Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564138",
    "label": "Transcripts - 10/04/1973, 10/16/1973, 11/15/1973",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564138"
}

{
    "id": "118564138",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564138",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 10/04/1973, 10/16/1973, 11/15/1973",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564138",
    "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-P04-006-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-006-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-006-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564138",
    "naId": 118564138,
    "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-P04-006-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "8232fea0c4494d01",
    "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 -\n10/04/1973, 10/16/1973, 11/15/1973\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\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD OCTOBER 4, 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.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Welcome downstairs. Yes, Bob.\no\nGovernor, Mr. Flournoy said that if the Attorney General rules\nthat the sales tax revenue -- the uncollected sales tax revenue is\nnot to be counted as '73-74 revenue -- revenue, that he will feel\ncompelled to oppose the initiative. What will you do if that is\nthe Attorney General's opinion?\nA\nWell, if that shoul d take place I'll sit down with my legal\nadvisers here and figure out what it is that we want do to. I\nstill believe that our intent is clear. I sent such a letter of\nintent and -- even so, I think the figures of today reveal that\neven if that happened it would not be the great Qalamity. It might\nmake for an austere budget, but it certainly would not reduce to an\nunacceptable level the present services. But I don't think it is\ngoing to happen. And I think our position is very solid and I\nthink today's hearing -- the thing that should be made clear, and\nthat I hope will once and for all, is that it's been proven that under\nthe limitation and under this plan we have adequate money to fund the\nservices that are expected of state government.\nQ\nTo pursue that just one point further, Governor, in the\ndiscussions upstairs this morning, I don't know if you've been\napprised of that at this point, but the Legislative Analyst again\nsays, O. K., assuming the presumptions of the administration are\ncorrect insofar as the revenues are concerned, that a projection of\ncurrent expenditures in the next year -- considering inflation and\nthose other factors that cause them to grow, but the continuation of\npresent levels will still leave 185 -- if I remember the figure\ncorrectly --\nA\n163.\n0\n$103 million short.\n-1-\nA\nAll right. Again, I just have to go on the record. Now\njust up until this morning his figure was $620 million dollars.\nWell now suddenly his figure is $163 million. We said he was wrong\non the $620 million and he was wrong. We say he's wrong on the\n$163 million. We say it is going to be about a $17 million dollars\nsurplus instead of a $163 million dollar deficit figure. And I\nwould think that some place along the line we would have established\nenough credit by being right when he's been wrong that someone would\nbegin to suspect that we know what we are doing. He hasn't been right'\nyet. He's been proven wrong every time. He now admits it is not\n$620.\nHe now says it is $163 million.\n0\nNo, sir.\nA\nNo, sir, that's not quite true. He doesn't admit that.\nHe's saying if your presumption -- he says your presumptions are\nwrong and he still says it is $620 or whatever.\nA\nAll right.\n0\nBut if you are right it is still $163.\nZX\nHe isn't really saying $620 becausehis office notified us the\nother day that they themselves admitted to a $253 million dollar\nmistake, so it is now $370 instead of $620. We can play this\nnumbers game again and I don't see why we should get into it. The\nplain truth of the matter is that und er the limitation we can put a\nlimitation on government's unrestrained ability to tax and still\nmeet all of the services and responsibilities of government. And\nI think frankly that what they would like to have us do is engage\nin this picking back and forth on numbers of their choosing. First\nof all, the gentleman has admitted that he's also left out of his\nreckonings $460 million dollars of federal revenue sharing that\ndoes not have to be onsidered under the limitation that is available\nover, on top of the $550 to $600 million dollars that we say we have.\nI'm not going to get into that argument with Mr. Post. Either\nonhis nit-picking figures, because again -- not just on this, but\ngoing all the way back he has been wrong in every contest that he's\nhad with us on figures.\nO\nYou mentioned a surplus of, I think $600 million dollars.\nWhat is the surplus?\nA\nSurplus?\n0\nA couple minutes ago.\nA\nIf I used the word, I shouldn't have used that. I meant\nmoney over and above the present spending available for addition\nto the budget next year. And this is not counting some -- by next\nyear it will be $460 million dollars in federal revenue sharing.\nED GRAY: I was just going to say that he says it would\nbe $163 million dollar deficit. The Department of Finance says that\nhe's $180 million dollars wrong, and that it will actually be a\n$17 million dollar surplus.\n0\nGovernor Brown, Secretary of State -- I'm sorry, Secretary\nof State Brown --\n(Laughter)\nA\nAnd I hope -- I hope you were using two Browns with those\ntitles you gave me.\nQ\nO. K. That gentleman in a statement earlier this week said\nthat your own Finance Department had prepared a report estimating\nthe special election costs at 25.9 million, as compared to your\nprevious estimates in press conferences of six and a half million.\nIs there any truth to that or not?\nA\nMr. Brown is as wrong about that as he was about those\narrowheads on the banks of the American River. No. Any report\nout of our -- I think he's referring to a letter in which the\nDirector of Finance was explaining how the others were arriving at\nthat figure. And while they were arriving at it was trying to\ncharge the state up analyzing -- he was analyzing the position of\nlocal government and their position is that if everybody declares\na holiday on November 6 for all the local employees in the state\nthat they then want to charge the state for the salaries of those\nemployees on holiday. Number one, we do not believe that that\ncomes within the law, but number two, we believe that legally the\nlocal government entities have the power to not grant that holiday\nif they choose not to.\nwith\nΩ\nGovernor, the blue pencil availability on budgets of the\nGovernor, why do you need this limitation?\nA\nI'veheard that auestion before. I'veheard that it's been\nasked this morning in the hearing also. That why, if a Governor\ncan veto and blue pencil, why do we need any limitation, isn't that\nenough. And the strange thing is that the man - not you, the\nman who's making the most of that question has been a leader in the\nlegislature in sending down to my desk billions of dollars in legis-\nlation and legislative inspired appropriations that I have vetoed.\n-3-\nAnd he has lead the attempt to override those vetoes and sometimes\nhas come close. The reason we need this limitation is not the fact\nthat the budget is now 9.3 billion dollars in spite of all our\nproven economies and the fact that I have vetoed almost two and a\nhalf billion dollars in added spending -- spending added by the\nlegislature, but that the budget without cut, squeeze and trim and\nvetoes would be in excess of 12 billion dollars. Now I -- since\nthe gentleman aspires to sit in my seat some day, is he suggesting\nto us that then he would suddenly change his feathers and he would --\nhe would begin vetoing instead of passing all of these spending\nmeasures? He knows as well as I do that in the interchange, in\nthe checks and balances of the Executive and the Legislative branch\nthat you cannot tobally veto everything that comes down. In these\n756 bills that they sent down to us in the last 48 hours, going\nthrough these bills I have vetoed $253 million dollars in additional\nspending that would have been added to the present budget, and which\nwould have become $353 million dollars by next year.\nNow, again, he definitely had a leadership hand in sending\nthat spending down to my desk. Butat the same time, as I say, in\nthis interchange that takes place, in our systems of checks and\nbalances, I have signed $77 billion dollars -- million dollars worth\nof additional spending.\no\nWhy didn't you veto the budget down to the 7 per cent\nlevel that you wanted the expenditures held?\nA\nWell, because to do this just on the basis of choosing\nspending that you can veto out is to try and achieve in one year\nwhat we are counting on 15 years to do.\nQ\nWell, you didn't take 7 years to get down there, have you?\nA\nWhat?\n0\nHave you taken 7 years to try to get down to the level that\nyou would like expenditures held?\nA\nNo, I have spent 7 years here in keeping the budget from\nbeing in excess of 12 billion dollars.\nQ\nGovernor, do you think it is fair for you to be painting a\npicture, what you seem to be doing, of the legislature is a spend-\nthrift organization and you are not? Irmean is that -- is that\nfair to do?\nA\nI think it is definitely fair. I think it is fair under the\nthese circumstances, that the philosophical difference that has been\nbetween us for thes_ last several years, just ppens to be one in\nwhich there is a belief on the other side in government taking more\nmoney. They have used as substantiation for their position now such\neconomists as Galbreath, who has said that the public sector should\ntake more money from the private sector because the private sector\ndoes not spend this money wisely, and only government can buy for\nthe people the things they won't buy for themselves. And I happen\nto have come into office with a different philosophy. I've had a\ndifferent philosophy for a number of years, and I've made no secret\nof it. I set out from the first, and promised the people, even\nwhen we had to have that giant tax increase, I said I consider this\ntax increase temporarily and as quickly as we can begin to make\ngovernment more efficient, we are going to try to return this to the\npeople and the funny thing is we have. Actually, up until now, in\ncuts of various kinds, in rebates of various kind, we have given\nback to the people over a billion dollars. And that's not counting\nthe present giant surplus. When we first began to show a surplus\nwe began giving it back to the people. A ten per cent rebate;\na 20 per cent rebate; the cutting down of the inventory tax; the cuts\n,\nin bridge tolls, 11 times that they have been cut; the cut in licens-\ning fees for many of the self-regulating industries and professions;\nthe giving of additional breaks to senior citizens in property tax;\nthe cutting of thetax to give a double credit to renters, long\nbefore Senate -- that was before Senate Bill 90. All of these\nthings are attempts to get back to where we were before the 1967\ntax increase. And it's keeping a promise, but I think it is safe\nto say that yes, when the legislature has sent .me in all but one --\nin every one but one budget they have sent me back those budgets\nwith a billion dollars added to it in spending, and I have blue-\npencilled a billion dollars out. But we proved to ourselves over\nthe years -- the reason I never asked for such a thing as this at\nfirst, never thought of it, didn't think of it this time, a task\nforce did -- was we believed honestby that we could by cutting\nand making gobernment more efficient -- that we could eventually\nget government down and reduce the percentage of the people's\nearnings that was being taken in taxes. Wed we finally had to come\ntothe conclusion it won't work that way. So we turned to a task\nforce and they turned to some of the greatest economists in the\ncountry, scoresoof them, not just four or five of a particular\n-5-\nviewpoint -- and these economists came up with this proposal and\nsaid that the only solution they believed -- not only here, they are\ntalking about the tax strucgure nationwide -- of the whole country,\nincluding local government, they said the only way that we are ever\ngoing to lickthis problem, cure inflation and keep from having a\ngreat big economic disaster, is to reduce the percentage of the\npeople's earnings. Now, a lot of the confus -- let me continue the\nlexture here. A lot of the confusion is because somehow, very\nfrankly, in the telling of this story we have been unable or you've\nbeen unable or unwilling to -- make it plain that we are not talking\nabout reducing dollars that government has to spend. Government's\ngoing to have more dollars every year. We are aiming at reducing\nthe share -- the percentage of the people's earnings that government\ntakes. And doing it in such a wayas to not disrupt government\nto not suddenly have to curtail services and cut back on things\nthat government should be doing, but to take advantage of the fact\nthat every year the people's earnings increase at a rate of about\nseven and a half per cent a year. And that if we can keep govern-\nment's increase within that framework so that it isn't increasing\nfaster, but for twenty years the -- the state government has been\nincreasing ten per cent a year. This is what we are trying to cure.\nWe don't mind government going up. That percentage each year,\nthat reflects the increase in -- in the total earnings of the State\nof California.\nQ\nWell, Governor, do you -- do you have any figures on what the\npercentage of the State's share of taxes has increased during your\nseven years compared with the increase in earnings?\nA\nIt has increased. It had to increase.