Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564446",
    "label": "Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1972 [06/01/1972-12/31/1972]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564446"
}

{
    "id": "118564446",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564446",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1972 [06/01/1972-12/31/1972]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564446",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P18-011-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P18-011-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P18-011-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564446",
    "naId": 118564446,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P18-011-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "83a6fe950fab1829",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Speeches - Governor Ronald Reagan, 1972\n[06/01/1972-12/31/1972]\nBox: P18\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\n6/22\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: THURSDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nJune 22, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-21-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nAMERICAN LEGION CONVENTION\nSan Jose, California\nJune 22, 1972\nIt seems every time we get together I have some new reasons to thank\nyou for your help. Today is no exception. But before I get to that, I\nhave a few brief items to report which I think will be of interest to you\nTo begin with, I have signed Assembly Bill 184 which exempts from\nproperty taxation the buildings and facilities, owned and operated by\nveterans organizations exclusively for charitable purposes. It extends\nto veterans organizations the same non-profit tax status that is provided\nto other charitable groups operating similar facilities and will enable\nyou to continue and perhaps expand your very commendable activities which\nmean so much, particularly to our young people.\nOn June 6, Proposition 1, the $250 million bond issue, passed by the\ngreatest margin of any veterans bond issue in the past 20 years. This\nwill allow the state to offer Cal-Vet loan privileges to thousands of\nreturning Vietnam veterans. Such victories do not just happen. I believe\nthis massive display of public support for the Cal-Vet program is a\ndirect result of the hard work of many people associated with the American\nLegion and other veterans groups. And I would like to express my personal\ngratitude and the appreciation of all Californians for the help the\nAmerican Legion gave to the campaign for Proposition 1.\nWhile I cannot mention everyone, I do want to acknowledge the role of\nyour past national and department commander Al Chamie who served as\nchairman of the Citizens Committee supporting the Cal-Vet bond issue.\nLaughlin Waters, your own commander Cecil Bandy, and many others also\nplayed an important part and they all deserve our thanks for a job well\ndone.\nAnd let me thank you for your help in another area. With the phasing\ndown of the war in Southeast Asia, hundreds of thousands of young men who\nserved honorably during this conflict face the problem of finding a\nproductive place in the economy. These returning young men deserve all\nthe help we can give them in finding a job.\n- 1 -\n(\nAmerican Legion Convention\nA year ago at your convention, I announced the appointment of Gordon\nElliott to be the chairman of California's Jobs for Veterans Task Force.\nGordon is the Regional Director of the Veterans Administration in Southern\nCalifornia and is very much aware of the difficulty many of our veterans\nwere having in finding work.\nHe and his committee have worked long hours to make this program -\nsuccess.\nMany communities have sponsored \"Veterans Job Fairs\" and newspapers,\nradio and television stations have devoted space and time to publicize\nthis effort to generate job opportunities for servicemen returning to\ncivilian life. Two giant food chains have advertised the program in\nwindow displays. We had a statewide \"Jobs for Veterans\" poster contest\nand an essay contest in the Los Angeles area high schools.\nOur own Department of Human Resources Development launched special\nprograms to aid and counsel veterans who were seeking work.\nIn this way finding jobs for returning veterans became a major\npriority in both the public and private sector.\nAt the time we started this program, the national unemployment rate\nfor Vietnam veterans in the 20 to 29 age group was disappointingly high\naround 12 percent. It has dropped to 8.1 percent.\nCalifornia has found jobs for 54,692 veterans and is leading the\nmajor states in helping servicemen readjust to civilian life. Thousands\nmore have found the door of opportunity opened wider because of this\ncampaign. Our goal is to place in a job every veteran who is seeking work\nWhile I am on this subject let me say it is a disgusting commentary\non the times that some who apparently sympathize with the enemy have\nworked overtime to malign the service of our Vietnam veterans, to falsely\nportray their mission in Southeast Asia and the manner in which they are\ncarrying it out.\nYou have heard all the stories and exaggerated claims of widespread\ndrug addiction in our armed services in Southeast Asia claims that a\nmany as 40 percent two out of every five servicemen were using\nnarcotics or had become addicted to some form of drugs.\nObviously this has hurt some of our young veterans in their efforts\nto find work.\n-2-\nAmerican Legion Convention\nWe in state government were concerned about the problem of drug\naddiction among returning servicemen as well as other parts of the\nyounger generation. A task force on Veterans Drug Abuse, headed by\nCharles Bowers, our Deputy Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs\nwas appointed to find out the facts and to recommend solutions.\nThis task force discovered that only an estimated one percent of\nCalifornia's Vietnam veterans are addicted to hard drugs. And this\nis lower than the drug addiction in the non-veteran population.\nThe task force discovered that the overwhelming majority of Vietnam\nveterans had never used drugs of any kind and they are far more mature\nand responsible adults when they return to civilian life than they were\nwhen they entered military service.\nThey did not ask to be sent to Vietnam. But once they were there,\nthey tried to do their duty honorably and courageously just as another\ngeneration did in World War II and Korea. They are as fine a group of\nyoung Americans as we have every / had.\nAnd that brings me to the main topic I want to discuss with you\ntoday.\nI realize that the American Legion is a non-partisan organization.\nYou are concerned with those who have served their country and that\nincludes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Unfortunately in this\nseason of political campaigning it is necessary to point this out before\nbringing up a subject of vital concern to you and to every American.\nThat subject is the defense of this nation whether or not we have the\ndetermination, the courage and yes, the common sense, to make sure that\nAmerica is prepared to defend its freedom from any aggressor.\nThe defense of America is a vital issue, not a partisan issue. It\nconcerns every American regardless of political philosophy. President\nKennedy said, \"There can be only one possible defense policy for the U.S.\nIt can be expressed in one word--the word is first; I do not mean first\nwhen, I don't mean first if;---I mean first period.\"\nArmaments do not cause war. Armaments are built and used by\naggressors whose intention from the beginning is war and the threat of\nwar, Peace loving nations must match their weaponry whether they like it\nor not or fall victim to their aggressor.\n- 3 -\nAmerican Legion Convention\nWe ended World War II possessed of the greatest military fervor\nthe world had ever seen. We did not attempt to use it for aggression no\ndid we even maintain its great strength. We dismantled our forces so\nfast that a Communist aggressor was encouraged to try to breach the\ndefense perimeter of the free world in Korea, only five years after\ne\nclose of World War II. History was repeating itself for only a year\nbefore the Korean war broke out, the main argument in our country was\nhow few air wings we would have. We committeed no war-like act South\nKorea was attacked across the 38th parallel and in the fast moving world\nof technology our choice of weapons was \"the bomb\" or already obsolete\nWorld War II equipment. So in the early days of that war Americans flew\nprop-driven aircraft into battle against the threat of sophisticated\nCommunist jets. Once again, young Americans were called upon to hold the\nline while we frantically rebuilt our defenses.\nWhen peace finally came it seemed we had finally learned the folly\nof being unprepared. And in the 1950s, we maintained sufficient military\nstrength to deter aggression. Despite the talk of a missile gap, when\nDwight Eisenhower left the White House in the 1960s, America had a\nmassive five-to-one missile superiority over the Soviet Union. But now\nafter stumbling into war, unprepared for war, we hear the same old talk\nthat dismantling America's defenses is the way to peace.\nSome who seek the highest office in the land---an office that carries\nwith it the responsibility of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces---\nwould slash defense spending by billions of dollars, as much as one-third\nto one-half of the present defense budget. To understand the significance\nof what that would mean, you have to consider just how they would achieve\na defense cut of that magnitude.\n--Despite the effectiveness of NATO in helping prevent aggression,\nthis would mean withdrawing all but two American divisions from Europe.\n--Suspension of funds for an anti-ballistic missile defense and\nelimination of funds for the program to put as many as 14 warheads on each\nAmerican missile (This, incidentally, is our counter to the Soviet Union\nmissiles which can hurl a 25-megaton nuclear warhead at American targets)\n--Development of aircraft carriers, new tanks, bombers and supersonic\nfighter aircraft would be halted.\n--The Soviet Union is expanding its naval forces, but America's navy\nwould be reduced from roughly 700 ships to 341 and the army would be\nreduced by more than 600,000 ment.\nAmerican Legion Convention\nOne newspaper estimates these cuts would reduce some of our on-line\ndefense forces to a level below what we had before Pearl Harbor. Yet,\nthese peace through disarmament voices assure us we would have more than\nenough defense.\nIt is true that some who are contesting for the Presidency have\ndeclared that those kind of cuts would reduce America to a second class\npower in the world.\nAnd yet even they support a research report that America might\nreduce its defense budget by $10 to $12 billion.\nThey do not add that that same study admitted a $12 billion defense\nreduction would wipe out 900,000 jobs and throw that many people into\nthe ranks of the unemployed.\nWe would have an army all right---an army of unemployed. But those\nwho would create that kind of army are undismayed. They claim the saving\nin defense spending would provide a dole for these newly unemployed.\nOne Senator voted against the supersonic transport but suggested\nmoney could be appropriated to help the displaced workers pay the\nmortgages on their homes. Somehow this seems to be a strange distortion\nof the American Dream. Now we are hearing the same \"spend it on social\nreform\" chorus raised against the space shuttle. Little do they care\nthat the space shuttle means additional thousands of jobs in California,\nbut more important, it may also determine whether America remains a\nfirst class entry in the space race or simply forfeits the contest to the\nSoviets by default.\nUse of the word \"radical\" causes eyes to roll in horrified shock\nthese days, But you and I know it is the proper word to describe\ncutbacks that could be disastrous to our national defense.\nHow long would Israel survive if there were no aircraft carriers\nwith the Sixth Fleet? How long would Western Europe be able to resist\nSoviet pressures if we scrapped NATO? These are serious questions but\nthere is an even more serious question confronting us today a question\nhaving to do with the very soul of America.\nEvery generation has challenged the customs and values of its\npredecessors and there is nothing wrong with that. There is something\nwrong, however, with rejecting all the lessons of the past simply because\nthey are old.\nLike children hanging a sign \"kick me\" on the back of an unsuspecting\nplaymate, an increasing number of Americans are playing that game in\nAmerican Legion Convention\nAn economic system that has provided the highest standard of living\nin all man's history is assailed as an evil consortium of greedy\nprofiteers, politicians and labor moguls even though our great material\nprosperity is distributed more widly among our people than in any society\never before known to man. In a single lifetime we have seen those living\nbelow the poverty line vastly reduced. We have wiped out scores of\nkilling and crippling diseases, increased leisure and shortened the work\nweek from 72 hours to 40 or less.\nWe are called imperialist and yet in our history we have committed\nmilitary forces to action without realizing or attempting territorial\ngain. Most of the time, we have gone to aid those we believed were\nvictims of injustice.\nMany of our sons and daughters who have come to voting age only\nrecently have lived the better part of their lives with the frust\nof the seemingly endless war in Vietnam. They are sincerely idealist\nin their desire for peace, but unwilling to grant that we share their\ndesire. At best, they charge us with apathy and at worst, a willing\nsupport of a military industrial complex they say is bent on imperialism\nand responsible for all the present day conflict in the world.\nTo them it all seems to simple: we can have peace simply by asking\nfor it. Perhaps some of the fault is ours, but much of it is the result\nof a distorted picture they have been given of history. Apparently litt\neffort has been made to breathe life into the flesh and blood leaders we\nknew who spread an evil darkness over the world. One wonders if it has\nbeen made clear to them that non-resistance and love of peace did not sa\nGarmen Jows from Dachau and Buchenwald. Or that the people of Estonia,\nLatvia and Lithuania were guilty of no imperialist ambitions against the\nSoviet Union.\nHave we done enough to picture for this \"now generation\" the world\nthey would be living in if another generation had not been willing to\nbleed its finest young men into the sands of Iwo Jima and the mud of\nNormandy? If we are the war mongers and imperialists why at the end of\nWorld War II did we dismantle that great military force when we and we\nalone had the ultimate weapon--the bomb?\nWhy were we not even tempted to set foot on the trail to empire? A\ncan those who seemingly find so little to criticize or fear in the\ncommunist world honestly say, in face of the record since World War II,\nthat the world would be free today if the Soviet Union and not the Unite\nAmerican Legion Convention\nWe all share the love of peace, but our sons and daughters must\nlearn two lessons men everywhere and in every time have had to learn:\nthat the price of freedom is dear but not nearly so costly as the loss\nof freedom and that the advance and continuation of civilization\ndepends on those values for which men have always been willing to die.\nLet those prevail who show their devotion to peace by refusing to\nstand when the flag goes by and we may one day find ourselves forced to\nkneel before the banner of a conqueror. National defense is not a\nthreat to peace; it is the guarantee of peace with freedom.\nFor 25 years, Cato ended every speech to the Roman Senate with the\nline, \"Carthage must be destroyed.\" Eventually and inevitably Rome\ndeclared war on Carthage. But the people of Carthage, living in luxury\nand affluence, had followed cultural pursuits, developed the arts and\nentertainment and desired the comfort of peace above all else. Carthage\nwas conquered, most of the people slaughtered, the city leveled to the\nearth which was then plowed and sown with salt so it couldnot even be\nplanted.\nSome of our young people find little to love or defend in this\ncountry. At one university, they have asked that the National Anthem no\nlonger be played at athletic contests. In one of the recent graduation\nceremonies, a number of the graduation class sat through the playing of\nthe anthem, others raised their arms with the clenched fist communist\nsalute. This is a gesture I have found to be appropriately symbolic of\ntheir philosophy\na clenched fist representing a closed mind.\nI know these things I have mentioned are not typical of the great\nmajority of our young people.\nYet even among the well-behaved who do not\nparticipate in demonstrations, there is an increasing tendency to believe\nthe system has failed.\nOne wonders if they ever listen to another view of America possibly\none more objective. A woman who fled from Poland seeking sanctuary in\nthe U.S. wrote a letter to a national magazine. \"Among some of our\nAmerican born friends, she wrote, \"it is not fashionable to enthuse about\nAmerica. There is Vietnam, drugs, urban and racial conflict, poverty and\npollution. Undoubtedly, this country faces urgent and serious problems.\nBut we newcomers see not only the problems but also solutions being sought\nand applied. I love America because people accept me for what I am.\n- 7 -\nAmerican Legion Convention\n\"They don't question my ancestry, my faith, my political beliefs. When\nI want to move from one place to another I don't have to ask permission.\nWhen I need a needle I go to the nearest store and get one. I don't have\nto stand in line for hours to buy a piece of tough, fat meat or pay a\nwhole day's earnings for a small chicken. I don't have to show an\nidentity card to buy a pair of shoes. My mail isn't censored, My ph\ne\nisn't tapped, my conversation with friends isn't reported to the secret\npolice. I love America because America trustsme.\"\nThere are others who do not automatically associate the American\nmilitary uniform with the historic symbols of war and oppression.\nWriting in the New York Times, a representative of a former enemy nation\nsaid of America: \"I am prejudiced when writing about America. America\nsaved my people from starvation not so very long ago. No German cal\nthat U.S. imperialism. Thousands of American soldiers are stat\nmy country and because of this commitment and their loaded guns, we are\nstill a free people.\n\"The American commitment to freedom and the price Americans are\npaying for that every day saves us from the fate of our neighbors, the\nCzechs who are the victims of imperialism.\"\nThen he went on to say that 20 years ago Americans often got on\ntheir nerves because we were so sure of ourselves. \"Now, \" he says, \"we\nget nervous because Americans seem to be losing faith in their own destiny\nWhen I mingled in the crowd in the airport in San Francisco, I wished I\nhad a way to remind these people of what they are\nthat they have in\ntheir heritage the hope of the world. If America fails, the world fails\nand I hope I will not again meet an American who apologizes for the fact\nthat he is American.\"\nIt is time for us to quit being apologetic, especially to our own\nchildren. Even more important, it is time to challenge some of their\nmost cherished notions by presenting facts about their world as it really\nis\nfacts that will expost the sorry myth that ours is a sick, racis*\nmaterialistic society. Our generation has known war four times. Our love\nof peace has been born of sorrow the sorrow of farewell to father,\nhusband, son and brother and oh, so many friends. But even as we pray\nwith all our hearts and pledge our help to the President's crusade for a\ngeneration of peace, we know that \"war\" as John Stewart Mill said of it,\n\"is an ugly thing. But not the ugliest of things. The decayed and\ndegraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is\nworth a war is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares about more\nthan his personal safety is a miserable creature and has no chance of\nAmerican Legion Convention\nA few days ago a man who would be President offered to end the\nVietnam war in 90 days with total withdrawal of all support to South\nVietnam and return to the U.S. of all our military forces. Then, he said\nhe would go personally to Hanoi and ask for the return of our prisoners.\nI have no doubt we could end American participation in the war in\n90 days, but I charge that referring to this as peace can only be done\nif we are willing to ignore the fate of 15 million South Vietnamese.\nThese are 15 million human beings who asked our help under the terms of\na treaty we signed in good faith. A million of them fled the slavery\nand the purges in North Vietnam because they wanted what we take for\ngranted---life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To abandon them\nwould one day be recorded in history as a monstrous betrayal.\nEven if we could accept the guilt of such an act, what assurance\ndo we have that an American President going to Hanoi hat-in-hand, having\ngiven away the last vestige of bargaining power, could effect the return\nof our young men?\nThe present Commander-in-Chief has pledged he will do whatever has\nto be done, but we will not leave those young men in enemy hands. He\ndeserves the assurance that 200 million Americans will do whatever has\nto be done.\nIf there has been error in this tragic war, it is not because we\nfulfilled our legal obligation under the terms of a solemn treaty to\nwhich we were a signatory. Our error was one of morality the immoralit\nover the long years of asking our young men to fight and die for a cause\nthe administration at that time lacked the will to win. This war we\nhave been told could be ended in 90 days would have ended years and\nthousands of lives ago if the harbor at Haiphong had been mined and the\nenemy's potential for war-making destroyed as it is being destroyed now.\nWe pray for an end to war. But let us resolve that if ever war does\ncome again to our nation, we will not ask young men to die unless this\nnation is prepared to put its full resources behind those men to win and\nend the war as quickly as possible.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n- 9 -\nthe\n6/24\nthe\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR-RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE\nWEDNESDAY, A.Ms.\nSacramento; Califd .ia 95814\nJune 28, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n6-27-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSTANISLAUS MEMORIAL HOSPITALS\nAPPRECIATION BANQUET\nModesto, California\nJune 27, 1972\nFor many years before I went to Sacramento, I spent a lot of time on\nthe banquet circuit\nusually expressing my firm belief in the ability of\na free people to solve a great many of their problems without government\nhelp and very often in spite of government interference. These several\nyears in Sacramento have not changed that belief, indeed they have\nconfirmed it. And being here with you tonight is proof of the correctness\nof that belief. You a re commemorating the successful solving of a\ncommunity problem by concerned citizens who live in that community.\nIn many ways, this appreciation dinner, recognizing the campaign to\ndevelop your new Radiation Therapy Center and all the other hospital\nfacilities you operate, is more typical of America than all the\nlegislative committee meetings in Sacramento or Washington.\nOur state and nation were founded on this philosophy of freedom by a\ngroup of citizens who got together, much as we are meeting here tonight.\nThey formed a government to shape laws and political structures, but they\nknew that the real strength of America, the intangible power that makes\nit great, are its people and their willingness to help themselves and\ntheir fellow man.\nThe government they organized only gave them the freedom they needed\nto accomplish great things. It did not build America into the most\nprosperous, compassionate and generous society in the history of the\nworld. The people did that.\nSometimes when I hear the almost automatic line \"there ought to be\na law\" I wonder if we have forgotten that our forebears crossed the plains\nwithout the aid of a federal department of transportation; built schools\nin one-room log cabins long before anyone ever thought of having an Office\nof Education. And they provided for their own medical care through the\nkind of community participation you have exhibited here in Stanislaus\nCounty, without a Federal agency of Health, Education and Welfare. They\ncleared the land and planted crops without a rural economic development\nplan and when San Francisco was shattered by an earthquake and destroyed\nby fire it was rebuilt without help from Urban Renewal or the Model\nCities Program.\n- 1 -\nStanislaus Memorial ospitals\nYou are more familiar than I am with the long history of your own\nprojects and those who helped build the Memorial Hospitals of Stanislaus\nCounty. So I will not attempt to review this splendid record. But I do\nwant to acknowledge the contribution made by someone who may not be with\nus tonight, but whose presence is certainly felt: Larry Robinson, Sr.,\nthe first president of the Memorial Hospital Association of Stanislaus\nCounty.\nIt was his pioneering vision and creative drive that helped start it\nall. Those traits must run in the family. I know, because our\nadministration has called on his son, Larry Robinson, Jr., to be our\nDirector of General Services the department that has done such a great\njob reducing the cost of government by introducing modern, efficient\npurchasing techniques into state operations.\nNor will I try to single out everyone who helped build the Memorial\nHospitals of Stanislaus County. The list would have to include almost\nthis entire audience and thousands of others who worked so hard and\ncontributed so much. In fact, I understand some of the biggest financial\ncontributors would rather be anonymous. And this is typically American,\ntoo. I have a little bronze plaque on my desk and I hope I can live by\nthe inscription it bears \"You can accomplish much if you don't care\nwho gets the credit.\"\nYou have accomplished a great deal, with volunteer help, private\ncontributions and the dedicated efforts of thousands of citizens who were\ndetermined to meet the medical needs of Stanislaus County and all its\npeople.\nThe new $5 million Memorial Hospital in northeast Modesto, the\n$650,000 Radiation Therapy Center for treating cancer, the expanded\nNuclear Medicine Section, the artificial kidney, all this has been\ncompleted without a dime's worth of help from government.\nAnd if my information is correct, the cost of your hospital care\nhere is still less than it is in many other parts of California and the\nwest. To me, the most inspiring part is the work of your volunteer groups\nthe community leaders who serve on the board of directors, the women's\nauxiliary, the junior volunteers, the Foundation Trustees.\nTheir efforts support the work of the physicians and the employees.\nAnd certainly there cannot be any finer demonstration of faith in a\nproject than the fact that the employees of the hospital alone raised\n$30,000 toward the cost of the new Radiation Treatment Center.\n- 2 -\nA few years ago I tried to find a phrase---a descriptive title for\nthis type of citizen participation. I wanted to see it become once again\na way of life in California, I wound up calling it the \"Creative\nSociety.\" It is a kind of self help approach that represents the most\ncreative and humanitarian instincts of man. And it runs deep in the\ntraditions of America and its people.\nWe need more of it in government. We need more people in government\nwho recognize that there is a place for citizen involvement in solving\nour problems. And we need more recognition by government that when people\nare willing to take on a job whether it is building a hospital, running\ntheir own local schools or developing a park, they can usually do a\nbetter job at less cost than anyone in Washington or Sacramento.\nA few years ago, some farmers in the state of Washington wanted a\nnew channel dug to stop a serious flooding and erosion problem caused by\nthe nearby river. The Corps of Engineers estimated the project's cost at\n$180,000. The farmers borrowed some bulldozers and did the job\nthemselves for $1,500.\nGovernment cannot possibly do everything for everybody and certainly\ncannot do many things as well as they can be done by people helping\nthemselves. Instead of taking more and more dollars out of a community\nin higher taxes, government should encourage self help at the local\nlevel because when you do something within the community, you are far\nmore likely to get a dollar's worth of value for every dollar you spend.\nYet there is an increasing tendency in government to simply pre-empt\nthe right of the people to solve their own problems. Of course,\ngovernment will send the bill to the people.\nActually, there is more than just taxes and government extravagance\nto worry about. There seems to be a pattern by which government creates\nthe problem and then rides over the hill like the cavalry to the rescue.