Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564480
label
Speeches - Reports to the People, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564480
contentType
document
title
Speeches - Reports to the People, 1969
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564480
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
bd7ca415171aa997
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Speeches - Reports to the People, 1969
Box: P20
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE operation.
$
%
1/31/19
169
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: 5 p.m. January 31
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
445-4571
1-31-69
RELEASE
(Tax Rebate)
The following was issued as a filmed "Report to the People" by
Governor Reagan to California television stations for use after 5 p.m.,
today, January 31:
"Two years ago we told the people of California, all of you, that
we were going to try to cut government's size and cost by 10 percent
across the board. This declaration was met with mixed emotions.
"Now we're going to talk 10 percent again as a result of those
economies, in part, and in part due to unexpected revenues as a result
of inflation. We will have in the coming year a hundred million dollars
over and above our budget - the budget we are presenting for this coming
year.
"Normally--with this kind of money left over--government finds a
way to spend it. And in so doing, it usually builds up the cost of
government for years to come until eventually it has to ask for more
revenues.
"we think we're doing something a little unprecedented, but we
believe you're entitled to a rebate. You should receive that hundred
million dollars back. And therefore we're asking the legislature
effective in April, 1970-not this coming April but in April 1970 when
you compute your income tax for the state--that you subtract 10 percent-
a 10 percent cut across the board in the state income tax for that year.
And you deduct that amount and pay 90 percent of your computed tax."
"Thus we will give the money back to the people".
"We're continuing with tax reform and we hope that we'll be able
to present savings that will be on a permanent basis as we achieve tax
reform.
"But as of now, this will be a one-time return to you of a hundred
million dollars which you gave to the government--and which we, through
economies, can now return to you."
##########
are
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE:
5 p.m., Tuesday
Sacramento, California
February 4
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
2.3.69
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE RELEASE
TRANSCRIPT OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S REPORT TO THE PEOPLE
February 4, 1969
(Budget)
The following stations will carry a Report to the People on the
1969-1970 budget by Governor Ronald Reagan on Tuesday evening,
February 4.
Bakersfield
KERO
7:00 - 7:30 p.m.
Chico
KHSL
7:00 - 7:30 p.m.
Eureka
KVIQ
7:00 - 7:30 p.m.
Fresno
KJEO
9:30 - 10:00 p.m.
Palm Springs
KPLM
7:00 - 7:30 p.m.
Los Angeles
KTLA
7:30 - 8:00 p.m.
Sacramento
KCRA
7:30 - 8:00 p.m.
Salinas
KSBW
7:00 - 7:30 p.m.
San Diego
KFMB
9:30 - 10:00 p.m.
San Jose
KNTV
9:30 - 10:00 p.m.
San Francisco
KRON
7:00 - 7:30p.m.
Santa Barbara
KEYT
6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Here are the governor's remarks:
Good evening.
Tonight, I would like to review with you the financial state of our
state. As taxpayers, this discussion is of great importance to all of
us because we will be talking about how much it will cost to run our
state during the next fiscal year
1969-1970.
Now, I have here Caspar W. Weinberger, state finance director, to
join me in this report.
When we talk about the budget, we are talking about your money
your tax dollars
because government is not free. There's no such
thing as federal money
or state money. No matter who collects it--
no matter how it's collected, it's all taxpayer money.
I, of course, am required by the Constitution to submit a budget to
the legislature-- budget containing the estimated state revenues and
recommended state expenditures.
But tonight I want to do something that I am not required to do,
but which I feel it only right and proper that I should do. I want to
discuss with you how much of your money we'll need this year and how it
will be spent to do the things you've asked government to do for you
and some of the things which government has just taken on itself to do
and how much of it will be spent to comply with federal demands and how
some of it will be spent because of state law.
-1-
The Constitution requires me to recommend sources of additional
money if we have to spend more than is available. I'm sure you will be
pleased to hear I will not have to refer to that particular provision
of the constitution.
We will have a balanced budget and no new taxes.
During the past two years, we've tried to apply some common sense
to government to see if it couldn't be a little more efficient and a
little less costly. We haven't done all we'd like to do but we have
brought the state from the brink of insolvency--when we took over-to
the present situation where we have sufficient funds,
For the first time, we're going to try and break down our budget--
our taxes and our expenditures--and give you an explanation of what the
state budget really is. That's why I introduced Caspar Weinberger.
CASPAR WEINBERGER: Governor, this is the expenditure dollar, this
is where it goes. The great bulk of the state's money, 40 cents out of
every dollar that we spend goes for education. Another 25 cents goes
for correction, health and welfare. That's 65, just about 66 cents,
of every dollar we spend.
We have, however, 14 cents out of every dollar that is in the form
of property tax relief and shared revenues. Those are the taxes that we
collect for the county and return directly to them. So 14 cents out of
every dollar that the state has listed as spending actually goes back to
the county.
And 11 cents of what we spend goes to highways and other transporta-
tion matters; 2 cents for resources and all the other areas of state
expenditures totals 6 cents.
That's what the state's dollar is spent for 65 cents for these
two big items right here, education, corrections and health and welfare.
It all comes from the taxpayers, but actually there are three major
items for CO llection: Sales tax brings in 30 cents of every dollar we
collect, personal income taxes bring in 21½ cents, and the gas taxes
which go directly for highways bring in 16 cents.
The rest is scattered in these remaining amounts--10 cents from the
bank and corporation tax, cigarette, motor vehicle license, the alcoholic
beverage tax, horse racing, insurance and inheritance and gift tax.
These bring in all of the rest. The big revenue producers at the sales
tax, the personal income tax and the gas tax. That's where it all comes
from.
-2-
GOVERNOR: Of course, the risk is, that with breaking it down
this way, people have a tendency to think someone else is helping pay
their taxes. But all of these are paid by the people, no matter what
the name of the tax is. It either comes out of your pocket in higher
prices or in the actual tax that is applied.
That is why--with your pocketbooks in mind--for the second year
in a row I will submit to the legislature a bill which, if passed this
time, will reduce personal state income taxes in the coming fiscal
year
reduce those taxes by $100 million.
In general terms, this will reduce your personal state income
taxes for 1969--with the greatest relief going to those of you who
were hardest hit by the unpleasant--but at that time--very necessary
tax bill.
In addition, I will recommend to the legislature that approximately
$235 million in state revenues be returned for property tax relief.