\nQ\nI mean by what percentage?\nA\nActually I think that the percentage of taxation when I\nbecame Governor was less than what we want to achieve in 15 years.\nBut that is not quite telling the whole story, if youstop there.\nIf you take in what was state 'government's spending when I first\nbecame governor, it was higher than the tax base. That was the\nproblem. They had finagled the books. And as I have said many\ntimes, and you know I have reported this, they were spending more\nthan government was taking in. And they had stalled off the\nnecessary tax increase until after the election. And so we were\nthe ones that had to put it into effect.\nO\nBut you say hat over the long run the cate's:takechascbeen\nincreasing more than personal income. What has it been during\nyour administration?\nA\nAbout the same. Same average. As I say, for about\ntwenty years, including ours.\nO\nIt's been ten per cent a year?\nA\nYes. Yes, now part of that -- I've got to be honest and\nsay part of this -- this should be recognized, is that one of the\nthings that Mr. Moretti says is his greatest achievement as a legis-\nlature -- legislator, Senate Bill 90, the property tax reform bill.\nWe did that deliberately knowing that we would be increasing the\nstate budget by a billion dollars because that was a plain case in\nwhich we lowered the tax burden of the people in one place and\ntransferred that tax to a broad-based state tax. So what it -- had\nformerly shown up in local budgets and tax figures now was transferred\nto the state.\nQ\nThat's true of all the other the tax rebates and\nproperty tax refunds.\nA\nNot all the rebates, no. No, when we gave back the ten\nper cent and the 20 per cent, when we gave back and reduced license\nfees, when we cut tolls over -- that is a cut.\n0\n- would shopw up in a budget.\nA\nNo, when we gave the renter relief, that is on our --\nthat's out of our income tax.\nO\nGovernor, I've got two questions. One is, I may have mis-\nheard you, but you said two and a half billion dollars in vetoes\nthat you've -\nA\nVetoes and blue-pencillings.\no\nAnd then later you said a billion dollars. Is it a billion\nof blue pencils?\nA\nWell, a billion . it works out, as I understand it, from\nthe figures, roughly I blue-pencilled about a billion out of budgets\nand I vetoed about a billion three out of legislation.\n(media)\n0\nO. K. The second question is, you said we may be unwilling\nto report accurately your initiative. Do you have any real com-\nplaints with the coverage of this and if you do, would you elaborate.\nA\nNo, maybe I shouldn't have said that. I -- I get a little\nirked at times by the manner of campaigning against this particular\nprogram. And I'll apologize, I shouldn't have said that to you.\nLet me just say we have been unable to get through our message to\nthe people that we are not seeking to reduce in dollar amounts the\nbudgets that California will have in the future, having the budgets\ngodown from the present locale. We admit frankly the budgets are\ngoing to continue to go up. Every year is going to be a record\nbudget. We are simply seeking to reduce the perdentage of your\nearnings that we take in taxation.\nQ\nWhy do you -- you haven't been able to get the point\nacross\n--\nA\nWhat?\nO\nWhy do you suppose you haven't been able to get the point\nacross?\nA\nI would love to have the counsel and advice of any of you\ngentlemen who deal with the communications media to tell us how\nwe can --\nO\nGovernor, instead of anwering all these questions here, why\n(tas)\ndon't you debate the issue?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhy don't you debate any of the members of the other side?\nA\nBecause I don't think that would bear any fruit. A legiti-\nmate debate on this -- you don't have to debate someone face to\nface in this. You appear before the same forums, they have\nappeared before ours. Even last week they stacked a few people in\nour audience. I have done question and answer with audiences to\nstate what this problem situation does. Now what would happen in\na debate? They would make their same charges, just as Mr. Post\nhas done this morning before the committee. And they'd say,\n\"Tain't so.\" Well, the audience would be left choosing, well,\nwho are you going to believe, which is the same position they are\nin now. I claim, however, that we do have figures to substantiate\nour claims and projections. What I would like to ask the other\nside is will they tell us that 45 cents out of the dollar is -- do\nthey think that is too much or not too much for government to take?\nAnd if they don't think it is too much, will they tell us at what\npoint it will beame too much; at what point will they decide that\ngovernment's ability to tax must be limited. And if so, will they\nthen tell us how would they go about that. Other than the way that\nwe are choosing to go\nQ\nWhy don't you ask them that?\nA\nI have repeatedly.\n0\nGovernor, the $600 million dollars figure that came out\ntoday, Mr. Orr tells us this morning, rests on three assumptions.\nNow those three assumptions are debated and rebuttal perhaps, and\nso far your administration doesn't even have an Attorney General's\nopinion tosay that your assumptions would hold. Now the question\nis, doesn't that require a -- quite an act of faith on the part of a\nyew voter?\nA\nWell, no, since the yes voter is not giving any power away.\nHe holds the power within his own hands. The voters can vote any\ntime they want to, to spend money over and above the limit for any-\nthing that they think is desirable.\nQ\nI'm sorry, the point is, suppose those three assumptions\nultimately fall. A voter --\nA\nI don't know just what three assumptions he made in there.\nI know that we --\nQ\nIt deals with revenue base. Vern Orr --\nA\nAll right, he deals with the revenue base. Now, first of\nall, we think we are on very solid ground. Our own legal advisers\nthink we are on very solid ground. First of all, we are the\nproponents and we use the tax base income and sales to return 720\nmillion dollars in surplus. Now we put into the initiative that\nthe rebating by way of the income tax cannot be considered an erosion\nof the revenue base. The only -- and Bob, you wrogethis in an\narticle the other day, and I wanted to look forward to meeting you to\nsay that you found the -- why did we not put into the initiative\nthe same provision about the sales tax, using the sales tax. But\nwe couldn't. Because we wae doing that at a time when the sales\ntax was slated to go up on July 1. We are talking about a\nNovember 6 election, and that's why the sales tax rebate portion\nhad to be passed by the legislature. If we were going to try to\ndelay its imposition on July 1. And so we couldn't put it on the\ninitiative. But we wrote the letter of intent just as we put\nthis in the initiati e, we considered that the use of the sales tax\nwas no different than the income tax. And we think that this is\nso logical, so right, and that the proponents having expressed\ntheir intent that this is normally what is taken. Now, let me\npoint something else out. The legislature could resolve this issue\nat any time they wanted to. The legislature could make one -- pass\none simple bill that would take this out of the area of argument\n-9-\nand there would no longer be any controversy except that they\nevidently want to use this as a weapon against the passage of the\ninitiative. And yet if the initiative passed and they thought that\nthere was going to be an erosion of the revenue base, they'd be the\nfirst ones then to want to put that revenue base back where it was.\nNow the simple change, all they have to do is pass a piece\nof legislation and say that the sales tax penny that we are replacing\nis the local government's share, of the sales tax. Their penny.\nAnd they have that power any time they want to. But this has become\nfor them a weapon to try and confuse the people into voting against\nthis initiative.\n0\nGovernor, you said your legal advisers\nsupport your\nposition on the revenue base. Have you sought an opinon from the\nAttorney General's office?\nA\nInformally. We spoke to the Attorney General. He's --\nyou know, the Attorney General -- others -- like the legislature\nasked for a legal opinion and we spoke to him because -- the Attorney\nGeneral is the Governor's lawyer. And we spoke tohim about this.\nWe knew that he was going Sorward on this and studying it.\nWe\ndidn't formalize it. We had spoken to our lawyer and he was look-\ning into it. Then the other two requests were made, formal requests,\nthere was no need for us to FROM to addours to it. We had already\nspoken and said we need to know --\nO\nAnd what did they tell you?\nA\nWhat?\nC\nWhat didthey tell you?\nA\nThey are working on it. We are going to have an answer\nin about a week. By the 12th.\nED MEESE: You know lawyers, they are not very quick.\nQ\nGovernor, you have said --\nQ\nGovernor, aren't you going to be in trouble trying to get\na yes vote when there is so much fonfusion over this blame thing?\nA\nWell, Square, the plain truth of tle matter is the fellows\nupstairs who are against this made it plain at the beginning that\nthis is what they were going to do. They said, if we can confuse\nthe people enough they will stay away fromthe polls or vote no.\nAnd this is what they are trying to do. And this is why I'm not going\nAlan\nto get into that number picking game with Allen Post. I\nthink\nAllen\nPost's testimony and that of some of his staff in several of the\ncommittee meetings put down verbatim and ana. zed reveals,\nfrankly, they don't know what they are talking about.\n0\nCan we go on to another subject, Governor?\nA\nWait a minute, we have a visitor in here.\nQ\nAs someone from out of state, this is a little Confusing, but\n(tas)\ndid you say earlier that the task force that worked out the plan\nhad been gathered from all around the country?\nA\nYes.\nO\nAnd that the same formula that you believe will work in\nCalifornia ought to work in other states, ought to be applicable\nnationwide?\nA\nAlthough I'm not sure that every state requires -- there\nare some states that have -- are very low taxing and the difference\nbetween how much they support their local governments -- no two states\nare the same. Your big industrial states, like California and\nNew York and so forth, have a pateern developed where much of their\ntaxing or tax revenues are returned or redistributed to the cities\nand the counties in their state. Inour state it is two-thirds of\nour budget.goes back to local gobernment, and our state also\nhappens to be one of the highest tax paying states. The Economic\nCouncil in Washington has said that last year the total share of\ngovernment was -- of the people's dollar was 43 and a half cents.\nNow that's the national áverage. But because some of those states\nare lower, when you come to California it is a little higher than\nthat, it is 44.7, and so I would not -- some states may not need\nthis. I know that a number of states are making inquiry of us.\nSome states have put this on the agenda for constitutional revision\nconventions they are holding. One state has ordered its legisla-\nture to -- committee of the legislature to come here and study this\nfor their problems. But when I say nationwide, certainly you\nwouldn't pick out some -- let's say more or less rural state that\nhas not burdened its people this much.\n0\nAre there states that would not need it?\nA\nThere could --\n2\nWould not benefit by it?\nA\nI'd -- I wouldn't be -- I wouldn't want to be in a position\nofmaking a blanket indictment that all 50 states are --- are taxing\nto the excess that I think we are.\n2\nI see.\nThank you.\n-11-\n0\nGovernor, before I go on to another subject I'd like to\nanswer a question. You wanted to know why you can't get your\n(tax)\nstory across.\nA\nYup.\nO\nWell I tell you why, frankly, maybe it is very important,\nbut it is also a very dull story to most people. They won't go\nbeyond one paragraph in a newspaper, beyond one minute on a radio or\nthree minutes on television. O. K., now can I ask my question?\nA\nYeah.\nI mean do you agree? It ismost people don't care.\nA\nWell, the only thing that I think is exciting about it is\nthat for the first time in history we have actually promised the\npeople something that can begin instantly, begin a series of tax\nreductions. You know, you won't wait 15 years for the tax reduc-\ntion. For example, if this is voted in the first year probably\nthe -- the seven and a half per cent income tax cut will take care\nof that first reduction, but by the second year you are accumulating\nanother surplus. Each year a surplus is accumulated which cannot\nbe spent in any way except giving it back to the people. Now, we\nknow that in five years those would total enough for a full one\ncent cut in the sales tax or 25 per cent cut in the income tax.\nBut you don't have to wait five years. As you accumulate - after\nthis first year some surplus, you can then project and say, cut\nthe sales tax a half a cent. In about two years --and in another\ntwo years you can go the other half, and you've got the cent. You\ncan keep on going because in ten years under this limitation you\ncan cut the sales tax by two cents or cut the income tax 60 per\ncent. If you wanted to use the sales tax, you could keep on going\nand about every two years you could have another half cent cut in\nthe sales tax asyou go on down through the 15. At the end of the\ntime you would have had a total cut in the tax burden, not the\nincome tax, not just the sales tax, in the total burden of taxation,\nyou would have had -- you will have achieved about a 20 per cent\nreduction.\n0\nCan I ask my question now? That was my statement. Do\nyouthink the gasoline dealers in California should be given an\nincrease in their gasoline price?