Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to George Vaughn. 1 pg. [Letter], 11/3/1962
Letter from George Vaughn to Harry R. Haldeman. 1 pg. Attached to previous. [Letter], 11/1/1962
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to Leonard Valiukas. 1 pg. [Letter], 11/1/1962
Letter from Leonard Valiukas to Bob Haldeman. 4 pgs. Including attachments. [Letter], 10/31/1962
Letter from Raymond Vandegriff to Richard Nixon. 2 pgs with attached business card. [Letter], 10/27/1962
Letter from Raymond Vandegriff to Richard Nixon. 1 pg. [Letter], 10/20/1962
The Election Victory Trail Vol. 1 Edition 9. 2 pgs. Duplicates not scanned. [Newsletter], 10/22/1962
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to Leonard Valiukas. 2 pgs. [Letter], 10/171962
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to John Vaughn. 1 pg. [Letter], 10/18/1962
Memo from Loie to Bob Haldeman about RN letter to Mr. and Mrs. Jack Clifford. 2 pgs including attachment. Attached to previous. [Memo], 10/18/1962
Letter from Dorothy Wright, secretary to Haldeman, to R.E. Vandergriff. 1 pg. [Letter], 10/18/1962
Letter from Raymond Vandergriff to H.R. Haldeman. 3 pgs including attachment. Duplicate newsletter not scanned. [Letter], 10/15/1962
Letter from Raymond Vandergriff to H. R. Haldeman. 2 pgs. [Letter], 10/4/1962
Letter from Ray Vandergriff to H.R. Haldeman. 4 pgs including attachment. Duplicate newsletter not scanned. [Letter], 10/1/1962
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26127996
label
WHSF: Returned, 62-5
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127996
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 62-5
description
This file contains:
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to George Vaughn. 1 pg. [Letter], 11/3/1962
Letter from George Vaughn to Harry R. Haldeman. 1 pg. Attached to previous. [Letter], 11/1/1962
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to Leonard Valiukas. 1 pg. [Letter], 11/1/1962
Letter from Leonard Valiukas to Bob Haldeman. 4 pgs. Including attachments. [Letter], 10/31/1962
Letter from Raymond Vandegriff to Richard Nixon. 2 pgs with attached business card. [Letter], 10/27/1962
Letter from Raymond Vandegriff to Richard Nixon. 1 pg. [Letter], 10/20/1962
The Election Victory Trail Vol. 1 Edition 9. 2 pgs. Duplicates not scanned. [Newsletter], 10/22/1962
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to Leonard Valiukas. 2 pgs. [Letter], 10/171962
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to John Vaughn. 1 pg. [Letter], 10/18/1962
Memo from Loie to Bob Haldeman about RN letter to Mr. and Mrs. Jack Clifford. 2 pgs including attachment. Attached to previous. [Memo], 10/18/1962
Letter from Dorothy Wright, secretary to Haldeman, to R.E. Vandergriff. 1 pg. [Letter], 10/18/1962
Letter from Raymond Vandergriff to H.R. Haldeman. 3 pgs including attachment. Duplicate newsletter not scanned. [Letter], 10/15/1962
Letter from Raymond Vandergriff to H. R. Haldeman. 2 pgs. [Letter], 10/4/1962
Letter from Ray Vandergriff to H.R. Haldeman. 4 pgs including attachment. Duplicate newsletter not scanned. [Letter], 10/1/1962
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26127996
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c291332679789a53
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
62
5
11/03/1962
Letter
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to George
Vaughn. 1 pg.
62
5
11/01/1962
Letter
Letter from George Vaughn to Harry R.
Haldeman. 1 pg. Attached to previous.
62
5
11/01/1962
Letter
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to Leonard
Valiukas. 1 pg.
62
5
10/31/1962
Letter
Letter from Leonard Valiukas to Bob
Haldeman. 4 pgs. Including attachments.
