Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564440
label
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1971 [05/01/1971-06/24/1971]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564440
contentType
document
title
Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1971 [05/01/1971-06/24/1971]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564440
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
fe7b3411c28efd35
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1971
[05/01/1971-06/24/1971]
Box: P18
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
1/5
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: 2:30 p.m. SATURDAY
Sacramento, California
May 1, 1971
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
4-30-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
American Association of University Women
State Convention
Fresno, May 1, 1971
I realize there are many vital issues that interest this
distinguished audience
higher education
campus unrest
tuition
school financing
environmental protection programs. But there is one
situation facing California which cannot be ignored.
California and the rest of the nation must once and for all face up
to the need for welfare reform.
To fully grasp the urgency of the situation, you have to realize
just how fast welfare has grown and what it is costing our state and
nation not only in dollars, but in values that are worth far more to
our society than the money we spend on welfare.
Only ten years ago, the welfare caseload in California was 620,000
people. Today that is the annual rate of increase in the caseload,
One out of every nine citizens about 2½ million people are on
welfare or Medi-Cal or both---at a cost of 3½ billion dollars a year.
Unless we do something to reverse this staggering growth, it will
be 1 out of 7 by the middle of next year.
This crisis is not confined to California. The rising numbers of
people on welfare and the staggering cost of public assistance is
literally pushing state and local governments to the edge of bankruptcy
in New York
in Pennsylvania
in California
in virtually every state.
It has become an intolerable financial burden because it is forcing
state and local governments to delay or underfund other essential programs
in order to pay for an ever increasing welfare caseload.
There is a growing public revolt against welfare all across the
country. This is not because our people have no concern for the poor.
Nc people in all history have given more of their resources to help those
in need
no people have taxed themselves more to meet man's moral
obligation to assist the disadvantaged and those temporarily in distress.
The humanitarian instincts that prompted our system of public
assistance are still deeply felt by our people. But they have watched
welfare change over the years into something no one ever intended when
we started formal public programs to assist the poor.
- 1 -
AAUW speech
Our people have simply lost faith in the welfare system as it has
evolved over the past three decades. They see it for what it is now
a hodge-podge of confusing and sometimes conflicting laws and
regulations
a
system bogged down in red tape and corrupted by legal
loopholes that have allowed some who have well-paying jobs to qualify
for and receive the welfare benefits that are meant for the poor.
Almost every day, some new and shocking example of welfare abuse
comes to light. Yet, every time someone proposes a realistic and
effective reform to eliminate welfare fraud and legal loopholes, the cry
goes up that reform is an attempt to deprive the poor. Let us examine
that charge.
Does anyone really believe it is fair for families earning $1,
or more per month to be on welfare? The present rules have permitted
some isolated examples of this type of abuse.
Is it right for a family earning $7,200 a year a figure well
above any poverty line yet suggested to receive the same amount of
welfare assistance as a family of the same size which has no outside
income? The present system of federally mandated income exemptions and
legal loopholes not only allows this type of inequity, it actually
encourages it. And examples of this are not so isolated.
Should working citizens be forced to pay higher and higher taxes
to finance free unlimited medical benefits for those on welfare
benefits that are two to three times greater than the basic health
protection most citizens can afford for their own families?
Is there something wrong with trying to adopt reasonable regulations
that will eliminate costly over-utilization of medical benefits through
limitations that still leave welfare families with a far broader health
program than many working citizens have for themselves?
Should the state simply give up efforts to tighten laws designed to
collect child support from the more than 230,000 fathers who have
abandoned their responsibility to help support their children?
In the last fiscal year (1969-70) counties collected from only 15
percent of absent parents of children on Aid to Families with Dependent
Children
an average of about $75 per month from each absent parent.
Our welfare reform includes tougher laws and financial incentives
to the counties to enable them to greatly increase their collection in
child support cases,
AAUW Speech
If we could raise the ratio from 15 percent to just 50 percent,
collecting the same average $75 per month it would mean well over $100
million toward the support of these children now borne by the taxpaying
citizens.
Other types of abuse arepossible under the current welfare system.
I am sure many of you have actually seen examples yourselves, or perhaps
your sons and daughters have observed them.
The Food Stamp program, for example, was designed to stretch the
food purchasing power of our neediest citizens. It was not intended to
help finance experiments in group living or as a subsidy for able-bodied
persons who are fully capable of work but who have
for their own
reasons chosen to drop out of society.
A man has a constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness
and
that can include dropping out of our system. But he cannot ask the rest
of us to underwrite his pursuit without violating our constitutional
rights.
Many young people today express impatience with society and contempt
for what they regard as its misplaced priorities. But how can anyone
respect a society that continues to allow the educated and able-bodied
to take advantage of welfare loopholes and, in effect, to steal bread
intended for the poor?
Stealing is perhaps too soft a word to describe the legal abuses
that have occurred in the Food Stamp program. But it certainly is
accurate because when someone who really does not need help claims a
welfare benefit, it means that much less for those who must depend upon
welfare for their very existence.
It is because of these types of abuses
legal and illegal
it is
because of welfare's chaotic red tape
conflicting regulations and
misplaced priorities
that public assistance has become a costly and
tragic failure.
It is failing its very reason for existence. Because we have to
stretch the available funds to include some who should not be on welfare
at all, our public assistance program is unable to provide sufficiently
for those who really need hlep the most. These are the truly needy
the blind, the elderly, the disabled and those children from families with
little or no outside income and no employed breadwinner.
Every dollar wasted through administrative duplication
welfare
fraud or legal abuse
means that much less is available to provide for
the basic needs of the truly needy.
AAUW Speech
One of the chief purposes of the 70-point welfare reform program
we have submitted is to lift the level of support that the state provide
for those who need help the most and to restore a degree of dignity to
the lives of those who must rely upon public assistance.
Time prevents me from detailing the entire program, but I would
like to briefly acquaint you with the main goals.
First of all, we want to provide automated monthly pensions for he
elderly, the blind and disabled. The 600,000 persons in this category
should not be consigned forever to the welfare structure. They should
not be regarded as simply another entry in a social caseworker's notebool
Because of the permanence of their dependency, they are in fact pensione)
We want to provide their monthly checks through a pension program
similar to Social Security. Everyone in these categories would receive
the check they now get, plus regular cost-of-living increases. And by
eliminating the costly social worker administrative structure as it
affects these groups, we would hope to realize sufficient funds to
increase those monthly checks in time.
California already provides the nation's most generous overall
level of public assistance. We rank first or second among the states
in three of the four major categories of aid grants to the blind, aged
and disabled and our monthly payments are $38 to $55 per month higher
than the national average. We lead 35 other states in average monthly
payments in the AFDC category with grants $5 per person higher than the
national monthly average.
With the reform program we have proposed, we will be able to increas
the monthly grants to those on AFDC who have no other outside income or
very little. A random sampling in Los Angeles showed that our welfare
reform would allow us to provide increases ranging from 19 to 43 percent
per month in AFDC benefits, depending on the size of the family.
This can be accomplished by imposing among other reforms
a
realistic limit on the amount of outside income a family may have and
still qualify for welfare benefits. And frankly I think our proposal
in this regard are quite generous. Our ceiling would not eliminate
supplemental welfare aid to those whose incomes fell below the ceiling.
For a family of four in San Francisco, for example, welfare
assistance would taper off to an end when the family income reached about
$6,084 a year. (This figure should give you some idea of how high
earnings can be now withthe individual still retaining welfare
eligibility). If the family's income is less than that amount, it would
still be eligible for supplemental assistance, including medical
benefits, Food Stamps and free school lunches.
4 -
AAUW Speech
Such a ceiling is essential if we are to divide the available
welfare funds among those who need help most.
The AFDC program is the largest, most emotional and most expensive
category of welfare. About 1 million, 650 thousand persons receive
benefits on AFDC. It is this category that is most prono to abuse and
it is in this category that we propose a fundamental change of direction.
We do not dispute society's obligation to provide for needy children
But we insist we also have an obligation to restore dignity and
direction to the lives of those on welfare.
We now have third and even fourth generations of families on AFDC
and the program is growing every year. There are those who suggest that
most of this growth is because of the national economic slump and a
higher than normal rate of unemployment. The facts show otherwise.
The number of people on AFDC grew by 25 percent in 1968-69 a time
when California had the lowest rate of unemployment it had known in
15 years.
The problem with the AFDC program is far more basic. It simply has
no goal. It started out to be a temporary helping hand, it has become
a way of life.
We have created a segment of society which looks upon poverty as a
perfectly acceptable career. I do not share that view and I do not
believe most Californians accept it either.
Nothing could be more destructive to our society than to subsidize
a permanent and growing poverty population that must be indefinitely
supported at public expense.
Is there any dignity in being dependent? Can self-esteem and self-
respect grow in such an atmosphere of humiliating defeatism? Is it
humane or generous to consign generation after generation to the demeaning
indignity of the dole?
We donot accept that degrading prospect. And so we have proposed
a drastic change of direction for welfare. We want to begin measuring
welfare's progress not by how many new people are added to the rolls
each year but by how many we restore to economic self-sufficiency.
We propose to restore the dignity and discipline of work to the
lives of those able-bodied AFDC adults who now are regarded as simply
another "welfare case."
- 5 -
AAUW Speech
Employment in a job sufficient to pay one's way should become the
goal of the welfare system. The able-bodied adult must be regarded as
temporarily unemployed not as a permanent dependent.
Under our proposal, these adults would have to be either seeking
employment, training for a job or participating in the Public Assistance
Work Force to continue receiving welfare.
The main goal of this work-oriented program would be employment in
a private or regular public sector job ultimately at wages sufficient
to support the entire family.
If a person is not directed into the active job-market or into a
training program, he would be expected to help with the public assistance
work force.
We have heard protests that this kind of rule is cruel or inhumane
that it is demeaning to require work for welfare.
It is none of those things. Society expects you and your families
to work to support not only yourselves, but the government and all those
who are dependent upon government.
There are many things that the able-bodied adult could do to make a
constructive contribution to the society that supports them. They CC
d
help patrol urban school grounds to guard against vandalism or protect
children from violence
they could take part in environmental recycling
projects
maintain park and recreational facilities. Women could
provide child care so that other mothers could be freed to either train
for a job or work.
If it is not demeaning for volunteer crews of students many of
them possibly your sons and daughters to pick up litter along the
roadway, why is it demeaning to ask the able-bodind on welfare to make
a similar contribution to improve the environment?
While this work program is initially aimed at able-bodied male
recipients, it also would offer women on AFDC an opportunity to become
usefully employed and to escape the dreary cycle of dependency that
welfare has become.
The U.S. Labor Department says almost half of the married women in
America today who have children under 17 are now working to help support
their families and very probably to help pay the taxes their family owes
to government. Is it unfair to give AFDC mothers the same opportunity to
earn economic independence when adequate child care is assured? Are we
asking something unusual, out of the ordinary of them? Thirty seven
percent of all the married women who work are mothers of children under
5 years of age.
AAUW Speech
(
Almost 30 percent of the women on AFDC and more than one fourth of
the male recipients have the equivalent of a high school education or
better.
Many taxpayers who help pay for welfare have less than a 12th grade
education. Still they worked their way into economic spendence.
Society owes every citizen an equal opportunity to make maximum use
of his talents
to travel as far as his own energy and skill can take
him. Society has a moral obligation to help those who through no fault
of their own are unable to provide for themselves. But society is not
obligated to indefinitely subsidize those who simply refuse to try.
We hear pious declarations that we are attacking the result, not the
cause. Well, when our citizens are working 4 months out of the year
just to pay the cost of government and that is insufficient to finance
necessary government services because of one runaway program
welfare,
then welfare must be restructured so that we can go forward with
positive programs
increased financial aid to education
better
technical training
more modern health facilities
positive programs
that are essential if we are to eliminate cr even reduce the root causes
of human misery.
Every person here knows the value of higher education to our society,
not only in dollars, but the intangible strengths that an educated
people provide in a free nation.
Our state budget for higher education is $676 million this year,
the highest amount in the state's history. But welfare and Madi-Cal
consume almost twice as much.
We are investing $337 million in the University of California
system
40 percent more for 26 percent more students than we had four
years ago. But the cost of the AFDC program increased by 42 percent
and the enrollment in this program went up 39 percent in just one year.
We are providing $20 million a year for student scholarships and
loans. $20 million will not pay for one week of welfare.
We have been told that higher education needs more state financial
assistance -millions of dollars more. Can we ask the working men and
women for even more of their earnings when we know we have not done all
that is possible to get the most and the best use out of the money they
are already providing?
- 7 -
AAUW Speech
Unless we brin welfare's excessive cost Tral under control
higher education will not get those millions there will be less and
less money for education and training the positive cures for poverty
and the state will go on paying more and more to finance an unworkable,
discredited system that fails the helpless victims it is supposed to
rescue.
We need your help. Specifically your letters and those of your
friends directed to your own legislators your own assemblyman and
state senator. It does not do much good to write to those who do not
represent your particular district they need to hear from their own
constituents.
We do not expect to convert any of those self-appointed leaders of
the "professional poor." Their power depends upon a continuation of the
human misery and the dependency that the present welfare system has
produced. They will never agree to any change that really cures poverty.
The poor have become their clientele and they are not about to reduce
their number.
No, we hope to convince reasonable men and women from all walks of
life that we cannot go on as we have been going that we cannot afford
the cost in dollars. But even more we cannot afford what welfare is
costing us in the destruction of the spiritual and moral values that
created
our society the ideals of individual and family responsibility.
We must offer the poor the same opportunity this nation has always
offered
the
down
trodden
an equal chance to earn
through their own
efforts a respected place in society and the material rewards that go
with economic independence.
That is the ethic upon which America created the freest and most
prosperous society ever known to man. It is the vision and the dream.
that built California.
Welfare was born of the compassion of our people the most humane,
open handed society the world has ever known. It has become a monster
destroying that which it was intended to help our most precious
resource our people.
We must turn away from the philosophy that some men must be condemned
to exist forever off the confiscated earnings of others.
We must reaffirm our faith in the values of work, self-reliance and
individual dignity. Without those values, freedom and dignity cannot
survive.
With them, our state and our nation can reach new heights of
greatness.
This choice is ours to make. I believe we must make it now.
61/5
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California
April 12, 1971
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
5-12-71
EXCERTPS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
SACRAMENTO
May 12, 1971
Solving problems is the business of government and one of the
greatest problems you are faced with today is how to finance the
increasing cost of essential services within the revenues available to you
This is not a California problem alone. Virtually every city,
county and state government in America is facing a fiscal crisis. The
nation's largest city, New York, talks of a budget exceeding $9 billion
greater than any state budget and second only to the federal government
and still it talks of having to lay off 90,000 employees who have been
added to the payrolls in recent years.
The state of New York is faced with firing more than 8,000 employees,
eliminating needed rehabilitation programs, cutting back on higher
education and many other essential services.
California too faces a time of stringency and cash flow problems,
but the past four years of cut, squeeze and trim finds us able to meet
the present crisis without drastic steps. We have fewer employees for
example than we had four years ago and other efforts at economy are now
paying off. Still we have a critical period of decision-making because
we simply do not have sufficient revenue to finance all the spending
requests that come before us.
Inflation, and the economic slump that has resulted from the
beginning transition to a peace time economy, has reduced state revenues.
The constant push for expanded services also takes a toll.
We have to critically examine each new spending request. And we
must constantly be alert for ways to reduce even further the cost of
existing programs, especially those which are consuming a disproportionate
share of the revenue available to government.
Before I elaborate on these efforts and how it affects the cities of
California, I would like to briefly discuss some other matters I know are
of deep concern to you.
We appreciate the opportunity of working with the League of Californi
Cities. The relationship between my office and your representatives is a
close one and we are always happy to hear any suggestions on how we can
improve communications between Sacramento and the level of government
which is closest to the people
the cities.
League of California Cities
We share many common problems, ranging from finances to employer-
employee relationships. And we welcome your views on ways of defining
our different responsibilities to meet the needs of the people at the
different levels of government.
May I interject a personal view here on one problem which is
becoming more widespread and is of great concern to you I know. This is
the matter of strikes by public employees. I was an officer of my union
for 25 years and for much of that time played a leading role in contract
negotiations with management. I believe the strike is a legitimate tool
in bargaining between a free trade union's membership and a private
industry. In fact I led our union as president in the first strike we
ever had.
But I strongly believe the right to strike is something public
employees must forego. Government, at any level, is not like a private
business. Government cannot close down. A strike is the use of
excessive power to win a point test of whether the worker can afford
to withhold his services longer than the employer can shut down his
business. Inherent in this contest is the knowledge that if at any ti
the public good is endangered, government the elected representatives
of the people will protect the people's interest. But government cannot
refuse to provide the services and protections prescribed by the
constitution and charters of the nation, the states and the cities. It
must continue round the clock giving essential services certain basic
protections to the people.
Government has no choice but to continue operations any way that it
can. Now because of this, government as an employer, has a responsibility
to provide machinery for settling grievances whether over salary levels
or working conditions-to insure the greatest possible fairness in its
relations with its employees. Having done this to the best of its ability
the final decisions on how far government can go to meet employee needs
and requests must be made by elected officials.
For many years, the state has returned to cities and local
governments part of the revenue it collects from the sales, cigarette and
highway user taxes. This amounts to more than $500 million this year, and
represents an important part of municipal revenues.
Now as a possible answer to some of our shared financial problems the
federal government or at least the administration in Washington has
proposed federal revenue sharing. At the state level, we have supported
League of California Cities
Obviously, the ideal would be if the federal government returned
the tax resources to state and local government and let us raise the
money ourselves. But this would be the millenium. Next best might be
tax credits returning a portion or percentage of the federal income
tax to us.
One reason states and local governments find themselves in periodi
financial difficulty is because the federal government has pre-empted
so many of the available sources of revenue. Whenever a tax dollar goe
to Washington and is returned through some federal program, part of it
is lost through needless administrative overhead. Red tape and
restrictions attached to federal grants is in itself one of the most
difficult administrative problems for cities and local governments
denying us the flexibility we need to allocate the revenue where it is
most needed.
However, a proposal has been made by the president and certainly it
goes farther than anything we have heard from Washington in many years.
We have been offered a share of federal revenues along with the
responsibility for some of the present programs free of federal mandates
and regulations.
The president's proposal goes beyond anything Washington has ever
offered before. If local and state governments can use their federal
funds under the president's plan in such a way that a surplus remains
over and above the cost of the program, the surplus can be used to lower
local taxes if the local governments so choose.
Naturally, there is great resistance to this program in the Congres
and in the Washington bureaucracy which will lose some of its size and
power under this plan. We can have this first step toward restoration
of local and state autonomy and adequate financing, only if we get
public backing and pressure on the Congress.
In the meantime, can we give up and impose even more of a tax burde
on our already over-burdened citizens without doing our utmost to reform
welfare--Medi-Cal and even education? The taxpayer has a right to know
that every tax dollar is being wisely and efficiently used.
Last year, a management survey disclosed that one major school
district was still spending money on out-of-state recruiting trips at a
time when it had 15 applicants for every teaching vacancy. It was not
using modern purchasing practices to hold down the cost of such mundane
items as paper towels and window cleaners.
- 3 -
League of California Cities
How many other school districts could find similar examples of
inefficiency and excessive cost? How many cities or counties?
As you know, the state has made available to cities and other local
government agencies the cost saving possibilities in the mass purchase
of equipment and supplies. In the 1969-70 fiscal year, almost $10
million of equipment was purchased through this program for 139 cities,
43 counties and 49 special districts, among others. The items purchased
included more than 2,600 vehicles of various types police cars, trucks,
typewriters, gasoline, paper and other items of necessary equipment.
Participating local agencies saved more than $1 million by taking part
in the voluntary cooperative purchasing program.
Efficient cost control must become standard operating procedure at
every level of government. Taxpayers cannot be expected to subsidize
inefficieny of government.
But you and I both know this will not be enough. The housekeeping
and administrative economies we have achieved are significant savings.
But we could save millions buying paper clips efficiently and it still
would not be enough to offset the staggering growth of welfare in
b
cost and caseload.
Even though cities do not have as much of a direct role in welfare
as the counties and the state, you do have a vital stake in welfare
reform. In a very real sense, the question of whether cities and other
local governments obtain the additional revenue they need depends on the
outcome of the battle for welfare reform.
Every taxing jurisdiction is in direct competition with every other
level of government for tax revenue. When one level of government takes
a disproportionate share, it makes it that much harder for every other
level of government to raise the revenues they need to keep pace with
rising costs.
Some of the legislative leadership in Sacramento seems to be
curiously unaware of that fact or else they choose to ignore it.