\nA\nI've been so busy trying to give the people a decrease\nIhaven't paid as much attention tothat as I should. I think that\nwe are going to hav to face the day very quic 1y when we let the\nmarket settle that. I think the -- the inflation problem in the --\nQ\nBut the market didn't settle the wholesale price.\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nThe market did not settle the wholesale price.\nA\nWell, I haven't followed, as I say, all the details of\nthis, what the controversy is about, but I just don't think you\ncan ask any level of business to sell a product and take a loss.\nQ\nThat's what the government is asking.\nA\nWell, you perhaps know more about it. This seems to be\nwhat they are protesting and, as I say, I haven't - I haven't had\ntime to be reading on this.\nO\nGovernor, on another subject. Can you explain why you\nsigned the Moscone conflict of interest bill, disclosure act, when\nyou yourself have refused to disclose your own financial statement?\nA\nOh, no, he did what I have always believed is a proper kind\nof disclosure act. He did not - he did not pass a bill that said\nthat everyone has to lay out his entire record and everything that\nhe owns and possessed to government. He only said that above\ncertain amounts you had to state if you had above that amount in\nanything that might constitute a conflict of interest. And I have\nalways agreed with that. I'vealways sai d that should be the kind\nof disclosure law. Whatever you set the figure at. If you think\nthat someone owning more than $10,000 of a certain business or --\nO r tax would constitute a conflict of interest, then you have to\nstate that you have more than that amount, if you have it.\nYou don't have to state how much more, youjust say, \"I have more\nthan that amount.\" Then decision can be made as to whether you\nshould be prevented from participating in any decisions affecting\nthat business. No, I was -- I was satisfied with the terms of\nthis.\nQ\nAnd regarding your own -- can you explain your own refusal\nto issue a more detailed statement on that?\nA\nBecause I still don't agree with the setting the precedent\nthat any segment of our society has to come in and do what we fought\na Revolution for. As you all have a right to be safe in your\nbooks and records, which is what the Declaration of Independent was\nall about. And I don't see any conflict in this kind of a -- in\n-13-\nthis kind of a measure. But previously they were demanding\nsuch statements as total statements of everything that you owned\nand I thought, and I still think, it would drive a great many men\nout of government. We have seen in Washington where the -- the\nState of Washington, where they had a man, when such a thing was\npassed up there, that thisman had been giving at a dollar a year\nhis services to government for a long time as a kind of a civic\ncontribution. And faced with this disclosure he said, \"I'm a\nbusiness man, I won't do it. And so they are going to have to get\nsomeone else. And I bet they don't get someone as clever.\nQ\nGovernor, according to the Board of Pharmacy, you vetoed\na bill carried by Assemblyman Ingals that would have transferred\nthe possibility for a two-year old drug surveillance program from\nthe board to the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement.\nA\nYeah.\nThe Executive Secretary of the board said he figures that\nperhaps there was some mixup there in the last flurry of signing and\nvetoing legislation and figured you may have made a mistake. Have\nyou heard from them or -\nA\nNo, we don't, and he's right, there is a possibility of\nwhat\nthat.\nThis problem of/the two-year session was supposed to cure\nhas not been cured. They handed down 756 bills in 48 hours. This\nparticular measure, the program -- this control measure has just\nstarted and even though the board itself was willing to relinquish\nthis and advocated changing it over, we felt that where it has just\nstarted we would keep it at least until we can see how it is working\nand what's going to happen in the Pharmacy Board instead of trans-\nferring it to the Justice Department.\no\nGovernor, along those lines. Are there bills that you\nvetoed this time around that you perhaps may not have had you had\nfurther time to study them? And if so, could you name one?\nA\nYou -- let me -- you can't pick them out, but let me just\nsay you live with that under such a thing as we have been through.\nNoe once upon a time -- we always had the big rush of bills, we\nhad 30 days. Suddenly, under their changes of rules, it was to\neliminate the rush of bills, we had the rush of bills and only 12\ndays in which to studythem and you found yourself ++ in the past --\nlet me just give you an example. In the past you'd come to some\nbills sometimes and the whole -- the staff, the department heads, the\ncabinet, were all their in meetings on these various bills -- and\n-14-\nand they are not easy, in many of them you can find right and wrong\nin all of them, and you -- it is a large gray area. And many times\nwe would have the leisure to say after we debated if we weren't\nsatisfied with the outcome of the debate -- say let's put this one\naside, let's come back to this again Tuesday and we'd go on with other\nbills. Andsometimes you'd find that your mind had changed from\nleaning toward sign or veto the other way. We didn't have that\nluxury this time. So yes, I think all of us live with the thought\nnot only ofveto, but of sign. Did we sign bills that if we had\nhad a longer time we might not have signed? We did our best.\nI can't think of anything right now that I would say to you we made\na mistake on that one. But as I say, it is just a fear that you\nlive with. When you are handed that kind of -- and the fact\nthat those 756 bills were not getting any consideration on the floor.\nYou didn't have hearings and debate to refer to, as part of the\nevidence on them. When you had the situation of a legislator\nwarking up and down the corridors trying to solicit votes for his\nbill, and he had to tell him his bill had already beenpassed two\nhours before, you have an indication therewas a little confusion\ngoing on up there.\nQ\nGovernor, you've been relatively vigorous in supporting\nVice-President Agnew in his time of troubles. Do you think that\nthe President could be more vigorous in his support of Mr. Agnew,\nas some Republicans apparently feel?\nA\nWell, no, I thought -- I think we have bothbeen about the\nsame.\nI have just repeatedly said I have always known him, thought\nof him as a man of integrity and honor, and have simply said, as\nthe President did, he'd been accused -- nothing but accused, and he\ncertainly has the right to -- the presumption of innocence until\nproven guilty.\no\nGovernor, back on the initiative. Do you think if it\npasses it will diminish legislative discretion as far as spending\ngoes?\nA\nNo. We have taken none of the legislative prerogative\naway from them. We have put into the Constitution something that\nI think is inherently written, the spirit of the constitution.\nAnd I think the only reason itwas overlooked was because many years\nago it was not a problem, taxation, in this little beginning\ncountry of ours. And up until just -- relatively the last few\nyears it becomes. so burdensome that it became on economic footor\nin our whole enterp se system. The thing whether a government\ncan take virtually half of the people's earnings. And what we\nhave said in the constitution is just as the constitution gives us\nthe right to tell government it cannot confiscate our property\nwithout due process of law, that we are saying part of that property\nis the fruit of our toil. And that we demand a right above a\ncertain level to say that government must get our permission for the\nspending of that money. That -- with all the confusion that very\nsimply is all this is. And that's what could have been on the\nballots if we could have depended on the legislature to implement\nit.\nWe had indicates that they wouldn't. So we had to put it into\nthe complicated language of making it a full constitutional amend-\nment, closing all the loopholes, plugging all the places where\none might try in the future to get around it. The legislature\nhas the ability to change the tax structure, to make the tax\nstructure fall more heavily on one segment of society than the\nother if it chose, to close anything they findmay be a loophole\nso long as the level of taxes do not go above that limitation, and\nthe legislature has lost nothing. We have to one extent we have\nlimited them, and yet it is within keeping of present legislative\ncustoms. Having done this we said that we felt that it should\nrequire a two-thirds majority vote for all taxes instead of just\npart of the tax burden. And to whatever extent this may limit\nthem, but that is in keeping with the fact that they now require\nthemselves a two-thirds vote to appropriate money. They require\na two-thirds vote to pass the budget.\nSo we have said it will\ntake two-thirds vote to change the tax.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nQ\nYes, Governor,\nThe unlimited power to tax and spend is\na -- is sort of a fundamental legislative prerogative. Some\npeople say that's what we fought the Revolution for or the Revolu-\ntion was fought for.\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo, it would seem to me if you -- ifyou look at it, we\nfought the Revolution, which was a philosophical revolution, not\nthe usual kind of throw the rascals out -- we fought a Revolution\nthat for the first time in history really said that the people are\nthe source of all governmental power and thatgovernment can have no\npower except that power granted by the people. And down through\n-16-\nthe years we have amended the constitution a great many times,\nwhen we found areas in which we thought that the people needed to\nreassert this right and to make a decision. That's why we have\nprovision in our law for changing the constitution. It isn't that\nwe are doing some horrendous thing that has never been done. The\nlegislature puts constitutional initiatives on the ballot all the\ntime, and in this instance we are simply returning to the people\nthe right to say there is a limit above which you cannot go without\nour permission in taxing us, and we are saying that because the --\nnow we have reached a point of real critical danger. We have\nreached a point where government is taxing at a level that no govern-\nment has ever beenable to survive.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nQ\nGovernment survived at higher levels of taxation in Europe.\nA\nNot very long. Governments that have reached the history --\nif you go back we will go through history, and I was -- at the\npresent, because I don't know how long it will last - if you go\nback through history you will find that about 25 per cent of\npeople's earnings taxing governments had begun to crumble, and by\nthe time they reached a third they have collapsed, and the society --\nthe civilizations they represent have disappeared.\nO\nTo carry the revolutionary theory one step forward, are\nyou saying the people are being taxed without representation?\nA\nNo. They elect the representatives. I am saying that\nthis -- we have got to decide something now, whether we really\nbelieve in government by the people. We have got to decide whether\nwe believe that we can entrust to government unlimited power in any\nnumberof fields and in particular this one, or whether we will\nremind ourselves that government can do only those things which we\npermit it to do, and it cannot do anything that we have not specific-\nally allowed it to do. The constitution spells out that everything\nthat is not granted to government remains in the hands of the people.\nQ\nGovernor, you deleted $60,000 from the new judgeship bill.\nA\nWhat?\n2\nThe new judgeship bill in Shasta County, the Superior Court.\nWould that be the policy of your administration for any new future\njudgeships, to not support the county in -- you know, they are\nhaving SB 90 problems.\n-17-\nA\nI'm going t have to ask for help becau this is one I'm\ntrying to remember the situation with regard to.\nED MEESE: It didn't delete $60,000. It deleted $53,000\nout of $60,000 that was appropriated on the basis that new judge-\nships when they are approved by the local Grand Jury and the local\nBoard of Supervisors are not an increased level of service or a new\nprogram under SB 90, but are merely a work load increase. On that\nbasis we left in the bill the regular appropriate for status\nhistorically made for judges.\no\nGovernor, Mrs. Helen Bentley, Chairman of the Federal\nMaritime Commission has criticized you for not appointing any women\nto policy-making pesitions during your sevenyears in office.\nWhat is your repponse to that?\nA\nWell, have you met the young lady that is the head of our\nRehabilitation Services? I think we have -- I don't think Miss\nBentley -- perhaps if she'd come in here and I'd be very happy to have\nNed Hutchinson provide her with a list of what we have done. When\nwe came into government we were surprised at the lack of minority\ndistribution, not only where women are concerned, but with regard\nto ethnic and ratial groups. Again, among our employees.\nAnd we set out to rectify this and we have made quite significant\ngains. And we made them under one great difficulty. It wouldn't\nhave been so hard to even this up if we were still hiring an\nadditional 5500 employees a year, as has been going on for the\nprevious several years. We set out to hold the line. So we recti-\nfied these imbalancesand raised the percentage at the same time that\nwe have held the total numberof employess virtually even with what\nwe had seven years ago. And this does curtail some of the things\nyou want to do. But I think you will find that we have made a\ngreat many appointments e- she would find a great many appointments,\nnot only in our staff, but here in various departments of government.