\nIn this election year, we have been subjected to a lot of demogogic\ntalk about tax reform accompanied by glowing tales of government programs\nto build housing, care for the troubled and heal the sick and all of this\nwill be paid for by someone else---some mysterious \"they\" who are not now\npaying their fair share.\nThere have always been those who pretended someone else could be\nmade to bear the cost of government. A long time ago in England, someone\ndecided there was money to be raised by taxing windows, and since the\nrich had bigger houses and more windows, they would pay the tax. But it\nwas the poor who discovered they were the first to have to wall up their\nwindows and live in darkness.\n- 3 -\nStanislaus Memorial Hospitals\nIn France, the tax was levied on fireplaces the rich had them in\nevery room. Again it was the poor who suffered cold because they could\nno longer afford that one fireplace in their tiny homes.\nToday's demogogues are talking about tax reform and they use the\nterm to denote the closing of what they call loopholes. These loopholes\nthey say are devices where the mysterious \"they\" can escape their fair\nshare of taxes. If the loopholes are closed, the money gained will pay\nfor all those other utopian gifts from government at no added cost to\nthe citizens to whom the gifts will be given.\nBut let us take another look at what are called loopholes to see if\nin truth they are not the legitimate deductions without which the whole\nincome tax structure would have proven unworkable a long time ago. To\nencourage home building, the citizen is allowed to deduct the interest on\nhis mortgage and his property tax when he computes how much income tax\nhe owes. Without this encouragement, a great many working men and women\nwould not be able to afford a home. Yet this is one of the loopholes the\ntax reformers would close. They tell us it would net the government\nalmost $6 billion, but they do not tell us it would come from our own\npockets or that we would then probably need that government built housing.\nThe same is true of another so-called loophole the deductions fo +\ncharitable contributions. This too, they would close. But then we\ncould no longer afford to contribute to United Fund, or to Stanislaus\nCounty Memorial Hospitals. We would have to ask government to take over\nthese chores. Last year 65 percent of all the deductions for charitable\ncontributions were taken by citizens earning less than $20,000 a year.\nAnother loophole they would close is the right to deduct medical\nexpenses. Seventy-six percent of these deductions were taken by those\nbelow the $20,000 mark. By removing this deduction, which was\ninstituted to make it possible for people to guard their health, they\nwould, of course, do more than increase government revenues. They would\nopen the door to a take over of all medical care by government.\nOur society has accepted the obligation to meet the health care needs\nof the poor, the disadvantaged and the elderly by way of Medi-Cal and\nMedicare. An estimated 89 percent of our people meet their basic medical\nneeds through privately financed health insurance and, of course, the\nwealthy can take care of their own needs without insurance.\n- 4 -\nHospitals\nBut, reflecting this philosophy of government doing all things for\nall people, a Senator in Sacramento has introduced a program that would\nsimply eliminate the private health insurance business. He would\nfinance this \"free\" government provided medicine with a payroll tax that\ncould amount to $100 a month for those with $10,000 incomes--- $1,200 a\nyear. His state plan would cost Californians $7½ billion a year. In\nWashington, they are talking of one on a national scale that would carry\na $77 billion price tag.\nThere is also talk in Washington of building more child care centers.\nBut they propose to take away a working mother's right to deduct from her\nincome tax the money she now spends on child care.\nWith one hand, government helps aggravate a problem, and with the\nother, it proposes to solve it---with the money you could have used to\nsolve it yourself.\nIf government eliminates the deduction for child care costs, a\nworking mother would be almost forced to send her child to a government\nsubsidized child care center. She would still be paying for it---with\nher tax money. But she would lose the freedom to decide who would be\ncaring for her child during working hours, and where that care would be\ngiven.\nI am not suggesting government has no legitimate functions. It does,\nbut those functions serve the people best when they are aimed at helping\nthe disabled and the disadvantaged become physically and financially\nself-sufficient so that they might help themselves.\nCalifornia has moved forward in many types of programs to do just\nthat. One of these is our rehabilitation program.\nSince 1967, we have more than tripled the number of physically and\nmentally handicapped persons who have been rehabilitated each year. We\nrank first in the nation in the number of disabled welfare recipients\nrestored to independence and first among the states in rehabilitating\ndisabled persons who had been dependent on Social Security disability\nbenefits. We have moved up from eleventh to third in the nation in\noverall rehabilitation services. Not only does this serve the humanitarian\ngoal of restoring people to a productive place in society, it is good\nbusiness.\nThe more than 14,000 people rehabilitated last year in California\nwill:\n--earn more than $71 million in personal income this year,\n- 5 -\nStanislaus Memorial Hospitals\n--pay more than $5.9 million in federal income taxes,\n--pay more than half a million dollars in state income taxes and\n$1 million in sales taxes.\nBecause they now enjoy the dignity of independence, there will be\nan estimated:\n--savings of $5.4 million in welfare, medical and institutional\ncosts,\n--and a savings of $1.2 million in federal disability payments.\nThere is another area where I believe government can do something\nthe people cannot do for themselves.\nThe newspapers carried a story a few weeks ago of a family holding\ngarage sales to try to raise funds to help meet medical costs of $37,000\nincurred because of a succession of difficult medical problems suffered\nby one of the children in the family. This is the kind of catastrophic\nillness that strikes about 10,000 California families a year at an\naverage cost to each family of $25,000 a year.\nSuch an illness can turn a middle-income, wage-earning family into\na family dependent upon welfare.\nAnd this threat of a catastrophic illness hangs over every California\nfamily which does not have sufficient resources to pay the thousands 01\ndollars yearly costs that such a tragedy can involve. Nor can private\ninsurance be provided at a premium any of us can afford. For this reason\nand to eliminate this threat of financial disaster, we have proposed a\nCalifornia Health Security program, which will provide the means of\npaying for catastrophic illnesses at a cost of $3 per month per working\nfamily, or $36 a year.\nThis $36 a year premium would protect the entire family from the\npoint at which their present insurance coverage stops for as long as the\nexpense goes on. It would not replace private health insurance, indeed\nwe hope that private insurance would administer it.\nWe have submitted the plan to the legislature it is up to the\npeople to decide and inform their representatives if they want such a\ngovernment plan.\nWhat you have done here in Stanislaus County to meet the health\nneeds of your community with your own resources is in keeping with our\nphilosophy of having people do all that they can for themselves.\n- 6 -\nStanislaus Memorial Hospitals\nTo those who say that it is wrong to encourage self-sufficiency, to\nmake it possible for an individual to try to do for himself and help\nothers, too, I would like to point to another story recently printed in\nthe news media.\nIt was about a young man from Los Altos who wanted to be a doctor,\nbut had difficulty getting any school to admit him because he was\nsuffering from a kidney disorder that required him to be treated for\neight hours on an artificial kidney machine, three times a week.\nThis young man graduated with honors from high school and finally\nfound a medical school that would admit him despite his physical\ncondition. A few weeks ago he graduated with highest honors as his\nfellow students and the faculty gave him a standing ovation.\nAfter his internship, he plans to join a kidney transplant team at\na famous hospital in Massachusetts where he will be able to use his\neducation to help others suffering from kidney diseases.\nDuring the long struggle to develop your medical centers here, I\nknow many of you must have been discouraged at times and wondered whether\nit could be done or whether it was worth all the effort.\nSome of us have had that same feeling in Sacramento now and then.\nWhen you hear of the kind of human courage that young Californian\ndisplayed, when you consider the obstacles he had to overcome just to ear\nthe right to try to help his fellow man, some of our own problems seem\npretty insignificant.\nThe kidney machine you have recently installed might be part of\njust such a story some day. Your efforts may not only save one human\nlife, it might also make it possible for the person whose life is saved\nto devote his career to helping others.\nYes, it most certainly is worth all the time and work and struggle.\nAnd you can be eternally proud that you have been a part of such a\nmagnificient contribution to the sick and disabled of this community.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will\nstand by the above quotes).\n- 7 -\n9/5\na\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONA'D REAGAN\nRELEASE: TUESDAY, P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nSep mber 5, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n9-1-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS\nNATIONAL CONVENTION\nLOS ANGELES\nSeptember 5, 1972\nYou are concerned, and properly so, with jobs and prosperity for\nyour members. I am concerned with jobs and a healthy industrial market\nbecause California's well being is closely linked to the products of the\nindustries in which you work, particularly those having to do with\naerospace and defense.\nSeveral years ago, there was a readjustment in these industries\nthat led to a reduction in the employment level. No one cried foul.\nCertain portions of the crash element in the space program that followed\nSputnik had served their purpose, military requirements were less and even\nin commercial aircraft, we had leveled off somewhat.\nNow however, the war weariness of our people has been used as an\nexcuse by some in Congress to attack any and everything military. The\nvirus has spread to include the space program and taint it with the onus\nof \"boondoggle.\" \" They sanctify their head-in-the-sand foolishness with\nthe spurious claim that cutting back on space and defense will give us\nmore billions of dollars for welfare.\nIndeed to dispute them is to lay one's self open to a charge of\nlacking compassion. Let us put that fairy tale to rest right now.\nThere never has been a nation or a people more generous than ours. We\nwill do whatever has to be done to take care of those who, through no\nfault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves. But it is\nnot a kindness to help people become helpless.\nThe technical superiority of Anerica's aerospace and defense\nindustries has kept America strong and free in the years since World\nWar II.\nIn fact, the very survival of America and the free world depends\non maintaining the skilled scientific, engineering and production work\nce which enabled us to be first to land a man on the moon.\nRight now, a satellite circling the earth is helping us discover\nbetter ways of growing food, protect the environment by warning us of\ndisease and fire threats to our forests, and locate mineral deposits and\neven new fishing grounds in the oceans. It helps us plan the use of our\nnatural resources so that we can minimize man's destructive impact on the\nenvironment. Because we dared to explore space, we have vastly improved\ncommunications. We even find ourselves eating new and more convenient\nfoods originally developed for the astronauts.\n-1-\nMachinists and Aeros :e Workers\nMedical advances that have evolved from the space program have\nincreased our ability to improve the health care of the sick and\ndisabled. Monitors detect irregular heart beats in intensive care\nunits. Sensors alert a nurse when a baby stops breathing. An electric\nswitch enables a paraplegic to turn the pages of a book by blinking\nhis eyes. All are the result of experiments first conducted for the\nspace program. To those who deplore the cost of the space program,\nperhaps we should ask if they are prepared to place a dollar value on\nsomething that saves a human life or allows a paralyzed patient to\nenjoy the pleasure of reading a book.\nThen there is the entire myth of billions of dollars wasted on the\nmoon.\nSome of those in Congress who vote consistently against aerospace\ndevelopments talk of adding $150 billion in welfare and social spending\nas if that much is now being wasted in space instead of the $3 billion\napproximately 1.3 percent of our national budget. That is the total\ncost of our space program. So while we are debunking fairy tales,\nlet's have at that one. To hear them talk, you would think we were\ncarting the money to the moon and leaving it there. Whatever the cost,\nthe money is spent here on earth providing jobs for people who buy\nautomobiles, refrigerators, TV sets, contribute to church and charity\nand pay taxes to support congressmen who vote to throw hundreds of thou-\nsands of people out of work and turn skilled middle-income Americans\ninto candidates for welfare.\nTurning our backs on the future won't cure poverty. It is the\nquickest path to national bankruptcy, not only for those of you who\nwork in sophisticated industries, but for all Americans.\nSince the issue that I am concerned about also concerns you, I hope\nyou will pardon me for not trying to waltz around the fact that this is\nan election year, an election year different than any we have ever known.\nWe are not going to decide just which party and which candidate provides\nnational leadership for the next four years.\nWhen you cut through all the rhetoric, the major economic issue\nin 1972 is whether a job is a better solution for poverty than a welfare\ncheck.\nI believe jobs are the best cure for poverty, not welfare. Here in\nCalifornia we decided to put this belief to work and in little more than\na year we have reduced our welfare rolls by almost a quarter of a million\npersons, reduced the annual projected cost of welfare almost three-fourth:\nof a billion dollars a year and increased our support payments to those\nwho really need our help by 30 percent.\n-2--\nMachinists and Aerospac^ Workers\nDuring these past several years of excessive unemployment in the\naerospace and defense industries, we have sponsored a number of programs\nto find new job opportunities for displaced engineers and skilled workers.\nOur State Department of Human Resources Development has placed 6,177\npersons into new jobs. But unemployment in these fields is still too\nhigh.\nAnd it won't be cured until America starts giving aerospace and\ndefense programs the priority they deserve. The best cure for aerospace\nand defense unemployment is to carry forward the programs which America\nneeds to protect its freedom. Jobs, not welfare, is the cure for aerospace\nunemployment. But those jobs won't exist if America listens to those\nwho favor cutting defense to expand the dole.\nAt the moment, we're on the road back to a more productive use of\nour skilled space workers. Just a few weeks ago, a California company\nwas awarded a $2.6 billion contract for the space shuttle. That contract\nmeans at least 25,000 jobs in California and possible as many as 160,000\nnationally when the program is in full effect.\nYet a candidate campaigns on a promise of providing a job for\neveryone at the same time he opposes such space projects.\nHe opposes development of the B-1 supersonic bomber, although it\nmeans 43,000 jobs. Of all the planes flying commercially in the world,\n85 percent bear an American trademark and were made by American working\nmen. We captured this market because we were out front with every new\ndevelopment. When planes became bigger we built them first. When they\nbecame faster we. were first with the fastest---until we reached the\nsound barrier. Then little men with little minds voted no on the SST.\nIn reality, they were voting to give up America's supremacy in the sky.\nThey revealed their true stature when they proposed to help the men\nand women they had voted out of jobs by appropriating money to help them\nmeet the mortgage payments on their homes.\nFrom the beginning of time, man has deplored the need for weapons.\nA sword is not as productive as a plowshare. But over this same span of\nyears, men have learned to their sorrow you have both sword and plowshare,\nor you must one day choose between slavery and death.\nWe cannot afford leaders who are opposed to the anti-ballistic\nmissile defense program, the modernizing of our missile forces or our\nnuclear submarines, while the Soviet Union is expanding its nuclear fleet\nat a rate twice as fast as we are.\n-3-\nWe cannet affor chose who vote to weaken A rica and to reduce\nemployment in the aerospace and defense industries.\nWe cannot afford to cut $32 billion from the defense budget. Aside\nfrom the grave threat this cut would pose for our nation's security, the\neconomists say that every $1 billion spent on defense and aerospace\ngenerates about 60,000 jobs. So when you translate that $32 billion\ninto human terms, it means eliminating 1.9 million jobs.\nThat isn't just my opinion. It is an opinion strongly voiced by\nmajor figures in both political parties, by union leaders and management\nspokesmen.\nWhatever our political philosophy, whatever side of the bargaining\ntable we sit on, we are all Americans. And whatever threatens America's\nsecurity and prosperity threatens us all.\nAnd the plain truth is that the proposals that have been advance\nto cut America's defenses would retard all the progress we have made\ntoward assuring a peaceful world and a prosperous America.\nThe political philosophy that endorses such cuts represents a graver\nthreat to America's security and prosperity than any sword rattling by any\nwould be aggressor.\nWhile we may disagree on other matters, on this crucial issue,\nevery American should share this concern about those who believe we\ncan slash billions of dollars from our defense budget and still protect\nour freedom and maintain a prosperous economy.\nIt is an issue that dwarfs all others.\nWe all want a peaceful America. And we hope that negotiations will\nspeed the day of peace. Some of you who are older know that I was an\nofficer of my union for 25 years and for almost 20 of those years I led\nour union's negotiations with management. I do not suggest this experience\nwas on a level with the negotiations aimed at ending this war. But I do\nknow that to negotiate fairly, you have to negotiate as equals. You can't\nsettle a strike or end a war on equitable terms if one party to the\nnegotiations goes to the table hat-in-hand, having given away the last\nvestige of bargaining power he has at his command. No one who has ever\nsat on one side of a negotiating table can seriously believe that America\ncannot retain a major voice in the world by cutting our military troop\nstrength to a level below what we had before Pearl Harbor.\nWe cannot negotiate on equal terms with any would be aggressor if\nwe adopt a calculated policy of weakness.\nDisarming America won't bring peace---it will almost surely invite\na threat to peace. And dismantling vast segments of the defense industry\nin favor of a national welfare program won't cure poverty. It will guaran-\ntee poverty for a lot of productive people who are employed in defense\nindustries and who are not only supporting themselves, but who are making\na vital contribution to peace and prosperity.\n# # # # # #\n-4-\n9\n9/8\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: FRIDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nSeptember 8, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n9-7-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE.\nACTUAL TRANSCRIPT\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nSACRAMENTO HOST BREAKFAST\nSACRAMENTO\nSeptember 8, 1972\nFrom those first few years when I kept you posted on how much we\nwere saving on typewriter ribbons, these meetings have come to be an\nopportunity for me to report on the state of the state.\nIt is a pleasure to do so, especially this year because our fiscal\nsituation is considerably improved and so are a few other things.\nFor example, last year when we met, the legislature was still in\nsession. This year, they are still in session, but they have gone home\nfor a while. The script is like one of those long running soap operas\non daytime TV.\n\"Will Laura give up Mickey for Bill?\"\n\"Will Bill find happiness with Cynthia?\"\nWill there be action on tax reform and school finance?\nWill they protect the environment without declaring the state off\nlimits to people?\nWill they ever start going home again on June 30?\nTune in next November.\nThe budget was passed on time, for the first time in several years.\nIt came down about one quarter of a billion dollars heavy, but responded\nto surgery and made the weight before it was signed. That makes the six\nyear amputation total a little over a billion dollars.\nWe have the comprehensive solid wastes disposal program we need to\ndeal with a problem that grows increasingly acute in our urban areas.\nNow we are waiting for action on our request for a combined pollution\ncontrol board to put it under.\nThere was favorable action on some of the bills we need to further\nstrengthen our air pollution control efforts.\nA $250 million bond issue was authorized for the 1974 ballot to\nenable us to carry on the development of our state's parks and\nrecreational areas,\n- 1 -\nHost Breakfast\nAnd we managed to agree on legislation providing temporary forest\npractice regulation\na bill we needed because a court ruling nullified\nthe state's previous authority in this field.\nWe still must develop a long-term forest practices program that\nwill permit us to carry forward our efforts in fire and erosion control\nand all the other steps we must take to safeguard the environmental\nresources of California's forest areas.\nWe will soon be taking the first steps toward phasing out San\nQuentin Prison.\nAnd a few weeks ago I was privileged to sign legislation making the\nchildren of our P.O.Ws and missing servicemen eligible for free tuition\nin our institutions of higher learning. It is one positive way, at\nleast, to show the concern we all feel for our fellow Californians who\nare prisoners of the communists in Southeast Asia.\nThis year's budget includes some $28 million for scholarships and\nloans to enable deserving young Californians to attend our colleges and\nuniversities. Six years ago, it was less than $5 million.\nWe also feel it is time for the state to acknowledge the needs of\nthousands of young Californians who will enter the work force\nimmediately after high school; to develop an effective program to help\nfinance technical and vocational training beyond high school.\nWorking on a bipartisan basis, a bill has been passed this year\nthat will create a competitive occupational education and training grant\nprogram on a pilot basis to be administered by the State Scholarship and\nLoan Commission.\nThis does not mean any lessening of emphasis on higher educational\nopportunities for those young people who desire and can profit by furthe\nacademic training. It does mean a broadening of our educational goals\nto include the technical and vocational training that will help our youn\npeople develop the skill they need to find and keep a permanent job.\nThe legislature also authorized, and I signed legislation to place\na bond issue on the November ballot to finance additional medical scienc\nfacilities at the University of California. The original measure called\nfor $300 million which we figured was not only excessive but could have\nadversely affected the whole program for our bond sales. with ipartisan\nlegislative cooperation this figure was reduced to $156 million. It is\na bond issue we should all support. This is Proposition 2 on your\nNovember ballot.\nHost Breakfast\nThe subject of transportation has come up once or twice this year.\nYou would be surprised how much information there is on this subject\nincluding a lot of things you don't really want to know.\nFor example, somebody has proposed an experimental program for\nincreasing the use of the public bus system in Washington, D.C., by\noffering free taxi rides to and from the bus stop. That should not\nsurprise anyone. Do you remember about 10 years ago when Congress was\ntalking about subsidizing transit ridert?\nA Senate committee set up a distinguished research team, headed by\na prestigious professor, who discovered that if you cut bus fares in\nhalf, more people would ride the bus. They got so excited about their\ndiscovery, they pursued it and learned you can further increase patronage\nif you pay people a dime to ride the bus. And even more people will ride\nif you pay them 20 cents. But then they had to report failure. They\ndiscovered that even when you pay people you cannot get 100 percent\npublic use of rapid transit. This is my kind of sneaky way of telling\nyou that 60 million Americans still drive to work each day and we will\nbe supporting new highways for some time to come. Eight and a half\nmillion use buses, trollies, subways, trains, and in San Francisco,\nboats.\nCertainly, because of the smog problems and urban congestion, we\nhave to be more selective in highway planning and encourage the growth\nof other types of mass transportation.\nBut the plain truth is that freeways and highways are still the\nmajor means our people use to get to and from work, to shopping areas,\nand to school. And our long range planning must encompass all the\nvarious transportation systems in a balanced program.\nThis year, one of our major proposals was to create a State\nDepartment of Transportation. The measure has cleared one committee, and\nwe are hopeful that when the legislature returns in November we will get\nthe authority we need to streamline our transportation planning by\ncoordinating it within a single department.\nFor the first time, we would have the ability to use systems\nanalysis techniques to determine the total transportation needs of the\npeople of California and the capacity to develop, in cooperation with\nevery other level of government involved, some realistic objectives and\nsome financial plans for meeting those needs.\nThe subject of no-fault automobile insurance remains on the\n\"unfinished business\" agenda.\n3\nHost Breakfast\nI am personally disappointed that the legislature did not choose\nto respond to a major issue in the area of crime control that developed\nthis year after the Supreme Court rulings on capital punishment.\nThe people will be deciding this one themselves in the November\nelection. I believe capital punishment does deter crime and therefore\nit is my hope that the people deliver their decision on this issue loud\nand clear when they go into the voting booth.\nEconomically, therehas been a tremendous improvement in California,\nboth in government and the private sector, since we met at this time\nlast year.\nThe simple facts are these: California employment stands at\nall time high of more than 8.3 million 215,000 more Californians\njobs than a year ago and the unemployment rate is dropping twice as fas\nas it was at this time last year. The August rate was the lowest for\nthat month in three years.\nYour Chamber of Commerce can take a share of the credit for helping\nexpand job opportunities in California through your business development\nprograms.\nI want to particularly note the work of the Chambor and its members\non\ntwo projects our manpower task force study and the space shuttle\ncommittee.\nI know the many hours of work Tom Hamilton (Thomas M. Hamilton,\nchairman), Burnham Enersen, and the other members have devoted to the\nTask Force on Manpower Policy study. The Task Force has completed its\nwork and I have asked Dr. Earl Brian, Secretary of Health and Welfare, to\ncarefully review the findings and recommendations. We appreciate all\nyour efforts and we expect to develop positive suggestions that will\nprovide better coordination among the various manpower programs and more\neffective results in terms of expanded job opportunities.\nYou will be hearing more on this later.\nBecause it means job opportunities for thousands in the aerospace\nindustry, I want to take just a moment to express my gratitude to the\nState Chamber of Commerce, to Ed Reinecke, and to all the others who worked\nso hard to bring the space shuttle project to California. As you know, a\nCalifornia company (North American Rockwell) recently received this $2.6\nbillion contract. It was good news, indeed, for those of us concerned with\nCalifornia's economic future.