They apparently would rather increase taxes instead of easing the
tax burden by reforming welfare.
Those in control of the legislature somehow have failed to hear the
massive cry from the grass-roots for tax relief.
Instead, they have suggested a so-called "tax reform" program that
only partly conceals a massive tax increase for our citizens.
League of California Cities
Lip service has been given to economy, even while they introduce
spending measures---all of which would require higher taxes. Already
they have asked for more than $4.1 billion of additional state bonds.
The state treasurer felt it necessary to point out the implications
of adding this amount of bonded debt in a single year. Only an
estimated $500 to $600 million of state bonds can be sold in a normal
year without disrupting the bond market. Since cities rely on municipal
bonds to finance capital improvements, this should be a concern to you,
too.
Even though some of our legislators choose to ignore all these
factors, we must consider them, We must consider them because every new
spending program, every dollar of additional cost that requires higher
taxes, and every new bond issue, are critical individual parts of an
overall economic equation that we must keep in mind to assure the
continued economic stability of California and all its different levels
of government.
Obviously, we have to establish priorities on spending; we must
decide which bond programs are most important; and we must hold down the
cost of government to a level which will not require massive new taxes.
Unfortunately, there are still those who live back in a discredited
day, where they think political success comes to those who tax and tax
and spend and spend someone else's money.
There is no secret about my conviction that more than any other
single step, it is imperative that we reform welfare this year.
The present welfare system in California costs $3.5 billion in tax
money each year. And this is a staggering financial burden on the working
citizens of this state.
There is almost unanimous agreement that welfare must be reformed,
even among those in the legislature who refuse to act. The present system
is a hodge-podge of confusing and conflicting regulations
it is
perpetuating welfare as a way of life. Because of various complex ways
of computing eligibility, welfare now allows and even encourages
outrageous abuses which are unfair to those who need help the most and
to the taxpayers who must pay for welfare.
It is not necessary for me to impress upon this audience the cost
impact of welfare. But I would like to point out a few examples of how
welfare spending compares with other essential programs.
- 5 -
League of California Cities
In the past four years, we have been able to increase state suppor
for public schools by $500 million the largest dollar increase in an
comparable period in the state's history. Yet unless we have welfare
reform, the total cost of public assistance and Medi-Cal will go up mor
than 600 million dollars within the coming fiscal year!
This year's state budget provides $337 million for the Univers -Y
of California system. That is more than a 40 percent increase in funds
compared to a 26 percent increase in emrollment over four years.
Spending in the AFDC program went up 42 percent in one year and th
enrollment in that program increased 39 percent in one year.
We provide $20 million to finance college scholarships and loans
for needy students welfare spends that much in a week.
We could completely phase out all the General Fund costs and the
functions of three of the four major state agencies Business and
Transportation, Resources and Agriculture and Services
and the savings
would only be $154 million. Welfare and Medi-Cal costs eight times that
much this year in state funds alone.
The total cost of welfare and Medi-Cal in California is running at
the rate of $9 million a day.
We can cut that cost by $2 million a day in state, county and
federal spending if we can get passage of our welfare reform.
I am sure many of you are familiar with the general purpose of the
70 point welfare program we have proposed. Fully implemented, it will
save between $566 and $836 million a year in tax funds.
It will eliminate legal loopholes which presently permit persons
with significant income to remain eligible for welfare. It will provide
a monthly pension check to our elderly, the blind and the totally
disabled
instead of treating them as so many welfare "cases."
By fixing a reasonable ceiling on the amount of income a family may
have and still be eligible for welfare, it will assure that the funds we
have available for public assistance are directed to those most in nee
those who have little or no outside income.
By eliminating from the rolls those who have significant outside
income
there will be more funds to provide better benefits for the nee
AFDC families which have no other source of support without raising
taxes. And the work requirement we propose for able-bodied adults will
restore discipline and dignity to a system that now encourages generatio
after generation to remain dependent on public assistance.
League of California Cities
The only major objection to our program is the mistaken belief that
there would be certain cost shifts to the counties. Shortly after I
announced our program, I directed the State Department of Social Welfare
to send teams into each county to discuss each component of the plan and
to reconcile wherever possible the differences that always accompany
estimates.
Let me say first that the majority of counties and county officials
strongly endorse our overall welfare reform goals. They have demonstrated
a spirit of cooperation that indicates to me how necessary this reform
is to the state and to the local government most affected.
Obviously, when cost estimates are made on a program's impact, there
are differences of opinion. Many of these differences are rapidly being
resolved. We are prepared to work with the counties to reach complete
agreement so that they will be satisfied that there will be no additional
burden on them.
We have always been prepared to make adjustments and reconcile any
differences to guarantee that there would be no additional cost burden on
local government. To emphasize this point I have some news to report.
Today in fact in just a few minutes Senator Burgener will introduce
amendments which will enable the counties to be confident that there will
be no cost shift to them. These amendments will reinforce our commitment
to the counties and, at the same time, maintain the integrity and intent
of our welfare reforms. For those who may have missed the emphasis the
first time, I would like to say once again as clearly as possible that
there will be no net cost shi a to counties in this welfare reform.
Instead, there will be millions of dollars of savings and the state will
take over a tremendous administrative load that counties have been
shouldering alone.
Those county officials who give up on welfare reform are
in
effect telling their citizens that a property tax increase is
institable and that there is no alternative. There is an alternative:
welfare reform.
If, for any reason, our estimates should prove higher than the final
actual savings from reform, then I repeat the pledge I made to the
counties the state will adjust its financial support so that NO county
will have additional costs as a result of welfare reform. I tell you
this, because you and the counties share the same source of revenue---
League of California Cities
Arguments about whether a particular reform will save $3 million
or $5 million must not be used as an excuse to block an overhaul of the
welfare program.
Nor should anyone resort to partisan politics to block reforms which
have been supported by all reasonable men
Democratic
and
Republican
at every level of government.
Many of the reforms we proposed have been suggested by county and
local officials. Every major plan now being discussed contains elements
of our plan.
We have a program that is workable a plan that provides a sweeping
change of direction for the welfare cost spiral that has pushed state and
local governments to the edge of bankruptcy.
We cannot afford to delay action on welfare reform just because
Washington is talking about the same subject. They have been talking
about it for several years now and some of their previous efforts at
"reform" created the most outrageous abuses we are now trying to corre
California's legislature cannot abdicate its responsibility to
correct what we know to be a badly constructed welfare program which is
not achieving its purpose and which is consuming vast sums of revenue
that would be better spent for other vital programs.
More than 4,700 separate bills are before the legislature this
session. Aside from the budget, the most important are the three bills
which constitute the welfare reform we have proposed, a realistic tax
reform and a budget balanced without increased taxes.
If the legislature is really concerned about the financial plight of
the cities
the counties
the schools, if they are really concerned
about reducing the tax burden on our citizens, they will pass our welfare
reform program and deal with these other problems.
The only alternative is a massive increase in taxes
an increase
that would make it that much harder for cities and local governments to
finance their own operations.
Opponents of our welfare reform say they prefer the tax increase.
I believe the people prefer welfare reform. I believe every public
official concerned with the economic stability of government at any level
should be in favor of reforming welfare, too,
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes there may be changes in,
or additions to, the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes.)
8
till
5/14
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNL_
RELEASE: Friday P.M.s
Sacramento, California
May 14
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
5-13-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
Department of Consumer Affairs
Annual Board Breakfast
Sacramento
May 14, 1971
Government is too big, too costly and too far removed from the
people in many cases to be responsive to the individual citizen's
problems.
If those words sound familiar, they should. They emphasize a
theme that I have been sounding off about for many years long before
I became governor.
The things I have learned while in public office have only
reinforced my belief that government must have a constant flow of
new ideas from the public and more citizen participation if it is
to be effective in meeting the needs of our people. We have been
trying to accomplish both those goals and we have made some progress.
Since we met a year ago, a lot has been happening in state
government to strengthen California's ability to protect the consumer.
Most of the boards and commissions represented here today will
be affected in one way or another by the two major reorganizational
plans we are putting into effect this year and next year.
Our goal simply stated- is to provide a more effective direct
link between the consumer and those state agencies which have the
responsibility for protecting consumer interests. Instead of getting
a runaround from one agency to another, we want the individual citizen
to be able to seek and get prompt action on his complaints whether
they involve health quacks or phony merchandising schemes.
We also want to streamline this particular area of government so
that the boards and commissions dealing with various consumer-oriented
problems and programs will be consolidated into a more efficient and
logical administrative structure.
The first part of this reorganization already is under way. It
created the State Department of Consumer Affairs, the parent agency
under which most of your boards and commissions are now operating.
This department already has made considerable progress under Leighton
Hatch's direction in streamlining the state's consumer protection
program.
-1-
A one-stop consumer complaint and information handling service
has been put into effect so that the individual citizen now has a
central place to register a complaint or have his specific grievance
quickly referred to the proper agency for handling.
The department will publish a handy consumer complaint handbook
and has published other material needed to acquaint the average
citizen with his rights and the consumer protection services that are
available to him, including Small Claims Court.
They are working with the Department of Education to promote more
effective consumer education programs in the public schools.
The Consumer Affairs Act that becomes operational on July 1 will
help us accomplish our goal of increasing public participation on the
various regulatory boards and commissions.
Very shortly, we will be announcing a Consumer Advisory Council.
Its membership will include two representatives from voluntary consumer
organizations, one from labor, two from business and one legislative
appointee each from the State Senate and Assembly.
The purpose of this committee will be to make recommendations for
legislation to help us maintain California's leadership in consumer
protection.
A second part of the plan calls for a Consumer Fraud Task Force
to compile information on the various kinds of consumer rackets and
fraud and to recommend new laws or other steps necessary to strengthen
the enforcement of our existing anti-fraud laws.
The other major reorganizational program involves the creation of
a single Department of Public Health. Responsibility for California's
many health programs now is divided among several departments, including
the Department of Consumer Affairs.
This fragmentation and overlapping jurisdiction creates confusion,
inhibits effective planning and makes it difficult to achieve maximum
benefit from the dollars the state spends to protect the health of
the citizens of California.
At the consumer level, it leaves the individual with the task of
trying to thread his way through a maze of health programs to find
exactly the type of service or program he needs.
Under the reorganization plan, eleven healing arts boards of the
Department of Consumer Affairs will be transferred to a new Department
of Health.
-2-
One of the respo ibilities of this department will be to
determine what the state can do to help meet the manpower needs in the
health and medical care service area doctors, nurses, pharmacists,
and so forth.
The decisions that are made by the healing arts licensing boards
could have a significant impact on the ability of the state to carry
out programs to increase the manpower available for medical and health
care service in California.
By combining these functions in the Department of Health, it will
streamline planning and eliminate some duplication of effort.
When this reorganization becomes operational (on July 1, 1972),
we think it will be a tremendous benefit to you in carrying out your
regulatory duties. It also will help us do a better job of meeting
California's health needs.
I also would like to take just a moment to speak to you--not as a
member of a board or commission- but as citizens and individual members
of the business and professional community.
As you know, this is a year of austerity for state government.
While the national economic slump aggravated our problems, it is not
the major cause. The major cause is welfare and the massive amounts
of state revenue necessary to finance this program.
The current system is a hodge-podge of confusing and sometimes
conflicting regulations which have perpetuated welfare as a way of
life. Legal loopholes have permitted some families with incomes of
$12,000 or more per year to remain eligible for welfare.
Some of the worst abuses involve the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children program. A majority of the 1.6 million persons on AFDC involve
families in which the male parent has either abandoned his responsibility
to provide for his children or is otherwise absent.
Welfare has become bogged down in red tape and is no longer
achieving its original purpose of providing for those who are most in
need of help.
As you know, we have proposed a comprehensive 70-point welfare
reform program designed to completely change the direction of public
assistance in California.
Instead of welfare payments we want to provide pension checks for
the elderly, the blind and disabled. They should not be lumped
together as so many welfare cases. These pension checks would be
distributed through an automated system similar to Social Security
a
which will eliminate a lot of
and ultimately should able us to increase the grants to our senior
citizens and those permanently disabled citizens who have no other
means of support.
A major emphasis is on eliminating loopholes and abuses and to
reintroduce the discipline and dignity of work in the AFDC program.
As it now operates, AFDC is not the temporary helping hand it was
intended to be. We now have second and third generations of familie
who have known no other way of life.
We want to require able-bodied welfare recipients on AFDC to
either work, be seeking a job, be in training for a job or take part
in a Public Assistance Work Force---as a condition for receiving
further welfare benefits.
We want to enact new legal procedures to track absent AFDC fathers
and collect at least some child support from those who have abandoned
their responsibility and instead have thrown the entire burden of their
family's support on the taxpayer.
This overhaul of the welfare system will result in a total saving
of between $566 to $836 million in state, federal and local taxes. It
will eliminate the abuses, and it will allow us to provide better
benefits for those families which have little or no outside income.
There are a number of other specific steps designed to eliminate
loopholes and abuses and provide administrative savings. I hope you
become familiar with the entire package because frankly, we need your
help.
We must convince a majority of the legislature that welfare reform
is a priority California must act on this year.
# # #
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be addition
to, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes.)
-4-
5.1
5/19
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE:
WE
ESDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California
May 19, 1971
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
5-18-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
STATE MEN'S AND WOMEN'S CLUB LUNCHEON
Sacramento
May 19, 1971
The whole reason for government is to serve the people of California,
to meet their needs and to help them build a better tomorrow for
themselves and for our state. This is what you and I are working for;
it is what our people expect.
I am proud of the progress we have made in meeting the needs of the
people of California. And I would like to thank you for your part in
making this progress possible.
California is often called a working model of the future. If you
want to know what the world will be like tomorrow, look at California
today.
With their inventive genius and productive capacity, our people are
far ahead of the world in almost every major area of advanced scientific,
educational and medical development. And we are often first in other
things too the fads and far-out fashions the social unrest and other
problems that man creates for himself in an urban society.
In the field of environmental protection, California was the first
state to recognize smog and air pollution as a major problem. But
because of persistent efforts, we are on our way to being the first
industrial society in the world to learn how to successfully cope with
and control air pollution without stopping progress.
We have been consistently ahead in the fight against all forms of
pollution. And we have some specific, measurable progress to show for it.
--Every 1971 model automobile sold in California emits 85 percent
fewer hydrocarbons than new vehicles used to discharge before our smog
controls went into effect.
--This year, California put into effect the first new car controls
ever imposed anywhere on exhaust oxides of nitrogen. That's the
brownish-orange colored element that makes smog such a visible irritant
in Los Angeles and other areas.
Our air, water and noise pollution controls nee setting 7 standard
for the rest of the nation to follow,
1 -
State Men's and Women's Club
But we are not sa sfied. We are asking the agislature to adopt
even tougher emission standards and pollution controls for older model
used cars the last major source of vehicle air pollution.
In a recent nation-wide competition for the most beautiful
highways, California took five of the top nine awards. This reflects the
policy adopted several years ago, assuring for the first time protection
of the environment in planning and building all types of public works
projects.
A few weeks ago, California took another step forward. We adopted
an official state policy to involve local citizens in the planning of
freeway and transportation corridor routes. We are asking them not only
to help us decide the paths that freeways and highways will take near
their communities, but we are asking them to help us determine whether
another type of transportation system would be more feasible than a
freeway or highway in the transportation corridor.
Now we know we cannot simply outlaw the automobile. But we can and
we aremoving to eliminate the environmental problems the automobile has
caused.
We know we cannot stop building highways. But we can consider the
environment when we build every roadway as some of our highway engineers
did recently when theyre-routed a highway to protect a small pond that
was a breeding area for a rare type of salamander.
It is our responsibility yours and mine to look to the future in
planning all public works projects. We must build into every decision an
assurance of maximum environmental protection. And while we are doing
all this, we must continue to work diligently to clean up the pollution
caused by the neglect of the past.
Tougher laws, of course, will not eliminate air or water pollution
without help from man. Man creates his own environment. All of us must
work together to assure the cleaner air, the fresher water and the
uncluttered landscapes we want to preserve for ourselves and for our
children.
These are specific areas of progress which you in state government
have helped California to achieve. And while they involve the environment
the final result is the same as all our other efforts to build a better
tomorrow for the people we both serve--the people of California.
That was our purpose and our goal in pushing the concept of
community mental health programs.
any 2 -
State Men's and Women Club
In 1967, the state budget for community health services in California
was $18 million. It is $96 million this year and the increased
financing tells only part of what is a dramatic effort to improve care
for the mentally ill. Fifty-six of our 58 counties now offer community
mental health services. Instead of warehousing the mentally ill in
outmoded hospital facilities, these local programs allow mentally ill
patients to seek the treatment they need in their own communities, in
surroundings that are familiar to them and where they can still be close
to their families and friends.
Because of more effective treatment services, the length of stay in
the hospital has been shortened. And the number of patients in our state
hospitals on a given day has decreased from about 37,500 in 1959 to an
estimated 11,500 this year---even though new admissions have increased
from 30,000 to 40,000 in the past seven years alone.
The overcrowding that existed in California's hospitals for the
mentally ill for decades is no longer a problem. In 1968, we were able
to adopt new space and nursing staff standards and we reached those goals
four years ahead of schedule.
State programs aimed at correcting the overcrowding in hospitals for
the retarded also are going forward. The two year waiting period for
admission that existed in 1964 has been cut to about two and one half
months now. Improved space standards in the hospitals for the retarded
will be achieved this July 1. Our facilities for the retarded have more
staff than at any time in their history and are within 18 to 24 months
of reaching 100 percent of the higher staffing standards we adopted in
1968.
You should be proud of these results. I am. Every other state in
the nation looks to this state as a model in the treatment of the
mentally ill. California is the only major state to have all of its state
hospitals and institutions fully accredited by the national commission
which sets the standards for mental health programs. *
Our neighboring state of Nevada which has only one hospital
has
received this accreditation. But except for California no other state
with more than one hospital has received this overall tribute to the
effectiveness and efficiency of its programs for the mentally ill and
mentally retarded. All 15 of our state hospitals and institutions have
been fully accredited.
- 3 -
*Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals
State Men's and Women ( Club
We have made great progress in broadening educational opportunities
for our young people. This year, California's state scholarships and
loan program will issue more than 21,000 grants to help individual
students further their college educations. The state is investing some
$20 million in scholarships and loans for students. Four years ago it
was less than one fourth of that, but I prefer to measure this particula
achievement in terms of the opportunity it means to our young people.
Protecting the environment means protecting people. The mental
health program is designed to provide better health service to people,
In education, we have expanded opportunity for individual advancement
a service for people.
But there is another achievement which is more significant than all
the others and that is the progress we have made in saving human life
itself. Last year, the number of traffic fatalities on California's
streets and highways reached an all time low.
The mileage death rate dropped to 4.2 deaths per 100 million miles
of travel, a record which we feel reflects the vigorous law enforcement
and the added safety factors involved in the completion of 275 miles OF
new freeways.
Accidents involving more than one vehicle went down 5 percent.
--Fatal accidents in cities decreased 7 percent.
--The number of pedestrians killed at city intersections went down
29 per cent.
Although we must never relax our efforts, those figures represent
tremendous progress in improved traffic safety. The most gratifying
statistic of all is the fact that the total number of highway deaths
last year vias 179 fewer than during the previous year. (4,901 compared
to 5,080 in 1969).
This means that having more highway patrolmen on our freeways is
having an impact. It means that the tougher laws we have enacted to deal
with drunken driving are working.
In simplified terms, it might be said that all these traffic safety
efforts by so many in state government could have meant life itself for
at last 179 people people who might otherwise have died in automobile
accidents.
- 4 -
S
and
women's
Club
We are still faci many unresolved problems We need a complete
overhaul of the welfare system to give it dignity and purpose and to
improve benefits for those who need help the most. We need realistic
tax reform. We need to balance our forthcoming budget. And we need to
accomplish all this without increasing the tax load on our citizens
if possible.
I am not passing on any state secrets when I remind you that this
is an austerity year for state government, in California and every other
major state. Yet, curiously enough, this very austerity emphasizes the
necessity of our past efforts to hold down the cost of government.
Although we were unable to provide an across-the-board salary
increase this year, we do seek to improve your retirement benefits; we
have budgeted $111/2 million in fringe benefits that state employees have
sought for a number of years including overtime pay, night differentials
and unemployment insurance benefits; of course we will have the usual
merit pay increases.
Contrast this, if you will, to the situation in New York the only
other state comparable in size to California. New York faces the
prospect of firing more than 8,000 state workers. New York City with
a budget larger than any state and second only to the federal government-
is considering layoffs totalling 90,000 public employees.
