Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564490",
    "label": "Speeches - Miscellaneous (including scripts), 1964-1974 [March 1970-December 1971]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564490"
}

{
    "id": "118564490",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564490",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Speeches - Miscellaneous (including scripts), 1964-1974 [March 1970-December 1971]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564490",
    "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-P20-011-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-011-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-011-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564490",
    "naId": 118564490,
    "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-P20-011-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "cab641df55071ba2",
    "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 - Miscellaneous (including scripts),\n1964-1974 [March 1970-December 1971]\nBox: P20\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/\n02/5/21\nTHE ORME SCHOOL\n(GRADUATION OF\nPATRICIA REAGAN)\nCOMMENCEMENT ADDRESS\nBY\nGOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nJUNE 1970\nHaving a personal involvement in this ceremony, I shall, with\nhope in my heart, reject the cynical definition that educa-\ntional institutions are storehouses of knowledge because the\nfreshmen bring so much in and the seniors take so little out.\nThe world has undergone many changes, most for the good, not\nthe least of which is the abandonment of some of the standard\ncliches which by custom and tradition are a part of every com-\nmencement address.\nThere was a time when the speaker was expected to tell the\ngraduates on this day that they knew more than they had ever\nknown before or than they would ever know again. The next\nlight hearted pearl was to pronounce: \"When I was fourteen I\nthought my father didn't know anything, but by the time I had\nreached twenty-one I was amazed at how much the old gentleman\nhad learned in seven years. \"\nWith all the change, however, some things remain the same.\nYou have taken almost an entire lifetime to achieve this mo-\nment and, as you look back from this day, the journey seems\nvery long. But to some of us here, it seems the journey started\nonly yesterday.\nThis is a day for mixed emotions, for looking back with nostalgia,\nand looking ahead, seeking a clue as to what the future holds. I\nsuppose this explains the paradox of calling this day \"graduation\"\nat the same time we call it a \"commencement\". But it's a special\nkind of day when it's appropriate that you should take inventory\nof your inheritance, the world, and the social structure you 11\nbe taking over in such a very short time.\nAlmost all of you are going on with your education to colleges\nand universities throughout the land, and this brings me to one\nof the changes in this day a new kind of worry that many of us\nfeel.\nThere was a time when our worries had only to do with how you'd\nfare in college whether you'd make good, and whether we could\nafford it. Now we're concerned as to whether we've given you a\nfoundation which will stand up under an assault by some who in-\nterpret their right to teach as an obligation to shape your\nthinking so as to reflect their own beliefs. This, too, is part\nof the changing world. There was a time when to do this would be\n-2-\na violation of the highest canons of the teaching profession,\nwhen teachers rejected the idea of indoctrinating students with\na particular viewpoint. Their aim then, and I'm sure for many\nprofessors now, was and is to teach you how to think, rather\nthan what to think.\nI recall the professor who shepherded me through four years to\na degree in Economics and, as I look back now, I discover I\nhaven't a single clue as to which of the major political parties\nhe belonged to, or what his personal views were on partisan\nmatters.\nNow this isn't to say that we should impose such a blanket res-\ntriction on teachers that they should hide their viewpoint to\nthe extent of not even wearing a campaign button for the candi-\ndate of their choice. As a matter of fact, right at the moment,\nI feel rather kindly toward people who wear campaign buttons,\nand will even send them a button upon request.\nBut there is a \"time, place, and manner, requiring exercise of\njudgment. Suppose for example a student in a class in mathe-\nmatics should ask the professor for his opinion on some current\nnational policy or some political dispute. It is possible the\nprofessor, under certain circumstances, could answer that question\nin class without risk of unduly influencing his students. But it\nwould be better if he suggested that those interested in his view-\npoint remain after class or meet him on the campus. Then he could\ngive his opinion and give his reasons for taking that position.\nAt the same time, however, if he was a really good professor, he\nwould advise them to find someone of a different view and seek to\nlearn that person's reasons for thinking as he did. Having urged\nthem to inquire as to differing viewpoints, the good professor\nwould then suggest they make up their own minds on the basis of\nall they had heard and all they had learned.\nI'm sure there are still many professors like that. But as a\nRegent of one of the great university systems in this land, I have\ncome to know from first hand experience that the \"now\" generation\nwhich prides itself on telling it \"like it is\" is being told in\ntoo many Social Science classes the way it is not. The American\nsystem is portrayed in those classes as being so unjust and in-\nadequate as to be beyond repair. Advocates of change and revolu-\ntion assail something they call \"The Establishment, and suddenly\nmany of us who thought of ourselves just as parents to be tolerated\ndiscover that we are \"The Establishment,\" motivated by greed and\nonly poorly concealed by hypocrisy. The result has been a bitter\npolarization--a separation of the generations, with young people\nparticularly complaining of an inability to communicate. However,\nit is possible you have communicated better than you know. We do\nunderstand your complaints, and we agree with their legitimacy.\n-3-\nThe world you will inherit in a few more years is less than\nperfect. Poverty hasn't been eliminated, prejudice and in-\nequality of opportunity still exist. War, man's greatest\nstupidity, still takes place. This we freely admit, but let me\nmake this plain: I have no intention of apologizing for our\ngeneration.\nIn our lifetime we have fought harder and paid a higher price\nfor freedom than any people who ever lived. At the same time,\nwe have done more to advance the dignity of man than any people\nin any similar period of time.\nThe cry \"revolution now\" is heard on many of our campuses.\nFrankly, it has little meaning for us--indeed it sounds some-\nwhat foolish for we presided over the greatest economic and\nsocial revolution the world has ever known. We were born with\na life expectancy ten years less than I have already lived.\nDiseases which had plagued mankind for centuries past, diseases\nthat killed and maimed, have been so totally eliminated by our\nefforts and research that it is difficult to even remember\ntheir names. We were born at a time when two-thirds of us\nlived in sub-standard housing and ninety percent of us lived\nbelow what is called the poverty line. In our lifetime we\nhave reduced the number of people living in sub-standard\nhousing to less than ten percent, and less than eleven percent\nare today considered poor.\nA student challenged the other day that we are unable to under-\nstand you--our sons and daughters--because in our youth we\ndidn't have the miracles of instant electronic communication,\nnuclear power, space exploration, and jet travel. That's\nright, we didn't have those things- we invented them!\nWith regard to another sickness plaguing our world, we took up\nwhere the Second World War left off. We met head on, a racial\nproblem no people had ever dared tackle before. In my first\nyear out of college, I broadcaste major league baseball. But\nthere were no Willie Mays or Hank Arrans to thrill us with their\ngreat ability. The opening line of the official guide read:\n\"Baseball is a game for caucasion gentlemen. \" Many of us cover-\ning sports editorialized and fought to change that. We haven't\nerased prejudice and bigotry from every heart, but we've opened\ndoors that had been closed and barred for a hundred years. From\nan almost zero start we can point today to thirty percent of all\nthe employed Negroes holding jobs that are classified high status.\nIn the last decade alone, their employment in white collar jobs\nhas increased fifty percent, and almost the same is the case in OF\nskilled craftsmen or foreman type positions jobs which were once\n-4-\ndenied them at the time of our birth and later. Today, a\nhigher percentage of our young Negro men and women go to\ncollege in the United States than the percentage of Whites\nin any other country in the world.\nIt surprises us that anyone can honestly believe that parading\npickets and demonstrations are necessary to remind us of our\nresponsibility to our fellow man. Now there is an ugly war,\nand part of our failure to communicate seems to be an assump-\ntion that we don't find the war repugnant or that somehow our\nlove of peace lacks fervor. We have looked upon war four times\nin the course of our lives and have learned to hate it. At\nthe same time, however, we had to learn an age old truth. There\nare things of lasting value for which men must be willing to\ndie. Have you ever wondered what this world would be like if\nyoung men had not been willing to bleed their dreams and hopes\nand lives into the sand of Omaha Beach, the mud of Normandy, or\na thousand atolls and jungle islands in the Pacific a quarter\nof a century ago? No one has ever been able to visualize his\nparents as they were when they were young and, somehow, that's\ntoo bad. I wish you could have known those older men in our\nlife, who are getting a little thin on top and thick in the\nmiddle, as they were in World War II when General Marshall called\nthem, \"Our secret weapon--the best damned kids in the world\".\nWinston Churchill said they were the only soldiers he'd ever\nseen who were able to laugh and fight at the same time. Per-\nhaps it's difficult for you, seeing them now, to realize how\ndeeply they could feel and how great was their sorrow when they\nsaid last farewells. They didn't take war lightly.\nI remember reading a citation in the general orders of the Eighth\nAir Force--an award for heroism above and beyond the call of duty.\nA B-17 bomber, one of our flying fortresses, had been badly da-\nmaged by antiaircraft fire on a raid over Europe. The ball turret\nbeneath the belly of the plane had taken a direct hit and was\njammed in such a way it was impossible to get the wounded gunner\nout and back into the plane. As the crippled bomber headed out\nover the channel on its return to England, it began to lose al-\ntitude until finally the captain had to order abandon ship. As\nthe crew began to bail out, the kid in the ball turret seeing\nthis realized he was being left to go down with the plane--under-\nstandably he cried out in terror. The last man to leave the\nship saw the pilot sit down on the floor, take the boys hand\nand heard him say, \"Never mind, son, ride it down together. \"\nCongressional Medal of Honor posthumously awarded. Somehow it\ndoesn't seem that a nation 80 selfish and materialistic could\nproduce such young men, or that such a nation, fighting for its\nvery existence in a savage war, would give its highest and most\ndistinguished award not for killing the enemy in heroic combat\nbut for such an act of unselfish sacrifice.\n-5-\nThere are some things which belong to youth but not neces-\nsarily to one generation of youth. A scholar has written:\n\"The young of any generation have felt the same impulse to\ngrow, to reach out to touch stars, to live freely, and to\nlet their minds loose upon unexplored corridors. Young men\nand women have always stood on some hill and felt the same\nsudden and complete expansion of the mind, to final fulfill-\nment. It is one of the oldest, sweetest, and most bitter\nexperiences of mankind.'\nI wonder if you know how easy it is for us to understand that\nyou want more out of life than just more horsepower in the\ngarage, and color TV in the bedroom? Did you know that we\nshare your idealism and from time to time renew our own from\nyours? But without sacrificing our ideals, idealism must still\ngo hand in hand with the commonplace and the practical. Water\nmust flow, the sick be healed, and all the intricate meshing of\nharvest and manufacture, and transportation must take place so\nthat we are not ill-housed, ill-fed and ill-clothed. To have\nthe dream or the practical, either one without the other could\nbecome very dreary. Many young people on a number of campuses\nwant to feel as if they are making a contribution to society-\nand why not? The opportunities for that be are limitless. You\ndon't have to join the Peace Corps or join the Missionary-\nadmirable as that is. Even the world of business, maligned so\nmuch these days as a mere process of money grubbing, offers a\nmultitude of opportunity for those who want to serve.\nLast year American business found a quarter of a million un-\nemployables-- individuals who had never in their lifetime held\na steady job. Many of these individuals had jail and prison\nrecords but they were trained and put to work in jobs paying\nmore money in many instances than they had ever dreamed of\nhaving. Last year, American business spent $350 million dol-\nlars to send poor kids from the ghettos to college. They gave\n$800 million dollars to non-profit organizations for medical\nresearch.\nMany young people are properly concerned about pollution, the\nenvironment, the world you're going to live in, and whether\nthe beauty of that world is going to be preserved. Well, last\nyear, businessmen gave over and above taxes two and one half\nbillion dollars to fight pollution and desecration of the en-\nvironment, and have earmarked four billion dollars for the\ncoming years. This meant more than just an individual sitting\nat a desk writing a check. It meant staffing and organization\nto see that these worthwhile projects were carried out, and\nthis meant opportunities for young people who can earn a living\nand serve at the same time. Ours is not a sick society.\n-6-\nA few years ago the Australian Prime Minister, John Corton,\nsaid: \"I wonder if anybody has ever thought what the situation\nof the comparatively small nations in the world would be if\nthere were not in existence the United States--if there were\nnot the giant country prepared to make so many sacrifices.\"\nWas he talking about the 190 billion dollars we've given to\nmore than a hundred other countries since World War II, in-\ncluding our erstwhile enemies? Or was he referring to an\nearlier period, the Belgium Relief Program after World War I\nin which we saved millions of people from starvation? The list\nof those we ve helped is extensive. We headed off faminein\nIndia, went to the aid of earthquake victims in Japan, Turkey\nand Iran, and now Peru. This is all very much a part of the\nhistory of this country of ours.\nNow of course you could protest that I'm putting you off talk-\ning about things you can do when you have finished your educa-\ntion, and you want action and involvement now. Well, again,\nwhy not? Mozart wrote his first sonata at age seven; Michael-\nangelo sculptured the Battle of the Centaur at sixteen; and\nThomas Edison patented the electric voice recorder when he\nwas nineteen. You will have an almost instant opportunity for\ninvolvement when you get to college. You can burn down the li-\nbrary or stone the Dean. Or if you really have a yen for ex--\nploration you can, if you search diligently, find that vast\nmajority of your fellow students who are doing any of a number\nof things that are little publicized but greatly rewarding to\nthem and to society. On a number of campuses there are students\nwho take their own time to go into the ghettos and tutor dis-\nadvantaged children. In my own state, thousands of young college\nstudents volunteer every summer to go into our mental hospitals\nto participate in the great experimental work that is being done\nin an attempt to make them truly hospitals, places of healing\nwhere patients are restored to a useful life instead of being\nwarehoused in institutions for the rest of their lives. There\nis a widespread program for students who spend at least one\nafternoon a week driving shut-ins to libraries and markets. On\none campus the students took their whole summer vacation to\nbuild a school for underprivileged children in Mexico.\nToday, with all the noise and furor and concern over what seems\nto be the more dramatic but often the less productive, we tend\nto forget that there are millions of splendid, concerned Ameri-\ncans, quietly going about the business of being good neighbors,\nbuilding themselves and America by helping others. Because of\nthem and in spite of the merchants of doom and gloom, America\ntowers over the world. Our system, tried and tempered through\nyears of both peace and war, adversity and achievement, has\nbeen preserved by men and women of uncommon stature and un-\ncommon devotion to a dream. Call it a dream of Camelot if you\nwill--that mythical place of truth and justice and brotherhood.\n-7-\nOn the deck of the tiny Argella, off the Massachusetts coast\nin 1630, John Winthrop said to a little band of pilgrims:\n\"We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people\nare upon us. If we fail, we shall be made a story. and a\nbyword through all the world. Camelot didn't die on a\nstreet in Dallas, Texas, nor can it be killed in the jungles\nof Vietnam. Camelot is here. We have come closer to the\nrealization of that dream than any people, at anytime, in\nany other place.\nFrom time to time we have failed the dream, but the dream\nhas never failed us. Camelot isn't built by shouting slogans\nthrough a bullhorn or holding sit-ins, or locking the dean in\nhis office. You can't get it from a bottle or a syringe.\nCamelot is built by people doing mundane, work-a-day things\nbut still having time for common courtesy as well as com-\npassion for each other. Camelot is not built by one genera-\ntion with the deed to the property and the key delivered to\nthose who follow after. Camelot is never finished. The tools\nfor building are handed by the old to the young on days like\nthis for the joy is in the building. That shining \"city upon\na hill\" will soon be yours. We're proud of the towers and\nthe spires that we have added. We hope with all our hearts\nyou'll do even better.\nIf at times you've gotten a little impatient with us, found\nus overly possessive, perhaps that's because whether you know\nit or not, we have been possessed by you, and you did it so\nvery easily with one hand, when that hand was so tiny it could\nbarely encircle a single finger. But it did that with such a\ngrip we'll go through the rest of our lives feeling the im-\nprint.\nCongratulations and God bless you.\n10/18/70\nno\nK\nR All writtenses per of mission of This this transcript and 1 be for the Inc.\nCBS NEWS\n2020 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C.\n20036\nFACE THE NATION\nas broadcast over the\nCBS Television Network\nand the\nCBS Radio Network\nSunday, October 18, 1970 - - 11:30 AM - 12:00 Noon EDT\nOrigination: Los Angeles, California\nGUESTS: CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES\nRONALD REAGAN\nRepublican Governor of California\nJESSE UNRUH\nFormer Speaker, California State Assembly\nREPORTERS:\nGeorge Herman, CBS News\nDonald Neff, Time Magazine\nBill Stout, CBS News\nPRODUCERS: Sylvia Westerman and Prestiss Childs\nNOTE TO EDITORS: Please credit CBS News' \"Face the Nation.\" \"\n1\nANNOUNCER: In Los Angeles, California, in color, FACE THE\nNATION, a spontaneous and unrehearsed news interview with the major\nparty condidates for governor of California, Republican Governor\nRonald Reagan, who is seeking to win a second four-year term, and\nthe former Speaker of the California Assembly, Democrat Jesse Unruh.\nThe candidates will be questioned by CBS News Correspondent Bill\nStout, Donald Neff, Los Angeles Bureau Chief of Time Magazine, and\nCBS News Correspondent George Herman.\nGEORGE HERMAN: For today's interview, it was decided by lot\nthat Governor Reagan would be questioned first, and also, by prior\nagreement, Mr. Unruh will not have heard the interview with Governor\nReagan when he's questioned in the second half of this program.\nGovernor, when you campaigned four years ago, you campaigned on a\npromise of cracking down on crime, on campus violence, and high\ntaxes. Over the past three and a half years, in which of these\nareas do you think you've really made a dent?\nGOV. REAGAN: I would think in the area of crime, and let me\ntake advantage of your question there to point out that it is not\ntrue that I campaigned on the basis that I would solve all those\nproblems. My criticism, and I think it was well-founded, was that\nunder the previous administration, nothing was being done to cope\nwith campus violence or with crime. And we did stop appeasing and\nstarted opposing in the area of campus violence, and perhaps this\nhas contributed to some. For example, there would have been no\npeople's park episode if we had given in to the street people who\ndemanded $1,300,000 worth of property that belonged to the\n2\nuniversity. Because we wouldn't give them the property, we had a\nriot.\nIn the area of crime, however, for two years we were unable to\nget many of our preposals for anti-crime legislation out of com-\nmittee, and last year we did and we passed 20 bills that went into\neffect in January. Three of the leading mayors in California, Los\nAngeles, San Francisco and Oakland, have in just recent days testi-\nfied that crime in these major cities in California--crimes of\nviolence--are going down, while they are going up in the rest of\nthe country. I think part of this is due to those bills we passed.\nNEFF: Campus violence and taxes are both higher since you\nbecame governor. Do you think you could do any better in four\nyears what you haven't already done in three and a half?\nGOV. REAGAN: Yes, because when you say the taxes are higher,\nI don't think there's any question about the fact that when we\ninherited a nearly bankrupt state, a state that was on the brink of\ninsolvency, there was no question but that the taxes were needed\nthat had been stalled off for eight years by gimmicks and various\nbookkeeping devices, and there was no opposition from the other\nparty--there was great support for the tax program. But I would\nlike to point out to you that after having passed that tax increase,\nwe have returned to the people by way of direct property tax relief\nin the main over a billion dollars. Now this appears in our budget\nas an expense. In this year's budget, there's $318 million expense\nthat is actually money we are collecting through statewide taxes\nand returning to local government to make up for exemptions that\nare granted against the property tax. We failed in our big tax\n3\nreform program by one vote, this time.\nIn the area of campus violence, I think today, finally, many\npeople who poohpoohed and said that everyone was trying to find\nsomething under the bed has discovered that this is a world-wide\nphenomenon, a national phenomenon, and it is linked to a direct\nrevolution against our system and our way of life.\nSTOUT: Governor, at the meeting of the University of California\nBoard of Regents, did you really call a fellow member of the Board\na lying son of a bitch?\nGOV. REAGAN: Well, let me say that episode has been highly\ncolored, but I can't kick, I opened the box of crayons, and if they\nwanted to highly color it, there was a certain amount of creative\nwriting that has gone on about the incident. There was no shoving\nof shouting at all, but very quietly, and if this comes as sort of\ntaking the Fifth on the -- very quietly I expressed a long-held\nopinion quite forcefully to the individual.\nSTOUT: Do you think, sir, that's setting some kind of tone\nas the chief executive of the nation's most populous state?\nGOV. REAGAN: It was between him and me. There happened to be\nan eavesdopper. There was no shouting or out in public. I waited\nuntil the meeting was over, and he was the one who had injected a\npolitical note into the meeting. He has done it repeatedly. There\nwere two individuals involved.\nNEFF: Was this Fred Dutton or Norton Simon?\nGOV. REAGAN: Both of them had injected the political note,\nNorton to my complete surprise, because up until now there has been\ncomplete-\n4\nNEFF: He's a Republic--\nGOV. REAGAN: Well, no, there has been a complete communication\nbetween us, and We've talked over many things, and when he said\nwhat he did I was quite shocked, and I tried to signal him that I\nwould like to see him after the meeting, and he immediately started\nscooping up his possessions to run for cover, and I hurried around\nthe table to intercept him and ask him if we couldn't go into one\nof the adjacent rooms and find out what's on his mind. But on the\nway around Mr. Dutton had already taken the microphone and had\njoined the fray, and so I just dismissed him with a quiet remark\nas to his antecedents, and then turned to Mr. Simon, but Simon\nwasn't--\nNEFF: There was a charge that you also lightly pushed, I\nthink, Norton Simon.\nGOV. REAGAN: No, not at all.\nSTOUT: There is something involved in all this, Governor,\nthat I think goes to the heart of contemporary political rhetoric,\nI suppose we might call it. The other day at the highway patrol\nmeeting, you said something to the officers and their wives and the\ndelegates about how they are the people who are holding back the\njungle, and the jungle creatures.\nGOV. REAGAN: Yes.\nSTOUT: What did you mean, and what is that supposed to appeal\nto?\nGOV. REAGAN: Well, I think law enforcement is in reality --\nI've described -- and whether you like my picture of it or not - -\nI have described on previous occasions that civilization is in\n5\nreality a clearing in a jungle, and that the law of the jungle is\nalways there, that there are the baser instincts, there is a\ntendency for violence to come back in. We see it when war breaks\nout, and we see the rules break down and the moral standards begin\nto decline. And I believe that law enforcement, basically the\npoliceman, is in the thin line, that that basically is what they\ndo. Belloc, the poet, put it when he said we laugh at the barbarian\nand the easy times of peace, but while we laugh we are watched by\nlarge and awful faces from beyond and on those faces there is no\nsmile. Now I'm sure what he was referring to was this element\nthat is always ready to turn to violence, even the legal type of\nviolence, when a Hitler or a Stalin seizes power.\nAnd when your society begins to crumble, these men, all of\nthis assault that they want to make against the forces of law and\norder, these men stand between us. They go to work each day with\nthe knowledge that they may not return, that they are duty-bound\nto put themselves between the citizen and those who would wreak\nviolent harm upon them. This is why, I suppose, that there is\nsuch a terrible blow when one of those men that we find in law\nenforcement, they themselves succumb and give the so-called\nbad cop. It's a terrible blow to us because it strikes at the\nvery heart of our protection.\nHERMAN: Let me take you back to the campuses for just a\nmoment. You said, I believe, in one of your statements that\ncollege administrators and student leaders are going to maintain\norder on the campus or we will do it for them. What I want to\nknow, and I suspect a lot of college administrators around the\n6\ncountry would like to know, how can you do it for them?\nGOV. REAGAN: When I say we, make this plain that we refers\nto the Board of Regents. Now, in a couple of instances lately,\nas you know, the Regents have had to interject themselves a little\nmore into actual administration of the campus than a governing\nbody of that kind is normally expected to do. The responsibility\nis with the Regents. The constitution says the Regents are totally\nresponsible for everyone on that campus, for everything that campus\ndoes for its policy and so forth. Down through the years, bodies\nlike that delegate authority. They let the faculty, because that\nis their profession, name their department heads and so forth.