This, of course, is in addition to the property tax relief for which
homeowners are now making application and which will result in a
$70 tax reduction this spring.
CASPAR WEINBERGER: (Referring to charts) This is the $100 million
personal income tax reduction that you spoke about. It will be a new
program if the legislature adopts it. It would be a voluntary return
to the taxpayers of $100 million in the areas where the tax of '67 hit
hardest.
The remaining items here are continuations of property tax relief
at the same general levels that they were put in last year. Home owners
would get $183 million--and again we should emphasize these are state
funds going directly back to the counties for that relief. We would
continue the doubling of the standard deduction of personal income
tax which would be of particular assistance to people who rent and
therefore don't have an interest payment to deduct.
The business inventory tax reduction would be continued and we
would wipe out the household personal property tax once and for all.
Senior citizens would get special property tax relief in the amount of
$9 million. All of this adds up to $380 million of state revenues
being voluntarily returned to taxpayers.
GOVERNOR: Now once again to explain: Here is $380 million that
shows in our budget, adds to the size of the budget, looks like an
expense. but actually is money that is being given back to the people.
-3-
Thus, while WE are submitting a budget that totals about
$6.2 billion, an increase of 3.9 percent over our revised expenditures
this current fiscal year, I believe we have started what we hope will
be a new trend in government finances---nearly $380 million of our
income is being earmarked for tax reduction
tax reduction, rather
than for increased spending programs.
The money is available largely because of our own economies and
because national inflation has produced more revenues than anyone could
anticipate. It may well be that as a result of the Advisory Commission
on Tax Reform, I will be able to report some recommendations for
permanent tax reductions, or other acceptable reforms, and if so,
they could, of course, take effect on a permanent basis. Meanwhile,
I believe that you the taxpayers should be given immediate considera-
tion and immediate relief by using funds we have now, but which may not
be available to us next year.
Lest anyone feel that we are blinding ourselves to our current
and future needs, let me assure you that through prudent financial
management--and many internal economies and administrative improvements--
we will make it possible to continue to meet our growing needs, without
additional taxation and with much needed relief for our taxpayers.
For example, our new program budgeting system, fully adopted
this year for the first time in the state's history, offers us a
sophisticated and effective management tool of great value in allocating
state resources among the highest priority needs.
In the critically important field of elementary and secondary
education, I am recommending a total expenditure of $1,603,000,000.
This is an increase in our already massive program of public school aid
in the kindergarten through 12th grade years. It includes $105 million
in new money, plus additional amounts to cover costs of increased
enrollment and increased aid for the disadvantaged and gifted child.
This $1.6 billion is for educational programs authorized by your
local school boards. If this money was not supplied by the state, it
would have to be raised by that much and therefore increase your local
property tax.
Since this is the biggest expenditure, Mr. Weinberger will break
this down.
-4-
CASPAR WEINBERGER: (Referring to charts) This is what we are
doing now. We are spending from state aid directly to the public
school system $1.4 billion and it is for the education of 4,940,000
students. Now this year--this budget year we are talking about--we
will add $12 million just to continue the cost of what we are doing
now. That is what inflation requires. There also will be 100,000
additional pupils. The budget will recommend $105 million in new
money to be added to that, bringing the total amount we will give to
the local school districts at $1,603,000,000 for the education of
5,040,000,000 school children.
This extra $105 million will recognize the living cost increase
that the schools, along with everybody else, feels. But it also will
be for the employment of additional teachers in those areas of the
state that most need it.
GOVERNOR: Now kindergarten through high school--what we call
the K-through-12 years--are vital. They should be one of our top
priority items. For millions of children, these grades may contain
the total of their formal education. They must not be short-changed
by allowing other programs to siphon away money which should go to
them. But we also must take some long-overdue steps to make sure our
education dollars are being wisely spent and that each dollar is buying
a full dollar's worth.
-5-
We are establishing a Governor's Commission on Educational Reform
to analyze root problems and to suggest major reforms in the areas of
financing, teacher training, standards and salaries, curriculum, and
the proper functions of schools in today's society, especially in
our urban areas.
The budget for higher education--for our university and state
colleges--deserves special comment. I am greatly concerned about the
attacks on our educational system by small groups who are best described
as criminal anarchists- those unruly few who want to close down the
campuses of our university and state colleges, and even high schools
and I know that the vast majority of you share this concern.
I will, therefore, continue to use every power at my command to
insure that safety and security--and the proper academic atmosphere--
is maintained on every campus. I am determined that academic freedom
and the pursuit of knowledge will be upheld, protected and preserved.
But I will not penalize the majority to punish the few. I there-
fore rejected the demands of those who--for a variety of reasons-
would drastically cut back on funds for higher education in such a way
as to damage our system of higher education.
Our budget for the coming year will therefore reflect a $61 million
increase over this year's record budget for the university and state
colleges.
Again, let me repeat--I am proposing a $61 million increase in
general support for higher education-- for our university and state
college system.
WEINBERGER: Now Governor, that increase breaks down this way. At
the present time we are spending $533 million of state money for the
education of 261,800 college students. In the new budget that sum will
rise by $61 million to $594 million and it will take care of 21,600
additional college students for a total of 283,000 students in college
in California's public college system.
The breakdown shows the university will get 25 of the $61 million
for an additional 6,000 students. The state colleges will get 36 millio
of the $61 million increase for an additional 15,700 students.
The difference, of course, is because the university-- with the
emphasis on graduate education--is considerably more expensive.
-6-
The estimates of enrollment are always based entirely on what is
furnished by the colleges and university themselves. This year the
state colleges underestimated their enrollment. So we will be picking
up for them an additional $600,000 this month if the legislature agrees
SO as to enable them to handle the additional students that their esti-
mates didn't quite reach.
GOVERNOR: Make no mistake about it. Higher education in California
is very expensive--but a necessary and wise investment. I believe this
increase is necessary to insure that the growing number of qualified
young people will continue to have the unmatched opportunity to experienc
and benefit from our magnificent system of higher education.
In that connection, I also recommend a $5 million increase in our
scholarship funds to insure that a family's financial condition shall
be no bar to participation in California's higher education.
I also believe an equal education plan is necessary to achieve full
educational opportunity for all qualified students in California, to
provide supplemental capital for each campus, and to eliminate existing
inequities so that low income families will not have to bear a dispro-
portionate share of the cost of higher education.
