey\nhave no bearing on che actual terms of the initiative. And the\nwhole purpose, and it's -- it's been revealed to us, there are no\nsecrets in this building, they have a theory that if the people of\nCalifornia can be confused the people will either stay home and\nnot vote at all or vote no.\nO\nGovernor, why would Post want to confuse the people?\no\n-- deliberate distortions on your --\nA\nWait.\nQ\nWhy would Post want to confuse the people?\nA\nWell, because the legislative leadership wants this\ndefeated.\n0\nOn this issue of deliberate distortions, your description\nof Mr. Post's incorrect calculations on the welfare reform don't seem\nto mention the fact that most of the time he said he could not de-\ntermine if there would be savings or costs because information from\nthe welfare department wasn't made available to him, and leaders of\nboth parties made the same accusation.\nA\nThis was the charge that was made repeatedly trying to\npin down and say that we could not dollar for dollar say there would\nbe a dollar saved here and a dollar saved there. But at the time\nhe was refuting our own estimates of what the savings would be.\nAnd I will recall to you that time after time in this room, in\npress conferences I told you that we believed our estimates were\nconservative, that we had erred on the side of being conservative,\nthat we felt that probably in our own hearts the savings would be\nmuch greater than those we were predicting, and it turned out to\nbe absolutely true. The savings have been greater. We thought\nthat the decline in the welfare rolls would probably continue for\nseveral months and then level off. Well, now here we are, two years\nand about -- what, about three or four months later, and we have\njust added another -- the last time, in fact, about 48 hours ago,\nI used the term 352,000 fewer people, and today I'm able to say\nit is 368, 000 fewer people on welfare, but he did refute ours and\nclaim that there was no substantiation for them. And this is when\nhe made the charge that no information had been given him. He had\nall the information we had. He just insisted that some way you\nhad to actually be able to point to and say, well, this year we\nwill save \"x\" number of dollars.\" And our people -- experts in the\nfield of welfare, expert in having to project ahead what welfare\n-8-\nneeds would be, tried to explain that these predictions were based\non that knowledge and that information. And they were right.\n0\nThe question was about the issue of distortion, and you\n(walfare)\nsay in your prepared statement that Post claimed that the reforms\nwould not result in substantial savings and didn't he really say\nthat he could not determine whe ther they would result in savings or\ncosts?\nA\nI don't recall that he ever gave any indication that\nthere would be savings and he did -- was one of those who indicated\nthat there could be increased costs, as he said not, at the local\nlevel and increases in property taxes because general relief at the\ncounty level would go up.\nC\nGovernor, are you saying thatafter twenty years -- more than\ntwenty years as legislative analyst that Alan Post is not worried\nabout his job?\nA\nI don't know whether he's worried about his job or not.\nQ\nYou implied --\nA\nI'm just saying -\n2\nThe point about legislative leadership, he has to be\ncareful what he says.\nA\nI would assume that anyone knows who they are working for.\nΩ\nYou think he's in fear of being fired by Bob Moretti If\nhe doesn't take Moretti's side?\nA\nMaybe he's just anti-Governor, because if I remember, my\npredecessor had quite a hard time with him, too. That his analyses\nusually were counter to the proposals made by Governor Brown.\no\nHe's not necessarily non-partisan?\nA\nWhat?\nO\nHe's not necessarily partisan, as you claim?\nA\nWell, if I remember rightly, under the leadership of the\nformer Speaker, Jesse Unruh, there was a certain -- whether it was\nparty partisanship -- there was a partisanship between the\nlegislature and the governor, they didn't get along.\n0\nI don't think he's ever denied that, he claims that he's\nimpartial to the legislature.\nA\nWell --\nO\nWill you go on to something else, Governor?\nA\nAll right.\n-9-\n0\nCan you comment on the statement by the Grand Jury ---\nby the Jury foreman in that -- in the Santa Cruz murder case?\nIt blamed you and the state for letting this murderer out of a\nmental hospital to commit all these murders.\nA\nYes, I -- you are speaking about the Muleen -- the man who\nwas convicted?\nO\nYes.\nA\nYes, I think that the jury foreman was uninformed, as a\ngreat many people are, about the workings of the mental health\nprogram. I say that with regard to his statement that Mr. Mullen\nwas released as an economy move. No patient has been released\nfor that reason. Under our law, when the counties develop their\nown mental health care programs at their request we release patients\nto them. Patients who were not sentenced for violent acts or\nsomething, in other words, of -- under a penal sentence. Mental\nhealth patients cannot be held against their will, unless it can\nbe proven that they represent a threat to themselves or to someone\nelse. Now, psychiatry is an inexact science. They are right a\ngreat many times; theyal somake mistakes in this. Obviously he\nwas a threat to others. Andobviously should have been held in,\nbut may I -- may I point out to you that we ourselves, recognizing\nthis, weakness in psychiatry, that these mistakes do occur, have\nbeen trying and our legislation is still having a rocky road and\na rough going upstairs -- we have been trying in connection with\nthe -- the neuropsychiatric unit at U.C.L.A. to embark on a study\nof violence to see if there isn't some way that we can not only cope\nwith the problem but detect this earlier inpeople and, as I say, the\nlegislation is still stalled upstairs. It is a problem. But\nhe was absolutely wrong when he says that we are dumping out onto\nthe street mental patients for some economy move. If anyone\nwants to look at the budget they will find we are spending more and\nspending more per patient than has ever been spent in the state's\nhistory, and I dcn 't usualby brag about spending money.\nO\nYou don't think the release of Mullen was any administrative\nerror by the state?\nA\nNo, it was a psychiatric error.\na\nGovernor, if Vice-President Agnew were to resign, would\nyou consider a nomination?\n(Laughter)\n-10-\nA\nI'm not ing to deal in hypothetica of that kind.\nI think that everyone should hope that there will be no need for his\nresigning.\nQ\nHas anyone from the Nixon administration actually talked\nto you about that possibility?\nA\nHeavens, no. I don't think they have talked to anyone\nelse about it. I don't think it's even being considered.\nI\nthink all of you heard the press conference and the President's\ntotal and above-board defense of the Vice-President or expression\nof confidence in the Vice-President.\n?\nGovernor, have you been advised not to go out too far\non the limb in defense of the Vice-President?\nA\nNo.\nB\nGovernor, do you think it would have been more prudent of\nMr. Nixon to have made public from the start thearrangements under\nwhich his house was purchased, such as you did in your case?\nDo you see any parallel in the situation?\nA\nI have to say, and I'm just basing it on nothing but\nmy own experience here -- I think it is thekind of thing that\nprobably was handled in his behalf and that he didn't pay any\nattention to it. You can't and do the job. It is why you appoint\ntrustees to take care of your own personal affairs. Because you --\nyou are busy with some other affairs. I just don't think it ever\nbecame a problem to him. Somebody decided to try and make it one.\no\nGovernor, on another subject. What is your reaction\nto the resolution passed by the Senate asking the state to explore\nall possible alternatives béfore renewing the existing contract for\ngasoline with Standard Oil? Particularly with reference to the\nletter that their company sent out to the -- to the Middle East.\nA\nWell, I'm never opposed to reviewing contracts with\nanyone, and I think we always ought to stay abreast of them.\nI\ndon't think that should necessarily be the reason. I think that\nthe President of Standard Oil has made it very plain that someone\nhas misread his intent, that he was really pleading for peace and\nfor -- both sides to find an answer to their problems. It was\nunfortunate in the wording of the letter. One reason why I always\nfigure that you ought to leave a letter on your desk overnight\nbefore you answer it; you'll be surprised how many good ones I tore\nup.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.\n0\nGovernor, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is\nnow on record as opposing the American River site of the mansion.\nSupervisor Pat Mellarkey says he doubts whether a satisfactory\nenvironmental impact statement can be made on that mansion.\nAre you still going to go aheadand break ground in October despite\nthat?\nA\nI don't see anything that should prevent it. I recognize\nhis position, he's been quite a leader in that. I think the\ncontroversy really is between those in the city and in the county\nhere who think of the Governor's residence as a kind of tourist\nattraction and therefore they want it in the downtown development.