\nThey let the administration of each campus, as far as possible,\nexercise the policy that has been determined by the Regents. But\nwhen you have a breakdown, when you have the kind of problems we\nare having, there comes a moment in which the governing board,\nhaving the responsibility, must take back the authority. And what\nthe Regents in recent months have said to the administration, after\nmeeting after meeting and months and even these few years of trying\nto persuade them to the danger that is inherent in appeasing these\nviolent factions on the campus, the Regents finally have said,\nand this isn't a harsh kind of a gloating thing -- it is a statement\nin which the Regents have had to make it plain that either these\nadministrators will bring this order and take this firm stand that\nis necessary in protection of the majority who want to get an\neducation, the majority of faculty who want to teach -- or the\nRegents will have to do it for them, and that isn't good adminis-\ntration and we don't want to have to do that.\n7\nNEFF: Governor, aren't you getting into the threat, such as\nNazi Germany, of legalizing the jungle? Now recently you've come\nout suggesting that you'd like to see tenure abolished for teachers,\nand if you continue these repressive acts toward the campus, aren't\nyou in effect going to be imposing a repression on a majority of\nour society?\nGOV. REAGAN: No, and I think this charge all the time that\nany time you try to restore law and order, which is all that's ever\nbeen done, that it is repression in some way -- you go on to a\ncampus where the buildings are burning and the students are throwing\nrocks, and they are beating up on their own kind -- bombings and\nso forth -- finally law enforcement is brought in. How is this\nrepressive? The repression would be if you lined up the law en-\nforcement in advance and everyone went around under an armed guard\nand there was someone assigned to, in the classroom, watching the\nprofessor and telling him what to say. This might be the thing we\nsaw in Hitler's Germany. No one wants that.\nBut I would think that if there is a Nazi influence, it is\ncoming from the rebels, because they are not advocating freedom of\nspeech. William Kunstler, one of their boys, can go on the campus\nthat the President of the United States can't go on. And so this --\nwhen you say tenure, this is a subject which has come up all over\nthe United States, and many states have a much less generous tenure\nthan California. What I'm suggesting was a study of tenure, and\nwhether perhaps we should hold out longer before it is given, and\nwhether there should be a period at which you review whether you\nshould continue it on an individual, instead of giving a man lifetime\n8\ntenure and forever after being helpless to remove him if he turns\nout to be incompetent.\n(MORE)\n9\nHERMAN: Let me take you back to the clearing in the jungle\nanalogy for a moment. Is there--because this clearing finds itself\nbeleaguered now--is there a conservative tide running in the nation,\nor more specifically, in California?\nGOV. REAGAN: Well, I happen to be one who's felt that the\nAmerican people are always, in the sense that conservative is used\nthese days, have always been conservative and have not been quite\naware of some of the threats against individual liberty.\nHERMAN: Well, my question really is partly aimed at - to why\nis it that from what I read and find in California, you are doing\nso well and, for example, Senator Murphy is not doing so well. This\ndoesn't seem to reflect what we normally would consider to be a\nconservative tide. We have about one minute left.\nGOV. REAGAN: Well, you have a congressman, an incumbent\ncongressman, a well-known and popular name running against an\nincumbent senator in the state. You have the congressman represent-\ning what is a majority party, as against a candidate from a minority\nparty. You had a somewhat bitter primary on the Republican side\nin this, and some division in the ranks that we've tried to hold\ndown over the years. And I'm confident that Senator Murphy is\ngoing to win; but he does have a tougher race.\nHERMAN: I have one last quick question. You said four years\nago that you were not a politician. Are you now?\nGOV. REAGAN: Well, I keep thinking of myself as a citizen.\nI've--guard very much against--and I had little temptation to\njoin the empire builders and try to bring government up to a bigger\nlevel. I'm still trying to reduce the power of government.\n10\nHERMAN: Thank you very much, Governor Reagan. I'm sorry,\nbut we've run out of time, and we'll be on to our next guest in a\nmoment.\nANNOUNCER: We resume now with Democratic candidate Jesse\nUnruh.\nHERMAN: Mr. Unruh, California's voters are almost 55 per cent\nregistered Democrats, I note, and yet all of the polls that I've\nseen and all of the experts that I've read show you apparently well\nbehind Governor Reagan. What's happened?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, first of all, I don't put much faith in the\npolls, although I guess almost everyone else does. Goodman Ace\nonce said that every American believes the polls, from the smallest\nfarmer in Iowa right on up to President Thomas E. Dewey. I think\nbeyond that that people do not vote their registration nowadays\nvery much anywhere. California hasn't for a long time, and I think\nthat's the pacesetter as far as the nation is concerned.\nNEFF: Governor--Mr. Unruh--\nMR. UNRUH: I'll accept that.\nNEFF: --A number of traditional Democratic supporters, such\nas former National Committeeman Eugene Wyman, singer Frank Sinatra\nand others, are not supporting you. Why?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, I suppose you'd have to ask them. But I\nthink that's principally-- I mean most of those people are people\nwho came in when the Democratic Party was in power, when we had a\ngovernor and a president with whom they could--they could expect\nsomething from. And we don't have that now, so they're following\n11\nthe--where the power is.\nSTOUT: What do you mean, expect something from? You mean\nmoney?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, not necessarily money, but there are charters\nto be given, there are law cases to be referred, there are other\nfavors or prestige--\nSTOUT: That sounds like money to me.\nMR. UNRUH: Well--\nSTOUT: Is that what you mean, that these people came in?\nMR. UNRUH: Most of the people that have now--are supposedly\nDemocratic stalwarts and have gone over to the governor, most of\nthem I never heard of back in the 1950's, before we had a Democratic\ngovernor in California and a Democratic president.\nHERMAN: You, sir, in your sort of afterthought to your answer\nto my first question, you said that in California people don't vote\ntheir registration anyhow, and that sounded to me like sort of a\npessimistic note, that you do not expect a very good Democratic\nturnout for you.\nMR. UNRUH: You know, I just simply meant that there's going\nto be a wild crossover on both respects. I think I'm going to get\na good, strong Republican vote. Many of the people who voted for\nTom Kuchel, who's now been exorcised by the Republican leadership in\nthis state, along with the other--most of the other liberal Republi-\ncan leadership--I think we're going to get a good Republican vote.\nConversely, I expect some Democrats to vote for the incumbent.\nHERMAN: Why do you appear to be--or maybe I should ask if it\nis true first--but let me ask you why do you appear to be running\n12\nso far behind some of the other Democrats on the ticket here, for\nexample, Mr. Tunney?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, I really can't answer that. You're basing\nall of that on the polls.\nHERMAN: Yes, sir.\nMR. UNRUH: And as I told you before, I simply do not believe\nthe polls. I don't think the people are really looking at the\nelection yet. I don't think that the polls are accurate. That's\nthe best I can say.\nNEFF: You haven't had any TV advertising at all in this race\nand your opponent has had quite a bit. Is that a factor?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, it may well be, may well be that we have not\ngotten our message over as well as we would like to, because we've\nnot sold out to the special interests and therefore have not collected\nthe three or four or five or ten million dollars. And I have no\nidea what he's going to spend -- clearly, he has not filed a total\nreport, so that the people know either. It may be that that's one\nof the reasons we're having some problems there.\nSTOUT: What will you spend in this race?\nMR. UNRUH: I really don't know at this point, but it'll\nprobably be somewhere between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of what\nthe governor spends.\nSTOUT: But Mr. Unruh, realistically, in this state, a state\nthis size, the largest and all that sort of thing; and in the age\nof television and against a candidate like Ronald Reagan, can you\npossibly beat him or come close without television?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, I could if you would start asking me questions\n13\nabout what is the condition of welfare in this state.\nSTOUT: All right, I'll ask that.\nMR. UNRUH: There are 663,000 more people on welfare than there\nwere when Governor Reagan came in, despite the fact that he keeps\ntalking about the welfare mess. If we could talk about taxes, for\nexample, and understand that under four years of Ronald Reagan taxes\nhave gone up 87 per cent in this state. If we could talk about\nunemployment, and know that in the last year alone, under the\nNixon-Reagan administration, unemployment has almost doubled in the\nstate. Now if you talk to me about the issues and what's important\nto the people, instead of the polls, or instead of Governor Reagan's\ngreat technique on television, it--that's not important; it's not\nimportant what Mervin Field thinks about this election. What is\nimportant is whether someone is going to give us decent property\ntax relief. The governor can't do that because he's attached to the\noil interests, the insurance interests, all of the other people who\ncrawl through the loopholes on taxes because they finance his\ncampaigns.\nSTOUT: But--but to use that same word--realistically. What\nMervin Field and the pollsters think, and what reporters think, none\nof that is important. What's important is what the voters think of\nRonald Reagan as he comes across.\nMR. UNRUH: You see, what we get into here is the minute we\nget on a television program-and I don't get on too many of them\nbecause we don't have the money to buy--but the minute we get on\none, the first question I get asked is how in the world are you\ngoing to beat this invincible fellow? How in the world are you\n14\ngoing to match his great technique? I can't match his technique on\ntelevision. I'm willing to stipulate that he's a better actor than\nI am, that if the people want a performance on television that they\nshould vote for him.\nBut if they want to understand that in every situation that\nhe said was bad in --welfare, taxes, unrest on the campuses--it's\ngotten twice or three times as bad. Our crime rate has gone up\n20 per cent a year under Reagan, twice as fast as it was going up\nbefore-that he's been a total and abject failure. Now if we could\nget that kind of talk instead of talking about what pollsters say\nor what someone else thinks is the situation on the tube here.\nNEFF: Well, just--what do you think you could do about crime\nin the streets or campus unrest that he hasn't done?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, I think it's very simple what you can do.\nabout the crime. You're going to have to pay for it. You're going\nto have to admit that the greatest deterrent to crime is to get\nmore policemen on the beat in the high crime areas. They did that\nin New York in 1968 and they managed to reduce violent crime in\nthose areas by 50 per cent. That means we're going to have to pay\nfor it. This administration is spending less than one per cent\non police officer training or on crime research. That's not enough.\nWe're going to have to pay for it, and I think the people are willing\nto pay for protection.\n(MORE)\n15\nNEFF: Well, but on the one hand you are criticizing the\nGovernor for raising taxes, and now you're suggesting that you are\ngoing to have to raise taxes?\nMR. UNRUH: No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that if we made the\noil companies give up their depletion allowance, which is the\ngreatest tax gimmick since disappearing ink, that if we said to the\ninsurance companies, you're going to pay taxes on your home, which\nthey don't now, just like everybody else in California has to pay\ntaxes on their home, and if we had a withholding tax where we lose\n$150 to $175 million every year, and if we treated the capital gains\nthing differently, that we could pick up a half billion dollars\nevery year or more.\nAnd secondly, if we did one thing more, which we ought to do,\nif we said let's stop having two classes of taxpayers where one\nguy can charge off a luxury yacht, a night out on the town, or\nhis martinis or whatever else he might want to charge off -- you\nname it and some people charge it off -- whereas the guy who goes\ndown here and works in a plant can't even charge off the cost of his\ngasoline -- that's what ought to be done, and we could have the\nmoney for decent law enforcement, we could have the money for schools,\nwe could have the money for some property tax relief for small and\nmoderate home owners.\nHERMAN: Have you done studies that show that these things\nwill in fact provide that much money?\nMR. UNRUH: Yes, I have, I have. We could reduce the property\ntax on small and moderate homes--\nHERMAN: How much money does that involve?\n16\nMR. UNRUH: Well, we're talking probably about a half billion\ndollars, and that's about what these loopholes would raise the\nfirst year. Now after that we're going to have to raise bank and\ncorporation taxes to offset the relief we give to small and moderate\npricedhome owhers, but we're driving people out of their homes\nin this state, and we're not going to provide relief by simply\npassing it on in the sales tax or other consumer taxes, because\nthen you take it out of the pockets of the renters; and that's what\nthe governor's last bill was doing.\nNEFF: You've been complaining this past week that you've been\nmislabeled as a liberal, but your program sounds very liberal\nindeed.\nMR. UNRUH: Well, I think the old concept of liberal and con-\nservative is absolutely meaningless today, and in turn I think\nthat's another help to the Governor because clearly if you are\ngoing to tie the liberal tag around me and paint him as a conserva-\ntive or something other than a liberal, you've given me a pretty\nbig millstone to carry around my neck. The fact of the matter is\nI don't think I am either liberal or conservative, I'm not tied to\nany ideology. On the mental health program a few years back we\nthe\ntook solutions from both sides, both/conservatives who said people\nwere being committed to mental hospitals without protecting their\ncivil rights, and we revised that--we found they were right. So\nthat's just a meaningless term nowadays.\nSTOUT: Do you think it is meaningless to the majority of\nvoters, Mr. Unruh? Don't they still respond in almost basic\nanimal terms to labels like liberal and conservative?\n17\nMR. UNRUH: Well, I hope that's not true. I don't think the\nvoters respond in animal terms to dirty language or anything else\nthat's used.\nHERMAN: Which is the dirty word, liberal or conservative?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, the words that some of the politicians use\nis what I was referring to.\nHERMAN: I was interested in your saying that -- I'm not sure\nI understood you exactly correctly -- but you seemed to me to be\nsaying that to call you a liberal was to hang a big millstone\naround your neck. Are you talking about a big conservative swing\nin the country?\nMR. UNRUH: No, I'm not talking about a big conservative\nswing. I'm talking about what I say is -- continues to seem to me\nto be the conventional wisdom of the press. When they want to\nlabel anything simply and without any concept of what the real\nissues are. Now, for example, I think I'm more of a tough-liner,\nhard-liner, on campus dissent than the Governor was. I was support-\ning throwing these people off campus before he was even elected,\nbefore he was even thinking about it, as a matter of fact. I guess\nwhile he was still making speeches for governor--for Barry Goldwater.\nAnd yet that doesn't come through because people insist on talking\nabout conservatives and liberals. It's absolutely meaningless now.\nSTOUT: Well, let's put the labels aside, then, Mr. Unruh.\nWhat would you do about the campus problem, if we can call it that?\nMR. UNRUH: Well, I think the first thing you have to do is\nto have a flat rule that you're going to expel any student or any\nfaculty member who is guilty of violence or continued disruption\n18\nof the educational process, but I think the faculty and the adminis-\ntration have to take the authority and the responsibility for doing\nthat, and then if they won't take it, we're going to have to fire\nthem and get others that will. Now beyond that, you can't contain\nthe campus thing by the kind of constant criticism in other fields\nthat this Governor has gone through. He has cut the budget, he\nhas increased tuition, he has constantly derogated and downgraded\nit, and now the Board of Regents, I think, is being used to further\nenrich one of the big land companies in this state.\nHERMAN: We have about a minute and a half left. Have you\nhad problems because of your past differences with some Democratic\nleaders, both in the State and in the nation; for example, you are\nsaying about President Johnson's domestic policies, that they were\nas great a failure as his foreign policies -- has that cost you\nsupport?\nMR. UNRUH: I don't really think SO, I think people are pre-\npared to let politicians deviate somewhat from their party platform--\nHERMAN: We have just one minute.\nMR. UNRUH: And I don't think its realistic any more to say\nthat you have to go right straight down the line, and that every\nDemocrat for me to say that every Democrat is better than every\nRepublican is just hogwash, and to try to get the people to believe\nthat is a case. Now I don't think that's a case. Some people have\nused that, but the reason they 've used it is to absolve themselves\nwhen they really were going with the power.\nSTOUT: Very briefly, Mr. Unruh, because we are running out\nof time, do you think that the voters in this state respond to the\n19\nissues, as you speak out on them? Uenmployment, welfare and so\nforth?\nMR. UNRUH: I think they would if the issues were out here,\nif they understand that everything is worse today than it was four\nyears ago, and that Ronald Reagan has been governor and is res-\nponsible for it, I think they would respond.\nHERMAN: Okay, on that note we've just about run out of time,\nand I want to thank you very much, Mr. Unruh, and thank you also, to\nGovernor Reagan, for being here to Face the Nation, and we'll have\na word about next week's guests in a moment.\n****\nANNOUNCER: Today on FACE THE NATION, the major party candidates\nfor Governor of California, former Speaker of the California\nAssembly, Jesse Unruh, and Republican Governor Ronald Reagan were\ninterviewed by CBS Correspondent Bill Stout, Donald Neff, Los\nAngeles Bureau Chief of Time Magazine, and CBS News Correspondent\nGeorge Herman. Next week, the three major party candidates for\nthe United States Senate from New York, incumbent Republican Senator\nCharles Goodell, Democratic Representative Richard Ottinger, and\nconservative candidate James Buckley will FACE THE NATION.\n11/30/70\nand\nREMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\n(Transcript)\nFILM INDUSTRY RALLY\nLOS ANGELES\nNovember 30, 1970\nI suppose it is unnecessary in a gathering of this kind\nfor us to recount step by step the history that brought about the\nnecessity for such a gathering. However, a few words about the golden\nera of Hollywood are not only appropriate but essential, if our fellow\ncitizens are to understand their stake in the continuation of a healthy\nAmerican film industry.\nAlmost forgotten is the skyrocketing rise from the 5 cent novelty\nto the great motion picture palaces of the '20s and the '30s. We once\nC alled movies \"chasers\" and they were just exactly that. They were\nused in the beginning--about 5 minutes in length--to chase the audience\nout of the vaudeville houses and to get a turn over in audience for the\next show. Of course, some of us have had the very unhappy experience\nof making chasers long after vaudeville was dead!\nFrom silents to the talkies this industry became a major industry,\nwith billions of dollars invested in production and theatre facilities\nmore than two hundred thousand people employed nationwide, and heaven\nonly knows how many were employed in the associated industries, because\nthis industry was a great consumer, a great customer for thousands of\ndifferent services and supplies. During the depth of the depression it\nremained one of the only billion dollar industries in the entire nation.\nAnd in these recent years when we have watched with alarm the flow of\ngold from our own shores because of an unfavorable balance of trade, I\nthink that we are entitled to remind he United States Government that\nback through history the motion picture industry has been without equal\none of, the greatest earners of foreign exchange in our economy.\n-1-\nBut unfortunately, over the years government began to look\nupon our industry as a golden goose. A source of revenue for itself.\nI well recall an incident back during the war years when a delegation\nfrom Hollywood went to the Treasury Department to talk about a phase\nof the tax laws that were particularly discriminatory against our industry.\nThey met with an assistant secretary of the Treasury and when they met\nhim, virtually as he said hello, just as jovially\nhe said\"now what is it\nyou want to see me about, and if it doesn't mean more money for the\ngovernment, I'm not interested.\" That was their reception. That this\nindustry sold America\nnot just the freedom and an idea of the\nAmerican way\nbut we sold American products. Stores throughout the world\nstocked clothing and wardrobe and home furnishings and devices they saw\non American screens. We set styles throughout the world. And the\nresult was we gave millions of jobs to other Americans not even remotely\nassociated with our industry. In the post war years of the '40s, we\nsold something else. Audiences looked beyond our boy meets girl plot.\nThey looked beyond, and a hungry world saw our streets filled with\nshinning automobiles, saw our store windows filled with products that\nwere for sale and available to our citizens. Even in the family type\npicture, they saw dinner scenes and food on the table that they, in their\nland, thought could only be enjoyed by royalty or those of higher station.\nSometimes the things they saw were so startling they were hard\nto believe. Eric Johnson, when he represented this industry told of a time\nbefore the Iron Curtain had come down quite SO tightly. He went behind\nthe Iron Curtain into Warsaw, Poland. He was running some movies for\nthe education minister of Poland. Among them was a light romantic\ncomedy starring Dennis Morgan and the late Ann Sheridan. They were\nemployed in an aircraft plant and they made the film on location at\nLockheed there in Burbank.\n-2-\nOne of the scenes took place out on a parking lot, and at that\npoint the minister of Education grabbed Eric's arm and said, \"Mr. Johnson,\nthat's what we mean. How stupid do you think we poor Poles are to fall\nfor this type of propaganda? Eric didn't know what he meant. The minister\nsaid \"Those thousands of automobiles in the background\nare\nyou\ntrying\nto\nconvince us that American working people drive automobiles like that to\nwork in a factory? Well, this is the type of thing that we were selling.\nThose were not props they belonged to the people who worked\nat Lockheed. Well, it is easy to understand why the people of other\ncountries wanted a chunk of this for themselves. Wanted this great salesman\nof their products for themselves.\nHollywood made movies were a world product, and soon, in order\nto play on foreign screens, we were paying levys and special taxes in\nevery country of the world. There were quotas adopted that limited the\nr\nber of American pictures that could be imported, and the playing time\nthat would be alloted on the screens for each of those films. And America\nsoon remained the only nation in the world where the pictures of all the\nworld were free to play in competition with our own, with no discriminatory\ntaxes or restrictions on playing time. And we were still big enough and good\nenough that we could hold our own in the face of this kind of discrimination.\nAt that point, never once had this industry asked government\nto join it when it sat down to negotiate, because in all the discrimatory\nmeasures taken agains us, these were negotiated with private picture\npeople on our side of the table and government representatives on their\nside of the table.\nWe never asked for help. It was an unequal contest. Still,\nand in spite of the unequal balance of power, Hollywood continued to dominate\nworld, market. Hollywood--the name itself became a trademark! And\nit was a trademark precisely because here in Hollywood we had gathered\ntogether in one place the greatest pool of skill and theatrical talent\nthat has ever been assembled in the whole world.\nOur friends abroad found there were other things they had\nto do. Other weapons that hadn't been used. In the days following\nWorld War II when this country embarked on a program to rebuild\nthe war-torn and the war-weary--friend and former foe alike--a new 3-word\nterm became a part of the Hollywood vocabulary. \"Run away production\"\nFirst, foreign government froze our revenue. We could play our pictures\nthere, but we couldn't bring the money home.\nWe became pretty ingenious at trying to get that money out of\nthere. I remeber one instance where the Hollywood motion picture business\nwith its money in one country, had them build a ship. We sailed the ship\nto another country, bought products from that country with our impounded\nfunds and loaded them on the ship. We brought the products over here,\nsold the products, sailed the ship to another country and sold the ship,\nin an effort to get our money.\nBut, the easiest and most obvious way, and what they had in\nmind all the time, was to use. the money to produce pictures. First, it\nwas fairly legitimate--the pictures that went abroad were pictures and\nstories designed for a foreign locale. Pretty soon they began to fudge\na little bit. You bought a book called \"In Old Chicago\" and decided to\nmake it \"In Old Copenhagen\". Pretty soon American cowboys and Indians\nwere \"going thataway\" over the hills of Spain or any one of a dozen\nother countries.\nYou will pardon a personal reference, but I made a picture' in\n1949, in the winter in studios just outside London. The locale was suppos\nbe a military hospital compound in the steaming jungles of Burma.\nFortunately, it was in black and white, so you couldn't see that our noses\nwere blue. They put glycerine on us to be persperiration, and that covere\nup the goose bumps.\n-4-\nWhen I came back I made a pledge that except for legitimate\nlocation travel, I would make no more foreign pictures. It wasn't easy\nto keep that pledge. If it hadn't been for television, I would have\nset a world's record for liberty between engagements.\nBut while I was returning, I received a radiogram on shipboard\nthat invited me to what I suppose was the first meeting of the first\nappeal that Hollywood had ever made to its own government for help.\nAnd, it had to do with 'run away production'.\nI met with\nseveral\nsome of whom are perhaps in this room tonight\nin Washington\nwe met with the President of the United States. We told him the\nproblem we told him of the rising unemployment in Hollywood, and at tha\ntime I have to say--the President of the United States after finally her\nour plea said, \"Oh but think of their problems overseas!\" And we tried\npoint out to him that an American technician in Hollywood, unemployed,\ngot just as hungry as a foreign unemployed technician in a foreign countr\nWhen we made that appeal, 20 percent of the pictures showing\non American screens--20 percent of the playing time--was taken up by\neither foreing made pictures or American pictures made abroad. Today,\n70 percent of the playing time is taken up by that kind of picture.\nBecause, since that first appeal to government, our friends\nacross the sea discovered new weapons against which we have been unable\nto prevail. To all the discriminatory taxes, the quotas, the frozen\nfunds, they added an outright subsidy to American pictures\nif those\npictures would be produced in their countries. The methods ranged from\nlow or no-interest loans to advance partial production costs. From\nadmission tax rebates to cash prizes. Some American pictures can obtain\nas much as 80 percent of their production costs if they produce them\nAnd, a lot of American motion picture workers can obtain their unemploy\nwhile they are doing that!