Therefore, because I feel the taxpayer needs a break--and because
I believe that we appreciate and work harder for those things which are
not given to us for nothing-- I will continue to support measures to
establish some form of tuition at our state colleges and university.
In the general area of concern we all have for the less fortunate
in our state and communities, I am recommending major increases in the
local assistance portion of the budget for the treatment of mental
illness much closer at home (and, we believe, much more effective and
acceptable treatment for patients and their families).
The Department of Mental Hygiene's budget alone will total more
than $265 million, up $28 million from the current budget.
For more than a year now there have been false and somewhat hysteri
charges that we were placing dollars above human beings--particularly
in the area of mental health. I hope now and with this year's budget
that it will become plain to those who made those charges that at no
time were we concerned solely with economy. We were making certain
economies in order to clear the decks to continue with the advance of
mental hygiene in such a way as to make California what it is: The
number one state in the treatment of the mentally ill.
The new budget will include:
1. An increase of $22,800,000 over last year's budget for funding
community mental health programs. The increase will bring the total
state's share for community mental health programs to about $54 million
for the coming year. The state budget for community programs was only
$18.6 million two years ago.
2. An increase in the presently authorized level of care in the
hospitals for the mentally ill by the retention of 547 nursing and 13
rehabilitation therapist positions which would have been abolished in
1969-70 because of the decreasing number of patients.
3. An additional 175 hospital worker positions to relieve psychia-
tric technicians and registered nurses of housekeeping and other chores.
4. An additional 63 psychiatric technician positions and,
5. 100 additional maintenance positions.
Many of these and other increases are--I believe--necessary and
beneficial. We are proposing these increases voluntarily because it
is the right and proper thing to do. Other increases are mandated--
virtually imposed on us from other quarters as we will see in more
detail in a few moments. These include the federal government's role--
especially in welfare and certain related health care services.
In this budget, for the upcoming fiscal year, I have also included
sufficient funds to provide a 5 per cent increase in salaries of state
employees including our university and state college professors and
teachers. This is less than some have recommended, and more than many
have urged. Just as inflation has raised prices for all of us, and our
incomes go up accordingly, so is this true of our state employees.
By the same token, the people of California have a right to expect
that there will be the same full measure of devoted service in the
future that the vast majority of our state employees have given in the
past. Needless to say, unwarranted and illegal strikes by a small
number of public employees can only make it more difficult for us to
secure proper public recognition of the legitimate needs of the vast
majority of loyal and dedicated civil servants.
In discussing out state budget--which as we have seen, will be
slightly over $6 billion this year there are a number of facts which
we must keep in mind.
One is that I, as your governor, have control over only slightly
more than one third of the total budget. Over the years, special--
almost untouchable--programs have developed which have been locked into
our Constitution and laws. They are untouchable in that "X" amounts of
money are collected and set aside for specific programs--and only
those programs no matter what emergencies may arise nor what changes
take place in the economy. This makes priority setting and financial
decision-making most difficult. It also makes government more expensive
Now a change--allowing your elected officials to determine fi-
mancial priorities and allocate more of the money which is on hand is,
I believe, necessary.
Such a change would not only guarantee lower overall spending,
but it would remove the unfeasible guarantee we now have that each
budget will be higher than the last.
We should also bear in mind that the state does not spend, in the
generally understood sense of the word, more than about 1.7 billion
of
out of the total / some $6 billion, for the general operation of state
government which fall within the responsibility of the governor. In
addition to these operational expenses, we will spend about $90 million
for new construction financed from our general fund and about $770
million in other construction financed from bond issues that were passed
some years ago, and by gas tax money for highways.
Now I think this is another situation where we can receive some
explanation of some charts.
WEINBERGER: Here is that last sum of those two sums you were just
talking about. That is the $1,722,000,000 that is spent out of the
$6.2 billion for the actual operations of the state government. This
little wedge down here is the $861 million in capital outlay. Actually,
only $90 million of that is disbursed under your immediate direction
because that balance of $700 odd million over here comes from bond
issues that came from the water program enacted several years ago,
parks, and highways out of the gas tax money and so on.
-9-
This, however, is the amount actually spent by the state government out
of the $6.2 billion. The balance over 'here is what goes to the local
government and some of the programs that are frozen and dedicated that
you mentioned a moment ago.
One point six billion dollars
is the aid to public schools. Then we add in
$1,000,098,000 for welfare, mental health and Medi-Cal. These are all
expenditures which go to assist local government to meet its obligations.
Then there are taxes that the state collects--$595 million--and returns
to local government. We just act as an agent on those.
And here is a new and novel item. This is tax relief money that
the state collects and sends back. There are also other forms of local
assistance--some additional license fees that are returned and so on.
So out of this whole total, the $6.2 billion budget which is
submitted by you to the legislature, state government actually only
spends about $2.6 billion. The rest of the total goes directly to
relieve local government from its obligations, which cf course helps
cut the property tax locally, and for direct property tax relief.
GOVERNOR: It'll be a lot easier for the people to understand if
someday the state budget could actually be divided to show what the
state government actually costs and then show the other areas not as
expenditures, but as areas where we are simply collecting money to give
back to the local government. We're a tax collector for the local
government.
WEINBERGER: Well the only difficulty, Governor, is that if we
started this year, everybody would say that we were being terribly
deceptive. This is the way it's been done for years and years. So the
only real way, I suppose, to show it, is to show that it isn't really
one big piece of pie, or one dollar; it really is two.
It's what the state gets and what it gives to local government.
GOVERNOR: Now what you've seen explains why budgets just have to
increase. That portion of the budget which goes to provide assistance
to local governments will increase about 14 percent. On the other hand,
the state operations, that part of the budget, will increase only
7 percent--just enough to keep up with the growth in population plus
inflation.
- 10 -
In general, we've managed to hold our total expenses down to the
modest increases recommended here because we have most carefully
scrutinized requests for new or expanded programs. We have approved
some $26 million in new requests and here I'll ask Cap to show those
to you.
WEINBERGER: Some of those programs, governor, are set forth on this
chart. As you know, we cut $400 million in other requests. Programs tha
will cost more include the improved care of the mentally ill that you
mentioned. We're going to put into force the statewide criminal justice
information system that will get information back and forth more rapidly.