\nAnd I happen to represent a viewpoint of someone who's had to live\nboth downtown and now in a residential area as Governor, raising a\nfamily and I'm thinking of it interms of the problems of future\ngovernors who will also have families that will haveto grow up\nunder those circumstances, and I don't think that downtown is\na place for them to live. Ihave no concern about the environmental\neffect. The archeelogival dig has revealed that we are not\nviolating an Indian burial ground. Indeed, $110,000 has been spent\nof the taxpayer's money simply on the charge of the opinion by someone\nthat this was a burial ground. Wewent forward with it and apparently\nnow they aredown to base and -- and nothing has been -- has been\nuncovered yet. It is a single piece ofground between already\ndeveloped ground along the bluffs on either side -- on both sides.\nIt is an attractive piece of ground. I think that it could --\nwould be an ideal setting for that kind of residence. And I don't\nthink that that residence for the future governors of California --\nbecause I'm not going to live in it -- I don't think that residence\nshould be considered to its value as a tourist attraction for people\ndriving by to look at it, and that's just exactly what their position\nis.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nED GRAY: I'd like to repeat before you go, that\ncorrection which I talked about earlier. It is at the end of the\nfifth paragraph of the statement itself. It should read, \"Indeed,\nwithout them there would be no surplus,\" instead of \"a surplus.\"\n000\n-12-\nPRES CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RON D REAGAN\nHELD SEPTEMBER 5, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience. only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.\nThat's my opening statement.\n0\nGovernor, last week after your press conference here, Mr.\nGray said that your remarks were -- good morning -- your remarks\nabout Alan Post were not supposed to have beenpersonal, rather\nprofessional. But when you cast doubt upon a man's integrity\nisn't that pretty personal?\nA\nWell, let me make reference to some of the statements\nthat -- just one, for example. I was called attention to the\nfact and yes, I am disturbed -- I'm disturbed about not only Mr.\nPost but about someone else who by law is supposed to be above\nthe fray where election rules and so forth are concerned, the\nSecretary of State. But when they descend from that position or\nwear another hat and become advocates of a view with regard to\nsomething about which they are supposed to be neutral in their\nduties, then I think they call some attention to themselves and what\nthey are doing. And Mr. Post has been an advocate and has appeared\npublicly making statements in opposition to this initiative which he,\nis supposed to analyze in a neutral manner. I will give one line\nas an example. Mr. Post calls attention to the fact in his\nneutral analysis that the legislature by a two-thirds vote can\nauthorize local communities to have an income tax. Now, this is\ntrue. As far as it goes. But he leaves it there. And I challenge\nthat any one of you reading that your assumption would be, or the\ncitizen's assumption would be that this means, for heavens sake, we\nare now going to have local income taxes in addition to our steeply\nprogressive state and federal income taxes. What he should have\nadded was the exact opposite, that yes, it will require a two-thirds\nvote for a local government to have an income tax if this initiative\n-1-\ncities\npasses. But at esent some / claim the r it to have one\nwithout any vote at all and the rest of them can have it with only a\nsimple majority vote. It changes the meaning completely. It was\nthe use of a half truth to distort the meaning and reverse the mean-no\ning of the initiative. We have made it mare difficult for local\ngovernment to have an income tax. As a matter of fact, I have been\ntold by some local government officials that even though they are\nsympathetic to the limitation plan and they believe that it is\nan idea whose time has come and that government must do something\nof the kind to protect the people in their own communities, they\nhave had ah eye on the possibility of such a tax and therefore they\nare going to have to be against the initiative because they want --\nthey want it to be easier for them to get a local income tax.\nWe are trying to make it a little more difficult to get any kind\nof a new tax.\nO\nGovernor Reagan, this morning Herb Caen's column, he said\na vote for Reagan's tax initiative is a vote for Reagan for\nPres ident.\nA\nWell, I think Herb Caen ought to stick to the pubs and\nthe restaurants in San Francisco. He's got more knowledge there.\n0\nWell do you think there might be some truth to it?\nA\nWell, this is a very funny thing. You know, I read that\nA\nitem, too. I like to know where the good places to eat are in San\nFrancisco. I read his item and it seemed very strange to me.\nIf this is such a destructive initiative and if this is such a\nthing that is going to be so against the good of the people, why\nwould somone then suggest at the same time that someone would be\nusing it as a gimmick by which to win an election? He must be\nsaying -- admitting then that the people would find themselves very\nmuch in favor of this. And they can't have it both ways.\nQ\nGovernor, what are some of these local officials that want\nthe local income taxes?\nA\nI'm not going to name them because these were in conferences\nwith me as to why they had to take the position they took and I\nrespect their right to say that. But I don't think there is any-\nthing wrong in me pointing out the discrepancy, the fact that today\nwe have some elements who are opposed to this initiative because\nthey claim it is going to raise local property taxes. The Speaker\nof the Assembly has said that property taxes will go up on November 7\nif this is approved on November 6. But the League of Cities is in\n-2-\nopposition to the ogram because they say it kes it more\ndifficult or impossible for them to raise property taxes.\nNow here are two groups aligned against the initiative\nfor opposite reasons. I would say we must come pretty place --\npretty well down the middle between those two viewpoints with\nour initiative.\n0\nGovernor, on the Presidency issue, you have said in the past\nthat that's one office that seeks the man. Should it seek you,\nwill you let it find you?\n(Laughter)\nA\nWell, it is getting increasingly hard to find -- I mean\nhard to hide in this country. But not only from that. No, I've\nalways believed that. I think it does, and that's why I've always\nsaid that it is the time -- as the time draws nearer events yet to\ncome, to take place, will probably bring a great many names into\nprominence that will be considered.\nQ\nGovernor, the Speaker of the Assembly said this morning that\nhe didn't think you'd run for a third term because of having been\ndefeated you might then haveto dim your chance to be the President.\nWhat do you think about that?\nA\nSquire, I will quotethe scriptures. Job 35:16 He\nmultiplieth words without knowledge.\nO\nGovernor, new subject.\n(Laughter)\nA\nHow come you want to get away from the Bible so quick?\nO\nAs a Republican you -- vetoed reapportionment plans now\nconsidering that the Democrats and Republicans seem to concede\nthat the Democrats come out better with the Masters Plan.\nA\nNo, as a matter of fact, I've had meetings with the\nRepublican legislative leaders and it seems that everybody on both\nsides is claiming some gains out of this. Although individuals --\nindividual encumbents on both sidds will have problems. No, the\nlegislation that was psssed that I vetood would not have gone\ninto effect. It was simply 3 guidoline to the Masters. The Court\nhad taken jurisdiction. I don't believe that my signature would\nhave made any difference to the court and think that's beenproven\nby the course they followed. They obviously took a course that was\nentirely different from all those that had bear followed in the\nprevious attempts to arrive at a reapportionment.\n-3-\nO\nGovernor the Masters were particul ly harsh on the\nSenate plan that you thought was acceptable. Can you respond to\nsome of their criticism, particularly about the -- the treatment\nof minorities and Spanish surname citizens.\nA\nYeah, but I saw a little -- little discrepancy there.\nThey are having it both ways, too, I must confess. They were\ncritical of the Senate plan because it did try to create, particularly\nin East Los Angeles and extending out to San Bernardino, a district\nthat would give the Americans of Mexican descent in that very\nlarge community an opportunity for representation. But I noticed\nin their own statements the other day, in presenting their plan,\nthat they were quite proud of the fact that they had created several\ndistricts of my -- of the minority communities in which it could\nincrease representation for both Americans of Mexican descent and\nfor Negroes. So I just don't know how they could find fault\nwith the Senate's attempt to do that and their own plan which does\nthe same thing and probably even more SO.\nO\nGovernor, some of the Republican. Senators have indicated\nthey are going before the Court with a number of protests against\nthis plan. Will you support them in that?