\nAnd another thing that she perhaps doesn't understand is that\nCalifornia has a commission form of government. We have a great\nmany commissions and she would find that there is a pretty sizable\nsprinkling of the fair sex among those commissions, but I think\nthat the answer to that is to have Ned Hutchinson send her a letter.\nO\nHas there been one department head or one cabinet member?\nA\nWe don't have a woman cabinet member, but we also reduced\nthe cabinet from 8 to 4,\nQ\nIn the department you have about 40 department heads.\n-18-\nDepartment Directors.\nA\nWell, I know we have the one, this young lady --\nED MEESE: Deputy Director.\nA\nShe is Chief Deputy Director of Rehabilitation.\n0\nGovernor, on another subject, Los Angeles gas dealers are\nclosing tonight, apparently for three days. Now you are certainly\nfamiliar with the problem in Los Angeles, where you live by vehicle.\nBearing in mind what Bernice asked you earlier, what is your\n(gas\nBeaction to this technique used by dealers in closing down,\nespecially in a comjunity like Los Angeles?\nA\nWell, I hesitate to answer because, as I say, in these\nlast few days which I've beencommuting back and forth, I haven't\nevenhad time to keep up with Peanuts. I - I just -- I'm not\nfamiliar enough with where the argument lies now. And so I\nanswered in the broad sense here. I still believe in a marketplace\nand believe that no one should be asked to sell something at a loss.\nQ\nThere are a couple of cameras rolling there in the back,\nGovernor.\nA\nAll right.\nC\nGovernor, about a week and a half ago, after you signed the\ndeath penalty bill, you told a group of high school students right\nhere in theroom, I believe, you thought thise might be a time to\nbend our thoughts to more humane means of executing people. Is\nthat just an idle comment or do youintend to pursue that thing?\nIf so, how do you perceive the best way to do it is?\nA\nIt was somewhere in between. It wasn't-as those of you\nwho were in the room know, we were having kind of a philosophical\ndiscussion. The young people were disturbed, as I was, at their\nage -- I was against capital punishment what this reinstatement\nwas, the rights and was it a deterrent and so forth. And in a\ngeneral discussion I told them -- I recalled the history from\ncapital punishment, and from the time that man finally outgrew tor-\nturing other men history indicated that efforts in every civilimation\nhad been made to make the manner of execution more humane. And\nI -- I simply voiced the idea that we shouldn't think that that\nhas ended. That the world has moved on in many ways, and that\nit has been believed that the most instantaneous death possible\nhas been either the electric chair or the gas chamber, and that is\nwhat we mean by humane. Instantaneous as nearly as possible.\nAnd I said perhaps h\nshould persist and carry\nnow that further\nstudy. Now I remarked this to our own people. I didn't demand\nor set up a task force to study it. I said is this something -\nisn't there something that we perhaps should look at, and see is there\na better way. Had we moved on to where there is a better way than\nthe gas chamber.\n2\nIs anybody looking at that now formally?\nA\nI think so, yes.\nor\nWho?\nA\nWell, I would think Dr. Brian, some place the Department\nof Corrections.\no\nGovernor, now that the legislative year is over could you\nsingle out the most -- the greatest legislative victory for you this\nyear and also the greatest disappointment as far as your administra-\ntion is concerned?\nA\nWell, I was disappointed that the legislature wouldn't\nbe broad-minded enough to put this initiative on the ballot as they\ncould have without making us go to the -- tothe petition signing\nway. Because it didn't mean they had to agree with it. They\ncalld still oppose it and fight it. I've signed a number of things\nthat they have sent down to me to go on the ballot that I later\ncampaigned against, but I said I recognize the right of the people\ntovote on this. So I will make it possible. I'll sign it and\nmake it possible. The greatest - greatest break I can think of,\njust offhand, in legislation, was the fact that they finally decided\nthat they could suspend the sales tax one penny for six months and\ngive back $400 million dollars in income tax rebate. That we\ndidn't spend $720, we are giving it back to the people.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-20-\n10/16\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD OCTOBER 16, 1973\nRepar ted by\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press\nconference is furnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps\nfor their convenience only. Because of the need to get it to the\npress as rapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections\nare made and there is no gauranty of absolute accuracy.)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Good morning. We have some\nvisitors with us here, the University of California Berkeley\njournalism class, and instructors, Stanley Sesser (phonetics) and\nRichard Reinhardt. Happy to have you here. Everybody now be\non your guard. I have today -- I have an opening statement, I\nhave a letter that I would like to read to you.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 537.)\no\nGovernor, how to the businessman who receives your letter\nto determine whether there's been a violation of law? (Proposition\nA\nWe are asking our emmissions - this letter of ours is\ngoing to our commissions, and our superintendents of banking.\nor\nWouldn't that be a subject for the Attorney General?\nA\nWell, then maybe we will take it to the Attorney General\nif they determine this.\no\nYou say \"further attempts to utilize corrupt practices and\nintimidation. Are you therefore -- their further attempts, now\nwhat does that mean? Are you directly accusing someone of corrupt\npractices and intimidation? Or just to investigate?\nA\nWhere are you?\no\nYour last sentence.\nA\nWell, I'm telling ours that we want this investigated,\nwhether this is true, and we want any further dissemination of false\ninformation by the Assebly leadership, any further attempts to\nutilize corrupt practices and intimidation can be prevented if\nthey should be ruled that they are corrupt practices. Certainly\nthey are intimidation. They have been so labeled by the recipients\nof the letters.\nQ\nYou also say that the spurious reasoning of the legislative\nanalyst has now been shown to be incorrect. Do you -- does that\n-1-\nmean you have the At-orney General's opinion on whether the state\nrevenue --\nA\nWe are talking about the testimony by the Finance\nDirector. And again I rely on our - on our figures.\nQ\nWell, there is still a difference of agreement. But how\nhas one person been shown to be correct and the other not correct so\nfar?\nA\nWell, Bob, I think that it is very apparent. We, as the\nproponents, of the measure, have stated what we intend the base of\nrevenue to be. It is our proposal. Our measure. And we have\nstated what is the revenue base that is to be used in computing the\nreductions intaxes over the coming years, for government spending.\nAnd we have given the figures that refute his figures that we are\ngoing to have to cut spending $620 million dollars, and have stated\nthat we are going ahead with budgeting to -- based on the potential\nof raising the budget as much as $600 million dollars, in the coming\nyear.\nQ\nGovernor, in spite:of of what you state to be the revenue\nbase, isn't the revenue base ultimately up to the -- the commission\non economic estimates, whatever it is?\nA\nYes, I think --\nMR. ORR: It could well be, that may beone of the things\nthat the Attorney General will rule.\nA\nYes.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have any firm basis to believe that\nthere might have been a violation of the law by the per son who wrote\nthis letter?\nA\nWe wouldn't have sent this letter if we didn't believe -\nΩ\nCan you state what your basis --\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nCould you state what your basis is for that belief?\nA\nThe basis; to pick out of the clear air and send to these\nspecific organizations a letter that suggest to them that if this\nmeasure passes on the ballot the legislature might find it necessary\nto cut the budget for all the regulations -- state regulations of\ntheir particular industries, and thus further indicating that this\nwould then leave such regulation in the hands of the federal\ngovernment in Washington, which I'm quite sure none of these particu-\nlar industries would enjoy or look forward to.\nQ\nI don't understand what state law has been violated.\n-2-\nED MEESE: There's several code sections, Governor.\nI'll be glad to talk with anybody after who wants to get the exact\nprovisions.\nA\nSee my lawyer.\nQ\nWell, Governor, you are making the statement, do you know\nwhat laws are being violated?\nA\nYes, I've been told about them, but I think rather than\nto enumerate -- I can't enumerate them off the top of my head right\nhere, but the code numbers and the numbers can be given to you.\nQ\nGovernor, why didn't you go right to the Attorney Goneral\nif you believe the law has been violated?\nA\nBecause we are turning this over to the proper agencies\nto find out first of all how many of these letters were sent to\nwhat all financial institutions. How widespread was the mailing.\nQ\nGovernor, when you send these letters - I presume your\nown regulatory agencies in determining how many businesses have\nreceived this kind of information, would they not in turn be sending\na letter of their own and would not those letters presumably --\nconceivably be considered cumpaigning on the other side of the issue?\nA\nI don't think it is campaigning. We are trying to find\nout how many have received these. What's campaigning. I don't\nthey\nthink WIS are going to put a pamphlet in their letter that extols\nProposition 1.\nQ\nWouldn't you be surprised if they didn't explain that the\nfirst letter was inaccurate and wrong?\nA\nI don't know how they are going to go about it. They\nmight even pick up the telephone and call.\no\nSpeaking of which, what's the difference between an Assembly\ncommittee doing this and the Governor or the Committee telling\npeople that their taxes are going to be raised if Proposition 1\ndoes not pass? I mean I don't quite see the ethical difference\nhere.\nA\nWell, I think there is a very great ethical difference.\nThose who are opposing this and saying that Proposition 1 is un-\nnecessary are the same ones who would have had a budget in excess\nof $12 billion dollars now had it not been for the governor's vetoes.\nAs a matter of fact, those same individuals sent down to my desk\n$253 million dollars in spending which would have necessitated an\nimmediate tax increase had I not vetoed them just within the last\nfew weeks.\n0\nYes, but that -- Governor, isn't that difference in\npolitical philosophy, which is certainly an acceptable - rather\nthan a -\nA\nBut he's suggesting -\nQ\n- criminal law --\nA\nHe's suggesting that in some way it is false or dishonest\nof me to suggest that there can be tax increases if we do not have\nsome form of limitation, when the historic pattern going all the way\nback reveals that there will and have been and there are continuing\nefforts now to increase spending to the point that tax increases\nwould be necessary. I think I'm stating a fact.\nQ\nAgreed. I don't think anybody could argue with the fact\nthat taxes have gone up and perhaps will continue to go up, but\nisn't -- aren't there two valid political positions or phisosophical\npositions or whatever you want to call them, on an issue such as\nthis?\nA\noh, Tom.\nQ\nThere are those people who like it and those people who\ndon't.\nAnd if they don't like it and campaign against it are\nthey necessarily --\nA\nNo, Tom, you just made my case. I would have no objec-\ntion - I'd argue with them, but I'd have no objection if our\nopponents would meet us out in the open on what is their basic\nphilosophical disagreement with Proposition 1. And basically\ntheir disagreement is they don't think taxes are too high, they\ndon't intend to hold taxes down. They want more taxes for more\ngovernment spending. And this, in private discussions, they have\nopenly admitted. But when they speak to the public they say,\n\"8h, we are against high taxes, too, but we don't think this will\nwork.\" The real reason they are against Proposition 1 is they know\nit will work.\nQ\nGovernor, yesterday you finally agreed to have a semi-\ndebate with the Speaker and today you are attacking the obscure\nAssembly committee chairman. Are you panicky on the prospects of\nProposition 1?\nA\nNo. If you were referring to the -- to the fact that\nthe Speaker and I are going to appear on the Advocates program the\nend of this month, no, I know that program. I'm familiar with it.\nI not only have seen it a number of occasions, I've been on it\nbefore. And when it was brought to our attention -- as a matter\nof fact, they came to us and said they wanted to do an Advocates\nprogram on Proposition 1, which surprised me somewhat because\nAdvocates is a natio. wide program, and asked if I would be one\nof the four witnesses. Knowing the format I said yes, and at\nthat time I - I said, \"Have you thought about the other witnesses?\"\n\"And could I suggest the Speaker of the Assembly,\" because knowing\nthe format I was perfectly willing to be on thas program, in fact\nlook forward to being on with him, and they told me they had already\nthought of that and were inviting him. And I accepted on that\nbasis. Because the format, contrary to what Ithink they had in\nmind as a debate -- the format of the Advocates permits questioning\nand cross-examination of the four witnesses within a ffamework in\nwhich I think facts can be brought out which wouldn't just be brought\nout with a dual presentation of -- our case for and the case that\nso far they have made public against.