So far, we have been able to avoid any such mass reductions and
the main reason is the fact that for the past four years we have made a
concentrated effort to hold down the number of additional employees.
We aid not demand economy in government for a punitive purpose. We
insisted on more efficiency because, frankly, there was real need for
improved management in state government and because if we had not done
so, we would have been unable to find sufficient funds to finance
essential programs.
We have to squeeze every penny of value out of every tax dollar
spent. We still do.
Now, I am not unmindful of the sacrifice that you face this year by
being asked to forego the usual cost of living pay increase we have
provided in the past. I wish there was no necessity for it, and I truly
hope our effort at belt-tightening will bring us through this temporary
period of economic dislocation to a sound fiscal base where such measures
will no longer be needed. In the meantime thank heaven we have been able
to meet our problems without mass layoffs and even salary cuts which have
been proposed in some states.
- 5 -
State Men's and Women's Club
One of the main 1 sons for the national ecol nic slump is the
transition from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy.
This transition
the aerospace cutbacks
and the other related
adjustments have contributed to our fiscal squeeze. Our revenues simply
haven't grown in the amounts necessary to cover the increasing cost of
government, including welfare and Medi-Cal.
The only sensible thing to do in such a situation is to try to
d
down spending and to get on with long-deferred reforms in welfare,
Medi-Cal and California's tax structure.
As you know, we have been vigorously opposed on some of the reforms
we have proposed. When anyone suggests a drastic change of direction in
any government program, there is opposition. I am sure many of you have
been through similar periods before in your careers.
But I would like to point out one significant fact to you: no
reasonable person in this state Democrat, Republican or Independent
has argued that welfare reform is not needed. There is as close to a
unanimous concensus on this as it may ever be possible to achieve.
The arguments instead are over cost formulas and whether a particula
reform will save this much or that much.
These are not substantial differences. I have repeatedly made casar
my administration's determination to work with the legislature, the
counties and with all concerned parties to achieve a goal we all seek
a realistic welfare system that is fair to those who receive public
assistance, to the citizens who must finance it and to the ployees who
administer it.
Only when we achieve these reforms will we be able to have orderly
budgeting SC that all the other essential state programs including
salary adjustments may at last receive the financial priority they
deserve.
California has mat challenge before. This is the state where men
dare to dream great dreams. If we can send a man to the moon, we can
clean up our backyards. We can stop polluting our own air and water.
We can move forward to meet the neads of our people in environment
programs in education in transportation planning. Purblem-solving is
the business of government. That is our purpose yours and mine.
I could go on longer than time permits with the record of your
accomplishments in these past four years. The per capita cost to end
taxpayer of the cost of state government has been reduced, Many
departments have absorbed 30 and 40 percent work load increases and at
the same time increased their ability to do the job with no enlargement
of staff.
Our prison rehabilitation and parole system sees California with
fewer inmates in our state prisons than we had ten years ago. Honor
camps for juvenile offenders are being closed down because there is no
need for them, thanks to the probation program we have in cooperation wit
the counties. The list is long and impressive and Californians can be
proud.
If we work together, with understanding, we can solve every problem
and lay the foundation for the better tomorrow that we all want for
California.
#
#
#
#
#
#
(NOTE:
Since
Governor
Reagan
speaks
the
the
5/22
5
OFFICE OF THE GOVERI
:
RELEASE:
S
DAY A.Ms.
Sacramento, California
May 23, 1971
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
5-20-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
100th ANNIVERSARY DINNER
LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
May 22, 1971
If you have had time to read the newspapers or watch television,
you know we are in the busy season in Sacramento. We have been engaged
in a dialogue about a lot of important matters, including some that
vitally affect your profession.
The most important struggle involves the reforms we hope to make in
welfare and Medi-Cal.
Almost every reasonable person in and out of government agrees that
something is drastically wrong with our system of public assistance, not
only in California, but throughout the nation. In cost and caseload,
welfare is like the mythical monster which grew another arm every time
one was sliced off.
This year, the cost of public assistance and Medi-Cal will reach a
total of $3.5 billion in California. Almost 2½ million persons one out
of every nine citizens is receiving some sort of walfare benefit.
Without reform another 600,000 people will be on the rolls by the
middle of next year
and that will make it one out of seven.
Welfare's staggering financial burden is pushing state and county
governments to the brink of bankruptcy. The system is so overloaded, so
bound up in red tape and so restricted by confusing and sometimes absurd
regulations that it is on the point of total collapse.
Our citizens do not lack compassion for the poor. They have given
more of their resources in cash and other material assistance to help the
needy at home and overseas than any other society in man's history.
But they have lost faith in the public assistance program we have
today. Those who have always had to work for a living themselves cannot
understand why a voluntarily unemployed drop-out is able to sneer at
society yet receive food stamps that were intended to help the truly
needy.
They cannot understand federally-mandated regulations which allow
one family with an income of $7,200 a year to be on public assistance
collecting the same amount of welfare as another family of the same size
which has no income at all or that people earning $12,000 or even $14,000
a year can also qualify for welfare. But above all they cannot understand
why the overwhelming majority of truly poor who would like to be self-
supporting are seemingly sentenced to permanent dependence on the dole,
and they have a suspicion someone must be trying deliberately to keep
it that way.
Los Angeles County Medical Assoc.
In your own field of interest, many people annot understand why
working citizens must finance for those on welfare an array of health
care benefits two to three times greater than the basic health benefits
they can afford for their own families. After four years of trying to
reform welfare and Medi-Cal one or two steps at a time
after a seven
month task force study of this entire problem we have come to the
conclusion that the inequities in welfare and Medi-Cal, the built-in
financial instability of public assistance cannot be cured with shots
major surgery is called for.
And that is what we have proposed. California enacted Medi-Cal in
1966 as part of the federal Medicaid program. Unlike private health
insurance plans, no limit was set on any service. Medi-Cal goes far
beyond the benefits offered by the most comprehensive private health
insurance plans.
One California newspaper estimated that to provide these types of
optional services totally free in addition to basic health care, a non-
welfare family of four would have to pay a yearly premium of $2,000
if they could find an insurance company reckless enough to offer such
policy.
By the spring of 1967--only nine months after it was launched an-
during our first few months in Sacramento-we made the discovery that this
hastily passed program (Medi-Cal) was already far beyond its projected
budget and rocketing into space totally out of control. We have been
trying to stabilize it into a predictable financial orbit ever since.
We have worked out some of the management snarls that kept providers
of service waiting six months or more for payment in the early days of
the program. But not even a computer can solve the financial problems
caused by Medi-Cal's almost unlimited benefits, the explosion in the
welfare caseload, and over utilization of the services provided.
As you know, everyone who is on welfare is automatically eligible
for Medi-Cal, too. In addition, the program provides totally free
benefits to the medically needy those who have some income but who
cannot afford the additional cost of their own medical care.
A total of 2.4 million people are eligible for Medi-Cal this year
at a cost of about $1.3 billion.
- 2 -
L.A. County Medical SOC.
Court decisions periodically add thousands of new people to the
rolls by changing regulations or eliminating some of the restraints that
used to allow us to more accurately predict what next year's budget
would be. But no one has invented a computer which could have predicted
that the U.S. Supreme Court would eliminate California's one-year
residency requirement for welfare or similar waiting periods that were
in effect in 40 states prior to 1969.
This year, because of that ruling, about 60,000 persons who would
not have been eligible under the previous residency rule are on the
welfare rolls in California at a total cost of some $55 million. The
Supreme Court said a residency requirement interferes with a welfare
recipient's right-to-travel. And so instant welfare became the law of
the land.
None of this is a fault of the health care industry. But some for
their own reasons would have us believe otherwise.
Your efforts to provide for the health care needs of all our
most
citizens
within severe cost limitations
has been gratifying. Fees
being paid to doctors today under Medi-Cal are 7 percent less than they
were five years ago.
Hippocrates advised physicians to "sometimes give your services for
nothing." Contrary to what some of you may have heard we have not gone
quite that far in Medi-Cal. But last December, we did come to a day of
reckoning.
Many of you may not be clear on just why we had to take the action
we did to bring the Medi-Cal budget into control. Although Dr. Earl Brian
and I appreciate all the attention in all candor we must share the
credit for the December cutbacks with the legislature.
As governor, I had no discretion. I was required by law to put
these cuts and restrictions into effect to avoid having the entire
Medi-Cal program grind to a complete stop before the end of the fiscal
year.
Some of those who protested the cuts the loudest were legislators
who would be all things to all people. Never once have they mentioned
that our action was in obedience to the law they passed in 1968. The
first cutback that must be made when Medi-Cal overruns its budget is a
temporary 10 percent reduction of fees to physicians and other health
care providers
except for hospitals.
- 3 -
L.A. County Medical Assoc.
The next step is to postpone all non-emergency and non-essential
health care services that may be safely deferred without seriously
endangering life. Those are the steps we took. Let me interject when
the legislature adopted this rigid system for meeting any future fiscal
crisis, we were opposed. We had asked for some flexibility some way
to meet such a situation administratively without being tied to
inflexible mandates.
The legislation adopted over our protests is our only tool and it
authorizes still a third cut if the steps already taken fail to
eliminate the deficit. The third step, which we have not taken, calls
for dropping almost a quarter of a million people in the medically
needy category from the program entirely.
Instead, we have tried to spread the available funds to cover as
much of the basic and essential health care that we can possibly cover
within the law for almost 2½ million people. We had no other realistic
choice except to go on with this ill-conceived program and at the
same time ask the people for more taxes.
The national economic slump
which affected state revenues
also
affected our citizens. They are caught between inflation, unemployment
and reduced earnings. It seems totally unreasonable for us to ask the
legislature for more money knowing it could only be obtained by higher
taxes.
Solving the financial problems of Medi-Cal requires actions that are
not directly involved with the health care industry which provides the
services authorized under Medi-Cal. It requires us to completely change
the upward growth of welfare caseloads in California, It is the welfare
caseload that determines how many Medi-Cal patients you must serve.
Dr. Brian is doing a tremendous job coping with the management
problems of such a massive program. But he has no control whatsoever
over the number of patients who must be served.
It is virtually an open-ended program. And no end to this growth is
in sight until we restore a little realism to welfare with rules tha
direct assistance to those who really need help the most. Only when we
have realistic eligibility standards will we stabilize the caseload
growth and put an end to the periodic financial problems of Medi-Cal.
In the meantime, we have to keep the system operating and solvent
within rules that we know are totally unrealistic and unfair.
- 4 -
L.A. County Medical SSOC,
We know there is a lot of red tape involved in prior authorization
too much.
By your professional oath, you are sworn to offer your services to
all who need treatment. The physician is pledged to enter the houses
of the sick to heal.
You should not and cannot be expected to serve as a punch-card
policeman to determine whether the patient is legally eligible for care
under Medi-Cal.
The job of deciding who is eligible should be done before the
patient ever seeks treatment, And that is a job for the government which
authorized the program, and which has an obligation to establish a system
that will allow you to use your time to practice your profession to
heal the sick.
Under the present system, this red tape, all the forms and screening
procedures are the only restraints we have to keep some degree of fiscal
control over Medi-Cal. And we are required by law to impose these
restraints.
But we don't like it. We want to develop a simplified system that
will cut away as much of this red tape as possible that will allow the
physician maximum freedom to exercise his own professional judgment in
caring for the sick.
Every day, Medi-Cal spends approximately $4 million providing health
care for the poor. And every day Earl Brian receives some 400 complaints.
written and verbal about various aspects of a program that involves
seventy thousand individual physicians, hospitals and other health care
providers. Multiply this by the number of claims that can be expected
from a patient population of almost 2½ million and you can get some idea
of the administrative complexity and sheer volume involved in managing
Medi-Cal.
Briefly, the reform program we have proposed would:
-Establish a uniform basic schedule of Medi-Cal benefits, including
full coverage for hospital costs and full coverage for physicians'
services. This basic schedule will allow up to four outpatient visits
to physicians every month. It will provide a full 365 days per year of
nursing care, laboratory and X-ray benefits, prescription drugs up to
two per month and 65 days of fully-paid hospitalization per year.
- 5 -
L.A. County Medical Assoc.
We also propose 0 transfer 800,000 "medically indigent" persons
into the state's basic plan and thereby relieve the counties of a
substantial cost burden that has contributed to higher local property
taxes.
/token
Possibly the most publicized part of the program involves co-payment.
With this provision, every person with outside resources, except the
totally destitute, would pay $1 per visit to the doctor or dentist;
$1 per drug prescription and pair of eyeglasses.
Such a system is absolutely essential to curtail over-utilization
and it is not unreasonable.
Every major private health insurance plan requires the person
receiving the health benefit to pay at least a small deductible
or
co-payment. Most of those are far more expensive than the token $1
co-payment we have proposed.
It is an accepted part of Medicare. Even the former labor
government in Britain found it necessary to impose some health care
surcharges to avoid bankrupting that country's system of socialized
medicine.
We believe this basic program will meet health care needs of 90
percent of our needy citizens. The rest would be met through a
supplementary schedule of benefits to be financed by the counties and
administered at the local level, under state supervision. This
supplemental schedule of benefits will provide those additional services
that a patient requires over and above those he qualifies for every year
under the state's basic plan.
These reforms, plus the changes we have proposed in welfare, will
save the counties more than $100 million a year
the cost to the state
will be cut by more than $200 million and the federal share will be cut
by at least $300 million.
The main goals of our welfare reforms are simple.
We want to separate the elderly, the permanently disabled and the
blind from the welfare structure entirely. We think their monthly cash
grants should be distributed through a pension system similar to Social
Security. There is no need for a social worker to drop by to see if a
senior citizen is still getting older.
- 6 -
L.A. County Medical ssociation
--By separating out the unemployables, those remaining can be
viewed as temporarily unemployed. Most of these will be in the AFDC
category. Able-bodied adults will be required to be either seeking a
job, training for a job or participating in a public work force as a
condition for receiving further welfare.
A humane society has an obligiation to help everyone find the path
to self-sufficiency. But society does not owe a lifetime annuity to
those who will not even take the first step. Those who refuse to work,
to train for employment or to take part in the public assistance task
force will be denied further welfare assistance.
We also want to implement other necessary reforms a realistic
income ceiling to limit the amount of outside income a family may have
and remain eligible for welfare. And since that ceiling would be 1½
times a family's basic needs, our proposal can hardly be termed lacking
in compassion. But such a limitation would put an end to the high
income family on welfare.
Everyone in this room has a vital stake in welfare reform- either
as someone whose profession is vitally affected by welfare or as a
taxpayer.
We need your help in putting these reforms into effect and we need
your help in carrying them out.
It is no secret that we have not always received a 100-gun salute
from all segments of the health care industry. We are a little puzzled
when we discover your state association is announcing some pro-rata
reduction in fees while they are suing us for our cutbacks, even though
the law required us to do it. We hope this action by your spokesmen in
Sacramento does not express your feeling about our administration. We
are going to need each other in the days ahead.
One problem that has become a critical one for the physician is the
steep rise in the cost and availability of professional liability
insurance. The need to protect against possible legal liability causes
some physicians to feel obliged to order more tests and more medical
procedures than may really be required.
This is a serious problem for your profession. It is a serious
problem for the public. I repeat to you tonight what I have told your
representatives- I am prepared to support any legislation that offers
a reasonable prospect of solving the liability insurance problem in the
practice of medicine.
- 7 -
L.A. County Medical Assoc.
There are some People in and out of government who would like
nothing better than for government to have an iron grip on the entire
medical field to have total bureaucratic control even over decisions
that have always been regarded as matters solely within the professional
judgment of the individual physician.
Regardless of the false case the proponents of socialized medicine
make for this unholy intrusion into the practice of the healing arts,
you and I know that it has reduced the quality of medicine wherever it
has been tried. Here in this nation, we have the highest level of
medical care to be found anywhere in the world. In spite of this, the
free practice of your profession is in greater danger than it has ever
been.
The Kennedy proposal for socialized medicine, which he says will cost
$77 billion the first year, is the culmination of these years of foot in
the door encroachment by those who have been determined from the first to
substitute government control for individual freedom. Make no mistake
about it, this measure will make you government employees, not
independent professionals. As for the cost, their estimates are far too
low and, one cannot help but think, intentionally so.
Unfortunately, years of propaganda, aided and abetted now by
inflation, have misled many of our people. You know that the recent
sharp inflation in medical and hospital costs involve a great variety of
complex factors. But the average citizen knows only that his hospital
and doctor bills are a lot higher today than they used to be. And that
it is getting harder and harder to pay. It is our job to try to keep
those costs from becoming an ussible burden for a citizen to meet
through his own resources or through the health insurance available to
him through private health plans.
At the same time, we have a monumental task in giving that citizen
the facts about socialized medicine. It's hidden costs, greater than
anything he now pays, and the decline in quality of care that accompanies
socialized medicine everywhere it has been tried. Perhaps with the
truth we can make our people see that you cannot socialize the doctor
without socializing the patient.
#####
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes.)
- 8 -
the the
5/
5/24
A.MS.
Sacramento, Californi
May
5, 1971
Contact:
Paul Bec
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
445-4571
5-24-71
RELEASE.
EXCERTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
WELFARE REFORM RALLY
Sacramento Memorial Auditorium
May 24, 1971
We need your energies and your influence in helping achieve welfare
reform. There is no need to remind this audience why welfare reform is
necessary. We need to reduce the cost of welfare and bring reform to
public assistance for a host of reasons, each of which is important.
But one of the most important reasons is the simple fact that our people
can no longer afford the cost of a welfare program that increases by a
quarter or even a third every year.
The federal government recently announced that the number of people
on welfare in the United States is now approaching 14 million. In
California, one out of every nine citizens is on welfare and one program
alone Aid to Families with Dependent Children---grew 39 percent in
caseload last year while the cost went up 42 percent.
The same story is repeated across the country, in every state and
every urban county. Welfare threatens to bankrupt state and local
governments unless something is done.
This year, California has almost 2½ million people drawing some
type of welfare or Medi-Cal assistance at a total cost of 3½1/2 billion
dollars. And unless the growth trend is reversed with more realistic
regulations, another 600,000 will be on the rolls by the end of July 1972
If that happens, instead of one out of every nine citizens on welfare,
it will be one out of seven.
We cannot afford the financial burden this would mean to our working
citizens. But in a more basic sense, California and the United States
can no longer afford the moral and spiritual disintegration that the
welfare system is subsidizing in California and other states. No one
disputes the legitimate obligation of society to care for the helpless
who have nowhere to turn for assistance,
But the complex system we have now has become hopelessly bogged down
in bureaucracy, bound by unnecessary red tape and discredited by abuses
which permit the diversion of welfare funds to some people who earn more
than many of our working citizens.
- 1 -
Welfare Rally
The most tragic sequence is that welfare has failed the very
purpose for which it was established. Because our resources are stretched
so thin, welfare is failing to provide sufficiently for those who need
help the most the elderly, the blind who cannot work, the permanently
disabled and the family with little or no income and very little job
potential. Such people need a helping hand, not a permanent handout
sentencing them to a lifetime on the dole.
It is not that our people refuse to help those legitimately in need.
But they have watched welfare particularly the AFDC program grow
into a permanent way of life for millions of Americans. The organized
leaders of the "professional poor" look upon welfare as an acceptable
life-long career...and those who lead them view mass poverty as their own
political power base.
Working citizens struggling to raise their own families have
simply lost faith in the present welfare system. And who can blam
when the newspapers carry articles almost every day detailing some new
kind of welfare abuse, inefficiency or fraud?
There are those who say that welfare reform cannot be handled at the
local or state level. They say we must turn it over to the federal
government. I do not agree. I do not agree because some of the worst
abuses you have read and heard about are the direct result of unreasonablo,
unrealistic federal regulations that become distorted by the time they are
applied to individual cases.
Let me give you just one example:
A few years ago, the federal government came up with some new welfare
regulations that were supposed to encourage welfare recipients to work
and stay on a job after they found one.
The idea was fine. But after the bureaucracy went to work on a way
to accomplish this, an abuse known as the "$30 and One Third Formula" was
the result, Here is how this works:
Suppose an AFDC family of four is receiving a cash monthly grant of
$221, Medi-Cal benefits worth $1,127 a year for a family of four, bonus
Good stamps which stretch the family's food purchasing dollar, free
school lunches and similar fringe benefits.
Then the male or female breadwinner finds 7 job paying $600 a month
or $7,200 a year.