62
5
10/27/1962
Letter
Letter from Raymond Vandegriff to Richard
Nixon. 2 pgs with attached business card.
62
5
10/20/1962
Letter
Letter from Raymond Vandegriff to Richard
Nixon. 1 pg.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Page 1 of 3
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
62
5
10/22/1962
Newsletter
The Election Victory Trail Vol. 1 Edition 9.
2 pgs. Duplicates not scanned.
62
5
10/171962
Letter
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to Leonard
Valiukas. 2 pgs.
62
5
10/18/1962
Letter
Letter from H.R. Haldeman to John Vaughn.
1 pg.
62
5
10/18/1962
Memo
Memo from Loie to Bob Haldeman about
RN letter to Mr. and Mrs. Jack Clifford. 2
pgs including attachment. Attached to
previous.
62
5
10/18/1962
Letter
Letter from Dorothy Wright, secretary to
Haldeman, to R.E. Vandergriff. 1 pg.
62
5
10/15/1962
Letter
Letter from Raymond Vandergriff to H.R.
Haldeman. 3 pgs including attachment.
Duplicate newsletter not scanned.
62
5
10/04/1962
Letter
Letter from Raymond Vandergriff to H.R.
Haldeman. 2 pgs.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
62
5
10/01/1962
Letter
Letter from Ray Vandergriff to H.R.
Haldeman. 4 pgs including attachment.
Duplicate newsletter not scanned.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Page 3 of 3
November 3, 1962
Dear George:
Your letter of November 1st was received, and your
personal note to Dick was handed to him. He
opened the envelope while I was with him, and told
me what you had enclosed.
You know without my saying how much this is
appreciated, George. Dick was really touched by
your thoughtfulness and the generous support you
have extended him. He is writing you a personal note,
but I could not let this time pass without expressing
my own appreciation for all you have done to help us.
These last few days are hectic, but we're counting on
the big victory November 6th.
With warmest regards and best wishes.
WIN WITH NIXON!
H. R. Haldeman
Mr. George W. Vaughan
550 California Street
San Francisco 4, California
W.
STREET
SAN
November 1, 1962
Mr. Harry R. Haldeman
550 Spoleto Drive
Pacific Palisades, California
Dear Bob:
I am taking the liberty of enclosing a personal note
to Dick which, in a small measure, I hope will add
to his success in this campaign. I only wish I had
the capacity to completely express my friendship
for him. Because I consider it personal, would you
be kind enough to see that he receives it.
Jean joins me in sending our best to you and yours.
With all good wishes lang
November 1, 1962
Dear Leonard:
Thank you for your letter of October 31st.
You have done a superb job. It is well recognized, and
we have tried to assure you of our appreciation. Your
interest and support have been consistent. We count
upon it, and are grateful.
We have also explained all Dick Nixon has done with the
Nationalities, and although it may appear to you this
area has been neglected, this has not been the case, and
I believe my previous letter outlined the many events
fulfilled.
With the complexities involved in this all-impertant,
hard-hitting campaign, and knowing the sincere effort on
the part of everyone in the organization to get maximum
coverage for Dick, I am, of course, sorry to learn you
feel we have been lacking in cooperation. I can assure you,
this was neither our intent nor our desire.
We are most grateful for the substantial contribution you
and other members of the Nationalities Committee have
made to the campaign.
WIN WITH MIXON!
H. R. Haldeman
Mr. Leonard Valiukas
902 West 34th Street
Los Angeles 7, California
Los Angeles, October 31, 1962
Mr. Bob Haldeman
Campaign Manager
Nixon for Governor
3908 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles 5, California
Dear Bob:
Enclosed will will find a copy of a folder that
was put out by Lithuanian-Americans of Califor-
nia and mailed to all Americans of Lithuanian
origin or descent throughout the state.