\n0\nIn other words you won't go out further, for example,\non a debate where you and Speaker and say a panel of newsmen asked\nsome questions? You don't consider that an open debate like you\njust said?\nA\nI told you, I've never closed the door on such formats\nhere and I don't know what the committee is - is talking about in that\nregard. I'll review each one of them when it is presented. My\nobjection up until now was I was not going to help get audience for\nthose who were simply going to go and give the same attempted\nconfusion that has characterized the campaign so far; The same\ncharges of - and predictions of what they say might happen if\nthis Proposition passes instead of dealing factually with what\nis inthe program. And so I'll deal with each one. I thought the\nAdvocates gave us a very good chance for that kind of an exchange.\nQ\nGovernor, part of the campaign in behalf of Proposition 1\nhas been that by placing a limit on revenues and expenditures it\nwill cause the government in the future to - the legislature and\nthe governor, to reassess priorities and re-adjust priorities,\nperhaps as this thing gradually winds down over the years.\nWhat do you see at this time -- I think some of the voters would\nprobably like to know -- what do you see as a possible reassessment\nof priority? How - what do you think should be reassessed as far\nas priorities in spending are concerned?\nA\nWell, Tom, I think to get into those specifics -- I\nwouldn't know or wouldn't be able to predict. But what I can say\n-5-\n(Prop.\nis that I think what we are talking about is to base every\nspending proposal on the idea of its worth to the people. Is it\nworth the cost and if it is one that necessitates going above that\nlimitation in taxes, then the people would have to be asked with\nregard to their approval or disapproval of it, as against the pattern\nthat is developed of log rolling. In other words, the priorities\nare not chosen today. If you have got two spending measures here,\nthe whole legislative process has evolved in the \"you scratch my\n\"\nback and I'll scratch yours and we will have both spending measures,\nand this is how government has grown without any attempt to assess,\narethey really necessary. And are they of benefit to the state\nas a whole or to all of the people.\nQ\nLet me put it this way, do you think that the spending\nprogram that exists today -- that the priorities are just accurate\nand the way they should be, or do you think they should be readjusted\nsomewhat?\nA\nWell, I think they are due to cut, squeeze and trim\ndown through the years. I think they are closer to that than at\nany time I can recall in California. But I'm not going to tell you\nthat it is all perfect. There are undoubtedly programs that are still\nmaintained on the basis of - of just political realities and\npolitical power. I'm never going to be satisfied that no matter how\ntill\nmuch cut and squeeze and trim we do XX all ofthe fat is necessarily\nout of the things we are doing. There are two ways that you reduce\nspending. One of them is to totally eliminate programs as being\nunnecessary or not worth the price, and the other one is to say,\nwell, we are satisfied with the programs but we believe they can be\nrun fore efficiently and more economically. That is basically\nwhat we have been doing over these --- these many years. I no uld\nthink that in the years ahead, in establishing priorities, they not\nonly would compare new spending proposals to each other, but I would\nthink that the legislature would be far more in keeping with what\na legislature should do. The representative government would be\nstrengthened in that they would find themselves reviewing programs\nthat are presently in effect. Things that have been adopted in\nthe past, and weighing them against probably new ideas of spending\nand saying, is this worth continuing? Are we getting the benefit?\nIt would subject them to a cost analysis that -- I think would be\n-6-\nbeneficial to the people.\nQ\nGovernor, by your own figures your proposal will cut\n$18 billion dollars a year out of a future budget. Now, with a\ncut of that magnitude you must have some vague idea of what areas\nyou want to trim down on.\nA\nNo, and this is the thing that the opposition ignores,\nand that I'm afraid too many people are ignoring. There is a\nfail safe system built into Proposition that government cannot\nfall below the present level of government services adjusted upward\nfor growth and inflation. How, this does not mean that a legisla-\nture will continue to say everything we are now doing just be done at\nthis present level. They may ven well determine that some program\nis no longer needed. But that money is then available under this\nprogram for spreading around for other for whatever else they\nwant to do. Under our projections we believe, and I think we are\nvery sound in this because I think wehave been conservative in all\nour figures as we were in welfure reform and all the other things\nin which we were proven right\nwe believe that about three-fourths\nof the mo ney available for the increase of the budget each year is all :\nthat is required to maintain the present level of services, and take\ncare of the work load increase. That one-fourthcf the additional money\neach year for the budget, roughly one-fourth will constitute money\navailable for new spending if they should so - the legislature\nshould so choose. That it will be available for new programs\nand new ideas.\nO\nNew subject, Governor.\na\nNo, no, Governor. Have you run into recent --\nA\nI have a hand ahead of you back here then.\no\nI wanted to go to another subject.\nA\nHe wanted to go to another subject. I'll take the\ngenteeman over here.\nQ\nGovernor, have you run any polls on Prop. 1 and how are\nyou doing?\nA\nHave we run any polls on Prop. 1?\n2\nYes.\nA\nI thinkthe committee has been having some tracking surveys.\nrepeatedly\nI've said 6-I think it is a neck and neck race. No question about\nthat, we are campaigning as hard as we can.\nQ\nAre you behind then?\n-7-\nA\nNo, I don' think so.\nQ\nAre you ahead?\nA\nI still think we are ahead. But it is -- it is a close\nrace, and I have predicted this from the very first. I said when\nthe tax spending and special interest groups start rolling, when you\nstop to Think that the two high-spending lobbying groups in Sacramento\nare the California Teachers Association and the California State\nEmployees Association, and those two have contributed a couple\nof hundred thousand dollars, according to the reports, to this\ncampaign to defeat this - no one can be sanquine and sit back and\nthink this is a shoe-in.\nQ\nGovernor, are you saying then that you have lost ground\nover the past few months?\nA\nNo, only in the sense that --- only in the sense that\nyes, if you could have voted on this the first day it was proposed,\n1 ike so many things I'm quite sure there would have been no question\nabout how it would have come out. I think it is running and continuing\njust exactly as I -- as I thought that it would against strong\nopposition. Those who sup at the public trough do not look lightly\nupon efforts to reduce the amount of sustenance in that trough.\nQ\nGovernor, you describe that the Assembly committee -- well,\nyou used the words, blatantly started a false and strident campaign.\nWhy should those words not apply to your comment yesterday, the\neconomic situation in this country is bordering on the condition that\nled to Nazi Germany.\nA\nWhat was wrong with that? I used it as an example\nin talking about inflation and I talked about inflation -- what.\ncoul d happen if inflation ran its course and nothing was done to halt\nit. And I cited the example the most recent modern example\nwe have was Germany, not Nazi Germany -- it was Germany after World\nWar I, and I remember as a boy myself having 50,000 marks, notes,\nas souveniers. That -- not that I was in Germany, but they --\nthe money was -- newsreels showed the Germans carrying their money\nin a basket to go to market to buy a meal.\n0\nWere you implying that could happen here?\nA\nAnd I said that ultimately that kind of inflatio n and\nthat breakdown in the economic system led to Adolph Hitler. Now\nthe whole history of inflation in the world, unless you fight it\nand curb it, is that inflation is cumulative and it begins to\nmount as it started to in this country, and it becomes runaway.\n-8-\nA\nNow, efforts are being made certainly\nWashingtor\nand\nwe are trying to make one here that will curb the principal cause\nof inflation, which is government spending. And it is less -\ninflation how, hopefully, the sign is in American is lower than it\nwas at its peak a couple of years ago. So some of the efforts\nmust be bearing some fruit, perhaps not as much and as fast as\nwe'd like. But you walk a verythin line between fighting off\ninflation and not going over the other way into the kind of disaster\nthat we had in this country in 1929.\nI don't think that the re\nwas anything strident in pointing out an example of what unrestrained\ninflation can do. As a matter of fact, many ofus have beenpointing\nthat out for a number of years, when the government in Washington\nwas deliberately adopting a plan of planned inflation on the\nbelief that it would produce prosperity. It does for a while,\nthen the hangover sets in.\nΩ\nGovernor, you are equating government spending with\ninflation. I think from\nand Galbreath, they would equate\nfederal deficit spending to inflation. And Califomia is not in\nthat deficit spending position.\nA\nNo, but California is a part of the governmental structure\nthat is now taking almost hafl of the -- of the workers' earnings\nto pay for the cost of government. And I can't do anything from\nthis point at -- about the federal government, other than maybe set\nan example here in our own state level, as we did in welfare reform.\nSo we are going to try to reduce our share of it, because state\nspending - you may not call it deficit because technically we\ncannot go into debt and have a deficit budget. But state spending\nmust be brought under control when state spending is going up ten\nper cent a year and the people's wages are only increasing seven and\na half per cent a year.\n0\nGovernor, concerning your memark that you were unable\nto do anything about feder al spending under the present circumstances,\nthe Wall Street Journal this morning carried a story on your campaign\nfor the passage of the proposition.\nA\nI read it.\nor\nIt quotes one of your -- an unidentified member of your\nstaff, an aide, I think it is, quotes as saying this is -- is a\ndress rehearsal for the campaign you hope to make in 1976 for the\n-9-\npresidency.\nA\nNo, Tom, I will bet a million dollars that they can't find\nthat unidentified aide. I have read about unidentified aides and\nI've never been able to find one of my unidentified aides who said\nany of those things. I think it must be the -- just one of the\nmost commonly used ploys in stories of this kind. I read it, I\nwas happy about the favorable things they said about Proposition 1.\nBut I expected them, of course, to -- do the other. I don't know\nanything I can do that isn't supposed to be tied into the election\nof '76.\nQ\nWell, are you happy about the faborable things they said\nabout the other?\nA\nI'm happy about the favorable things they said about\nProposition 1.\n0\nGovernor, do youthink that the principle in Proposition 1\ncan be applied at the federal level to the federal budget?\nA\nYes, I think if anyone would analyze Proposition 1, it\nis not a radical new departure from the government al philosophy of\nthis country. It is not a distortion of the relationship between\nthe branches of government. It is a use of the constitution for\nwhat the constitution was intended to do. And that is the\nconstitution is a curb on governmental powers and we -- in the past\nwe have a great many amendments, both to the state and to the federal\nconstitution -- when government has apparently strayed and gone\ntoo far or to an excess, the people have then passed amendments.\nNow, to put a limitation on taxes and to claim that that is somehow\nmisusing the constitution, is to ignore the fact that in order to\nhave some taxes we had to amend the constitution. The government\ncan only do those things specified in the constitution. So in\norder to have an income tax we had to have an amendment that created\nan income tax. Now, the weakness of that amendment was, and\nthere was fighting to obtain this, and they were overruled in the\nU. S. Senate -- there was a battle to put the income tax amendment\ninto effect, but to put a limit on the ultimate amount of workers'\nearnings that it could take. As a matter of fact, the Senator\nwho led that fight was laughed out of politics in 1913, because\nhe said that if you have an income tax without a limitation on the\nconstitution it is possible that one day a government of the United\nStates might take as much as ten per cent of what a man earns.\nAnd\n-10-\nthis was so ridiculous that this was considered to be blatant and\nstrident and an exaggeration and he was literally laughed out of\npublic office.\nO\nWho was that?\nQ\nBut given the responsibility --\nA\nI can't remember his name. I got it.\nQ\nGiven the responsitities that the federal government has\ntoday, trying to combat inflation and meeting crises all over the\nworld -- this procedurally or mechanically you think -- the principle\nof the initiative could work at the federal level?\nA\nWell, I know that right now they at e trying to make a\nreduction in the percentage that the federal government is taking.