We'll increase the public health efforts in the pollution fields and
the testing of new drugs. We're going to approve a much higher standard
of water quality. There are programs for new educational opportunities
and employment opportunities for the disadvantaged. We have money in
for a new smog laboratory; we have money in to try and help predict
earthquakes and geologic hazards. We're going to go after the forest
fires much harder this year, and we have continued protection by authori-
zing the continuance cf the BCDC for San Francisco bay fill.
GOVERNOR: And, as we have seen, we have increased the support for
other programs in the amount we needed to keep pace with our growth.
We will continue these efforts. What's more, it is not enough just
to present this budget with its surplus and its proposals for meeting
growth and for tax reduction.
You should also know that much thought has been given to the budget
for the year 1970-71 at the same time this budget was being prepared.
In effect, we really prepared two budgets at once, because it would be
doing the state small service to balance one budget without new taxes,
and leave a wide deficit for the next fiscal year.
Therefore, I can also assure you that--through the continued
application of sound business practices in the administration of your
state government--and with the cooperation of the legislature--we will
again present a balanced budget for next year--and again without a tax
increase!
We've resisted great pressures to add more new programs which would
cost more money and skyrocket the total cost of government.
-11- -
Surpluses always offer a great temptation for spending, but the
surpluses we project are no more than safe margins against the possibility
of a change of economic conditions, or the imposition of additional and
expensive federal requirements and rules. For example, just this year
we'll have to pay $52 million more of your money than last year, simply
because of changes by arbitrary federal welfare policies.
There are also other changes. There are some, for example, who will
say that there are higher priorities for spending than tax relief, althoug
doubtless they will not phrase it so bluntly.
For the record--let me say here and now that in my opinion, tax
relief is not only a necessary priority-- it is an absolute necessity.
And here's why:
WEINBERGER: Governor, this (chart) shows California in 1969, last
thousand three hundred fifty dollars
(fiscal) year.
One /was paid, that's man, woman or child, so a family
of four is paying about $5,000 a year for government.
GOVERNOR: Actually, that's $5,400.
WEINBERGER: Yes, you've got a computer which I haven't. The
federal government takes $870 of that, This shows that the state taxes
are $243 out of that $1,350, but $138 of that was returned to local
government by the state and as we saw a moment ago, more will be returned
out of that $243 next year. The rest of this is city, county, school
districts and special districts; $1,350 for each person in California.
GOVERNOR: Thus, my promise to you is this-based on the balanced
budget we have discussed tonight--I will:
1. Send the legislature my request that they approve a measure to
reduce your personal state income taxes for the coming fiscal year--by
the sum of $100 million.
2. Continue the doubled standard deductions to save you another
$45 million.
3. Urge the legislature to return approximately $235 million in
state revenues to local government for property tax relief
thus
providing an overall tax reduction program totaling nearly $380 million--
instead of increasing the cost of government.
This balanced budget--with its provisions for tax reductions-- a
very real accomplishment. But there is still much more to be done.
Government still costs all of us too much money. There remain too many
programs--thrust upon us as hold-overs from the past. We must continue
-12-
to reform to cut and squeeze and trim. We must continue to replace
the outmoded with the new; the outworn with the relevant. We must
continue to reassess the priorities of the people and to assert new
priorities for government, priorities which will meet the needs of a
dynamic, modern society.
We have a fiscally sound state government: prudence must be the
constant companion to progress. We can meet our real needs and still
furnish necessary and long overdue tax relief to you.
This is what you want
this is what Cap wants, what he has
worked very hard for. This is what I want.
Thank you
and good night.
#########
(NOTE: The above text may vary slightly from the actual televised
report. However, Governor Reagan will stand by the above.)
-13-
provide
15
M
(COY-TV
Showing on May 11th at 11:30 PM
SANTA MARIA
KRCR-TV
Showing on May 11th at 7:00 PM
REDDING
(RED-TV
Showing on May 11th at 11:00 PM
SAN FRANCISCO
KTVU-TV
Showing on May 18th at 1:30 PM
DAKLAND
(FRE-TV
Showing on May 11th at 11:15 PM
FRESNO
KOGO-TV
Showing on May 11th at 7:00 PM
SAN DJEGO
KERO-TV
Showing May 11th at 8:30 PM
BAKERSFIELD
***
TLA-TV
Showing on May 25th at 5:00 PM
LOS ANGELES
(JEO-TV
Showing on May 12th at 11:30 PM
FRESNO
KCRA-TV
Showing on May 11th at 5:00 PM
SACRAMENTO
XTV
Showing on May lhat 4:00 PM
SACRAMENTO
KNEW-TV
Showing on May 11th at 11:00 PM
SAN FRANCISCO
KEMO--TV
Showing on May 12th at 2:00 PM
SAN FRANCISCO
KUDO-TV
Showing on May 16th at 4:00 PM
SAN FRANCISCO
KNBC-1V
Unable to show May 11th, will advise
LOS ANGELES
of scheduled showing at a later date
KABC-TV
Cannot show as.a special program due
of
LOS ANGELES
to tight schedule. will show on naws spote
CHSL-TV
Showing on May 11th at 2:30 2: PM
CHICO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: 4 P.M., SUNDAY, MAY 11.
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST PREMATURE
445-4571
5-9-69
RELEASE.
TRANSCRIPT OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S REPORT TO THE PEOPLE
May 11, 1969
(Tax Reform)
GOVERNOR REAGAN: I would like to discuss with you a subject
which is important to all of us taxes and tax reform that is,
reforming, reorganizing and equalizing the tax burden which, over the
years, has become a major burden on a disproportionate share of the
taxpayers.
Joining us are Caspar W. Weinberger, director of our State
Department of Finance, and Assemblyman Craig Biddle of Riverside, who
has introduced this administration's two-part tax reform package.
Cap, Craig, and I want to discuss this program with you because
I think in this way, we can all get a clearer picture of the basic
principles and goals of the tax reform program.
Over the years, California's tax structure has become encrusted
with add-ons and off-sets. Most of these have been precariously
balanced one side against the other, like a teeter totter, so that an
attempt to correct one fault, or one evil, often results in setting off
a complicated chain reaction.
Because the tax structure has grown--often without apparent
rhyme or reason, much less proper planning-- the taxing system has
become unfair, with a large percentage of the taxpayers paying more
than their fair share.
It is this situation which we must correct and in this discussion
it is important to remember we are talking about tax reform, not tax
increases, not tax reduction. We have already started on tax reductions
and, as you know, there is $380 million of tax relief in the new
budget. But, tax reform is something else: Revising the existing tax
burdens so that they are more evenly and more fairly distributed among
the taxpayers, among private citizens, and among the businesses, the
corporations and companies doing business in California.