\nA\nActually I haven't made any decision because I think this\nis so complex that there's been no chance to analyze it and\nhave a view on it, and frankly, as long as it has to go before the\ncourt yet it is just a plan. And there are going to be hearings\nand presentations. I'm in no position to comment on it at this\ntime. I don't think the very fact that the Masters must submit this\nto the court is an indication that it is a plan that --- and they\nare having open hearings, that it is still subject to change and\nalteration. There is no way to have a perfect reapportionment plan.\nO\nGovernor, what's your philosophy on direct election of\nBART directors?\nA\nWell, again we are talking about a piece of legislation\nthat hasn't come down yet. So I won't comment on that and discuss\nit.\n0\nGovernor, you mentioned Edmund Brown, Junior, a little\nearlier when you were talking about Alan Post on that subject.\nDo you feel that Mr. Brown was less than fair with the voters by\nhis latest decision to delay the printing of the ballot pamphlets?\nBecause of --\nA\nWell\n-4-\n0\nBecause what he says are distorted srepresentations?\nA\nI found his calling of the press conference a little\nstrange. The fault with the particular pamphlet he was talking\nabout was the fact that it had been printed before the legislature\ndecided to give in and -- and give the one-time rebate. And the\nlegislation I have just recently signed. The committee -- Cali-\nfornians for Lower Taxes had written the Secretary of State volunteer-\ning torchange the pamphlet now that that particular part of the\ninitiative had been achieved through legislation. If you will\nrecall, we ourselves, months ago, asked the legislature to adopt\nthat part of the initiative. We put it on the ballot in case they\ndidn't, and then stipulated in the ballot that of course this tax\ncut, the 20 per cent reduction and so forth, would take place\nprovided the legislature had not already taken action. But they\nhad written him a letter asking him if they -- andstating their\nwillingness to change the pamphlet. And he -- obviously must have\nhad this before he made his statements of yesterday, to suggest\nthat that was fraud in some way œ a distortion. Obviously ignoring\nthe fact that it had been written prior to the passage of the\nlegislation, and had beenprinted prior to that time. Now Mr.\nPost's analysis did not contain any reference to the one-time rebate\nbecause Mr. Post did not turn his analysis in on the date that is\nrequired by law for turning it in. He turned it in after the legis-\nlature had taken its action.\nO\nExcuse me, Governor, but we were informed that -- by Mr.\nBrown and the Attorney General's office that they did not submit to\nthe Secretary of State until last Thursday or Friday, the titling\nfor the initiative, so that of course would have happened after\nthe legislature acted on the tax.\nA\nI think you are talking about two different things. We\nare talking about the committee's pro-argument for the bill which\nis what he was so critical of; the matter of the -- of the\nAttorney General's titling, that's between the Attorney General\nand the Secretary of State, as to whether he --\nO\nCan you tell us whether reports were true that in the\ndiscussions between the Attorney General the people from the\nSpeaker's office, Alan Post's office, that your administration did\nnot desire to have the 20 per cent reference deleted from the titling\nby the Attorney General?\n-5-\nA\nNo, I -- no, I don't know of ything of that kind.\nWe just knew --- we were urging the passage of the legislation.\nWe wanted it. We knew at the time that if we did it, to remove\nthat from the November 6 election, but we knew there was no way to\ntake itout of the language of the actual amendment. That's why the\nline is in there that states, \"If the legislature takes action this\nof course will not be.\"\n0\nDo you think the initiative will get fewer votes if they\ntake out the 20 per cent reference in the title?\nA\nOh, no, I think we are going to make every effort to\nexplain to the people as clearly as we can what it is they are\ngetting. Theissue is very simple, those who have avvested interest\nin big gobernment getting more money are opposed to any kind of\nlimitation or reduction in taxes. And we believe that we made\na promise several years ago when we had to raise taxes that we\nwere going to try to give it back as quickly as this state could --\ncould afford it, and the state can afford it now and we should be\nreducing the burden on the people.\n0\nSince the income tax rebate has been settled by the\nlegislature and by you, should there be any reference .at all in\nthe ballot summaries or arguments to an income tax rebate?\nA\nNo, this is what thecommittee wrote to inquire about.\nThat they were willing to take that out. Yes, it is much simpler\nand less --- less confusing if we simply state that this has been\nachieved already by legislative action. Now, the one-time rebate\nmay look spectacular to someone to put down all the figures, but it\nwas the least of the initiative. You are talking about the\nreturn of some $700 million dollars to the people on a one-time\nbasis. We are talking about a programthat's going to save the\npeople over $118 billion dollars in the next fifteen years.\nO\nGovernor, on another subject, Lieutenant Governor Reinecke\nhas come out against the establishment of a six county regional\nair pollution district in southern California which is the opposite\nposition of that taken by your administration on that bill by\nMoretti. The Lieutenant Governor charges that the district would\ncreate more taxes and involve more red tape, etcetera. Do you\nhave any comments on that?\nA\nNo, I actually don't know the situation.\nED MEESE: That's the position -- when you say \"your\nadministration, that's the position of the Air Resources Board.\n-6-\nThe bill has not yet come to you.\n0\nIt is also the position of the Resources Agency and Ike\nLivermore.\nED MEESE:\nBut it hasn't beenconsidered in cabinet or\nby the Governor personally.\nA\nAgain, to remind you of theprocedure, things like that -\nand when I stand here and say I'm not aware of something like that\nis because it has not been on theagenda and those things do not\nbecome policy of the aministration before they have gone through the\ncabinet process.\nO\nThe Third District Court of Appeals prior to receiving\nanother judgeship, are you considering or would you consider\nSenator Marler to appoint to that position?\nA\nOh, I'm not going to speculate on the possibility of\njudges.\nThe procedure -- the procedure for judgeships is and has\nbeen for six and a half years that everyone who is interested or\neveryone who is a potential for a judge is submitted to a series\nof committees and we have appointed judges regardless of politics\non the basis of the rating of those committees when they come back\nto us.\no\nThere's speculation -\nA\nAnd without exception.\nO\nExcuse me, there is speculation it might solve the\nproblem that the Assembly Judicial Committee does not want to\npass out new judgeships, allowing a lame duck, so to speak,\nGovernor appointing them and it will solvethe problem of Senator\nMarler and Collier running against each other.\nA\nNow, if -- if our opponents upstairs should decide they\ncould get some political advantage out of giving us the much needed\njudgeships to relieve the overload in cases, that would at least\nbe some good that came out of partisan politics.\nQ\nGovernor, I'd like to return to this tax thing a second.\nI assume that you think the committee ought to rewrite its\ninitiative argument to delete the 20 per cent reference?\nA\nOh, sure, yes,\n0\nO.\nK., are they going to do that?\nA\nYes, yeah.\nO\nGovernor\nA\nOne second.\n-7-\n0\nGovernor we have heard a good deal\ndebate as to what\nnumbers will actually be like in next year's budget if we do in\nfact have the tax limitation. plan.\n0\nHave you received any numbers from the Finance Department\nand if so do they live up to your expectations as to what we might\nsee next year?\nA\nLet me say this, you are referring, of course, to Mr. Post's\nargument that the budget or there is indication that the budget is\ngoing to be some $620 million dollars less next year than this year's\nbudget if the initiative passes. We will not have all the infor-\nmation that we normally have and that we want before we make some\npreddctions or projections of this kind until October. By that\ntime the economic estimate commission has met, they have told us\nwhat the economy is or their predictions of the economy, what\nthe tax structure will bring in. And so we have tried not to\njoin him in picking numbers out of the air and guessing. But\nI'll make you a guess based on just the estimates, our own\nprojections and estimates that we have, and I will stand on the\nprediction. He says the budget is going tabe some $620 million\nless than this year's budget. I will predict that he is wrong\nby a billion dollars or more in his projection.\no\nGovernor, isn't he really saying it is going to be $600\nmillion less than itewould be otherwise without the initiative?\nA\nOh, that's the question. What he ought to be saying.