\nAnd they are trying to do it - as we tried to do it, by cut, squeeze\nand trim. Perhaps as they go on with this it cold lead to whether\nthis exact form of a federal constitutional amendment - but to some\nlimitation. Now, hasn't one of our Democratic Senators introduced\na bill which would limit the federal budget to revenues which would\nin effect be that the - while it would not be reducing the present\nlevel, would be saying government spending would have to be reduced\nback. So there is a great deal of thinking going on. I myself have\nproposed a constitutional amendment at the federal level that would\nbe extremely simple, but that might have an effect on curbing\nspending, and that is if the - if any Congressman or Senator who\nintroduced a spending measure had to ingroduce a revenue measure to\npay for it, a tax at the same time, it might cut down on the number\nof spending measures that were proposed.\no\nI'm still trying to change the subject. I want to ask\nyou what your reaction was to Agnew's speech last night.\nA\nWell, I -- I was very moved by it. I think this whole\nthing is a very great tragedy. He stated his case and proclaimed\nonce again his innocence. And I, for one, knowing the man, having\nknown him as a governmt as he was before this office, and in his\npresent office -- I found that -- a great deal sincerity in what he\nsaid.\n0\nGovernor --\n0\nGovernor, many people in this country feel perhaps the\nVice-President did get off too easy. They feel if the common man,\nif you will, had been in his position the penalty would have been\nmuch more severe. How do you address yourself to that position?\nA\nWell, no trial was held. No guilt has beenproven with\nregard to the charge. of fraud and so forth, and the government\nchose not to prosecute on that basis. Now, I don't think you can\nhave any opinion one way or theother.\nC\nGovernor, do you think the American people believe Spiro\nAgnew and his explanation?\nA\nYou'd have to ask them.\n0\nGovernor, do youbelieve him?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDo you believe him?\nA\nI would say this, I'm going to simply say that in regard\nto the charges that were brought against him by the Justice Depart-\nment, there has been no proof of guilt and th erefore under our\nconstitution he must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.\n0\nDo you presume him innocent then?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nDo you presume he's innocent?\nA\nI think all of us have to, that's the constitution.\nED MEESE: I assume you meant other than the charge to\nwhich he pleaded no contest?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, other than that.\n0\nWhy do you think he pleaded guilty to that charge?\nA\nWhat?\nWhy do you think he pleaded guilty?\nA\nI don't know.\nQ\nGovernor, in part of the speech Mr. Agnew referred to the\nbribe brokers, I think he called them. The implication was this was\na standard pre-Watergate part of doing business with government.\nNow, I don't find that the case out here, do you?\nA\nNo, I don't. As a matter of fact, I'm glad you said that\nbecause -- and I wish particularly a lot of our young people would\nrealize that I don't think there is a state quite like ours in the\nunion. Andit goes back to the great reformer, Hiram Johnson, and I\nthink California is probably the cleanest state, has the greatest\nsafeguards for the people of any state in the union. Under our\nsystem no --I understand that in many states, in Maryland particularly,\nelected office holders do have a great deal to say with regard to\nthe letting of contracts that are not submitted to bid. In\nCalifornia thère is a very low financial limit that is placed and\nonly below that amount can work be contracted for without submission\nto bid, I just - I know I, myself, have never - have never been\ninvolved in, nor had a voice in these seven yeas in any thing of\nthat kind, in any letting of contracts. There are any number of\nways in which things that are commonplace in the rest of the country\nwould just be unacceptable or impossible in California. We are a --\nwe are a very puritan state in that regard.\n2\nGovernor, have you ever had anybody come to you in an\neffort to influence you in that fashion?\nA\nNever in the seven years.\nQ\nGovernor, the Vice-Presidnt - former Vice-President's\nstatement, notwithstanding, he agreed that the government should\npublicize the 40 pages of charges against him, which included bribery\nand extortion and kickbacks, from contractors. He stipulated\nto that. Now, if he was innocent, or if you put your self in his\nplace, I'm not suggesting that at all, of course -\n(Laughter)\nQ\n-- would you have agreed to the publication of those 40\npages of charges?\nA\nWell, I -- there is no way I can answer that. I can't\ncomment and speculate on this, not knowing what the entire situation\nwas or pressures were on him to do that. I don't know what was at\nstake or what was at issue.\nQ\nAnother subject.\nQ\nNo. Still on the Vice - Do you think Gerry Ford is a for-\nmidable presidential mandidate for '76 --\nA\nWell, Gerry Ford, Weether he's a formidable presidential\ncandidate or he seems to have taken himself out of that consideration\nand he has repeated this so often, so emphatically, that I assume\nthat unless and until he changes his mind he has to be considered\nas not a candidate.\nQ\nWell, if the office seeks the man, as you often say --\nA\nWell, and this could then lead to a change of his mind.\nIt is verypossible. I keep remembering back when I said\nemphatically and absolutely that I would never consider running for\npublic office of any kind, and here I am. And I wish sometimes I\nwas some place else.\nQ\nIf he changes his mind is he a formidable candidate?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nIf he changes his mind is he formidable candidate?\n-14-\nA\nSure, he's got a find record and a go man\nand\nhe\nplayed on the line.\nQ\nI suppose that answers my question. Your statement\nFriday on the President's nomination in relation to Mr. Ford seemed\nlukewarm at best, you were pleased with the president's action and\nhe acted wisely. You didn't mention in there Mr. Ford's name and\nany of his qualifications, and I thought that would indicate you\nfelt the President could have made a better choice.\nA\nNo, not at all, I repeat that I think the President acted\nwisely and I ampleased with his choice. Very pleased, but you\nhave got to remember, also, that there was quite an entourage of\nyour colleagues waiting at the foot of the driveway and I was among\nthem less than five minutes after the end of the broadcast, and the\nannouncement. So obviously I did not sit down to -- to write a\nvolume or to consider my words other than to give the reaction\nthey were waiting for and let them go home to dinner.\nO\nThank you.\nQ\nGovernor, a number of the Congressmen who will be examining\nMr. Ford for his confirmation say that he should bring his income\ntax records along with other records, and I believe he's indicated\nhe's willing to do that. Had you been in that position would you\nhave been willing to discl ose your income tax records?\nA\nI don't know, it depends on certain things. He's\ntalking about his own colleages. I don't think there's:been any\nevidence that he's talking about making them public -- a matter of\npublic record or anything. So whatever prompted his decisionto do\nthat, why I respect it and that's certainly his right. Voluntarily,\nI've got nothing to hide in mine, but I am opposed to the principle,\nas I said before, that in order to hold any kind of appointment or\npublic office that someone must give up those constitutional protec-\ntions as to privacy, that belong bo other people. I do believe\nin the legislation, I signed that there should be a protection\nfor the public against conflict of interest. So that anyone who has\nanything that might be a conflict of interest so stipulates.\n0\nGovernor, were you contacted by any representative of the\nWhite House or the President concerning your availability for the\njob?\nA\nNope.\nQ\nWhat do you think of that?\n-14-\n(Laughter)\nQ\nWhat do you make of that? We all had youas Vice-President.\nA\nI know, I'm the only one that didn't.\nQ\nDoes it surprise you that you were not?\nA\nNo.\nO\nDid they send you a copy of the contingency speech announc-\ning your nomination?\nA\nI read that. Maybe that's true. I don't know, but\nI-- I nevef for a moment thought that USE I just - as I say, I'm\npleased with what he did. I thought it was a wise decision and I\nthought it was the way to go.\nO\nDid you submit a list of recommendations or have any --\nA\nNope?\nQ\nHow about Mr. Luce, I understand he made some recommenda-\ntion.\nA\nWell, every State Chairman was --- was approached about\nthis and I guess every State Chairman sent in a - their recommenda-\ntions, their list. State Charimen were contacted. I'm trying to\nthink of -- I know that the Congress was also, as we all know, was\npublicized that they were, but -\nQ\nYou didn't talk with Mr. Luce about his list?\nA\nNo, never had a word withhim.\nΩ\nGovernor, did youngprove of the shipping of arms to Israel?\nA\nWhat -- do I approve of what?\nQ\nOf the shipping of arms to Israel.\nA\nWell, here is a very touch and I hage to comment or\nspeculate on -- we know what's at issue there. I think --- this\n(middle East)\nadministration has made it plain that they want a peaceful, settlement\nthat is fair to both sides, want a ceasefire ifpossible and a resolu-\ntion of this. But at the same time, again, the thin line that must\nbe walked is Russia's intervention and its shipping of arms to one\nside. And I think that unless you are privy to all of the facts and\nall of the intelligence information there that you can't comment\non the right or wrong, whatthe administration is doing. I have\nconfidence in this administration which has done more to settle world\ndivisions and has brought us closer to a worldwide de tente than\nany administration in the last half century, is behaving with wisdom\nand on the basis of the facts as they are and I'm content to do that\nwithout trying to inject any opinion. I think that I could also say\nI thinkthat this administration has been the best griend that Israel\nhas ever had on the world scene.\nPRESS C ERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD NOVEMBER 15, 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 prees as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections were made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n---0)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: First of all, we have visitors today\nfrom Hayward State Journalism class, from Hayward State. Glad to\nhave you here. And the other openingannouncement I have to the\neffect that I'm sure you all know about now, since you -- you follow\nthe news, that we are saying goodbye to Ed Gray. You won't have\nhim to kick around anymore.\n(Laughter)\no\nor vice versa.\no\nWhat was his name? What's his name?\nA\nWe are going to miss Ed very much. I think you all\nagree.\nHe's done a great job, but he's going back out into the\nprivate sector, back out into civilian life and this is something\nthat I always greet with mixed emotions when fellows in our staff\ndo it. I hate to lose him, but on the other hands I'm -- we\nnever try to get the kind of people who wanted a career in govern-\nment in the first place. And we haven't. So, Ed, we wish you\nwell.\nO\nGovernor, if you could conduct a Prop. 1 campaign all\nover again now, would youdebate Bob Moretti?\nA\nWell, I tell you, that's a question I probably would be\nasking myself for the rest of my life. But the decisimwas made,\nit was -- it was made under a circumstance that what he obviously was\ndoing was proposing a campaign gimmick, a ploy and I wasn't about\nto go along with it.\nIn the last few days, however, when they were\nso successful with implanting that one outright falsehood about\nthe property taxes, yes, this would have been a way to counter that.\nAnd this is the thing that I will always think about and remember\nbecause it was a falsehood. He knew it was a falsehood and so did\n-1-\nthe others who were repeating it. Proposition 1 specifically made\nit more difficult, not less difficulty, for local government to raise\ntaxes.\nQ\nGovernor, on Proposition 1, the only City Council which :\nendorsed Proposition 1 is now filing a million dollar claim in over-\ntime and pay andother costs because of the special election. Are\nyou going to support them in their claim?\nA\nWell, I support the idea, have now from the bery beginning,\nI said that I thought the state should pick up the actual cost that\ncould be attributed to this special election on Proposition 1. Now\nwhether their figure is right or not, that I think should be subject\nto scruting and study. And I think in all of those various\nareas of the state where there were regular elections going on,\nthat here we should make -- take great care to insure that we would\nonly be talking of what added expense resulted in Proposition 1.\nIf these figures and claims are being based on the holiday to\nemployees, I think it is time that this subject be opened up\nright now. First of all, cording to our und erstanding of the\nlaw, local entities did not have to give holidays in the election.\nThey have the right to determine that themselves and the state\nemployees get holidays. But I think it is time that we booked at\nthat. No one else gets a holiday on an election day. The polls\nare open long enough for anyone to vote, regardless of their type'\nof work, and I don't see why government shoul d be providing a\nholiday on an election day.\no\nGovernor, on Prop, 1, could you give us your reaction\nto the statement by State Senator H. L. Richardson who said --\nwho's announced the initiative campaign as, \"Grossly mismanaged by\nReagan's top employees. His only good characteristic was making\na drink.\"\nA\nWell, sometimes, Bill, in his disappointment gets a little\nverbose and a little careless with his use of words, so I won't\ncomment on it. He'll get the acid out of his system pretty soon and\nsettle back down to normal.