\nHost Breakfast\nIt will mean at least 25,000 jobs in our state and possibly as\nmany as 160,000 nationally. Some economists say this contract alone will\ngenerate a total increase of some $4 billion in the California economy\nduring the years ahead.\nWhen last we met, the battle for welfare reform had just been\nconcluded, but already the administrative reforms we had implemented\nearlier in the year were showing results. There are almost one quarter\nof a million fewer people on welfare today and the total cost to this\nyear's budget for welfare and Medi-Cal is almost three quarters of a\nbillion dollars less---and that's a lot of typewriter ribbons.\nLet me prod your memory. Last year we were being told by any number\nof loud voices that a tax increase of three quarters of a billion dollars\nwas an absolute must to balance the budget. Now some of those same loud\n(budget)\nvoices are demanding to know what we intend to do with the surplus we\nhad on June 30 and the one already projected for next June 30. And, of\ncourse, the loudest voices are those suggesting ways to spend it.\nWe have known for some time that our persistent penny-pinching,\ncapped by the great success of welfare reform had finally brought us to\nthe point of an on going surplus. In the tax reform that was shot down\ntwo months ago by a small willful band of Senators, we had committed this\nsurplus to be returned to the people in the form of property tax relief.\nWe still are not sure of the exact amount of the surplus, but should have\na better idea before the month ends.\nLet me just spend a minute on our four-year effort to provide\nproperty tax relief, principally for the homeowner. I think, by any and\nevery standard, this is the most regressive tax we have in California\nand the most in need of adjustment.\nSome of those who have obstructed this adjustment complain that we\nare only shifting the tax; that the burden actually remains unchanged\nfor the taxpayer. He pays the same total with the decrease in property\ntax transferred to increases in other taxes. To a large extent, this is\ntrue, the only way to reduce the total tax load is to reduce the cost of\ngovernment. And incidentally, most of those who have blocked our tax\nreform are the same ones who fight every attempt at economy. They are\nthe last of the big spenders with someone else's money.\n- 5 -\nHost Breakfast\nBut here is the real reason why a tax shift should take place.\nIn the sales tax you have a certain amount of choice. Since it does not\napply to food and shelter, you can do without some non-essential service\nand thus avoid the tax. Income tax only applies when you have an income.\nBut the citizen who is laid off, unemployed or who comes to the end of\nhis earning years, finds the rent he pays to government for the privilege\nof living in his own home goes on and on and on. The property tax is\nnot based on ability to pay. So it makes sense in transferring this tax\nfrom this sort of thing to forms of taxation that are based on your\nwillingness and ability to pay\nWhile we are on this subject of taxes, let us expose a few more\nfairy tales. For example that favorite of every demagogue \"don't\nraise the sales tax, that is a consumer tax. Tax business instead.\"\nFor a long time they have been getting away with that one. So long, in\nfact, there are now 116 taxes concealed in the price of a suit of clothes,\n151 in a loaf of bread, and at last count, 100 in an egg. Now, the\nchicken did not put them there. Somehow they sneaked in between the\nhen and the breakfast table. At least with the sales tax, you know how\nmuch you are paying and can register a complaint when government gets\ntoo expensive.\nFairy tale number two: one of the \"anti-tax reform\" Senators is\nfond of saying that Californians are getting away with murder in the\nstate income tax. From there he becomes a \"Johnny one note\" on the idea\nthat somehow the higher income earners are getting a free ride. The\nCalifornia income tax nets something between 1½ and 2 billion dollars\nfor the state. Of that amount, 8.4 percent is paid by 52.6 percent of\nour workers whose earnings are $10,000 or less. That leaves 47.4 percent\nabove $10,000 paying 91.6 percent of the tax. But let us break that\ndown: 38.3 percent earn between 10 and 20 thousand dollars a year, and\nthey pay 35.8 percent of the tax. And that leaves 9.1 percent of the\ntaxpayers earning $20,000 a year or better paying more than half\n55.8 percent of the total tax. I might as well button this up all the\nway in case the Senator claims he is only talking about those earning\n$50,000 a year or better. Only .8 percent fall in that class, but that\n.8 percent pays 22.2 percent of the total state income tax.\nI think these figures suggest that California's income tax is not\nonly progressive, it also does not offer much possibility for additional\nrevenue without seriously disrupting the state's economy.\n- 6 -\nHost Breakfast\nAnd that brings me back to that surplus, and what we are going to\ndo with it. I would still like to reduce the homeowners burden, and we\nshall continue our efforts to do this, using the available surplus. But\nI also assure you that if we continue to be obstructed in this effort\nthen I shall ask the legislature to return this money in the form of\nreduced state taxes. My own preference will be an across the board cut\nin the income tax.\nPerhaps it is time for you to ask yourselves as citizens and\ntaxpayers whether you agree with those who would enlarge government\nsimply because tax income now exceeds outgo; or whether you believe as I\ndo that additional government services should be adopted only on the\nbasis of their value to the public and the public should know exactly\nwhat the price will be in new taxes.\nI suggest that you ask yourselves this question. May I also\nauggest you ask all the candidates for the State Assembly and Senate\nwhether they would vote for increased spending or for a return of the\nsurplus to its rightful owners--the taxpayers? Each one of them should\nbe willing to answer this question before you cast your ballot.\nI have been told that our attempts at tax reform are actually poor\npolitics because they appear as an increase in the state budget. It\nis true that if our tax reform had passed, almost a billion dollars in\nsavings to the homeowners would have appeared in our budget as an increase\nsimply because we would have collected the money and given it back.\nIndeed, this accounts for much of the budget increase of these past six\nyears. In the homeowners exemption, income tax rebates, and inventory\ntax relief, we have given back more than $2 billion with virtually all\nof it appearing as cost increases in the budget.\nIt would be far better if we could find a way to make tax sources\navailable at the local levels and thus place the responsibility for\nraising revenues on those who administer the spending of those revenues.\nAnd we continue to seek ways to do this not because it might be better\npolitically, but because in the last analysis, government spending will\nbe checked only when an informed citizenry begins holding their elected\nofficials accountable.\n- 7 -\nHost Breakfast\nOur present system makes it almost impossible to have an informed\ncitizenry. This year we tried to divide and present two budgets one\nreflecting the actual cost of running state government and the other\n(more than twice as big) showing the monies collected by the state, but\nadministered by other levels of government. Just to give you some idea\nof what we have managed to accomplish in state government these last\nfew years, there are 102,000 fulltime civil service employees in\nCalifornia state government the biggest in the Union. New York City\nhas 423,000 employees. In spite of this, it sometimes seems that state\ngovernment looms in most people's minds as the biggest cause of their\ntax woes. We have a high profile in Sacramento when the cussing starts.\nIn actuality California state government is the taxpayer's best\nbargain. It only takes about seven cents out of the tax dollar to run\nthis state. The other 93 cents is divided roughly 70 cents federal and\n23 cents for services and programs administered at county and community\nlevels. The cost of those state functions we control administratively\nhas increased only 1.9 percent in per capita constant dollars.\nAnd yet at the same time, we have doubled our Highway Patrol to meet\nthe increased needs of additional hundreds of miles of new highway. 1..is\nhas also make it possible for the California Highway Patrol to take over\npatrolling of the freeways in our larger urban areas, freeing local polic\nfor crime fighting. And we are adding 400 correctional employees in our\npenal institutions.\nStill we have 1100 fewer state employees than we had six years ago\nwhen I took office.\nIn all fairness, I must point out that state government has a long\nhistory of imposing tasks on local government without always providing\nrevenue or revenue sources to fund those tasks. We sought to correct\nthis in our ill-fated tax reform proposal by requiring that new mandates\nbe accompanied by necessary funding. That too was rejected by the\nSenators.\nBut even that would have fallen short of facing up to our real need.\nAnd may I say the so-called Watson Amendment Proposition 14 is not\nthe answer, but in truth will further confuse an already chaotic\nhodgepodge and imbed that chaos into the constitution, killing all hope\nof creating a system based on fiscal and governmental responsibility. And\nthere is no way to salvage the welfare reforms I mentioned earlier if thi\nprogram is adopted by the people.\n8 -\nHost Breakfast\nCalifornia in these last few years has moved ahead on a score of\nfronts most of them, I am sorry to say, better known beyond our borders\nthan here at home. We have set a pattern for other states and have even\nhad an influence on national policy. Some of what has been accomplished,\nsuch as the revolutionary reform of welfare, came about only because you,\nthe people of California, made it absolutely clear this was what you\nwanted.\nNow, do we have the will and the courage to look at our governmental\nstructure; to evolve a practical plan whereby tasks and services\nperformed by government will be assigned to those levels of government\nbest qualified to handle them regardless of what has been the pattern of\nthe past; to construct a revenue system to match with sufficient tax\nsources for the tasks assigned to each level of government? Are we\nwilling to look at traditional boundaries and county lines to see if\nthey meet the present day needs of California?\n\"I,\" = too, \"have a dream.\" A dream that perhaps California can\nset a standard of government reform that will make possible efficiency\nand economy in government at a level never before realized.\nIn my dream, I am standing before this particular audience at a\nHost Breakfast one day to tell you of a plan to put the governments of\nCalifornia state, county, city and special districts, of which there\nare\nsome 3000 into a kind of plastic geodome, a container where they\nare visible to all the citizenry like one of those see-through watches\nwhere you can see the ticking and the wheels going around.\nWhere the functions and services of each echelon, and the\neffectiveness, the cost of the services and the benefits are easily\napparent.\nWhere the people can constantly appraise the services received and\njudge their value in comparison to cost.\nWhere we will no longer have government by mystery.\nWhere we no longer have the arrogance of officialdom of people who\nsit in the halls and say \"Oh well, the public wouldn't understand so\nwe '11 just keep this to ourselves.\"\nWhere the people will know that if a new service is offered, they\nwill be able to see instantly that it is not going to be another free\ngift or free government handout, but that it must either replace an\nexisting program or have to be funded by a new or increased tax.\nI I 9\nHost Breakfast\nWhere the voice of the demagogue will be stilled because the victims\nfinally will be too well informed for him to get away with it.\nWe can have an informed citizenry that will understand the\nrelationship between taxes and law and business climate and, indeed, the\nrelationship between that business climate and the jobs and their own\nprosperity.\nThis wouldn't be something that the state would present and then\nimpose on the people, because the state should not have that kind of\npower.\nIt is something that you, the people of California, would review.\nAnd, if you thought that plan was proper and workable then it would be\nup to you and every echelon of government to implement it.\nI have called it a dream. But, it is not an impossible dream. Many\nof you in this room, in your various organizations, are engaged every day\nin trying to bring some phase or other of what I have suggested into\nbeing. We seemingly have become reconciled to a belief that \"well, it\nhas gone on so long in politics, and \"well I guess that's politics and\npoliticians,\" and \"well, there isn't really anything I can do about it so\nmaybe I'll even stay home on election day.\"\nNot on your life!\nThere is not a single thing that I have proposed that cannot be done.\nIf there is a need to join city and county and merge services\ntogether to get the job done better and more economically, then it can be\ndone if the people decide they want it done. If there are areas of our\nstate where the county boundaries do not make sense any more and they\nshould be brought together into a single county, that too can be done.\nAnd we can have a governmental structure where every politician who\noffers you something or makes a proposal must tell you how many more\npennies are coming out of your earnings in order to pay for that service\nso that you can make the choice just as you make the choice when you\npurchase any product. Is it worth the price tag that is assigned to it?\nThis is not an impossible dream and I happen to have the confidence\nthat one day in the not too distant future I am going to have as my\nsubject for a Host Breakfast the presentation of such a plan. And, then\nit will be yours to carry forward.\nIf California can do this, then California will once again have lived\nup to its promise to all the rest of the Nation. We once again will have\nstarted a prairie fire rolling, and we will be blessed by the people in\nour land.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n10\n41/6\nY\nthe\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR ROA D REAGAN\nRELEASE:\niday A.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nSeptember 15, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n9-14-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nNATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES\nANNUAL CONFERENCE BANQUET\nSan Francisco\nSeptember 14, 1972\nIt is a pleasure to be with you this evening. And my pleasure\nis doubled because of the honor you are doing a great citizen and my\nfriend Bob Hope. World War I may be remembered because of the patriotism\nof George M. Cohan, but show business is proud as I am sure all Americans\nare of this man who has been America's secret weapon in three wars.\nAmerican troops, no matter where they might be stationed, have\nin these three wars never been too far away for Bob to find them and\nremind them of folks back home who loved them and missed them. Today\nmilitary jets are a lot more comfortable, but when Bob started it was\ndifferent. Bob has ridden in so many bucket seats, he used to buy his\npants by the gallon.\nHe is a great guy and a great American the only place he has\nnot been is Hanoi.\nTeddy Roosevelt said America should walk softly and carry a big\nstick. I don't think he had in mind those characters who walk barefoot\nand carry a peace symbol on their way to throw rocks at a policeman.\nWe have seen some who would interpret the desire for peace as an\nexcuse for downgrading the defense of the United States.\nThe matter of our country's security and our ability to defend\nourselves against any aggressor has been an accepted fact to all\nAmericans for most of our his tory. No matter which party controlled\nCongress or the White House, there has been strong support for a bi-par-\ntisan approach where matters of defense are involved. But today, born\nperhaps of war weariness, voices are raised urging a different and\ndangerous course. Thank heaven, there are leading figures of both\nparties expressing deep concern about some of the proposals we have\nbeen hearing on defense cutbacks.\nEven if we believe that those who propose these massive cutbacks\nhave a legitimate difference of opinion on what constitutes an adequate\nlevel of defense for the United States, we do not have to believe that\nwhat they propose is wise or prudent national policy, based on a realistic\nassessment of the international situation. And it would be folly of\nthe worst sort to follow their leadership.\nNational Guard\nWhen the barn catches fire, you do not send a fellow for water who\ndoes not know a pump handle from a bull's tail, To be specific, what\nwould a cut of $32 billion in the defense budget mean to the United\nStates in terms of manpower, in terms of strategic weapons ships\nplanes? We don't have to guess at the answer to that one.\nThe Secretary of Defense has presented to Congress a detailed\noutline of the impact of a $32 billion cutback in defense, along with an\nanalysis of the other proposals to eliminate or cut back specific defense\nprograms.\nA cutback of that magnitude means:\nCanceling the program to modernize the Minuteman Missiles.\nCanceling the B-1 bomber development, a program essential to\nmaintain the realistic deterrence that the President feels is\nnecessary to enable America to negotiate for a generation of peace\nfrom a position of strength.\nCanceling the safeguard ABM anti-missile defense program entirely,\nlimiting the Poseidon submarine force, at a time when Jane's\nFighting Ship, says the Soviet Union, is embarked on a continuir\ndeployment of nuclear vessels, including nuclear powered missile\nfiring submarines.\nIt means:\nCauceling the F-14 and F=15 fighter aircraft programs, the\ndevelopement of modern helicopters.\nReducing the number of our active duty military personnel to a\nlevel below what we had six months before Pearl Harbor.\nClosing some 500 bases and other military installations, cutting\nback on research and development and eliminating more than 2½\nmillion jobs in defense and defense-related industries.\nNever mind how much this would jeopardize America's current economic\nrecovery, It would do even greater damage to the present effort to\nnegotiate peaceful arms reductions. The proposed cut of 60, percent of\nAmercia's-military strength in Europe would be--in effect a unilateral\npullback without any comparable reductions from the other side.\nIt would be a reckless gamble with the safety and security of the\nAmerican people. America would be staking its survival on an unrealistic\noverly optimistic assessment of the enemy's good intentions. Our only\nhole card in the great international poker game would be a wistful desire\nfor peace. Our future negotiating would be from a calculated posture of\nmilitary weakness that would guarantee a future policy of unconditional\nappeasement.\nEvery lesson of history tells us that appeasement does not lead to\npeace. It invites an aggressor to test the will of a nation upprepared\nto meet that test. And tragically, those who seemingly want peace the\nmost. our voung people. pay the heaviest price for failure\nNational Guard\nI take advantage of your invitation and say these things because in\nthis room are men who have deveted their lives to being part of America's\nmilitary reserve force.\nIt has been proposed that the National Guard be \"reconstituted\"\nand reduced in size. They can talk plainer than that. What they propose\nis the total elimination of the National Guard's federal combat reserve\nrole in America's defense planning. In short, the National Guard would\nbe a domestic militia.\nTrue that is one of your present tasks, and one you perform well\nin times of natural disaster and civil disturbance.\nAs a governor, as someone who has firsthand knowledge of the vital\nnecessity of maintaining a combat ready force, I am totally opposed to\nthis kind of \"reconstitution\" of the onal Guard. And I hope every\none here tonight will alert those in your own states who should be\nequally concerned about the future of the National Guard under the\nproposed new policy.\nInstead of helping provide realistic deterrence, the elimination\nof your military mission would be part of a grand design for minimum\ndeterrence and this would not strengthen America nor would it increase\nour chances for a lasting peace.\nThese who propose such a change and such massive defense reductions\nhave a strange set of values.\nThey propose general amnesty for those who have turned their backs\non America. But they would leave the fate of American prisoners of war\nto the hoped for good will of an enemy who has displayed as great a\nsavagery as has ever been recorded in the annals of war. Unwilling to\nmake the investment necessary to keep America first in defense and space,\nthey are willing to finance welfare benefits for the people they would\nput out of work.\nThey tell us we should change our priorities, but where have these\nso-called experts been in the past 3½1/2 years when we have been changing our\nriorities.\nWe have made an amazingly efficient transition from a war-inflated\neconomy to a peaceful economy.\nTen years ago, defense took 48 percent of the federal budget--today\n32 percent. For the first time in our history, the budget for the Depart-\nment of Health, Education and Welfare is higher than the budget for the\ndefense department.\n-3-\nNational Guard\nBut this apparently is not enough for them. Well, I suggest the\npriority they would have for national defense is not acceptable to\nAmericans who have lived through previous times when our country found\nitself unprepared and stumbled into war without sufficient manpower or\nequipment. Our young men in wars past have died unnecessarily because of\nunwise economies and lack of preparedness.\nReducing America to the status of a second rate nation, unable\nto make its voice heard in the councils of the world will surely be the\nprelude to another generation of Americans dying needlessly because of our\nmistakes.\nThey say they want peace. We all want peace. The President wants\npeace and he is not just talking about it--he is doing gomething to\nbring it about.\nAll of us denounce war--all of us consider it man's greatest\nstupidity. And yet wars happen and they involve the most passionate\nlovers of peace because there are still barbarians in the world who set\nthe price for peace at death or enslavement and the price is too high.\nIn an earlier day, a distinguished American said: \"War is an\nugly thing. But not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded\nstate of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war\nis worse. A man who has nothing which he cares about more than his\npersonal safety is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free,\nunlèss made and kept SO by the exertions of better men than himself.\"\nLet us resolve that no American President will ever have to beg--hat\nin hand for : peace because we were unwilling to protect our freedom\nand the freedom of Americans as yet unborn.\n####\n(Note: Since Governor Reagar speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n-4-\nTVD\n0\n9/27\nSacramento, Californi 35814\nSep mber 27, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n9-26-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GCVERNOR RONALD REAGAN,\nSTATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA\nANNUAL MEETING, DEL MONTE HYATT HOUSE\nMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA\nSeptember 27, 1972\nSince justice is everybody's business, I would like to discuss some\nf your concerns today, how they relate to some of our other problems,\nwhat is being done, and even what needs to be done.\nBut before I sum up the reasons why the bench and bar must concern\n/themselves\nwith reforms that will help us realize the cherished ideal of a\nspeedy trial and speedy justice, let me sort of sugar coat the castor oil\nby recognizing some of the constructive things that are going on.\nThe Select Committee on Trial Court Delay has completed its work and\nmade a number of recommendations. They are aimed at making courts more\nefficient; streamlining legal procedures and speeding up the trial process\nto enable the legal system to handle its increased volume of work.\nMany of their recommendations, of course, require legislation and\nlike a number of other things, have yet to be achieved, Others involve\nreforms that can and have in some very encouraging instances already\nzen implemented by administrative action within the judicial system.\nSome judges have been able to reduce their backlog of cases by simply\nfollowing the Biblical admonition, they \"goeth forth unto their work\nand\nlabor until the evening\ncrown (them) with glory and honor, and bless\ntheir industrious souls.\nIn your client security funds, your approach to the concept of no-\nfault insurance and other reform efforts, the State Bar of California has\ndisplayed a commendable determination to make our legal system more\neffective and thus, better able to dispense justice to everyone.\nMany of the court and legal reforms we have sought at the state level\ninvolve calendar management, record keeping, and all the technical matters\nthat are necessarily required in our civil and criminal legal system. The\nalifornia Council on Criminal Justice has a number of promising pilot\nprograms under way that should provide some answers. Among the projects\nthe council is funding this year are programs to explore the feasibility of\nusing electronic recording devices in place of court reporters in criminal\nproceedings\n(just imagine hearing yourselves on instant replay)\ncourt\ninformation systems to expedite routine cases\na\nstudy designed to\nencourage the use of smaller juries in civil matters, and programs aimed\nat improving calendar management in both the criminal and civil fields.\nThere are others that involve more critical problems.\n- 1 -\nState Bar\nSweeping court rulings on criminal arrest procedures have placed\na heavy new burden on our law enforcement officers. If we are to have\nvigorous and effective law enforcement and not jeopardize potential\nconvictions there is a need for improved training of everyone who play\na mejor role in law enforcement. That is why we now have a Regional\nCriminal Justice Training Academy in Modesto and the reason funds have\nbeen earmarked this year for another such center to be located in\nSacramento.\nA few weeks ago, we also appointed a Governor's Select Committee on\nLaw Enforcement Problems. That is the official title, but the purpose\ncan be summed up a little less formally what we want to know is what we\nat the state level can do to provide better protection for the public.\nThis committee, headed by an attorney, is charged with the task of\nidentifying those law enforcement problems in California that can be most\neffectively remedied by state action.\nWe know there is a need to analyze existing crime control measures\nto establish feasible action programs to meet theproblems law enforcement\nofficials have had and to pinpoint specific steps we can take to crack\ndown on crime.\nWe know that in some areas, such as over-the-border narcotics control\nthere may be a need for more effective coordination and cooperation\nbetween federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.\nBut the purpose of this study, indeed, the result we expect to come\nfrom the committee's findings, is a major legislative program that will\npoint to the root causes of the difficulties presently encountered by our\npolice and courts and propose specific means of dealing with those\nproblems.\nThis is a major priority of our administration, and every available\nresource of the state will be made available to assist the committee in\nits work.\nOn Friday of this week, my legal affairs secretary, Herb Ellingwood,\nwill be submitting to the Council on Criminal Justice a Master Plan fc\nJudicial Process the first such program in the nation. It is designed\nto carry forward the work that needs to be done to end trial court delays\nthat make a mockery of the concept of speedy justice.\n- 2 -\nDdL\nThis year, one 01 our major legislative proposals involves the\ngreatest single social problem of our times, The continuing problem of\ndrug abuse. Although there were slight declines in both categories,\nthere still were 42, 745 adult felony arrests involving narcotics in\nCalifornia last year, and 84,384 juvenile drug violations.\nThe massive threat that narcotics addiction poses to our society was\nunderscored recently by a report prepared for Congress by retired marine\nGeneral Lewis Walt.\nThe General pointed out that America's heroin addict population now\nis ten times bigger than it was in 1960. He said: \" if we fail to\ndeal with this problem of drug addiction effectively over the measurable\nfuture, let us say over the next five years, or ten years at the outside,\nour society may be doomed.