\nThat's what he ought to be saying. But it is a little bit like\nthe two-thirds vote on the income tax. He has not quitemade\nthat clear and it is very difficult and was before the committee\nto pin him down as to which he was saying. I remember one legisla-\ntor asking him repeatedly, andI don't think that a very definitive\nanswer came out at all with regard to that. If that's what he's\nsaying, here again his figures may be wrong. In fact, I would\nsuggest that they are wrong. But obviously, if the implementation\nof the plan takes place, if the initiative passes, the budget is\nnot going to be as big as the budget would be without that\nimplementation. But it is going to be ample to meet all the needs\nof the state and even provide for some things that we are not now\ndoing. And this is true for the whole 15 years of the limitation.\nBut we will halt this increasing growth in the cost and size of\ngovernment.\n-8-\nO\nAre you lking about a $380 millior surplus next year?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nYou said --\nA\nNo, no, no. No, no, now wait a minute here. You got\nthe camera running?\n(Laughter)\nA\nAll right. I hage to waste this good material on a dead\ncamera.\n(Laughter)\nA\nAnswering questions. I said that if Mr. Post is indica-\nt ing to the people that the budget for next year, for the State of\nCalifornia, will have to be reduced $600 million dollars below the --\nthis year's budget, which I'm sure everyone knows is impossible and\ncould not be done, would cause great disruption -- that if that's\nwhat he's saying without making any specific projection to you\nnow of what the budget -- how much bigger next year's budget will\nbe than this one, I will still make the prediction that Mr. Post\nis a billion dollars or more off. That it will not be $600 million\ndollars less. It will be in the difference between that and the\nbillion increased over this year's budget.\n0\nWell, in other words, $400 million dollars. So it is\ngoing to be $400 million dollars bigger than this year's budget?\nA\nI think that's a reasonable guess.\nO\nIs that from your Finance Department?\nA\nI'm not going -- I'm making the prediction, not Mr. Orr.\nYou hold me responsible. When we submit the budget before the\nfirst of the year, by the first of the year, and when we talk on\nthe budget, you sit in here and then you will either say, \"Uh-huh\nyou were right back on that September day.\" You probably won't\npay any attention to it, you'll probably put out a headline,\n\"Record budget for California.\"\n(Laughter)\nO\nWhy doesn't your Finance Department give the Willie\nBrown committee that information?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhy doesn't your Finance Department give --\nA\nBecause we say when you get it before a committee -\nthey have never -- never has bhe Finance Department been so care-\nless as to go up and speculate on numbers before we get the readings\nof the Economic Estimate Commission. At the same time none of us\n-9-\nlive under a rock.\nWe also have ideas of wha seems to be\nhappening with the tax -- with our tax structure and rough estimate of\nwhat revenues are going to come in. Very simply this limitati is\ngoing to do one thing. The Ecmomic Estimate Commission is going\nto make an estimate for us of what the total ear nings of the\npeople of California are going to be. It is then going to say what\nthe tax structure às it presently exists is going to bring in in\nrevenue, as a percentage of those earnings. And if the initiative\nis passed it simply means that we reduce the percentage we are\ntaking of those total earnings by one tenth of one percent and that\nleaves us a budget that will expand beyond the present budget and\nthe budgets will increase every year from here on out, if the\ninitiative passed.\nQ\nWould your prediction hold, Governor, if there is a\nrecession?\nA\nWhat?\no\nWould your prediction hold if there is a recession?\nA\nWell, let me see, it depends on the extent of the\nrecession. Now, you know, no one could predict the -- what\nhappened with the calamity like 1929, and let's hope that we have\nprogressed beyond that and it can't happen, although there are\npeople today who say that it can and it is going to -- but in the\nrecession that we had three years ago the budget expanded, and\nexpanded by a few hundred million dollars over the previous budget.\no\nBut it wasn't tied to the income from the state.\nA\nHuh?\nO\nBut it wasn't tied to the income from the state.\nA\nIt was the same -- it was certainly the same tax structure\nthat we have today with thepossible exception that then we had not\nt ransferred to the state a billion dollars of subsidy of local\nproperty tax. But it was the same tax structure. And even in\nthe recession it was bringing us in enough to have an increased\nbudget.\nO\nGovernor, if -- if the initiative were not at issue now,\nand state government continued at its same basic level without\nany program increases, wouldn't next year's budget likely to be\nmore than $400 million dollars greater than this year's budget?\nA\nOh, it may even be now. I'm being a little conservative.\nI'm just making a prediction here and I said a billion or more.\n-10-\n0\nThe\nthing\n'm trying to get to is do n't -- even your\nprojection, a conservative $400 million dollars more to spend\nnext year than - than we are spending this year, mean that there\nwill have to be some budget cutbacks to the extent that normal\ngrowth won't continue at the rate it is growing now? And if so,\nwhat -- what can be cut back?\nA\nWell, Tom, it depends on whose viewpoint you take.\nThere are people in the state and there are people -- legislators\nupstairs who are opposed to this initiative who have been opposed\nto every economy that we have made, including the welfare reforms.\nThey think that's wrong. They think the state should have more\nrevenue than it has. So from their viewpoint no budget has lived\nup to what they think it should be. We, on the other hand, have\ntried to practice austerity. We don't believe that government\nshould spend a dime morethan it has to. And we will have the\nsame philosophy on the budget that is coming up.\n2\nO. K., leg me rephrase it again. I'm not trying to trap\nyou, but I'm trying to get the --\nA\nI don't feel trapped, I thought I got in a good lick.\n2\nIf there were no initiative, isn't it more than likely\nthat your Finance Department and you would submit to the legislature\nnext January a budget higher than $400 million dollars above what\nthe state -- what is budgeted this year, than the budget you\napproved this year?\nA\nAgain you are pinning me down to the $400 million dollars\nfigure and we don't know.\nQ\nHalf a million, whatever you want.\nA\nWhatever it is going to be. Only to this extent, the\nfact that the legislature does pass every year bills that increase\nspending, and this is one of the reasons for the limitation. Right\nnow there are two bills before the legislature. One of those bills--\nneither one of them has with it any proposal for raising revenues\nto pay for it. One of those bills, if it was passed, would require\na tax increase automatically. The first year that tax increase\nwould have to deliver almost $400 million dollars, and in four\nyears it would have to be bringing in a billion dollars of added\nnew cost to government. Now this is one of the things that we are\ntrying to curb. You cah veto, and I have, and there's been great\ncomplaint about my blue-pencilling of budgets, and vetoing back\nthrough the years, but there's still some of those that just the\n-11-\npllitical realiti being what they are, you n't say no to all of\nthem. And that's how government grows. And so without any limi-\ntation the only thing that you have then to stop this constant\nflood of spending measures that are proposed is the governor's\nveto and always with the threat that someone may decide they want\nit badly enough to override the veto. We are trying to put in a\nlimitation that will put the legislature in the position of also\nhaving to look at priorities and having to decide is there revenue\nfor this, or do we want this badly ehough to say to the people,\ndon't you want this service at the increased cost.\n0\nIs this bill you are talking about, though, the Burton Wel-\nfare Bill?\nA\nYes.\nO\nDoes that mean you are going to hav e to veto it and cut\nit way back or whateveryou do to it ifit comes to you?\nA\nAgain you are asking me now to discuss legislation. We\nhave made a proposal. We have made a proposal for implementing\nHR 1 whd that's what thisis all about. And one that can be done\nwith no increased cost to the state. And that will give 80\nper cent of the present recipients an increase over what they are\ngetting and the rest will get as much as they are presently getting.\nHis bill is simply taking advantage of HR 1 to go connter to the\nwelfare reforms that we passed. And to impose what can be in a\nfew years a bill of additional expense on the people of California.\nO\nGovernor, realting to that -- the welfare situation,\nthere's considerable rhetoric yesterday between Dr. Brian and John\nBurton on whether either side had been negotiating in good faith to\nreach a compromise. The legislature has only got a week and a half\nleft here, and some legislation has to be passed to implement the\nfederal program. Do you think a compromise will be reached?\nA\nI don't know. I know that any suggestion ashas been\nmade that Dr. Brian hasn't been trying to negotiate is absolutely\nfalse. He has been trying and he has been negotiating and the\nsubject of money how much money the bill should cost, up until\njust a few days ago -- it is my understanding that the proponents\nof the two legislative measures refused to discuss money at all.