\n-5-\nThe times when I think about government's ignoring our appeals,\necause by now there have been several appeals, is like that old story that\nyou all know\nThe fighter who was backpeddling around the ring trying to\nkeep away from his opponent and about the fourth time around, his second\nsaid \"Stay in there, he can't hurt you\"! On the fifth time around, the\nfighter said \"Well, if he can't, take a look at the referee\nsomebody's\nkicking my brains out.\"\nWell, it's time for us to have a few words with someone who should\nbe in our corner. Ironically, the American Picture business has not only\nbeen without government help, but it was a government act that contributed\nto the present situation.\nWhen the anti-trust action divorced the ownership of theatres\nand studios, they destroyed the economic stability of the motion picture\nsiness in Hollywood. I personally have always felt there was no\nlogic in that decision. Our industry was like a candy store--properly,\nwe should make it in the back and sell it in the front.\nAs a result of that act, the economics of our business now are such\nthat if you follow where the money is, it is in distribution. And that is\nwhy it has been so difficult to get a concerted approach to this particular\nproblem. It means that those who actually work in the making of pictures\nare the principal sufferers from 'run away production'. We have every\nright to ask government to pay heed to the plight of the people in this\nindustry. I know that some of you know that I am not one who automatically\nturns to government for the answer to every (Continued next page)\n-6-\n7\nproblem. As a matter of fact, I have always believed that when you\nask government for help, you usually wind up with a partner a senior\npartner.\nThe governments are already in this game on the other side, and it seems\nto me that it's time we allowed a few ringers of our own. The AFL film\nCouncil has made a number of suggestions as to how our government can\nhelp with less than sensational results. One such suggestion was made\nto state government two years ago, and although this problem that we're\ndiscussing belongs mainly in the federal province, I am proud that we were\nable tohelp in a small way. There was an inventory tax as you know on\nall the finished films in the vaults and all of you who are veterans in\nthis industry know this business ground to a halt in January until after\nthe March tax date. The it began to rev up again and we were a seasonal\nindustry. When the film council proposed that perhaps one of the things\nthat might help was the removal of that particular tax--and secured the\nlegislation there were a great many people that urged me to veto that\nbill because they said it was favoritism. Well, I signed the bill into law\nand I was very proud to do so, because that tax was punitive and\ndiscriminatory and should have never been applied to the film industry\nin the first place.\nNow it's not my intention to spell out here specific proposals. Others\nhere are better informed and better able to do that. But I hope that we\nwill explore ways by which our government can prevail upon their counter-\nparts to give up the unfair and discriminatory practices rather than for\nus to simply ask for retaliatory measures. Now, many countries now insist\nthat pictures made here, before they can be shown abroad, prints to be disp\nabroad must be made in those countries. I say, in spite of my objection\nto retaliatory measures, that we should be prepared to demand a tariff if\nthey sould start exporting back to this country, those foreign made prints\nof American made movies.\n8\nTelevision, which for a time helped maintain American production, is\nnow being rated by some countries which are offering prime time in\ntheir countries, to American series that will be made in those countries.\nThis, I think, is a matter for negotiation between governments, and we\nshould ask for that. But the type of help which has always seemed\nto be the safest and the most practical kind that government can give\nto private industry is the kind that former Senator Kuchel has\nrecommended to the treasury department on behalf of the labor-management\ndomestic committee for the motion picture industry. This committee\nconsists, as you know, of every segment of this industry. Very simply,\nit is to change the revenue laws to give an exemption of 20 percent of the\ngross profits those 20 percent exempt from our income taxation.\nI realize this is a unique idea for government to swallow, but I for\none have always believed and been captivated by the common sense idea\nC\nleavingmoney where it's needed rather than running it through those\npuzzle palaces on the Potomac only to get it back minus an agents fee.\nAs I said befor, this is a federal matter, but anything that my\nadministration can do and that I can do personally, to help in persuading\nand selling this idea to Washington, I tell you now I will do that\nand I will do everything that is asked and everything that can be\ndone to see if we can bring this about.\nSo far, I have spoken of government shortcomings, and what government\ncan do. Now, what will the industry do? We have a proud record.\nThere are those a few-of you still active who pioneered this business.\nWorld War II, ours was the only major industry in the United States\nthat voluntarily refused to ask for. military deferrment for its essential\npersonnel. We sold the nation's bonds and we provided our product to the\narmed forces and again, we were the only ones who did not provide it\ncost plus ten percent or even at cost. We gave away the only thing we\nhad to sell and provided it free of charge.\ny\n1\nWe didn't ask favors in the old days---we did them. For everyone who asked\nThose who have looked and look now on this industry as the source of agood\nlife, owe that industry something. They have an obligation to put a\nlittle back, as well as take a lot out. And, I' think they had better think\nahead. In spite of all the subsidies and all the goodies that are\nbeing offered only because Hollywood still remains a threat to the\nworld motion picture industries. And if the world and those foreign\ncountries, with their dangling goodies, manage to bring an end to this\ntrademark Hollywood, and make us nolonger a threat, then I assure you\nthe goodies will disappear.\nThen they will have what they started out to get. It will be totally a\nforeign industry, and we will have no part of it.\nI am going to take a chance because I cannot conclude my remarks without\ntouching on one other problem, which I believe concerns the industry\nand the people who support this industry with their patronage.\nMany years ago, motion pictures went through a period of dis-favor with\nthe people in this country. Governmental censorship was threatened. The\npeople, their sense, of taste offended, were seemingly ready to accept\nthis violation of our traditional freedoms. Indeed 1/4 of the states\nand several hundred towns and cities did impose censorship. The industry\nfought back--not by protest and complaint--but by accepting the\nresponsibility for voluntary censorship. There were times when many of\nus making motion pictures found that voluntary censorship code unduly\nrestrictive. We chafed under the restrictions.\nNevertheless, it held off the threat of political censorship and more\nimprotant, it built a trust on the part of our audiences. The people of\nAmerica learned that they could take their children to the movies without\near of embarrasment. That is no longer true. As a matter of fact, you\nan leave the kids at home and its pretty hard to go to the movies without\nbeing embarrased.\n10\nMany pictures today falsely claim free expression to justify what is\nnothing more than bad theater in even worse taste.\nI know the men and women of this industry. And I know many of you who\nmust be deeply distrubed by this violation of the audiences trust and\nresentful when economic necessity forces you to accept employment in\npictures which are offensive to your own sense of decency. And the\nindustry turns now to government for help---I hope that the people of\nthis industry now make it known that they are willing once again to accept\nresponsibility for ridding American films of vulgarity and outright\npornography.\nWe once had not only the patronage of the American public, we once\nhad their honest and sincere affection. It is not too late to have\nthat again.\nThank you.\n#\nI\nOL/1/21\nTranscript.\nCov. Comments - Page 8\nThis is an official public service transcript. The Advocates is not\nresponsible for errors of ommission or commission.\nresponsible for errors of ommission or\nTHE ADVOCATES\n9:00 - 10:00 p.m. December 1, 1970\nTopic:\n\"Should the federal government\nguarantee a minimum income to\nevery American?\"\nParticipants:\nAdvocate Howard Miller (pro)\nTed Marmor, Ph. D.\nAssociate Director of the School of\nPublic Affairs\nUniversity of Minnesota\nBarbara Jordan\nState Senator from Texas\nMember President's Commission on\nIncome Maintenance\nAdvocate William Rusher (con)\nRonald Reagan\nGovernor of California\nRoger Freeman, Ph.D.\nSenior Fellow of the Hoover\nInstitute at Stanford University\nModerator:\nVictor Palmieri\nOrigination:\nKCE T, Los Angeles\n\"The Advocates\" is a public television network presentation of KCET,\nLos Angeles and W G B H, Boston made possible by grants from the\nCorporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation.\nIE\nADVOCATES\nis made possible by grants from The Ford Foundation and The Corporation for Public Broadcasting.\nWGBH/KCET\nMike Levine, 125 Western Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02134, (617) 868-3800\non\nPBS\nANNOUNCER: Tonight\nfrom Los Angeles\nThe Advocates\nHoward Miller\nWilliam Rusher\nand the moderator, Victor Palmieri.\nPALMIERI: Good evening. Every week at this time The Advocates looks a.\nan important public problem and for you, a practical choice. Tonight\nwe discuss the problem of 25 million Americans living in poverty. The\nHouse of Representatives has passed President Nixon's Family Assistance\nPlan, which may be the most important welfare reform bill offered in\na decade; however it faces uncertain future in the Senate. Tonight we\nconsider not the Nixon Family Assistance Plan, but a proposal that is\nbroader in its implications for the country. And specifically our\nquestion is this: \"Should the federal government guarantee a minimum\nincome to every American? Advocate Howard Miller says yes.\nMILLER: We propose an end to the welfare system. That system is cruel,\nis paid for by the wrong people, breaks up families and positively\npenalizes work. We propose instead a minimum income supplement *paid\nthrough the Internal Revenue Service. That supplement would stabilize\nfamilies, would reward work and would break the welfare cycle. The\nsystem we propose has been put forth by the President's Commission on\nIncome Maintenance, the distinguished panel of businessmen and public\nofficials throughout the United States, Of course it is not cheap. It\nwould cost about $6 billion, but that is less than 1% of our gross\nnational product and is the test of our willingness to break up the\nwelfare bureaucracy, end the welfare cycle and deal justly and humanely\nwith our poor. With me tonight to support this proposal are Ted Marmor,\nProfessor of Political Science and Associate Director of the School of\nPublic Affairs at the University of Minnesota, and Senator Barbara\nJordan, State Senator from the state of Texas and a member of that\nPresident's Commission on Income Maintenance.\nPALMIERI: Advocate William Rusher says no.\nRUSHER: America has long recognized the national obligation to give\nadequate help to every man, woman and child who is truly in need and\nis unable to help himself. Tonight's proposal is something else again.\nFor the first time in American history, under this plan we would be\nguaranteeing an annual cash payment to any individual who desired it\nwithout any serious test as to whether or not he needed it, without the\nslightest control over how he spent it. Without requiri ng of him\neither job training, let alone a job, if he didn't want to take it. This\nproposal would add 26 million people to the welfare rolls instead of\neliminating the welfare state, It would cost the American taxpayers an\nadditional $6 billion every year over and above what they now spend on\nwelfare payments. To oppose this plan we have with us tonight Dr.\nRoger Freeman, Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institute at Stanford\nUniversity, and the Honorable Ronald Reagan, Governor of the State of\nCalifornia.\nPALMIERI: Gentlemen, I detect some major areas of disagreement. Let's\ngo to cases. Mr. Miller, will you begin.\nMINIMUM INCOME 2\nMILLER: You detect them correctly, but one thing we should understand\nis that the idea of a guaranteed income is not new to the United States\nor to the American people. Countless people in our country, in fact,\nreceive guaranteed incomes. There are thousands of farmers in the state\nof California, for example. who receive farm subsidies for growing no\ncrops and doing no work, and who average subsidies of over $30,000 a\nyear. Numerous other industries, regulated industries, utilities, banks,\nairlines, other transportation companies, all receive, directly or\nindirectly, government subsidies that keep them alive in the free\nenterprise economy. In fact, our system of guaranteed income can best\nbe described as socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.\nBut at least the benefits to the wealthy come disguised and with\ndignity. No one ever accused the welfare system of operating with\ndignity. Two things we can say about it. It's enormously cruel and\ndespite its cruelty it is growing beyond all bounds. Eleven million\npeople now in the United States, 8% of all the children in the United\nStates on welfare. Costs skyrocketing under the existing system. Why\nhas this taken place? Those figures are impressive, but let's look at\none specific example. Suppose a man with a wife and two children is\nearning $2400 a year. Hardly enough to support his family, substantially\nbelow the poverty level of $3600 a year. What are his options? So long\nas he continues to work he can receive no government aid at all. On the\nother hand, if he leaves his family, if he deserts his family, his wife\nand children under the existing welfare system will in many states get\nmore than he previously earned. That is the system we must break. And\nthat is the system we propose to break through the guaranteed minimum\nincome plan, or as it's sometimes called, as this is administered\nthrough the Internal Revenue Service, the negative income tax. How does\nit work? First of all, every individual, the working head of the family,\nreceives $2400 a year if it's a family with two children, Second of all,\nhe received that even if he works. He receives it simply by filing a tax\nreturn with the Internal Revenue Service indicating his income. If\nthere is no income, the base minimum of $2400 is paid. What about our\nfather who is earning $2400 a year, however? What happens to him? He\nkeeps his $2400 a year, but half of that is credited against the\nsubsidy and he receives $1200 a year, still in subsidy, though he\ncontinues to work. The figures may change. If he earns as much as\n$3600 the subsidy goes down. But the basic principle is what's\nimportant. The basic principle is to preserve the family and to provide\nincentives to work, instead of our existing system which breaks up the\nfamily and provides positive dis-incentives to work. This is the plan\nthat we are supporting tonight. And to speak in favor of it and to\ntalk about the existing welfare system, I've asked to join us tonight\nProfessor Ted Marmor from the University of Minnesota,\nPALMIERI: Professor, welcome to The Advocates. (applause)\nMILLER: Professor Marmor is Associate Director of the School of Public\nAffairs at the University of Minnesota. He also is a consultant to the\nPresident's Commission on Income Maintenance. Professor Marmor, how\nwould you describe the existing welfare system?\nMINIMUM INCOME/ 3\nMARMOR: I think it's a system that in the first place is inadequate.\nIt's an inequitable system. It's an inhumane one and it's one that is\nunfairly financed.\nMILLER: Why is it inadequate?\nMARMOR: It's inadequate for two reasons. For families that are poor and\nunder the welfare system the benefits themselves are below anyone's\nconception of subsistence. For example, in the state of Alabama, the\nstate defines need as $189 per month for a family of four and yet pays\n$89 a month. But it's inadequate in a second way in that it's inadequate\nto deal with the problem of poverty. In 1968, 25 million Americans were\npoor, but 15 million of them were completely unaided by the Public\nAssistance system.\nMILLER: Why is the system inequitable?\nMARMOR: The system is inequitable for a number of reasons. Partly the\nprograms vary in the benefits they offer from state to state and county\nto county. And then within a state for particular programs, needs are\ndefined differently. Let me illustrate on the state by state unfairness.\nA single aged woman living alone in the state of South Carolina has her\nneed defined as $82, When you move to the middle-west, to Nebraska, her\nneed is defined as $182. There's no change in the cost of living that\njustifies that much of a discrepancy.\nMILLER: Why is this inhumane? The currect welfare system?\nMARMOR: I think the most powerful reason why it's inhumane is that it\ngives the most extraordinary and awful incentives for the fathers of\nintact families to leave those families in order to improve the\ncircumstances of their family. As I said earlier, of the 25 million\nAmericans poor in 1968, 15 million of those were unaided by public\nassistance and the overwhelming majority of those people are the heads\nof households in which the wage earner works full time throughout the\nyear and is still poor.\nMILLER: Professor Marmor, let's look specifically at that point. How\ndoes this proposal, the guaranteed minimum income, change that\ninhumanity? Does it provide a different set of incentives?\nMARMOR: Well the first thing it does, it no longer says that you have\nto have an absent father, an incapacitated father, an unemployed father\nin order to qualify for public assistance. It says that you have to be\nin poverty and thereby it reduces the incentives to break up families.\nMILLER: Tell me, Professor Marmor, who now pays for the cruel welfare\nsystem and how would that change under this proposal?\nMARMOR: Well, the system as you know, is now shared between state, loca\nand federal financing. The system we're suggesting would be a minimum\nfloor completely paid for by the federal government. In 1971 it was\nestimated that a billion dollars in state savings would follow from this\nprogram.\nMINIMUM INCOME/ 4\nMILLER: Would that shift the tax base from one group of taxpayers to\nanother?\nMARMOR: I think it would.\nPALMIERI: Professor, let's hear from Mr. Rusher,\nRUSHER: Professor Marmor, just on the general philosophical principle,\nwould it be fair to say that you believe every citizen has a right to\nthe share of the national wealth?\nMARMOR: Yes, I do,\nRUSHER: Can you tell me what the national wealth is?\nMARMOR: Eight hundred billion dollars.\nRUSHER: How do you arrive at that? What constitutes. .I didn't mean\nthe amount. I mean, what is our national wealth to which everybody has\na right?\nMARMOR: We measure it, you know, Mr. Rusher, in all sorts of ways. But\nwe usually apply a dollar figure to the total production of goods and\nservices.\nRUSHER: Total production of goods and services, so that what we're\nsaying is that everybody whether or not they contribute to the total\nproduction of goods and services has a right to a share in the total\nproduction of goods and services, Is that correct ?\nMARMOR: I think we're saying that, What we're also saying that 15\nmillion Americans are outside the present Public Assistance system and\nmost of the poor are now working. That is they 're in households in\nwhich someone is now contributing.\nRUSHER: Precisely. You are arguing that if a person makes no contri-\nbution whatever to the total production of goods and services to the\nUnited States, he nevertheless should have, does have, a moral right and\nshould have a legal right to a share in that production. Is that correct?\nMARMOR: Yes. I'd put it the other way. I'd say the society\nRUSHER: Putting it that way, that would be correct, wouldn't it?\nMARMOR: Yes.\nRUSHER: Now tell me secondly, why wouldn't it be better to guarantee\npeople a job rather than to guarantee them an unearned share of the\nnational wealth?\nMARMOR: Partly as I was suggesting. We now have people who are working\nFull time and are still poor. Your guarantee of a job, it seems to me,\nwould be a help and in no way does the Heineman Commission argue against\nthe provision of jobs. What it says is that jobs are insufficient.\nThey 're desireable, but insufficient.\nMINIMUM INCOME/ 5\nRUSHER: But under the proposal that we're discussing tonight there\nwould not even be a requirement that a person take training for a job,\nwould there?\nMARMOR: Well, there's not the requirement that people take training\nbecause we have a good reason to believe that if you are required to\ntake training you will respond less favorably than if you're given\nincentives to take training. That's what the work incentive would do\nRUSHER: In this particular case there's no requirement to take either\ntraining or a job, right? If a person didn't want to he wouldn't have\nto. Is that right?\nMARMOR: No, I think it would be fair to say there are incentives to\ntake training.\nRUSHER: I understand there are incentives, but if a person declines\nwhat you regard as an adequate incentive, he doesn't have to take it,\ndoes he?\nMARMOR: That's right.\nRUSHER: And he can have it without any countervailing contribution by\nhim at all.\nMARMOR: Without any what?\nRUSHER: Without any contribution on his part at all. In other words,\nby asking for it, it's his,\nMARMOR: I think there's a right to a guaranteed income.\nRUSHER: That's right and I've now described the particular form and\nMARMOR: That's right.\nRUSHER: And there's no requirement of a job involved. Guaranteed work\nyou say would not be enough. Tell me, a great deal of stress has been\nlaid by Mr. Miller, and secondly by you on this proposition of aid to\nfamilies with dependent children. There is this tremendous motive for\nbreaking up the family because the aid isn't given unless the father\ndeserts. In my state of New York, however, and in many states, certainly\nin my state, there is a general assistance program which eliminates the\nincentive for the father to desert. And yet we have seen in the last\nsix or seven years for which statistics are available in New York, the\nhighest increase in desertions of all, we have a 335% increase. There\nhas been, in point of fact, no lessening of the desertion percentage.\nQuite the contrary in New York. What makes you think that your incentive\nis going to be any better than that provided by the state of New York.\nMARMOR: I think for a simple reason. If the family is going to be no\nbetter off by the father leaving, you reduce the incentive for him to\nleave.\nMINIMUM INCOME/ 6\nRUSHER: You reduce the incentives, but the fact is, Professor, that\nin New York the desertions have nonetheless increased with the incentive\nompletely gone.\nMARMOR: That may well be true, but\nRUSHER: But what is the idea -- What good is your plan?\nMARMOR: If you'll let me answer I'll try to give you an answer.\nRUSHER: Go ahead.\nMARMOR: We have no way of saying, for example, that the rate of\nincrease would not have been greater had the incentives been greater\nfor the father to leave\nRUSHER: Greater than 335%?\nMARMOR: It's certainly possible. We don't know the full causes of that\nrate of increase. All I'm saying is a reasonable man facing an income\nguarantee system that gave him no benefits to leave the family, would\nhave no reason to leave the family. No financial reason.\nRUSHER: You complained that state differences, differences in the\ncompensation rates now available in various states were unjust. Isn't\nit entirely possible though that what would be an appropriate floor for\none state would be highly inappropriate for another where the general\ntandard of living was higher?\nMARMOR: Mr. Rusher, I think that's absolutely right. However, I don't\nthink that at all justifies the difference I suggested between\nNebraska and South Carolina,\nRUSHER: I'm not saying it does. If we establish that there is such a\nthing as a just difference, what provision does your plan make for it?\nMARMOR: Well, the problem with that as it turns out is the variation\nwithin regions is as great as the variation between regions. You deal\nwith a serious problem. However, I suggest.\nRUSHER: I'm well aware it's a serious problem.\nMARMOR: One benefit of this is giving a uniform guarantee level which\nwould stem or at least provide some incentives for people to stay out\nof high cost areas including major urban centers,\nRUSHER: It would if they nonetheless chose to go there, it would be\nonly just, would it not, to have a higher floor there than say in\nMississippi? Yet under your plan the floor would be the same in both\nMississippi and New York, would it not?\nMARMOR: You're faced with the dilemma\nMINIMUM INCOME 7\nRUSHER: Indeed we are.\nMARMOR:\nand argument there,\nRUSHER: Tell me this. Isn't it true that the payment for this plan\nwill simply have to be in one of two forms in the long run? Either by\ntaxation of by inflation, assuming we did not want to cut something\nelse which the government and the people of the United States are currentl\nspending money on? In other words, the additional $6 billion that Mr.\nMiller estimates would be required is going to have to be provided not\nas you put it, at least not quite so generously by the federal\ngovernment, but by the taxpayers of the United States and if they are\nnot directly attacked through taxes, then through inflation.\nMARMOR: Mr. Rusher, I can't think of any way that the federal\ngovernment can pay for anything without taxing somebody.\nRUSHER: Precisely.\nPALMIERI: Professor, let me ask a question before Mr. Miller begins.\nYou said that 15 million of 25 million people who are beneath the\npoverty level are working and working most of the time and simply not\nmaking enough money to subsist. Does that suggest that 10 million\npeople who are beneath the poverty level are idle and might be available\nfor work?\nMARMOR: I think that's a totally unrealistic assumption, Most of the\npeople who are now on public welfare are in no way likely candidates\nfor full time work in the labor force.\nPALMIERI: Who are they?\nMARMOR: They comprise, for example, the aged, They comprise as well,\nbeneficiaries of a program for the blind and the partially and totally\ndisabled. In the largest group are composed of aid to families with\ndependent children. Now of that group you have at least a third who\nhave children under six. So you're dealing in the first place with\naged people, with disabled people, with blind people and families with\nchildren many of whom.\nPALMIERI: Fine, I wanted to clarify the numbers. Mr. Miller, will\nyou give US your close. Thank you very much, Professor. (applause)\nMILLER: Of course all government expenditures are paid for by tax-\npayers but which taxpayers make a difference. One of the consequences\nof the federal floor is to shift the large part of the burden from\nproperty taspayers in state and local areas who now bear the burden,\nthrough the income tax and the federal system and into a different kind\nof system. We can't ignore the fact that welfare rates now and the cost\nof welfare are rising at an unpredictable rate. They are rising because\nthe system has no way to check itself. It makes no incentive for peop¹\nto become self-sufficient. Only that kind of system can ultimately\ncheck the long run costs of welfare.\nMINIMUM INCOME/ 8\nPALMIERI: All right, thank you, Mr. Miller. We'll be back to you for\nebuttal. Now, Mr. Miller has proposed that the federal government\nguarantee a minimum income to every American and Mr. Rusher proposes\nnow to say why that should not be the case. Mr. Rusher, will you begin.\nRUSHER: If I understand Mr. Miller's statistics he concedes that far\nfrom abolishing welfare, he said in that inspiring opening, this will\nactually add 26 million people to the welfare rolls in this country.