There are certain basic objectives which we must seek to achieve
through a tax reform program. Let's talk about them for a minute.
-1-
We want a fair and balanced tax system; meaningful property
tax relief, an increased state role in quality education, greater
flexibility for local school districts and, no total increase in
taxes.
Let me repeat that. This must be done without increasing the
total tax burden in California. Contrary to what some have claimed,
and inferred, we are not proposing a tax increase. We are proposing
tax reform a redistribution of the burden from those who have been
paying much more than they should to a broader base of taxpayers,
including some who have not been paying their share. As in any shift,
some individual income taxes will go up. Some property taxes will go
down. But, there will be no overall tax increase no more money paid
to or for government.
We are proposing a two-part tax reform package which, as I mentioned,
Assemblyman Craig Biddle has introduced in the Legislature, on behalf
of this administration:
Craig, why don't you and Cap review the concept of the immediate
and long-term proposals which we might refer to as Phase I and Phase 2
of the program and then highlight the major points of emphasis in
Phase 1.
CRAIG BIDDLE: Well, of course the magnitude of the program is
going to require a constitutional amendment, so this will mean we will
have to place it on the ballot for voter approval in the General
Election of 1970. And all of the constitutional amendments which will
be included in Phase 2 will be placed before the voters at that time.
Phase 1 will only require legislative action and can be approved
by the Legislature during this session without voter approval.
The first portion of that phase, which I think is very important,
is increasing the amount that was allowed as an exemption on real
property tax last year. We placed on the ballot, of course, 1-A which
was approved by the voters. That is, the $750 exemption on real property.
This proposal is to increase that, of course, to $1,000 and make it
identical to the veterans' exemption, and this would mean to the average
residential householder in California $100 off his residential property
tax next year.
?
- 2 -
CAP WEINBERGER: Then, the other portions of our program that can
be done this year would be the very vital necessity of a thing we tried
to do last year, Governor, of reducing, or going back to, this method of
personal exemption in the income tax, rather than this credit system.
If we do that, if we give a personal exemption of $600 for each
dependent, it will remove a very substantial inequity that was experience
in the income tax last year, particularly with middle income families
with a large number of dependents.
The other thing that we want to do, and ought to do just as soon
as possible, is reduce this business inventory tax by over 50 percent.
And we can do that this year, if we eliminate some of these unwarranted
sales tax exemptions such as, for example, the sale tax on containers.
The business inventory tax is one of the worst that we have in this
state. It costs a lot to collect, it doesn't bring in very much and it
drives business out and discourages new business from coming in. We have
to encourage new business and new capital to come to California. We need
about $2 billion in new private capital each year, and unless we get it,
we can't provide the new jobs that we have to have to take care of our
growing population. So repealing or reducing this inventory tax by over
50 percent is a vital objective we need this year.
That, governor, is a summary of Phase 1 of our tax reform program.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, and as Craig said, we are talking about tax
reform, revising the present inequitable situation which exists, and
spreading the burden more fairly over a broader base of taxpayers. Now,
this means, in part, correcting one of the most unfair burdens of our
present system, the burden that the property taxpayer, the homeowner, has
to pay.
What we have discussed so far are the proposals contained in Part 1
of our tax reform program and legislative package. These proposals are
important in themselves, and they are also important as the initial steps
of our long-range overall tax reform program.
These proposals should be passed this year---by the 1969 legislature
Now, the second phase of the tax reform package is related to the
first part in that it seeks to achieve a more balanced tax structure
through a reduced reliance on property taxes and a reduction in those
property taxes. The first part--the 1969 phase--must be approved by the
Legislature before we can put it into effect. The second part--which we
will now discuss--will require amending the Constitution, which means--
and this is important--that the voters will have the opportunity to vote
on the proposals in 1970. That is essential. In a move of such
importance, we want every voter to be able to voice his opinion through
the ballot box. The people should speak.
- 3 -
In this long-range Phase 2 comes the most far-reaching proposal
not only in the area of tax reform, but also for the benefit of our
public school system.
Its approval and application would be a giant step in the direction
of equality of educational opportunity for all children in the state's
public school system.
It would reduce the far too heavy burden now borne by the
residential property taxpayer.
That is a burden which has increased nearly 100 percent, with an
average increase per year of approximately 10 percent. Bear in mind
that there is not always a corresponding increase in the income of the
homeowner to pay these double taxes. In many cases, he has already paid
for his home, in whole or in large part, but he can't afford to keep it
because of those property taxes. At the same time, many young couples
can't afford to buy a home because property taxes are such a big piece
of their projected monthly payments.
While it is true that the things property taxes are going for are
important, the people paying the bill, the individual property taxpayers,
have absolutely had it up to here. They have pretty much reached the
end of their rope.
As a consequence, this absolutely must be the first major area of
reform to shift part of this burden from the property tax to the more
equitable income tax.
Tied in with this would be a statewide program of providing stronger
financing and more home rule for the local school district.
And at the same time, we must provide an effective guarantee that
property tax rates would not be raised at the local level to offset the
reductions proposed under this state plan.
There is widespread agreement that we must overhaul the tax structure
used to finance our public school system. The existing financing program
for elementary and secondary schools in California does not provide equal
education opportunities for all children in this state.
Elementary school district expenditures, for example, range from as
little as $289 per ADA this means per average daily attendance, or $289
per student all the way up to as high as $2,662 per student per ADA in
some school districts. Some low wealth districts struggle under an
intolerable property tax burden while some high wealth districts are not
so heavily burdened. In various parts of the state, specially incorporate
areas have become virtual "tax havens, thus escaping a fair share of
the costs of education while benefitting from the economic, sociological
and industrial byproducts of the school system.
- - 4 -
We propose to correct these situations in this way: 80 percent of
the residential property tax now used for schools would be replaced by a
statewide educational opportunity tax of one percent on adjusted gross
personal income, and the statewide non-residential property tax. This
shift from the residential property tax, plus the increase in the
homeowners' exemption already mentioned in Phase from $750 to $1,000--
would reduce the average residential property tax throughout the state
by about 50 percent. Let me repeat, what we are proposing here is a cut
of about 50 percent or one-half in the average homeowner's tax.