\nSo there was no possibility of -- of compromise on the most\nimportant issue whi ch is -- is cost and they refused to discuss\nthat -- or negotiate on it at all.\n-12-\n0\nGovernor, are you going to call a special session if\nit is --\nA\nWhat?\nO\nAre you going to call a special session if it fails to\nbe resolved by September 15?\nA\nI'll have to see what happens when that time comes.\nO\nGovernor, Mr. Burton said yesterday that you apparently\nwere to call him saying that they were speaking for the administra-\ntion in the negotiations, but he never received any such assurance,\nso therefore he thinks or it is his opinion that no one is negotia-\nting to actually speak for you or Dr. Brian.\nA\nOh, for heaven's sake. They are grasping at straws and --\nthe plain truth of the matter is -- and what the people don't\nunderstand, and unfortunately a great many of the disabled and the\nelderly are being victimized by proponents of a couple of spending\nbills who are trying - the usual tactic of picking these people\nin need and these people who can be frightened at the thought of\n(welfare\nsomething is going to happen to their grants, and they shouldn't\nbe. Now HR 1 is a bill in which the federal government sets\n$130 nationwide as the federal contribution in these areas. The\nelderly, the blind and the disabled. And if action is not taken\nby a certain time by the state conceivably those people's grants\ncould be back down. At present they average around $212 in\nCalifornia, they would go back down to $130. I want to state\nright now and you will be doing a public service to those people\nif youwill make sure this statement sees the light of day. That\nis not going to happen. The State of California is not going to let\nthat happen to those people. When they will stop playing\npolitics we can have the implementation that ensures in addition\nto the federal $130 the state augments the grant as it presently\ndoes and this has been our point from the very beginning, and from\nthe very beginning we have made a proposal and continue to make one\nwhich will not only maintain the present grants but for the bulk of\nthe people, 80 per cent or more, will actually increase their\ngrants.\n2\nIf you reach no compromise with the legislature before\nthey go home next week, how are you going to stop it from happening?\nA\nWe will have to have a strategy meeting on that as to what\nwe can do.\n-13-\nQ\nWill yo think a special session th\nsubsequent tothe\nlegislature's adjournment will detract from your campaign for the\ninitiative?\nA\nOh, heavens no.\n0\nYou don't think a flaring debate of the welfare would\ndetract on the debate of your initiative?\nA\noh, no, no.\n0\nAre you budgeting now on the premise that the initiative\nis going to pass?\nA\nWell, we are not to that stage yet. We haven't had our\nmeeting of our --\nMR. ORR: Governor, I think in answer to that question\nand Tom's that there have been no instructions sent to any\nSecretary or any department that differ fromthe normal budgetary\ninstructions, and we are only just starting the meetings.\nO\nSo you are not budgeting then on the premise that the\ninitiative will pass?\nMR. ORR: We are budgeting on the premise it will pass, but it\nhas not made a fundamental change in our budgeting procedures.\n0\nWhat does that mean?\nMR. ORR: Just what the Governor says, the budget is\ngoing to --\nQ\nThe procedures are the same, but what kind of dollars\nand cents are you putting down for each program?\nA\nOh, but that's still -- that's the thing.\nMR. ORR: That's what budgeting is about.\nA\nThat's still a little ways away. For example, we all have\nthe departmental proposals coming in and when the universities\nand the state college systems ask for their amounts every year we\nare faced with the problem then of priorities and where you are\nreducing because every year everybody asks for more money than\nthey are going to get. Now, youhave a long time before you get\ndown to what is the final dollar level. For example, right now,\nwithout the economic estimate commission having met there would be no\nway that you could tell a department how much of their request they\nare going to get because you don't know whatthe tax revenues are\ngoing to be. Now actually without any change in plans at all\nyou won't be to that stage at all until after November 6, to where\nyou know finally thedollar amount. O. K., you can start them on some\nrough things. You can say to one of them, wait a minute, you know,\nBY \"x\" amount you'd better start seeing what you can -- what is\nof least priority to you and you can do without. You might do\nthings of that kind, and have in the past.\n0\nHave you?\nA\nHuh?\nO\nHave you?\nA\nThey are just beginning.\nMR, ORR: There's never been a year we Hamen't done that.\nThere's never been a year that anybody comes close to getting\neverything they asked for and this is no different.\nQ\nI think what Tom is trying to find out, the Assembly\nWays and Means Committee was trying to find out if passage of the\ninitiative results in less money being available to the state and\nyou need to fund everything at its present levelof growth, what are\nyour priorities going to be?\nA\nWell, the trouble with the Ways and Means Committee is\nthat they have lent themselves in these last few days, and I'm\nsure in the weeks ahead to participants in the campaign against\nthe initiative. Normally they would not make -- inquire at this\ntime, about these figures because they know that weedon't have\nthe figures until after the Economic Estimate Commission has met,\nand so I think their timing is a little off. But I could carry\non and say there is actually a provision for what you've just\nsaid. We have said that the limitation -- whatever our projections\nare, that the limitation can never fall below what it takes to\nmaintain present level of government services, Oh. You mean\nsomebody else asked it or you just got wore out?\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: All right.\n000\n9/18\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD SEPTEMBER 18, 1973\nReported By'\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: It's kind of reassuring to see that\nthings never change. I'm back on the billboards again out in the\ncorridor.\no\nGovernor, there have been recurring reports that the -- that\nthe President would like to see the Vice-President resign. The\nWashington Post this morning quoted a top Republican official close\nto the Vice-President as saying that he might be -- could be expected\nto resign this week. Knowing the Vice-President as you do so closely,\nwhat would you as a pesennal friend think the Vice-President's\ninclination would be?\nA\nWell, I would be very surprised if that rumor were true,\nbut I know nothing more than you kn OW. It is a rumor and there\nhave been a great many voices raised, and those close to the Vice-\nPresident, saying that there is no truth in ft.\nO\nHave you been contacted yet at all?\nA\nNo, no.\nC\nGovernor, considering the case and all that's involved,\ndo you think it is something that would cause a person to resign?\nA\nNo, I think that the man stated his innocence and in this\ncountry a man is innocent until he's proven guilty.\n0\nThe reason for resigning or one of the reasons was stated\nbecause of the pressure regardless of guilt or innocence.\nA\nWell, I wouldn't know anything about that. I know of no\nevidence of it and the Vice-President denied that there is any.\n0\nGovernor, if the Vice-President decides to stay in office\nto fight this legally, do you think it could be detrimental to the\nRepublican party, regardless of how it comes out?\nA\nNo, I can't believe that the American people ever blanket\nindict millions of people far removed from any incident or\nepisode or any individual for what some individual has done.\nI\nthink this has been proven already with the affair of Watergate.\n0\nGovernor, if you were asked to step in and serve as Vice-\nPresident what would you say?\nA\nBefore or after I fainted?\n(Laughter)\n0\nIf you were asked that question.\nA\nI -- that's a hypoehesis. That is a hypothetical question\nthat I've never even thought about or considered because I just didn't\nthink that anything like that was -- is going to take place.\nQ\nDoes the job appeal toyou in any way?\nA\nI like the job I have.\nO\nDoyou think the Vice-President should continue to serve\nif he is indicted?\nA\nWell, an indictment is nothing more than what has already\nbeen leaked and said. It is a form of accusation; conviction is\nthe difference.\nQ\nBut it is a cloud?\nA\nWhat?\nO\nIt is a cloud, is it not?\nA\nYes, but isn't it kind of tragic in this day and age that\nwe have come to the point that all you have to do is accuse someone\nof something today and you have created a cloud and they are\ntherefore presumed to be guilty instead of innocent in the minds of\na great many. I think we'd better get back to the place till some-\nbody can prove it a man is innocent.\n0\nMeanwhile, back in California.\nA\nYes.\n0\nWhat's your impression of how Proposition 4, the two year\nsession has been working so far for thelegislature? Do you see\nany difference in the way bills are coming to you?