\nUnless my arithmetic is wrong somewhere, it will result in 37 million\naltogether, or somewhere between 1 out of every 5 and 1 out of every 6\nAmericans, It will cost almost $6 billion on top of the $7.2 billion\nwhich America is now spending on welfare in the principal programs,\nand others have made much higher estimates, of course. But will even\nthese things be the whole story? How long do you suppose it will take\nthe politicians of this country to start raising that floor from $2400?\nSenator Fred Harris, Democrat of Oklahoma, already has a bill before the\nUnited States Senate to make that floor $3600. And the National Welfare\nRights Organization already has demanded that the floor be $5500. And\nwhat will then become of the incentive feature that Mr. Miller makes so\nmuch of, and what then will be done for money to pursue such programs\nas the fight against pollution, which is now attracting such justified\nattention in this country, or such total imperatives as the military\ndefense of the United States? The original figure isn't really\nimportant, whether it's $2400 or $3600 or $5500. Once the principle is\nestablished that there is a right to a cash payment from the government\nof the United States without any requirement for work whatever, then you\nan depend upon it that the stage is set for bleeding the taxpayers of\nAmerica white. There will be a vast new class created, parasitical,\nself-indulgent and demanding, and it will be with us forever. To\ndiscuss this problem in some of its more general and philosophical\nimplications, I have the honor and privilege to call first upon the\nGovernor of the State of California, the Honorable Ronald Reagan.\n(applause)\nPALMIERI: Governor Reagan, a very warm welcome from The Advocates.\nRUSHER: May I start on a personal note sir? Congratulations upon\nyour recent reelection.\nREAGAN: Thank you.\nRUSHER: What is the true purpose, Governor, of welfare, in you opinion?\nREAGAN: Well at the moment I think that's one of the problems. I don't\nthink anyone has really defined a true purpose for welfare in this\ncountry, and that's why I would classify it, the one place where I think\nwe are all in agreement, it is a great colossal failure in the United\nStates. No one quite knows what we're supposed to achieve with it. I\nthink it should have a purpose and I think the proper purpose of welfare\nshould be to eliminate the necessity for itself.\nSHER: How about this proposition that there is a right to share in the\nnational wealth?\nMINIMUM INCOME 9\nREAGAN: Well, I find national wealth one of those kind of glittering\nterms and generalities like the greatest good for the greatest number,\nand so forth, that don't bear too close an analysis. To call the national\nwealth the gross national product ignores the fact that the gross national\nproduct could go up every year without any of us getting any richer\nsimply if you raise the prices of things. Inflation makes the gross\nnational product increase. I think what we have to talk about, when we\nconsider it in connection with welfare, we're talking about the earnings\nof the people who produce in the United States, And if you ask me is\nanyone morally entitled, has a right to a share of those earnings, harsh\nas it may sound, I have to say no. That what we're talking about is how\nfar can you ask the producing citizens to give of their earnings to\nsupport those who do not produce? Now let me hasten and say that I\nthink, I say this with safety because the American people over 200\nyears have proven they are extremely compassionate, and no one could\nconceive of the American people ever not wanting to take care of those\nwho through no fault of their own cannot provide for themselves. And\nthis we have done to a remarkable degree and greater than any other\nsociety ever known in the history of man. But you cannot get away from\nthe fact that welfare is a sharing of earnings and at the moment by 1.\ndoing it by law it is a forced sharing of those earnings.\nRUSHER: What would be the political effect in your opinion of the plan\nwe have heard proposed this evening if we start out with a floor of $2400?\nREAGAN: We don't even have to speculate. History's been pretty plain\nabout that. It will escalate. You were perfectly right about that.\nEvery election year, you only have to look at a number of programs,\nsocial security, to find that there are men who will seek office on the\nbasis of promising to what would constitute quite a sizeable voter's\nbloc. And history, we can take the obvious example of Rome, with what\nthey called the mob, bread and circuses, they had a welfare that was\nvery much like our own and it went on and on until economically Rome\nwas strapped. We can come up even more recently and more particularly.\nEngland had a plan in 1795 called the Speenhamland System and this was\none in which each parish had to guarantee to supplement the income of\nthose below a certain earning level based on the price of bread and\nthe number of dependents in the family. Very similar to what we're\ntalking about in our own program. And this program in 1795 was almost\nimmediately a failure and they said that first of all it began to con-\nstitute a subsidy for low paying employers, that they didn't have to\ncome up to meet the market price for workers because the government\nsubsidized their workers for them, It also eliminiated the incentive,\naccording to history, of the individual to improve his own earning\ncapacity or ability to move on to better jobs, because it was taken\ncare of for him. By 1834 even though it had fallen into disrepute and\ndisuse before then, by 1834 in the poor laws it was totally eliminated.\nPALMIERI: Governor, I can't give you a chance to bring that up to date.\nMr. Miller now has a chance for cross examination.\nREAGAN: Oh, 1834 was as far as I was going to go.\nMINIMUM INCOME/10\nMILLER: Governor, the problem is what to do about a welfare system that's\nin crisis and there are a lot of things about this plan that agree with\nsome of the things you've been in favor of, For example, one of the\nthings that it does, by substituting the Internal Revenue Service as a\ndisbursing agent it completely ends the entire welfare bureaucracy.\nThat's something you've wanted for a long time. Isn't that the kind of\nfeature we should have in the plan?\nREAGAN: Well, I wish I could think that would happen. But I've been\ndealing with it now for four years and I must tell you that from the\ninside looking out, nothing seems to go away. Things just seem to keep\nbeing added on top. I don't believe that really would happen. I think\nthat you would find that the need to encourage, the need to follow\nthrough, would lead to a continuation of the bureaucracy.\nMILLER: Let's look at something else you've been largely in favor of,\nwhich is shifting burdens from the property tax owner. By having the\nbenefits come through the federal government and the Internal Revenue\nService, in fact, the enormous burden on state and local property\ntaxpayers would end, and the money would come through the progressive\nincome tax instead of the very hard regressive property tax, which\nplaces a large burden on those who are close to poor themselves, Isn't\nthat something we should try to do?\nREAGAN: Well, it's a long way around to correct the inequity of the\nproperty taxpayer. Here in California he has : a very great inequity\nand I tried to cure that and failed by one vote in the last session\nof the legislature. There's no question they need the burden taken off\ntheir backs. Part of our bill would have removed $190 million from the\nCalifornia homeowners backs by way of the county tax that would have\nbeen taken over by the state and turned over to these other programs.\nMILLER: Let's look at something else in this program that you've\nspoken in favor of getting people to work, providing them with a\nwork incentive. Now, when there was a work incentive program in\nCalifornia, 80% funded by the federal government, in fact you took the\ninitiative in holding people down who are on it in terms of numbers,\nthe W.I.N. Work Incentive Program, and fought against that work\nincentive program. This also provides a work incentive. Is that the\nkind of incentive you're against?\nREAGAN: No, and you're not quite right in your statement that I held\nit down. The truth of the matter is that California has actually gone\nso far into the WIN program, the Federal Work Incentive Program, that\n16% of all the training slots are in California while we're only 10% of\nthe population. And 32% of all the people who have ever gotten jobs\nin the whole United States under the program have gotten them in\nCalifornia. And 40% of the people who have gotten job training under\nthe program have gotten it in California.\nMILLER: Then you are in favor them of that kind of work incentive?\nREAGAN: I am.\nMINIMUM INCOME/11\nMILLER: Here's a program that would in addition to those things cut\ndown on the migration of people to California by raising levels across\nthe country, affect the property taxpayer, cut the bureaucracy. It's\nbeen spoken for by Milton Friedman, a conservative economist, by a\npresidential commission that includes conservative businessmen. The\nonly fair answer, Governor, is that if this program does not satisfy\nyour needs for welfare, to change an old phrase around, what is it that\nyou want?\nREAGAN: Mr. Miller, I don't believe that the government--. I believe\nthat the government of the United States is supposed to promote the\ngeneral welfare. I don't think it's supposed to provide it. (applause)\nI think the obligation of government is to offer every citizen an\nopportunity to earn. It is not to offer him a livelihood. Aad L\nbelieve there is a humane way to do it. I agree with much that's\nbeen said about the inhumanity of the present program. I do not go\nalong with some of the impression that is given, that welfare as it is\nnow, that the people are more or less put in an embarrassing position,\nThe type of thing that we're seeing, that I can foresee under your\nprogram, is the type of thing which shows a family with a gross income\nof $35,000 in the state of California receiving a grant.\nMILLER: And there are such families, aren't there? Three thousand\nfarmers in the state of California.\nREAGAN: Oh, no. I'm talking about welfare.\nMILLER: But let's talk:: about farmers who are on a different kind of\nwelfare. Over 3000 farmers in the state of California, who receive an\naverage of $30,000 a year. An average. There are some in the millions,\nbut an average, for not growing crops. That's a program that you support.\nREAGAN: Oh, Mr. Miller, wait a minute, You make some assumptions, If\nyou'd like to go back over about 20 years of my public speaking, long\nbefore I ever anticipated public office, you will find that I can top\nyou in spades about my criticism of the farm subsidy program, as well\nas any of the other subsidies. (applause)\nMILLER: And of course that's also true of the other subsidies that we\npay, over $150 billion in subsidies to airlines through the mails, to\nbanks through deposits, to railroads, to subsidized government\nprograms, the whole range, the $150 billion roughly of government\nsupport and subsidized programs for corporations and individuals you\noppose.\nREAGAN: I became, well no. You can't blanket oppose them. There are\nmany subsidies in any country that are designed because of an industry\nthat could be useful in time of emergency to a nation. The Merchant\nMarine was an example, The need for this country of ours which, because\nof high labor cost, cannot compete any longer with foreign shipping lines,\nwe subsidized the Merchant Marine because we know that in the event of\naggression, in the event of a war, we would have to have such a Merchant\nMINIMUM INCOME/12\nMarine. So we are willing as a people to pay a subsidy, just as we\nsubsidized watch makers in the United States for years when we couldn't\nreally economically compete with Switzerland, but because the watch-\nmakers were also a source of technicians for us in the munitions\nindustry in time of war. Now that kind of subsidy has to be weighed\ndifferently.\nMILLER: You talked about ending the welfare system. Let's talk about\nthe millions of people on welfare. What are they supposed to do? The\nwomen with dependent children? The blind? The aged? The disabled?\nThe men who cannot work. Are they to be miraculously cured and brought\noff the welfare system? You seriously can't end that system of\nsupport, can you?\nREAGAN: No. But I do believe that a program--. I believe there is a\ntotal reform of welfare needed.\nMILLER: What is that reform?\nREAGAN: And I believe that the form of that welfare, that we should\nexplore the idea of no longer welfare, but employment. For jobs that\nshould be done, that have to be done and that cannot normally be\nafforded in the labor market or by government employees.\nPALMIERI: Governor, we've come to the end of the cross-examination,\nCan I ask you a question while you're on that? What about the people\nthat Mr. Rusher or the previous witness I should say, the Professor\nreferred to, who work and work all the time and just don't make enough\nmoney to support their families? How does that come out in your\nposition?\nREAGAN: I believe, and this is the most vexing problem of all. But\nwhat it comes down to is at what level can you reach the point at which\nthey divorce themselves from this subsidy? You have to recognize that\nthere is a factor of, and certain people who will weigh the benefits of\nnot having to work excessively hard or long as long as they can get by\nwithout that work.\nPALMIERI: Governor, will you forgive me for cutting you short? We're\nvery grateful to you for coming on our show. Thank you very much.\nREAGAN: All right. I had a great answer. (applause)\nRUSHER: I must in respect to Professor Milton Friedman, who isn't here\ntonight, take exception to Mr. Miller's statement that he approves of\nthis particular plan. I have every reason to think that he would\ndisapprove of it thoroughly if he were here. It is true that he has\nproposed the negative income tax, but it is in major respects different\nfrom the plan we're seeing proposed tonight. To discuss this plan\nfurther and some of its important and technical aspects, we have with us\na distinguished economist, until recently a special assistant to the\nPresident of the United States, Dr. Roger Freeman.\nMINIMUM INCOME/13\nPALMIERI: Dr. Freeman, welcome to the program. (applause)\nRUSHER: Dr. Freeman is a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institute at\nStanford University. Dr. Freeman, we've heard a great deal about the\nincentive that Mr. Miller's chart showed would be given. You could\nkeep some of the welfare money even while you worked and this was\nsupposed to provide a big incentive to people to get out and work. In\npoint of fact, though, if the payments are raised in a year or SO, or\nstarted to raise as Governor Reagan predicted they would, how much\nincentive is there really going to be under this program?\nFREEMAN: If you looked at the chart, Mr. Rusher, you saw that it\nprovided $2400 for a family with no earnings, and if you earn $2400\nyou would get $1200, a total of $3600, In New York a couple with two\nchildren are already getting about $4000 plus fringe benefits. So how\nmuch incentive do you have to go from $4000 to $2400? In the second\nplace, we have had an incentive system in the Aid to Dependent Children\nprogram and other welfare programs incidentally, for several years. In\nNew York, in September, 1967 a system was introduced under which a\nwelfare recipient, an ADC recipient, that's Aid to Dependent Children,\ncould keep of her extra earnings $85 a month plus 30% of her earnings.\nSince that time the number of recipients on ADC has tremendously\nincreased just over the past year by 26%, which means that within\nthree years the number of recipients will double. In other words,\nthe experience has been that these incentives, so-called incentives,\ndo not work for a great majority of the people. They may work for a few.\nRUSHER: Dr. Freeman, since our time is short, I want to come to the\nquestion that I had saved for last, which I consider perhaps the most\nimportant. It's been touched on twice already here tonight. Doesn't\neveryone, or does everyone have a right to a share in the national\nwealth of the United States?\nFREEMAN: It seems to me that everybody has a responsibility to share in\na national wealth, that means contributing to the national production\nif it is within his capacity. And only that contribution gives him the\nright to share in proportion to what he produces.\nPALMIERI: Mr. Miller?\nMILLER: What about a system, Professor Freeman, that when he is\nproducing gives him every incentive to stop producing and leave his\nfamily? Is that the kind of system that you support?\nFREEMAN: No, sir, and I don't think it does because as you well know, it\ndoes not require, not in California, not in New York, not in 20 states\nMILLER: Not in 20 states, but in 28.\nFREEMAN: That's right.\nMILLER: In 30 rather.\nMINIMUM INCOME/14\nFREEMAN: Well, for a man to leave his family, but rather he can remain\nwith his family if he's unemployed and he will receive welfare.\nMILLER: He has to stop working. He has to stop working.\nFREEMAN: Well, now let US first assume he is not working. In that\ncase he will receive welfare and the experience has been that since\nthat was introduced, about 8 years ago, that the rolls since that time\nhave been increasing very rapidly. In other words, an incentive to\nleave the family is not there.\nMILLER: It's no incentive like the one weve been proposing. I mean,\nthe incentive you talked about is very limited. You have to be working\npart tine, The $4000 figure in New York, of course, New York incentive\nwould go to a higher level. The principle is you'd always keep half of\nwhat you earn. But let me ask you about the guaranteed jobs feature,\nwhich the Governor spoke of and which Mr. Rusher mentioned, and which I\nunderstand you support also. How much would a program of guaranteeing\njobs, just for the idea of guaranteeing jobs, to everyone in the United\nStates at a level at the poverty line or above, cost the federal\ngovernment?\nFREEMAN: No, I'm opposed to that,\nMILLER: You're opposed to that.\nFREEMAN: I believe that the government does not owe everybody a\nliving. But society does owe him an opportunity to earn a living.\nIn proportion to what he produces. I do not believe that anyone has the\nright not to work, and just because he has no income, or a little income,\nto be supported by the other people.\nMILLER: Let's get to the principle then, If we have a person who is\nworking, those 15 million households, 15 million people in households\nthat are headed by the working poor, if we have a person that is working.\nOn principles, forgetting about sharing in the national wealth, on\nprinciples, what we should do with that person who'd demonstrated his\nmotivation, we should keep him working and do everything to keep him\nworking, shouldn't we?\nFREEMAN: We do. Except if we offer him welfare, where he makes as\nmuch as he can with working or not much more.\nMILLER: This is what we do.\nFREEMAN: This is what, we are doing and what you propose would make it\neven worse. How are you going to control the welfare program if at the\npresent time we have 12 million, it's increased by a million since you\nspoke, from 11 to 12 million at the present time, We have 12 million\nand you're going to control that and make it better by putting 36\nmillion or 26 million on the rolls,\nMINIMUM INCOME/15\nMILLER: By putting people on who are now deciding whether to go on the\nwelfare system that we now have or to continue working, Why shouldn't\nthey simply, they re not on now. The welfare costs are going up. Tell\nme, what do you propose to do with the welfare system? Welfare costs\nthat are out of control? Welfare rolls that are growing by a million\nin ten seconds, apparently. What do you propose to do with it?\nFREEMAN: Very simple, sir. What I propose is to offer people an\nopportunity to work. Now there are some who cannot compete in an open\nmarket. They, we may have to\nMILLER: An opportunity to work. Most of the people on welfare ar\nblind, are aged or disabled. What are they to do? Sit magically and\nbe born anew?\nFREEMAN: Most of the people are not blind.\nMILLER: Children. Are children to grow old and the old to grow young?\nAre the 97% of the people on welfare\nFREEMAN: That is incorrect. Most of the people who are on the ADC\nprogram, the Aid to Dependent Children, the blind, the disabled, the\nold, that's a program by itself, which is really not controversial at\nthe present time. The real controversy is on aid to dependent children,\nwhich would enable millions of men and women to live off of other\npeople's sweat of the brow.\nPALMIERI: Professor, let me thank you for appearing on The Advocates.\n(applause)\nRUSHER: Like most deadly proposals this one starts out by being\nrelatively modest. At first we see only the tip of the iceburg. But\nonce the principle of a guaranteed minimum income is established,\npolitical pressures to increase the actual payment\nANNOUNCER: (simulated newscast) We interrupt this program for a\nspecial report: The welfare strike has begun. We repeat, the welfare\nstrike has begun. At nine o'clock this evening, welfare strikers\nblockaded the transportation systems of New York, Los Angeles, and other\nmajor cities, Earlier today a welfare union spokeswoman told us why\nthey want to strike.\nWELFARE WOMAN: I'm pi---d off cause I want something for myself, my\nkids and my people.\nHELEN BROWN: (L.A. Welfare Union) We were promised under this minimum\nwage, minimum salary thing from the government that everything would be\ndifferent. That we would break out of this poverty cycle, that we\nwouldn't be poor people any more. That we'd be able to participate\nin the wealth of this nation which is such a wealthy nation. Well\nnothing has changed.\nMINIMUM INCOME/16\nANNOUNCER: The National Alliance of Welfare Unions wants more money. The\nguaranteed income was originally set at $2400 for a family of four.\nLater is was raised to $3600. Now the Alliance demands $6500. And the\ninflationary spiral keeps getting worse. Farm prices pushed the cost of\nliving this month up 7% hitting a seven year high of 8.5%\nROBERT SCHROEDER: (American Consumer League) This inflationary\nspiral that's caused by this program has risen my food bill 9½ in\nthe last six months, There are no janitors in my child's school. A\ngroup of parents including myself were there last night cleaning up\nthe school because people are not willing to go to work at menial jobs\nlike janitors. And we can't take it any more. The taxpayers in Southern\nCalifornia alone, with twelve other groups around the country are going\nto refuse to pay our federal taxes until this program is wiped out.\nFLOYD YOUNG: (Truck Driver) Last month I plowed under three hundred\nacres of lettuce; no one to pick it. There's two hundred acres of\ntomatoes out there that I've had to plow under also. I just can't get\nthe workers. Government guarantees them a certain amount of money and\nwhat we can pay them isn't really enough to make it worth their while,\nNow next year I'm going to plant one third of the acreage that I have\nhere, and prices will go up, But if that doesn't work, well, maybe\nI'll go on relief.\nANNOUNCER: Earlier today, before the strike started, the chairman of\nthe Senate Finance Committee described his dilemma and made an\nunprecedented appeal to the nation's taxpayers for help.\nRICHARD COLEMAN: (Senator, Senate Finance Committee) The welfare\nblock has placed enormous demands on Congress and the economy. This\nyear, we've again underestimated by 20% the escalating cost of this\nprogram, We've also underestimated the enormous labor Deduction this\nprogram has caused. This budget report I have just received gives us\ntwo options: Either pass another formidable appropriation with an\nincrease in income taxes, or cut back by one third the welfare payments\nwe are now handing out. You've got to help make that decision.\nANNOUNCER: That's the latest on the welfare strike. This is James\nWaterman reporting,\nRUSHER: Fortunately that was only a simulated newscast. You will\nnot really see one like it for five or ten years if this plan is\nadopted. You will see it one of these days if a guaranteed minimum\nincome, God forbid, should become America's national policy.\nPALMIERI: Well, Mr. Miller.\nMILLER: That film is a complete prediction of what will happen if\nthe welfare system remains as it is, not if it is changed because what\nwe are building is a self-perpetuating welfare bloc brought on by the\nsystem by itself. The system must be changed and that is the question\nto which everyone must address themselves, not simply existing\ncriticisms of the system and brushing aside every proposal, even when\nMINIMUM INCOME/17\nproposed by this presidential commission that comes along. When I say\nthe welfare system must be abolished, I mean it's the system that must\nbe abolished, not that people stop receiving checks from the government,\nbut that the checks that they receive from the government be productive\ntoward leading them to work and family stability. That's the goal we\ncan achieve by breaking the system. Continuing the present system will\ncontinue to add those millions to the welfare roles. We must address\nourselves to the question what to do and not simply be scared away by\na proposal that striked at the bureaucracy, that stabilizes the family,\nthat provides incentives to work. Those are the proposals we need to\nconsider. This proposal in fact was proposed by a commission of\ndistinguished Americans including presidents of major corporations and\npublic leaders from all over the United States and the principle of\nthe negative income tax, that is payment as of right, without categories,\nis in fact a principle concurred in by Professor Milton Friedman and\nothers. We have a member of that commission here tonight to support\nthat proposal. She is State Senator Barbara Jordan from Texas.\nPALMIERI: Welcome Senator Jordan. (applause)\nMILLER: Senator Jordan, the question has come up about whether the\ngovernment should simply provide a kind of guarantee of income to\nevery American. Should it?\nJORDAN: The government should provide some kind of guarantee to every\nAmerican because we expect of every American, as has been said here\nmany times tonight, to produce and consume and 25 million Americans\nare being locked out of society and locked out of the economy, unable\nto participate in the marketplace and the economy and the government\nhas a responsibility to give these people a chance in life.\nMILLER: Now despite all the talk about able-bodied people on welfare,\nthe Commission studies indicated that less than 3% of all those on\nwelfare were able-bodied.\nJORDAN: Absolutely correct. Less than 3%.\nMILLER: If we do guarantee this income, that is if we simply move\nfrom our existing system where all but 3% are not able-bodied, if we\nguarantee the income to all, will that create this momentous political\nbloc that will besiege this country?\nJORDAN: Well I think anyone who feels that we're going to have a\ntremendous welfare bloc bringing political pressure for changes in\nadoption programs they 're absolutely erroneous, The National Welfare\nRights organization has failed as far as bringing pressure to bear or\na new program or an innovative program by the federal government. I\ndon't think that this is going to occur.\nMILLER: What will happen though if the system did not change, if we\ncontinue as we are because people continue to say no to every proposal?\nMINIMUM INCOME/18\nJORDAN: I shudder to think about the newscast that we will see if\nwe don't change the present system. There are people who will revolt,\nthe have-nots in our society have decided that they will not be eter-\nnally mute and that they will demand that they be included in the\ninner workings of this economy.\nMILLER: What does the current welfare system in fact do to people\nand families on welfare?\nJORDAN: It destroys hope. A person who is locked in the basement of\npoverty, a person who cannot feed his family, a person who works and\ntries to earn a living and still cannot produce in the terms of middle\nAmerica, he loses hope and I think that this is what we can give to\npeople if we include them in our society.\nMILLER: In fact does it provide an incentive to families to remain\ntogether or to break up?\nJORDAN: It's an incentive for them to break up, we've talked about\nthat.\nMILLER: What about an incentive to work, does it provide any real\nincentives to work?\nJORDAN: No real incentives to work. The working poor are left out\nf the categories. The working poor are excluded from Public Assis-\ncance programs as they now exist. They have no incentive to work built\nin to present systems and this is the case.