\no\nGovernor, on your statement relative to holidays, does\nthat mean that in your view the state ought hot to pay those por-\ntions of the election costs that are to be chalked up to extra\nheliday pay?\n-2-\nA\nTo local governments, no, because according to our\ninterpretation of thel they didn't have to give thbse holidays.\na\nWell, are you encouraging other cities then to also file\nclaims for the part of the election costs they think were incurred\nbecause Proposition 1 was on the ballot?\nA\nWell, my position is very clear from the very first.\nI\nsaid that out of the surplus I saw no reason why the state shouldn't\nbe willing to pick up this tab.\nO\nDo you have any idea how much it is going to cost?\nA\nWell, according to our figures, we figure that the cost\nof the special election was what, about seven and a half million\ndollars?\nVERNE ORR: Around six and a half -- seven million\ndollars.\nA\nSix and a half, seven million dollars.\no\nSo that's the top that you'll permit?\nMR. ORR: That's an estimate. If the claims are\nlegitimate in terms of our definition, and are higher than that,\nwe will certainly pay it. That's not a ceiling on it. But\nthat's the amount of claims we think will come in.\nO\nWas that figure seven and a half or six and a half?\nVERNE ORR: We had six and a half.\nA\nI'm sorry, six and a half.\n0\nGovernor, if you had to do it over do you think you waild\nhave waited for the regular election in June instead of a special --\nA\nNo, I think our reasoning was correct and I'd like to point\nout to you we did attain, even with Proposition 1 going down to\ndefeat, Proposition 1 delivered a lot of money to the people just\nby being there. And that was the $800 million dollar surplus.\nIf there's anybody in this room that believes you had a prayer of\ngetting that surplus given back to the People without Proposition 1\nyou are being very naive about the legislature. They have made\nit veryplain to us they weren't giving back a dime. But when it\nlooked like it was part of the bait that might make Proposition 1\nmore attractive, they came back from their summer recess and decided\nthat the lesser of two evils was giving the money back to the people.\nSo you are getting $320 million dollars back by way of sales tax;\n$400\nyou are getting over/million dollars back by way of the income tax\nand at the bottom of the scale, as a result of this, families with\n-3-\nincomes of $8,000 or less are now forgiven any income tax. They pay\nno income tax. Not just the rebate, but ongoing.\n0\nGovernor, how would you attack the campaign for the propo-\nsition differently than you did in retrospect?\nA\nHow would we -- listen, we just didn't have the resources\nto outshout the use of public funds. There was no way that we could\nraise enough money to match the literature that was being taken home\nby children in school districts. That was being printed at taxpayers'\nexpense as school printing. A great variety of brochures and\npamphlets, all of which echoed the propaganda of the opposition.\nThere wasn't any way that we didn't have -- we couldn't match the\nstaff -- legisaltive staff that was turned over to this task.\nQ\nGovernor, are you saying that your campaign did not repre-\nsent any use of public funds at ald?\nA\nI don't see where it did.\nO\nWell, you get on T. V. and you are paid by the state, and\nyougive your viewpoint; Moratti gets on T. V., he's paid by the\nstate, he gives his viewpoints, some public funds were used on both\nsides, isn't that correct?\nA\nOh, I'm not criticizing that. I am talking about\nmailings -- direct mailings from government to departments of\ngovernment telling them what would happen to their budgets. I'm\ntalking about mailings to the Highway Patrol telling them that\n2,000 Highway Patrolmen would be laid off. I'm talking about\na man stopping me on the street with a letter, telling me the lack\nof care for his child that would -- would follow the passage of\nProposition 1. I'm talking about this printing of literally\nmillions of leaflets out of the school budget of Los Angeles to\nbe delivered by school children and even using them on school time\nto stuff the envelopes. A number of things in which government\nwas actually employed.\n0\nGovernor, bew subject --\nO\nGovernor, one more question, sir, if I may. It seemed\nat the beginning of the campaign, when it all started, that the\nopposition was saying that they were going to find a tough time\nbeating you. Are you saying now it just turned out to be the\nopposite?\nA\nof course it didn't, they knew it all the time.\nO\nGovernor, ew subject.\nQ\nSame one. I'd like him to answer the question, please.\nA\nI did. I said they knew it. They knew that their charges\nthat we were rolling in wealth, they had to know that those -- those\ncharges were unfounded, that we couldn't begin to compare with the\nwhole establishment of government that was organized to stop this.\nO\nGovernor -\nQ\nGovernor, same subject. Governor, can you tell us how you\nthink the -- the defeat of Proposition 1$ has perhaps increased\nthe potency of Bob Moretti's gubernatorial campaign within his own\nparty?\nA\nWell, it made him much better known than he was. He\nstarted the campaign with about a three per cent name identification.\nI understand that's gone up considerably. I myself would hate\nto run for office on the basis that I denied the people a tax cut.\nWe are going to continue in trying to get something of this kind\nbecause we think that a tax limitation is inevitable. It will\neither come this way with the people sitting down and trying to head\noff a calamity or it will come after the calamity has struck. And\nso we are going to continue to try and maybe we will be able to\nfind some ways to do away with some of the vulnerable points that\nwe had in this. But who -- we believe the People of California,\nthe working men and women are paying too much for the cost of\ngovernment, and we are going to continue to try to do something\nabout it. We think people want their taxes reduced.\nQ\nGovernor, what are you going to tell the Republican\nGovernors this coming week-end about the reasons why Proposition 1\nwas defeated?\nA\nWhat's that?\nQ\nWhat are you going to tell the Republican Governors this\nweek-end about why Proposition 1 was defeated?\nA\nWell, if anybody asks me there, I'm probably going to\ntell them what we have already found out from the surveys, that\nabout 70 per cent of the people that voted no thought they were\nvoting against the property tax increase.\n2\nThe State Employees Association today asked for a 10.8\nper cent average pay raise for 1974. Does that fit into the frame-\nwork of the kind of Proposition 1 style budget that you are thinking\nof for 1974?\nA\nI haven't had a chance to talk to Verne about that, but we\nare still trying to get them all of the pay raise that we wanted to\ngive them last year, or for this year.\nO\nThat includes 4 and a half per cent that they say was cut\nout of last year's raise.\nA\nWell, we are still trying to get it to them.\nMR. ORR: We want it put in before we even finalize\nour figures for next year.\n0\nCould you say if that kind of figure is completely out of\nline or is it within the ballpark or what?\nMR. MEESE: This is much too early to even talk about\nthe budget.\nA\nI can't say anything at all about it because this is the\nfirst that it's even been brought to my attention. All I know, we\nare engaged in a fight trying to get them the balance of what we\ntried to raise them this present year.\ne\nGovernor --\nA\nDid you --\nO\nNo, I think we are probably -- I'd be accused of beating\na dead horse on Prop. 1.\nO\nGovernor, are you going to support any resolution to\nsupport the President in Nashville or wherever the Governor's\nconference is?\nA\nWe, I think in Nashville, probably all of the governors\nthere -- or it is in Memphis, the Republican Governors are probably\ngoing to wait, the President is coming to meet with the governors.\n0\nGovernor, are you calling a special session of the\nlegislature to deal with the energy crisis?\nA\nNot at this -- not at this point. If that should become\nnecessary, based on something requiring leglslation -- so far we\nhave just begun, as you know, getting the reports back from our\ngroup on the Energy Council. And there is only one proposal\nthat could not be administered -- could not be put into effect\nadministratively, and that would have to do with the lowering of\nthe speed limit statewide to that suggested figure of 50 miles an\nhour. And that -- that would require legislation and we are not\nprepared yet on that to know what recommendation we want to make.\nQ\nGovernor, what do you think of the 50 mile an hour speed\nlimit?\nA\nWell, as I say, we are not in a position -- there are --\nthere are figures ano I've spoken with Secretary Brenniger and\nwith former Governor Dayman (phonetics) who was with him on this.\nThey themselves admit that they have had input that show that there\nis a potential of it being counterproductive. And so we are\ngoing to continue to -- to meet on this. And I think that before\nyou would get around to calling a special session you would --\nright now thesubcommittee's dealing with thes e problems, could\nhold hearings and that would be the first step anyway, and become a\npart of this, and we have been in touch with our legislative\nleadership on this -- this subject.\nQ\nGovernor, what is the intention of your -- the council?\nHow much authority do they have in terms of allocation programs\nand easing the fuel crisis?\nA\nWell, they are going to recommend back to the administra-\ntion, to the cabinet, and we will do as we usually do with policy\nmatters. The cabinet and the appropriate department heads, the\nstaff and myself, we will ment and we will get all the input we\ncan and we will make decisions.\nQ\nWhen you vetoed the bill creating an energy commission\nthis was your answer to that, if I remember correctly?\nA\nUh-huh.\nQ\nWhy haven't you appointed the kinds of people that would\nhave been included on that commission, members of the public at\nlarge, attorneys, ecologists? Speaking directly of the people\nyou have on that council now.\nA\nI appointed the kind of people I thought could get the job\ndone.\no\nGovernor, on the speed limit question. Didn't the\nPresident say that he would suggest to the governors that they\nconsider this action and isn't really the first step for you to make\na proposal to the legislature that they could then study?\nA\nWell, as I say, we are in the position right now, we have\ngot to understand first ourselves what proposal we want to make to\nthe legislature.\nQ\nWhen will you make such a proposal?\nA\nWell, when we are satisfied that we have all the informa-\ntion that can make a decision on this. There arestill unknown\nfactors. There are facts and figures that we need to know, as to\nwhether this would be, as I say, effective or whether it would be\n-7-\ncounter-productive\nO\nGovernor, ten days from now, unless the federal Cost. of\nLiving Council changes its mind, an order is going to take effect\npreventing the state of California from offering its surplus\nroyalty oils to the highest bidder, thereby depriving the state of\nsomething like nine million dollars a year in added revenues. Does\nyour administration plan to get involved with the Cost of Living\nCouncil to persuade them to change their mind?\nA\nWell, this has just come to my attention. I don't think\nthat figure is right about nine million dollars.\nMR. ORR: Nine million, I believe, in three years.\nIt is three to four million, Bob.\nA\nThis is a situation where the law says we can take our money\nin oil royalties, the state can take it incash or it can take it in\nkind, take it in oil, and up until now there's never been any reason\nto take it in anything except cash because the price was always the\nsame. Now, however, the state was faced with the possibility that\nit could sell the oil at a higher price than the contract called\nfor in cash, and so the state chose oil. And now the Cost of\nLiving Council has said that we can't charge that higher price for\nit. This is as far as I have gotten, and that I know of the whole\nsituation now. So again you are a sking me a little ahead of time\nas to what I know. I want to study this. We are -- we certainly\nwant to cooperate in trying to hold downprices and curb inflation.\nBut we also are interested in the state's getting the most that it\ncan get.\n0\nThe people want to buy this oil are outfits like Powerline,\nthat sell gas at a nickle or so a gallon less than Union and Texaco\nand the others, so there is no -- appears to be no rise in prices\nfacing the consumer.\nA\nWell, these are --\nO\nIt is motivation --\nA\nThese are all the facts that we have got to find out\nbefore we see what action we want to take with the --- with the\nPrice Control Council.\nQ\nGovernor, do you think President Nixon should resign?\nQ\nWhatwas that?\nA\nHere we go again. I am not going to comment on this at\na time when this now is before thecourt, when he has offered all of\nhis\n-8-\nhis memoranda and ta S and whatever elee to the ourt. And when\nhe is meeting with not only the legislators but party leaders and\nis coming to meet with us. I'm not going to talk now. In a few\ndays I'll be in a meeting with the President.\nO\nDoes that mean that you think he might -- there might\nbe a reason for him to resign?\nA\nNo, no. I'm just trying to avoid commenting. If I\nanswer one question the hands go up like flowers in the spring.\nOr\nWhy won't you comment?\nA\nWhat?\no\nWhy won't you comment?\nA\nJust because, as I just said, it is before the courts,\nbefore the judge now. It's made -- he's announced his intention\nto lay everything, all records and memoranda before thecourt.\nHe is meeting with us personally to talk to us and I just -- I'm\nnot gging to talk now on the basis of only knowing what I read in\nthe papers.