The rate for this statewide non-residential property tax would be
approximately $3.50 per $100 assessed valuation. Now, this is not a new
tax added on to business or industrial property. It simply means that
$3.50 of the tax rate they are now paying will be used for statewide
education. The increased personal income and the non-residential property
tax would total approximately $1.6 billion and would be given to the
schools in addition to the existing $1.3 billion in state subventions
that we are now giving the school districts. This would mean a total of
about $3 billion for state financing of California's local school
districts, or 80 percent of the costs. The funds would be provided to
the various school districts on the basis of a flat dollar amount per
average daily attendance, thus eliminating the extremely complex
financial structure, the red tape and undesirable state requirements that
are forced on some local schools. It would mean that we could spend more
of the educational dollar on education and less on bureaucracy. The only
requirement we would attach to the distribution of these vastly increased
state funds would be an ongoing cost effectiveness review of such
expenditures. Cost effectiveness yardsticks would be devised and
instituted to evaluate the performance of our educational system. In
effect, we would require that "report cards" be given to our school
systems. In that way, the people of California could be assured that
they were getting a full measure of results for each dollar spent.
- 5 -
This flat dollar ADA payment, which, as I said before, means the
amount paid to school districts for average daily attendance, would
increase at various grade levels, from kindergarten to junior college,
recognizing the increasing educational costs involved as the student
moves up through theschool system. The amounts proposed, by grade level,
range from $500 per student, or more accurately per unit of average daily
attendance, for kindergarten through the sixth grade; $600 per ADA for
grades seven through nine; $700 per ADA for grades then through twelve,
and $725 per ADA for junior colleges. $400 ADA also would be provided
for adult education courses. One other important feature is that these
proposed levels would be adjusted annually to reflect reasonable changes
in the cost of living index.
These state funds for education, totaling approximately $3 billion,
should help provide true equality of educational opportunity throughout
the state, and provide virtually every school district with a solid
foundation program. No longer will your children be penalized for
living in a particular part of the state. No matter where you live in
this state, your children would have access to a high quality education.
The people in some school districts may want to spend more per
student and, therefore, in addition to the state's foundation grants,
local school districts would have the ability to enrich their programs
through additional expenditures should they desire to do so.
However, to make sure that property taxes do not creep back to
absorb the proposed 50 percent reduction, the property tax rate which
could be levied by the local school board would be limited to $1.10 per
$100 of assessed valuation for all grades, kindergarten through 14, or
the current level, whichever is lower. Bond redemptions as previously
authorized would, of course, be continued.
Should the people in a school district wish to exceed this tax rate,
such a permissive override would require the approval of 60 percent of
the voters in that district.
Over the years, each time more state revenue has been raised to ease
the burden of residential property taxpayers for the support of the schools
the result has simply been a higher total tax burden for each of us. The
requirement that 60 percent of us must agree before our taxes could go
up is designed to protect the taxpayer from just such an occurrence.
- 6 -
We also would hope, and will certainly urge, that the federal
government permit California taxpayers to allow this school opportunity
tax as credit against their federal income tax payments.
One of the problems with any tax reform program is that in spreading
the base and easing the burden that has been carried too long by a given
segment in this case, the property owner some citizens are going to
pay more than they have been paying in the past. In cutting property
taxes by some $750 million and picking that amount up elsewhere by
broadening the base and increasing the amount paid by all state income
tax payers, one group that will carry more of the burden than they have
in the past will be the renters. To ease this situation we are proposing
that the landlords be required to notify their tenants as to that portion
of their rent which could be reduced because of the cut in property taxes.
Such a notification would stimulate the free play of the rental market.
We further anticipate that this will encourage the landlord to share his
property tax reduction with the tenant through reduced rent. We also
believe that because the excessively high property tax is one of the
factors that causes homes to cost so much, a major property tax reduction
will enable many people who cannot now do so to buy their own homes.
We know this is not a perfect situation, and we will continue to
work on this and other aspects of the program as our tax reform package
moves through the legislature. And, we hope you, too, will participate
and let us know your views.
We are also concerned that the property taxpayer who has so long
been burdened by this oppressive tax really gets the relief he needs
and that his taxes will not be increased by the counties, cities and
special districts, thus again eating up the tax relief which our tax
reform program is designed to provide.
But because we do not want to rely on hope alone, we are asking that
specific limits be established for local property taxing procedures. We
propose that a vote of 60 percent of the people be required before any
local property taxes are allowed to go back up again, after this program
brings them down. Should local governments want to exceed these set
maximums, they would have to get voter approval.
Now, Cap, would you discuss these safeguards and procedures in a
little more detail.
- 7 -
CAP WEINBERGER: Yes, actually, what this does---and this is a novel
and a very welcome feature of this program- is put a lid on property
taxes right at the local level, and it would require, as you said,
Governor, a vote of 60 percent of the voters to lift it. At the same
time, any increase in taxes at the state level would have to be approved
by a two-thirds vote of the California state legislature just as is now
required when we spend our money, because we have a two-thirds vote
before the budget can be adopted.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: There are several other things which I wish you
would discuss briefly which are also part of our long-range tax reform
proposals. Though less far reaching, they, too, will require voter
approval and should be considered on their individual merits, and as
part of an overall program.
So, Cap, why don't you outline the parts of that particular program.
CAP WEINBERGER: For one thing, we have a necessity here to relieve
part of the double misery which is caused by figuring both federal and
state income taxes every April. It would be essential that we have what
amounts to a carbon copy of the federal income tax, paid as part of the
state income tax. So all you would do would be to tear off your top
copy and send it to Washington, and send the bottom copy to Sacramento
with the percentage adjusted so the income tax would be as it is now.
Another thing which I think is essential isthat we try to make land
speculation a lot less attractive, and to do that, we are urging that
the capital gains treatment of the sale of unimproved property, held
less than lo years, be removed, and that such a tax be paid as ordinary
income. The revenues realized by this would be used to help preserve
open spaces in and around these tremendously, rapidly growing urban areas.
Also, it would retain California's competitive position. Under our
proposal 2, agricultural property would be taxed solely as farm property
as long as it is used for that. At the moment, as you know, farm property
is taxed on what it might bring if it were turned into a subdivision.
The legislation also would provide that if land is converted from
agricultural to non-agricultural use (such as a subdivision), then the
counties would be given the means of recapturing that lost tax revenue.