\nMILLER: One last question. You're a member of this distinguished\npresidential commission including men from all over the country,\nincluding many businessmen. Did they all come to the commission agreed\nthat this was the proposal or what was the process? How did the\ncommission come to unanimously recommend this plan?\nJORDAN: This commission was composed of corporate executives,\nuniversity professors, former governors, even the former governor of\nCalifornia and they saw poverty, they stidued it, they smelled poverty,\nthey saw people locked into this kind of isolation that I talk about\nand decided that the only response and the only alternative was a\nminimum income guarantee.\nMILLER: Thank you.\nPALMIERI: Senator, before Mr. Rusher starts, the question that Mr.\nRusher and his witnesses posed to earlier witnesses is still a\nquestion very much in the minds of the American public. Why should\nproductive people, so-called, contribute to non-productive people?\nJORDAN: Well, I could say that we always in many instances productive\neople have contributed to non-productive people, but the assumption\nhat you, we're making which is erroneous here is that there are large\nand vast numbers of people who can be productive who are on welfare\nMINIMUM INCOME/19\nsimply because they are lazy. This is one of the myths the Heineman\nCommission sought to destroy. This is not the case.\nPALMIERI: Thank you Senator. Let's hear from Mr. Rusher.\nRUSHER: Senator Jordan, as you are aware, Senator Harris of Oklahoma\nhas introduced into the Senate a bill to make the floor for this type\nof a system $3600. How do you stand on that bill?\nJORDAN: I would say that it is unmalistic to seek a floor of $3600\nat this time.\nRUSHER: Unrealistic how?\nJORDAN: It is unrealistic in terms of $3600 would require an expen-\nditure of some $27 billion and the American people are not ready to\ncommit that vast sum of money to a program to help people stand\ntheir feet.\nRUSHER: I agree with you, but if the American people by any chance\ncould be persuaded to do it would you favor it?\nJORDAN: Yes, I would.\nRUSHER: And how about the proposal of the National Welfare Rights\nOrganization, the demand indeed, that the floor be $5500?\nJORDAN: I think that when you get to that point you reach the point\nof diminishing returns and I'd say that in order for us to keep\nincentives built into the system that it is necessary to keep it at a\nreasonable and practical level.\nRUSHER: You're in favor of $3600 if it could be practically achieved\nbut not $5500.\nJORDAN: $3600 because that is the poverty index at this time and\nthat's why it makes sense.\nRUSHER: Tell me, isn't it true that, well put it the other way\naround, what's wrong with requiring work or at least job training for\nwelfare payments?\nJORDAN: It is alien to the American way of life to coerce people,\nto coerce people to work in order, in order to earn\nRUSHER: Is it the American,\nJORDAN: The vast majority, let me finish my answer.\nRUSHER: Surely.\nMINIMUM INCOME/20\nJORDAN: The vast majority of the American people continue to work to\nearn a living and the vast ma jority would continue to work to earn a\nliving.\nRUSHER: Since you have raised the question of just what is and what\nisn't alien to the American way of life would you say that it is alien\nto the American way of life to pay a man a stipulated amount every year\nfor doing nothing whatever and not requiring anything of him in return?\nJORDAN: I would say that it is alien to the American way of life to\nbe the richest nation in the world and suffer 25 million people.\nRUSHER: And not give people money for nothing?\nJORDAN: And suffer 26 million people.\nRUSHER: We've heard a lot of talk about the proposition that only 3%\nof the people now on welfare are able-bodied and let's assume for the\nmoment, although I assume it only for the moment because I think it's\nwrong, that it is true. Let's assume that it's true about those\npresently on welfare, these 10 million plus that are on welfare, This\nproposal tonight proposes to add 26 million. Is it your impression that\nonly 3% of those are going to be able-bodied?\nJORDAN: It is my impression that this country must move in the\ndirection of eliminating, eradicating, erasing welfare as it now\nexists\nRUSHER: I would like you to answer my question.\nJORDAN:\nand moving to a new program. That's the only answer I\ncan give you.\nRUSHER: Let me try again. If we add 26 million to the welfare 10\nmillion will they all but 3% of them be unable to work?\nJORDAN: The question is this 26 million people be poor people, people\nwho\nRUSHER: Would they be able to work?\nJORDAN:\nare looking for an opportunity, people who are looking\nfor the chance to stand on their feet. If they could work they would\nwork.\nRUSHER: Well, we'll pass that and ask you this instead. Is it true\nthat recently in Detroit 600 welfare recipients said they would never\nagain accept work as domestic servants, that they regarded it as\ndemeaning and instead they's stay on welfare?\nJORDAN: I did not talk to them.\nMINIMUM INCOME/21\nRUSHER: I didn't ask whether you did.\nJORDAN: Well, I don't know whether they said it or not.\nRUSHER: In other words you haven't heard that they did.\nJORDAN: I have not heard that they did.\nRUSHER: Well, accepting for the moment hypothetically the proposition\nthat they did, would you comment on it.\nJORDAN: I would not comment on a proposition that's hypothetical.\nRUSHER: Oh, you won't comment on a hypothetical proposition.\nPALMIERI: Well, we've got enough real world propositions to talk about.\nI think we're talking about problems that are important to all.\nRUSHER: Well, I assure you, Mr. Palmieri, I did not pull that story out\nof the blue, It actually happened in Detroit and I'm sorry Senator\nJordan would rather not comment on it. May I ask you whether or not in\nfact, let's put it around this way instead of giving you a hypothetical.\nWould you consider that work as a domestic Servant should be accepted by\na person who is otherwise out of work?\nJORDAN: Do I think he should be coerced?\nRUSHER: No, should he do it on his own?\nJORDAN: If this isa job that the man desires as a domestic servant\nor a woman, yes.\nRUSHER: And if he prefers to stay on welfare, that's all right with you.\nJORDAN: If she prefers a new kind of opportunity, another kind of job\nand her skills can adapt themselves to a new kind of job then that\nopportunity ought to be provided.\nRUSHER: And suppose her skills can only adapt her to a new kind of\nwelfare.\nJORDAN: Well, I would not assume a situation in which a person's skills--\nRUSHER: I'm not asking you to assume anything. I am merely saying if\nthere is a job as a domestic servant\nJORDAN: Well, you said \"suppose\" and in my book suppose means assume.\nRUSHER: I didn't say suppose. I didn't. I said that if a person receive\nan offer of employment as a domestic servant and is currently on welfare,\nshould they take it or should they not? Now you can say can do it or\nt\nas you choose.\nMINIMUM INCOME/22\nJORDAN: That should be a matter of\nRUSHER: Of personal decision.\nJORDAN:\nof personal decision and judgment.\nRUSHER: Right. And if they don't want to take it then they can just\ntake the cash and sit.\nJORDAN: That would be a matter of personal decision and judgment.\nRUSHER: Precisely, For each person individually, and if he decided to\ntake the cash, it is our moral duty to pay it to him.\nJORDAN: That is your assumption at that point that it is our moral duty.\nRUSHER: What is yours?\nJORDAN: What my assumption is that we would create a climate, market\nincentives, labor participation, more jobs to enable people to break\nout of the cocoons that lock them in at this point in serval kinds of\npositions.\nRUSHER: Do I understand that you do not believe then that there is a\noral obligation to make welfare payments to people who don't want to work?\nJORDAN: There is a moral obligation\nRUSHER: Oh there is.\nJORDAN: There is a moral obligation to provide every man, woman and\nchild in America with a decent level of living.\nRUSHER: And that is to be done regardless of whether they want to work\nfor it or not.\nJORDAN: The point that I would like to make\nRUSHER: I would like to make that point.\nJORDAN: Then you make it and don't ask me to respond to it.\nRUSHER: Yes, I do ask you to respond to it. You're a witness here.\nJORDAN: What I am saying is.\nRUSHER: And what I'm asking is whether or not they would have to do\nany work for it.\nPALMIERI: Senator, I'd intervene if I didn't think you could handle\nyourself.\nMINIMUM INCOME/23\nJORDAN: People should not be forced to work in order to be able to\ncelebrate life. That should not be an ingredient of the American way of\nlife.\nRUSHER: I think that sums up if not the American way of life at any\nrate the one that Senator Jordan favors. Thank you.\nPALMIERI: Senator Jordan, thank you for being on The Advocates.\n(applause) Mr. Miller you have one minute to summarize your case.\nMILLER: The question is whether we really intend to deal with he\nproblem that exists. The problem that exists is not vast number of\nable-bodied people who don't want to work, but people who are working\nand who are nevertheless poor and for whom we have structured an entire\nsystem that leads them away from their family and from their work.\nThat is the reality we must deal with. All the boogeymen about people\nwho don't want to work, in fact as income level goes up people tend to\nwork often harder. It is not a question of the requirement. The\nrequirement or the force requires the kind of vast bureaucracy that\neveryone wants to get rid of. If the bureaucracy's gone, if the payments\ngo, if the climate's correct, if the incentives are there, then the\npeople who now work will continue working. Those who are simply to\ncontinue the present system and the present bureaucracy and the present\nreverse incentive have an obligation it seems to me to suggest some-\nthing else, This is the suggestion of the commission. It is the one we\nshould adopt.\nPALMIERI: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Now Mr. Rusher, you have one minute.\nRUSHER: This year and last on The Advocates we've discussed many\nliberal proposals for allegedly improving our society. Some it may be\nwere meritorious. Others perhaps were harmful and yet had small actual\neffect, but there has never been one in my opinion as full of peril to\nour national life as the proposal we have been considering tonight.\nTo create a whole new class of lifelong professional dependents, 35\nmillion strong, to tax the heart out of every working man and woman in\nAmerica to feed and to clothe and house these people without once\nrequiring them to lift a finger or even asking them to learn a trade,\nthis is not statecraft, This isn't even common politics. This is the\nswift sure road to national suicide.\nPALMIERI: Mr. Rusher, thank yoo. Well, ladies and gentlemen, now\nit's time for you at home to act on tonight's question. Should the\nfederal government guarantee a minimum income to every American?\nYou've heard our distinguished witnesses, including the Governor of the\nState of California. It's time for you to make up your mind and signify\nto us where you stand ón the question, We want you to let us know. We\nwant you to write us tonight, Every one of your votes is important.\nWill you send your vote to The Advocates, Box 1970, Boston 02134. We\ntabulate your views and we make them known to the White House, to all\nthe members of the Congress and to others throughout the nation who are\nconcerned with this problem. Please remember that address; The\nAdvocates, Box 1970, Boston 02134.\nMINIMUM INCOME/24\nFour weeks ago The Advocates debated a plan for universal voter\nregistration in presidential elections. Doesn't sound like it'd be as\ncontroversial as tonight's program. Believe me it was. We've now\nheard from over 1300 individuals across the country. Our viewers were\nfairly evenly divided. 48% were in favor, 48% were opposed, 4%\nexpressed other views.\nNow for the next two weeks The Advocates programs will come to you from\nParis, France. We'll have more on that for you in just a moment. Now\nwe anticipate while we're overseas that Congress will act on a question\nthat we debated three weeks ago. That question: Should Congress set\nimport quotas on textiles and shoes. So therefore we're reporting\ntonight the preliminary mail results on that question. We've received\n24,468 replies. And they were overwhelmingly in favor of quotas.\n90% of those responding said yes, they were in favor of quotas, only\n10% said no. But more than 80% of the total mail was clearly the result\nof organized write-ins with a preponderance of letters coming, not\nsurprisingly, from the textile states of South and North Carolina,\nGeorgia and Alabama. And now let's look ahead to next week.\nFILM:\nMADAME BINH: If Mr. Nixon really wants to end the war and negotiate\nseriously, we are ready to do SO,\nANNOUNCER: Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, spokesman for the Viet Cong at the\nParis peace talks.\nXUAN THUY: speaking in Vietnamese.\nANNOUNCER: Xuan Thuy, principle negotiator for the North Vietnamese.\nNext week Xuan Thuy and Madame Binh participate in an extraordinary\ntelevision event when The Advocates begin a two-part program on ending\nthe war in Vietnam. Next time from Paris, The Advocates,\nPALMIERI: Thanks now to our advocates and to our distinguished\nwitnesses. I'm Victor Palmieri. Til next week, thanks to you. Good\nnight.\nANNOUNCER: The Advocates as a program takes no position on the issues\ndebated tonight. Our job is to help you understand both sides more\nclearly.\n-\n1/24/21\nPLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS ABC RADIO AND\nTELEVISION PROGRAM TO \"ABC'S ISSUES AND ANSWERS.\"\nISSUES AND ANSWERS\nSUNDAY, JANUARY 24, 1971\nGUEST:\nGOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN (R. Cal.)\nINTERVIEWED BY:\nSam Donaldson, ABC News Capitol IIill\nCorrespondent.\nLouis Rukeyser, ABC News Economic Editor\nDE - -\nMR. RUKEYSER: Governor, President Nixon made his State\nof the Union speech Friday night. You spent more than an\nhour with him yesterday. What reaction did you give nim?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I thought it was fine. I think\nthat what he called for basically was the very thing that has\nbeen at the heart of Republican philosophy in recent years.\nThe decentralization of the great power of the federal govern-\nment, the return of more authority and autonomy to local\ngovernments, to the states, and, of course, this ties in with\nthe federal revenue-sharing which I see as a possibility of\n2\n1\ntaking some of the burdens off the federal government and\n2\noperating things more efficiently at the local and the state\n3\nlevel.\n4\nMR. RUKEYSER: Will you be supporting that program in the\n5\ndeliberations here in Washington?\n6\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Oh, very much. I think there is\n7\nprobably going to be great congressional opposition to winding\n8\ndown. You know, there is an old saying that no government has\n9\never voluntarily reduced itself in size, but I think if the\n10\npeople themselves will, at the grass roots, make it evident\n11\nthat they want this - and I believe they do; I think people\n12\nare concerned about how far government has become removed from\n13\ntheir influence -- I think that Congress can see the light and\n14\nbring this about.\n15\nMR. DOMALDSON: Governor, another point of congressional\n16\nopposition that is developing has to do with what you call\n17\n\"deficiency.\" Many members of Congress don't like the idea\n18\nof sending the money back to the states with no strings\n19\nattached, afraid that the states may not use the money\n20\nproperly. What is your counter to that?\n21\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I see nothing wrong with the federal\n22\ngovernment setting some minimum standards. For example, if\n73\nthey are going to give us money to operate a welfare program,\n21\nthat is now bound in by federal regulations right down to\nevery detail as to how we must administer the program; if they\n3\n1\nare to give us the authority to run the program, there is\n2\nnothing wrong with the federal government insisting that\n3\nthere is a basic level that must be maintained, and I wouldn't\n4\nobject to that. Where we get in trouble at the local level\n5\nis trying to make regulations that are worked out here in the\n6\nNation's Capital on a basis that would fit every section of\n7\nthe country, and there is a great diversity in America, and\n8\nthen expecting us to make those regulations work in our\nC)\nadministering of the program.\n10\nMR. DONALDSON: Well, it is said that the federal govern\n11\nment is the best tax collector, but people like Wilour Mills\n12\nof the house Ways and Means Committee make the point that\n13\nthe person that uses the money should be the person --\n14\nmeaning government constituency --- that raises the money.\n15\nWhy shouldn't you in California have some device for increas-\n16\ning your taxes, lowering the federal tax, let's say, rather\n17\nthan sending the money to Washington and then back again?\n18\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I have always been an opponent of\n19\nthat. I have said that, running it through these puzzle\n20\npalaces on the Potomac, it comes back minus a pretty neavy\n21\ncarrying charge and the ideal would be for the federal govern\n22\nment, which has preempted so many sources of revenue, to\n23\nsimply return those sources and allow the collection at the\n24\nlocal level. But it is a fact of government, and not only\n25\nthe federal government you'd be surprised, after a while\n-\nI\nat the state level, how resistant some at the state level\n2\nare when you suggest allowing the cities to have a source\n3\nrevenue and to solve their own problems with that revenue.\n&\nSo this is just a fact of human nature and governments\n5\nmade up of human beings.\n6\nMR. RUKLYSER: Do you think there is any chance this\n7\nprogram would result in any net tax reduction?\n8\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Oh, I think very easily it coulu be-\n9\ncause I believe that in administering these, without the\n10\nduplication of bureaucracies -- take, for example, in welfare,\n11\nThere is the gigantic Health, Education and Welfare Depart-\n12\nment. How, there is a very sizeable state welfare Department\n13\nin California. Then the program that actually aoministers\n14\nto the people is at the county level and they have a gigantic\n15\nbureaucracy, if you want to call it that, because they are\n16\nthe ones who provide the case workers who are in contact\n17\nwith the Welfare recipients. NOW, if you could reduce the\n18\nadministrative overhead at Washington, you free a great\n19\ndollars that are not actually helping the problems of tue\n20\npoor If we at the state lo el -- and we have been trying\n21\nto do this in California, to wind ours\ndown -- we have,\n22\nin the four years that I have been there, we have reduced the\n23\nstate regulations imposed on the counties Erom 2500 pages to\n24\nless than 250 and I think that the 250 are still too many.\n25\n5\ncl\n--\nHR. DONALDSON: Well, what can you do, saying that you\n2\nsupport this idea, to mobilize some sort of pressure on\n3\nCongress, because at the moment it would appear that it has\n4\nvery little chance -- that is, Revenue Sharing -- of getting\n5\nthrough this year?\n6\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I think they had better start listen-\n7\ning to the people. Of all the issues in this country that\n3\nhave the people aroused, I will quarantee you, just from my\n3\nown experience in speaking engagements and getting around\n10\nthe country and in our own state, there is no problem that\n11\nI can think of in which the people are more set and determined\n12\nin their minds that there must be reform than in the field\n13\nof welfare. The people are at the they see it operating,\n14\nthey live across the street from the recipients, they see\ni5\nthe shortcomings of the program and they see, certainly, the\n16\nwaste and extravagance and I am prepared to say that most of\n17\nthat waste and extravagance is the result of trying to make\n18\nthe multitudenous federal regulations operate, because the\n13\nmore regulations you get, the more interpretations you can\n20\nhave, and the more loopholes you can have and some of the\n21\ncases are just actually riuiculous.\n22\nMR. RUKEYSER. Well, Governor, it is no secret you have\n23\nbeen involved in controversy with the Hixon Administration\n24\nover more than one question involving public welfare. Vice\nPresident Agnew suggested ten days ago that welfare was much\nc2\n6\n}\nmore complex a problem -- those were his words - than your\n2\nproposal, to put able-bodied recipients to work.\n3\nHave you resolved any of these differences in the last\n4\nten days?\n5\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, there is a great deal more in which\n0)\nwe are in agreement. As a matter of fact, we in California\n7\nwere privileged to be in on the very inception of the\n8\nPresident's idea about reform of welfare. Now we are agreed\n9\ntotally on the need for complete reform of welfare. It is\n10\na colossal failure. It is a disaster in this country as it\n11\nis now operated. It has no goal. It has no eventual end\n12\npurpose that anyone can see.\n13\nWe are agreed on the necessity to have some realistic\n14\nwork incentives. At present, literally, the welfare re-\n15\ncipient has the choice of working or saying, \"I will sit\n16\nand do nothing, and I won't be penalized, I will still be\n17\ngiven subsistence.\" This, we are in agreement on, must be\n18\nchanged.\n19\nWhere we came into some disagreement -- and it never\n20\naffected a cordial relationship, at all; we have discussed\n21\nit frankly and openly - we believe that when the President's\n22\noriginal concept came down through the bureaucracy of NEW\n23\nin legislative form and was passed by the Congress, these\n24\nwork provisions were watered down to where the loopholes re-\n25\nmained and there was no realistic way to get these people\n7\n$\ninto employment, or force them into employment. We think\n2\nthe shortcomings were in that legislative form.\n3\nMR. DONALDSON: You just used the words \"force then\n4\ninto employment\" and it ties in with what Lou mentioned about\n5\nyour own plans for a work force for the employable people\n6\nwho are in welfare in California. Now how would that work?\n7\nHow would you force them into employment?\n8\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, we are working toward a concept,\n9\nthere, on an experimental basis, that we would like to try\n10\nout, and I have had conversations with the Secretary of\n11\nHEW, Eliot Richardson, and he is most interested in having\n12\nour people come back -- and they are not frozen into any\n13\ntotal, solid position, nor are we. I am one who believes\n14\nthat some of these various programs, there should be some\n10\nexperimentation before they are imposed nationwide. This is\n16\nwhat has been wrong in the past. Someone has had an idea in\n17\nWashington and a program goes out and if it turns out there\n18\nare shortcomings, inertia sets in and there is no way to\nreverse the trend.\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n8\n1\n1\nWe would like to experiment with, first of all, taking\n2\nthe real dependents, the aged, the disabled, the blind and\n3\nso forth, and recognizing that they are pensioners, they\n4\ndo not properly belong over in the welfare structure.\nAutomate their checks by way of Social Security. Set them over\n5\nhere and pay them.\nas\nYou don't have to have a case worker dropping in every\n7\nfew months on an elderly person to check on whether they\n8\nare getting younger or not. They are not. And then turn to\n9\nthis section of welfare that should be viewed\n10\nas temporary, and the goal of welfare should be to reduce\n11\nthe need for itself. Welfare should base its success on how\n12\nmuch this segment of potential employables shrinks as\n13\ngovernment wards, how many of them they can get out into\n14\nthe private sector. And we are working toward the idea of\n15\ntrying - in a sense a public work force, cataloguing all\n16\nthose functions that are not now being performed at\n17\nlocal or state or even federal government levels, useful,\n18\nnecessary things that government would do, if it had the\n19\nmanpower and the resources. Well, we do. We have the manpower\n20\npresently on welfare, the employable manpower, that just isn't\n21\nable to get a job in the private sector because of the\n22\nlack of a job skill, or basic education, or whatever. We\n23\nhave the funds. It is now being paid to them in the welfare\n24\ngrants.\n25\n9\n2\nI\nBut if we created on a priority basis these public\n=\nservices - now in this whole environmental field, countless\n3\ndoors are opened for things that need doing. Here is the\n4\nmanpower and the resources to do it, but consider always\nF.\nthat these people are not permanent government employees.\n6\nThe program is permanent, but they are temporary, and you\n7\ntie your job training and job procurement to these programs\n8\nin which your goal is to get these people out of this\n?\nkind of employment into the private sector, into the jobs\n10\nwith a future and an opportunity as quickly as possible.\n11\n(Announcements)\n*\n#\n12\n13\nMR. RUKEYSER: Governor Reagan, in your talk with the\n14\nPresident yesterday did he indicate that he was moving to\n15\nremedy what you consider defects in his previous Welfare\n16\nReform Plan?\n17\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, we actually didn't touch on that\n18\nsubject. We were both being very tactful. But I do know\n19\nthat the Secretary 15 very interested in hearing all input\nfrom others. lie wants to find whatever there is that\n20\n21\nmight aid, again, in this total agreement we have, that\n2?\nthe program must be salvaged, it must be reformed.\n22\nMR. RUKEYSER: Would you agree that some form of a\n24\nwelfare reform plan is likely to be enacted by the Congress\n25\nthis year, and if so what form do you think it is going to\n10\n3\ntake?\n:\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Now perhaps you here closer to the SC\n2\nare more familiar with how Congress is going to react to\nin\nthese things. Perhaps Congress might be more willing to\nDo\nact on an experimental basis. You see the one that I just\n5\noutlined to you, I cannot be totally sure in my mind that\n6\nthere aren't defects, that this would solve the whole\n7\nproblem and this is why I believe in the idea of granting\nS\nsome states the permission to try some of these things,\n9\nimplement them and see if they work fine, what the\n10\nadvantages are, the shortcomings, but we may find\n11\nan amalgum, we may find a mix\n12\nof features of one and features of another. But if we can\n13\n240\nagree upon the goal and if Congress will give that permission.\n14\nI think we can solve it, but I think it is the most important\n15\nissue facing the Congress today. This nation must have\n16\na reform of welfare, or the nation and the states individually\n17\nare heading for bankruptcy.\n18\nMR. RUKEYSER: Do you regard that as more important\n19\nthan revenue sharing?\n20\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I think revenue sharing\n21\nties right in with it. Let me just add one thing. I have\n22\njust finished referring to the bankruptcy that faces government,\n23\nbut let me make very clear that the most important and tragic\n24\npart of the failure of welfare IS for the person who is totally\n25\n11\n-\ndestitute and dependent on the rest of us, because\n2\nwe are spread so thin with this proliferation of programs\n3\nthat we can't actually do what we should be doing for\n4\nthe totally destitute persons. They are existing on grants\nS\nthat do not give them what they need to raise their children\n6\nproperly, and to escape poverty.\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n2,\n25\n12\n$1s.mm\nMR. DONALDSON: Governor, your own state faces a\n2\ndeficit and you told the Legislature that you are going to\n3\nhave to borrow to make up. while reforming welfare and\ncutting back on some services might be the long-range\n5\nsolution, but the Democratic leaders of the Legislature --\n6\nand it is Democratic now -- say taxes, a rise in taxes is\n7\ninevitable. How are you going to resolve this difference?\n8\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, there is a kind of a revelation\n9\nhere of the basic difference in philosophies between us.\n10\nNow, when I said borrow, let me explain this. This is a\n11\ntechnical thing in California. We cannot have a deficit.\n12\nWe cannot borrow like the federal government can, to go out\n13\nand Borrow in order to pay the running costs of government.\n14\nwas simply injecting there that our cash flow problem requires\n15\ninterdepartmental borrowing. The fact that in several months\n16\nof the year you have no revenues coming in under our tax\n17\nstructure, but the bills must be paid.