\nA\nNo, just a little difference in the season. They used\nto come down in July and they are now coming down in the fall. And\nthere was the same round-the-clock, 24-hour last minute flurry of\nhundreds and hundreds of bills being passed, but little or no\nconsideration with legislators protesting that they hadn't voted,\nbut that their'votes were being recorded on the wall and so forth.\n-2-\nAnd I've -- I have begun to sign some of that flood of bills and\nI have to say about a great many of them that none of them, while\nI was signing them, gave me the aura of being present at the exercise\nof statesmanship.\nQ\nGovernor, one of those bills that was sent down to you\nthis week-end is one by Senator Biddle which he is calling upon the\ncitizens of Riverside County to send you letters about urging you to\nsign it. Which is something he rarely does. And that is the bill\nto establish mandatory automobile inspection of cars in the Los\nAngeles air base..\nA\nWell, that's another bill. There are several -- there\nare several bills. I spoke lightly of these others, and the routine\nmass of bills that come down. Thereare severab important bills that\nhave -- are on my or reached my desk, but are awaiting cabinet\nanalysis that we have not analyzed them yet. Many of them bills\nthat have been amended on the way down -- numerous amendments, and\nso I have no answer on them until we have analyzed them.\nO\nGovernor, how do you feel about the Warren-Alquist power\nplant siting bill. Do you think it would possibly be a criticism\nof you because of your former employment with G. E. which was the\nmost anti-logbyist of the bill, if you vetoed it?\nA\nI don't know -- you are talking about another bill that --\nO\nI'm talking about the power plant siting bill that's\nbefore you now?\nA\nYeah, but again, as I say, we haven't had the analysis of\nthat piece of legislation yet.\nO\nWell do you think your former employer could prevail on\nyouto veto that bill and would it be valid if you did?\nA\nWell, my former employer, when I was doing General Electric\nTheatre, their television program, which is what you are referring\nto -- my former employer once risked a loss of $50 million dollars\nin business because they stood on a principle that they would not\ntell me what I should or should not say in a speech that I was making.\nEven though it might cost them $50 million dollars in goverment\ncontracts. And I wouldn't think that now after all these years that\nthey would come around and attempt to influence me on what I should\ndo in this particular job.\n0\nMaybe they would want to recoup the $50 million.\nA\nWhat?\n0\nMaybe they would want to recoup the $50 million.\nA\nNo, I -- they just don't do business that way.\n0\nGovernor, when are you going to act onthe death penalty\nbill?\nA\nProbably the early part of next week. You, I know, are\nwondering why any delay on that. Let me just explain that there\nare a number of people that participated and were most helpful in\nthis. These people would like to be present, I think they should\nbe, to at least be acknowledged for their help in this, so that there\nwill be a bill-signing ceremony in connection with that.\n0\nGovernor, does the last-minute flood of bills require\nyou to have -- sign some things faster than you would ordinarily?\nThat is, you only have -- I believe you only have a limited time in\nwhich to act.\nA\nYes, one of the adverse changes in this is when that flood\nof bills used to come down in the spring at the end of the session\nI had 30 days. And all of us, the cabinet and the legislative\nunit and myself had 30 days in which to get these signed. Now there\nare only 12 days.\no\nWell, do you see any result from that in your own quality of\nthe bills?\nA\nI think you increase the possibility of error. I think\nthe fact you have got to do in 12 days what you used to do in 30 --\n(legislative)\nin other words, the original idea of the two-year session, I assumed,\nwas to spread this out over the entire year so that you didn't have\nthat last-minute rush that you had bills coming down with proper\nconsideration and then you had the time to individuall treat with\nthem and sign them throughout the year. And I think all of us, and\nI think a great many good legislators, are terribly disturbed and\nsurprised to find that we are having that same period of rush, and\nlack of consideration for many of them.\no\nGovernor, you now have two vacancies to fill on the Air\nResources Board, Dr. Haagen-Smit and Allen Lemmond. And the five\nmember board -- the board's been under criticism by the legislature\nin recent months as being ineffective. Are you going to use this\ninfluence to change the direction of the board in any way, or are\nyou satisfied with the way it's been going?\nA\nI think the beard's been fulfilling its mission and doing\neverything that it ould do. We haven't come to the point of\nselecting the appointments for that board yet. Haven't had an\nappointments meeting on it, but -- always we -- we are seeking to\nimprove every agency department commission, the boards of California,\nif we can. But I think that they have been doing a good job.\nO\nGovernor, I think this comes under old business. Af a\nSacramento Host breakfast you were talking about your tax initiative,\nand you made this following statement. You said, \"The good ladies\nof the League of Women Voters have decided all on their own to\noppose it because property taxes will go up.\" Now, let's avoid a\ndiscussion of the taxes, but at best that sounds kind of descending.\nAt worst it sounds insulting to the League of Women Voters. Just\nwhat did you mean?\nA\nIt wasn't intended to be condescending and it wasn't intended\nto be insulting, but I tell you it was intended to be critical.\nIt was intended to be critical because from the first moment that the\nhead of the League of Women Voters made a statement that they were\ngoing to take action, before they had taken such action to oppose\nthis initiative -- we had barely announced it. There had been\nno opportunity for any public briefings at all and we have --\nimmediately informed them that we would like to, if they wer e going\nto take action on this -- we would like to brief them. So far they\nhave always maintained a kind of objective position about initiatives.\nThis was a rather stunning announcement, and to this day they have\nnever accepted our invitation or invited us to participate or to\nbrie f them on this. And their position is what they are taking\nand espousing right now reveals they still don't know what's in it\nor they are ignoring deliberately what is in it.\nQ\nGovernor, the counties also oppose the measure and I think\nyou omitted the words \"all on their own.\" Isn't that just conde-\nscending to women? It isn't something you would say to a man's group.\n\"They did it all on their own.\"\nA\nNo, let me just point you one difference. I meant that\nthis organization -- what that phrase was -- you know that I speajk\nfrom notes -- the phrase meant the fact that they had done this\nwithout the benefit of a briefing. That they simply had made up\ntheir minds all on their own about an issue without allowing the other\nside of the issue to be presented. They must have done it from\nsimply reading that we had such an inffiative. They had no informa-\ntion.\n0\nDo you SL, Jose they read the initiative?\nA\nI can't believe they had. Because I don't believe at the\ntime they made the first statement that we even had it in the actual\nformal language when they first announced they were going to come\nout against it. And as I say, they have refused these.\nNow, let's take the County Supervisors Association and the\nLeague of Cities. At least - I disagree with them, but at least\nthey have touched upon one point. They say they are opposed to it\nbecause it becomes more difficult for them to raise property taxes.\nNow it isn't any more difficult than it was without the initiative.\nSenate Bill 90 is what made it difficult for them to raise property\ntaxes, but the contrast is that the League of Women Voters with\ntheir lack of information about the initiative are claiming they are\nagainst it because it will raise property taxes.\n0\nHad you suspected their objectivity before this?\nA\nI have thought that there have been indications ef bias.\nI think that they -\nQ\nOn which side?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nBias towards what?\nA\nWell, let me just put it this way, that in speaking to\na group of predominantly Republic women the other day, some several\nthousand of them, when I mentioned the possibility that some of them\nwere members of this organization, and I therefore wanted to explain\nsome points, there came the loudest chorus of nos that they were not\nmembers of that organization. Which would indicate that the organi-\nzation must seek -- at least have its membership more predominantly\nfrom another political viewpoint.\nΩ\nGovernor, another subject. Controller Flournoy in announce\ning his candidacy for Governor said he is the only Republican that\ncan get Democratic votes.\nA\nWho is that?\nO\nController Flournoy. Do you agree with that or disagree?\nA\nWell, I don't know any of us that are holding an office\nhere can make that same claim, because, Although I wouldn't say only,\nbut since we are a minority, none of us would be here if we hadn't\ngotten some Democratic votes.\n0\nHow would you assess the other candidates' chances of\nachieving that?