- 8 -
Another thing that I think is tremendously important is to assist
the old-age property owner. In order to do that we are proposing that
needy individuals over 65 be permitted to postpone the payment of taxes
on their homes. If they authorize the county to secure eventual payment
of these taxes, after the property is transferred, this would be counted
as a lien against the property, which can be paid either by the
individual, or, in the event of death, by his survivors.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Cap, fine. Since this total tax reform program
does represent a partial shift from property taxes to personal income
taxes, we are also proposing a voluntary prepayment plan, with four
options:
This is something that Craig Biddle has worked out after great
thought, study and discussion. Craig, why don't you go over these
proposals.
CRAIG BIDDLE: I think what you are doing in this proposal is you
are addressing yourself to two very serious problems we will be having
in California, the first being individuals who come into the state and
immediately get all the services that are available to them from the
State of Celifornia, but, yet, don't pay income taxes. And then,
secondly, the individuals who want to have their income taxes withheld
and pay on a monthly or weekly basis, rather than the total lump sum
payment. So this proposal says that the individuals who are new to this
state, who did not file an income tax return for the State of California
the preceding year, they must have their income taxes withheld, just as
we do on the federal level.
But those individuals, the Californians, the residents, who have had
their income tax filed for the preceding year, have four options at that
time of what they want to do in connection with their income taxes.
The first option, of course, is that the employer can withhold the
income tax payment at the employees' request, and then they remit these
sums to the state, receiving a credit for the cost of the employer's
added bookkeeping expense. Also, the employee would get a two percent
discount for the voluntariness of his act which brings about the
withholding.
- 9 -
The second option: The individual could pay, if he wanted to,
his state income tax on a quarterly basis. If he did this in advance,
he would also receive the two percent discount, or credit on his taxes
at the end of the year.
The third alternative is that the individual employee could make
his own arrangements, with the cooperation of his employer, to deposit
in an account under his control the monthly amount necessary to pay the
estimated tax at the end of the year.
or, of course, fourthly, he could continue to not participate in
any program of any sort, but he could pay on an annual basis or a semi-
annual basis as he does at this time.
I think the provisions for these voluntary options would simply be
a convenience for the taxpayer, and, of course, the state would not
make any money on any of these plans, and if any windfalls were realized,
the law provides that this would be placed in a special tax relief
fund to be returned to the taxpayers as a one-time rebate, as we are
advocating be done with the $100 million next spring.
GOVERNOR REAGAN: Thank you, Craig. And on that last point, let
us be certain there is no mistake about that. I want to make it
absclutely crystal clear that this administration's proposal to provide
a rebate of $100 million in personal income taxes is totally separate
and is in addition to this overall tax reform package. The one-time
rebate is designed to return to the taxpayer a surplus, produced by our
economies and by national inflation, rather than spending it here in
Sacramento.
The tax reform program we have been discussing, which is now in the
hands of the legislature, is an effort to achieve a long-term overhaul
of our tax system on a relatively permanent basis. There should be no
confusion or distortion on this particular point.
There is just so much we can do about tax reform at the state level.
When you get right down to it, the big part of total tax reform has to
come from the federal government since that is where most of our taxes go.
We are encouraged by the amount of discussion in the present federal
administration about the need for tax reform. Ultimately, the only true
tax reform will be that which involves a major reliance upon a more fair
and more equitable income tax in which various exemptions are virtually
eliminated, a much lower total tax rate is imposed, and a great many
of the existing inconsistencies and loopholes are closed.
- 10 -
Furthermore, the federal government must share some of the income
tax revenues that our citizens send to Washington each year, by returning
to the states a portion of these revenues, without strings attached, just
as we propose to return state revenues to school districts, without
strings attached.
But, with all of this, there is one irrefutable, unyielding fact
of government life which must also be faced squarely, and coped with
constantly.
There is only one way to reduce taxes and that is to reduce
government spending. One is impossible without the other, especially
under our state constitution which prohibits deficit spending.
At present, federal, state and local taxes take $1,350 for every
man, woman and child in California. That is $5,400 a year for a family
of four, and of that, more than $3,400 goes to Washington. That is
ridiculous.
While we can't do anything directly about the federal situation,
we want to do something about it at the state and local level.
Admittedly, real tax reform is going to cause some problems in some
areas. As property taxes are cut 50 percent, some people are going to
have to pay much more in state income taxes in the form of the educational
opportunity tax, and they will be unhappy.
But, this is the best that we can do, and, again, we reiterate, we
are not getting any additional money from the taxpayer. We are
redistributing the money to a certain extent.
We want to hear from you with your suggestions. Write to us, mark
on the outside of the envelope, TAX REFORM, and let us hear your ideas
on this.
In other words, we don't want any more tax gimmicks. We want true
reform, so keep those cards and letters coming, folks.
########
- 11 -
69
X
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
MEMO TO THE PRESS
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
12-22-69
Following is the text of a filmed Report to the People (104 sec.
in length) by Governor Reagan which has been distributed to California
television stations for use after 5 p.m. Monday, December 22. (The
governor's recorded statement is available to radio stations at
916-445-0101. Members of the Capitol Press Corps who serve radio
broadcasters in the state may wish to reproduce a tape-recording of
the governor's statement which is available in the governor's press
office---also embargoed for use after 5 p.m., Monday, December 22.)
Air Pollution
"When I took office I promised you this administration would wage
an all-out war on air pollution.
"We have done this. We have adopted the strongest controls on air
pollution by any state in the union. Automobiles literally have to be
manufactured to California specifications.
"Today I am proposing a six-point program that will bring California
one step closer to victory. I am ordering:
1--Immediate conversion of 175 state vehicles to a dual fuel system
that will permit the use of smog-free compressed natural gas.
2--Conversion of other state vehicles to this system on a programmed,
continuing basis.
3--Locating all cars converted to natural gas and 1970 model state
cars with emission controls in major smog-affected areas.
4--Requiring all 1971 autos and trucks purchased by the state for
use in smog-troubled areas meet the proposed 1975 emission standards.
5--Proposing that as an incentive, the fuel tax on natural gas be
reduced to all fleet operators---both public and private.
6--Developing a new systematic testing and tune-up procedure to
insure sustained low vehicle emissions.
"As I have pointed out, this war against foul air must concern not
only government and industry but every private citizen as well---not some
mysterious "they", but "we" cause pollution, and "we" can remedy it.
"This new program will help us win another skirmish in the war we
are fighting to protect our environment for this and future generations.