\n18\nNow, we meet this every year, regularly, by borrowing,\n19\nlet's say from the gasoline tax fund of money that they are\n20\nnot yet ready to use, and this borrowing must be paid back\n21\nas the year goes on.\n22\nwhat I did say to them was that if they would meet, as\n23\nthey should, the issue of reducing some of the costs of\n21\ngovernment, some of the lower priority items, and meet the\n25\nproblem of reforming Medicaid, which we call medical, and\n2\n13\ndate\nWelfare, we GO not need a tax increase.\n2\nNOW, the easy way is for them to just simply say, \"well,\n(1)\nhere we are in trouble. We need 'x' number of dollars more.\n4\nwe will turn to the public and take more money away from them.\n5\nBut if they do without reforming Welfare, then, as I tolu\n6\nthem, next year they will have to do it again; they will have\n7\nto do it the year after; they will have to do it the year\n8\nafter and into bankruptcy because Welfare is progressing at a\n9\nrate that is more than three times the annual increase through\n10\ngrowth of the economy in our resources.\n11\nMR. DONALDSON: How about legalized gambling as New York\n12\nhas done and there is a bill in your Legislature with\n13\nterrific Democratic backing for off-track betting?\n14\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, there isn't solid Democratic\n15\nbacking even for that. Californians have made it pretty\n16\nplain they don't like this gimmick approach. Twice now the\n17\nCalifornia people have voted down on the ballot the idea of a\n18\npublic lottery. I myself lean against it.\n19\nMR. DONALDSON: On moral grounds or what?\n20\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I am inclined to believe that a state\n21\nshould get its revenue from its people's strength, not by\n22\ncapitalizing on their weaknesses.\n23\nMR. RUKLYSER: Governor, before we leave the subject of\n24\nthe poor, I want to ask you whether you expect the Office of\n23\nLconomic Opportunity to sustain your veto of 3 $1.8 million\n3\n14\n1\ngrant for the California Rural Legal Assistance?\n2\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: well, I sincerely hope they will. we\n3\nhave been discussing this whole problem with them. You see,\n4\nthis is only one of a number of OEO-funded grants for legal\nS\nassistance to the poor. Now, I have had no problem with the\n3\nothers. I have approved the others. There are a number of\n7\nthose programs in effect. In Los Angeles County they handled\na\n8,000 cases last year. It is a tremendously successful\n9\nprogram.\n10\nCRLA, I flatly charge, is not fulfilling the purpose for\n11\nwhich it was created. It is not giving legal representation\n12\nto the poor, and we have come back here with a proposal for\n13\na program that will give this legal aid to the poor that is not\n14\nnowbeing given.\n15\nMR. DONALDSON: Let me change the subject very quickly an:\n16\ntalk about the Indo-China War. Under two presidents you have\n17\nsupported our goals and our program in Vietnam. HOW many\n18\npeople in Washington are concerned about increased U. S. air\n19\ninvolvement in Cambodia at a time when we are withdrawing from\n20\nVietnam. They worry that we must be sucked into a Camoodian\n21\nquagmire, to use Senator Muskie's words. DO you have any\n22\nreservations about what we are doing?\n23\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I am in great disagreement with\n21\nSenator Muskie and his observations on this and some of the\n25\nothers. This war, which has been going on a great many years\n4\nIS\n1\nin conception it was contrary to what many of us believed.\n2\nI have been one who subscribed to the lacarthur theory that\n3\nyou do not get bogged down in a land war in Asia, out we did,\n4\nquite a number of years ago.\n5\ndow, in these two years we are winding down the war we\n3\nhave fewer than half as many men, Americans, in Vietnam as\n7\nwe had before, and I think they can't have it both ways.\n3\nThey want the war wound down.\n9\nMR. DONALDSON: Do you want it wound down?\n30\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I want it wound down and I believe\n11\nturning it over to the South Vietnamese is imminent and very\n12\npractical and they will be able to take care of themselves\n13\nvery shortly.\n14\nBut, what Senator luskie seems to be denying is the\n15\nresponsibility of the Commander-in-Chief to insure that as we\n16\nreduce our forces down to a dangerous level in which the\n17\nenemy could attack, overrun them, and we could have eitner a\n18\nDunkirk or thousands of prisoners in a death march as we nau\n19\nin Bataan, that the bombing in Cambodia is not involvement\n20\nin the Cambodian War. That bombing is to keep them from re-\n21\nestablishing the sanctuaries they had from which they could\n22\nattack and overrun, once our force gets down.\n23\nNOW, the present plans call for us being down to only\n21\naround 60,000 combat troops by May. Witen you get down to that\n23\nlevel you are in great danger unless you Keep the enday off\n16\n1\nbalance and I think the Commander-in-Chief would be derelict\n2\nin his responsibility -- which he is not --- if ne aid not\n335\n3\nkeep up this action, so that we can withuraw our forces\n4\nsafely.\n5\n(Announcements)\n6\n7\nMR. RUKEYSER: Governor, are there any circumstances\n8\nthat you can conceive under which Richard Nixon would not be\n9\na candidate for re-election next year?\n10\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I mildn't foresee it. I suppose\n11\nyou'd have to say if there was some tremendous calamity or\n12\ncataclysm, 1929 crash or something, that this coulu be fore-\n13\nseeable, but I am far more optimistic than that. I think\n14\nis on the right track and has been doing a fine job and I.\n15\nexpect to be supporting him.\n16\nMR. RUKLYSLR: Are there any circumstances you can con-\n(PM)\n17\nceive under which you would Le a candidate?\n18\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No. The President knows that I intend\n19\nto lead a California delegation to the convention pleuged\n20\nto his renomination and election.\n21\nMR. DONALDSON: The Republican party here in washington\n22\nis going through a great deal of soul-searching because of\n23\nthe last election. NOW we see a more moderate image. The\n23\nPresident apparently has given up on the law and order issu\n25\nper se and is trying to remold the party in more moderate\n17\n1\nforms. his State of the Union Message certainly was one\n2\nexample. Do you think that is the right course? Is that the\n3\nprescription for victory in '72?\n4\nGOVERNOR RLAGAN: Maybe we have a different interpretation\n353\n5\nof it. I thought his speech called for quite a revolution.\n$\nI think an effort has been made down through the years and\n7\nover the decades to portray the Republican party as one that\n8\nwas not interested in humanity and not interested in the prob-\n9\nlems of human misery and I think he was reassuring that tais\n10\nis not 50. I don't think anyone in either party wants people\n11\nwho are poor to not be improved in their lot or careu for,\n12\nor wants them to not have the medical attention they need, out\n13\nI thought he called the attention of the Congress to the fact\n14\nthat this is a time for choosing: that this is a time that\n15\nmust rise above partisanship. The basic things of decentral-\n16\nizing the federal government, of restoring government to the\n17\npeople at the local -- the nearest level to them, local and\n18\nstate level; the revenue-sharing. These I thought were very\n19\nrevolutionary.\n20\nNow, some people may interpret ais words on the nummitari\n21\nside as meaning that he wants to continue the Great Society.\n22\nI don't believe that because the Great Society revealed that\n23\nit was greatest in cost and extravagance and duplication and\n2:\nreally failure in the solution of the problems that we are\nattempting to solve. So this is a time - the people have\n18\n1\nreturned and have sent into government representatives of\nN\nboth parties. Now, with this they must have given a manuat\n3\nthat they expect a bipartisan management of their affairs,\n&\nand I don't think they are going to be patient much longer\n5\nwith total partisanship and the rejecting of certain things\n6\nsimply because they are proposed by the wrong party.\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n19\nI\n1\nMR. DONALDSON: Governor, I want to return to a point\n2\nwe were talking about earlier and that is the problem\n3\nwith HEW that you are having, which is now before the\n4\nCalifornia Supreme Court, and the Court may say that you can\nS\ncome into compliance with HEW as you have proposed. But\n6\nwhat if the Court rules that the things that you have\n7\npromulgated are not legal and that you cannot that way\n8\ncome into compliance, and what if the State Legislature\n9\nrefuses to pass legislation to bring you into\n10\ncompliance, what then?\n11\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, that is quite a question\n12\nbecause it is a strange thing, the technicality of\n13\nthis non-conformity. California is one of the - well, we\n14\nare the top welfare paying state in the nation, and\n15\nthere are, oh, more than 35 states who are paying\n16\nless to the recipients of aid, to dependent children than\n17\nwe are and yet they are in conformity and we are not.\n18\nIt is a technicality. I guess the ball would then\n19\nrest with NEW as to what action they wanted to take. But I\n20\nwant you to know that before they ever charged nonconformity,\n21\nwe had legislation before the Legislature to change that\n22\nparticular program, to augment the grants to the needy. The\n23\nLegislature turned it down. We tried to do it administratively.\n24\nOEO lawyers brought a case and got a temporary injunction\n25\nagainst us administratively doing this, which means that\n20\n-\nunless the Supreme Court upholds our right to administrativel\n2\nchange these grants, which would put us in conformity, then\n3\nit would go back to the Legislature.\n4\nNow I have confidence that the Legislature would\n5\ngrant us what is needed and what we are asking, but\n6\nif they didn't, then my question is, what would HEW do?\n7\nMR. DONALDSON: It would be up to them. You would\n8\naccept the fact that the funds were cut off?\n9\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No. If the funds were cut off I\n10\nwould have only one recourse. We would send the welfare\n11\nrecipients the state's share and notify them that it was the\n12\nfederal government that was withholding their share. Now if\n13\nHEW wants to live with that that's their problem.\n14\nMR. DONALDSON: Thank you very much, Governor Reagan,\n15\nfor being with us today on ISSUES AND ANSWERS.\n16\n(Sunday, February 7, Senator Edmund Muskie (D. Maine))\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nthe\n&\nSteve\nor\n9/5/71\nS\nTELEPHONE ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nY.A.F. NATIONAL CONVENTION\nHouston, Texas\nSeptember 5, 1971\nSince you've been so kind as to grant me these few moments for greetings\nand salutations, perhaps you'll not take it too unkindly if I impose\nfurther on your time. As representatives of Y.A.F., you are political\nindependents. Still, you've found in your political activism an affin-\nity for the Republican Party, rejecting the albumin brained socialist\nengineers who would set mass above man, and who think social progress is\nsuperior to individual action or choice, group compulsion is the only\nroad to Utopia, and economic security is a more desirable goal than per-\nsonal freedom.\nWhen I think of the philosophy prevalent in so much of the intellectual\ncommunity, I marvel at the way you have obtained an education, yet re-\nmained steadfast in your beliefs, resisting the zeitgeist--the wind of\nour times.\nPoll after poll reveals that a most persistent myth is the acceptance\nof the Democratic Party as the most efficient and reliable in times of\neconomic stress. Evidence of this is the rush to register Democrat by\nso many of your newly enfranchised peers. These are the same young\npeople who have been so stridently vocal in their denunciation of the\nestablishment, and who find government too big, impersonal and oppressive.\nI suppose the myth of the Democrats' economic capability had its be-\nginning in the fact that a Republican Herbert Hoover was President at\nthe time of the crash and depression which began in 1929. The Democrats\ncame to power in the election of 1932, and for almost forty years they\nhave been applying a variety of nostrums from their social medicine chest.\nIn just one two-year period--1953 through 1954--has there been a Repub-\nlican Congress, and, curiously enough, that is the only time in all the\nforty years that the dollar remained stable.\nWhen Herbert Hoover left the White House there were two hundred and\nthirty Americans for every federal employee. When Richard Nixon entered\nthe White House there were only sixty-seven citizens for each federal\nemployee. And what prosperity did such a growth in government bring us?\nIn 1939, after seven years of New Deal programs costing billions of\ndollars, twenty-five percent of the labor force was still unemployed.\nBut then in 1939 we became the arsenal of Democracy; full employment and\nprosperity were on their way, and so was World War II.\nFollowing the war, as we began to catch up with the shortage of consumer\ngoods, unemployment began to increase. But then came war again, this\ntime in Korea, and once again we had full employment. A Republican\nPresident ended that war and led us through the longest period of peace\nwe've known since World War II. Also during that time of peace we had\nvirtually no inflation. Peace was not the result of appeasement. At\none point Red China threatened war and an invasion of Taiwan. President\nEisenhower said, \"They'd have to climb over the seventh fleet to do it,\"\nand there was no war.\nY.A.F. National Convention\n-2-\nThen came Camelot and three years of unemployment averaging higher than\nthe unemployment we have now in this time of economic hardship. Somehr\nthe communications media was unaware of it, and in the many Presidentia_\npress conferences of those three years no reporter ever asked President\nKennedy what he intended doing about unemployment.\nIt was from Camelot that the first American combat troops went to Vietnam.\nAnd soon we had another Democratic President, the Great Society, full-scale\nwar in Vietnam, and, of course, full employment and prosperity on the\nhome front, but no sacrifice. The war was conducted on a \"guns and butter\"\nbasis, which brought on runaway inflation. The 1939 dollar had lost\nsixty-one cents of its purchasing power by 1968. One has to wonder at\nthe staying power of the Democratic myth.\nNow a Republican President is bringing this fourth war in our century to\na halt. In the transition from a war to a peacetime economy. some two\nmillion defense workers and military personnel have been thrown\njob market. There is unemployment and. of course, economic dis.\nThere is also the inflation he inherited and which neither his predecessor\nnor George Meany had the guts to tackle. He is confronted by a hostile\nCongress and a bureaucratic jungle peopled by permanent government em-\nployees determined to carry on the discredited social tinkering of the\npast forty years.\nThere is more. John F. Kennedy announced the discovery of a missile gap\nin 1960. After the election he admitted no such gap existed, so in eight\nyears the Democrats created one. And the present Democratic Congress r\nmade it plain they have little stomach for any rebuilding of our deterior-\nated defense structure.\nIn summing it up, there have been four major wars in my lifetime, all\nunder Democratic Presidents, and we've only achieved full employment\nand prosperity during and because of those wars.\nNow our opponents would lead the nation again, shedding crocodile tears\nover the present economic distress, and professing absolute innocence\nover having. anything to do with it. Somehow they remind me of the wide-\neyed blonde in the tabloids who has just bunched six shots from a '38\nin her boyfriend's bread basket, and says she didn't know the gun was\nloaded.\nAnd what do they have in store for us if they get back in charge? Well,\nsix would-be-Presidents now in the Senate have, between them, introduced\nmore than one hundred fortv-three billion dollars in new social welfare\nprograms. The Democratic Party Council has declared open season on tax-\npayers. The Council has called for. \"A shift of financial resources\nfrom private to government channels to meet the growing needs of health,\nwelfare, employment and other domestic problems.' They call for a\n\"vigorous tax program,\" and we learn that the wage-earning citizen who\naverages working five months out of the twelve to pay for the cost of\ngovernment should be denied such legitimate tax deductions as interest\non his home mortgage or installment payments, or his property tax.\nY.A.F. National Convention\n-3-\nThey would also impose a limit on charitable contributions. It is time\nto ask ourselves seriously if this nation can survive four years of what\nthey have in mind.\nI know something of your discomfort and your unhappiness with what you\nfeel has been the present administration's abandonment of some Repub-\nlican principles. At the same time, I have been the beneficiary of\nyour friendly approval, warm commendation, and generous words. I was\nterribly tempted tonight to limit myself to simply expressing my personal\ngratitude, and I am grateful--humbly grateful-- to all of you. But you\nare too important--too vital to this country's very existence-for me to\nindulge in what would be a copout.\nPerhaps we have all been at fault. We've forgotten that our President\nlives in a liberal community; that the heritage of these four decades is\na constant pressure in the nation's Capitol from the left. We who think\nof ourselves as Conservatives have sat back critically observing, but\ndoing no pressuring in behalf of our own views. Be critical, be vocal\nand forceful in urging your views on the President. He needs that input\nto counter the constant pressure from the opposite side; he needs the\narguments you can provide. In all of this we fallen short.\nLet me take the one issue of the announced China visit and ask you to\nconsider a few points that might have been overlooked in your deliberations.\nI've heard staunch Republicans say if Hubert Humphrey were President and\nhad announced such a visit we as Republicans would be horrified and united\nin our opposition.\nOf course we would, and why not? Look at the track record. A Democratic\nPresident brought back the bitter fruit of appeasement from Yalta and\nPotsdam. A Democratic President snatched defeat from the jaws of victory\nin Korea. A Democratic President scaled the heights of statesmanship in\nthe Cuban missile crisis and then lacked the courage or wisdom to take\nthe final step to the summit. A Democratic President disgraced this\nnation at the Bay of Pigs, and a Democratic President faltered and was\nunwilling to exact a price for the thousands of young Americans who died\nin the jungles of Vietnam. A Democratic President made possible the\ngodless, inhumane tyranny of Mao Tse Tung's Red China. Yes. we'd be\nhorrified. and with good reason, if Hubert Humphrey were representing\nus in talks with China.\nBut it is a Republican President who has said he's willing to talk. He\nhas been blunt in his declaration that we will not under any circumstances\ndesert an old friend and ally, Chiang Kai Shek. There is no indication\nthat he 11 give anything away or betray our honor. If I am wrong and\nthat should be the result--time then for indignation and righteous anger.\nBut in the meantime, let us remember that this American President who\nhas said he 11 go to China is the same man who as Vice President went\nto Moscow; and there in the glare of the television flood lights, sur-\nrounded by microphones, heard Nikita Khrushchev threaten action by the\nSoviet Union against the United States, and he replied. \"Try it and we 11\nkick the hell out of you.\"\nY.A.F. National Convention\n-4-\nYoung ladies and gentlemen, remember your very title--you are young\nAmericans for freedom. That is your mission above all others. You\nare most important in this particular moment of history, because so\nmany of your peers have. listened to false prophets and demagogues.\nConsider very carefully the long hard struggle that lies ahead, and\nhow far we've traveled together to reach this moment of hope for all\nthe things we believe in. Weigh the alternatives, and use your strength\nwisely and well.\nGod bless you in your deliberations, and grant you wisdom and courage\nand strength.\n-\n$\n9/12/71\nThe National Broadcasting Company Presents\nThe Proceedings of\nMEET THE PRESS\nas broadcast nationwide by the National Broadcasting Com-\npany, Inc., are printed and made available to the public to\nfurther interest in impartial discussions of questions affect-\ning the public welfare. Transcript may be obtained by send-\ning a stamped, self-addressed envelope and ten cents for each\ncopy to:\nMEET THE PRESS\nMerkle Press Inc. Box 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013\nAmerica's Press Conference of the Air\n(Division Publishers Co., Inc.)\nProduced by LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK\nGuest:\nGOVERNOR WARREN E. HEARNES\n(D., Mo.), Chairman\nMEET THE PRESS is telecast every\nGOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN (R., Calif.)\nSunday over the NBC Television Net-\nGOVERNOR JOHN J. GILLIGAN (D., Ohio)\nwork. This program originated from\nGOVERNOR LINWOOD HOLTON (R., Va.)\nthe El San Juan Hotel in San Juan,\nGOVERNOR WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN (R., Mich.)\nPuerto Rico.\nGOVERNOR LUIS A. FERRE (N.P., Puerto Rico),\nHost\nVOLUME 15\nSUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1971\nNUMBER 36\nMerkle Press Inc.\nPrinters and Periodical Publishers\nTelevision Broadcast 6:05-7:00 P.M. EDT.\nDivision of Publishers Co. Inc.\nRadio Broadcast 6:05-7:00 P.M. EDT.\nBoa 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013\n17\n17\n10 cents per copy\nMEET THE PRES\nPanel: PETER LISAGOR, Chicago Daily News\nDAVID S. BRODER, The Washington Post\nR. W. APPLE, The New York Times\nPAUL DUKE, NBC News\nMR. MONROE: This special satellite edition of MEET THE\nPRESS comes to you today from San Juan, Puerto Rico, now\nrelebrating its 450th anniversary as a city. The nation's Gover-\nnors have gathered here for their 63rd Annual Conference, and\nour guests on MEET THE PRESS are six leading Governors:\nWarren E. Hearnes, Democrat of Missouri, Chairman of this\nyear's Conference; Ronald Reagan, Republican of California;\nJohn J. Gilligan, Democrat of Ohio; Linwood Holton, Republican\nof Virginia; William G. Milliken, Republican of Michigan, and\nLuis A. Ferré, New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, host of the\nConference.\nMR. DUKE: Each year the Governors come to these confer-\nences and complain long and loud about their problems and the\nneed for more federal aid. I'd like to start out by asking each\nof you about President Nixon's new economic recovery program\nModerator: BILL MONROE, NBC News\nand whether you feel it was wrong for Mr. Nixon to delay his\nrevenue-sharing and welfare reform plans, both designed to help\nthe states. Governor Hearnes?\nGOVERNOR HEARNES: I don't think it was wrong. I think\nit was unfortunate for us that the Administration established\nthe other as first priority. I am not begging the question, but\nsomeone has to make a decision, and he felt that the other had\npriority. That does not mean that the National Governors' Con-\nference will not keep on trying as they have in the past to im-\npress upon Congressman Mills the importance of revenue sharing,\nand we are speaking of the revenue sharing program which was\nadvocated by the Administration. We still have hopes that some-\nthing will come out of this Congress.\nMR. DUKE: Governor Reagan, you have opposed key provisions\nof the welfare reform plan, but you have been an enthusiastic\nadvocate of revenue sharing. How do you feel?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I have opposed certain measures of\nH.R. 1, as it has been proposed. I don't believe they will reduce\nthe welfare burden. As to revenue sharing, I think the ideal\nwould be if the federal government in the New Federalism\nPermission is hereby granted to news media and\ncould simply restore sources of revenue to the states which have\nmagazines to reproduce in whole or in part. Credit\nin recent years been confiscated or taken over, preempted >by\nto NBC's MEET THE PRESS will be appreciated.\nthe federal government. But I view revenue sharing as a first\nstep in this process. With it, however, I have always believed\nthat the federal government should give us the responsibility\nfor some of the programs they are now conducting, not only give\n1\nthe money the state but give the responsibility to the state\nabout the expanding economy of Puerto Rico, and yet\nhave\nto carry\nthe program.\nwidespread unemployment here, you have a problem of\nation,\nand some of your big hotels have closed down. Can the Presi-\nMR. DUKE: But what about President Nixon's postponement\ndent's program help you?\nof revenue sharing for now?\nGOVERNOR FERRE: Yes, I believe SO. I believe, of course,\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: This, I think, I associate myself with\ninflation is the worst thing we have. Another thing that is very\nGovernor Hearnes. I think this would be kind of nitpicking in a\nbad for our country is the fact that our balance of payments\nprogram designed to halt inflation and improve our economic\nwith the outer world has been against us for quite a while.\nsituation in the nation to pick out certain phases because they\nThis has hurt Puerto Rico very substantially because our most\nmight not please us and say, \"We will drop this phase or that\nimportant industrial activity is shoe manufacturing and apparel\nphase.\"\nmanufacturing. Those are the two that have been hit the hard-\nest by foreign competition. Thirty-five per cent of our employ-\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: I can only say that the planks of\nment is in those two areas, SO it is very important for us to be\nrevenue sharing and welfare reform were the principal parts\nable to eliminate this unfair competition of low-wage areas. The\nof what was called in January by this Administration the New\nPresident's plan we think is going to help Puerto Rico. Of course,\nAmerican Revolution. Evidently the Revolution lasted eight\nas for the revenue-sharing and the welfare programs, we feel that\nmonths, and we are now into something else, and I don't think\nstraightening out the economy of the United States is more\nany of us are quite sure what. I would object strenuously to the\nimportant in stopping this inflationary spiral, and, therefore,\nproposition that the federal government is going to solve any\nthis high priority in my mind-I think the President was right\nof our economic problems by throwing additional burdens upon\nbecause it will take less welfare reform if the inflation is stopped\nstate and local government by cutting back its own participation\nand we have a sound economy in our country.\nin the service programs to the people of this country.\nGOVERNOR HOLTON: I certainly think all of these programs\n(Announcements)\nare extremely important.\nMR. LISAGOR: Governor Hearnes, last winter and spring\nI think that just as a matter of procedure, however, the new\nmany Governors came to Washington saying that you faced fiscal\neconomic proposals must receive priority attention in Congress.\ndisaster in your state, or you were on the edge of bankruptcy\nThis program is very, very important. It helps develop more\nif you didn't get revenue-sharing. Then the President postponed\nprofits which in turn help develop more jobs. It increases our\nit for a time.\nproductivity. It comes at a time when it is very much needed, and\nI think that clearly this must be the first priority. But the other\nTwo questions: Do you know what the Administration's posi-\ntwo, as evidenced by communications we have all had from the\ntion on revenue-sharing now is, and what happened to all those\nWhite House, just in the last 24 or 48 hours, also must receive a\nbankruptcy petitions?\nhigh priority, and I would anticipate that certainly the revenue-\nGOVERNOR HEARNES: I think if they were using the term\nsharing bill or some alternative that will give the states real as-\n-and I am not familiar with the statement that you made, but if\nsistance will get immediate attention after the new economic\nany one Governor used the term \"bankruptcy,\" I don't think he\nproposals have been handled in Congress. I believe that the\nwas using it in the sense that you and I think of it, as far as a\nSenate Finance Committee will begin hearings just as soon as\nmerchant or someone on the streets.