\n\"The estimated 600,000 addicts we have today are reportedly\nresponsible for from 50-60 percent of our street crimes and petty\nburglary. More than any other single factor, it is the rise in (narcotics\naddiction that has converted our streets into dangerous jungles and our\ncities into places of fear. Each addict requires $50 a day to support\nhis habit. \"\nTo combat drug abuse on the federal level, General Walt recommended\nincreased American support for international efforts to control narcotic\nsmuggling (something the President has been actively trying to do).\nThanks to his leadership, several European countries have vastly increased\ntheir efforts and the number of agents assigned to this task.\nGeneral Walt had one other recommendation which, in light of the\ncurrent efforts to down-play the menace of certain drugs, should be\nbrought to your attention. He proposed the death penalty for the heavy\ntrafficker in heroin and other major drugs.\nNow I know that anyone today who suggests tougher criminal penalties\nis apt to find himself accused of lacking compassion for the under-\nprivileged or the disadvantaged. If you are tempted to make such a\njudgment of General Walt, consider first his reasoning.\nThe death penalty is justified for heavy drug pushers, he said,\nbecause the trafficking in narcotics\n\"at its upper limits\nreally\nrepresents a form of genocide on a massive scale\na crime so massive, a\ncrime so heinous, a crime so damaging to so many people and so hurtful\nto society that it belongs in a category all by itself.\" Does the General\nexaggerate?\n- 3 -\nState Bar\nSome little while ago, I received a brief but poignant letter from\none of you, a judge here in our state. He wrote, \"one of several matters\non my calendar this past hour was a subject who had freaked out following\nan LSD trip. I followed the only apparent alternative and buried him in\na state hospital for the mentally ill. Because there is so little to\ntalk about when they reach this point, such a funeral requires less than\nthree minutes. But this one was expensive. He leaves a wife, child,\nUniversity degree, and a judge who wishes he had the answer to the drug\ndeath.\n\"\nI am sure you understand he was not speaking of a real funeral, that\nwas his term for storing a living human being away for life in an\ninstitution for the mentally ill. Let me read you a few lines from the\ntranscript.\n\"The subject is a poorly developed, poorly nourished, white, married\nmale. He has long unkempt hair, he stinks. He is unable to communicate,\nhe babbles, believes he is a Messiah sent down to clean up the jail\nhe is insane within the meaning of the penal code of California.\"\nThe legal age of maturity is now 18 years. Does anyone suggest that\nall 18-year-olds have the judgment to resist the dangerous lure of\narcotics? If they are allowed to experiment freely with one drug, can\nanyone assure society they will not become enamored of other deadlier\nnarcotics?\nDoes society have no obligation to protect its people against\ndabbling with a substance that can lead to tragedy and death?\nI know of no moral or legal argument that supports such a conclusion.\nYet at this moment, there is a campaign under way to legalize marijuana.\nThe illogical arguments advanced on behalf of this initiative so far\nremind me of an experience the Reverend Billy Graham had while conducting\none of his rallies. He was being picketed by a noisy group of\ndemonstrators who were demanding instead that marijuana be legalized.\nWhen the Reverend Graham asked one of the demonstrators why he so\nviolently rejected religion, the demonstrator replied \"man, I don't need\nthat crutch.\nNow, this does not mean society should have a harsh, unfeeling\nattitude toward young people whose only brush with the law involves drugs,\nespecially marijuana. Judges in California already have the option of\nmaking marijuana possession a misdemeanor.\n- 4 -\nState Bar\nJustice must be tempered with compassion, and that is the purpose\nof the comprehensive drug abuse treatment program we submitted to the\nlegislature this year.\nWe believe the best hope of saving other young people from drug\naddiction is through education, So the program includes better\npreparation of teachers along with stepped up efforts to expand other\nanti-drug educational programs at the community level.\nFor those persons already hooked on drugs, we propose the immediate\ndevelopment of additional community-based treatment programs. The state\nwill pay most of the cost.\nAnd from the legal standpoint, we propose to divert the casual\nfirst time user or possessor of drugs away from jails and prisons.\nInstead of being processed through the criminal system, they will be\ngiven the opportunity to participate in treatment programs designed to\nkeep them from becoming addicts.\nThis program is moving forward in the legislature. We have good\nreason to expect that it will be adopted when the session resumes in\nNovember. I hope all of you, particularly those of you on the bench,\nwill give it your strong support. The major leadership must come from\nwithin the legal profession and the judiciary itself.\nI know the problems I have described sound all too familiar. It was\never thus. Aristotle was complaining about the judicial system 2,000\nyears ago. And if he were around today, I suspect he would probably be\nspeaking at a bar meeting now and then.\nThe phrase \"Crisis in the Courts\" has become something of a cliche\nin recent years. Unfortunately, cliches are born of truth repeated over\nand over again.\nThere is a crisis, not only in the courts, but a crisis of faith in\nour entire system, a lack of confidence in what some of our young people\nrefer to as \"The Establishment. 11\nA recent poll showed that 39 percent of the American people---almost\ntwo out of every five citizens---have little or no faith or confidence in\ngovernment, and by government they mean all three branches; executive,\nlegislative, and judiciary.\nAs attorneys and judges, you know that many of the procedures that\nare called cumbersome in our legal system are necessary safeguards to\nprotect the rights of the accused, no matter what his crime. Whatever\nchanges we make can never sacrifice those basic rights.\n- 5 -\nState Bar\nBut the frustration of the people goes far beyond impatience with\nthe legitimate legal safeguards involved in criminal justice. The\nvictim of a crime cannot understand why it sometimes takes years for the\ncourts to deal with an armed robber who only took two minutes to commit\nthe crime.\nLong delays between arrest and conviction, endless appeals of\nquestionable merit, the resort to legal gimmicks involving technical\nrules\nall of these things contribute to the lack of confidence in the\nlegal system. To many of our people, it seems the prime goal of defense\nattorneys is not an early hearing on the merits of the case to win\nacquittal or a resolution of the case on the facts. Instead, delay\nbecomes a tactic in itself, a way not to assure justice, but to thwart it.\nThe legal system itself must lead the effort for reforms, provide\nthe effective means of dealing with disrespectful and contemptuous\n;\nconduct toward the court, the regulations to prohibit the antics of\ndefendants who see their day in court only as an opportunity to publicize\nand dramatize a social or political cause.\nFor more than 180 years, the advocacy system in our courts has been\none of the legal system's major strengths in assuring justice. Today it\nseems, the advocacy system has become a means of exploiting the weaknes\nS\nof our system using the legitimate safeguards built into our legal\nsystem to prevent it from functioning effectively.\nThis is not confined exclusivly to the criminal courts. Many laymen\nalso are frustrated by a legal system they feel is being misused to delay\nor prevent entirely the carrying out of legislative reforms enacted by a\nmajority vote of the elected representatives of the people.\nI am sure many of you are familiar with some of the legal challenges\nto elements of the welfare reform program adopted last year. Now, I do\nnot suggest that there be no possibility of legal challenges to\nlegislation. At times, it may even be desirable to clarify the intent\nand dimensions of a specific program.\nBut the court system should not allow itself to be used by proponents\nof a political cause. At last count, 13 challenges to the 1971 welfare\nreform program have been carried through to a judicial resolution. The\nstate was upheld on 12 of those 13.\n1 I 6\nState Bar\nYet, as a result of those delays, some of the reforms to crack down\non welfare fraud and abuse were blocked for months. The major losers in\nthis situation are the taxpayers and the truly needy. These delays\ncost millions of additional dollars in welfare costs\nmost of which went\nto people who\nas the result of the appeals demonstrated\nhad no legal\nclaim to it.\nThere is another cost in this kind of situation, too. The legal\nsystem itself loses a little more credibility.\nThe flurry of initiatives on the November ballot is an example of\nthe impatience of the public. And their impatience is directed at all\nthree branches of government. Some of the issues that will be decided in\nNovember have been before us for years.\nThere is tax reform, an issue debated for years but not yet resolved\nby the legislative and executive branches. This was given new impetus\nthis year by a judicial decision. This will be on the ballot.\nCapital Punishment: this issue involves such a major change of\npublic policy that it can only be decided by the people, through their\nelected representatives or by the people themselves.\nUntil the past decade, we had laws against pornography and they\napparently worked because we certainly did not have the tide of\nobscenity that has caused concern today.\nSome of the obscenity freely available is so offensive, so far beyond\nthe moral standards of the society, that laymen have no trouble\nrecognizing it for what it is simple, hardcore pornography, produced\nand sold for profit. And the public cannot understand why it is\nimpossible for the legal system to develop an effective and workable\ndefinition of pornography, one that avoids censorship of legitimate works\nof art or literature, but which will provide some restraints against the\nworst obscenity and pornography. So on this issue, too, the people acted\nthrough the initiative, and they will make the decision themselves.\nThe people have clearly wanted a resolution of all these matters.\nBut the system, whether through legislative inaction or judicial\ninterpretation, failed to respond.\nWhether rightly or wrongly, there is a feeling by the public that\nsome court rulings are rendered without considering the consequences.\nPrison authorities may no longer examine a prisoner's mail from his\nattorney on the grounds that this violates the privileged status of\ncommunications between an attorney and his client.\n- 7 -\nState Bar\nI do not argue here the merits of either side But I would like to\npoint out that we are not talking about a change in a sorority's\ndormitory hours. Under this ruling, an unscrupulous attorney presumably\ncould pass on a detailed escape plan to a convict client.\nNow I realize that only a few years ago, the mere implication that\nan attorney might involve himself in lawlessness possibly would shock\nsome of you. After the recent tragedies in prisons and all the events\nand people involved, there exists some reason why authorities believe\nthey must take every precaution against every potential challenge to\nprison discipline.\nThe violence of revolutionary activity in our prisons is real. It\nrepresents a daily threat to the lives of correctional officers and\ninmates. At what point does the attorney-client relationship end and\nwhere might a new relationship- that of accomplice begin?\nA new obligation has been imposed on you---the legal profession\nand the bar.\nYou must screen your membership carefully, and you must be prepared\nto take vigorous action; discipline and disbarment, if necessary,\nagainst those few who would violate the ethics of your profession. This\nresponsibility cannot be delegated. The bar itself must be the first\nto enforce those standards.\nIn focusing on your problems, perhaps I have left the impression\nthat it is all up to you, that we would be a long way toward a perfect\nscciety if the legal profession lived up to its responsibilities. That\nis not my intent. The responsibility for making our system work, for\nrecapturing the vitality, the noble ideals inherent in America's form\nof government, is not yours alone. It is an obligation we all share.\nAnd it is a responsibility the people share, too.\nWe will not reduce crime by legalizing a lot of things that have\nalways been against the law. All the rules and efficient court\nprocedures will not assure justice unless our people, a massive majority\nof them, are willing to accept the rule of law as a necessary alternative\nto the rule of the mob.\nRespect for the law\nfor the ideal of justice for all\nfor\nequality\nthese things must come from within society itself.\n- 8 -\nState Bar\nIt has been said that you can have 10,000 regulations and still\nnot have respect for the law. To have a lawful society involves the\ntotal structure of society\nfaith in ourselves\nfaith in our\ninstitutions\nour political and economic system and yes, faith and\nconfidence that the American dream of liberty and justice for all still\nburns fiercely within all our hearts. Judge Learned Hand said \"Freedom\nlives in the hearts of men, when it dies there, no court, no law, no\nconstitution can save it.\"\n/\nJustice Lewis Powell of the Supreme Court, in some recent remarks\nbefore a prayer breakfast of the American Bar Association, said \"I was\ntaught and still believe that a sense of honor is necessary to personal\nself-respect; that duty, recognizing an individual subordination to\ncommunity welfare, is as important as rights; that loyalty, which is\nbased on the trustworthiness of honorable men, is still a virtue; and\nthat work and self discipline are as essential to individual happiness\nas they are to a viable society\n\"Indeed, I still believe in patriotism, not if it is limited to\nparades and flag waving, but because worthy national goals and\naspirations can be realized only through love of country and a desire\nto be a responsible citizen.\"\n########\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n- 9 -\n9/30\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RON\nREAGAN\nRELEASE: SATURDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nSeptember 30, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n9-29-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nREPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE\nAnaheim, California\nSeptember 30, 1972\nIt was my firm intention to discuss Senator McGovern's welfare plans\nwith you today. I use the plural advisedly. Not even the vaunted cotton\ntail proliferates as do the \"something for nothing\" proposals that come\nforth like goodies from a fractured Pinata.\nWould I tell you of the Welfare Rights plan---the $6500 a year\nguaranteed income whether people work or not which he introduced\nin\nthe Senate and which he told the black caugus he stood behind 1000 percent?\nor would we discuss his plan to give everyone $1,000 each year? I\nmention those two frankly because I have not been able to keep up with\nthe other more recent plans he has announced all of which have in common\nthe raising of government spending and increasing the tax burden on those\nwho work in order to force the redistribution of their earnings to those\nwho do not work.\nA few weeks ago, Sargent Shriver was in Sacramento and stood before\nthe press with straight face---and denied that Senator McGovern ever\nseriously proposed that $1,000 a year giveaway. He said that was a\nfalsehood fastened on McGovern by his Democrat opponents in the primary.\nWas the seventh-choice-Vice-Presidential-candidate so new to the game that\nhe did not know California was one of the places picked by his leader to\nannounce the blossoming of the $1,000 money tree? It was May 27 when the\ntwo hour press conference was held here in the Golden State. The brochures\ngenerously distributed bore the title \"McGovern Minimum Income Plan.\"\nThe text made it plain that 80 million workers were going to provide about\n91 million people with $1,000 each.\nBut Shriver now claims his presidential running mate did not really\nmean it. Maybe SO. And then maybe communication with the compound at\nannisport is plagued by static. So far, the McGovern campaign\ncontribution list makes no mention of any financial aid whatsoever from\nthe \"in-laws.\"\nNow it is possible they gave McGovern the \"Sarge\" in lieu of money\nand it is possible also that the only way they could get him to go along\nwith the deal was to keep him in the dark about McGovern's real plans.\n- 1 -\n(\nGOP\nIronically, the McGovern party campaign plan is to challenge the\ncredibility of the President. And yet, today's credibility gap is the\none consistency of McGovernism. He said he did not send Pierre Salinger\nto Paris to deal with the enemies of our country---but \"Unlucky Pierre\"\nwas already holding a press conference announcing the results of his\ntrip. So 24 hours later the man who would be President held a second\npress conference to explain he might not have been completely accurate\nthe day before.\nIn Massachusetts, he was for busing. In Florida he did not like it.\nHe has made the symbol of perfection 1000 per cent---a synonym for\nvacillation and bad faith. Willie Mays would take a called strike three\nbefore he would try for a 1000 percent batting average.\nThe Nixon administration in these 3½¹₂ years has a great record of\nprogress to present to the people of the nation. And we have a great\nrecord to offer to the people of California.\nThe President has embarked on a plan for peace more far reaching\nthan just ending the war he inherited in Vietnam. He seeks a lifetime\nof peace for our children. The heads of state I met in Europe told me\nhis plan offers the best hope for peace we have seen in this century.\nAnd do you know he has not marched in a single picket line or waved a\nsign in a street demonstration. Only a strong America, prepared to meet\nthe threat of any aggressor, can keep the peace and he is pledged to that\nWe do not have to twist history or invent political myths about\nthe Republican commitment to peace. We are the party of peace and the\nrecord proves it.\nAmerica has been involved in four major wars in my life time. None\nwere started under a Republican President, but the Presidents who were in\noffice when they started had all campaigned on a peace platform.\nTwo of those four wars took place in this last quarter of a century\nIn neither was there a plan for victory. In Korea and Vietnam, they just\nstumbled from one crisis to another. And in each of those wars, it took\nthe courageous action of a Republican President to end America's\ninvolvement, to restore peace without betraying an ally. In Korea, it\nwas Dwight Eisenhower. In Vietnam, it is Richard Nixon who is bringing\nour troops home\n- 2 - -\nGOP\nIt is the Republican party which has campaigned for peace and then\ndelivered on that promise. It is the Republican party that has been the\nhistoric champion of the individual against big, impersonal government,\nagainst higher taxes and centralized bureaucracy. We look upon the\npeople of America as individuals.\nWe must carry this truth to the people of California this year\nbecause our opponents, who left America a legacy of war, are now\ncynically posing as the champions of peace.\nDuring the Democratic national convention (I almost said the\nhappening at Miami last July), we saw an example of political mythmaking.\nThe former national chairman of the Democratic party said people in\npublic life should \"level\" with the American people. He should find\nhimself a presidential candidate who follows that advice.\nIt is not leveling with our citizens to say the federal government\ncan increase spending anywhere from $75 to $150 billion a year to finance\nall kinds of welfare giveaway schemes, without increasing the tax burden\nof the working citizen.\nIt is not leveling with the people to suggest that America can\ndefend Israel or meet our other defense commitments by scrapping most of\nour aircraft carriers and reducing our military manpower to a level below\nwhat we had before Pearl Harbor. It is not leveling with the people to\nDAY we can cut $32 billion from the defense budget without closing\nadreds of bases and defense plants and throwing several million people\ninto the unemployment lines.\nAnd it is not leveling with the people for our opponents to say they\nwant to unify America when their whole political approach is based on a\nphilosophy that divides Americans into voting blocks, setting ethnic\ngroup against ethnic group, class against class, and even encourages the\nyoung to set themselves against their parents.\nThey talk of the American Dream, but they would deliver a nightmare\nof unreality that could turn into a nightmare of crisis for America and\nits allies\nWords like honesty and integrity flow easily through their campaign\nrhetoric. I suppose they are a thousand percent behind their current\ncampaign promises. But tune in tomorrow. They will be singing a\ndifferent tune.\n- 3 -\nGOP\nLet us take an honest look at what they say, what they have done and\nwhat they propose to do. No honest man who has lived in a world of\nreality these past 40 years can promise a world without evil, where\nthere is no need for free men to be vigilant against a threat to their\nfreedom. No man of integrity could tell the people of America that\nfreedom comes cheap, that we can make the kind of massive defense\nreductions they have suggested.\nThe defense budget they propose would mean mass unemployment. It\nwould turn middle income scientists, engineers, and skilled production\nworkers into candidates for welfare. And it would do something worse to\nthe America we love. It would turn our country into a second class\npower, helpless to defend its own freedom or that of its allies.\nThe McGovern policy calls for negotiation, not from a position of\nstrength, but from a deliberate policy of military weakness that could\nonly lead to appeasement and crises.\nAmerica cannot survive in the 1970s if our people have only a\nhalf-hearted commitment to freedom. Our opponents have a vision of a\nfrightened, militarily weak America that does not resemble the descri ion\nof our national anthem: \"the land of the free and the home of the brave.\nThey say America can keep the peace, not by speaking softly and carrying\na big stick as Teddy Roosevelt advised, but by approaching the enemy\nhat-in-hand.\nNo American President and no generation of Americans has ever been\nwilling to accept that kind of humiliation. And this November, that is\none message the people of America will deliver at the ballot box.\nFour years ago, Richard Nixon pledged that he would do everything\npossible to end America's participation in Vietnam, not by surrendering\nto the demands of Hanoi, but by stepping up the training of the South\nVietnamese so they could defend themselves and allow our troops to come\nhome.\nAnd he is keeping that promise. More than 500,000 Americans have\ncome home. By the end of the year, there will be only 27,000 Americans\nleft in Vietnam and none at all on combat duty.\nCombat deaths have declined 95 percent. In fact, we had one recent\nweek in which not a single American lost his life in Southeast Asia.\nThat is our goal.\n- 4 -\nGOP\nThe draft calls that were running at the rate of 50,000 a month wt\nthe President took office have been scaled down. The draft itself has\nbeen reformed so that young men can plan their lives, their education,\nand their careers. And we will have an all volunteer army by next July\nOur opponents offer amnesty to those who have turned their backs\non America. But they would abandon the last bargaining power we have t\nsecure the release of America's prisoners of war, the men who answered\nwhen they were called to duty. Apparently, they are willing to leave\nthe fate of these gallant men to the whims of Communists who are holdin\nthem captive under conditions that violate the most basic tenets of\ninternational law.\nThe President is not willing to settle for that. He is not willin\nto settle for second best for America. He advocates a defense policy\nthat offers a realistic deterrent.\nHe wants a prosperity that is built on peace, not war. And that i.\na massive change of direction that has occurred these past 3½ years.\nDuring the eight years of Camelot and the Great Society, the only time .\nhad full employment was during a build-up for war in Southeast Asia.\nThe unemployment rate is lower now when we are getting out of\nVietnam than it was in the early 1960s when our opponents were getting\ninto that long and costly struggle.\nOn issue after issue, the things our opponents now condemn are\nfailures of their own making. We have not controlled Congress for\nvirtually 38 of the last 40 years. We are not the architects of the\nwelfare programs that have made millions of Americans dependent on the\ndole.\nWe did not write the tax laws they say are riddled with loopholes\ndesigned to favor the affluent, and frankly, they know this is not true\nof the tax laws they wrote. The only major tax relief we have had in a\ndecade was the 1969 Tax Reform under President Nixon. As a result of t1\nreform, individuals are now paying $22 billion less in federal taxes and\ncorporations are paying $5 billion more.\nIt was not during the 12 years a Republican occupied the White Hous\nbut during the 28 years of Democratic rule that power became centralized\nin Washington, and the bureaucracy grew so unwieldy. When the New Deal\ntook over, there was one federal employee for every 203 Americans. When\nthe present Republican administration went to Washington, there was one\nfederal worker for every 67 Americans.\nGOP\nWe know a little about uncontrolled growth of government in\nCalifornia. In the last six years of the prior Democratic administration,\nthe number of full-time state civil service employees grew by almost\n25,000. But at the end of the past fiscal year, there were fewer full-\ntime state employees than there were almost six years ago when a\nRepublican administration went to Sacramento.\nYou know the story of the reforms we have tried to make, the\neconomies, the efforts to streamline state government; to make\ngovernment more responsive and less costly.\nWe did not limit our economies to paper clips. We took on the\nsingle greatest cause of California's fiscal problems the runaway\ngrowth of welfare that threatened to bankrupt the state.\nAt last count, there were 217,000 fewer people on welfare in\nCalifornia than when we started. In 13 of the 16 months after we put\nthis program into effect, the caseload declined.\nYou probably also remember all the screams of outrage, the charges\nthat the state was shifting welfare cost to the counties. Well, it\njust did not happen.\nIn fact, this year the county of Los Angeles saved millions of\ndollars from what the experts said welfare would cost. And this year\nthere was a 40-cent reduction in the county's basic property tax rate,\nblanks to welfare reform.\nTo fully appreciate the magnitude of that turnaround, you have to\nremember that in the previous six years, there was a property tax\nincrease in Los Angeles County every year. In one year, the increase\nalone amounted to $1.18 per hundred dollars on the basic tax rate.\nAfter welfare reform, this year there was a 10-cent tax cut in\nRiverside County. Other counties report similar reductions in their\nbasic tax rates.\nNot all of their officials give credit to welfare reform. But just\nlook at what the expects were projecting on the cost of welfare before.\nWithout our reforms, there would have been no talk of property tax\nthruction at all; there would have been massive tax increases.\nWithout welfare reform, there would have been no debate about how\nbest to use the projected state surplus to relieve the tax burden of our\npeople. There would have been tax increases at all levels of government.\n- 6 -\nGOP\n(And here I would like to say something about the Watson amendment--\nProposition 14 that will be on the ballot November 7). Some of the\nthings it proposes are things we are working to accomplish, too things\nlike the tax ceiling. But this amendment is not the way to achieve\nrealistic tax relief. If Proposition 14 passes, there will not be any\nsurplus. The net impact will be a massive tax increase.\nThe only way to achieve lasting tax relief is to reduce government\ncosts. And this is where we Republicans are on a real collision course\nwith our opponents.\nThey want to spend every nickel of revenue that comes in. Tax\nrelief is not one of their priorities. I have had to veto more than $1\nbillion of spending since I have been in Sacramento so we could have a\nbalanced budget. The only time in which I didn't have to veto a single\npenny was the time we had a clear Republican legislative majority that\nwas just as determined as we are to reduce the tax burden of our citizens.\nVetoing is not necessarily my favorite sport. That is why our main\npriority this year, aside from re-electing the President and Vice-\nPresident, is to send the spenders home.\nWe need more Republicans in Sacramento because we have not finished\nthe job. We are not going to sit on our oars and give up fighting for\neconomy in government these next two years. We are not going to abandon\nour effort to strengthen law enforcement, to make life harder on the\ncriminals and a lot safer for the law-abiding citizens.