- 2 -
wellare Rally
The federal regulacion enables the family to exempt the first $30
of the monthly salary plus one-third of the remaining gross. In
determining whether the family may still get public assistance, the wage-
earner also may deduct such other "work-related" expenses as union dues,
child care costs, uniforms, transportation costs (including payments on
a new car), $25 a month in miscellaneous personal expenses. Even the
wage-earner's federal income and social security taxes are deductible.
It is entirely possible under this formula to reduce the family's "net"
income down to zero, leaving it eligible for the same benefits it
received before, when it had no income at all.
That means the total combined earnings and welfare grant becomes
$9,852 for a family of four, plus food stamps, Medi-Cal benefits worth
another $1,127 a year, free school lunches and whatever other benefits
they might discover with the help of the local social worker and
federally-financed legal aid society.
This is the kind of unrealistic welfare rule that enables the
thousand dollar a month income family to be on welfare and remain eligible
for benefits. Indeed, I have used a $1,000 a month income in the example
I just used, and the answer was the same---full welfare eligibility.
Furthermore, the whole concept of federal revenue sharing is an open
admission that programs as vast and complex as welfare cannot be
effectively administered from Washington. In his revenue sharing proposal
the president made it plain he believed that with the federal funds should
come full state and local responsibility for the programs utilizing those
funds.
One of the reasons why WE the so strongly opposed to the idea of a
guaranteed income is because it would be only the first installment,
regardless of the starting figure. Raising the annual family grant would
become an election-year must.
Some of the more eager advocates of a guaranteed income make no bones
about their goal. A few weeks ago, a group of congressmen who support
the National Welfare Rights Organization put in a bill that would provide
a guaranteed annual income of sixty five hundred dollars 3 year To give
less, they say, would undermine the rights of poor people.
They never mention what seizing another 60 billion dollars a year in
taxes would do to the rights of working citizens; some of whom do not even
earn sixty five hundred dollars a year themselves.
- 3 -
encse of you who ive followed the welfare d ate know why so many
state and local officials advocate a federal takeover.
Many governors and local officials are simply desperate to get rid
of their most crushing financial problem.
But it will not be solved by turning to Washington, or by patch-work
regulations. Instead, we must overhaul the existing system in a way that
will provide true welfare reform, eliminate the abuses and ultimately
reduce the cost to the working citizen.
That is what we propose to do in California. Many of you already
are familiar with the welfare reform program. But I would like to just
briefly take a moment to touch on some of the highlights and the
philosophy behind it.
One of the main goals is to restore dignity to the lives of the
elderly, blind and disabled. These groups of deserving citizens are
really pensioners and they should not be regarded as just another entry
in a social worker's casebook. We want to send them their monthly checks
through an automated system similar to Social Security. With the savings
that this kind of system and our other reforms will realize, ultimately
we hope to improve their pensions in addition to providing the regular
cost-of-living increases they receive now.
Then we want to cut through the maze of welfare regulations and law
and tighten up every one that has been translated into an abuse. We want
to give counties a greater incentive to track down the 230,000 California
fathers who have deserted their families and are not contributing to their
children's support. Any child support collected would greatly reduce the
cost of welfare in California. Just $75 a month from half of those
fathers would save more than $100 million.
We want to terminate welfare aid to illegal aliens
eliminate food
stamp eligibility for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 65
including the voluntarily unemployed hippies who sneer at society while
they stand in the check-out line clutching food stamps that are intended
to help feed the deserving poor.
was want to <lamp a realistic ceiling on the amount of spendable
icoma = family can have and still remain eligible for welfare
this
would put an end to the possibility that families earning one thousand
dollars, twelve hundred or even more per month could also qualify for
welfare.
- 4 -
weirare Rally
Our program would ave the state assume the ire cost of
automated payments of the pension program for the elderly, blind and the
permanently disabled. With these tighter eligibility standards and other
reforms, we will be able to save an estimated $566 to $836 million a year
in state, federal and local taxes.
And by streamlining the administration of welfare eliminating the
present abuses and reducing or eliminating the grants to those who have
significant outside income, we can restore equity to the system and
improve the benefits for the truly needy those families who suffer most
from the regulations that allow employed people to receive welfare
benefits intended for the poor.
This can be ended by adopting a realistic cutoff point beyond which
supplemental welfare ends. And to those shedding crocodile tears over
our inhumanity to man, we intend that ceiling on earnings to be 1½ times
a family's basic requirements.
There is another reform we propose to do the most important
reform of all. We intended to require that able-bodied welfare recipients
either work, be training for a job or take part in a public assistance
task force. Those who refuse will be denied further welfare aid.
Now I know that is a radical idea to some sociologists and poverty
experts. We have already been greeted by their howls of outrage. They
regard poverty as an industry and they want to be captains of the
industry. They want to run not only welfare, but the lives of the
welfare recipients.
Why, we have even been accused of wanting to restore the "work ethic"
in America. Well, that is exactly what we do want to do; restore the
ethic that has been lost these past 30 years when people started trading
their dignity for a dole.
Such a welfare work force could do many constructive things to
benefit the society that is supporting them. They could be school monitor
and guards to protect children against violence and property against
vandalism. They could help in anti-litter cleanup and recycling projects
to improve the environment.
Some could take care of children so that other welfare recipients
would be free to engage in job training or could work.
Opponents of this work requirement often say that most of the 1.6
million AFDC recipients are children. And they are right. But more than
380,000 are adults women and men most of them, are able-bodied.
- 5 -
Except for the caler welfare recipient, work is not a strange or
radical idea in America. According to the U.S. Department of Labor,
almost half of America's mothers with children under 17 and in school
are now working to help support their families, and 37 percent of them
have children under five years of age. Should these working mothers be
forced to help support those who do not work or who refuse to take part
in training efforts to become employable?
Of course, we know not every welfare mother will be able to work.
But many of them could. And for every able-bodied adult welfare
recipient who finds work at a wage sufficient to support his family
the welfare rolls decline not by one but by the whole family. And,
contrary to what some believe the overwhelming majority of welfare
recipients want more than anything else to be able to support themselves.
We must change AFDC into a temporary helping hand. Instead of
regarding everyone as a permanent public dependent, we must look upon
welfare as a way-station en route to a permanent job and the dignity of
self-sufficiency.
For some reason, certain legislative leaders prefer to raise taxes
on the working citizens of our state rather than take effective action
to implement the reforms we all know are so necessary in welfare. The
started talking about the necessity for new taxes before they even saw
our proposal for saving costs through welfare reform. A recent poll
showed that 64 percent of our citizens wanted tax reductions and a cut in
government spending now and were willing to support a taxpayers revolt
if necessary a refusal to pay taxes.
Using the present economic Blump as an excuse. these same individuals
produced their own version of the new math last Their first
pronouncement was one of fiscal crisis "tax revenues would be $160
million less than anticipated!" So they added $318 million to the budget.
As for our welfare reform, they have also raised the false issue of
a CORD burden on the counties. I have repeatedly assured the counties
that if our estimate of the savings that may be realized through welfare
reform prove overly optimistic, then the state will adjust its share to
guarantee that there will be no additional cost burden on the counties.
But the truth is, there will be millions of dollars of savings
the state
will assume a tremendous administrative cost burden that counties now bear
and we will take over the basic medical costs for 800, 000 people whose
health care now is totally a burden on local property taxpayers. And, to
insure savings to the counties, we offered three amendments last week
which should result in $150 million of reduced county costs.
- 6 -
welfare Rally
The State of California and its legislators have an obligation to
get on with the task of welfare reform this year
the counties have
asked for welfare reform
every reasonable person who knows anything at
all about the program knows that we cannot go on as we have been going
in public assistance.
Forty-seven hundred bills have been introduced in the legislature
this year. Yet along with the budget bill itself, and tax reform, none
are more important than welfare reform.
We are paying too great a price for welfare now not only in
dollars, but in the destruction of the standards of individual and
family responsibility that created our society.
It is totally repugnant to the American philosophy to accept the
idea of a permanent and growing poverty population to be supported
indefinitely at ever increasing cost.
To do so repudiates and undermines the very basis of America's
greatness. Our society offers everyone the chance to climb as high and
travel as far as his own talents and energy and work can allow him to
climb.
Those who will not take the first step cannot expect society to
support them forever.
We know you share this philosophy.
Unfortunately, some of our
legislators do not. While we welcome your letters of support, you know
Miere we stand. So if I may close on this note, please tell others
where you stand
write to your Assemblyman
your state Senator
your
Congressman
especially those who are not already pledged to support
this welfare reform program. You must fill the corridors of the Capitol
as do the special interest pleaders when their little empires are
threatened.
Let them know that Californians are no longer willing to subsidize
the present chaotic welfare system. Let them know that working citizens
of California demand realistic welfare reform.
In closing, let me suggest an answer to those who are now ducking
the issue of welfare reform by claiming that Congress has preempted the
field by passing Chairman Mills' (House Ways and Means Committee) welfare
bill out of committee, so there is no need for state action. There is no
guarantee the Senate will accept this bill, and if they do it will not
go into effect according to Congressman Mills, until fiscal 1973! Our
Joblem is now.
Even the Secretary of HEW has expressed the hope that our reform
will be passed because of the information they will have as to the
effectiveness of some of our proposals.
#
#
#
#
#
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes.)
- 7 -
96/5
and *
-
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE:
Thur
1y A.M.B
HOOVER WST
Sacramento, California
May 27
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
5-25-71
ARCHIVES
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Los Angeles
May 26, 1971
I am grateful for an opportunity to discuss with you some of the
critical problems the legal profession must help solve if we are to
protect and preserve this tiny clearing in the jungle we call
civilization.
Sometimes I am shocked at how easily that sentence comes, indeed,
how much of a cliche it has become. And I find myself, as I am sure
you do, asking how has it come about that we must feel such concern
for civilization as we have known it.
It begins when parents allow their children to mock their elders
and to ignore the most basic standards of civilized conduct. It
carries over into school and it reaches into the very citadels of
justice--the courtroom--where a judge is no longer immune to calculated
mockery and even physical harm.
Last year when I spoke to the State Bar Association, I said we in
California--and indeed in the United States--are faced with a mounting
crisis of confidence in the administration of criminal justice. That
was hardly original with me.
The crisis is most evident to the layman by what he views as a
deliberate and often successful attempt to thwart justice. The
Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial--written into law to protect
the defendant--has in our criminal courts become an anacronism. The
long and unnecessary delays between arrest and a final conviction, the
endless appeals of questionable merit, the resort to legal gimmicks
involving technical and procedural rules--all these practices deprive
society of its right to expect a speedy disposal of criminal matters.
Instead of battling to win an early hearing of the evidence
to win
acquittal on the facts
delay has become a goal in itself, a way for
the defense not to assure justice, but to prevent it.
There is an even greater threat to the dignity of our legal
system. It is the growing tendency for the client himself to become
the boss in the courtroom, to stage-manage his own defense with
disrespectful and contemptuous conduct toward the court. This, too,
is deliberate on the part of modern revolutionaries. It is copied from
the young thugs of the Hitler era. The purpose is to prove that under
stress, the system won't work.
There is an additional crisis in the processing of civil cases
(
long delays in trials and appeals and the ever increasing costs of
court administration these things compound the challenge to our
legal system.
It does not appear that the legislature is inclined to make any
significant improvements in the judicial system this session.
I don't mean to give the impression that nothing is being done
about all these problems. Last year I urged the legal profession and
the judiciary to clean its own house. Since then:
The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Donald R.
Wright, a distinguished former member of your own local bar, has
appointed a Select Committee on Trial Court Delay. The purpose is
obvious from the title. It is to examine the judicial process from
the first filing of a case, or charge, to the final appeal and to
recommend ways to eliminate the log-jam in our trial courts.
This group is funded by the California Council on Criminal Justice
and includes three judges, three lawyers and three laymen. There are
liaison members from my office and the legislature. Thus, all three
branches of state government will participate in this study. We are
to have a report with recommendations for major changes by next March 15.
The urgency of solving overcrowded criminal calendars is best
emphasized by the situation here in Los Angeles County where the
Superior Courts ended the year with 62,000 legal matters still on the
docket. This massive backlog was documented by a study group from your
own Superior Court, in a report that contains 39 specific recommenda-
tions for judicial reform and lists another 171 proposals for further
study. I would like to commend the committee which assembled this
impressive study. This type of activity--within the legal profession
itself--will help us find ways to speed up the judicial process without
sacrificing any of the basic rights or protections of our legal
system.
Now it is up to you--members of this local bar--to evaluate each
of the suggested changes and to determine which are desirable and
practical-- not only for Los Angeles County, but for the entire state.
The Judicial Process Task Force of the California Council on
Criminal Justice--chaired by my legal affairs secretary Herbert E.
Ellingwood--is sponsoring many other proposals. I would like to
mention just a few.
-2-
All of the profe onals in your field acknd edge that the
efficient management of a court calendar is the key to success in
reducing the number of delayed trials. Yet the trial courts have
little control over the tide of incoming business.
To find ways to increase the efficiency of the courts, the council
has put a team of two trained experts to work full time with the
presiding judge of Sacramento County's Superior Court. For at least
a year, they will seek practical means of increasing the efficiency
of the courts through better calendar management.
Another such team has been approved for the Superior Court in
San Francisco. Both these teams will seek to develop new techniques
that can be applied statewide better scheduling systems that can
work for courts of various sizes.
This research is unique because the teams will conduct this court
management project in a pragmatic way with all the ongoing pressures
of the present system in a day-to-day working environment. And it
will affect both civil and criminal courts.
Information on the progress of these two projects will be
exchanged so that each can learn from the experience of the other
and the overall program will be supervised by the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
Judicial manpower is another practical problem. The Chief
Justice-- as chairman of the Judicial Council--last year assigned
judges to cover 1,325 days in the Appellate courts, 2,837 days in the
Superior Courts and 2,891 days in the municipal courts just to keep
up with critical caseloads.
Currently we are helping finance the California College of Trial
Judges every summer at Berkeley. I have encouraged each of my judicial
appointees to attend this intensive two week course. And the Judicial
Council has an active program of institutes to acquaint judges with
new problems they will be facing.
One such project which has received initial approval is on the
Problems of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. Drug addiction is one of the
most critical social and legal problems of our time. To be effective,
judges must keep up with new developments in this field.
For public defenders, we are sponsoring a project of the
California Public Defenders Association. This will be an orientation
course for an estimated 100 new deputy public defenders. We hope to
make this an annual course so that newly appointed public defenders
will receive a thorough understanding and appreciation of the total
up for approval. Under this program, students will work in the offices
of district attorneys and public defenders and perhaps can be used
immediately as para-professionals in the legal field.
Various means of automating the judicial process also are under
way.
One suggestion is for witnesses to be "on call" until they are
needed. Policemen, for example, could be scheduled for duty near the
courthouse so that their professional time will be spent on the job
until they are notified to appear in court.
The drive for judicial reform is wide-reaching and is going
forward with many innovations that give promise of providing a more
efficient court system.
Before I leave the subject, I would like to mention one federal
project. Last March, a National Conference on the Judiciary convened
at Williamsburg, Virginia. That meeting may well prove to be the most
important conference on the judicial system in this century.
The President, the Chief Justice of the United States and the
Attorney General met with more than 40 state chief justices.
The challenge to the legal profession was issued by Chief Justice
Burger. He told his colleagues that "the American system of criminal
(
justice in every phase--the police function, the prosecution and
defense, the courts and the correctional machinery--is suffering from
a severe case of deferred maintenance
fully documented by innumerable
studies and surveys."
Justice Burger classified civil justice in the same way and urged
the establishment of immediate priorities.
One of those priorities is better state and federal cooperation.
The public is well aware of the various ways by which lawyers seek to
get around the traditional judicial process. Shopping for a friendly
court to accept a matter that should be the responsibility of a
different jurisdiction is as offensive and destructive of the judicial
process as it is to shop for a judge.
It should not be permitted. It turns the courts into an arena for
legal badminton, a spectacle that makes justice a mockery to the
layman.
The crisis today provides a constructive climate for solving this
particular problem. Chief Justice Burger warned last December that the
-4-
one
down
or
It
Will
deteriorate in quality" before long unless the crushing burden of cases
referred to the nation's highest court is shifted to other courts.
State and federal judicial councils have been strongly urged to find
ways to limit the number of cases transferred unnecessarily from state
to federal courts.
But these are internal administrative corrections and while they
are essential, they are only one part of the job that must be done to
restore the public's confidence in the courts.
I will not dwell on the charge that is made that some courts and
some judges--all too frequently--view their role as acting as a
catalyst of social change rather than as a forum to administer justice
and interpret laws. I could ask in this connection how many of you are
uneasy with what seems to be a new teaching philosophy in too many law
schools today.
Probably the most visible barrier to courtroom efficiency are
those symptoms most visible to the layman.
Jury selection takes too long. Judges seem to be challenged more
as a delay tactic than for legitimate cause. The disgraceful behavior
of some defendants and the even more disgraceful conduct of some lawyers
who defend them are an affront to the entire legal profession. These
antics reduce the dignity of the judicial process to the level of a
street brawl shouting match.
Our citizens are concerned about those judges who do not seem to
have adequate control in their own courts and they ask if the bar
associations are aggressively moving to discipline those who arrogantly
violate your own canons and the ethical standards of your profession.
The image projected by the bar is one of getting the criminal off
rather than acting in a responsible way to assure both the rights of the
defendant and the rights of society to be protected against the
lawbreaker.
In the area of search and seizure, the legal debates over police
methods long accepted as reasonable, appear to the public to be less of
a. quest for justice than a legal chess game with the law abiding
citizens as unwilling pawns in the contest.
Edward Bennett Williams could hardly be regarded as an advocate of
repressive laws. Yet he has publicly criticized the legal system on
many points.
-5-
the innocent defendants, to the honest policeman, (
urban
criminal
courts have become a sham and a broken promise."
The victim of a crime finds it impossible to understand why a
defendant convicted of armed robbery by a court or jury-convicted
beyond a reasonable doubt--can forestall his day of reckoning for two
years or more.
We must redeem the promise of justice by reforming our legal
system so that it will be in fact as well as in theory the mechanism
by which we assure the Constitutional rights of all our citizens.
As officers of the court, you can help achieve this restoration---
using the same creativity, the same intense energy and the same
professional pride with which you represent your best clients.
The legal profession itself must carry the main burden. Some
voluntary experiments already are under way.
What I am suggesting is exactly what I told your colleagues last
year. You know the problems best. You are able to solve them best.
The answer cannot be just a simple plea for more judges.
Now I don't want to leave the impression that our legal system is
the only cause for concern to the people. The public is frustrated
with government itself and its seeming inability to solve major
problems. The voice of reason is needed now--common sense answers
before the voice of the demagogue makes it impossible for reason to be
heard above his loud and easy promises.
In addition to an intolerable crime rate, we now are experiencing
a staggering increase in acts of violence carried out at random against
innocent victims
all in the name of social or political protest.
The self-proclaimed revolutionaries and their legal champions
denounce the system yet they wrap themselves in the Constitution at
every step in legal proceedings that involve them.
To accept their idea of "justice" is to accept tyranny and anarchy.
If Moses himself stood on Nob Hill and solemnly intoned the Ten
Commandments, he probably would be denounced as a reactionary seeking
to impose a repressive and outmoded life style on the multitude. He
would be certain to wind up in a Conrad cartoon.
No one wants a legal system that is concerned only with arrests
and quick convictions.
-6-
What every citiz wants--and what the syste should provide--is
a judicial process that offers a fair trial to every accused, an
acquittal for the innocent; conviction for the guilty, and sentencing
and appeals carried out swiftly--but within the framework of the
Constitutional guarantees we all cherish.
This kind of fair and quick justice is not the practice today.
And regrettably, many laymen do not even believe it is still a mission
of the legal system.
But a fierce belief that right will prevail burns deeply within
the American consciousness. And the people expect you to help restore
their shining dream of justice for all.
Carl Sandburg summed up this faith in a poem called "The People
Will Live On." He described the American capacity for survival against
the greatest oppression, the meanest tyranny, and he told of man's
enduring faith in a bright tomorrow when brotherhood would be a
reality.
Man will yet win (he wrote);
Brother may yet line up with brother.
Until that day, we must have law. And we must respect the law
and make it the highest expression of our civilization. It is your
job and my job and the concern of everyone to make the bench and the
bar an institution worthy of the respect that its noble traditions and
its purpose deserve.
You have more to lose than anyone if we fail.