\nA\nWell, the other candidates also, one of the offices they\nhold -- if we are speaking of those constitutional offices that\nare being talked of, some have declared, but those who haven't\ndeclared, but have indicated that they are going to seek this office --\nall of them had to have had Democratic votes to be elected and I\nthink it would be presumptuous for anyone of them to suggest that no\none else can do that. They have all done it.\nQ\nGovernor, Speaker Moretti said last week that you are\nreally putting the screws on getting Republican officials to back your\ninitiative or at least stay neutral. He says you want this more\nthan anyone else because you want to use this to run on. Can you\ncomment on that?\nA\nYou know, I read that and I rushed right to the mirror to see\nthe horn and tail that must have sprouted on me since them. The\ntruth of the matter is you can ask far and wide of any of our\nlegislators about that, and I think you'll find that all the\nhorrendous tales of torture that was inflicted on them were not\ntrue. That not a -- that no pressure of that kind has been used on\nanyone.\no\nWell, Governor, could you support a candidate for Governor\nwho did not support your initiative? Flournoy seemed to think\nthere was some qualification.\nA\nYou know me and the 11th commandment. When\ntheprimary\nis over, whoever has been nominated to be the Republican candidate is\ngoing to have mysupport.\nO\nGovernor, one of your chief aides said that he hopes that\nthere is a low turnout for the tax initiative election. Is that\nyour position?\nA\nNo, not at all, and I don't think it is his. I think that\nin quite a lengthy conversation he was talking about the probability\nand possibility of this since it is a one-issue election, and\nthat special elections notoriously have a low turnout. And I think\nthat is what led to this misunderstanding, was his statements about\nthe fact that in the past and in special elections low turnouts\nare in the affirmative in that those who are actually interested in\ngetting something passed have a greater tendency to go tothe polls\nthan those who are opposed. I don't think that's true in this\nparticular instant. I think the organized resistance by the tax\nspenders, those who have a vested interest and a personal stake in\nthe state or government having more money, and unlimited taxing\n-7-\nauthority are going\nwork very hard and they\ne\norganized,\nto\nget out and vote, and that's why we have presented to people, and\nwhy I appealed to 2,000 women the other day, and weput at everyone's\nplace a volunteer card for them to form victory squads, to sign up\ntheir friends to go out and walk precincts and to get out the vote.\nWe think this is one of the most important parts of this, and we\nwouldn't be doing that if we wanted a low turnout. I want everybody\nthat can to get out and vote because if the taxpayers turn out and\nvote this is going to pass overwhelmingly.\nO\nGovernor, in this same vein, apparently there's been no\nconcerted -- concerted voter registration drive. Was that\nconsidered and rejected or --\nA\nWell, in this particular instance that would be taking on a\nchore needlessly. Since -- since your voter registration drive,\nyou world have -- it would have to be a drive for all voters, all par-:\nties. This is a non-partisan issue, crossing party lines. I\nthink the fact that you have to for the first time not only explain\nthe initiative to the people and convince them of the worth of it,\nbut the fact that you have to get out the votes, you don't have\ncandidates on the ballot getting itout for you -- I think that's\nenough of a task. There is just a limit as tohow much you can do.\nO\nGovernor, as time goes by on Proposition 1, more and more\npeople have additional time to analyze it. Assembly Speaker Moretti\ntoday, just before we came in here, put out another press release,\nwhich his Office of Research is quoting three former Presidential\nAdvisors on Council of Economic Advisers, that is. A number of\nother economists. Galbreath, Symington, Brake, Heller. Each\nhaving some criticism of your plan. Are you alarmed that as time\ngoes by that more and more holes may be found in your plan and that\nthe thing can go down?\nA\nNo, because I don't think those gentlemen are finding holes\nin the plan. I think they have a philosophical disagreement with --\nyou just mentioned some men there, Baake, Galbreath, Heller - these\nare men who I have been in disagreement with and I think many people\nare sharing my philosophy, have been for a number of years. These\nare the men who espoused the new economics. Galbreath believes in\ngovernment spending the people's money. That Galbreath, his theory,\nis that the people do not have the intelligence to spend the money\nwisely and therefore government should spend bt for them. And I\n-8-\njust think that it 10 our American heritage, if you want to be\nstupid in spending your money, you ought to be allowed to be stupid.\nBut there is a philosophical difference. On the other hand, you\nmight be interested, and if any of you are, I'm sure that our people\nin the press section could provide you with a list, we are getting\nincreasingly calls and mail from economists on campuses all over\nthe United States who are volunteering their names or their services.\nAnd they say, \"Count on us.\" \"Please include me among those who\nendorse this program. Now, I think the men, Peter Drucker, Bernham,\nNiskanen\nFriedman, and Escannon, the Economics Department at U.C.L.A., which\nis where this all started -- that's the first place we went for\neconomic help -- they are the ones steering us. Lowell Harris of\nColumbia, all of these men find nothing wrong with the program.\nThey are whole-heartedly endorsing it. Brake evidently in the recent\nso-called seminar at Berkeley, -- Brake was using the figure that\nwas absolutely inaccurate. Brake said that we had exaggenated the\npercentage of taxes that government is taking from the people and he\nsaid that it was nearer 32 per cent, than it was the 44.7 that we\nare talking about as the cost of government. The only figure that\nBrake could have been quoting is the 1971 National Average for taxes\nwhich was 32.6. But back in 1971 when the National Average for\ntax -- the tax burden was 32.6 per cent of thepeople's earnings in\nCalifornia it was then 35.6. or three percentage points higher.\nSo if you -- if he'd come up to 1972 or even in that same year if\nhe'd only specified California, which is what we are concerned with,\nCalifornia is one of the high tax paying states. Our percentage\ntax cannot be judged by national averages. He also could have\nadded in 1972 the national average tax burden went up to 37.4 from\n32.6. And if thesame ratio of California held and it does, then\nCalifornia by last year -- on taxes alone, 44.7 is cost of govern-\nment or revenues taxes alone had to be around 40 per cent in 1972\nand the authority for that statement is Lowell Harris of the Tax\nFoundation in New York. Print all of that. I'll repeat the\nfigures if you want.\n0\nThe concept aside for the moment, now that you have had half\na year more to look at the specific language of the initiative,\nwould you -- would your advisors, ifyou were writing that initiative\ntoday -- writing that constitutional amendment today will you write\nit thesame way? A lot of the criticism has been directed at how\n-9-\nthe the specific inguage and how it would a₂ ly in California\ntoday. Rather than the concept.\nA\nI wn't second guess oh that because here was the problem\nthat had to be met by some very capable lawyers who drew this up We\ndid not want the same thing to happen with this that happened with\nthe death penalty initiative. The People of California simply voted\napproval of the death penalty and the constitution, which meant the\nlegislature then had to implement it and you have seen the dragging\nof the feet onthe part of the majority party leadership and how long\nthey held out on this. The compromises that finally had to be made.\nWe wanted to put an initiative on the ballot that we could say to the\npeople, ifyou pass this it is in affect. You get your tax cuts, it\nstarts working, without any further action. Now, this required\nvery technical language and I haven't checked with our people and our\n1 awyers. There are a couple of things -- to make sure that we covered\nevery point in this, maybe there are a couple of things that we\ncould have left out because they didn't change anything. For example,\nwhen we put in there the fact of how an emergency could be called,\nand this suddenly has been interpreted by people -- and yesterday\nsitting in this room with those high school students, they revealed\nmisunderstanding when they said, \"Well, this now gives the Governor\na power with regard to the calling of an emergency,\" when the truth\nis we didn't change anything. All we were doing was stating\nwhat is the procedure now by law. And maybe we could have left\nsomething of that kind out and it would have taken a little ammunition\naway from the other side, because now I have to waste time explaining\nno, this isn't any different, we haven't put something into the\nconstitution that wasn't - that isn't already the present law.\nAnd maybe we could have left a couple of things of that, but it was\njust a desire to explain and make clear to everybody all the facets\nof this.\nO\nGovernor, in your opinion will your fiscal people be able\nto meet that October 1 target for an estimate of revenue for next\nyear?