\nWe are determined to move forward. And we need a Republican\nmajority to help us. You know the registration odds we face. Well, my\nanswer to that is: there is still a week before the (October 8)\nregistration deadline. Every Republican who wants lower taxes, stronger\nlaw enforcement and a realistic school financing program should be out\nregistering new Republicans. And I hope every member of this committee\nand every member of every Republican volunteer organization will give\nthis their majority priority before we gear up for the election day\nvictory squads.\nI know some of you may be heartened by the polls that show the\nPresident leading. Well, I would like to remind you that he has not had\na Republican Congress during his first term. The legislative and\nCongressional races will help determine which direction America and\nCalifornia will take these next few years.\n7\nGOP\nMillions of Americans, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents\nare concerned about the prospect of having the McGovern philosophy\ndictating America's fiscal policy. Well, right now we have the McGovern\nphilosophy in charge of the key fiscal committees in the California\nlegislature,\nThey dominate the committee assignments; they set the rules; they\nschedule the bills; they bottle up legislation that is favored by an\noverwhelming majority of the people because they have a majority.\nOne example of their power to thwart the will of the people is the\nissue of capital punishment. Even after the court rulings this year,\nthe legislature had an opportunity to clarify California law on this\nsubject; to restore the death penalty as a deterrent. But the\nlegislation was blocked because we did not have enough strength to\n/the legislature.\nit enrough both houses of So the people of California will dec\non\nthis issue themselves.\nBut passing this initiative is only half the job. We need more\nlegislators who believe as we do that the job of law enforcement is to\nprotect the people. We need legislators who will not ignore the\ncontinuing attacks on police and correctional officers. Almost two\nyears ago we sponsored legislation to make the killing of a peace\nofficer mandatory first degree murder, subject to the death penalty.\nBut the McGovern majority that dominates the legislature has\nrefused to pass this law.\nThey have some strange ideas on law enforcement. Some of them want\nto boycott lettuce and legalize grass. While we are trying to strengther\nlaw enforcement, they propose laws to weaken it. Their idea of a crime\nprogram is longer suspended sentences.\nThey not only want to legalize marijuana; they also want to\nlegalize prostitution, relax probation restrictions.\nThey have been trying to get some of these things for years.\nThat is why we need a Republican majority pledged to uphold the law.\nDespite the polls, we have got a big job in California, not only\nto elect the President, but to regain a majority in the legislature.\nOverconfidence and apathy are our greatest enemies.\nThe only way we will deliver a Republican majority at the polls\nis to work as we have never worked before.\n- 8 -\nGOP\nThis year we will have the support of hundreds of thousands of\nCalifornians who believe in the historic principles of the Democratic\nparty. They have been abandoned by their party; left without a\ncandidate because they cannot accept the McGovern philosophy of\ndefeatism and despair. Like most of us, they even have trouble keeping\nup with the New Politics.\nPerhaps they have had trouble because the Senator from South Dakot\nkeeps back-tracking on what he said before almost every time he makes\na speech.\nBut Senator McGovern has made enough speeches on enough issues for\nmost Americans to realize that whatever it is he stands for, it is not\nwhat most Americans want for their country.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n- 9 -\n5/01\nM\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nA.Ms. THURSDAY Friday\nSacramento, California 95814\nOctober 5, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n10-4-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nAMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS ANNUAL MEETING\nFAIRMONT HOTEL, SAN FRANCISCO\nOctober 5, 1972\nIn my previous occupation, we had a well known playwright, Moss Hart,\nwho was given to requests for cocktail party diagnoses. One evening he\nwas introduced to a Dr. Jones and immediately went into a description of\na low back pain that was plaguing him. The friend who had introduced\nthem was embarrassed and said \"Moss---Dr. Jones is a Doctor of Economics.\nMoss was only stopped for a second. He said: \"Doctor, I bought a stock\nthe other \"\nWell, doctors, many Americans have a health problem, a feeling that\nthey are being threatened with a loss of liberty, a growth of\nregimentation, and a restriction of their freedom of choice.\nThis is not some new, unknown ailment. It has spread all over the\nworld and the reason I mention it here is because in a number of other\ncountries the virus had its incubus in your profession. But this viral\ndisorder cannot be localized. Once it settles on the doctors, it settles\non the patients- all of us.\nFirst symptom of the disease is an excess of rhetoric about the need\nto provide more and better health care for the poor. This spreads rapidly\nbecause virtually all of us are committed to the belief that no one,\nbecause of inability to pay, should be denied medical care. We have\nalways felt that way and yet almost forgotten that in an earlier day the\nmedical profession met that problem on an individual basis with very\nlittle talk from social planners about \"health delivery systems.\"\nNow, it is probably true that such a system has been outmoded by the\nincrease of urbanization and the complexities of modern living and we do\nneed a more orderly and comprehensive process. The real question is, who\nis best equipped to evolve such a process and to supervise its operation?\nSimple common sense would indicate a rather obvious answer. But, we\nwould be overlooking the virus and what its effects have been on rational\nthinking. We are already in the advanced stages where we find ourselves\ngoing along with the idea that we are confronted with a \"health care\ncrisis, which will become an instant disaster unless there is immediate\ngovernment intervention.\n- 1\nCollege of Surgeons\nA Harvard Economics professor calls medicine in America a failure,\nOthers have joined a young Senator in demanding $77 billion worth of\ncradle-to-the-grave \"Teddicare.\" Fortune magazine states that \"whether\npoor or not, most Americans are badly served by the obsolete, over-\nstrained medical system. The management of medical care has become too\nimportant to leave to doctors.\" One wonders what size print Fortune\nwould use to rebut any doctor who suggested that publishing had become\ntoo important to leave to publishers, editors, and writers.\nI am not going to belabor you with the voluminous facts and figures\nwhich you already know, about the shortcomings of government medicine\nwherever it is practiced in the world, as compared to medicine here in\nthe last stronghold of private practice.\nIn recent years, the number of doctors in the United States has\nincreased three times iaster than the population has grown.\nIn 1960, there was one physician to every 712 citizens. Last year,\nit was one for every 632, and the ratio has improved since then.\nWe are one of the few countries in the world where the doctor-patient\nratio has been improving. It is true they are not evenly distributed\n+hroughout the land, but this raises the question of whether there is any\navailable standard for determining just how many doctors are enough.\nThe ratio in South Dakota is less than half the national average, but\nthere is very little difference in the health of the people of South\nDakota compared to other states.\nNew medical schools are in the process of planning and building. In\nthree years, we will be turning out an additional thousand doctors a year.\nNinety-eight percent of all the babies born in America are born in\nhospitals. In most of those countries where medicine has been socialized,\nthe trend is to allow hospitalization aid even doctor attendance only if\ntrouble is anticipated.\nWe live in a time and place where 1019 time tradition, dogma and\naccepted methods are subjected to research and study and run through\nemputers to see if their continued use can be iustified. There is more\nfactual evidence available today regarding the ative merits of\ngovernment versus private medicine than on any maj, issue. Yet we ignore\nfacts to engage in highly emotional debate. Does anyme suggest that\ngovernment's record in its forays into farming, housing, and the solution\nto poverty recommend it as successor to the family docto->\nCollege of Surgeons\nThe plain truth is that medicine in the United States has reached\na level unequaled any place in the world. In a single lifetime, we have\nliterally wiped out scores of diseases that have plagued man for centuries\npast. Medicine in any country where it has been nationalized cannot\nbegin to compare with medicine in our private system in quality or\nquantity.\nThe socialization of medicine has not only failed to solve health\ncare problems where it has been tried, but it has been the first step in\nsocializing the political and economic system of a country. You cannot\nsocialize the doctor without eventually socializing the patients.\nMy plea to you is that you must not subscribe to the theory of\ninevitability. If you will not lead the resistance how can the rest of\nus hold out?\nWhy haven't you based your first line of defense on the simple and\nobvious question so easy to understand by every man, whatever his trade\nor profession? The question: By what right can government tell the men\nand women of one profession that in order to practice their art they must\nbecome government employees? I know how the artists and craftsmen in\nny previous work would react if government proposed this to them. Try\nit on the newscasters, the construction workers, the farmers.\nIf we do not believe that we should coerce physicians, or plumbers\nor economists to live and work where some bureau of government has\ndecreed they must live and work; if we believe that our health care\nproblems can best be met by targeting particular troubles rather than\nviolently transferring the entire system; then let us agree that\nsomething is needed beyond just maintaining the status quo.\nWe have a pluralistic system at present. It is a logical outcrop\nof our American Dream. We have \"fee for service\" by individuals and\ngroups in the tradition of free enterprise. We have clinics and pre-\npayment and government medicine, all existing in a comfortable\ncompetition.\nWe are probably unanimous in our agreement that freedom of choice is\none of the most essential components in America's pluralistic medical\nsystem. We have proven over the years that the personal relationship\nbetween patient and doctor is best for the patient; that some of the\nills that affect the system can best be treated by effective peer review.\n- 3 -\nCollege of Surgeons\nSix years ago, checking the things our new administration had\ninherited, we found an infant on our doorstep Medi-Cal. I have had\nreason to doubt its legitimacy more than once. It was only six months\nold but already a spoiled brat with a tendency toward obesity.\nAnd being a government issue baby it was an alimentary canal with\nan appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. We\nlearned in less than three months that it was out of control with\nhundreds of millions of dollars already obligated in the pipe line. We\nasked for legislation to correct some of its more obvious defects,\nstating that unless corrected, it would soon top the $2 billion mark in\ncost. Our request was denied, and our prediction scoffed at by the\nlegislature which had sired it. In short, the plan provided an unlimited\nhealth care credit card, offering almost three times as many services as\nthe host of insurance plans to all recipients of welfare plus non welfare\nrecipients who were deemed to be medically indigent.\nIt went on increasing in cost; $600 million the first year, $100\nmillion more the following year, then $200 million more each year after\nthat. We took no joy in the fact that our cost projection was proving\ncorrect. It had passed $1.2 billion when we set out to do a drastic\nover-haul combined with a complete reform of the welfare system which was\nincreasing in caseload 40,000 a month. Both attempts were met with a\nFierce vindictive resistance, but we had the overwhelming support of the\npeople, and the reforms have been in operation for a little more than a\nyear.\nWhen the wind comes down off the Sierras in the night, you can still\nhear the anguished screams of a frustrated bureaucracy.\nWe have almost a quarter of a million fewer people on welfare than\nwe had a little over a year ago, and the Medi-Cal budget is not up $200\nmillion it is actually millions less than it was last year. The young\nman who had a great deal to do with engineering these reforms is Dr. Earl\nBrian, Secretary of Health and Welfare for California. He is the first\nphysician ever to hold a cabinet post in California's state government.\nDr. Brian has earned that important post. He is responsible for our\nhealth, manpower and prison programs involving 45,000 employees and a\nyearly budget of $6.5 billion, larger than that of 46 states. No doctor\nin this room is more devoted to the traditional doctor-patient\nrelationship.\nCollege of Surgeons\nNo man in this room is more pledged to uphold all the prerogatives\nof the private practice of medicine indeed, of private enterprise\nitself, than Dr. Brian. Yet, he has had the unhappy task of issuing and\nenforcing orders which many of you would feel interfered with your rights\nas a physician. These orders, mandated by statute and regulation, are\npart and parcel of government involvement in health care. Government's\nonly tools are force and coercion. What we have now is only a hint of\nwhat you will have if the nationalized health proponents have their way.\nYou will become medical paper pushers as your British compatriots will\ntell you.\nDr. Brian has embarked on an effort to reduce the weight of\ngovernment's hand as much as possible in the administration of our\nexisting programs. His proposal is based on the idea that \"pre-payment\nin the delivery of health care offers the best solution to the problem\nof cost control and quality of care.\" But he means for this pre-payment\nto bring about modern management and organization in the delivery of\ncare with the physicians retaining \"control of their fiscal and\nprofessional destinies.\"\nOur goal is to create workable ways to eliminate financial barriers\nto medical care for all our people\nthrough prepaid plans supervised by\nthe medical profession. We want to create a situation where you can be\nfree to practice medicine, according to your own judgment and that of\nyour peers\nwithout having government looking over your shoulder telling\nyou how to do it.\nIncentives have been established based on financial rewards for those\noperating pre-paid health plans and relief from controls. Pre- paid\nhealth plans may be (1) a medical society (or medical society health\ncare foundation), or (2) a medical group practice, or (3) a private\ninsurance company.\nFor example, prior authorization for hospitalization is not required.\nThe Pre-paid Health Plans are free to be innovative in finding the most\nfficient and economic methods of service delivery.\nA competitive environment is maintained in that no exclusive\nterritory is granted a Pre-paid Health Plan. The patients have freedom:\nof choice in selecting a Pre-paid Health Plan or of retaining their\nopen fee-for-service Medi-Cal status.\nOur intent is to use this massive health program as a change agent.\nThis contracts with the exploration going on at the federal level focused\non as yet a somewhat formless Health Maintenance Organization.\nCollege of Surgeons\nOur Pre-paid Health Plan efforts are not based on theory, but on\nseveral years of experience. Providers will find the plans financially\nadvantageous, and free of controls that restrict the free practice of\nmedicine. Finally the advantages are in lower cost of operation, more\nrapid payment, and the opportunity for the provider to control his rates\nby increasing productivity at the same time he provides quality care.\nThe only restrictions on free practice are minimums---none of which\ncontrol how often or when the physician treats the patient. Contracts\nfor more than 250,000 Medi-Cal recipients are already signed.\nOne of our biggest plans was started July 1 by the Sacramento County\nMedical Society. Through their Medical Care Foundation, they have agreed\nto provide comprehensive health care to 56,000 Medi-Cal recipients in the\nSacramento area. More than six hundred private practicing physicians\ncollectively taken responsibility for their Pre-paid Health Plan. For\ntheir usual fees, they will provide services to their patients in their\noffices and in the area hospitals. If the plan shows a profit, it will\nbe shared by all. If it runs a deficit, it will be shared by all.\nAlready the plan has enrolled 20,000 recipients and everyone has\nprofited. The doctors practice medicine without government intervention\nand receive their usual compensation, the recipients are treated like\nother private patients, the taxpayers through the government will save\nabout 10 percent of the usual cost.\nWe are particularly grateful for the tireless effort shown by Dr. Jim\nSchubert, a Sacramento Orthopedic Surgeon who is President of the\nFoundation. Without his efforts, the plan would not be a reality.\nWe view this as having the potential to test and create new vehicles\nfor health care delivery which, on a volume basis, can be utilized as an\nalternative for all socio-economic groups. Providers, once organized in\npre-paid plans whether for government subsidized patients, private\npatients, or both, will find savings in overhead and administration; bad\ndebts are eliminated; income is predictable; cash flow controlled; claims\nsimplified and intervention by a third party payer is avoided. The\nprovider is free to practice medicine according to his own judgment and\nthat of his peers.\nWe believe California has shown that government can tread the thin\nline between what has been and what can be.\nIt is time for the medical profession to reassert its right through\nthe Pre-paid Health Plan to practice in that free market place and in so\ndoing, help all of us remain free.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n- S\nde\nand\nNo\n5\n9\nwall\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: We \"nesday, October 11\nSacramento, California 95814\n10 AM\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n10-10-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nCALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION\nSan Francisco, California\nOctober 11, 1972\nA few weeks ago in Sacramento, I spoke of a long-term goal of making\ngovernment less costly and more efficient, not just in our state\noperations, but at every level of government. I called it a \"not\nimpossible dream\" of restructuring government to make its operations more\nvisible to the people to assign responsibilities for various services\nto specific levels of government and if possible the revenue sources to\nfinance those services.\nMost editorial comment was extremely favorable, but some\nmisunderstood and thought I was proposing an extra layer of government.\nWhat I was proposing was just the opposite. It was not to increase, but\nto reduce and simplify government by searching out ways to eliminate\ncostly administrative structures, end duplication and streamline the\nentire structure of government. This is necessary if we ever are to make\ngovernment at all levels accountable to the people=--so that average\ncitizens can see where their tax dollars are going and what they are\ngetting in return. Can we, in short, put a visible price tag on\ngovernment and government's promises?\nI was delighted to learn that your organization has been exploring\nthis same subject. And that you are well along in your studies.\nWelcome to the club.\nThis is not the first instance where you and I have shared a joint\ninterest in working toward the same goals. And I am grateful for all\nyou have done to help streamline state government.\nI say this sincerely and with faith in our friendship, even though\nI intend to speak of a sensitive issue upon whi ch we are probably divided\nIn Sacramento, we have been trying to agree on a realistic and\nworkable tax reform program for four years, but we have still got hay in\nthe field.\nJust two years ago, I proposed a tax reform that would have cut\nproperty taxes between 27-40 percent for the average homeowner. That bill\nwas supported by 93 of the 119 legislators, but on the fateful night one\nof the 93 was in the hospital and we failed by that single vote.\n- 1 -\nCREA\nLast year we tried again across the negotiating table and again we\nwere frustrated by the same little willful band of senators who have\nmade it plain they want more money for government, not less. Finally\nwe managed to agree on a mini-tax reform that reduced the property tax\nburden of our senior citizens, instituted withholding and contained a fev\nof the other elements of the comprehensive tax reform we have been trying\nto achieve. It did not do what needs to be done to reduce the proper\ntax burden on the typical homeowner,\nThis year, we tried again. Since some of the opposition were\ntelling the folks back home that they too wanted tax reform, we had hopes\nthey might at last see the urgency of providing broad homeowner tax\nrelief.\nOne additional factor should be mentioned. California historicall\nhas relied on property taxes for a major part of school financing.\nis therefore impossible to consider this subject without at the same\ntime dealing with the problem of school finance.\nWe have known for years that property taxes are simply too high and\nmust be cut. And we have known that California's school aid formula\nis an outmoded complexity of legislative mandates and regulations.\nOver the years, it has become more and more complicated and less and\nlers fair\nespecially to the poorest school districts.\nTo meet these two problems responsibly, we must consider them as\na package. We made it clear that we were prepared to work with the\nlegislature to iron out our differences and come up with a concensus\nprogram that would achieve our goals. And again we worked out a\ncomprehensive program that won the support of a majority of the\nlegislature. It was supported by business groups\nby school groups\nby the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Speaker of the\nAssembly co-sponsored it, and a majority of the members of the lower house\napproved it. But it did not gain the two-thirds majority necessary to\npass. It was blocked in the state Senate this time by four votes. The\nlegislature recessed without resolving either the problem of property\ntax reform or school finance.\nAs a result of four successive years of failure, many of you have\ngrown cynical about ever achieving tax reform in the legislature.\nBelieve me, I can understand the frustration and the anger that many\ncitizens feel over these shabby examples of some elected officials\ncontinuing to put partisanship ahead of responsibility.\n- 2 -\nCREA\nThey cannot justify or excuse their failure to provide homeowner\nproperty tax relief.\nI cannot quarrel with the frustration that has prompted you and\nother groups to support Proposition 14 on the November 7 ballot. And\nafter struggling for more than four years for homeowner tax relief, I\ncan appreciate the goal of this amendment.\nUnfortunately, I have a job and a Constitutional responsibility to\nweight Proposition 14 against the needs of the state and the need of\nhomeowners for property tax relief. However much I agree with your goal,\nor appreciate your frustration at the legislature's failure to enact tax\nreform, I find I cannot support and indeed must oppose Proposition 14\nif I am to meet my responsibility to the people.\nI think you will agree I have demonstrated my desire for a real tax\nreform, as a matter of fact, I kind of started the whole thing. I did\nnot come quickly or easily to my present position on this ballot issue.\nWe have examined this proposal thoroughly. It includes some things\nlike tax ceilings on local government, that we have incorporated into\neach of our own tax reform programs. But after the most careful analysis\nof the overall impact, we have come to the realization that it just does\nnot do the job and it would create more problems than it would solve. I\nam sure most of this audience is familiar with the overall proposal but\nlet me give you some particulars that led to our decision.\nProposition 14 would mean freezing into the state Constitution:\n--a 40 percent increase in sales taxes\n--a 100 percent increase in cigarette taxes\n--a 25 percent increase in the tax on distilled spirits\n--a 44 percent increase in the current bank and corporation tax\n--a 7 percent severance tax on minerals.\nThese come to a massive $1.8 billion increase in consumer and\nbusiness taxes. But still there would be an unfunded state and local\nrevenue gap of more than $1.2 billion.\nAnd since virtually all of the available revenue sources have been\ncommitted in Proposition 14, the only other principal tax source we have,\nthe personal income tax would have to be increased at least 50 percent\nand possibly even doubled. Efforts we have made to improve the business\nclimate in California would be nullified and yet we would have done\nnothing to help resolve our school financing problem.\n- 3 -\nCREA\nInstead of increasing school support for our poor districts, we\nwould have drastically reduced the amount of financial support most of\nour schools are now receiving. Instead of increasing the amount of\nschool aid for every child, it would mean cutting back school support by\n$770 million, an amount equaling an average $170 per student.\nBut possibly the most damaging defect of all is the fact that while\nProposition 14 is offered as a means of homeowner tax relief, the fac.\nis that 70 percent of its benefit would go to non-homeowner property.\nAbout 70 percent of the burden of the higher taxes it would impose would\nfall on homeowners and on renters, who would pay $371 million more in\ntaxes and get no benefit to offset these higher taxes.\nThat is why those of us who are firmly committed to the goals you\nseek cannot support and instead must vigorously oppose Proposition 14.\nThe average citizen works almost five months of the year just to pay\nhis taxes. That is longer than he has to work to provide food, shelter,\nand clothing for his entire family. To raise consumer taxes and bu\ntaxes to shackle him with an unbearable fiscal burden is a solution\nI cannot accept.\nAnd certainly it would not be responsible for any elected official\nto ignore the state's reponsibility to solve the school financing problem\nAnd yet, like you, I am totally committed to achieving a realistic\nprogram to reduce homeowner property taxes.\nLast spring, when I proposed this year's tax reform program to the\nlegislature, I said that if it were not enacted, I would consider other\nways of reducing the tax burden of the people of California.\nWell, the legislature did not act.\nWe had to wait to determine our next step until after the cabinet\nand our financial people could make a thorough review of our present\nfiscal situation, the budget outlook for next year and to consider other\ndevelopments such as the surplus we anticipate and the impact of federal\nrevenue sharing.\nYesterday, I announced that we have completed that review. And\na result, I am able to disclose a program that will reduce homeowner\ntaxes without increasing income taxes, and that will meet the chronic\ncrisis of school finance.\nThis is possible because of a number of factors, including the\nsavings from our continuing tight state budget policy\nby the welfare\nand Medi-Cal reforms we made last year and by wisely using the state's\nshare of federal revenue sharing.\n- 4 -\nCREA\nBriefly; here is what I propose:\nNext month, when the legislature reconvenes after the election\nrecess, I will ask the members to put on the ballot a statewide\nconstitutional amendment incorporating all the major goals we have\nsought in all our tax and school finance reform proposals.\nProperty Tax Relief\nTo provide homeowner tax relief, we shall propose that the current\n($750) homeowner property tax exemption be at least doubled. Another\n$200 million of property tax relief will be provided to homeowners by\nrolling back school property taxes with the state providing the\nreplacement revenue.\nWe also plan to propose a tax ceiling on local governments to\nassure that this property tax cut will be a permanent benefit.\nSchool Aid Formula\nTo achieve the goal of assuring equal educational opportunity to\nall our children we will simplify the present outmoded school aid formula\nand provide additional state support to meet the special problems of low\nwealth school districts.\nWe propose a total overhaul of the current school aid formula-\nprovide flat grants of at least $955 per student at the high school level\nand $765 per student at the elementary school level.