# # #
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes)
-7-
ADDENDUM TO REMARKS BY GOVERNOR REAGAN AT SAN DIEGO REPUBLICAN DINNER
Ju'y 23, 1971
Thirty-five years ago a President of the United States said that
our generation had a rendezvous with destiny. It is possible
that we are living in that time of destiny right now. Our sons
and daughters in this particular moment of history are coming
into their inheritance a few years early. We are proud and happy
to have these young people here with us. But I wonder sometimes
if we are really as disturbed and concerned as we should be
that the great majority of our young people seem to be registering
with the opposition party. Oh I know that a great many of them
have been indoctrinated in over a thousand classrooms. I suppose
the miracle really is the number who are still on our side
when you consider the power of their peers at that age and the
indoctrination to which they have been subjected. I wonder how
these young people who are here have managed to hold out the way
they have. Certainly they must have an extra strength of character
and willpower that would make them a very valuable ally in the
days ahead. But right now you and I should be seeking them out
and asking what have we done or what have we said, if anything,
that has helped them choose this course or stay on this course.
Or did they do it all by themselves. We have a story as Republicans
to tell and we haven't done a proper job of selling that story.
If we had, I think the majority of young people would be going
our way. Hasn't the complaint of those younger generation in
these last few years of unrest been that they 're against materialism,
they 're against big impersonal government that's beyond their reach,
they 're against regimentation and imposition on their individual
freedom. They have a great idealism about the course a nation like
8
- / -
9
ours should follow. But what do they think we have been against
for these last four decades. Materialism? Materialism that thinks
a full belly is excuse enough to justify keeping people on the dole
for the rest of their lives. Our opponents have built this giant
bureaucratic government where regulations are spawned in multitudinous
In
agencies, regulations that seem to have even more power than the laws
passed by Congress. It is our opponents who built the cavernous
halls of government where the voice of the citizen echoes unheard
and unheeded. Our sons and daughters have let us know they are
against the establishment. Well, so are we. But can we make them
understand that the establishment we are opposed to is a government?
A government that is capable of great tyranny. That unless we control
this establishment, we shall become a nation of timid sheep dependent
on a shepherd. We're on the eve of another election and I wonder
sometimes if we are approaching this challenge as we should or are
we as Republicans once again beset by doubts? Confused about our
own leadership, wondering whether we've chosen correctly. I have
talked of the economic slump in our state but you all knew that
this economic slump is nationwide. But what has been its cause,
Very simply, the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy.
A transition that has come about because for 2½ years a new President
has been winding down a war that was growing larger for eight years
before he took office. Two and a half years ago we were talking
about long hot summers. We were accepting, even though we feared
them, the riots that were almost commonplace in our cities and on
our campuses. Now, and in recent days, the President has made an
announcement that is disturbing to a great many of us. May I offer
some thoughts for your consideration before perhaps misgiving becomes
-1/3
Red China
mistrust. With this announcement the President put himself where
<
the loud mouths of his potential opponents have been for quite a
few months---in fact, for most of these two and a half years.
With his announcement he preempted the field worldwide. The President
has taken center stage as the one man who is trying to do something
/
besides talk about peace. All of those peace-loving Senators have
been very quiet for just about a week. They were busy revising
their campaign speeches, but now they have discovered that in his
announcement the President made it plain that he had no intention
of abandoning an old friend and ally, and suddenly they're beginning
to make their noises again. I don't believe that if he were willing
10
to abandon this ally, this would fit with the idealism of the young
people we would like to appeal to. I think we all, before we becom (I
30
disquieted, should remember that Dick Nixon among all the leaders
of this nation has known perhaps better than most that the enemy is
where he always has been, in Moscow.
And, there is some evidence of this in the fact that the Kremlin
has been strangely quiet since that announcement. They can't make
up their mind whether to send over a bomb or the Bolshoi ballet.
Well, I have no information that the rest of you don't have but I
would like to offer some possibilities out of this new development
based on, I think, some knowledge of the men and knowledge of the
situation. For ten years, bullets and rockets and mortars and booby
traps made in China have been killing young Americans. The President
has made it plain that not only will we not abandon an ally---we will
not disengage from this war if the price means leaving even one young
American as a prisoner of the enemy. China holds prisoners of ours,
airmen shot down in the air war over Laos who came down across the
Chinese border.
China has boasted that it is going to continue to hold those men.
Has anyone suggested a better way to get them back than the President
has suggested--- by simply going there and at least getting into a
conversation about getting them back? For decades we've heard
conflicting voices talking about the inevitable Armageddon and other
voices on the other side saying that we should give in better Red
than dead, slavery of surrender. I think the President, cutting
through the confusion, has made a bold and decisive move with no
suggestion or no hint that he has any intention of asking this
nation to abandon either honor or principle. I believe that we
- should insure that when the time comes, and the President goes there
and in my own heart I believe that when that time comes, we will
find that all the matters of prisoners of war and cease fires, and
an end of the killing in Vietnam have been tied together with this
Red
china
visit I think that it would be well if he went there with the
knowledge that he has the prayers of two hundred million in his
country. I've taken the liberty of suggesting that perhaps these
young people are here with us because they have made a decision. I
think it would be well if we recognized that perhaps these young
people are here looking us over. They are about to make a very
decided choice and it is up to us to prove by our actions that
there is much to love in this land very much to be proud of.
To those who say there is a communications gap, I will say to these
young people that there has never been a time when an older generation
wanted more to understand and be understood by its own sons and
daughters. This older generation has paid a higher price for
freedom than any people have ever paid in all man's history. And
I think with some pride we can say we have done more in our lifetime
1/2
to advance the dignity of man than any other generation that
ever lived. And, now very frankly we will tell you young people
we would be very proud to have you look us over look over our
principles and decide whether you wouldn't rather join us than
join those who believe that mankind is incapable of governing
itself that a little chosen elite can be picked and sit in t
nation's capitol and make the decisions in our every day living
that we should make for ourselves. Or, whether you would like
to go along with us who would like to see America become in your
lifetime and ours, if possible, a place where every man is free
to be whatever God intended him to be.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE:
Thur
1y
A.M.s
Sacramento, California
May 27
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
5-25-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Los Angeles
May 26, 1971
I am grateful for an opportunity to discuss with you some of the
critical problems the legal profession must help solve if we are to
protect and preserve this tiny clearing in the jungle we call
civilization.
Sometimes I am shocked at how easily that sentence comes, indeed,
how much of a cliche it has become. And I find myself, as I am sure
you do, asking how has it come about that we must feel such concern
for civilization as we have known it.
It begins when parents allow their children to mock their elders
and to ignore the most basic standards of civilized conduct. It
carries over into school and it reaches into the very citadels of
justice the courtroom--where a judge is no longer immune to calculated
mockery and even physical harm.
Last year when I spoke to the State Bar Association, I said we in
California and indeed in the United States. are faced with a mounting
crisis of confidence in the administration of criminal justice. That
was hardly original with me.
The crisis is most evident to the layman by what he views as a
deliberate and often successful attempt to thwart justice. The
Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial--written into law to protect
the defendant--has in our criminal courts become an anacronism. The
long and unnecessary delays between arrest and a final conviction, the
endless appeals of questionable merit, the resort to legal gimmicks
involving technical and procedural rules--all these practices deprive
society of its right to expect a speedy disposal of criminal matters.
Instead of battling to win an early hearing of the evidence
to win
acquittal on the facts
delay has become a goal in itself, a way for
the defense not to assure justice, but to prevent it.
There is an even greater threat to the dignity of our legal
system. It is the growing tendency for the client himself to become
the boss in the courtroom, to stage-manage his own defense with
disrespectful and contemptuous conduct toward the court. This, too,
is deliberate on the part of modern revolutionaries. It is copied from
the young thugs of the Hitler era. The purpose is to prove that under
stress, the system won't work.
There is an additional crisis in the processing of civil cases
long delays in trials and appeals and the ever increasing costs of
court administration these things compound the challenge to our
legal system.
It does not appear that the legislature is inclined to make any
significant improvements in the judicial system this session.
I don't mean to give the impression that nothing is being done
about all these problems. Last year I urged the legal profession and
the judiciary to clean its own house. Since then:
The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Donald R.
Wright, a distinguished former member of your own local bar, has
appointed a Select Committee on Trial Court Delay. The purpose is
obvious from the title. It is to examine the judicial process from
the first filing of a case, or charge, to the final appeal and to
recommend ways to eliminate the log-jam in our trial courts.
This group is funded by the California Council on Criminal Justice
and includes three judges, three lawyers and three laymen. There are
liaison members from my office and the legislature. Thus, all three
branches of state government will participate in this study. We are
to have a report with recommendations for major changes by next March 15.
The urgency of solving overcrowded criminal calendars is best
emphasized by the situation here in Los Angeles County where the
Superior Courts ended the year with 62,000 legal matters still on the
docket. This massive backlog was documented by a study group from your
own Superior Court, in a report that contains 39 specific recommenda-
tions for judicial reform and lists another 171 proposals for further
study. I would like to commend the committee which assembled this
impressive study. This type of activity--within the legal profession
itself--will help us find ways to speed up the judicial process without
sacrificing any of the basic rights or protections of our legal
system.
Now it is up to you--members of this local bar--to evaluate each
of the suggested changes and to determine which are desirable and
practical--not only for Los Angeles County, but for the entire state.
The Judicial Process Task Force of the California Council on
Criminal Justice--chaired by my legal affairs secretary Herbert E.
Ellingwood--is sponsoring many other proposals. I would like to
mention just a few.
-2-
All of the profes onals in your field acknd edge that the
efficient management of a court calendar is the key to success in
reducing the number of delayed trials, Yet the trial courts have
little control over the tide of incoming business.
To find ways to increase the efficiency of the courts, the council
has put a team of two trained experts to work full time with the
presiding judge of Sacramento County's Superior Court. For at least
a year, they will seek practical means of increasing the efficiency
of the courts through better calendar management.
Another such team has been approved for the Superior Court in
San Francisco. Both these teams will seek to develop new techniques
that can be applied statewide better scheduling systems that can
work for courts of various sizes.
This research is unique because the teams will conduct this court
management project in a pragmatic way with all the ongoing pressures
of the present system in a day-to-day working environment. And it
will affect both civil and criminal courts.
Information on the progress of these two projects will be
exchanged so that each can learn from the experience of the other
and the overall program will be supervised by the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
Judicial manpower is another practical problem. The Chief
Justice as chairman of the Judicial Council--last year assigned
judges to cover 1,325 days in the Appellate courts, 2,837 days in the
Superior Courts and 2,891 days in the municipal courts just to keep
up with critical caseloads.
Currently we are helping finance the California College of Trial
Judges every summer at Berkeley. I have encouraged each of my judicial
appointees to attend this intensive two week course. And the Judicial
Council has an active program of institutes to acquaint judges with
new problems they will be facing.
One such project which has received initial approval is on the
Problems of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. Drug addiction is one of the
most critical social and legal problems of our time. To be effective,
judges must keep up with new developments in this field.
For public defenders, we are sponsoring a project of the
California Public Defenders Association. This will be an orientation
course for an estimated 100 new deputy public defenders. We hope to
make this an annual course so that newly appointed public defenders
will receive a thorough understanding and appreciation of the total
criminal
justice
system
--Hastings Law School has a project for a criminal justice clinic
up for approval. Under this program, students will work in the offices
of district attorneys and public defenders and perhaps can be used
immediately as para-professionals in the legal field.
Various means of automating the judicial process also are under
way.
One suggestion is for witnesses to be "on call" until they are
needed. Policemen, for example, could be scheduled for duty near the
courthouse so that their professional time will be spent on the job
until they are notified to appear in court.
The drive for judicial reform is wide-reaching and is going
forward with many innovations that give promise of providing a more
efficient court system.
Before I leave the subject, I would like to mention one federal
project. Last March, a National Conference on the Judiciary convened
at Williamsburg, Virginia. That meeting may well prove to be the most
important conference on the judicial system in this century.
The President, the Chief Justice of the United States and the
Attorney General met with more than 40 state chief justices.
The challenge to the legal profession was issued by Chief Justice
Burger. He told his colleagues that "the American system of criminal
justice in every phase--the police function, the prosecution and
defense, the courts and the correctional machinery--is suffering from
a severe case of deferred maintenance
fully documented by innumerable
studies and surveys."
Justice Burger classified civil justice in the same way and urged
the establishment of immediate priorities.
One of those priorities is better state and federal cooperation.
The public is well aware of the various ways by which lawyers seek to
get around the traditional judicial process. Shopping for a friendly
court to accept a matter that should be the responsibility of a
different jurisdiction is as offensive and destructive of the judicial
process as it is to shop for a judge.
It should not be permitted. It turns the courts into an arena for
legal badminton, a spectacle that makes justice a mockery to the
layman.
The crisis today provides a constructive climate for solving this
particular problem. Chief Justice Burger warned last Docember that the
-4-
work of the Supreme C rt itself "will either bre down or it will
deteriorate in quality" before long unless the crushing burden of cases
referred to the nation's highest court is shifted to other courts.
State and federal judicial councils have been strongly urged to find
ways to limit the number of cases transferred unnecessarily from state
to federal courts.
But these are internal administrative corrections and while they
are essential, they are only one part of the job that must be done to
restore the public's confidence in the courts.
I will not dwell on the charge that is made that some courts and
some judges--al too frequently--view their role as acting as a
catalyst of social change rather than as a forum to administer justice
and interpret laws. I could ask in this connection how many of you are
uneasy with what seems to be a new teaching philosophy in too many law
schools today.
Probably the most visible barrier to courtroom efficiency are
those symptoms most visible to the layman.
Jury selection takes too long. Judges seem to be challenged more
as a delay tactic than for legitimate cause. The disgraceful behavior
of some defendants and the even more disgraceful conduct of some lawyers
who defend them are an affront to the entire legal profession. These
antics reduce the dignity of the judicial process to the level of a
street brawl shouting match.
Our citizens are concerned about those judges who do not seem to
have adequate control in their own courts and they ask if the bar
associations are aggressively moving to discipline those who arrogantly
violate your own canons and the ethical standards of your profession.
The image projected by the bar is one of getting the criminal off
rather than acting in a responsible way to assure both the rights of the
defendant and the rights of society to be protected against the
lawbreaker.
In the area of search and seizure, the legal debates over police
methods long accepted as reasonable, appear to the public to be less of
a quest for justice than a legal chess game with the law abiding
citizens as unwilling pawns in the contest.
Edward Bennett Williams could hardly be regarded as an advocate of
repressive laws. Yet he has publicly criticized the legal system on
many points.
-5-
He says: "To the victims of crime, to the witnesses of crime, to
the innocent defendants, to the honest policeman, urban criminal
courts have become a sham and a broken promise."
The victim of a crime finds it impossible to understand why a
defendant convicted of armed robbery by a court or jury-convicted
beyond a reasonable doubt--can forestall his day of reckoning for two
years or more.
We must redeem the promise of justice by reforming our legal
system so that it will be in fact as well as in theory the mechanism
by which we assure the Constitutional rights of all our citizens.
As officers of the court, you can help achieve this restoration
using the same creativity, the same intense energy and the same
professional pride with which you represent your best clients.
The legal profession itself must carry the main burden. Some
voluntary experiments already are under way.
What I am suggesting is exactly what I told your colleagues last
year. You know the problems best. You are able to solve them best.
The answer cannot be just a simple plea for more judges.
Now I don't want to leave the impression that our legal system is
the only cause for concern to the people. The public is frustrated
with government itself and its seeming inability to solve major
problems. The voice of reason is needed now--common sense answers
before the voice of the demagogue makes it impossible for reason to be
heard above his loud and easy promises.
In addition to an intolerable crime rate, we now are experiencing
a staggering increase in acts of violence carried out at random against
innocent victims
all in the name of social or political protest.
The self-proclaimed revolutionaries and their legal champions
denounce the system yet they wrap themselves in the Constitution at
every step in legal proceedings that involve them.
To accept their idea of "justice" is to accept tyranny and anarchy.
If Moses himself stood on Nob Hill and solemnly intoned the Ten
Commandments, he probably would be denounced as a reactionary seeking
to impose a repressive and outmoded life style on the multitude. He
would be certain to wind up in a Conrad cartoon.
No one wants a legal system that is concerned only with arrests
and quick convictions.
-6-
What every citiz wants--and what the syste should provide--is
a judicial process that offers a fair trial to every accused, an
acquittal for the innocent; conviction for the guilty, and sentencing
and appeals carried out swiftly--but within the framework of the
Constitutional guarantees we all cherish.
This kind of fair and quick justice is not the practice today.
And regrettably, many laymen do not even believe it is still a mission
of the legal system.
But a fierce belief that right will prevail burns deeply within
the American consciousness. And the people expect you to help restore
their shining dream of justice for all.
Carl Sandburg summed up this faith in a poem called "The People
Will Live On." He described the American capacity for survival against
the greatest oppression, the meanest tyranny, and he told of man's
enduring faith in a bright tomorrow when brotherhood would be a
reality.
Man will yet win (he wrote);
Brother may yet line up with brother.
Until that day, we must have law. And we must respect the law
and make it the highest expression of our civilization. It is your
job and my job and the concern of everyone to make the bench and the
bar an institution worthy of the respect that its noble traditions and
its purpose deserve.
You have more to lose than anyone if we fail.
# # #
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes)
-7-
6/2
the
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California
June 2, 1971
Contact:
Paul ( :k
445-4571
6-1-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
MEETING OF STATE RESOURCES BOARDS
RESOURCES BUILDING AUDITORIUM
11 a.m. Wednesday, June 2, 1971
This is the first opportunity I have had to personally express my
appreciation to each of you for the tremendous job you are doing.
Environmental problems are very much center-stage today throughout the
nation. And your commissions and boards are the catalyst for solving
those problems in California. You can be very proud of your progress in
finding those solutions.
In the past four years or so, we have been able to mobilize state
government in the effort to protect California's environment against the
excesses of man and his machines and to preserve the cultural heritage
of this state.
The same pioneering spirit that led the 49ers and the settlers to
California is still very much evident in the struggle to conserve our
priceless natural resources.
Recently a national magazine (Reader's Digest) called attention to
the long effort to protect Lake Tahoe against pollution. As this article
noted, we are winning that battle.
California also is leading the way in developing other programs to
protect the environment without choking off the economic development that
provides the jobs our people need.
We have been, and remain, far ahead of other states in enacting and
enforcing effective programs to control all types cf pollution. We have
the strongest air, water and noise pollution control programs.
We are giving environmental considerations major priority in planning
freeways and public works projects. And this emphasis is showing results.
We believe man can learn to live with the environment if enough
people show sufficient concern and commitment to assure us cleaner air,
fresher water and an end to needless destruction of the esthetic beauty
of this land we call California.
Now let no one get the idea I am suggesting we have won the war.
Each environmental battle is only a skirmish in a struggle that we will
have to hand over to our children and they in turn will pass on to their
children. So long as man inhabits this planet, we must make environmental
protection a major part of every human endeavor.
In this room are concentrated the boards and commissions which
involve almost ever essential service governme provides for all of
the people of California, What you do and how well you succeed will have
a lasting impact, not only upon the geography and scenic resources of
our state, but also upon our citizens.
What is more important than protecting our cities and agricultu
areas against flood and providing a stable, sufficient water supply for
our people, for farms and orchards?
What is more vital than wisely managing our marine and wildlife
resources so that those species of animal and fish life which share
California with man will be protected against extinction?
What is more urgent than cleaning up the very air we all must
breathe to survive?
It is part of your task to see that California protects and
preserves its rich cultural heritage, that this state's abundant mineral
resources are mined or otherwise utilized with maximum attention to wise
conservation.
In short, we are attempting to prove that economic progress can
co-exist with the environment and that we can build without destroying
or polluting.
of all the things we have tried to do in state government, I regard
this as one of the most important. You are actively involved in what
must be the most rewarding and challenging assignment in all state
government.
It can be a tough and frustrating effort to strike a balance between
progress and preservation; between what we are able to do now and what
we know must eventually be done to protect the environment. And yet,
we must do it.
We still have a long way to go. Many of your accomplishments carnot
be measured in dollars; their value is too immensa. But the programs we
must enact and enforce to fight pollution and to accomplish the other
tasks you have been assigned do cost money. And that brings me to the
main purpose of our meeting here today.
Protecting the environment is a top priority with this administration
Assuring a stable water supply next year and for the next generation is
an
urgent matter. Developing parks and recreational areas for our people
is a government obligation we all acknowledge.
And yet, there never seems to be enough money to do everything we
would like to do.
It would be naive to suggest that we will ever be able to satisfy
all the dollar demai.. which are made each year by various government
programs. Budget requests always grow faster than revenues, or even
legitimate needs.
But we have reached a time of crisis and decision in California
because of two programs: welfare and Medi-Cal. The cost and caseload
of these two public assistance programs have grown so swiftly in recent
years that we are no longer able to finance adequately the many other
essential programs government must provide.