\nA\nI think so, yes. We always have, known it about that\ntime.\nQ\nGovernor, back on the Agnew thing. One report is that\nthe WhiteHouse has prepared a contingency list and that John Connally\nthe\nis on/top of it. Don't you feel you deserve to be on the top of it?\n(Laughter)\npretty\nget\nyou\na\nbigger laugh than th.\nQ\nWhy should Connally get that kind of --\nA\nI doubt very seriously that there is such a list or that\nthat has been considered in any way. I really do. And if there\nis, I wouldn't know anything about it. And I would have no feeling\nabout it one way or the other. I just hope that there's never any\nneed for such a list or for any consideration of that possibility.\nQ\nGovernor, your initiative task force received some\ncriticism for using public support. Mr. -- Speaker Moretti's report\ncame out of the office of Research. Does that suggest that you\nwould want to return the criticism?\nA\nWell -- no. You see, one of the thingsis they keep\nreferring to the cost of government, meaning salaries of employees,\nsalaries of cabinet members and so forth, who served on the task\nforce. And they tie it to the initiative. That task force had\nnothing to do with an initiative. There wasn't anyone when\nthey started the task force that knew it would come out with a\nreport that would lead to an initiative. I think that task force\nwas doing exactly what government employees are being paid to do.\nThey were trying to find a way to increase the efficiency and the\neconomy of government, and I think that's what we were sent here to\ndo. Now, the result turned out to be an initiative, and I would\nthink the same thing about the research. I would say this, that\nMr. Moretti, I think, would be a little more honest himself if he\nrecognized that what he is doing with government funds in analyzing\nthis is no different than the -- than the function of the task\nforce.\nWe proposed Þegislation in connection with this. We asked\nthe legislature to p ut this measure on the ballot once a task force\nhad come up with it. But the costs were associated with a task force\nto find out the problem of how can you reduce the cost of government.\nAnd I think that's a legitimate government expense.\n2\nGovernOr, are you encouraging Earl Brianto run for U. S.\nSenate?\nA\nI am encouraging any of the young men in the -- well, young\nor they don't have to be young. The men in our administration that\nhave leaned that way after they became part of government, and have\nbeen in the inside of it -- some, as you know, have gone back and\nwill continue to return to the private sector, to their own careers.\nSome, however, have seen -- having seen government have thought\nin terms of running for office and without speaking about any specific\n-11-\noffice to any of them when they have come and di cussed this\nwith me I have encouraged them. Earl Brian is one such who is\ninterested -- Brian and Van Camp is another.\n0\nHow about Cap Weinberger?\nA\nNo, Cap Weinberger, this is a totally different thing.\nCap Weinberger is in government as we know in Washington, he was\nin goverment here. I have spoken of my high regard for him. The\nonly question there that never arose from Cap Weinberger at all.\nThat arose from a group of citizens whowanted to start -- a draft\nmovement on the basis of hi srecord in government so farm to draft him as\na candidate. It did not originate nor have I ever heard him approve\nthis other than to say that wherenever he can serve best is whatever\nhe will do. But I have simply encouraged these young men. It is\na good idea. I think they are the kind of fellows that belong in\ngovernment.\no\nDo you think then that -- how long can Earl Brian remain\nin your administration as an active candidate?\nA\nAt the point that a final decision is made and he decides\nto become a candidate, then , yes, he is going to have to leave\nthis administration. That's going to be a dark day for me, because\nI think he's one of the extremely capable men that we have in the --\nin the administration. But that would be done. It is -- I\nrealize that as a candidate that that would put him out of his job\nquicker than legislators are put out of theirs for doing the same\nthing. But --\nO\nWhy?\nA\nThat's the way the system works.\n0\nWhy doyou say that?\nA\nWell, I mean I believe the Speaker can C ontinue to be\nSpeaker for qui te some long time, for example.\nQ\nWhy does that preclude Brian from remaining as Health and\nWelfare Secretary?\nA\nWell, I just don't see it that way. I think when there\ncomes a point when he's actually engaged in campaigning then he should\nnot be doing it from the vantage point of a cabinet position, and he\nagrees with that.\nO\nWell, Governor, do you think there is a difference between\nan appointed official and elected official inthat regard?\nA\nI have to say there is such a difference. It is in our\nvery structure. Candidates who have won elections can --- can become\nIf you will emember back in the violen days, a few years\nago, in the disruptions and so forth that finally came to a head, and\nwas proposed when the corridors of this Capitol were filled with a\nmob -- with not only picket signs, but with some rather sizable clubs\nin their hands, and so forth. And the people that came here on\nlegitimate business couldn't even get into the corridors and we\ndecided that a public building should be accessible to all and not\nallow one group that can come inside the Capitol and make it\nimpossible for people to conduct their legitimate business here.\nQ\nBesides the bill itself, what do you think about Mr.\nSimpson? Does he bother you at all? You never told us about\nwhat your personal reaction to him walking around with your name on\nhis sign has been.\nA\nNo, everybody has got to have a hobby. No, the -- Mr.\nSimpson\n--\n0\nDO you resent it?\nA\nNo, Mr. Simpson was here when I came here, and the signs\nthat he carried carried the names of my predecessor and the then\nAttorney-General. And I knew nothing about it and what it was.\nSomebody told me that this was a protest at having been incarcerated\nin one of our mental hospitals at a time when it was legal to do\nit\nthat, and that evidently/had been proven when he was -- secured his\nrelease that he should not have been committed, and this was a protest.\nI went into his problem with him, and had him in the office, and had\nair legal types in to find out, and all that we could say back to him\nwas that he had a civil case. And at that point he informed me he\nknew that, but he said he'd never been able to get a lawyer to take\nhis case, and I said, \"I'm sure you understand then that there isn't\nanything we can do officially or legally as government in a case of\nthis kind.\" And he left my office and the next morning he was back\nat his old stand but he put my name on the sign instead of the previous\ngovernor. And it's been there ever since.\no\nWhen was that, Governor?\nA\nWhat?\n0\nWhen was that?\nA\n1967, the first month I was here.\n0\nAfter your debut on the Dean Martin Show, are you considering\ndoing more shows like this?\nA\nNo. No, once in a while you get an invitation from an\nold friend to be on a show, and it just seems like kind of fun and\nyou shouldn't turn it down.\nO\nDo you really have a brother named Donald?\nA\nNo\ncandidates for other sitions and continue to ho'd the one office\nuntil they win or lose the other one. With the appointed positions\nit just seems to be difference. Traditionally different.\nQ\nFrom where you stand in the Republican party, do you\nthink that the effort to draft Cap Weinberger is dying down?\nA\nWell, I haven't seen any -- I haven't seen any great\nmovement in it so far. So maybe they -- in their first outings\nwith it maybe they didn't attract the attention of leaders of various\ngroups and the party that they thoughtthey would.\nQ\nOne of your former colleagues, Jerry Lewis was asking for\nGeneral Fund money for Muscular Dystrophy --\nA\nWhat's that?\nO\nJerry Lewis was asking for General Fund money for\nMuscular Dystrophy Research. How do you feel about that?\nA\nWell, that again -- this again is something we would have\nto analyze here as to what's the state's position.\nO\nWhat's your gut feeling about that?\nA\nWhat?\nO\nWhat's your gut feeling about using tax funds for research?\nA\nWel, where there is -- where they can be helpful in such a\ntragic illness as that, or many others that we fought, I think\ngovernment has a place. On the other hand, I think some of those\nillnesses have organizations that in the private sector have all\nthe money that they can use, and are raising the money that is\nneeded for the research. Just adding more money does not always\nimprove research.\nQ\nGovernor, will you sign or veto the bill repealing the\nMr. Simpson law?\nA\nThe bill -\n0\nThe bill that --\nQ\nPicketing in the Capitol.\nED MEESE: Picket signs in the Capitol.\nA\nOh. We haven't analyzed that yet.\n(Laughter)\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Wait a minute, bet me just add one thing\nand then we will go here. Many times some ofyou have referred to\nthat anti-picketing bill here as being aimed at the one individual,\nat him. I happen to have been in -- as all of us in government were,\nin the inception of that idea in the bill and it didn't come from\nhim at all. It had nothing to do with him."
}