\nThe referendum will propose an increase of more than $200 million\nof state school assistance to low-wealth school districts, a step that\nwill go a long way toward meeting the inequities cited in the court\nrulings I have mentioned.\nTo help finance this increased state assistance and the school\ndistrict property tax rollback, the plan calls for a one cent increase in\nthe sales tax and a one percent increase in bank and corporation taxes.\nAnd these are the only tax increases in the entire proposal. Meantime,\nthe adjustments will help us lift a major part of the school tax burden\noff the backs of homeowners and shift it to broader based taxes that are\nfairer and which grow approximately as fast as the need for additional\nschool financing.\nWe intend to offset the impact of the sales tax adjustment by\nproviding renter tax relief through an income tax credit for every renter\nin California, We propose to provide another increase in state support\nfor the open space program in recognition of the heavy tax burden on\nagricultural property.\nCREA\nAnd we intend to make it harder for the legislature to raise taxes\nin the future. As you know, at the present time, bank and corporation\ntaxes may be increased only by a two-thirds majority. Other tax\nincreases require a simple majority, indicating a philosophy difference\nbetween some of us in Sacramento. The Democratic leadership has\nadvocated eliminating that two-thirds requirement- I think we should gc\nthe other way. Therefore, we propose that all increases involving jor\ntax sources in the future require a two-thirds majority vote of the\nlegislature. This will be another safeguard to protect. and make\npermanent the overall tax reductions possible in this program.\n10 percent State Income Tax Cut\nI do not think you will be surprised if I say it has been the polic\nof this administration to hold spending down to as low a level as\npossible. California once had the nation's second largest public budget\nexceeded only by the federal budget. This year, we rank four\nbehi\nthe federal budget, Now York state, and even New York City.\nmade our economies work, and now we are determined to share with the\npeople the benefit of these economies.\nWhen the state's revenues have exceeded outgo, we have returned the\nresulting surplus to the people before someone could think of a way\nspend it. In 1970, there was a 10 percent state income tax rebate.\nThis year, as a result of the so-called withholding windfall, every\ntaxpayer received a one-time tax cut equal to 20 percent of their state\nincome tax obligation.\nNow, the welfare and Medi-Cal economies we instituted last year and\nthe improved economy of the state have enabled us to foresee another\nbudget surplus, but this time an ongoing surplus. So as part of the\nplan, I am proposing that the referendum measure provide a 10 percent\nreduction in state income taxes---not a one-time rebate---but a permanen\nongoing 10 percent cut in the state income tax.\nOur plan is realistic and workable. It will not only cut property\ntaxes, it will hold them down. It will meet the school problem and it\nwill reduce state income taxes 10 percent, on a permanent, ongoing basis\nNone of this, however, can he done if Proposition 14 passes. Then\nwe will be faced not with a surplus but with the need for a tax increase\nBut I am not unmindful of the times we have been frustrated by\nwillful men in the legislature. That is why I am proposing this package\nas a referendum.\n- 6 -\nCREA\nI shall ask the legislature to act on it no later than January 31\nand return it to me for submission to the people.\nIf they fail to do this, then I shall personally lead an initiative\ncampaign to gather sufficient signatures of California voters to place\non the ballot property tax relief, a solution to the school problem and\na permanent income tax cut.\nAnd with the power vested in me by the Constitution, I will then\ncall a special election immediately to guarantee the people of Californi\nthe opportunity to make this decision at the ballot box.\nWe have proven that government and government spending can be broug\nunder control. If you recall this time last year, there were screams of\noutrage about our reform efforts. It was said that the welfare reforms\nwe proposed would saddle counties with higher costs. Others said it\njust could not be done.\nWell, we did it. And this year, 42 of California's 58 counties\nmanaged to reduce their basic property tax rates. Thanks to welfare\nreform, Los Angeles County cut its basic property tax rate by 40 cents--\nreversing a six-year trend of higher and higher local property taxes.\nAt last count, there were almost 221,000 fewer people on welfare\nthan there were when we started a year ago last spring. We had to\nstruggle for seven months in the legislature to pass the program and we\nhave had to battle in the courts to preserve the reforms we instituted\nto crack down on welfare fraud and abuse. Besides easing the taxpayer's\nburden, we had another goal in those reforms. And we accomplished that,\ntoo. We have been able to finance a 30 percent increase in benefits for\nthe truly needy; the people who have no outside income and who are not\non the rolls because of loopholes; they have no other place to turn for\nhelp. Along with this 30 percent increase in benefits for the truly\nneedy, we were able to finance cost of living increases for senior\ncitizens and the blind. And we have instituted a program that will\nrequire that all able-bodied citizens who are able to work, should work\nfor their welfare benefits.\nCalifornians are a generous and compassionate people. They are\nprepared to pay their share to assure that the needy among us are not\ndeprived of the essentials of life.\nBut they are not prepared to support a permanent and growing welfar\npopulation made up of people who are just as capable of working as the\npeople who pay taxes to support them.\nCREA\nWe do not believe that is fair to either the truly needy or the\nworking taxpayers who support the whole welfare system and every other\ngovernment program.\nThat is why we fought so hard for welfare reform. And that is why\nwe are going to continue every effort we can to make further economies in\ngovernment. That is why we are now looking into the restructuring of\nall levels of government in California.\nWe must focus the spotlight of public attention on the need for\ngovernmental efficiency- in Sacramento, in the counties, in the cities,\nand in the smallest towns and unincorporated areas. Then we can have\nfurther actual tax reductions, not just tax shifts.\nOnly when the people are made aware of the fact that they C\ntax relief will they demand the reforms necessary to achieve further\ncuts. The reforms we have made so far prove that it is possible to bri\ngovernment under control.\nWorking together, the responsible citizens of this state can light\na prairie fire of reform and efficiency that will spread through every\nlevel of government in California. We can leave a legacy of financial\nresponsibility---a blueprint for a government that can live within its\nincome without dipping deeper into the pockets of our citizens every\nyear or SO. We can convince elected officials once and for all that we\nwant less government, not more.\nThat is what you want. That is what I want. That is what the\npeople of California want. And that is what we can give them by working\ntogether. It is not an impossible dream.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n- 8 -\n01/01\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: THURSDAY, P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nOctober 12, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n10-11-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nWORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL\nOctober 12, 1972\nLos Angeles\nAs most of you know, and if you don't know, I have home movies\nto prove it, I have been abroad in recent months on an errand for the\nPresident. I do not pretend that having seen the monkey, I can now\nrun the circus, but I could not make such a trip, meet the heads of\nstate I was privileged to meet and carry the messages entrusted to me\nwithout realizing that America's role in world affairs, the decisions we\nmake, the positions we take in international affairs, will largely\ndetermine whether our children live in peace and prosperity.\nAmerica's foreign and defense policies in the decade ahead are\nvital matters that concern every American.\nIn the past 30 years, we have fought three wars and helped rebuild\nthe countries that were devastated by those wars. We have given more\nthan $150 billion of our national resources to help our friends---and\neven some of our former enemies to become economically self-sufficient.\nWe have opened our own markets to imports because we believe in the\nprinciple of free trade. We have generously shared our technology. We\nknow that commercial contacts among nations not only help achieve\nprosperity for all; it also represents a contibution to peace, because\npolitical stability cannot be maintained without financial stability\namong the major nations of the world.\nA few days ago, Denmark joined the European Common Market, the\nsecond nation to affiliate with that economic union in the past year.\nThat event, along with Britain's addition to the Common Market earlier\nthis year, is another signal to us that the future will be very different\nfrom what we have known in the past quarter century, an era in which\nAmerica was largely dominant in the world's commercial affairs.\nWith Britain's vast trade included, the Common Market Nations now\nhave a greater domestic market potential than our own. The population\nof the Common Market nations is larger than America's, and their\ncombined exports are twice our total.\nThe nations we helped to recover following World War II have matured\neconomically. They are making their own products and selling them not\nonly in their home markets, but in America and elsewhere.\n-1-\nWorld Affairs Council\nTo meet these new conditions will require more than a one-step\neconomic game plan. It should be apparent to any thinking person that\nthe President has a plan that looks far beyond the war in Vietnam that\nhas so bitterly divided our people for a decade. His actions in the\npast year---the initiatives he has taken diplomatically and economically.\nthe phase-out of the war, and our long-range defense program, all are\nintertwined in a grand design to achieve a goal we have not known in our\nlifetimes, a generation of peace and a prosperity based on peace.\nOur foreign trade, the world monetary system, and our still\nnecessary defense alliances are part of this carefully charted path.\nEach of them is important to achieving the overall objective.\nWhether we succeed or not will depend on how America responds to\nthe challenges of the 1970s.\nDemogogic talk by the \"let's kick business\" fraternity will not\ninsure jobs for our skilled and semi-skilled workers. Right now, taxes\non business in the United States are proportionately higher than those\npaid by our competitors in the common market and Japan.\nOne of the decisions we must make involves inflation, because\ninflation and lagging productivity have been major causes of our trade\ndeficits.\nDuring the build-up for the war in Southeast Asia, America's\neconomic position became distorted. Our country drifted into that\nconflict without a definite plan for victory or for dealing with the\ninflation that inevitably accompanies war. And in the late 1960s,\nAmerica paid the price for that short-sighted attitude. The rate of\ninflation doubled and tripled. The value of the dollar eroded and America\nfound more and more of its products priced out of world markets.\nAmerica cannot accept a 6 percent rate of inflation year after year\nwithout ultimate economic chaos. Certainly the President knew this, for\nhe acted decisively on a number of fronts. And we are now beginning to\nsee the results.\nFrom mid-1971 to mid-1972, the Consumer Price Index in the United\nStates rose only 2.9 percent. But in a remarkable turnabout, the rate\nof inflation has been growing to 6 and 7 percent in Europe.\nBecause America's leaders had the courage to face up to the threat\nof inflation and do something about it, consumer confidence is being\nrestored; business is expanding; the unemployment rate is dropping.\n- 2 -\nWorld Affairs Council\nAnd after a decade in which our output per man hour dropped us to\nlast among the 14 major industrial nations, our productivity rate is\nnow moving ahead.\nThe President is engaged in negotiations to achieve monetary\nstability and to lower the high tariffs that discriminate against\nAmerican goods. At long last America is insisting that other nations\npay more than lip service to the principle of free trade. The blunt\ntruth is that while we have given most favored nation status to most of\nour trading partners, they have often responded by making us the least\nfavored nation in selling our goods in their markets.\nBut this is only a part of the challenge America faces in the\ndecade ahead.\nThe most essential ingredient for America's future prosperity has\nless to do with productivity and our trade balance than it does with\nthe larger issue of how America sees itself and its role in the world.\nWe did not seek the role of leadership that has been thrust upon us.\nBut whether we like it or not, the events of our time demand America's\nparticipation.\nWe cannot hide our head in the sands while events swirl about us---\nevents that can determine whether there shall be war or peace prosperity\nor economic chaos.\nMake no mistake about it. Despite the lessening of tensions and\nthe hopeful signs of great power cooperation in the future, it is\nAmerica's industrial and economic strength, translated into military\npotential, that represents the single greatest guarantee of peace for\nthe world.\nNow I realize that yours is a non-political organization. But the\nthings that concern you as an organization and as individual citizens\nare political decisions. In this year of decision we will choose whether\nto continue fighting with every economic tool we have to reduce inflation\nor if we want to accept calculated, planned, and programmed inflation\nthat is part of one candidate's economic game plan. We must decide\nwhether America should base its economic prosperity on work, the skills\nand the productivity of its people; whether we should seek job\nopportunities for all in the productive private sector; or whether we\nshould put almost half of America's population on a dole---or a make-work\n/public\npayroll raising the taxes of those who work in order to redistribute\nthe national income among those who do not.\n- 3 -\nWorld Affairs Council\nMost important of all, we will decide whether America is willing to\ndo whatever is necessary to maintain America's freedom against all\nthreats.\nWe must ask ourselves if we are willing to risk all that we call\nthe American way on the naive hope that our potential enemies have\nmellowed so much that they no longer have any aggressive designs.\nCutting $30 billion from the defense budget, dismantling great parts\nof our navy and air force, scaling back the space program and ignoring'\ntechnical developments, such as the super sonic transport, are real\nissues, not subjects for a senior thesis. They are political decisions\nto be made in the political arena, and they will determine America's\nfate and possibly the fate of mankind for years to come.\nThe President wants to end the cold war era of conflict and to\nsubstitute an era of negotiations, peaceful settlements of disputes\nbefore they flare into war.\nI am sure every American shares that goal. But are we also aware\nthat every nation in history which hs sought peace and freedom solely\nthrough negotiation has been crushed by conquerors bent on conquest and\naggression.\nThere was a time in the not too distant past when you could have\ntaken all the non-aggression pacts and disarmament treaties with their\nberibboned seals and signatures and papered the walls of the League of\nNations.\nIf that is too cynical a view, let me \"make it perfectly clear\" that\nalong with a willingness to negotiate, America can best protect the peace\nby maintaining a realistic and credible ability to defend itself should\nthe need occur.\nOn my Presidential errands over the past two years meeting with the\nheads of state of Asian and European nations, I was made aware of what\nhas to be recognized as a great change in attitude toward the United\nStates. It is my personal opinion that it reflects our departure from\ndecades of trying to buy the world's affection and our new determination\n:o have the world's respect.\nI was in Japan during the time of the President's drastic currency\nand trade moves, meeting almost daily with the Prime Minister, the\nMinisters of Trade, Foreign Affairs, etc. The American press quoted many\nAmericans who were fearful of deteriorating relations with our great\ntrading partner. Their opinions were not shared by the Japanese leaders\nwith whom I met. As one of them put it, \"Your country and ours have\nbeen on a honeymoon during which there have been no disagreements. Now\nthe honeymoon has ripened into a happy marriage, and as in any good\nmarriage, there will be an occasional quarrel.\"\n- 4 -\nWorld Affairs Council\nIn Europe this summer, my errand had to do mainly with our NATO\nheadquarters. I discovered that these men who must look at the face of\na potential enemy, not across an ocean, but across a border, were\nconvinced that this American President had a realistic understanding of\nthe world situation. What is more, they were aware that he had a plan\nbased on this understanding; that he was going forward with intelligence\nand calculation; and that his plan offered a real chance for peace based\non the world situation as it is and not on some vague hope that the\nenemy will decide to become an overnight \"goodie two-shoes.\"\nWhat would be the attitude of the men I met if the United States\nchose to abandon one ally simply for our own convenience?\nThere is no way for America to turn inward and embrace isolationism\nin the world as it is today without jeopardizing all the progress we\nhave made toward peace in this century. For those genuinely concerned\nwith peace and willing to pay the price for it, there is only one path\nto choose. It is not the easiest; it is the wisest. If we carry the\nburden of responsibility destiny has placed on our shoulders, we do not\nbecome a drop-out in world affairs.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quoted. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n- 5 -\nthe\n10/29\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: 10 10 A.M. SUNDAY\nSacramento, Californi\\ 95814\nOctober 29, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n10-27-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nAMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION\nSAN FRANCISCO\nOctober 29, 1972\nIn recent years, your organizations both at the state and national\nlevel have become more active in working for better government. And\nthat is good.\nGetting involved is the best guarantee that we will get the kind of\ngovernment we need in every state and in Washington.\nAs one of the major health groups in America, I know that you have\nhad to concern yourself with a lot of topics that are technically\noutside the scope of your profession. You have had to keep an eye on all\ndevelopments involving health care, especially government's growing role\nin the health care field.\nSome of the most critical problems affecting the health care\nindustry in America are not problems relating to medicine or dentistry;\nthey are financial and social problems.\nYet you cannot afford to ignore them because the way we choose to\nsolve these problems can drastically affect the way you practice your\nprofession.\nWhen the people in Washington say open wide, they are usually talking\nabout your pocketbook.\nIn the past decade, government has gone into the health care fields\nin a big way; first with Medicare for the elderly, then with Medicaid\n(we call it Medi-Cal in our state).\nAs with many other such large scale efforts by government, many of\nthese programs (especially Medicaid) were launched with more speed than\nwisdom.\nWhen government decides to solve something, we have learned to be\nwary. The cure may not always be worse than the disease, but it is\nusually bigger and it costs more.\nForty years ago, government decided to solve the problems of the\nfarmers. Now forty years and scores of billions of dollars later, we\nonly have a third as many farmers as when we started, but we have three\ntimes as many employees in the department of agriculture.\nNot quite a decade ago we declared war or poverty poverty won.\n- 1 -\nDentists\nAnd you know what happened when government decided there was a\nhealth crisis. No one could quarrel with the humanitarian goal of\nmeeting the health needs of the poor and the elderly. But the impact\non the health care industry was drastic. Overnight health costs for\neveryone else were inflated, especially for the middle income, working\ncitizens who pay for their own health needs and also the taxes to\nfinance the government health programs.\nWhen we arrived in Sacramento almost six years ago, we found that\nMedi-Cal was an under-funded administrative nightmare only six months\nold, but growing in cost and complexity almost daily. As fast as we\nstraightened out the worst of the administrative kinks, the growing\nnumbers of people caused the cost to double. We knew the only way to\navoid bankruptcy was a massive overhaul of both welfare and Medi-Cal.\nThe caseload in California was increasing 40,000 a month.\nMedi-Cal costs were increasing at the rate of $100 to $200 million\neach year, today it is millions of dollars less than it was last year.\nThere are 221 thousand fewer people on welfare than when we started the\nreforms a little more than a year ago.\nWe did not reduce either the benefits to the truly needy or\nnecessary health care benefits. We did root out the welfare fraud and\nthe abuses that were eating up many of the dollars we had available for\npublic assistance. We are removing from the rolls those people who are\nnot eligible for public assistance.\nAnd because of this pruning of the rolls, we have been able to\nprovide a 30 percent increase to those who are really entitled to\nassistance plus cost of living increases for the blind and for our needy\nsenior citizens.\nNone of this was accomplished as easily as it has been described.\nWe had to fight for seven months in the legislature to pass the basic\nreforms. And we have had to contend with more than a dozen lawsuits\nbrought by welfare rights organizations represented by lawyers for the\nmost part provided at taxpayers' expense.\nThose who see in welfare a way of redistributing the earnings of\nthose who work denounced almost every action we took. One of these\nreforms held up by court action for months was a computerized cross\ncheck of earnings by recipients. They claimed we invaded the welfare\nrecipients' privacy by checking his statement of outside earnings,\nroutine, of course, for working citizens in checking their tax liability.\nFinally we won, and the first cross-matching of records has taken place\ncovering 8, 788 cases. In 3,709 of those, (about 41 percent) we discovered\na significant discrepancy between what the welfare files said the\nrecipients earned and what they were actually paid.\n- 2 -\nDentists\n(\nOur reforms have placed welfare and Medi-Cal on a sounder footing.\nYet the question of whether all the people have access to quality and\ncomprehensive health services is still hotly challenged in Washington\nand elsewhere. We are told that one of the serious social problems we\nface in America is elimination of financial barriers to comprehensive\nhealth care for all, not just the needy or the aged. Over and over\nagain we are being told that such comprehensive care can only be\nachieved through more government intervention.\nIronically, the inflation that hastily-enacted government health\nprograms aggravated in the health care industries is now being advanced\nas justification for a total government takeover of all the professional\nhealth fields, through some sort of nationalized health insurance program.\nBefore we go down that road, we should take a long look at the\nrecord of government in health care here and in those countries where it\nhas been socialized because socialization is what we are really talking\nabout no matter how they fancy it up by calling it nationalized insurance.\nThere are ways to modernize it, make it more efficient and available to\nall at a price we can afford without turning it all over to government\nto run and control. As I said before, government's record in solving\nproblems not in its proper province is not exactly brilliant.\nOne of the national plans presently being proposed involves a cost\nof 577 billion more than the entire federal budget in the last year of\nwight Eisenhower's presidency.\nOne of our state Senators wants to abolish the private health\ninsurance industry in California and let the state take over---at a cost\nthat would more than double the amount we are spending for our entire\nstate budget, for education, parks, recreation, highways, everything.\nYet, however massive the cost in money, that is only part of the\nprice we would pay.\nThe greater price would be something far more precious your freedom\nto practice your profession, and the right of your patients to select\ntheir own dentist.\nThis is as important as the effort to meet the health needs of our\npeople at a price they can pay. In the business I used to be in, we had\na saying that everyone had two businesses their own and show business,\nIt seems today almost everyone has added a third health care.\n- 3 -\nDentists\nIt is absolutely essential in developing our public and private\nhealth programs that the doctors and dentists, the health professionals\nin all fields, must have more to say about the directions we take, and\na great deal more responsibility for making it work.\nThose who build skyscrapers do not ask a bureaucrat to draw up the\nplans or tell them how much concrete to pour and where. They hire an\narchitect and engineers, the skilled people who know something about\nthe problems they are trying to solve. We believe that is what we must\nincorporate into health planning, too.\nWe have tried to do that in California. In fact, ours is probably\nthe only state in the country with a health professional as a member of\nthe governor's cabinet. For those of you not from our state, his name\nis Dr. Earl Brian. He is in charge of a great part of state government\nactivities in a wide number of fields including corrections, manpo\npolicy, employment programs, in addition to health and welfare. The\nagencies under his jurisdiction have 45,000 employees, spend more than\n$6 billion of our budget, and their combined activities make that agency\nbigger than 46 state governments.\nDental care is one of the basic elements in a comprehensive health\ncare program. I recently signed legislation to include dental care in\nthe definition of our state's basic Medi-Cal (Medicaid) program.\nUnder Dr. Brian's direction, we are looking to all the health\nprofessions for assistance in meeting the needs of the people of\nCalifornia.\nWe believe that we must retain the pluralistic system that has\ngiven Americans the highest quality medical care in the world.\nOne of the developments we feel that shows the most promise of\nassuring quality health care is the prepaid plan. Through these prepaid\nhealth plans, there is a built-in incentive to find the most efficient\nand economic ways of providing comprehensive health care.\nSuch plans may be either through a group practice, a private\ninsurance company or a local foundation, supervised by the health\nprofessionals who provide the health services.\nOne of the largest of this type of comprehensive health care plans\nstarted last July 1 and is operated through the Sacramento County Medical\nSociety. More than six hundred private doctors in the Sacramento area\nprovide services to 20,000 Medi-Cal patients in their offices and in area\nhospitals. And if the plan shows a profit, it is shared by all the\nparticipating providers. If there is a deficit, it too is shared by all.\n- 4 -\nDentists\nThe advantages of such plans supervised by the health professionals\nwho deliver the services to the people include a lower cost of\noperation (we expect to save at least 10 percent in operating costs).\nAnd just as important, it helps assure the health professionals will be\npracticing their particular field of health care instead of spending\nmost of their time pushing papers and signing the endless forms that are\nso much a part of strictly government operated programs.\nWe view prepaid health plans as having a great potential for\ncreating efficient and effective health care delivery systems that can\nserve our people on a volume basis, including private and government\nsubsidized patients.\nThis kind of efficiency can be best achieved when health providers\nare free to practice their professions according to their own judgment\nand that of their peers.\nAs you might have imagined, our welfare and Medi-Cal reforms put us\non a collision course with those who believe that government should just\nrun everything and hang the cost.\nUnfortunately, that kind of reasoning is prevalent throughout our\nsociety. And it represents a threat not only to your professional\nfreedom, but to your freedom as individual citizens.