I will not recite for you all the staggering statistical evidence.
I am sure you have heard the figures mentioned time and again. But I
would like to point out one numerical fact that emphasizes the magnitude
of the problem.
Ten years ago, the state of California had a little more than
600,000 people on the welfare rolls. Today there are 2½½ million and
there will be an increase of 600,000 more by the end of the next fiscal
year unless we take decisive steps to stem this growth.
Welfare and Medi-Cal have become an intolerable financial burden on
our people and on state and local governments. We must reform it and
restore welfare to its proper priority as one, but just one---of the
many programs government must provide.
We have proposed a realistic and reasonable program to do just that
in California. I have talked about it so much you must be familiar with
it. But I would like to mention it briefly once more for two reasons:
first, because it vitally affects you---as an individual citizen and as
a member of a board or commission representing an essential state
government program.
And second, because we need your help in both those capacities.
One of the main goals is to restore dignity to the lives of the
elderly, blind and disabled.
Then we want to cut through the maze of welfare regulations and law
and tighten up every one that has been translated into an abuse.
We want to terminate welfare aid to illegal aliens
eliminate food
stamp eligibility for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 65
including the voluntarily unemployed hippies who sneer at society while
they stand in the check-out line clutching food stamps that are intended
to help the deserving poor.
We want to put a realistic ceiling on the amount of spendable income
a family may have and still remain eligible for welfare.
Resources Boards
Finally, there one other reform we propo the most important
one of all. We intend to require that able-bodied welfare recipients
either work, be training for a job or take part in a public assistance
Task Force. Those who refuse will be denied further welfare aid.
The loudest opposition to the work requirement is not from the
recipients themselves, but from those self-appointed champions of the
poor
the ones who look upon poverty as an acceptable career. They do
not want the welfare rolls to stop growing because they look upon the
needy as a political power base. These self-serving and self-appointed
experts fully realize that when the poor become self-supporting when
someone goes to work they don't like the idea of supporting others who
don't work, especially experts whose 'expertise' is limited to ither
living off the poverty industry or getting on welfare themselves.
We do not expect to convert these kinds of individuals.
But we do hope to convince reasonable men and women of all political
philosophies in every city and town in this state that California
simply cannot go on financing unlimited Medi-Cal benefits and a public
assistance program that virtually invites abuses.
We must reform welfare to make it fair to those who need help the
most. Our welfare reform program will do this.
Those who are opposing this program in the legislature already have
accepted the idea of higher taxes this year. They have given up
without even considering welfare reform. Apparently, they feel it is
easier simply to impose higher taxes on the working citizens of California
than to insist upon the reforms which all reasonable men and women agree
are necessary.
We have not given up. But we do need help. We need your influence
and your support.
Tell your friends to write their legislators and demand welfare
reform. Tell them that the only alternative to welfare reform is higher
taxes
indefinitely.
Urge your County Supervisors to get behind this program. Despite
the false propaganda you have heard, our reform does not mean a financial
burden to counties. Instead, counties will save more than $100 million
a year and the state will assume the basic health costs for 800,000 people
who now must be cared for entirely at county expense. The state will
take over administrative expenses that we now share with counties.
Resources Boards
In order to meet the concern of some county officials who honestly
feared a cost shift to local government, we have amended our welfare
reform. And many of those who previously expressed opposition say they
are satisfied.
There is no longer any reason, no honest cause for opposing welfare
reform.
Our people want it. And we must have welfare reform unless we are
prepared to abandon many other vital state programs, including those we
need to protect the environment.
Take this message with you to the people you know. Ask them for
their support, as I am asking you now for yours.
The choice is simple and it must be made now: higher taxes or
welfare reform.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes).
5 I I
6/4
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Saturday A.Ms.
Sacramento, California
June 5, 1971
Contact:
Paul Be
445-4571
6-3-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
POW-MIA International, Inc., Dinner
Los Angeles, California
June 4, 1971
It is customary for a speaker, when invited to address such a
distinguished gathering, to describe the opportunity as a privilege.
And I am privileged to be with you this evening, privileged and
honored.
No one could stand before this particular assembly without also
feeling deep humility and great pride.
Humility because that is the only possible emotion in the face
of the human courage and sheer fortitude we are acknowledging by our
presence here tonight; and pride because it is an occasion for pride
to see so many Americans expressing their personal concern for the
fate of a gallant few.
It is these missing men who are the real guests of honor here
tonight. And perhaps it is appropriate for us to leave one empty
chair on this rostrum and mark it reserved--reserved for those who
cannot be with us, but whose courage and endurance in captivity
brought us together.
We are not here for a partisan reason. We are here for a
humanitarian cause. And our cause transcends any political divisions.
We are not here as hawks or doves. We are here as Americans who are
concerned about the plight of almost 1,600 brave countrymen who are
missing or held prisoner by the enemy in Southeast Asia.
Some of them have been held captive for six or even seven years
longer than any other prisoners in any of our past wars or conflicts.
The fact that we do not even know how many are prisoners is a grim
reminder of the inhumane and barbaric treatment they are enduring.
In violation of the most basic terms of the Geneva Convention,
the enemy has not given us a complete listing of the men they hold
prisoner. The North Vietnamese Communists have not allowed Red Cross
teams to visit the internment camps to see that these prisoners are
receiving humane treatment. They have not permitted release of the
sick and injured. And they have not even exhibited a minimum of human
decency and compassion by allowing the men they hold to maintain a
regular correspondence with their wives and children.
-1-
POW-MIA
Instead, time again, the Communists have cruelly and cynically
used the plight of our missing men in a sadistic game to further their
own aims.
Only some among us tonight--the wives and families of these brave
men--can ever really know in full measure the terrible anguish this
inhumanity has caused.
But millions of Americans, from every corner of this land, who
can only try to imagine your pain, say to you and to all the other
wives and relatives of our missing and imprisoned men: We want with
all our hearts to share your burden.
There is an extra element of tragedy in the plight of your
husbands, sons and brothers. Unlike other conflicts, in other times,
they cannot take comfort in the knowledge that whatever their hardships,
America is united behind them.
This is the first group of American prisoners of war who have
ever had to endure--along with captivity--the bitter awareness that
some of their own countrymen are more concerned about the enemy than
about them. No doubt many participate in parades for peace with all
sincerity, but I would find that easier to believe if they weren't
marching beneath the enemy's flag.
One of the more prominent demonstrators recently said on national
television the prisoner of war problem was a "joke" and that there is
no way to get them home without setting a firm date for withdrawal in
advance.
The issue of the prisoners is not a joke. It is the single
most important issue involved in this long and savage war and we want
them back now.
Those in America who speak of "peace" say it can be easily
purchased by accepting the terms the enemy has dictated. They imply
that the United States and those who serve their country's military
forces do not share their desire for peace. Whatever the divisions we
may have over the origins of the Vietnam War, the desire for peace is
unanimous. And nowhere is this felt more strongly than among the men
who know the sight and sound and smell of war.
Some of the ugliest and more lasting scars in this war have been
inflicted, not by the enemy on a far-away battlefield, but by
divisions among our own people, at home, in our own streets.
POW-MIA
Psychological Wa. fare is practiced in time 01 war to reduce the
enemy's belief in his own cause, to make him distrust his own leaders
and colleagues
to raise serious doubts in his own mind about the
justice of his system of government and to make him lose faith in the
stated objectives of his society.
No matter what their declared intent or how sincere the
demonstrators' desire for "peace", they have been fulfilling the
mission of psychological warfare not against the enemy, but against
our own nation.
And the cost of this has been the unnecessary deaths of thousands
of young Americans and an unnecessary prolonging of the suffering and
hardships of our prisoners of war.
Peace demonstrators subscribe to many myths easily exposed if
only they were interested in the truth. How many students have been
assigned Marvin Gettleman's book on the Vietnam War as outside reading?
And have any been told to test it's blatant propaganda against the
historical facts in "Vietnam: Anatomy of Conflict" (by Wesley Fishel) ?
Professor Fishel's book commits the apparent academic sin of
recalling the entire history of the Vietnam conflict, including the
fact that that great Vietnamese patriot, Ho Chi Minh, never saw his
native land in all the years between 1911 and 1940.
Nor was this because he was in lonely exile. He was a founder
of the French Communist Party and in 1924, worked in Moscow as an
official representative of the French Communists. When he did return
to Vietnam, he did so as a representative of the Comitern, fomenting
revolution against the French in that phase of this long war.
Ho Chi Minh was not even a true Vietnamese nationalist. In fact,
in 1946
before the National Union movement had actually engaged the
French in combat
Ho engineered the slaughter of many Vietnamese
nationalist
supporters
those who were interested in a truly free
Vietnam.
-3-
POW-MIA
One of the Communist tactics was simple assassination of all who
dared disagree with them. Another was to send the Vietnamese
nationalists as a vanguard against the French. In one incident,
2,000 young Vietnamese between the ages of 15 and 20 were left to defend
Hanoi while Ho's own Communist forces slipped out the back door. This
was hardly original with Ho---it is standard Communist operating
prodedure.
or doesn't anyone remeber World War II when the Polish and
Jewish guerrillas in the Warsaw ghetto were told by the advancing
Soviet armies to rise up and strike against the Nazis as the Russians
attacked the city.
The signal was given and Warsaw freedom fighters struck with
every weapon they had, including rocks and bricks. But, the Soviet
army halted its advance and waited--waited until there were no sounds
of conflict from the ghetto--not even the cries of the wounded just
a deadly silence. The Communists would not be sharing power with
local leaders when they took over Poland from the Nazis.
It only took a few days in Warsaw. In Hanoi the young Vietnamese
nationalists betrayed by Ho Chi Minh held out for two months before
the benevolent kindly dictator Uncle Ho heard the silence he was
waiting for.
Another myth is that at the Geneva Conference on Indo-China in
1954, the United States and South Vietnam agreed to hold free elections
to unify the country and that we refused to honor the agreement for
fear Ho would win. All propagandists sell this one Richard Goodwin,
Felix Greene, Dr. Spock and Norman Cousins. They often misuse a quote
from the late President Eisenhower to support this claim always
carefully omitting the lines which would reveal he was speaking of
an election that would have pitted Ho Chi Minh or anyone else against
the French puppet Emperor Bao Dai.
-4-
The truth is the ited States and South Viet m did not endorse
the so-called 1956 election proposal not because they were not
interested in free elections, but because Ho Chi Minh and the Communists
refused to agree to hold such free elections under international
supervision. The United States was not included as an official party in
the final settlement of the French Indo-China war.
Subsequently South Vietnam repeatedly proposed free elections
throughout the country--to be held under international supervision when
peace and order was restored. Always it was Ho who refused.
In 1955 the people of South Vietnam proved the correctness of
President Eisenhower's assessment of Emperor Bao Dai. In a legitimate
referendum with 90 percent of the people participating he was
overwhelmingly defeated by the late President Diem.
A year later the Diem government announced that South Vietnam would
accept the defacto separation of Vietnam and would not resort to force
in an effort to re-unify the country. He urged the re-unification of
Vietnam by peaceful means through truly democratic and free elections.
Again it was Ho who rejected such overtures.
Then on May 8, 1960, Ho Chi Minh held his kind of election. There
was no need for voting booths because there was no secret ballot. The
people of Vietnam marked their ballots at tables set up on street corners,
helped by Ho's Communist agents. And what do you know? Ho got almost
99 percent of the vote. Less than a third of the other offices were even
contested.
All this time there was an International Control Commission set up
by the 1954 Geneva agreements, It did very little because the Communists
had insisted on unanimous decisions. The representatives were from
Canada, India and Communist Poland and the Communist member could be
counted on for a consistent vetc. Finally in 1962 the representatives
of Canada and India charged the Communists of North Vietnam with subversive
and hostile actions designed to overthrow the free government of South
Vietnam.
This is just part of the history so often edited out of the versions
some of our students receive.
- 5 -
POW Speech
But all of this
historical fact
availab
to anyone who seeks
the truth about Vietnam.
For those in the demonstrations and marches, especially those who
truly believe in peace and prefer to march under our flag I have a
question: suppose we do what they propose? Tell the enemy we are getting
out now give them a date and unilaterally lay down our weapons? We
are told the enemy will leave our departing men unmolested and return
our prisoners after we have reduced our presence to zero demonstrators,
Congressmen, Senators and any number of assorted bleeding hearts tell
us this.
What if they are wrong? What if there is even one chance that the
enemy descends on our retreating forces once their numbers had been
sufficiently reduced? What if there is a battle on the beach
"Dunkirk" with thousands of our young men killed and captured? Do our
pleaders for peace have facts not known to the President? Will they
guarantee absolutely this will not happen?
The answer, of course, is they have no such facts and they can mal
no such certain guarantee. They are just sure in their own minds that
everything will turn out all right. If it does not well their purpose
was noble. Their only sin was wanting peace---at any price. But
someone else will pay that price.
The President has no such easy write-off. As Commander-in-Chief
he must take into consideration even that one in a million possibility
of disaster for he must answer to each one of our men and for each one
of them.
Into his consideration must go all that he knows of the enemy--the
murder of more than 30,000 village leaders, the violation of holiday
truces, the slaughter and burial of thousands of men, women and children
at Hue. He must remember the terrorist bombings of school rooms, buses,
movie theaters and street corner crowds long before we were even in the
war. There are a million refugees who fled North Vietnam to escape the
mass executions in the North which were as savage and senseless as the
mass murder of landlords by Mai Tse Tung in China.
- 6 -
POW Speech
For four years we ive sat at the table in Pa S offering bombing
halts, cease fires and mutual withdrawal. Never once has the enemy said
"If you do this your prisoners will be returned", he has said only that
he will talk about it if we will quit.
Some of those who yearn for peace as well as some members of
Congress have been playing Russian Roulette again at no risk to them-
selves. For the gun was always aimed at someone else's head.
There are signs that the enemy badly hurt in Cambodia and Laos
was putting out feelers indicating he might finally be ready to do
business in the Paris meetings. The massive demonstrations, the talk in
Congress of trying to vote our capitulation, has given him reason to
hang on a while longer, to launch raids and increase American casualties
for propaganda value here at home. How many young Americans died and
will die in Vietnam because of the parades and speeches in Washington?
The enemy has been encouraged to believe he can win the cruel waiting
game
not by how many divisions he can put in the field in Vietnam but
by how many divisions there are among our own people here in America.
The President has chosen, as he should, a program of withdrawal
geared directly to the ability of the South Vietnamese to assume
responsibility for their own defense. And this too is our concern, or
have some of us decided we no longer hold out the hand of brotherhood
to the downtrodden?
At one of our state colleges recently a speaker was explaining our
Vietnam policy. A middle-aged man in the audience began heckling him
and of course was immediately joined by a certain element among the
students. Then a young man in the audience stood up and addressed the
hecklers. He was an exchange student from Vietnam in fact a refugee
from North Vietnam.
He said, "If you don't think it is in your interest to help my
country why don't you get out? It's that easy, you don't have to find
a
reason just go." And then he made it plain that his people need our
help, but he asked, "Do you really ever think about our people, wonder
about them do you care about them? If you don if you don't want
to help us then go home." The crowd was silent I would like to think
ashamed.
- 7 -
POW Speech
We can hope that etings like this one here bnight will help
Hanoi from fatally misreading the mood of America.
The President has offered the Communists an immediate cease fire
throughout Indochina, the immediate release of all prisoners, al all
Indochina peace conference, complete withdrawal of all outside forces
and a political settlement of the hostilities there. But he has said
we will not abandon our men who are prisoners. We will stay as long as
we have to and do what we have to, to get them back.
Millions of Americans must endorse this position, must in a
thunderous voice tell Congressmen, Senators and the faint of heart but
most particularly the enemy---he is not going to win his war here in
Main Street America.
Some of the young ladies on my staff have been wearing bracelets
which are distributed by a student group on behalf of our prisoners.
Each bracelet bears a name and date. The name of a missing man and
the date he was lost. One reads Lt. David Rehmann 12-2-66. The
lieutenant is a U.S. Navy pilot from Lancaster, California. He is
known to be a prisoner a captive for 4½ years.
I find myself asking, "Where do we find such men?" Young men who
leave their homes and loved ones to go half a world away. They fly out
over a strange land through machine gun and rocket fire and then having
done their appointed task seek out a dot on the ocean and try to land in
stormy darkness on the heaving deck of a carrier.
What produces these young men where do they come from? The answer
is so simple. America produces them and has in every time of crisis for
200 years. They come from our cities, our farms, our small towns.
Last December, T.V. recorded the White House meeting of the President
and some of the gallant leaders of that daring attempt to rescue
prisoners from a camp in the enemy heartland. The President asked the
commander where he had found such men. The answer so quietly given
should have thrilled every American. He said, "We could have had
thousands, Sir." Thousands willing to gamble their lives to save
another greater glory hath no man.
- 8 -
POW Speech
But even this he: :c rescue mission became t object of criticism
and debate by some public officials whose carping surely lent some
measure of comfort to the enemy.
A decade ago, an American President said that Americans should let
the word go forth that we would pay any price, bear any burden, to
assure the survival of all those things we hold precious to guarantee
that the freedoms we enjoy will be secured for our children and their
children.
Those words should be a reminder of the very meaning and purpose of
government; to offer the protection of all to even the least among us
wherever in the world he may be. Distance alone must not be allowed to
rob a man of his God-given right to life and liberty.
If we are unwilling to make such a pledge to each other then our
trumpet will sound an uncertain note and all the world will hear. And
therein lies great danger. From the vantage point of history, we look
back on wars we might have avoided had an enemy not mistaken our desire
for peace or our patience for weakness.
We are not given to bellicose sabre rattling or unnecessary
belligerance. But the savage captors of our young men must be made to
know that each one of those young men is precious to us; that there will
be no peace until they are restored to their families. Our President
has said as much. Now it is up to all of us to make it unmistakably
clear to the enemy that he spoke only what is in the heart of each one
of us. We will not buy our peace by abandoning even one American.
#######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes).
- 9 -
6/17
is
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: FRIDAY A.Ms.
Sacramento, California
June 18, 1971
Contact:
Paul Beck
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
445-4571
6-17-71
RELEASE.
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
CALIFORNIA LIVESTOCK SYMPOSIUM
Fresno, California
June 17, 1971
Because of the change to Democratic control of the legislature and
the close party division in the Assembly and the Senate, it was obvious
from the start that we would have to work together to achieve realistic
tax and welfare reform and to solve the state's cash-flow difficulties
and the other revenue problems caused by the national economic decline.
These are not partisan issues. And the people don't care who gets
screen credit (nor do I) SO long as we meet the state's essential needs
without increasing the cost and size of government and without increasing
the taxes our people are already paying.
For five months now, we have attempted to develop a bi-partisan tax
reform program with the legislative leadership. Our goal is to shift some
of the intolerable burden from the homeowner to a number of broader based
taxes. This should be a bi-partisan cinch. Both parties have pledged to
do as much for more than four years. So at the beginning of this
legislative session I proposed a joint effort to construct a workable,
practical and acceptable tax reform plan. Unfortunately no one came to
the party.
When it became apparent that time was running out we proposed an
administration tax reform program that includes the essential alements it
must have to assure that the property tax burden on homeowners will
in fact as well as theory---be substantially reduced.
There is general agreement that tax reform is an urgent necessity,
yet some citizens remain wary of major changes in the tax laws and with
good reason. Too often in the past, they were handed "tax reform" which
turned out to be a tax increase. It does the homeowner little good for
the state to provide property tax relief if local or county government
solves its revenue problems by raising the tax rates so as to wash out
the state funded reduction. That is why, in our program, we insisted
upon including expenditure controls for counties and school districts
to guarantee the homeowner the property tax relief he receives from the
state will not fade like a vacation tan.
- 1 -
Livestock Symposium
Our opponents have two tax reform programs which contain some
elements that are necessary in any reform package, although neither
marks any attempt to impose expenditure controls.
At first glance, the tax relief they promise sounds enticing.
until you read the fine print. Then you discover that both programs
contain exactly what some of our skeptical citizens fear---a massive
tax increase disguised as tax reform as much as $500 million more per
year with absolutely no guarantee that the homeowners tax relief will
be permanently reduced.
Without going into a detailed comparison, let me point out a few
points you should be interested in: There would be no guaranteed tax
relief for agriculture in either of these two plans.
Our program last year and this year does include provisions to
encourage open spaces and the preservation of agricultural land for
food production.
California recognized a number of years ago the unfair practice of
assessing farm and ranch land for its highest potential rather than on
the basis of actual use. As a result, the California Land Conservation
Act was adopted and 41 of the state's 58 counties are now participating
in it.