"I will be announcing other new programs and policies in the coming
months."
#########
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE:
Sacramento, California
MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1969
Contact:
Paul Beck
PLEASE GUARD AGAINST
445-4571
12-22-69
#683
PREI ATURE RELEASE.
Governor Ronald Reagan today announced a six point program
designed to use the state's fleet operations and purchasing and taxing
powers to encourage and expedite the use of smog-free motor vehicles
in California.
Terming the fight against air pollution "a matter of urgent
necessity--a war which we must win; a war we intend to win" the
governor outlined his plan:
1. Immediate conversion of 175 state vehicles to a dual
fuel system which will permit the use of virtually smog free compressed
natural gas (CNG);
2. Conversion of additional state vehicles to the dual
fuel system on a programmed and continuing basis;
3. Locating low emission cars, and new 1970 model state cars
in major smog affected areas;
4. Requiring that 1971 autos and trucks purchased by the
state for use in smog troubled areas meet the proposed stiff 1975 vehicle
emission standards;
5. Reducing the fuel tax on natural gas as an incentive
for other fleet operators--private and public--to join with the state
in this part of his clean air campaign, and
6. Developing a systematic testing and tune-up procedure to
insure sustained low vehicle emissions.
The first phase of the program, the conversion of 175 state
operated vehicles to the CNG dual fuel system, will begin immediately,
the governor said. With the dual system, the vehicle could be operated
on the highway or in open country on regular gas, then switched to
natural gas for driving in the smog-plagued metropolitan areas.
"The state is one of the very large motor vehicle fleet
operators", the governor pointed out. "It should lead the way in this
specific effort to reduce vehicular air pollution in our cities."
At the request of Assemblyman Pete Schabarum (R-Covina)
the State Highway Commission allocated funds to test the dual system on
10 state autos. The tests were conducted under the supervision of the
State Air Resources Board and the satisfactory results of those tests
prompted the governor's decision to begin converting a portion of the
state auto fleet to compressed natural gas. The governor said the
test vehicles scored below the state requirements set for 1974 models,
and that with some modifications, they could meet the even stiffer 1975
The governor's program calls for additional dual system autos
to be converted and added to the state fleet on a monthly basis.
Under the program, the state will also put into operation vehicles
powered by other low emission fuels and engines when these prove practical
Such vehicles might include steam and electric powered cars and trucks
as well as those powered by improved gas turbines.
During recent months, the Reagan administration has been
making stringent efforts to cut back on the total number of motor
vehicles operated by the state government. Part of the savings realized
by the cutbacks will be used to pay for the conversion of internal
combustion engined cars to the dual system. "At the same time," said
the governor, "some 1970 model autos will be purchased with the
conversion system installed before use."
All converted and 1970 low emission state vehicles will be
located and operated in major cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Sacramento and San Diego, areas considered to have smog problems.
Older vehicles will be transferred to rural and other areas not
experiencing air pollution problems.
The Air Resources Control Board recently called for emission
controls on 1975 model cars which would be even stiffer than the
California standards set for the 1974 models. The governor announced
that he has instructed Verne Orr, director of General Services, to
require that those 1971 models purchased by the state for use in high
pollution areas meet the stiff 1975 standards. In lieu of meeting the
1975 requirements with internal combustion engines, CNG switchover dual
fuel system installation would be permitted.
The governor urged other major fleet operators in California--
public utilities, city and county governments-- to make similar dual
system conversions.
As one incentive, the governor said that he will ask the
legislature to cut the present state tax on natural gas for automotive
use by almost 60 percent-- from 7 to 3 cents per 100 cubic feet, the
amount of CNG comparable to a gallon of regular liquid gasoline. The
state tax on a gallon of gasoline is 7 cents and would remain unchanged.
-2-
If the legislature approves the govern or's request, the cost
for natural gas would be about 14 cents, compared to about 30 cents
per gallon of gasoline.
To encourage city and county governments to convert their
vehicles, the governor stressed that the state's massive purchasing
power was available to them. Many city and county governments already
work with the state's department of General Services to save money in
the purchase of police and other vehicles.
The average cost of converting an auto to the dual system is
$400. It is estimated that tax and fuel cost savings should average
$100 a year under normal fleet operation. The dual fuel unit can be
switched from an old to a new vehicle when the car is sold or traded.
The governor acknowledged that there are some disadvantages in
operating on compressed natural gas including the initial conversion
cost, the present scarcity of natural gas stations (the state plans to
install its own), the relatively limited operating range on a tankful
of gas, and the amount of trunk space needed for the natural gas tanks.
"However, the point is--we can start achieving low pollution
now, and that outweighs any disadvantages as far as we are concerned,"
the governor concluded.
# # #
-3-
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: 5 P.M. DECEMBER 22.
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
12-18-69
MEMO TO TELEVISION NEWS EDITORS
The accompanying color videotape contains a Report to the People
by Governor Ronald Reagan for use AFTER 5 P.M. DECEMBER 22, 1969.
It runs 1:44. Please guard against premature release.
Enclosed is a news release---also embargoed for use after 5 p.m.
Monday, December 22 -containing additional details of the program being
announced by the governor.
Following is the text of the taped Report to the People:
"When I took office I promised you this administration would wage
an all-out war on air pollution.
"We have done this. We have adopted the strongest controls on air
pollution by any state in the union. Automobiles literally have to be
manufactured to California specifications.
"Today I am proposing a six-point program that will bring California
one step closer to victory. I am ordering:
--Immediate conversion of 175 state vehicles to a dual fuel system
that will permit the use of smog-free compressed natural gas.
2--Conversion of other state vehicles to this system on a programmed,
continuing basis.
3--Locating all cars converted to natural gas and 1970 model state
cars with emission controls in major smog-affected areas.
-Requiring all 1971 autos and trucks purchased by the state for
use in smog-troubled areas meet the proposed 1975 emission standards.
-Proposing that as an incentive, the fuel tax on natural gas be
reduced to all fleet operators both public and private.
--Developing a new systematic testing and tune-up procedure to
insure sustained low vehicle emissions.
"As I have pointed out, this war against foul air must concern not
only government and industry but every private citizen as well---not some
mysterious "they", but "we" cause pollution, and "we" can remedy it.
"This new program will help us win another skirmish in the war we
are fighting to protect our environment for this and future generations.
"I will be announcing other new programs and policies in the coming
months."
#########
EJG