\nThe reason is simple. Government's only major tools are coercion\nand force. And we have seen this in action too often not to know what\nit can mean.\nIn the private practice of a profession or operating a business, the\npenalty for inefficiency, for ignoring the needs and concerns of our\ncustomers or patients is the loss of those customers or patients to\nsomeone who is more concerned and more efficient. And that leads to\nbankruptcy. Government has no such restraints to assure a responsiveness\nto the people it is intended to serve. When government runs a deficit,\nit is the people who must pay the penalty through higher taxes.\nThat is why we, who are in government, must demand efficiency in all\nthat we do.\nThe average citizen must work five months of the year to pay his\ntotal tax obligation. During the peak spending years of World War IT,\nhe only had to work a little over three months.\n- 5 -\nDentists\nEvery time government gets bigger, the cost is passed on to the\npeople. But there is no magic correlation between higher spending and\nsolving problems. Too often, it seems that government comes up with a\nplan and then looks for a problem to fit it.\nThere is a growing mood of resentment against social tinkering,\na feeling of frustration against the whole centralized, computerized\nphilosophy of big, impersonal government.\nBusiness and the professions must become more involved in public\naffairs. You must help lead the battle for better government, for the\npreservation of the free economic system we have known in America these\npast 200 years.\nNow, I realize that you may be weary of hearing the same alarm\nsignals sounded during every election year. You might think well, we\nhave heard all this before, but somehow we have muddled through.\nthat is like the window-washer who fell from the Empire State Building.\nWhen he passed the 20th floor, he said \"So far, so good.\"\nGetting involved is part of the price for living in a free society\nwhere \"we, the people\" can vote and work for what we want in our\ngovernment.\nGovernment is too important to be left to those who are not too\nbusy---the professionals who think government has some sort of divine\nright to tell people what is good for them.\nYour own self-interest demands your participation. In the final\nanalysis, if you do not work and vote for the kind of government you\nwant; if you do not do all that you can to guard against centralized\ngovernment, that is what you will have. You will run government, or\ngovernment will run you.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n- 6 -\n11/2\nSacramento, California 95814\nNover er 3, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n11-2-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nExcerpts of Remarks by Governor Ronald Reagan\nCalifornia Highway Patrol Graduation\nSacramento\nNovember 2, 1972\nYou are joining a select group of the most dedicated and best\ntrained law enforcement officers in America. I make that statement not\nalone from observation, but from the unique personal relationship that\nis mine by virtue of this job.\nIn your training, I know that you have been imbued with the\ntraditions and history of the California Highway Patrol. I am confident\nyou appreciate the great responsibility you will be assuming when you\nreport to your duty assignments.\nYou have done more than just choose a career, With your badge,\nyou become part of society's shield. You are joining the ranks of those\nwho devote their lives to protecting their fellow citizens against\nlawlessness and yes, against their own folly.\nRecently, I had the privilege of appointing the first career\nofficer ever to be named Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol.\nWalt Pudinski has only been on the job a few months, but he has already\ndemonstrated the qualities of leadership we have come to expect from the\nofficers and men of the CHP.\nIt is Walt's belief, and one that I share, that protecting the\npublic is best accomplished through what he calls preventive law\nenforcement.\nThat is why he is stressing his campaign of on-the-road traffic\npatrol. The whole idea of traffic law enforcement is to prevent accidents\nand in this regard I believe California has become a model for the nation.\nAlthough we have more cars and more drivers on the roads, our\ntraffic fatality rate last year declined again--thanks in great measure\nto the fine work of the California Highway Patrol.\nWe know that for you to do your job effectively, you need the support\nnot only of the public in general, but of those of us in Sacramento.\nAnd it has been a priority goal of our administration to give you the\nlegal tools you need.\nJust three years ago, after many years of trying to get such a law,\nwe managed to secure passage of the so-called \"presumptive limits\" law\nto combat drunk driving.\n1 I I\nCHP\nBetween 1969, the year it went on the books, and 1971, the number\nof fatal accidents involving a drinking driver in areas of your\njurisdiction declined by 32 percent. During that same period, your\nfellow officers increased their number of arrests for drunk driving by\n41 percent.\nWe rely on statistics of this kind to measure our effectiveness in\nmany ways, but numbers cannot begin to tell the human tragedy, the\nsenseless waste of life, that this increased traffic enforcement has\nhelped prevent.\nSaving even one life would make the effort worth while. Saving\nmany lives makes it an accomplishment in which we can all take pride\nparticularly those of you who have the task of carrying out our traff\nsafety programs.\nIt is a curious irony of our time that during an era in which cr.\nhas become one of our major national concerns, there are those who not\nonly lack appreciation or even, it often seems, a minimum of sympathy\nfor the fight our law enforcement officers are waging against crime.\nLet me assure you this is not the attitude of the great majority\nE\nour people or the viewpoint of most of us in Sacramento. We are\ndetermined to do all that we can to give you the legal tools to carry\nout your jobs and the protection that society owes those who defend it\nagainst the lawless. Unfortunately, there are those who seem more\nconcerned with the criminals than the victims. Theirs is a strange\ndistortion of values.\nThey would eliminate crime by legalizing things that are now\nagainst the law.\nWe have an example of this on the November ballot, the initiative\nthat would legalize marijuana. I do not have to tell you of the tragedy,\nthe great threat that drug abuse has become in our society.\nDrug abuse is responsible for a great part of the crime in our\nsociety today. But one of the greatest crimes of all is that of the\npusher the callous and ruthless criminals who seek to profit from\nhuman misery and tragedy.\nI am confident the people of California will have the good sense to\ndeliver an emphatic \"no\" on this effort to legitimize something that\nhas caused so much tragedy for our young people.\n- 2\nCHP\nThere is another measure on the ballot involving law enforcement\nthat I hope will be passed Proposition 17 which would restore the\nlegislature's right to provide for capital punishment. Within the past\nfew days, I have heard some of the leading opponents of this measure\nchallenging with all the old arguments the right of society to take the\nlife of the deliberate, cold-blooded killer. They say to do so will\nbrutalize society. Well I think perhaps society was brutalized a little\nin these past five years when 17 CHP officers gave their lives in the\nline of duty.\nYet rarely have we witnessed any great expressions of protest\ndirected against these brutal crimes. In the arguments raised against\ncapital punishment, we have heard it said that restoring the death\npenalty will not help the victims of past crimes. Tragically, that is\ntrue, but it misses the essential point---capital punishment can help\ndeter such crimes in the future.\nWe believe it is essential that the public provide this ultimate\ndeterrence to help protect the law enforcement officers who risk their\nlives every day maintaining the public's safety.\nThere may come a day when evil will be banished from the hearts\nof men, and we can abolish some of the laws that help protect society\nagainst the violent acts of the law-breaker. We all hope that time\nwill come. But while there is a threat of death to any citizen from\nthose who would kill and rob and terrorize, society must have the right\nto protect itself.\nNo one knows this better than your colleagues in all law enforcement\nagencies. And yet, with your commitment to a law enforcement career,\nI know you also realize, as we do, that justice must always be tempered\nwith compassion.\nWe must always be ready to rehabilitate the wayward and misguided\nfirst offender, the youngsters who can be saved. As I recently told a\nconven of the legal profession, that is one of the purposes of the\ndrug abuse control program we have been trying to enact this year.\nWe hope to greatly expand our educational efforts against drug\nabuse, relying on the compassion and constructive programs that can best\nbe carried out at the local level, through the concern and sympathy of\none concerned human being for another. Our program includes such an\neffort.\n- 3 -\nCHP\nIt also allows our legal system to provide a way to rehabilitate\nthe casual drug offenders before they become a hopeless social outcast-\nbefore drug addiction can lead them into greater crimes.\nAnd along with this, we are constantly seeking ways to root out the\npushers and those who supply the drugs that have become such a massive\nthreat to our young people.\nIn carrying out your duties, I know there will probably be many\ntimes when you will wonder whether your sacrifice, your efforts are\nworth it. You will undoubtedly see many examples not only of man's\npotential for cruelty and callousness toward his fellow man, but you\nwill also see symptoms of man's capacity to harm himself and others\nthrough his own negligence or lack of concern. And you will learn to\nsay \"it is just part of the job, but you will never be able to feel\nthat way down deep inside.\nIn man's long struggle to create a society in which there is no\nevil, we have had setbacks and disappointments. Despite our yearning\nfor peace, we have been plagued by war. Crime continues as a major\nproblem no matter how great the affluence of society or how many social\nprograms are enacted to combat it.\nBut through it all, we keep trying. And to me, that is one of the\ngreatest tributes that can be paid to the profession you have chosen\nwhatever the problems or handicaps, our law enforcement people never\nshrink from their appointed duty.\nIt is their job to be concerned, and in carrying it out, they\ndemonstrate every day of their lives that they are truly concerned.\nGood luck and best wishes.\n#####\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes. )\n- 4 -\n11/3\nas\nos.\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RON ,D REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nI\nediate\nSacramento, California 95814\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n11-3-72\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nREVENUE SHARING SEMINAR\nAIRPORT MARINA HOTEL, SAN FRANCISCO\nNovember 3, 1972\nWelcome to California. This has to be a unique experience for most\nof us. It is for me. This is one of the few times I have ever met with\nsomeone from Washington who wanted to give back some tax money without\nasking us to match it.\nThe principal speakers at our meeting today and the other\ndistinguished representatives of the Treasury Department are giving us\nthe details on revenue sharing. So I will not try to compete with the\nexperts. Actually, I am here to learn more about the mechanics of the\nprogram, just as you are.\nBut I would like to use my few brief moments with you today to\ndiscuss the concept and the philosophy of revenue sharing. Cap Weinberger\nwho used to be our finance director before he was lured away to become\ndirector of the office of management and budget, made a point about this\na few days ago at a similar meeting in Denver. He said the administration\nOES not believe Washington has all the answers, that only Washington has\nthe wisdom to decide how to use the taxpayers' money wisely and\neffectively.\nThe philosophy behind revenue sharing is that government can be most\nresponsive when it is closest to the people--that the states and the\ncounties and cities have a far better grasp of their own problems than\nWashington.\nRevenue Sharing is intended as a means of helping the states and\nlocal governments meet those problems.\nWhatever level of government we represent, we have all had the\nproblem in recent years of increased demands and rising costs for services.\nNot too many years ago and well within the lifetime of almost everyone\nin this room, the tax dollar was divided in such a way that local\novernment received the biggest share; the states were second; and the\nfederal government took the smallest part. And that is the period most\nof us refer to as \"the good old days.\"\n- 1 -\nRevenue Sharing\nI believe our experience in California may be somewhat similar to\nthat of other states. We have known for sometime that the property tax\nhas grown to an intolerable level. It has become too great a burden on\nthe homeowner and yet, this is the tax that traditionally has financed\na great part of most local services, including local schools.\nThe court opinion which declared that there has been too great a\nreliance on the property tax to finance schools was not a great revelation\nto us. We have been trying to reduce the homeowner's property tax for a\nnumber of years while at the same time providing increased state\nfinancial aid to our schools.\nI am sure all of this is familiar to those of you in other states.\nBut we in California have a situation that is not widespread. About\n18 months ago we launched a massive effort to reform welfare and bring\nthe costs of welfare and medicaid (Medi-Cal) under control. This went\nalong with a pretty successful program to produce economy and efficiency\nin all state operations.\nThe combination of these welfare reforms, tight budgeting and the\nimproved economy has produced a unique situation. We expect a budget\nsurplus.\nSo along with our share of the revenue sharing funds, we have some\nadditional resources with which to solve the two most chronic problems\nwe have been facing additional school aid and providing comprehensive\nhomeowner property tax relief.\nCalifornia will receive some $230 million or so in revenue sharing\nmoney the first year and a little over $200 million thereafter.\nWe are recommending that we use these funds along with other\nrevenues in a combined package-- to provide greater assistance to low\nwealth school districts and to give homeowners a substantial property\ntax reduction.\nIt will be part of a major school finance and homeowner tax relief\nprogram we will be submitting to the legislature and later to the peor\nin a statewide referendum. The whole thrust of the program is to provide\nmore aid for public schools, to simplify our outmoded school aid formula\nand to provide major property tax relief for homeowners. We want to lift\nsome of the burden of financing schools off the backs of the homeowner\nand shift a greater part of school financing to other sources. Revenue\nsharing is one of these.\nRevenue Sharing\nIt has also been a philosophy of our administration to return to\nthe people any tax revenue that is not needed. In 1970, we had a\nsurplus and returned this in a 10 percent rebate for every state income\ntaxpayer. This year, when we shifted to the withholding method of\ncollecting state income taxes, there was a so-called \"windfall\" of one-\ntime revenue and we returned this to the people as a one-time 20 percent\ntax credit or rebate on state income taxes.\nAs a result of our welfare reforms and the other economies and\nefficiencies, we have been able to produce a projected ongoing surplus.\nAnd we propose to give this back, too through a permanent, 10 percent\ncut in our state income taxes.\nI mentioned this to point out what I believe should be the guiding\nphilosophy on how best to use the revenue sharing money you will be\ngetting.\nRevenue sharing should not become a relatively painless way to\nlaunch and finance more government programs. Nor should it be an excuse\nto avoid or delay the kind of ongoing efficiency and economy that we\nmust have to hold down the cost of government at all levels.\nOur goal could well be to eventually demonstrate to Congress that\nwe can be trusted with the return of some of the sources of tax revenue.\nIf we accept the return of a share of the federal tax without making an\ndifort to take over some of the tasks now being performed by the federal\ngovernment, taxes will go up, government will increase in size, and we\nwill be worse off, not better. There is no way we can get back the full\nvalue of a dollar we first send to Washington. A certain charge for\noverhead and travel is deducted before it finds its way back.\nThis first venture into \"no strings\" sharing is our chance to prove\nour ability. Let us make it a two-way street. Let us use it wisely,\nand as time goes by, point out functions of government we are willing to\ntake off their hands at less cost to the people.\nThose tax dollars we are sharing have only one point of origin\nthe citizen\"s pocket he would appreciate a lighter touch from all of us.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes, )\n- 3 -\n-\n51/11\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR BONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE:\nEDNESDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, Califor 1 95814\nvember 15, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n11-14-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nCOUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA 78TH ANNUAL MEETING\nPALM SPRINGS, NOVEMBER 15\nThe first step in any reform is recognizing that it is needed. If\nthat is true, we have every reason to be optimistic that we can stream-\nline the government structure of California because most of us have\nalready crossed the first hurdle.\nThe fact that you are devoting almost your entire meeting this year\nto the subject of updating county government is especially encouraging.\nWe have been thinking along the same lines in Sacramento and I would\nlike to congratulate you for moving forward with the new commission that\nwill be looking into this subject.\nBefore I get to the main point of my remarks and how we might work\ntogether to achieve our joint objectives, I would like to briefly review\nwhy the idea of governmental reform is important. I realize that most of\nyou are thoroughly familiar with this background. But when you are\nproposing a solution, there is no better place to start than to outline\nthe problem.\nThe kind of local governmental structure we have in California is\nrooted deep in America's history. The basic framework began developing\nabout the same time we first realized the dream of self-government.\nThe idea of having school districts to provide for the education of\nour young people was first sketched by Thomas Jefferson almost 200 years\nago.\nLocal self-rule has been a basic principle in our philosophy of\ngovernment ever since. Indeed, it set the pattern for the governmental\nstructure we have today.\nAmericans have been an innovative people, in government as well as\nother fields. When there was a problem to be solved, we developed a unit\nof government to deal with it when it involved our joint interests.\nIn California and other states, the pattern of county governments\ndeveloped along very logical lines, County boundaries were formed so\nthat the seat of government was no more than a day's ride by horse from\nits outermost limits to the county seat, which usually turned out to be\nthe nearest and most heavily populated settlement, Today we live in a\ntime where no citizen of California is more than a day's journey by jet\nto almost any spot in the world.\n- 1 -\nCounty Supervisors\nIt has been 65 years since Imperial County was formed out of a\nsection of San Diego County. But that was the last major county boundary\nchange in California. In those 3½½ generations, our population has\nincreased tenfold and our state has been transformed from a largely\nagricultural society to a society and an economy dominated by the world's\nmost sophisticated technology.\nSome of our counties are bigger in area than most states and even\nsome countries. And in population, some are no bigger than a city\nblock that includes a large apartment complex.\nYet the basic governmental structure of all our 58 counties is\nessentially the same. Los Angeles County, with more than seven million\npeople, has the same number of elected supervisors (5) as Alpine County,\nwhich has fewer than 600 people.\nLet me hasten to assure you that I am not suggesting at this point\nthat there should be more or fewer supervisors for either Los Angeles or\nAlpine. But I do say it is not unreasonable for us to take a long look\nat county government and find out whether it might be desirable to make\nsome constructive changes.\nWhen California was admitted to statehood, we started out with 27\ncounties. But we later found it appropriate to expand that to 58.\nIn trying to meet the needs of our people, Californians have never\nbeen totally committed to rigid ideas on either numbers or organizational\nstructures. We have been concerned primarily with getting the job done;\nsolving the problems that needed to be solved.\nWhen people settled in new areas and needed a steady and sanitary\nwater supply, they organized special districts to provide this service.\nWhen they needed fire protection in a remote area, people got together\nand organized a unit of government to offer this service.\nFor many years, this pattern of developing government served us\nexceedingly well. It allowed the state to accommodate to a tremendous\ngrowth in population, to meet the needs of people for transportation,\neducation, and all the other public services required in a community or\na specific area.\nEach layer of government added in California was established for a\npurpose. Yet in solving the special problems for which they were created\nthe sheer proliferation of school districts, new towns, cities and special\npurpose districts created a maze of government that has become almost\nincomprehensible to the average citizen. In terms of accountability for\nits responsibilities, it is almost an invisible layer of government to\nall except those who must try to make the whole structure work\nefficiently.\n- 2 -\nCounty Supervisors\nToday, California has some 5800 units of government below the state\nlevel, including 58 counties, 407 incorporated cities, more than 1100\nschool districts and almost 4200 special districts performing one or more\nservices for the people. In the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area alone\nthere are more than 800 separate taxing jurisdictions, each with a\nresponsibility for a specific service and each authorized to levy taxes\nto support its operations. There are 9 counties, 91 cities, 447 special\npurpose districts, 208 school districts and 65 special taxing districts.\nNot counting federal and state spending in those areas, these units of\ngovernment last year spent almost a billion dollars.\nReciting those numbers does not give you the slightest idea of what\nall these layers of government mean to the average citizen, But perhaps\nan illustration will. Someone who lives in Concord, for example, and\ncommutes to San Francisco to get to work travels about 30 miles---just\nabout the distance our grandfathers had to ride to get to the county seat.\nIn that daily trip, this commuter passes through 121 governmental units\nwhich levy property taxes, including nine cities, five water districts,\nnine school districts, seven fire protection districts, along with\nscores of other governmental units involved in providing everything from\nhospitals and mosquito abatement to transit service, parks and\nrecreational services, and even a cemetery district.\nThe average citizen who makes that journey probably is not even\naware of all these different units of government. The only time he gets\na first hand knowledge of their existence is when he has a complaint\nabout service or more likely, when he receives his property tax bill.\nWhen they are looking at that long list of governmental units their\ntax dollars support, many citizens must wonder whether they are getting\ntheir money's worth, and whether all these different levels of government\nare really necessary.\nYou have obviously had the same thoughts because your association is\nlooking at your own level of government to see if there is nct a better,\nperhaps a more efficient way.\nAs most of you know by now, streamlining local government is high on\nour list of priorities. For several months, Lieutenant Governor Ed\nReinecke has headed a sort of informal group making preliminary plans\nfor a major program of local government reform and modernization. On\nMonday, that informal study group became officially operational. It\nreceived a title and an awesome responsibility. It is called the Local\nGovernment Reform Project.\nI I w\nCounty Supervisors\nThe goal is to produce the most comprehensive examination of all\nlevels of local government ever undertaken in California; to find out\nthe strengths and weaknesses of our present structure of government\nand to make recommendations that will build on the strengths and\neliminate the weaknesses.\nOur objective is to streamline and modernize California's total\nstructure of local government to make it:\n-more responsive and effective in meeting the needs of the people\nmore efficient in operations, and\n--better equipped to provide the services our people need at the\nleast possible cost.\nFive major components are involved in the program.\n1)\nLieutenant Governor Reinecke is heading a steering committee\nthat includes key members of the state administration. This committee\nwill have the overall responsibility for supervising the activities of\nthe Local Government Reform Project and coordinating the work of all the\nsub-groups associated with it.\n/\n2) There will be a full-time Task Force of six staff specialists\nto provide the necessary technical and administrative skills. These will\ninclude outstanding experts experienced in such fields as public\nadministration, management and public finance. This task force will be\nthe operational nucleus of the overall project.\n2) So that we may have the benefit of the widest possible range of\nknowledge and experience in drafting a workable reform program, there\nalso will be an advisory group. We have not yet decided on its exact\nsize but the group will include representatives of all areas of local\ngovernment, including county supervisors, city council representatives,\nmembers from special districts, along with members who will represent\nthe private citizens of California.\n4)\nWorking directly with the task force will be a number of\nspecial task groups made up of both citizens and public officials.\nThese groups will look into various areas that will be covered in\nanalyzing the whole structure of local government. Their work will\nprovide the information we need to make practical recommendations for\norganizational improvements and reforms.\n- 4 -\nCounty Supervisors\n5) Obviously, in an undertaking of this magnitude, we want to hear\nfrom the people of California, to get their ideas, their suggestions and\ntheir recommendations. And we also want to assure that each level of\ngovernment has an opportunity to participate in developing the final\nprogram, in shaping the kind of local government structure that will\nbest serve the people of California.\nThe responsibility for coordinating and developing this part of the\nproject has been assigned to the Council on Intergovernmental Relations,\nwhich has already done some preliminary work in this area.\nIt will hold a series of public hearings throughout the state to\nreceive comments and proposals from local officials, citizens groups\nand from the public at large. The first of these meetings was held a\n/California\nmonth ago with the League of Cities. The second will be held this\nafternoon as part of your own program.\nThis council, composed of representatives from every level of\ngovernment in California, will insure that every level of government will\nbe able to present its viewpoint and suggestions.\nAside from serving as an advisory group to the executive branch,\nit administers grants to local governments through contract with the\nfederal government. And it serves now as a clearinghouse for information\nabout grants and the relationships between different levels of government.\nBecause of this, it is uniquely equipped to provide a means of\ncitizen participation in the decisions to be made---as well as assuring\nanother effective voice for local government in the reforms that will\nbe recommended.\nThe operational Task Force will concern itself with every aspect of\nlocal government in California. It may take up to a year to complete\nthe entire project, but we hope part of the work can be done sooner than\nthat.