More than 6½ million acres, about 1/6 of the state's agricultural
land, is presently set aside in agricultural preserves under provisions
of the Williamson Land Conservation Act and rebifies for lower property
tax rates. The effect has been to reduce the assessed value of these
lands by more than $227 million, saving the owners $22 million a year.
We propose to reimburse counties and other local agencies for part
of the revenues they lose as ? result of the open space program and have
set aside $12 million for this reimbursement in the first year and a
total of $57 million over the next four years.
- 2 -
Livestock Symposium
Both of these other tax reform plans also propose what amounts to a
'tax relief' cash subsidy to non-tawpayers. They would authorize income
tax credits or refunds of $35 to $75 for all renters regardless of
whether they owed any taxes or not, This part of their program may not
even be constitutional. But apparently they think it is sound fiscal
policy to provide tax relief to those who don't owe any taxes.
Our plan provides that each renter would receive a tax credit of
up to $50 a year to apply against his state income taxes. This would be
in addition to the current double standard exemption. If the taxpayer
owed less than $50, his entire tax obligation would be forgiven. If he
owed $100, it would be cut in half. By specifying tax credits, we insure
that the revenues set aside for tax relief will go only to those who pay
taxes.
Homeowners would receive property tax reductions ranging from 100
percent for smaller homes to a maximum of 20 percent for homes costing
$47,000 or more. A home with a market value of $15,000 would receive a
55 percent reduction, taxes on homes in the $25,000 range would be cut
by 34 percent.
We also propose to reimburse counties for 60 percent of most
welfare costs in excess of 25 cents on the county's tax rate; our plan
would shift $44 million in county costs to the state by having the state
assume the current $1,000 veterans property tax exemption.
Now, to finance the program:
the state sales tax would be increased not to exceed one cent;
--bank and corporation taxes would go to 7½ percent this year and
to 8 percent in 1974;
personal income taxes in the highest brackets would be increased;
the oil depletion allowance would be lowered to the same level
that the federal government allows, and;
there would be a minimum income tax.
Possibly the most important difference between our approach and
theirs is how to use the so-called "windfall" that one time bundle of
money government gets in the first year when it starts collecting state
income taxes by withholding. This amounts to roughly $500 million.
We propose to the taxpayers as a one-time rebate approximately 50
percent or $250 million of that windfall. The other $250 million will
be utilized to meet essential capital construction needs
for school
and community college construction, higher education and parks and
recreational developments, without raising income tax rates.
Livestock Symposium
The change to withholding also would mean substantial sums in
permanent ongoing revenues. However, because the economic slump has
continued to reduce the tax revenues we had counted on to fund the
budget we submitted last February, we have a revenue gap.
We propose to meet this gap largely by using this permanent ongo
3
increase in state revenues.
In my state-of-the-state and inaugural messages, I said I am firmly
opposed to increasing taxes and I still believe we must make every effort
to avoid a tax increase.
Yet one of the other plans (Moscone) proposes to use up the entire
withholding windfall for spending. It does not provide a one-time
rebate to the taxpayers. And it would use up both the ongoing and one-
time revenues that will be available from withholding to finance ongoing
programs.
In effect, it sets a tax time-bomb with a one year fuse because
there would be a built-in future deficit. To accept that would break
faith with the taxpayers.
I have been called stubborm and inflexible for resisting these typ a
of so-called "tax reforms," If it is inflexible to refuse to enact a
built-in tax increase in the guise of tax reform, then it is a type of
inflexibility our citizens have a right to expect from their elected
officials at all levels of government.
There has been too much cynical maneuvering on tax reform. The
beleaguered homeowners are entitled to a realistic program that will
permanently ease their property tax burden. And I plan to continue to
fight for that kind of true tax reform.
The subjects I have mentioned tax reform, and a balanced budget
are both important. But neither can be achieved unless we also act in
our most urgent priority. That, ladies and gentlemen, is to reform a
welfare system that threatens to saddle the people of California with a
tax increase this year, next year and every year unless we adopt some
reasonable restraints and limit assistance to those who truly need help.
After four years of trying in bits and pieces to make the present
open ended welfare system work, we put a team of attorneys and management
specialists to work on welfare reform last year. They combed through the
laws to trace the many examples of outrageous welfare abuse that you
read about in the newspapers.
Livestock Symposium
After seven months of work, we submitted to the legislature a
comprehensive 70-point welfare reform program to close the loopholes,
restore dignity to the system and increase benefits for the truly
needy
without raising taxes.
Some of our reforms were measures requiring legislation. Some
could be done by administrative changes. We are already instituting
those. Our total package including legislation and regulation
changes
will save more than $600 million in state, county and federal
welfare expenditures in the next fiscal year and will allow us to
balance the budget without increasing taxes.
The only legislative alternative presented thus far would eliminate
one of the chief parts of our program a provision that welfare
employees be required to prove that applicants truly need assistance
before they are certified for welfare.
Moreover, this Democrat "substitute" would undermine the work
requirement program which we proposed as a means of restoring to public
assistance the discipline and dignity of work for those able-bodied
recipients who may need temporary assistance but who should not be
regarded as permanently dependent.
Ten years ago, there were about 600,000 people on welfare in
California. Today, there are more than 2.4 million and unless we act to
stem this excessive growth, the increase alone will be another 600,000
by the end of the next fiscal year.
The people of California and those in every other state have lost
faith in the present welfare system. They see it for what it is---a
confusing hodge=podge of conflicting and ridiculous regulations that
encourage abuses.
Yet every time someone proposes a realistic and effective reform to
eliminate welfare fraud and legal abuses, opponents charge that reform
is an effort to deprive the needy.
Does anyone think it is fair for families earning $600 a month
a
igure well above any poverty line yet proposed to receive the same
size welfare check as a family which has no income at all?
The federally mandated regulations in the current program not only
allow such an inequity. they actually encourage this kind of abuse.
- 5 -
Livestock Symposium
Should the working citizens of California be forced to pay higher
and higher taxes to finance unlimited medical benefits for those on
welfare benefit two to three times greater than the basic health
protection most citizens can afford for their own families?
Is there something wrong with trying to impose reasonable restraint
that would assure that our welfare dollars go to those who need help
most?
Should we accept the prospect of a permanent and growing population
of able-bodied welfare recipients who once certified as needy are
entitled to lifetime support at the expense of the taxpayers? This is
not the purpose of public assistance.
We have proposed a work requirement for able-bodied adults.
this provision, adults on welfare would be required to be either seek
employment, training for a job or they would have to take part in a
public assistance work force to qualify for further aid. If they refus
they will be denied welfare.
The main purpose of this work=oriented program would be to change
the direction of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children category
the area where many of the publicized abuses occur. Ventura County
already has agreed to test this concept of regarding able-bodied adult
recipients as temporarily unemployed rather than as permanent dependents
on public assistance.
Finally, we hope to restore dignity to the lives of our senior
citizens, the blind and the disabled by taking them permanently out of
the welfare program. We want to provide them with automated monthly
checks in a program similar to Social Security.
With the savings this would permit, we would ultimately be able to
increase their benefits. The overall reforms in the other parts of our
program also would allow us to increase benefits for those families who
have little or no income. They are the ones who suffer most because the
present system allows many people to claim benefits even though they he
ufficient means to meet their own basic needs.
These are humanitarian goals. These are reasonable goals. Welfare
as it exists today is dividing our people and aggravating rather than
alleviating social tensions.
We must change it. We must reverse its course so that it will not
be
what it is today a certain pathway to defeat and dejection for those
who must rely on it for support.
Livestock Symposium
There is a definite difference in philosophie S behind the
disagreement on welfare reform a radically different belief with
regard to the role of government. Our efforts to achieve tax and we:
reform are based on the premise that it is our duty to balance the
budget, provide realistic tax reform and reform a discredited welfare
system without raising taxes. In short, that government should be
limited in size and power and the people left to run their own lives
much as possible consistent with an orderly society. Opposed to this
view are those who believe government is ordained to provide for the
people not just to satisfy the bare needs of government, but to
subsidize government's wants.
We do not believe the people of California want their elected
officials to raise taxes without first exerting every effort to avoid
increasing the financial burden on our citizens.
The Constitution requires us to have a balanced budget. The peop
want a balanced budget without a tax increase. But apparently, some i
the legislature are misreading the mood of the public.
It is crucially important in these final weeks of the legislature
to let them know they are mistaken, that they cannot use welfare and
tax reform as a vehicle for raising taxes.
If you want a balanced budget, a fair and equitable tax and
welfare reform, write to your legislators and let them know how you fee
The people elected their public officials to solve problems, not
to play politics with the fiscal future of California.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be addition
to, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes).
- 7 -
-
by
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: TUESDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California
June 22, 1971
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
6-22-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
COMMONWEALTH CLUB OF CALIFORNIA
Grand Ballroom, St. Francis Hotel
San Francisco, California
June 22, 1971
Two years ago, when I addressed you, my topic was the People's Park
controversy across the Bay in Berkeley, a subject which to that point
there had been shed much heat and very little light.
There were at that time those who said firm handling of that
situation by the established authorities could only lead to disaster, to
a complete collapse of the University of California's home campus of
Berkeley.
But the Campanile still stands and the University remains one of
the world's greatest institutions of higher learning.
Today campus-related violence seems to be subsiding. But there have
been other direct challenges to the University's traditional role in our
society. I refer not only to the University of California, but to
campuses all across the nation.
Just a year ago, one of those ugly symptoms seized the spotlight:
the willful use of the classroom by too many faculty members trying to
impose on students their own beliefs and bias. They called it
"re-constitution of courses." Actually it turned out to be instant
grades and units for rapping about the war: a manipulation of academic
freedom contradicting the very purpose of the academy as a place where
truth and knowledge can be pursued objectively, without fear. Protests
were voiced by the public, many students and by thoughtful faculty
members who know that the University as an institution cannot survive
if it permits itself to become an instrument of physical or intellectual
coercion on behalf of one political view.
For more than 100 years the campus in America has represented
society's highest devotion to objectivity, a place where reason ruled
over emotion, where the cultural values of our civilization were passed
on from generation to generation, pushing forward the frontiers of
knowledge.
Too often, in these past 7½ years, we have forgotten that primary
goal. But now the volume of revolutionary rhetoric has been lowered.
There are few street confrontations and fewer buildings being captured.
- 1 -
Commonwealth Club
Perhaps working together we can restore the public's confidence
in the University the confidence it enjoyed and earned through
dedication to academic goals in all those other decades.
Unfortunately, our efforts to return to the fundamental purpose of
higher education must take place this year within the context of a
severe economic pinch which has required a general tightening of budgets
in both public and private institutions of higher education in
California and throughout the country.
The challenge today is not whether outside assistance is necessary
to keep the University operating in the face of a threat of violence,
but whether the University community itself will choose to take the
necessary action to meet its responsibilities.
The people of California have long considered education to be the
state's No. 1 priority. They know our educational system prepares our
youth for informed and rational functioning within a free and democratic
society.
In recent weeks, a parade of University spokesmen have gone forth
to solicit public support for greater spending than our proposed budget
allocates for the next fiscal year. They have contacted alumni and other
friends of the University. They have painted a picture of impending
educational disaster if the University's demands for increased funding
are not met.
I do not take issue with their right, indeed their duty to
vigorously press the University's requests for state financing. But my
own responsibility is to a much broader constituency than just one area
of government or one essential public program.
I have to balance the University's claim for more money against
other, equally urgent needs and then match the sum total of these claims
against the state's ability to finance them and against the ability of
our economy to absorb an increased tax burden at a time when the national
economy is taking its first slow step back from an economic recession.
Since they have not pointed this out, I will---we are not discussing a
changed emphasis on priorities. Education is already our No. 1 priority.
To accept the University's financial demands means a tax increase for
our people.
- 2 -
Commonwealth Club
So these questions must be posed to you and to the people of
California for your impartial judgment. Is the state arbitrarily
stifling the University through budget reductions? Is higher education
and this state's commitment to excellence endangered by requests for
better management of the University's financial resources and personnel?
Do we have on our campuses an overworked faculty, unable to function
effectively because the teaching activity we expect is far beyond a
reasonable level?
The budget we have proposed for the University of California in the
coming year is at about the same level of state support we provided
this year. That is more than $337 million and reflects a 40 percent
increase during these past four years. The State Colleges have received
an increase of 88 percent and state aid to the community colleges has
gone up 151 percent. Student aid grants and scholarships have
quadrupled.
All told, our proposed budget for the support of higher education
is more than two-thirds of a billion dollars highest in the state's
history.
Every state-financed program, including the University, would like
to have more. Sometimes advocates of increased funding compare our
spending to that of our sister state New York. They are not doing that
SO much this year. Unlike California, New York proposes to provide fewer
tax dollars next year for higher education than it did this year. Some
300 to 400 vacant faculty and staff positions in higher education are
being abolished and 500 permanent and temporary employees are to be
laid off. There has even been talk of not admitting a freshman class at
all to that state's university system next fall. New York's governor
and the legislature have cut $750 million from the budget requests for
all education and are laying off thousands of state employees.
In Illinois, the budget for higher education has been reduced by
more than $177 million. The State of Washington suggests a salary cut
for all members of the faculty, as well as for other employees.
Every major state university system is undergoing a period of
financial austerity.
In Michigan, the governor has asked for a reduction in enrollment at
the University next year. Spokesmen for the State University say budget
reductions in that state mean in inevitable "erosion toward mediocrity.'
The words and music have a familiar sound.
- 3 -
Commonwealth Club
Here, University of California spokesmen imply that the University
is being singled out for economic persecution. They make reference to
four years of "economic decline" when, in fact, during the past four
budget years, they have had an increase in General Fund dollars greater
than in any previous four years.
Sacramento has been blamed for specific curtailment of specific
programs when, in fact, the constitution provides that only the
University itself may decide where to put and where to withhold the
dollars available.
Most significantly, they have suggested that the only solution to
the University's financial problem is greater funding. By their actions
and attitude, they have rejected the prospect of meeting this situation
through internal belt tightening, modifying programs or re-examining the
teaching workload and the usage of existing faculties.
The University implies that this is not possible, that to teach more,
to give greater priority to instruction and to senior faculty contact
with students, would jeopardize educational excellence.
The layman has no way of evaluating the validity of that claim.
Yet those of us in the executive and legislative branches must attempt
to do so if we are to carry out our responsibilities of providing the
maximum possible state support for the University while meeting other
essential needs within the revenues we have available.
Let us examine, then, the University of California's position that
the only solution to its financial problems is increased funding by the
taxpayers of this state. Particularly, let us examine the University's
attitude toward the teaching load, its approach to classroom use, and
its salary scale.
FACULTY TEACHING WORKLOAD
Historically, teaching has been afforded equal status with research
and other functions in our institutions of higher learning. In California
New York, Michigan, nine or ten hours in the classroom per week
or
about three lecture courses-- is traditionally regarded as an appropriate
teaching workload. By adding the time spent developing courses,
interviewing students, and for such activities as individual study, this
usually brings the time devoted to teaching to about 50 percent for an
average faculty member, with the other time available for research.
- 4 -
Commonwealth Club
In
the colleges which do not have equivalent research obligations--
12 hours or four three-unit lecture courses is regarded as the norm and
15 hours is the standard workload for community college faculties.
The legislative analyst confirmed this standard in 1962-63 and past
records show the University has operated quite effectively, without
faculty discontent, at even higher levels. According to one of its own
publications, classroom teaching hours in the mid-50s ranged from 17.3
hours weekly for undergraduates to 15.2 hours at the post-graduate level.
And it was during that time the University of California achieved it:
enviable reputation for educational excellence.
During the intervening years, unfortunately, teaching has been
neglected or downgraded. Unknown to the public or those representing
the public, universities across the country have dramatically reduced
their teaching activities.
University spokesmen protest that the faculty works "sixty hours a
week." Perhaps they do. But it is the lack of balance of their work
that is our concern. If they worked 80 hours a week, it would not be
enough if teaching was neglected. The public expects, the students need
and our financial condition requires that teaching be restored to equal
status with research.
A recently completed audit of classroom contact hours by the
University of California faculty in 36 sample departments picked at
random on the nine University campuses reveals an average of only 4.3
hours in the classroom each week. We all know and readily concede that
some of the more demanding disciplines may require greater research.
But how is it that full professors in physics an area in which the
University of California possibly leads the world managed to spend
more time with their students than professors in the sociology
department?
The University supplies figures which suggest at best that the
overall average time spent in the classroom by the regular faculty was
6.7 hours per week for 1969-70 and is expected to be 7.2 hours for the
current year, rather than the traditional standard of nine.
Equivalent figures for the State Colleges show an average teaching
time of 10.3 hours rather than the traditional 12. But unlike the
University, State College administrators assure us they are restoring
the 12 hour teaching load.
- 5 -
Commonwealth Club
I have long argued that the University need not turn away a single
student (as they threatened to do if budgets are not increased). All
that is necessary is that the faculty spend in the classroom the number
of hours they are expected to devote to teaching.
Our budget for the University is based on a student-faculty ratio
that assumes the faculty will teach nine hours a week.
CLASSROOM UTILIZATION
California's Coordinating Council for Higher Education has found
that one third of the University's undergraduate classes had enrollments
of 14 or fewer students; more than 15 percent of the classes taught had
nine or fewer students. Perhaps this is an ideal. Yet in some subjects
if a class is that small, could it be taught less frequently, and would
a small increase in the number of students jeopardize educational
excellence?
Clearly, in view of the public reluctance to vote bond issues for
capital expansion, we must seek alternate ways of providing classroom
space for the additional students who are entering our system of higher
education. More careful scheduling of classes might be a way to do this.
FACULTY SALARIES
We are proud in California to attract to our faculty the most sought
after scholars. We believe in a fair wage and we feel that quality
teachers are the best possible investment for the long-run benefit of our
young people and our institutions. However, it is hard to reconcile the
cry of economic starvation with the fact that of the top 66 salaries
paid by state government (those above $42,000 a year) 57 go to personnel
in our higher education system.
In fact, the total cost of the dozen top positions in the University
is more than the top dozen highest offices in state government. We are
told that our University has fallen drastically in comparison to other
universities in faculty pay level. Still, salaries in our system of
higher education are in the upper five percent of all the Universities
in the nation. And, unlike a number of other universities, we have not
proposed any salary cuts.
Considering those facts, we might question the charge of an under-
paid faculty, particularly when it is remembered that these salaries are
based on a nine-month academic year. In the remaining three months, the
individual professor or instructor is free to earn additional income
through extra summer session teaching, consultantships or even in the
pursuit of the vocation for which his academic training equips him.
- 6 -
Commonwealth Club
In our efforts to meet the state's responsibility to higher
education, we have not simply picked arbitrary budget figures. The
Director of Finance and his staff would like to be able to O.K. the
purchase without asking the price. Obviously they can't, so they have
tried to be helpful and cooperative in finding ways to make the education
dollar go as far as possible. An audit of 36 major departments in the
University indicates there are potential savings if the faculty teaching
load will simply be brought up to the minimum standard the University
itself prescribes. There might be an additional dividend.
A college poll of 100 institutions across the county reports that
the three most frequently mentioned grievances by students all relateto
teaching, or lack of contact with the faculty. My own conversations with
students bears this out.
Our young people want to associate with the professors whose names
they read in the catalog. Their desire for greater personal contact
with the faculty coincides with the need of higher education to
re-emphasize teaching.
Again let me point out that professors cannot unilaterally decide
on shorter hours and higher pay for a bigger slice of the pie without
reducing the slice for others either the taxpayer through higher taxes
or other government agencies with vital services to perform. If the
latter, which function would they reduce---help for the mentally ill, the
size of the highway patrol, our senior citizens? or perhaps we should
give up our efforts to control pollution of air and water?
ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Higher education not only in California but throughout the nation is
undergoing a major period of change and challenge, and at the moment it
is to a certain extent failing to meet the real needs of the students
themselves and society.
In some disciplines, we have trained more Ph. D.s than we need or
our economy can absorb. In some, students are enrolled in Ph.D. programs
for an unconscionable length of time. There are serious questions whether
the traditional path of secondary school to college to graduate degree,
in a one-two-three pattern, is really best either for the individual or
for society. Long-accepted practices must be reviewed and tested against
reality.
- 7 -
Commonwealth Club
Both our state University and our State Colleges must provide
better information to students so these students can make more rational
choices of an academic course and career. They need to find more
effective ways to measure such factors as ability and interest in planning
college programs for the tremendous numbers of young people who wish to
pursue education beyond the high school level.