\npossible on a welfare reform bill, but they are all important.\nWhat they were trying to impress upon the Congress and the\nGOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I think the overriding consideration\nAdministration was that the demand for services all over the\nobviously of the President in the development of the new eco-\nrespective United States, of the states, has far exceeded their\nnomic plan is to get control of inflation. Unless we can break the\nIncome.\nback of inflation in this country, then I think all groups, whether\nNo man speaks with any great knowledge of another state,\nthey are business or employee or citizen groups, are going to\nSO he can only speak of his own. I have been through the battle\nbe paying the price, SO that this must receive the first priority.\nthat many of them are now fighting. It is an experience which is\nIt is in the President's proposal. Clearly the momentum to carry\nnot very pleasant and certainly doesn't make you any friends, but\non revenue-sharing and the momentum for welfare reform should\nwe need money to do the things that the people want us to do.\nnot be stopped, and I don't think it will. I think the momentum\nServices in my state, ninety per cent of it is in the field of\nwill carry forward, and as soon as we move, perhaps, into Phase\nhealth, education and welfare, and it is hard to talk about cutting\n2 of the President's plan, we can then move aggressively toward\nin these particular fields. The people don't want them to be cut,\nwelfare reform and revenue-sharing.\nand we want to do what we think is best for our state.\nMR. DUKE: Governor Ferré, you have been boasting lately\nMR. LISAGOR: Do you understand what the status of the\n2\n3\nrevenue\nring program is now S0 far as the Administration is\ninflation, of a great imbalance of trade, I think\nt certain\nconcerne\nI think Governor Holton said you had a message\nemergency measures are required in this time of eco.\nnic stress,\nfrom the White House in the last 24 or 48 hours. Did that tell\nand I don't think they mean a change of philosophy.\nyou what they are going to do about revenue-sharing?\nI think some Conservatives who are perturbed about his an-\nnouncement of wanting to talk to China have been frightened\nGOVERNOR HEARNES: I am not familia\nthat message.\nover the years by American representatives who have tended\nTo my best knowledge, we have a subcommittee which is working\nto appease and give away too much of America, at Potsdam and\nwith the staff members of Congressman Mills' committee trying\nYalta and in subsequent dealings with the totalitarian states,\nto arrive at some common ground between the Ways and Means\nbut I think that when the President said he wanted to talk he\nCommittee of the House and not only the Governors, but also\nmade it plain that he was going to stand by our old ally, Chiang\nthe Mayors.\nKai-shek. He has made no announcement or indicated that he is\ngoing to go and appease or give anything away. All I have cau-\nMR. BRODER: Governor Reagan, I would like to ask you one\ntioned is that those Conservatives who, having been burned\neconomic question and one political question. You said to a\nbefore, now jump to the conclusion that a simple talk is going to\ngroup of Minnesota Republicans back in March-and this is\ncause us trouble, are forgetting that this is the man who stood\nyour language: \"Emergency federal solutions tend to become\nin the Soviet Union in Moscow and told Khrushchev when he\npermanent problems on a wider scale. Temporary controls turn\nwas Vice President-when Mr. Nixon was Vice President-told\ninto lasting shackles.\"\nKhrushchev that if they did some of the things Khrushchev was\nDo you have any fear that that may happen with the new\nthreatening, we would-forgive the expression, but his exact\neconomic program?\nwords were, \"We will kick hell out of you.\"\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I think we have to take the Presi-\nMR. APPLE: Governor Gilligan, I would also like to ask an\ndent at his word, and I do, that he has said that he himself\neconomic and a political question: You were the only man a\nphilosophically is opposed to such permanent shackles. He made\nfew moments ago who really criticized President Nixon for\nthis very clear in his recent speech to Congress in the Joint\npostponing revenue sharing and welfare reform. Yet if I recall\nSession. I think he has made it plain that these are emergency\ncorrectly you were one of the Governors who opposed him on\nmeasures for an emergency situation, and I have confidence that\nrevenue sharing. How can you be against him on having revenue\nphilosophically that is his thinking and that he means that.\nsharing and against him at dropping it, or postponing it?\nMR. BRODER: The broader political question I wanted to\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: As shocking as it might be to\nask you is this: A good many conservatives who in the past\nGovernor Reagan, I agree with him on one point. I proposed\nhave also been Reagan supporters now find themselves unable\nrevenue sharing on the grounds that we don't want to put state\nto support the policies of the Nixon Administration. Particu-\nand local government on a perpetual federal dole. We shouldn't\nlarly they criticize the deficit spending by the Administration,\nbe talking about sharing federal revenue, but revenue sources,\nthe wage-price controls, what they regard as the lack of atten-\nand the basic and fundamental revenue source in the nation\ntion to military needs, and the President's planned trip to Com-\nas we all know is income. That is the only real source of wealth,\nmunist China.\ncorporate and personal income. And I therefore look forward-\nYou have supported the President on all this, and what I am\nit is going to take some time to work it out, but look forward\ncurious about is, do you think you have changed or the conserva-\nto the development of a tax credit system where sufficient\ntives have changed, or what has happened?\nrevenue would be assigned to local government, state govern-\nment and national government to allow them to meet their\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I don't think I have changed. I\nresponsibilities within their own area of responsibility. So all\ndon't think the conservatives have changed, and I don't think\nI am saying is that when the President comes out in January\nthat it is exactly fair to say that the President with regard to\nand announces the great need to help the states and local govern-\nmilitary matters and SO forth has changed.\nments meet these responsibilities and eight months later turns\nI think he inherited the missile gap that was talked about\nhis back on it and walks away from it and puts it on the back\nback in 1960 and which at that time it was revealed did not\nburner, I am disturbed not by the abandonment of a device,\nexist, but I think in the eight intervening years someone set\nbut of an obvious change in philosophy which disturbs me\nabout energetically to create that missile gap. I think this is a\ngreatly.\nmatter of concern, but I would point out that it has been the Con-\ngress that has resisted the President's request for such things\nMR. APPLE: Turning to politics, your state certainly will be\nas the ABM. The President added a couple of billion dollars to a\none of the important states in choosing the Democratic presi-\ndefense budget over and above what Congress had proposed.\ndential nominee. You have been described as an advocate of open\nAgain I have to say that inheriting a situation of runaway\npolitics, and yet the word in Washington among the candidates\n4\n5\nis that th have been told to take it easy in Ohio, that you want\nexpressed disagreement with President Nixon's opp tion to\nto keep rol of Ohio and you don't want the state being torn\nusing federal funds to facilitate school busing. Has the\nllminis-\nup by a lot of candidates running around.\ntration stand made it more difficult for you as a moderate South-\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: Part of this statement is true. It\nern Governor, and is that stand keeping alive the race issue in\nthe South?\nisn't that I want to keep control of Ohio, it is that I have wanted\nto avoid-a gang war or a barroom brawl this fall while we have\nGOVERNOR HOLTON I don't think that it is keeping the race\nsome very important municipal races going on, and I would\nissue alive. Let me make very clear that I think the busing issue\nrather leave the considerations of the Presidential campaign to\ngenerally has much broader connotation than race, and it has\nthe Presidential year. We have adopted a new state party con-\nmuch broader connotation than region, too. Parents object to\nstitution in Ohio designed to provide as well as we can within\ntaking youngsters great distances on buses. In Virginia we are\nstate laws for the most open kind of party, open kind of primary\nhaving, because we don't have enough transportation facilities,\nto develop a political instrumentality which will be directly\nto stagger the opening hours of school in some of our cities.\nresponsible and responsive to the people, and we were discussing\nParents are very upset about the fact that they have to send\nat great length yesterday in Miami with the other Democratic\nyoung children to school on a staggered basis beginning as early\nGovernors the desirability of working out some of the McGovern\nas seven o'clock in the morning and continuing up until ten o'clock\nand O'Hara and Fraser reforms, but also of the practical barriers\nin the morning, and then you have the reverse process in the\nto that embedded in ancient state laws and in ancient state\nafternoon.\npractices.\nParents also have expressed to me in the last two weeks a\nconcern about the fact that when children are taken ten miles,\nMR. APPLE: Are you telling us that come 1972 you will wel-\nperhaps, as opposed to one mile to school, they lose a contact\ncome with open arms any candidate who wants to come in and\nwith the school that they have had in the past. One of them\ncampaign for those delegates in Ohio?\nsaid to me, \"When he went just down the street we could be\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: Yes, but I haven't said whether I\nthere, we could see it often. If something went wrong with play-\nthink it ought to be done in terms of a wide open statewide\nground equipment, if books ran short, we knew about it, we\ncould try to correct it.\"\nprimary or in terms of the candidates presenting themselves and\nSo busing is not all a racial issue. I think that the differences\ntheir philosophies and attitudes and programs to an uncommitted\nslate of 153 delegates. It can be done either way. One involves a\nthat the President and I have about money to facilitate busing\nvast expediture of time, effort and money. The other is relatively\nare minor differences. I think the President was thinking about\nsimple and direct.\nnot encouraging busing, and I don't want to encourage massive\ncrosstown busing just to achieve a racial balance either. I was\nMR. DUKE: Governor Holton, could you now elaborate and\nthinking about, and I am still thinking about when I say we need\ntell us about that mysterious White House message received\nthis money, a school system such as the City of Norfolk in\nduring the past 48 hours?\nVirginia, which is confronted with a need to transport a large\nnumber of children pursuant to court orders that have, with\nGOVERNOR HOLTON: I don't think there is any mystery\nfinal review, established constitutional rights.\nabout it. It was a telegram from Secretary Richardson saying\nThat city has to transport children. Neither I nor the President\nthat contrary to what some people were trying to have it appear,\ncan stop it because the courts require it.\nthis welfare program was clearly not on the back burner, and\nthat, I think, went to all or nearly all of the Governors, I think\nMR. DUKE: But you are not as upset about this issue as\nall. I also had a communication from Mr. Klein in which-\nPresident Nixon is, are you?\nthis was directed to me, but it equally applies to all Governors\nI am sure-saying that we are very, very much still interested\nGOVERNOR HOLTON: I am a little closer to it. I have seen\nin revenue sharing and hope that the Governors will continue\nit work. I have seen the young people thrown into schools where\nto support it. And I am on the subcommittee on Revenue Sharing\nthey are in a minority and get along beautifully. I have seen our\nof the National Governors' Conference, and we are affirming our\nState of Virginia perform magnificently in giving what I\nsupport, I think, and we will continue, I know, as long as I am\nconsider to be real leadership in adapting itself to a set of\non that subcommittee, to try to get it done, and I am very\nrequired changes with real dedication to true principles of law\noptimistic. I think that the delay, which after all is only three\nand order, and I am very proud of our state. I think that people\nmonths, is more a recognition of the fact that there is going\nat the Presidential level and perhaps others in the White House\nto have to be more legislative work done in Congress before it\njust haven't seen that it is working, and SO while we don't\ncan be passed anyway.\nlike it from a disruptiveness standpoint, we have found that we\ncan adapt to it, and particularly we have found that our young\nMR. DUKE: I would like to turn to another subject. You have\npeople can make real, beneficial contributions, I think, in this\n6\n7\nwhole :\n(\nof race relations as a result of being thrown together\nthey have polled under three per cent of the But,\nin these schools.\nof course, we have a completely democratic societ\nPuerto\nMR. LISAGOR: Governor Milliken, your state is a northern\nRico, and we protect the right of the minorities to express them-\nstate having difficulty with busing. Do you agree with the Presi-\nselves. In this particular instance it is interesting to note that in\ndent's position or Governor Holton's position about the use of\nPuerto Rico we have, by law, a fund to pay all the parties. Every\nfederal funds for busing?\nparty in Puerto Rico gets a certain amount of money per year for\nits campaign expenses. This party which has about three per cent\nGOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I think it is true that no one of us\nof the vote of Puerto Rico gets exactly the same amount of money\nlikes busing. Certainly the parents don't like it. School adminis-\nthat the minority party which I represent-\ntrators don't like it, and I think that we have to consider busing\nMR. BRODER: Don't you think in the United States though-\nin the context of, number one, obeying the law, and the law is\nclear on that point now, and we have to consider busing in the\nGOVERNOR FERRE you see, we protect the minority's\ncontext of the ultimate objective, I think, in our society of having\nfreedom of expression.\nan integrated society.\nMR. BRODER: Parties on the mainland might like that system\nI think if the time should ever come when we divide ourselves\nvery well.\ninto two major groups in this country, then heaven help this\nLet me ask you about statehood. You have long been an ad-\ncountry. So I see busing as only one element. It certainly should\nvocate of statehood for the island. Can you afford the burden of\nnot be considered an end in itself, and to that extent I agree\ntaxes that would go with statehood, or would that ruin your\nentirely with the President.\neconomic development plan?\nMR. LISAGOR: But to have reasonable integration of the\nGOVERNOR FERRE: I don't think that there is going to be\nschools, you have to have some measure of busing. Is that what\nany burden of taxes with statehood. There will be, of course, a\nyou are saying?\nshifting of taxes when Puerto Rico becomes a state of the\nUnion. This will, of course, require a transitionary period, but\nGOVERNOR MILLIKEN: That is correct, but we need to look\nI don't think for the long run Puerto Rico can continue to be a\neven further than busing if we are seeking an integrated society.\npart of the United States and the Puerto Ricans to be American\nWe need to look at our housing patterns; we need to look at our\ncitizens unless we achieve the equality that comes with state-\njob patterns and our opportunity for employment, and above all,\nhood. Our country is a country based on equality, and therefore\nin the process it seems to me that we need to put the emphasis\nwe must have equal rights and equal duties at some time. Of\nwhere it really belongs, and that is on making schools and educa-\ncourse, at the present time our income per capita in Puerto\ntion quality experiences for young people wherever the child\nRico is about $1,500, $1,566 as a matter of fact. That is much\nmay be, whether it is in the inner city of a major city or in the\nmore than any country in Latin America, but it is much less than\nsuburban areas or in out-state areas.\nthe lowest income per capita of the states of the Union. So we\nhave not yet been able to achieve the same level of income of the\nMR. LISAGOR: Could I ask you an economic question, Gov.\nStates. We feel that once we are able to achieve the same income\nernor? Your state has a higher unemployment rate, as I under-\nlevel of other states of the Union, there is no reason why we\nstand it, than the national average.\nshould not pay taxes like every state of the Union pays.\nGOVERNOR MILLIKEN: That is correct.\n(Announcements)\nMR. LISAGOR: And yet the President's new program will\nMR. APPLE: Governor Hearnes, the Democrats are beginning\nbenefit in a major way the automobile industry. Will that be\ntheir quadrennial process of arguing about whether they need\nenough to correct your unemployment problem or not?\nto go to the left or to the right or stay in the middle. You come\nGOVERNOR MILLIKEN: It will in my judgment be a major\nfrom a border state. How liberal a candidate could carry Missouri\nfactor in improving the economic situation in the State of\nfor the Democrats?\nMichigan. I think Michigan perhaps as much, if not more than\nGOVERNOR HEARNES: Let me say if you look at the line-\nany other state in the United States, will receive the desirable\nup of our senatorial representation-I don't know whether that\neffects of the President's economic policies.\nwould give us somewhat of a lead. We have a senior Senator\nMR. BRODER: Governor Ferré, a number of Puerto Ricans\nfrom Missouri, Senator Symington, who certainly couldn't be\nare outside marching for independence from the United States\nclassed as conservative. I think Senator Eagleton, the junior\ntoday. How strong is this sentiment in the island?\nSenator, would be classed more as a liberal, as we use our labels.\nI have seen Missouri carry Adlai Stevenson, and I saw Senator\nGOVERNOR FERRE: We have always had an independence\nHumphrey, Vice President Humphrey lose it.\nmovement in Puerto Rico. For the last five or six elections\nUnfortunately-and many people won't like what I am going\n8\n9\nto say- am not sure the question of liberal or conservative\nit was doing its duty if it just provided them with dole. We\nalways\nrshadows the personality of the candidate, and there-\nhave found families in California, many of them tl are the\nfore I odd say that I don't believe my state or many other\nsecond and third generations of their families on welfal\nstates in the United States would take what all of us think is\nWe believe welfare's goal should be to salvage as many human\nmaybe an extreme liberal. But neither do I think they would\nbeings as possible and make them independent of welfare, make\ntake any extreme conservative.\nthem self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and we think that to do that\nthere have to be some great reforms and changes at the national\nMR. APPLE: Could you give us some examples of those two\nlevel also.\ntypes? Would Mr. Lindsay be an extreme liberal?\nOne of those things that we have asked for is a waiver to\nGOVERNOR HEARNES: In my opinion, yes, and I don't\npermit us to create a community work force in which people\nbelieve Mayor Lindsay could carry Missouri. I hope Mayor Lind\nreceiving welfare grants will report for and do meaningful tasks\nsay will accept my apologies. I am trying to answer your ques-\nthat need to be done for the public good in return for those wel-\ntions as candidly as possible.\nfare grants.\nMR. APPLE: On the other side, how about Mr. Mills and Mr.\nMR. DUKE: But isn't the percentage of people who can do\nJackson? Are they too conservative for Missouri, or would they\nthese meaningful tasks that you speak of, isn't this a very small\nrespond-\npercentage, and don't you do a disservice by talking about\nchiselers and loafers on welfare when most people on welfare are\nGOVERNOR HEARNES: I think the problem there is identi-\nnot chiselers and loafers?\nfication. I know Senator Jackson, and certainly I know Congress-\nman Mills, and think a great deal of both of them. But what\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I have been the most vocal myself in\npeople in the east do not realize is that the people in the middle\nsaying that the majority would like to get off welfare, but it\nwest and maybe even the other west do not have the opportunity\ndoesn't take a tremendous percentage or even a majority to\nto be associated with these names every night when they watch\naccount for the great waste of welfare.\nthe news, and so on and so forth, and therefore name identifica-\nOne state, Nevada, recently was able, with its more limited\ntion plays a great part as far as the voter is concerned. I am\npopulation, to do a head count, an actual nose count of the\nsure that anyone they would nominate has a certain amount of\npeople on welfare, and found 22 per cent of them receiving it\ntime to get their identification before the people, but there are\nillegally.\nthose who start out with a little advantage.\nIn New York the simple expedient of asking welfare recipients\nto pick up their checks instead of receiving them through the\nMR. DUKE: Governor Reagan, you and President Nixon and\nmail-18 per cent of the checks are lying there uncollected, mean-\nmany conservatives in Congress repeatedly talk about putting\ning that someone must have some hesitation about coming in in\npeople on welfare to work, but isn't this essentially a false issue?\nperson to pick up his check.\nAren't most of the people who receive welfare, children, disabled\nIn California we have, for a long period, been increasing the\npeople and the elderly?\nwelfare caseload 50,000 a month. That has been our average.\nFrom the moment that we started this campaign to reform wel-\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We have proposed and in our own\nfare in January and February, started talking about it and\nreform which has just been adopted in California, we divide the\nstarted implementing the administrative changes we could make\nso-called unemployables from the employables, the potentially\nwithout legislative approval, we not only stopped that 50,000 a\nemployable. In other words we have advocated taking the elderly,\nmonth increase, but we have been decreasing at a rate of about\nthe disabled, the blind, those people who through no fault of\n20 to 25 thousand a month. It has never happened before in our\ntheir own cannot work and must depend on the rest of us, and\nsimply putting them into a pension system, which I think would\nhistory.\nhave more dignity than continuing to consider them as welfare\nMR. LISAGOR: Governor Gilligan, I would like to follow this\nrecipients and allowing them to get automated, as they do with\nline of questioning. The President has suggested that there has\nSocial Security checks.\nbeen a loss of respect in this country for what he calls the work\nWhen you talk about children on welfare, you have to realize\nethic. Do you find that true in the State of Ohio?\nthat every time you put the head of a family into a self-support-\ning job and an earning capacity, you remove that man from\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: We certainly don't, and where I\nwelfare but you also remove a family and several of those\nsaid a moment ago that I agreed with Governor Reagan, I dis-\nchildren.\nagree with almost everything he has said on the subject he has\nWe feel-and the basis of our welfare reform in California is-\njust spoken on, factually and philosophically. There is no lack\nthat in recent decades welfare has become a program that literally\nof respect for the work ethic that I am aware of. We do have\nmakes permanent the people on welfare, that welfare has thought\nthe highest unemployment that we have experienced in Ohio\n10\n11\nand\nth\nghout this country since the late '30's. We have as\nbelieve that is the attitude of President Nixon. I thi\nhe has\nwell m. ns of working poor, hundreds of thousands of people\nhad terrific accomplishment in this area of race relat.\nand I\nwho are still fulltime employed, but whose work check has shrunk\ndon't feel that he needs to go after a single segment of our vote.\ndue to inflation, due to lack of overtime, due to a lot of other\nHe will carry Virginia very nicely and, I hope, the rest of the\nthings.\nSouth.\nThis nation 25 years ago committed itself to the policy of\nhaving the federal government guarantee a job to every able\nMR. APPLE: Governor Milliken, we have been hearing in\nbodied person who was seeking work at a wage which would\nWashington recently that it is the judgment of the White House\nenable him to support a family. That is a pledge we have never\npolitical operators and of the Republican National Committee\nkept, and unless and until we are ready to make that job oppor-\nthat the President will have a very difficult time indeed carrying\ntunity available to American men and women, it is nothing\nyour state. I wonder if you agree with that, and if you do, what\nbetter then cynicism to tell people on welfare or returning Viet\n0 you think he could do to bolster his position there?\nnam veterans to go out in the kind of job market we have in this\nGOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I think that statement would have\ncountry today and find themselves a job. It just cannot be done,\nbeen correct perhaps a year ago or beyond. I don't think that\nand it will not be done.\nstatement is correct today. I think the President's new initia-\nMR. LISAGOR: Governor, does it follow from this that you\ntives in China, I think the fact that he is effectively winding\nwould favor federalizing the whole welfare program?\ndown the tragic war in Vietnam, I think the fact that he has made\nvery bold and imaginative proposals for the economy of this\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: Yes, I would favor federalizing it\ncountry, the fact that he has proposed and is in fact backing,\nand changing it in some degree, as President Nixon has ad-\nin spite of a moratorium, the welfare reform and the revenue\nvocated. He for instance advocated government assistance,\nsharing proposals and the governmental reorganization of the\nfamily assistance to the working poor. That would instantly\nfederal structure, all of these things, I think, place the President\ndouble the number of people receiving government assistance.\ntoday in a position where Michigan may not be easily won by\nIt would go in exactly the opposite direction that Governor\nhim, but I think it is a fact that the President could win in\nReagan has just been talking about. But that is the direction\nMichigan where in 1968 he lost Michigan.\nwe have to go if we are going to get these people back on their\nfeet and into a productive role in our economy.\nMR. BRODER: If it is going to be reasonably close as you\nare implying, will it make any difference who is the Vice Presi-\nMR. BRODER: Governor Holton, George Wallace of Alabama\ndential nominee in Michigan? You have been critical of some\nis back in the Governors' Conference this year and apparently\nof the things Mr. Agnew has said in the past; any new thoughts\nback in national politics. As you are the Southerner on the\non that?\npanel, I would be interested in your judgment. How much of a\nthreat is he to Mr. Nixon's reelection hopes in 1972?\nGOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I think again the overriding fact\nis the President himself, the record which the President has\nGOVERNOR HOLTON: Let me confine my answer on that\nwritten by the time the election year comes around next year.\nto our State of Virginia. I think he will not be as strong in 1972\nI don't think the Vice Presidential candidate would be the decid-\nas he was-and I am talking now about Governor Wallace-in\ning factor by any means.