\nWe are starting with five major subject areas:\nAnalysis of current governmental structure\n1) The first involves a thorough analysis of the current structure\nof local government, from the multi-county level to the smallest special\ndistricts. This will include taking a comprehensive look at what local\ngovernment is now and what it should be; what problems the different\nlevels of government now have in trying to meet their responsibilities,\nand what problems to expect in the different alternatives that might be\nproposed.\n- 5 -\nCounty Supervisors\nAssignment of public service responsibilities\n2)\nThe second major subject area will be to determine the proper\nassignment of public service responsibilities. What level of government\nis best equipped to provide fire protection, public safety and all the\nother essential public services.\nAllocation of fiscal resources\n3) A third, and critically important part of the project will be\na task group survey and analysis of the fiscal operations of local\ngovernment how best to allocate all revenues. This will include an\ninventory of the main sources of revenue available to local government\nand whether alternate sources might better serve both the public and the\nfinancial needs of the districts providing the various services. Some\nspecial districts, for example, derive a large part of their operational\nincome from fees water service fees, garbage collection fees, an\nsimilar service charges. Other districts rely more heavily on financial\nsupport from the property tax. We want to look at the total revenue\npicture and find the fairest and most effective way of providing\nessential public services with a minimum of reliance on the already\nover-burdened homeowner and property taxpayer.\nMy own leaning has always been to apply a fee for service to as\ngreat a degree as possible.\nof course, we know this is not possible in all cases. Fire and\npolice protection are services that cannot be pro-rated in the same way\nas garbage collection. But we must make an effort to identify those\nservices that can be geared to financial self-sufficiency.\nRight now we are trying at the state level to substantially reduce\nhomeowner property taxes. But if we are to take part of the financial\nload off the homeowner's back, we must find new ways of keeping local\ngovernment costs from constantly adding new financial burdens on the\nproperty tax and the homeowners who pay them.\nThis part of the project will involve assembling information on\nwhich levels of government collect what taxes; how these taxes are spent\nand for what\nand most important, we hope it will determine whether the\ntaxpayer is getting his money's worth, and if not, why not? Is there\na possibility of reducing taxes by eliminating duplication and overlapping\nservices and unnecessary administrative costs? If there is, we want to\nknow how.\n- 6 -\nCounty Supervisors\nCounty geographic boundaries\n4)\nThe fourth major task group will have the responsibility of\nlooking at the geographic boundaries of California's 58 counties to see\nif constructive changes might provide better government at less cost.\nWe hope our specialists can work closely with your own commission in\ntrying to come up with sensible and workable suggestions for reform.\nOne of the things that should be considered is to determine at what point\npopulation or geographic area affects the quality and the cost of\nessential public services. Are some counties too big or too small? Is\nthere an ideal population level that should become a basic size in\ndeveloping new and more effective units of government?\nShould we take a look at some of our counties that are larger\ngeographically than most states and see whether a smaller county might\nnot be more effective and responsive to the needs of the people?\nState-local government relationship\n5) The fifth major task group will look into the relationship\nbetween the state and all the local governments with which it must deal.\nEach year the legislature considers four to five thousand bills. Many\nof them involve local government. Frankly, I sign a h--1 of a lot of\nbills that do not improve the quality of life in California one iota,\nand no one would miss them if they got lost on the way to the printer.\nIs it a proper function of state government to tell a municipal court\nhow many clerks or court reporters it should have and what their salaries\nshould be? Right now the legislature has that responsibility.\nShould the state be making simple administrative changes in\nprocedure involving technical matters that concern only one local unit\nof government?\nI think we might serve the public better if local government is\ngiven both the responsibility and the authority to make decisions that\ninvolve its own operations.\nFinally, as part of this study into state and local government\nrelations, we want to take a good, long look at a matter that I know\nis close to your hearts.\nWhatever shape this reform takes, we want to quarantee that the\nstate government does not mandate new or expanded programs and\nresponsibilities on local government without providing the money to\npay for them.\n- 7 -\nCounty Supervisors\nBecause of the multi-layer of government that has developed in\nmost social services, this matter of mandating costs from one level of\ngovernment down is a chronic and a serious problem. I know many of you\nhave felt that the state has done this far too many times in the past.\nWe have more than a little experience with the federal government\nmandating welfare and other costs on the state and ultimately, on the\ncounties. And we are determined to do something about it.\nIn our various tax reform proposals, a key provision has been that\nthe state must pay for any new or expanded services that counties are\nrequired to administer. Ending mandated costs should improve state and\nlocal relations.\nRight now, to many of our citizens, the relationship between the\ndifferent levels of government often appears to be simply a competitive\nexercise in passing the buck. They have a vital stake in changing this,\nin making government accountable because the bucks that count come out\nof their pockets.\nI hope I have been able to impress upon you the guiding philosophy\nbehind the whole project. We are going into this with absolutely no\npre-conceived ideas of what the final reform proposals will be. No\nsolution, no suggestion is too drastic or too innovative to ignore. If\nanyone comes up with a creative idea, we want to consider it, whether it\nfiles into the way we have always done things or not. Only one thing we\nknow for sure, we do not intend to add more layers of government.\nThis will not be a reform that will be dreamed up by anonymous\nconsultants, thrown into the legislative hopper and imposed from the\nstate level. We want to involve everyone who can help produce a workable\nblueprint for the governmental structure we will have for the rest of\nthis century and beyond. We may want to implement any major changes in\nwell-planned phases.\nQuite likely, some constitutional amendments may be required. We\ndo not view that as an obstacle. Our people should have not only a vo\nbut a vote in determining the kind of government they want.\nOur main concern is results. California is a big state the\nlargest in the nation. You have often heard me say that if we were a\nseparate nation, we would have the seventh largest economy in the world.\nWell, that also applies to some of our local areas, too.\n- 8 -\nCounty Supervisors\nThe Los Angeles Basin has more people than Sweden or Austria.\nAlmost as many people live in our five southern counties as on the\nentire continent of Australia.\nCalifornians live in a tremendous variety of urban clusters,\nsparsely-populated mountain areas and large agricultural areas dotted\nwith smaller towns and farms.\nOur economy is one of the most diversified in the world. It ranges\nfrom family farms to rocketry; from fishing operations similar to what\nour ancestors knew to vast satellite communications facilities; from\none-man workshops sharpening garden tools to massive scientific\ncomplexes designed to ferry man into outer space and back again.\nA state with so much of America's advanced technical resources and\nsuch a diversified way of life should not be saddled with a horse-and-\nbuggy system of local government that just might be costing more than it\nshould.\nOur reforms should not be limited to what might be politically\nexpedient. Our goal should be to build a structure of local government\nthat meets the needs of our people at a cost they can afford.\nA couple of weeks ago, at a seminar on revenue sharing, I reminded\nthe various state and local officials attending that there was a time\nand not too long ago either---when local government received the largest\nshare of tax revenue. The states got less and the federal government\nhad the smallest portion of all. You and I know that ratio has long\nsince been reversed.\nLocal government received the largest share of the tax revenue\nbecause that level of government provided services directly to the people.\nAnd the people held government accountable because they knew who was\nspending their tax money and for what. When they had a complaint, they\nwent to the courthouse or city hall.\nThe services people receive from government have not changed---only\nthe level of government that collects the money has changed drastically.\nWith every additional dollar that goes to Washington, government becomes\nmore remote and less and less responsive to the people.\nPeople do not live at the federal level. They live, work, attend\nschool, and play at the local level; in cities, towns, rural areas. This\nis where they should have their most frequent contact with government.\n- 9 -\nCounty Supervisors\nTo be responsive, local government must have sufficient financial\nresources to provide the services people demand and need. That is why,\nwith every responsibility we assign to a particular level of government,\nwe must also provide a means of financing to provide that particular\nservice.\nThat way, if something is not being done properly or at all, peop\nwill use their votes and their protests to make government accountable\nfor its action or lack of action.\nBut if they do not even know the different layers of government and\nwhat each is supposed to be doing, they cannot protest or vote\nintelligently. Maybe some politicans like it that way, but most do not\nnot if we are worth our salt.\nWhen I first mentioned this idea of reforming government, I called\nit a dream, a model of governmental efficiency and economy that would\ngive every citizen an opportunity to know just what government does fo\nhim and just how much he must pay to get those benefits. Some may say\nthis is unrealistic, a goal impossible to achieve.\nWell, standing on the moon was once an impossible dream. But it\nhas been done, not once, but many times, and many of the people who\nhelped us realize that dream live and work in our state.\nI believe Californians can develop a modern, efficient government\na government that is visible, responsive, and efficient in meeting the\nchanging needs of our people.\nThat is the purpose of our Local Government Reform Project. With\nyour help, that dream can come true.\n######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\nor additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)\n- 10 -\n12/11\nOFFICE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nRELEASE: MONDAY P.Ms.\nSacramento, California 95814\nDecember 11, 1972\nEd Gray, Press Secretary\n916-445-4571\n12-11-72\nPLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE\nRELEASE\nEXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nAMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION\nLos Angeles\nDecember 11, 1972\nWe are meeting here today at a time when our country and your\nindustry are entering an era of great opportunity, a time when sweeping\nchanges on the international scene are creating a vast new market\npotential for the food and fiber America produces.\nIn California, we are determined to make the most of that opportunity.\nAlmost one out of every four jobs in California is in agriculture or a\nrelated industry. The combined output of all the various elements of\nAgri-Business represents 16 billion dollars a year, almost 12 percent\nof our total gross product.\nWe may not be the bread basket of the nation but we supply about\n40 percent of America's fresh fruit and nuts and table vegetables.\nI have just returned from speaking to a meeting of industrialists\nabout the increasing tendency of government to get into things not really\nits business. You have had government as a partner for quite a while\nnow. And while government has many functions which are its proper\nprovince, you know all too well that when government uses its coercive\npower to intervene in the free market place, agriculture can discover it\nhas something worse to contend with than the corn bore or the boll weevil.\nThose who believe government has an ordained duty to be a senior\npartner in every economic enterprise labor under the false belief that\nthe only good government is big government; that only through direction\nand control from Washington can we realize prosperity and economic\nstability. They have no faith in our competitive market system- despite\nthe undeniable fact that it is this very freedom that has given our people\nthe highest standard of living in the world.\nYou deserve a great share of the credit for this higher standard of\nliving. You have consistently produced a stable food supply that includes\na greater variety of foods at lower cost than any other society in the\nworld. You have performed something of a technological miracle. No\nindustry in the world can match your increase in man hour productivity.\n- 1 -\n(\nFarm Bureau\nWe hear a lot about inflation and the higher cost of food. But\nthose who try to cast you as the villains are pointing a finger in the\nwrong direction.\nInstead of being a cause of inflation, the farmer is the biggest\nvictim of inflation, caught in the worst cost-price squeeze of any\nindustry in America.\nTwenty years ago, the average American family spent about 23 percent\nof its income for food and farmers received almost half of the consumer\nfood dollar. Today, the average family spends only 16 percent of its\nincome for food and the farmer's share of that food dollar has dropped\nto 38 percent.\nSure, there has been an increase in food prices. But agriculture\nis holding the line against inflation far more effectively than almost\n/\nany other segment of the economy. In the last 20 years, food prices\nhave gone up 44 percent, but housing costs are up 60 percent,\ntransportation 64 percent, and medical care more than 100 percent.\nAnd your customers' wages have gone up 136 percent.\nThose people who cry doom and demand that government do something\nshould look at how our free agricultural system benefits the consumer,\nand then look at what things are like in those other countries where\nvigid controls and market coercion plague agriculture.\nWhile the average American family spends only 16 percent of its\nincome for food, the average family in Britain spends 26 percent. It is\n28 percent in West Germany, 40 percent in Japan, and in the Soviet Union,\nthe average family spends a full 50 percent of its income in food.\nGovernment itself has been the biggest single cause of inflation,\nthrough deficit spending, and because government, year in and year out\nhas been consuming a bigger and bigger share of the national income\nthrough higher and higher taxes. The typical citizen must work longer\nto pay his family's taxes than he does to pay for their food, shelter,\nand clothing combined. We work from January until sometime in May\njust to pay our taxes.\nThe President has asked for a limit on federal spending and Congress\nacts as if he wants to blow up the Statue of Liberty. Well, you and I\nhad better make Congress understand that we want that limit, too, and\nlike yesterday. It is later than we think.\n- 2 -\nFarm Bureau\nWhen the recent wheat trade with Russia was being reported in the\nnews media, I read an article which mentioned that America's climate\ngives us an advantage over the Soviet Union in producing food. Well,\nwe do have better growing conditions. But the greatest advantage the\nAmerican farmer has over his Soviet counterpart is not the weather; it\nis the climáte of freedom in this country. Despite all of government's\nintervention into agriculture, ours is still a basically free economic\nsystem and this freedom has enabled our country to out-produce the\nworld in almost every area of economic endeavor, even though we have\nonly 6 percent of the world's population and 7 percent of the land area.\nIn fact, operating within a competitive enterprise system, America\nis one of the very few countries in the world producing more food than\nit needs.\nDuring World War II and the years just after that, America's\nproductive capacity in agriculture became the wonder of the world. Our\nfarmers grew enough food for our own people and a surplus that helped\nwin a war and feed a hungry world while it was recovering from that war.\nThis abundance was made possible by your hard work and productive genius.\nYou were able to grow food with less manpower, at lower cost faster\nthan government experts could dream up ways to discourage you.\nDuring the post war years when the rest of the world recovered\neconomically and became vigorous competitors in many industrial products,\nour food surpluses suddenly became an embarrassment of riches. But\ntoday, we are approaching an era when our food surpluses will not be a\nproblem. They are becoming one of our most important national assets in\nhelping America put its economic house in order following the inflationary\nyears of the Vietnam War.\nIn the past decade, America's balance of trade deficits have become\na matter of critical national concern. Last year was the worse such\ntrade deficit since 1893. Yet even in those countries which can and do\ncompete vigorously in manufactured goods and industrial products, there\nis a growing demand for food which they cannot produce in sufficient\nquantity.\nWhile our share of the world's export markets in manufactured goods\nhas been declining, our agricultural exports are growing tremendously.\nOne out of every four harvested acres in the United States produces\nfood for export More than $7.6 billion of our $17 billion farm output\nwent to the export market last year and it represented 18 percent of\nAmerica's total exports. This year, California's exports will total\nabout $592 million, a 15 percent increase in a single year.\n3\nFarm Bureau\nAnd the greatest growth is in those areas of agriculture which are\ntotally free of government controls and subsidies. Like farmers\nthroughout America, California farm producers have helped generate\noverseas markets through their own privately financed promotions.\nThe almond industry is a good example of creative enterprise at\nwork to build new markets for agriculture. Ten years ago, the\ncooperative that markets 70 percent of California's almond crop exported\nless than one-sixth of its total production. This year, it is half.\nThose who like to say California is a good place to be if you are an\norange will be delighted, I'm sure, to know that now we have more acres\nin almonds (254,000) than we do in oranges (224,000).\nWhatever happens in other areas of competition, agricultural\nexports offer America a tremendous opportunity to reverse the trade\ndeficits of recent years. Japan, South Korea and the other major nation:\nof the Pacific Basin are unlikely in our lifetime to become totally\nself-sufficient in food. And we have an opportunity to capture an even\ngreater share of the agricultural market in certain products in Western\nEurope, without even considering the possibilities of increased\ncommercial contact with countries outside the Free World.\nThis can mean greater opportunity for all our citizens. Every\nNitional $100 million dollars worth of grain exported this year, for\naple, means between 3,000 and 5,000 jobs in agriculture and in other\n.dustries which are affected by agricultural exports.\nThat is why we in California and farmers from every state have a\nvital stake in the President's current efforts to lower tariff barriers\nin world commerce. The productive interchange of goods and products\ncan mean prosperity for everyone. In the past, America has been a\ngenerous benefactor and an indulgent trading partner. We have opened\nour markets to the goods and products of other nations, but too many of\nthe nations we trade with discriminated against our products, Now we\nare asking that they pay more than lip-service to the principle of free\ntrade. And I think we must be ready to demand equal treatment in world\ntrade, especially for those American agricultural products that can be\npriced out of the marketplace by unreasonable and excessive tariff\nbarriers.\nIf these artificial financial barriers are removed, we need have nc\nworry about our ability to compete in world markets. No country in the\nworld can match the variety, the quality and the sheer productive\ncapacity of America's agricultural industry.\nFarm Bureau\nBut it will take more than an expansion of export markets. There\nis the matter of economic stability. And right now that *is a problem\nfor agriculture.\nFarmers and ranchers throughout America are confronted by new\nthreats to their industry, their ability to compete economically, and\nyes, even their survival.\nAgriculture is uniquely vulnerable to a strike or the secondary\nboycott. A farm is not like a factory. A strike at harvest time or a\nsecondary boycott (which by the way is illegal) does not just shut down\noperations for a few days or even weeks. It can wipe out a whole year's\ncrop and put the farmer permanently out of business.\nWhen that happens, everybody loses.\nThe farm workers lose their jobs permanently. And the innocent\nbystander the American consumer is hurt by artificial shortages that\ncan mean higher and higher food prices.\nFirst of all, there is a great immorality in allowing crops to rot\nin the fields in this hungry world.\nThe well-publicized \"lettuce boycott\" you have heard about is the\nkind of situation that emphasizes the need for effective farm labor\nrelations legislation. It is not a question of labor's right to organize.\nMore than 80 percent of California's lettuce crop already is produced by\nunion workers. About 70 percent of them are affiliated with the Teamsters\nUnion, with pay and working conditions equal or better than almost any\nother workers in agriculture. And it is significant that the Teamsters\nare not participating in the lettuce boycott.\nThe other union, the United Farm Workers, representing only about\n10 percent of the lettuce workers, demands the right to represent farm\nworkers, but is unwilling to put its case before the workers in an\nelection where they are free to make their own choice by secret ballot.\nThe only way to assure the rights of all parties is to enact a fair\nand workable farm labor relations law. We intend to continue seeking such\n1\nlaw in California.\nBut because this also is a problem faced by every other state, I\nbelieve it is a situation that ultimately must be resolved through\nfederal legislation that is fair to the farmer, fair to the farm workers\nand which recognizes agriculture's unique place in America's economy; its\nvital role in producing the food and fiber our people need. For one state\nalone to do this, there is a problem of making that state's farmers\nnon-competitive.\nFarm Bureau\nAgriculture, along with every other area of economic activity, is\nvitally affected by government action or lack of action in many other\nareas.\nProperty taxes, for example, are not merely an intolerable burden\nfor our homeowners. High property taxes are literally driving farmers\noff the land.\nIn California, we are trying to change this, to ease the property\ntax burden of both homeowners and farmers by rolling back local property\ntaxes through a comprehensive program that will provide permanent relief.\nWe are going to use our revenue sharing funds for this purpose in\nan overall reform program that will shift part of the cost of supporting\nschools to broader-based taxes.\nWhile this is an immediate and urgent goal, we know that the only\nway to permanently get government off the backs of the property owners\nis to reduce government spending, to seek economy and efficiency at every\nlevel of government. The President has urged such a course on Congress\nand again the response was an override of nine vetoes.\nWhen you are trying to reform an obviously intolerable situation,\nit sometimes takes more time than you would like. But it can be done.\nWe found this out here in California. You have probably heard rumors\nsome changes we made in California's welfare program. It was\nin cost three times as fast as our revenues, and was riddled\nabuses that permitted people who did not really qualify to receive\nwalfare. Our attempts to reform were not well received by either the\nfessional welfarists or the legislators. But then the opposing\nlagislators heard the voice of the people. They did not exactly see\nthe light, but they sure felt the heat.\nA year and a half ago, welfare in California was growing by 40,000\npeople a month. Today, there are about 254,000 fewer people on welfare\nthan when we started a year ago last March. The cost of welfare in our\nstate is $708 million less in federal, state and local taxes than it\nvould have been without the reforms. We were told it could not be done,\nthat instead of curbing welfare abuses, we should raise taxes to help\nyet that $708 million.\nWith the help of a massive grassroots effort that included the very\nvaluable assistance of agriculture, we did what they said could not be\ndone.\n6\nFarm Bureau\nThis year, 42 of California's 58 counties managed to reduce their\nbasic property tax rate. In some counties, it was the first such\nreduction in years.\nEverybody benefited. We were able to increase welfare grants to\nthe truly needy by 30 percent, and finance cost of living increases for\nthe disabled, the blind, and our senior citizens.\nRight now, we have a pilot work program that requires every able-\nbodied adult welfare recipient to either work for his grant, register\nfor employment and accept a job when one is available, or be duly\nenrolled in a work training project designed to make them self-sufficient.\nThose who refuse are dropped. from the rolls.\nGovernment costs can be brought under control. But there is no\nmagic formula. It requires a constant effort to resist demands for new\nand possibly wasteful spending---it takes efficient management that\ninsists on a dollar's worth of value for every tax dollar spent. And\nyou sort of have to stand up to the spenders without blinking even\nwhen the stone throwing begins.\nToo often, government forgets that its primary responsibility is\nto represent the interests of all our people; the people who pay the\ntaxes as well as those who receive tax-financed benefits. That system\nseems to have gotten out of kilter in recent years.\nGovernment does not produce a single dollar. It consumes dollars\nearned by the people through the fruit of their labor. It can only create\njobs by redistributing earnings.\nWhen government raises taxes to solve one problem, it often creates\nanother. In fact, government does not solve problems; it subsidizes\nthem.\nGovernment must always guard against excessive regulations and\ncontrols, high taxes and all the other restrictions that can inhibit the\ngrowth and expansion ofthe private sector. It is the private sector that\nprovides most of the jobs for our people and all of the revenue to support\nall of government's activities.\nThere can be no prosperity or even freedom for our people if we ever\nabandon the competitive economic system that transformed this country\ninto the strongest nation in the world.\n- 7 -\nFarm Bureau\nIn these past several years, I have been privileged to visit many\nother countries in the world on diplomatic missions for the President\nand on behalf of California industry. And every time I return home, I\nmarvel at the fantastic difference that freedom means in terms of\nprosperity, individual dignity and opportunity.\nIt is not an accident. And I recommend a trip abroad to any who\ndoubt the value of America, this way of life of ours.\nIt will make you see, possibly for the first time, what Thomas\nJefferson meant in the words he wrote to a friend in 1787. He urged\nhis friend to travel to other countries so that he might better\nappreciate what our pioneer Americans were carving out of the wilderness\nin the new world. \"It will make you adore your own country, \" Jefferson\nsaid \"its climate, its equality, liberty, laws, people and manners.\nMy God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they\nare in possession of and which no other people on earth enjoy.\"\nWe have known the blessings of liberty for almost 200 years.\nWe have survived every crisis and gone on to even greater equality and\nprosperity for all our people.\nWe have built the fairest, most productive society the world has\nknown because most Americans have never been willing to trade their\ndom for a little temporary privilege. They know what Americans have\nknown: freedom makes it all possible. If we preserve our\ntom, we preserve America and all the values we cherish.\n#######\n(NOTE: Since Governor Reagan speaks from notes, there may be changes in,\n3r additions to, the above quotes. However, the governor will stand by\nthe above quotes.)"
}