More than half our students who enroll fail to finish their full
four years of college. This is a tragic waste. It is reasonable to ask
whether many of them were really ready for college at the time they
enrolled, or perhaps, for some whether college was really the right choice
We need open minds and fresh thinking; we need cooperative efforts
between society and its institutions.
We do not need threats that faculty members will flee to higher
paying jobs which do not, except in rare cases, exist.
We need fewer fables, less emotion, and more of the reason that we
have traditionally associated with higher education.
I am proud to be able to say that in the last several years the
nation, and indeed the world, has learned to expect innovation and
excellence from California. Why not in this? Working together, in a
spirit of cooperation, guided by a sincere desire to fulfill what the
students, our citizens and our civilization expect from higher education,
we can meet this challenge.
Let me suggest four short-term goals.
1. That we expect faculty members to fulfill the traditional and
reasonable amount of teaching or student contact that higher education
has established for itself: nine hours in the University, 12 hours in
the State Colleges and 15 hours in the community colleges. And that the
legislature spell this out, through legislative mandate as other states
are doing.
HEALTH SCIENCES
2. That we seek alternatives to costly new physical facilities,
particularly in such vital areas as health sciences, and seek other ways
of meeting the need for additional physicians. As just one option, I am
strongly supporting legislation that would allow us to explore with
private universities in California the University of Southern California
Stanford, Loma Lindaand the University of Pacific which are now
considering their capacity to provide an increased number of the new
physicians we need. These institutions have indicated that for
approximately $12,000 per year per student, they can collectively increase
our production of new physicians by 178 a year.
- 8 -
Commonwealth Club
Such a medical school scholarship program would cost about one
fifth of the interest alone on the University's proposal for another
$294 million construction bond, to say nothing of the $60 million in
ongoing yearly operating costs that would follow this construction.
INDEPENDENT AUDITS
3. In order to strengthen and preserve the University's separate
constitutional status, we must guard against dictating policy decisions
through the political process. So I will offer to the Board of Regents
a proposal for regular, independent audits to help the Regents in
making policy decisions.
STUDENT BILL OF RIGHTS
4. Finally, I propose that the Regents adopt a Student Bill of
Rights that would include these points:
--Regardless of their economic status, students have an opportunity
to continue their education to the maximum of their ability and interest.
--Students be given enough information about higher education to
make them able to choose within reason their own specific goals.
--Students have a right to continue their education without
interruptions, without threats of violence, without disorder. And they
have a right to be taught by a faculty which includes teaching as one
of its highest priorities.
--Finally, they have a right to hear and digest all sides of all
major issues, to weigh alternatives which include the whole spectrum
of America's values and political opinions from the middle out to and
including the extremes.
Let me quote from just one letter I have received from a student in
one of our state institutions. He told me he was in college through
work on his part plus a great deal offamily sacrifice and he said:
"I'm being cheated---all too often I must write essays from the New Left
viewpoint in order to get good grades. Three papers were returned with
progressively better grades in direct proportion to my discovery that
only by submitting work with the New Left line would my grade improve.
My last paper dealt with U.S. involvement in Vietnam and could have
been written by a North Vietnamese minister's aide. It received the
highest grade in the class."
- 9 -
Commonwealth Club
I make no estimate of how widespread this is, but from the number
of similar letters I have read and from the concern expressed to me by
groups of faculty members I know his is not an isolated case. By the
same token I know there are a great many in the academic community who
want true academic freedom, freedom of speech but not freedom to
propagandize a captive audience. The latter threatens free speech
and the entire system of free education.
In California we found the inspiration, the intellectual genius and
the sheer physical engineering capacity for man to reach out to the stars
Surely we can find the way to preserve and protect the system of
higher education that made such a journey possible. Together we can
reach across a generation gap---can respond to the concerns of our sons
and daughters who must carry forward man's search for knowledge.
Together we can reclaim for higher education its proper role as
guardian, advocate and inspiration for all the lasting values of our
civilization.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes).
- 10 -
/
#
di
-
3
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: WF NESDAY P.Ms.
Sacramento, California
JL., 23, 1971
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
6-23-71
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
TOWN HALL, LOS ANGELES
June 23, 1971
Did you ever get the feeling you were reliving an experience you
had had once before?
Once again you have provided your prestigious forum and made it
possible for me to speak to you and through you to the people of
California, It is my intention to try to cut through some of the
confusion surrounding the issues of welfare reform, tax reform and the
budget which is due in just seven days.
If you are confused it is easily understandable.
You have been told the budget cannot be balanced without tax
increases of anywhere from $250 million to $750 million; that our welfare
reforms are unworkable and our projected savings from these reforms
inaccurate and impossible to prove. And you have been promised relief
from the onerous burden of property tax in two different tax reform plans.
which actually do not guarantee such relief will be permanent or even
long-lasting but which do vastly increase the total amount of taxes you
will pay.
In my remarks at the inaugural last January, and again a week later
in the State-of-the-State message to the legislature, I told you that
a balanced budget was possible without a tax increase. I tell you now
we can have a balanced budget without a tax increase if we are willing to
tighten our belts and forego things which in better times might be
desirable in a budget but which are luxuries in this time of Leonomic
stress. And if, in addition, we are willing to meet and deal with the
long overdue need for welfare reform.
In these next few days the choice between increased spending or
government economy will bring California to an unprecedented crisis,
The issue is not a difference of opinion as to whether a deficit due to
declining revenues can be resolved with or without a tax increase. The
issue is in truth a confrontation between two philosophies of government-
one holding that government exists to provide the people with services
government thinks are essential to their welfare and that government has
the right to take the people's resources for that purpose if the people
lack the wisdom to provide those services for themselves, and the other
that government should do only those things the people cannot do for
themselves and do those things as efficiently and economically as possible
I subscribe to the latter view and think most Californians do also.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called it "keeping government poor and
and remaining free."
- 1 -
Town Hall
A few weeks ago we learned and you were told that the continuing
economic slump had reduced our expected revenues by another $200 million.
Faced with this new crisis Assemblyman Willie Brown, chairman of
the Ways and Means Committee, responded by adding $318 million to the
budget we had proposed. Our own response was that adoption of
"withholding" in the collection of personal income tax would produce
sufficient additionalrevenue to meet the crisis without increasing the
tax rates, provided, of course, we did not add any new spending to the
budget.
In other words, cutting through all the rhetoric of charge and
counter-charge, if the legislature will pass the $6.7 billion budget we
submitted, give us the welfare reform we asked for and adopt withholding,
California can still have a balanced budget and the maintenance of
essential state services without a tax increase.
I think this is what the people of California want. I cannot
believe there is widespread agreement with Senator Moscone's statement
that "Californians are getting away with murder and should pay more
taxes." Reflecting that philosophy, the budget proposed in the state
Senate has an added billion dollars in new spending (give or take a few
million). On the Assembly side, the increase is holding at roughly about
one-quarter of that amount.
You are entitled to know the reasoning behind my position. In the
first place, Californians are already the second highest taxpaying
citizens in the nation. Four years of economy have taken us from the
largest budget in the nation to third behind New York State and even
/roughly
New York City. Still our cost for state government pro-rates out to
$1,350 per year for the average family of four. Add a like amount for
local taxes and you have only figured one-third of the total tax burden.
The rest is federal.
I do not believe that government should continue doing business as
usual by adding a tax increase to the burden our people are already
carrying.
Some of the new spending advocated by the majority leadership is. to
provide additional money for a pay raise for state employees and more
money for schools and higher education. Admittedly these are all
desirable and are things we wish could be included in the budget, but
not at the cost of increased taxes.
Town Hall
I have asked our employees to do without a cost of living salary
increase in the coming year. I take no great joy in that because we
have the finest employees to be found in government anywhere. They will
receive the usual merit pay raise which affects about 40 percent of them.
And we have managed to include in the budget a number of important
changes they have long wanted unemployment insurance, time and a half
for overtime, differential pay for night work, improved retirement
benefits and an increased state contribution to their health program.
May I point out there have been four straight years of cost of living
increases for state employees totaling 21 percent which even with no
increase in the coming year will still be a greater salary increase than
in any other similar period.
Contrary to what you are constantly told, state aid for public
schools has gone up more in the last four years than in any other four-
year period in California history. From 1958 to 1967 teachers' salary
increases averaged 4.5 percent a year. Since 1967 they have averaged
7 percent. The annual state subvention to public schools is half a
billion dollars greater than it was four years ago but there has been
no increase in the quality of education. In fact the major complaint
is that quality of education has continued to decline. If there is to
be a further increase in state spending, the people have a right to ask
for some assurance that it will produce an improvement in the quality
of education.
Our funding for higher education in the past four years has been
greater than in any other similar period. Since the previous
administration, the budget for the University has increased 40 percent;
the state colleges have matched a 69 percent enrollment rise with an
88 percent budget increase. And state aid to community colleges has
gone up 151 percent, 2½ times faster than enrollment. We have quadrupled
our student aid programs.
Again, let me say I believe the people have a right to ask that
through this temporary period of economic dislocation when they must
hold the line on their own spending that government do the same. After
all, if our tax revenues declined $200 million below expectations, the
people's earnings and ability to buy must have gone down a great deal
more than $200 million.
The legislature has been in session 24 weeks. It has been 16 weeks
since you were kind enough to let me set forth our welfare reform
proposals.
Town Hall
On that day sixteen weeks ago, we proposed a program that would
change welfare's direction from a certain pathway to bankruptcy to a
system that offers dignity and the prospect of an even higher level of
support to those who really need help. We proposed a program that would
have the state assume the full cost of supporting our needy senior
citizens, the blind, the disabled---and to provide this support not
within the demeaning welfare system, but through a pension program
similar to Social Security.
We proposed a program that would give our over-taxed and impatient
citizens the potential of a welfare system that would ultimately lessen
its demands for tax revenue a system that would reduce the number of
people dependent upon public assistance by requiring those who are able-
bodied to seek work, to train for a job or to help meet through the
dignity of work some of the public service needs of the generous society
that supports them.
That program has been before our lawmakers in Sacramento for almost
four months. The governor of New York asked for our plan after we had
submitted it to our own legislators. He took part of it, added his own
proposals to it, submitted it to his legislators and signed it into law
on April 7.
Here it has been dissected, debated, argued over and amended. We
amended it ourselves when some counties expressed fears that their
welfare costs would be increased. We did not agree that those fears were
well-founded, but to give the counties an iron-clad guarantee that they
would not have increased costs, we amended our proposal to make that
assurance official.
I repeat the pledge I made in your presence on March "there
will be no added costs to the counties and no additional burden to
property taxpayers." Most county officials have reviewed our amendments
and know this to be true.
Our figures on potential savings if welfare reform is enacted hav
been challenged and picked at on an almost daily basis.
Those figures are the result of a year's study and research by a
Task Force working with county welfare officials throughout the state.
And they have been confirmed by a team of career professional
statisticians in the Department of Social Welfare, utilizing exhaustive
field research material and computer analysis.
4
Town Hall
I have full confidence in our projections. In fact, we have been
so careful we probably have underestimated the real savings that can
actually be achieved.
Tomorrow we will release the new welfare figures for May. These
figures will confirm a definite decline in the total number of people on
the second month in a row
welfare in California for/ even in the face of serious unemployment.
Some of this is caused by our regulation changes. Some, no doubt,
by our constant repetition of the need for tighter eligibility and a
work requirement.
Encouraging as these figures are, they are at the same time
tantalizing in the extreme:
For if we can cause a dent in the caseload simply by talking about
the need for reform
/and tightening the regulations, just think what we could do if the
legislature would give us the legal authority to really reform welfare.
It has been personally frustrating for me to hear over and over
again the false charge that I refuse to negotiate or accept any kind of
compromise. From the first week of this session I have asked the
majority leaders of both houses to join with us in a bipartisan approach
to the major problems of welfare tax reform. The people sent a majority
of Democrats to the legislature and a majority of Republicans to the
executive branch. They must have intended a bipartisan solution to the
state's problems. There are responsible Democratic members of both
chambers who have tried to join their Republican colleagues in such an
endeavor. Unfortunately this is not the position of the Majority Party
Leadership. They have chosen a less productive course.
We won agreement from the Democratic leadership that welfare reform
would be resolved with the budget. After all, a budget can hardly be
adopted or revenue needs known if the subject of welfare, our biggest
cost item, is left up in the air.
With their agreement, I envisioned a series of meetings in which
we would negotiate our differences. They would tell us what was
unacceptable in our plan offer their own proposals and we would wind up
knowing at least how much of our welfare reform the legislature would
approve.
When weeks went by with no such meetings taking place, I again called
the legislative leadership of both parties together. It was then we were
told our welfare reform would die in committee.
- 5 -
Town Hall
The committee chairman had built his own reform plan (without
benefit of any negotiations). It was presented to us as a compromise
since he had borrowed several points from ours.
It is not a compromise and it is not welfare reform. It ignores
75 percent of the areas of abuse we are trying to correct. In short,
it offers only what we have now--the continuation of a discredited
welfare system that is failing its humanitarian purpose, and the
taxpayers who support it.
Finally, this alternative we have been offered adds hundreds of
millions of dollars to the projected cost of welfare under our proposal.
To those who say our welfare reform is dead, that it has been kille
by the action of one committee, my answer is that the California
legislative process is not that inflexible. The essential elements of
true welfare reform can still be enacted through amendments it does
not matter whose name is listed as author.
Put
another way it is not parliamentary blasphemy to suggest that
what one committee has torn asunder, a majority of legislators can join
together again.
Ours is a reasonable program with humanitarian goals and it can be
enacted into law. It does not take four months more to pass it. It can
be passed in four days if a sufficient number of legislators can be
convinced that the people want this problem solved before it destroys us.
The pattern I have just outlined was followed with regard to tax
reform.
Meeting with the speaker of the Assembly early in January, I said I
would not reintroduce my tax reform plan and suggested that Democratic
and Republican leaders in the legislature meet with me in a bipartisan
attempt to hammer out a mutually acceptable bill which could then be
submitted to the legislature for passage. This suggestion was
enthusiastically received by the new speaker. The next word I had on the
subject was a last minute statement that they would announce their own
plan. It was introduced in the Assembly followed by charges that I had
violated my campaign promise by not introducing tax reform of my own.
A bi-partisan effort did go forward in the Senate and only after
it became clear these negotiations were stalled did we then offer our own
tax reforms to the legislature. We were willing to make adjustments and
certainly willing to agree to any authorship the majority party proposed.
The main goal was to provide tax relief for the homeowner.
Town Hall
The only area in which we could not compromise was that tax reform
must not be used as a device to increase the overall tax burden.
If the taxpayer ends up paying more, in my book, that is not tax
reform. That is a tax increase. And that is what some of the majority
leadership seems determined to enact.
The figures they claim for tax relief sound intriguing. But they
do not tell you what is hidden in the fine print.
One of the plans they offer which they call a "compromise" actually
would mean a phased income tax increase of $965 million
60 percent more money than the state now collects from income taxes.
Under this plan, it would be possible for a citizen over 60 who
owned a $60,000 home to pay no property taxes at all while the married
homeowner in the $10,000 to $15,000 a year income bracket actually would
wind up with an overall tax increase.
Another of the so-called tax reforms carries with it a large tax
increase and also utilizes the one-time windfall that accrues in the
first year of withholding. This is a built-in tax time bomb.
Ongoing programs are financed for one year by this one-time windfall
and then comes the discovery that the program has a second and third
and fourth and fifth year and so on into the future and revenue must be
found for each of those succeeding years.
As I said earlier neither of these bills has any provision to
guarantee that the reduction to the homeowner will not be wiped out by
new property tax increases. It took only 18 months for that $750
exemption the state provided in 1968 to be completely wiped out and now
you are paying higher property taxes than you were before the exemption.
Our proposal offers a sliding scale of homeowner relief ranging
from a 100 percent cut on the lowest price homes to 20 percent on those
above $47,000. And we include spending controls to ensure you keep
those reductions. In the $25,000 price range tax bills would be cut
34 percent.
There would be further savings because:
We would reimburse the counties for 60 percent of most of their
welfare costs over and above a basic 25 cents of the county"s tax rate.
-We would shift to the state the cost of financing the veterans
property tax exemption, and have the state assume a substantial part of
the
costs
of
our
courts
burden that has been growing in recent years.
- 7 -
Town Hall
To finance this tax reform, there would be, among other changes:
--an increase in the state sales tax---not to exceed one cent.
--an increase in bank and corporation taxes this year and next year.
--an increase in the higher income tax brackets.
--a reduction of the oil depletion allowance to increase the state's
revenue from the oil industry in conformity with the lower depletion
allowance adopted by the federal government, and a minimum income tax.
Incidentally, this is the second consecutive year that I have
proposed a minimum income tax.
I have spoken of "withholding" as a way of replacing our lost
revenues and also of the one time windfall so let me make sure there is
no misunderstanding about these items.
Withholding catches each year an estimated $20 million not now being
collected, the so-called cheaters. In addition, it picks up some $75
million a year as incomes go up and new jobs are added and another $75
million is money that represents over-payments by the taxpayers money
which the state can use until it is returned to the taxpayer. By that
time, another $75 million has been overpaid so the state's revenues are
actually increased about $170 million through withholding.
Eighteen months ago, when I reluctantly gave up my opposition to
withholding I did so because our cash flow problem made it necessary.
I informed the legislature that our cash needs by October of this year
would force us to sell tax anticipation notes or tax warrants unless we
had withholding in time to give us an even cash flow throughout the year.
Withholding was part of the tax reform we presented last year which failed
by one vote in the Senate, even though it had the votes of 78 percent of
the legislature. My prediction that we would have a cash shortage this
October has been verified in fact, moved up by our economic crisis.
Our cash flow problem will catch up with us in August and possibly July.
There is no reason why withholding should not have been passed early
enough in this session to have gone into effect July 1 and there would
then be no need for tax anticipation notes or tax warrants. There is
still time to pass it and have it implemented by January 1 so at least
there will never again be a need for that kind of borrowing.
Withholding also produces a one time windfall, the result of the
overlap of collecting next year's tax by withholding between January 1
and April 15 and collecting this year's tax on April 15. I had hoped that
this $500 million windfall could have been given back to the people much
as we gave the 10 percent rebate a year ago.
- 8 -
Town Hall
(
Now, however, with the economic crisis delaying so much necessary
construction and the need for local schools to meet earthquake
construction standards, I am proposing that: half the money go back
to the taxpayers and the other half be used for one time needs such as
school construction, community colleges and higher education buildings
and park and recreational developments.
But why hasn't withholding been adopted? I was about the last
holdout and I gave in a year and a half ago. There is a bill before the
legislature and withholding is part of the two Democratic tax reform
proposals. Well, the Democraticleadership has let me understand that
they are holding it in order to buy some concessions from me. If it
was not so costly, that should be quite a laugh.
They are going to buy something from me, the one who had to be
pushed screaming and kicking into accepting what the Democrats have
wanted for the last ten years?
They play games while the people of California undergo the added
expense of tax anticipation notes or tax warrants no wonder people
don't like the taste of politics.
Still I say again--there are many fine men on both sides of the
aisle who want to achieve realistic reforms and a bipartisan solution to
California's problems. Others unfortunately subscribe to a belief that
they can ignore the voice of the people in a non-election year and the
people will forget before election year rolls around.
I do not accept this cynical view. I believe our system can and
will be responsive to the voice of the people if the people demand to be
heard.
In the few days just ahead, it is reasonable to assume that I will
be presented with a budget out of balance by reason of additional
spending proposals. There will be an additional $200 million deficit
because of the reduction in revenues and because withholding will not
have been adopted to cover that deficit. And there will be no welfare
reform legislation so more millions of dollars will be added to the
imbalance.
- 9 -
Town Hall
Then, with the need to have a budget as the Constitution requires
adding urgency to the situation, those who are philosophically bent on
increasing the size and cost of government will offer to negotiate.
Their goal will be to strike a bargain in which I agree to a goodly
portion of their increased spending proposals in return For some
concessions on welfare reform and possibly withholding; and that I 5
them in proposing tax increases to cover the additional new spending.
They believe in tax increases, but they don't like being out there all
by themselves when the time comes to be held responsible.
(I suppose we have been on our way to this confrontation for four
and one-half years). The price they are asking of me in their
irresponsible partisanship is one that would have to be paid by the
people of California. It is a price I will not ask the people to pay.
A workable, practical budget can be balanced without a tax increase by
the adoption of withholding and a meaningful welfare reform.
It is my position that we can and must learn to live within our
present income. I hope I have your support.
######
(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be additions
to, or changes in the above text. However, the governor will
stand by the above quotes).
- 10 -