\nQ\nBack to the 50 mile an hour limit, have you personally\ntried traveling at 50 miles an hour, and if so, did you find it in-\nconvenient?\nA\nNo, but I can -- I know that -- while I'm not an expert\nin this subject, I know that in the transportation -- such as the'\ntruck lines, that provide so many of the necessities, I know that\ntheir cars, their motos are geared to a maximum fuel use or a\nminimum fuel use at a higher speed. And I want to know that we\nare not going to be -- say, doing something counter-productive.\nThere may be alternatives to this. Now we are not opposed as we\nhave evidenced by lowering at least the five miles we can\nadministratively. We are not opposed tolowering the speed. I've\nhad a great many years of a particular almost daily drive at 50\nmiles an hour in private life, and I know exactly what it is and\nit was very convenient. It happened to be a 45 mile speed zone.\nBut I also found out that my --my speedometer was five miles off,\nthat when I sat here -- right there at 50, I was doing 45, and\nevery day I used to drive about 23 miles out and 23 miles back\nat that speed, and I found it very comfortable. I evenhad time to\nlook at a seagull or two.\n2\nGovernor, would yougo for Flournoy's suggestion to lower ---\ngo from a big car to a smaller car? Would you follow that yourself,\nas he has done?\n-9-\nA\nWell, my c..n situation is onein which 1 don't dictate\nthe manner in which I travel. That's determined for me by\nsecurity. And it is a -- a number of facets involved. Now, what-\never they decide to do is fine with me. Actually I -- right now\nin the car I'm riding in, I think it is aboutthe same mileage that\nthe average automobile gets. With all of the smog appliances on it.\nI checked that out and found that out. I'm in the car about\ntwenty minutes a day most of the: time. Ten minutes here and ten\nminutes home, and that's it.\nO\nWould you consider any kind of executive order for other\ndepartments under your command to come down to smaller cars?\nA\nWell, here again we haven't had the meeting that I've been\ntelling you about where we are going to discuss all these proposals.\nO\nGovernor, you said that your energy council will report\nback to the cabinet. That would imply that it is going to take\nsome time. The Lieutenant Governor said the crisis is real and it\nis here now. Who's going to take care of problems in the meantime?\nA\nI don't think that the time you are talking about is\ngoing to delay the actual implementation date for some of these\nthings. Such as if you decide to lower the speed limit, which is\ngoing to require legislation. I think the -- I'm kind of amused\nat some of the voices that are crying now in the wilderness, because\nit seems to me it was only a few weeks ago that much of our legis-\nlative leadership was complaining that this was all invented, that\nthere wasn't really any energy crisis, it was all a plot to exploit\nthe people. And I remember alsothat I sort of was coldly\nreceived when I said I believed it was for real. Well, I had evidence\nfor saying -- based upon which I made that statement. It is for\nreal. There is no question about it, and I think if -- I could\nmake an appeal and -- to the people of California in every facet\nright now, not just in driving, we can start without waiting. I\nthink everyone of us in our homes, with the use of li ghts, the\nthermostat seeings, all of these things which have to be voluntary,\nyou can't have a government agency running around turning people's\nlights off or seeing whether they got two T.V. sets in operation or\nnot -- but I think if the people would recognize that they can\nminimize the impact, when this really hits in the next few months,\nby conserving right now that if A suddenly the burden here in\n-10-\nSacramento on SMUD\nelectric power, if that\nrden is lessened\nit is going to minimize the impact when things really get tight\nlater on, and so you would appeal to everybody. We are doing it\nin our homes, and I think everyone can. It is -- we have all\nbeen in the habit -- I know in our house we have been in thehabit of\nyou turn the lights on, come dark and you leave them on whether you\nare in that room or not. I think all of us have to start Flipping\nthe switch when weleave the room.\n0\nGovernor, do you think that's possible, though, the sort\nof private conservation without the state actually doing pretty\ndramatic --\nA\nOh, we are going to do things that have to be done at the\nstate level, but as I say, there are many things the people can do\nthat there is no way to enforce. It has to be voluntary. Setting\ndown your thermostat has to be voluntary. You can't have police-\nmen knocking on everybody's door every day and asking them what\ntemperature is your living room. The people are going to have to\nbe willing to do it and I thinkthat the people of this country,\nif they are appealed to and recognize that it is for their own good,\ncan take a great many of these steps.\nO\nI was thinking of like something along the lines of\nOregon, the ban on outdoor advertising.\nA\nI think these are things that we still have to -- that\nwill be a part of our delibemations. Things that we -- where\nwe can enforce it, yes. And we are -- we are going to deal with\nthose.\nGovernor, would you favor the short term reduction or\nrelaxation of our environmental or pollution regulations to combat the\n(energy)\ncrisis?\nA\nYes, I think on a selective basis. That we are going to\nhave to -- my own personal view is that we are going to have to do\nsome things of that kind. When I say selective, I think in areas\nwhere the penalty won't be too great, I think there are areas like\nthe Los Angeles Basin where you are going to have to give real\nconsideration as to whether you can do anything. We have begun to\ngain in that battle there. Tons of pollutants in the air are\nless in the average day than they were in the past. It is hard\nto convince people when you are looking at that smoly that it is true,\nbut it is. And with the geographic and climatic condition that\nmakes smog a problem in that basin, you'd have to think twice about\n-11-\nwhether you woild relax it there. But I can think out in other parts\nof our state where some short term letting up on that wouldn't be\nharmful at all.\n0\nGovernor, if a voluntary program to control emergy\nconsumption doesn't work, you said that you wouldn't like to see po-\nlicemen walking into people's houses, but isn't that what would\nhappen if a voluntary program doesn't work and what legislation --\nwhat kind of action would you then foresee taking in order to\nenforce?\nA\nWell, I used that as a kind of a far-out example because\nit is a far-out example. Obviously government doesn't have the\nmanpower to check on everbody's homes. and find -- and find out whether\nthey are doing things of this kind. I would think that when you\ncome down basically to the problem I happen to be one who believes\nthat it is going to be based on rationing. When you have got a\nlimited supply and you have got real needs that have to be met,\nincluding the heating of homes, I think that a rationing program\nthat can be laid out as fair to all people is - is going to be the\nultimate answer and then you don't have to police it because then\nthe individual's got his own incentive for saving.\nO\nWill the state control -- if there is a rationing program\nsuch as in a heating oil or something like that, do you foresee the\nstate controlling it or the federal government controlling it?\nA\nOh, I don't know. The President has indicated that much\nof this he thinks should take place at a -- at a state level. And\nI would think, though, that rationing would have to be as it was\nin wartime, nationwide.\nO\nHow about gasoline rationing?\nA\nWhat?\n0\nDo you favor gasoline rationing?\nA\nWell, I think that we are coming tothat. I\nthink\neveryone calls it a last resort, but again I think that it beats\nall the proposals for trying to do it by using tax sanctions as\na - taxation as a sanction. We did it in World War II, and I\nthink it comes down to being the fairness -- the fairest.\nQ\nGovernor, it seems to be a lot of confusion over whether\nthe state or federal Government is going to find diesel fuel for buses\nand trucks. On the immediate basis, just where is that confusion\ngoing to be cleared up?\n=12-\nA\nWell,\nlet' hope for once between us.\nObviously each level\nof government, it does what it can, and then it has to make sure\nthat it is not going to be - that certain areas are not going to\nbe pre-empted by the echelon of government above them, so we on the\nstat e level are going to explore what we can do statewide and what\nis our responsibility.\nED MEESE:\nGovernor, could I add to that at one point,\nis that we have a joint state-federal office of fuel allocation\nset up now to handle this thing. It is a federal program in\nwhich the states have been asked to cooperate and so it is a joint\nprogram that's going on here, which the state makes recommendations\nto the dederal government which under the federal law has the last\nsay.\nO\nGovernor, when you refused to comment on the question of\nwhetter President Nixon should resign or not, it seems to me to be a\nrather significant backing away from the administration, or at least\nmany people are going to interpret it that way. Have you been\nburned previously --\nA\nNo.\nO\n-- by your defense of President Nixon and Spiro Agnew?\nA\nNo, not at all, and what I was trying to do, I thought I\nmade clear was if anyone is trying to take this or read anything\ninto my not commenting, they are just kind of violating the facts.\nI'm trying to say that -- to retain my position of not discussing\nthis subject in view of the present circumstances. I can't answer\none -- it is like taking the fifth, I can't answer one and then\nrefuse to answer another one. No, I have not changed my position\nat all. If you can take that as an answer to the question you are\ntrying to get at.\nQ\nGovernor, what is that position? One of support? If\nthe President asked you to join his counter-offensive, so-called,\non Watergate, will you?\nA\nWell, again you are asking a question that --\n0\nWell, your position has been one of support, so therefore\nwill you step up?\nA\nAnd as I say, I have not changed my position.\n0\nYou are still insupport then of President Nixon?\nA\nI haven't changed myposition.\nO\nThe President's talking about it, he's talking about it\npublicly, he's talking about it with members of Congress. If he\nbisa the +++\nRepublican Governors what they think he ought to do to recapture the\nconfidence of the people, what would you tell him?\nA\nI'll bet you a lot of us would have some suggestions for\nhim.\nO\nDo you -- I mean would you --\nA\nDepending on what he had to say to us. You know he --\nhe might reveal in his remarks something that I've thought of he's\nalready thought of.\n0\nWhat have you ghouth of?\n(Laughter)\nO\nGovernor --\nO\nGovernor, can you answer it? Have you thought of some-\nthing specifically that you haven't told us about?\nA\nNot that I can answer right now. Did you -- you had your\nhand up several times.\nO\nThat was -- what dcyou think your Presidential chances are\nif Gerry Ford is confirmed?\nA\nI've - -\n(Laughter)\nA\nI've never thought about me ever having any presidential\nchances.\nQ\nWell, Governor, the gallup is predicting a 1976 showdown\nbetween yourself and Senator Kennedy.\nDo you think you'll be able\nto resist that kind of a challenge?\nA\nThis is a great place to say no comment.\nQ\nCould you beat Kennedy?\nED MEESE: Good place to say no comment.\nA\nEd says that's a great phace to say no comment. I could 5\nhave asked at which game.\nΩ\nAs to President Nixon, his popularity in gallup polls has\nfallen steadily over the last year and a half. Do you think the\npeople's dissatisfaction in California with Nixon's performance in\nthe Watergate affair was in any way involved with thedefeat of\nProposition 1 in the sense that they associated you with Nixon on\na national level?\nA\nOh, no. I don't think there was any evidence of that.\nI think -- I think if anything there is a -- Watergate has created\nin many people's finds just a distrust of anything governmental and\n-14-\nanyone connected wit government. But in that use, since the\npeople on the other side were government, too, it was ld have worked\nboth ways to their -- totheir disadvantage as well as to ours.\nThat, to me, is the -- is the fall=off or the fall-out from\nWatergate. No, I think the opposition, as I say, they were very\nsuccessful in planting an idea.\nO\nGovernor, on the same subject, can you react to Secretary\nof State Brown's comments charged that your freeze on construction\nof new state office buildings has resulted in the state paying about\n$21 million dollars a year in rent to private landlords and the freeze\nbeing the worst kind of false economy?\nA\nWell, I cauld repeat again that biblical reference of --\nthat I did once before, he is still multiplieth words without know -\nledge. Our construction freeze has been a pretty selective thing.\nAs a matter of fact, as a result of what we have done here with\nholding down the size of government, the entire Master Plan for how\nmuch office space provision we must have for employees here in\nthe Sacramento Capitol complex by the year 2000 has been, if I\nremember the figures correctly, just about cut in half. Because\nwehave halted the vast increase in the size of government, and\nhad we just gone into implementing the Master Plan we'd have a lot\nof empty buildings because we have the same numberof employees now\nthat we had seven year S ago in state government, and no other\ngovernment, to my knowledge, can make that claim, including no\nlocal government in California, because in these seven years local\ngovernment has added around 350,000 new employees.\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-15-"
}