\n'68, and I therefore think we would be of considerably less influ-\nMR. LISAGOR: Governor Ferré, there have been reports that\nence on the outcome of the national election, and my instinct is\nthe migration has turned around from the mainland back to\nthat this would be true generally throughout the South.\nPuerto Rico. If that is true, can you tell us why this is occur-\nMR. BRODER: Some people criticized the Administration fo\n\"ing?\nseeming to go too far in what they call the Southern strateg)\nGOVERNOR FERRE: I would say in the first place the ques-\nto head off Governor Wallace. Do you think they exaggerate\ntion of unemployment on the mainland has, of course, limited\nthe political threat that he represensts?\nthe amount of jobs available for Puerto Ricans who want to\nGOVERNOR HOLTON: I don't know. I never have believed\nmigrate.\nthat the Southern strategy as such existed, if it meant that any\nIn the second place, we are having more opportunities in\nPuerto Rico which are attractive to Puerto Ricans, and there-\ncanidate for President of the United States would seek the vote\nfore, they would rather stay here than go out, SO this year, the\nfrom only one group. I know that in Virginia we have encour-\nlast report we just had, about 1,800 was the outflow from\naged national candidates and statewide candidates to recognize\nPuerto Rico.\nevery vote of every citizen and to seek to appeal to those citizens\nas individuals on merits of each issue, and I would commend that\nMR. LISAGOR: But are they coming back in substantial or\nto the national candidates in 1972 of the Republican Party. I\nsignificant numbers?\n12\n13\nGOVERNOR FERRE: They are coming back. Some Puerto\nassume that role and would take our problems pers\nly, that\nRicans\ncoming back who have been on the mainland, have\nthis is what we would like to have, and he accepted t\nrespon-\nbeen able to make a little money, save money and come back to\nsibility this morning.\nPuerto Rico. They buy themselves small parts of land or they\nMR. APPLE: Governor Reagan, I wonder if you could be a\nput up small businesses, and they are doing very well in Puerto\npundit for us for a moment? You have said in response, I think,\nRico.\nto Mr. Broder's question, that there are a number of conserva-\nMR. LISAGOR: Could I ask you finally, what are the advan-\ntives that are upset about some of the things that Mr. Nixon\ntages of statehood for Puerto Rico, in view of the fact that\nis doing, and you said they shouldn't be.\nthere are many advantages in your present commonwealth\nSuppose Mr. Nixon should decide on another running mate\nstatus, including not paying federal taxes, I might add.\nbesides Mr. Agnew. Would that send them off the reservation?\nVhat would they do? What would the reaction be?\nGOVERNOR FERRE: The only advantage of the common-\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I don't know that anyone could be\nwealth status is that we can develop more industrial enterprises\na pundit about that. I happen to think very highly of Mr. Agnew\nin Puetro Rico with the tax exemption. That, of course, is a\nas a Vice President and as a man. I don't know that there is\ntransitory attraction, because in the long run you have got to\nany indication that he isn't going to be the candidate, unless it\nhave sound business principles in order to have industry in\nwould be by his own choice, but I think this would depend on\nPuerto Rico. Therefore commonwealth may be satisfactory for\nall of the surrounding circumstances, who was selected.\na period of time while we [get] enough investment in Puerto\nRico in those industries. There are really sound business enter-\nMR. APPLE: Who else is there that would be acceptable to\nprises here. But in the long run you cannot continue to depend\nconservatives if Mr. Agnew were off the ticket?\non special gimmicks. You have got to have sound business prin-\nciples to develop Puerto Rico's economy.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I don't think-haven't you got an-\nUnder statehood we would be receiving considerably more fed-\nother question?\neral help than we receive today. You see, we don't pay federal\nMR. APPLE: They all cover the same subject.\ntaxes, but at the same time, we don't receive the same amount\nWould Mr. Connally be acceptable to the Republican conserva-\nof federal aid that the states receive. So it is a question of not\ntives, do you think?\ngiving one way and not receiving the other. But what we are\ndoing with this difference is that we are trying to bring in indus-\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Mr. Connally would have to change\ntries in Puerto Rico and develop our industrial base in the island.\nparties, first of all. I think this would cause some concern among\na great many Republicans. Just as I am quite sure Governor\nMR. DUKE: Governor Hearnes, a few years ago you and\nHearnes indicated here that the Democrats are a little concerned\nsome of the other governors criticized President Johnson for not\nabout a recent Johnny-come-lately to their party.\npaying enough attention to the states and for not cooperating\nwith the states in solving their problems. How do you find\nMR. APPLE: Would it cause concern on your part? Would\nyou be upset if Mr. Connally were the nominee?\nPresident Nixon in this respect?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I happen to favor the retention of\nGOVERNOR HEARNES: Let me back up a little on your\nthe present ticket. I happen to favor the retention of Mr. Agnew.\nstatement about the criticism of the Administration. I have only\nbeen Governor for seven years, but I assume it has happened\nMR. BRODER: Governor Gilligan, you talked a moment ago\nin prior years. The criticism, we hoped, and it turned out to be,\nabout the desirability of sharing revenue sources. The federal\nwas very constructive, because since that time or after that time\novernment is cutting its tax rates again apparently, as it has\nin the last two years of the Johnson Administration, we could no\none several times in this decade. Is this what you had in mind\nhave had any more cooperation than we did.\nby way of sharing revenue sources?\nWe meet today with the Vice President on this very subject\nmatter, and these things have a way, like many other things,\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: No. What I am talking about is\nof being relaxed, and then you have to bolster them up. You\nsharing the source in terms of allowing the states and local gov-\ndon't exactly mean them as criticisms because that can be mis-\nernments to adopt a tax structure essentially geared to income\ninterpreted in a variety of ways.\nand to the growth of income, both corporate and personal, and\nWe did see a relaxation of the ability to present our problems\nto allow the individual taxpayer, through a system of tax credits\nto the Administration, problems that we are having maybe with\nat the local and at the state level, to deduct from his federal tax\nHEW or with someone else. and SO it was decided at this meet-\nliability a given percentage of that liability. That money, instead\ning that the role which Governor Boe had had prior to his\nof going into Washington, and then we go in on our hands and\nleaving that position for the bench, if the Vice President would\nknees and try to get some of it back, that money would stay at\n15\n14\nthe local\nel to meet local responsibilities or stay at the state\nlevel to\nstate responsibilities.\nMR. BRODER: As I understand it, you have asked the citizens\nof Ohio to help you get an income tax, personal and corporate,\nthrough the state legislature there. That program is still mired\nin the legislature, I believe, is it not?\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: Yes, it is.\nMR. BRODER: It is possible that the citizens really aren't\nany happier to pay taxes to you than they are to Mr. Nixon?\nGOVERNOR GILLIGAN: I don't think anybody wants to pay\ntaxes at any time to anyone or to any service level, but I think\nthe-I campaigned on the program of augmenting state revenues,\ngiving better state programs, and SO forth, to the people of\nOhio. They accepted it. I think the state legislature, which is\nmired down in a 30-year program of no new taxes and low per-\nformance levels, and so forth, has realized that we are in a new\nage. They are ready to move. It is taking them a little time, but\nI am confident before the fall season is out they will have adopted\na more modern and a more equitable tax program than we have\nhad heretofore in Ohio.\nMR. MONROE: Gentlemen, we have just about a minute.\nLet me see how far we can get. I would like to ask each Gov-\nernor-we might not be able to get through each of you-if you\ncan give me a brief answer, hopefully about fifteen seconds, to\nthe question of whether you are hopeful, as Attorney General\nMitchell is apparently hopeful about crime in the nation, about\nthe crime situation in your state?\nGOVERNOR HOLTON: Yes, I am. The LEAA program has\nbeen very good. We have had much more devotion to crime\nprevention and law enforcement at the local level and at the state\nlevel, and I am very optimistic about the future.\nGOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I am optimistic too. We have still\na rising crime rate in Michigan, but we are taking effective\nsteps, particularly through the Crime Commission and other\nmeans, and I think the climate is right to move and to move\nhard in our state.\nGOVERNOR FERRE: I am very hopeful too. We have had\ndiminishing in our crime rate in Puerto Rico in the last year\nOur Crime Commission has worked very successfully, and we\nhave reduced the crime rate in Puerto Rico, as compared to the\nUnited States, I want to say.\nGOVERNOR HEARNES: If we were not hopeful, we would\nhave a mass exodus from the State of Missouri. We have to be\nhopeful, but these are the things that are every-day problems-\nMR. MONROE: I am sorry to interrupt, Governor, having\nasked you the question, but our time is up. Thank you, gentle-\nmen, for being with us today on MEET THE PRESS.\n16\né\n12/7/71\nACCEPTANCE SPEECH\nBy\nGOLD MEDALIST, GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nNATIONAL FOOTBALL FOUNDATION DINNER - DECEMBER 7, 1971\nChairman Draddy, Dr. Tate, the new members of the Hall of\nFame and these distinguished young men who are here, my old friend\nSenator George Murphy. \"Murph,\" you and I just somehow keep\nturning up on the late late show. It is a pleasure of course to be here.\nComing to New York always has one benefit as far as I am concerned.\nIt's one place that's got more troubles than Sacramento. I was on the\nway to the office one morning when things were particularly tough.\nThere was a lot of criticism going on, and I tuned in a disc jockey. I\ndon't know who he was, but I learned to love him. He interrupted the\nmusic to say that everybody, every man, should take unto himself a\nwife because eventually something is bound to happen you can't blame\non the governor.\nBut in keeping with the purpose that brings us together, I have\nto tell you that I am struck that there is a parallel between football and\nmy present job. Being Governor and playing down in the center of the\nline is a little bit like being a three pound chicken trying to lay a four\npound egg. No matter how it turns out, it's going to hurt. Serious-\nly, I am deeply honored to be here and to share the dais with men who\nhave achieved so much and contributed so much to football. To be\nhere, however, in this capacity as a recipient of this award is over-\nwhelming, and I have no words to express my pride and my apprecia-\ntion. The only possible qualification I have to justify my receiving this\naward and at least to try to rationalize it in my own mind is that I\nhave been involved in a love affair with football that began as far back\nas my memory goes.\nWe lived in a small town in Illinois, on a low bluff overlooking\nthe High School football field. Every autumn afternoon, as far back\nas I can remember, I spent watching every minute of football practice.\nEventually going to high school there, meant going out for football.\nFour years and two varsity letters later, I went to college for the same\nreason. Unless you are from Illinois, you have to ask, \"Where is\nEureka College?\" And if I told you, you wouldn't know a hell of a lot\nmore than you know right now. Maybe there are some old timers,\nparticularly connected with the pro gram, who'll remember that there\nwas a conference of prairie colleges known as the Little Nineteen.\nThis was in a day before athletic scholarships sorted out the smaller\nschools.\n- 2 -\nThe game was simon pure then. A football player just had to work\nat back-breaking jobs - like winding the gym clock. The Little Nineteen\nconference was rather distinctive. It was somewhat innovative in that it\nwas the only conference in the United States in which you could be employ-\ned as an Assistant Coach, Physical Ed Instructor, and play summer base-\nball for money without tarnishing your amateur standing. In my Senior\nyear, our starting lineup had seven Athletic Instructors, and I was the\nSwimming Coach. But seriously, I am indebted to football for so many\nthings.\nFootball provided an education. As a matter of fact, it provided\nmy career. In 1932, when you graduated, you didn't start out to have a\ncareer. You just hoped that in some way you could find a job, any kind\nof job. I received $5. and bus fare to broadcast the Iowa-Minnesota\ngame for a local radio station. That turned into a sports announcing\ncareer. And even later, in Hollywood, when I found myself bogged down\nmaking some pictures (pictures that the studio didn't necessarily want\ngood; they wanted them on Thursday) the Gipper won one for me and made\npossible everything that has happened since.\nBut I am indebted for much more than just those boosts along the\ncareer path. I know that it has become cliche to talk about the lessons of\nliving that are learned on the gridiron, and many men here tonight have\neloquently remarked about those things. But cliches are born of unchang-\ning truths. Something becomes a cliche because it has happened and\nhappened so consistently. In Hollywood, we like to sit around on the set\nand joke about cliche lines. One of them in adventure films is always\nthere. It is that line, \"We're safe 'til the drums stop. 11 Well, that cliche\nis based on truth, because in the real life situation of that kind, it means\nwhen they stop beating those drums, they're on their way to beat your\nbrains out with a club.\nTeddy Roosevelt once spoke of those who have known the blood and\nsweat of the arena, men who've know what it means to win and what it means\nto lose. At Eureka we learned a great deal about losing. The funny thing\nis I don't mind. I remember once when a few of us went to our coach.\nWe wanted to talk to him about scheduling. We were a little tired of losing\nas often as we did, and then he told us why we had the kind of schedule we\nhad. We were a tiny unknown school. He said, \"Yes, I can give you a\nschedule. I can give you a schedule in which you can probably win every\ngame, but, he said, \"would you rather do that, or would you rather play\nas you're playing now -- against schools that at a minimum are ten times\nyour size\n... against schools that it's an achievement to even be on their\nschedules and be out on the field\n...\nand if you play them on even terms\n- 3 -\nand so you lose by a touchdown, or two touchdowns or a point doesn't\nthat, and won't that, mean more to you when this is all over than having\nthose easy wins on a schedule that's someplace down to our size?\"\nAnd now, today, I know what he was talking about. And when we\ndid win, \"Oh, my!\" How sweet it was! 11 But, you know, I think all of\nus here love sports, and we have an affinity for all of the games. But\nsomehow there is a mystic something about football. Your presence here\nacknowledges that. Anyone who has played in more than the one sport\nand most athletes do knows there is something unique, something that\ncaptures the spectator and the player -- captures him emotionally --\nabout football that he can feel about football more seriously than he can\nfeel about other sports. So seriously does he feel that sometimes there\nare those who tend to sneer a little and want to remind us that it's only a\ngame.\nThe other day a group of psychiatrists said that we should abandon\nthis game. They said it was a primitive appeal to our inner aggressions.\nWell, dare them to prove that football players have a built-in tendency to\nspend an evening in the park massaging their fellow citizens' heads with\nan iron pipe. Sometimes I think a psychiatrist is a fellow who tells you\nyou're crazy and then gets you to give him fifty dollars an hour to prove it.\nBut let me if I could be so presumptious -- try for a moment\nto put my finger on that indefinable quality that marks football. We live in\nan over-civilized world that no longer calls upon man to survive by dint\nof physical prowess. And football somehow is the last thing we have, the\nlast place where men can engage in non-fatal combat and do so by literally\nflinging themselves and flinging their bodies against other human beings,\nagainst an opponent. Ask a lineman who has just smashed through and\nupended a ball-carrier in a head-on tackle if he envies the fellow that\nhappens to run across the goal line for the touchdown. I think he'll tell you\nright at that moment that he would' nt trade places with anyone. There's\nno feeling exactly like it. There's a hot, clean hatred for an opponent dur-\ning a game. You don't hate him in any kind of a mean, human way that is\ndemeaning to you. But you hate him not because you even see a human\nface opposite you as you line up waiting for the ball to be snapped - - you\nsee him as a symbol of an enemy by virtue of the color of his jersey, and\nthe hatred you feel is almost the same righteous hatred that you have for\neveil. And in that moment, he to you is the symbol of evil. When the ball\nis snapped, however, you express that hatred within a very definite frame-\nwork of rules. You apply tactics that have been taught you to make a play,\nand you carry out assignments that will make a play work and gain success\n- 4 -\nfor your team. Then, when the final gun sounds, every man who has\never played knows how suddenly that hatred is replaced by a genuine\naffection and respect, the kind of feeling that two men can have who have\nintimately shared that kind of experience for the last few hours of that\nafternoon or evening.\nNow there are, of course, individuals who cheat. They are to\nbe found any place. I suppose, in football, too. Yet I believe that foot-\nball is actually miraculuously clean, when you consider the opportunity\nfor wrong doing. On every play, at least fifteen or sixteen out of twenty-\ntwo men have an opportunity to do serious physical injury to another\nhuman being, for the most part with no possibility of being detected. It's\na violent game. Men are injured. But unlike the ancient gladiator sports,\nthe injury is incidental. It is not the object of the game. I find for all\nthese reasons maybe it imperfectly explains some of what I've tried to\nexpress about this game that football is peculiar to America, and that\nisn't strange. It's typical of the American personality, and I, for one,\nthink there's something very important in American that would be lost if\nthose psychiatrists had their way and we ever lost our emotional attach-\nment to this game.\nI don't happen to think there is anything wrong with young men at\nthat stage of their life feeling so deeply about an abstraction such as team\nspirit, or a school, or just \"our side, 11 that would make a young man --\neven as he faced death speak up and make the request that George Gipp\nmade on his deathbed. Nor do I find anything strange that, eight years\nlater, another group of young men who had never known him personally\nwould be so deeply moved at hearing his request that they would go out and\nrise above themselves in order to fulfill that request. What does it matter\nif it's only a game if it has the power to make boys become men capable\nof self sacrifice and unselfish, noble deeds.\nI don't know whether football made this contribution to America or\nAmerica made it to football, but I know that football players have the ability\nto understand a young man on a much larger playing field in Vietnam. A\nC ouple of years ago a young Negro soldier who threw himself on a grenade\nso save his platoon mates, and I doubt if he paused to count how many of\nthem were white or black or brown. It so happens there was a pretty good\ndistribution of each, but his dying words were, \"You have to care. 11\nToday an increasing number of voices are being raised in our land.\nThey are urging an end to competitive sports. It's a murmur in some places,\nbut watch out for it. Indeed, you will find that they find competition in our\nwhole social structure undesirable. Their song is that man's very nature\ncan be changed by controlling his environment, and they have some kind\n- 5 -\nof a dream of a non-competitive, placid world. But if they have their way\nand I sometimes think that what they really mean by the ending of compe-\ntition is a leveling down to mediocrity for all of us where there won't be any\nneed for competition -- if they have their way, can they promise us that\nthere will never again be a time when we need heroes, when we need men\nwho have known the blood and sweat of the arena -- who have known what it\nis to overc ome weariness and pain and find another untapped source of\nstrength within yourself when it seems that all strength is gone?\nOf, these are the men that tell us we don't need grades anymore,\njust pass or fail. I don't know about you, but if I ever lie down on an operat-\ning table and they put the thing over my face to put me to sleep, I would like\nto know more about the man with the knife in his hand than that he just\nhappened to get by.\n(Turning to Jack Mildren) I was watching you - - this fine young\nquarterback on the tube last week, and coming out of my chair several times.\nYou spoke of athletes being known as \"jocks.\" A few years ago there were\npeople that sneeringly called athletes \"gorillas.\" There is a tendency on the\npart of a number of people to try to pretend that the athlete is somehow\nsomething apart from the rest of us. But you only had to look at that list of\nmen, or that lineup of men back there who stood up -- at the men who are\nsitting here beside you tonight, to understand that you can look at the record\nof the men who have been a part of this game, back through the years, and\nI'll match it against any other group they want to put together.\nI remember one night in an old classroom building on our Eureka\ncampus. We were having - whatever they call it now I don't know - skull\nsession, chalk talk, going over plays and SO forth under those cold bare\nbulbs. Somehow - I don't know how in the conversation the subject of\nprayer came up. I think the coach must have introduced it, but I don't\nknow just how he did it. I was one of the younger fellows. I was one of the\nfew who had come direct from high school. I never went into a game that\nI didn't pray to myself, but I would have cut my hand off before I would have\nadmitted it. to that bunch of roughnecks that I was associating with on the\nteam because I thought I must be the only person who did anything like that,\nand I would never have opened my mouth about it. But as the conversation\nwent on and man after man began speaking up, it developed that every man\nin the room prayed silently to himself before he went into a game. Now, I\nkind of developed a prayer of my own on what I thought it was fair to ask\nfor. Obviously, you couldn't ask the Lord to be on your side and win. The\nfellow on the other side had as much claim on Him as I did, but I was amazed\nto find out when finally it all came out that every man in that room had\nalmost the same identical prayer not to win, but \"let me do my best, let\n/\n- 6 -\nthere be no injuries, not just me, let everyone play his best.\"\nSo, I wonder if it's too much to suggest that maybe they learned\nthe tone of that prayer from the very principles of the game they were\nplaying, I remember a couple of seasons back when the Los Angeles\nRams had won eleven straight and were going to play the Vikings. It\ndidn't matter because both teams had won their respective titles and it was\njust a game for the crowd. I took my eleven year old son, who is a\nworshiper of football and a particular fan of the Los Angeles Rams. We\nsat there in the stadium that day and the Rams had a bad day. The Vikings\npoured it on, and all around us I heard cynical talk about, \"Well, they're\nfellows who play for money. They're not trying very hard because the\ngame doesn't mean anything.\" I even heard talk about, \"They probably\nshaved the points a little bit for the gamblers\" and all I could do was kind\nof shoulder over against my eleven year old. I knew he was hearing it,\nand he also takes defeat very personally. The eyes were looking a little\nglassy, as if they might break over in a minute. I'd kept one secret from\nhim. I'd had an invitation to bring him down to the locker room after the\ngame, but we had to catch a plane, and I didn't want to tell him about it\nin advance and then maybe find that time was such that we couldn't do it.\nBut there was time, so to ease his disappointment at the defeat, I told\nhim. Well, that brightened the day, and down we went to the locker room,\nand in they came. Anyone who thought they weren't trying just didn't\nknow. They'd been through a meat chopper. They were bleeding,\nliterally. They were also very angry about not playing up to standard.\nAs I stood there beside him, they sat down in this kind of a classroom type\nplace that they have, and for about seven minutes they poured it on them-\nselves about how badly they'd done. At about that moment, Coach Allen\nsaid to them \"Okay that's enough. Let's give thanks. \" As I stood there,\nI saw my eleven year old bow his head as those big hulking heroes of his\ndropped to their knees and repeated the Lord's Prayer. No lesson that I\ncould ever teach him, nothing that I could ever say, would mean as much.\nI went out of there. I don't care, they won the game as far as I was con-\ncerned.\nI don't even know if we will ever be able to identify and prove what\neach man learns from football SO that we can list it and hang it on a wall like\na diploma or like a license for the practice of a profession. I do know that\ndown through the years I've somehow placed my faith in men of the sports\nworld and seldom has that faith ever been betrayed. A few years ago \"Bud\"\nWilkinson was having one of those great teams. He know's what I am going\nto say now. He had one of those National Championship teams. They were\n- 7 -\nplaying TCU in their final game, and TCU had had a lack luster season.\nIt had been pretty dull for them, but now -- as a team will - -- they rose to\nthe heights, and in the closing minutes of the game in the fourth quarter\nOklahoma was leading, 20 to 14. Then TCU passed. A man dived into the\nend zone and caught what was apparently the tying touchdown, but with the\ngreat probability of it becoming a one point victory over the National\nChampions. There was bedlam in the stadium, and then that young man\nwho caught the pass got up and walked over to the referee, handed him the\nball, and said, \"No sir, it touched the ground before I caught it. \"\nNow, I don't know where that end he was the team Captain, John\nCrouch - - is. I've been told that he is coaching. I never met him, but I\nwish my son could grow up and play under him someday. I think that I'm a\nbetter man just knowing about that story. I think all who hear it are.\nPerhaps those who think winning is all important would say he should have\nkept his mouth shut. He hadn't been caught. He could get away with it. But\nI wonder if the same person would like to feel that that's the way a President\nof the United States should make his decisions ... or a Senator, or a\nCongressman, or a Justice of the Supreme Court. Do we really want men who\nmake decisions -- not out of expediency-- whether it's in business, public\naffairs, or personal affairs, but on a basis of what they honestly believe in\ntheir hearts is morally right?\nI hope my remarks have given you some idea of what this award means\nto me. You know, there were no Emmys when I was a sports announcer. There\nwere Oscars when I was an actor, but I didn't get one, and I am sure I am\nnever going to get an honorary degree from Berkley. But as I said, that's\nunimportant because football has given me an education, it gave me a career,\nand now it has given me an honor that I cherish more than I can say. It is\nsweet to be approved by your fellow man. It is doubly SO when that approval\ncomes from men you admire, respect, and hold high in esteem.\nAll I can say is tonight, I thank you from the bottom of my\nheart."
}