Dick also has received some first-rate publicity
in all major Lithuanian-American newspapers
throughout the country which are widely read
by Americans of Lithuanian origin or descent
in California. I have urged representatives from
all larger nationality groups to do something
similar to what was done by the Lithuanian-American
group.
We have done everything what is possible to assure
Dick's victory on November 6th. One and only com-
plaint that I have is --- we did not get enough
cooperation from the top management of Dick's
campaign. It was possible to do a number of other
things to get some more votes from the nationality
people - but we needed more cooperation and we
should have had at least something to say as far
as the whole strategy of the campaign was concerned.
I firmly believe that Dick will win this time.
Good luck to Dick, you and all your associates.
With kindest personal regards,
Beonard
Leonard Valiukas
cc: Dan Waters
RES. RI 7-0901
WORK RI 7-4488, EXT. 347
]
California Republican Assembly
LEONARD VALIUKAS
902 WEST 34TH ST.
VICE PRESIDENT
LOS ANGELES 7. CALIF.
Artéja Rimta Krize!
The crisis we face today.. I believe
to be the most serious that we have
Bükime Budrüs!
faced since Korean war..."
Prez. Kennedzio Zodzius, kad "vaizdas visur pasaulyje
ROBERT S. McNAMARA
niurus" neseniai patvirtino gynybos sekretorius Robert S.
Secretary of Defense
MoNamara: .The crisis we face today... I believe to be
the most serious that we have faced since the Korean war".
Siuos zodzius patvirtino naujausi ivykiai del Kubos.
Arteja rinkimai, kuriy didele reiksmę akcentuoja ir val-
dzios ir opozicines partijos vadai. Lietuviškasis samoningu-
mas irgi Ipareigoja mus siuose rinkimuose pareiksti savo
valia. Ne tik i Vašingtona, bet ir i Sacramenta turime pa-
PASIYSKIME ! WASHINGTONA IR SAC-
siusti Zmones, kurie pajëgty tvirčiau ginti laisves idēją,
kiečiau pasipriesinti rusy imperializmui, geriau suprasti ko-
RAMENTO ŽMONES, KURIE TIKRAI
munizmo gresmei isstatyto laisvojo pasaulio aspiracijas bei
pavergtuju yiltis.
Mes, susispiete i Lithuanian-American Committee for a
PAJĒGÜS GINTI LAISVĒS IDEJA!
Better Government, kviečiame visus Kalifornijos lietuvius
aktyviai dalyvauti rinkimuose ir savo balsais pareniti must
rekomenduojamus kandidatus.
BALSUOKIME UZ LIETUVIU IR LIETUVOS
REIKALU GYNËJUS IR TIKRUS
As Governor Of California - I Pledge:
KOVOTOJUS PRIEŠ KOMUNIZMA!
*. To bring to California a State Administration that is
worthy of the first and greatest State in the Nation. I will
put an end to rule by clique and crony.
To bring into State Government a team of the best
executives and technicians in the State. And I will get rid
of the second-raters and political hacks.
VOTE FOR TRUE AND PATRIOTIC
LITHUANIAN-AMERICAN COMMITTEE
That California will lead the Nation in job opportuni-
FOR A BETTER GOVERNMENT
ties for all our citizens by creating the best climate for
AMERICANS AND VALIANT FIGHTERS
new private investment of any State in the Union.
5701 7th Avenue
Los Angeles 43, California
*
An Administration dedicated to attracting new industry
AGAINST COMMUNISM!
-
not one that can be smug when we rank ninth among
industrial states in building new plants since 1961.
*
To replace the spineless, soft-on-crime attitude of the
present Administration with strong, vigorous backing of
local enforcement officials.
Lithuanian-American Committee for a
*
To wage an all-out campaign to make the streets and
highways of California safe for our citizens.
Better Government -
To cut the costs of State Government SO that we can
reduce the tax burden borne by our citizens.
To Initiate the most effective State program in the
Ale Rúta Arbiene, Vytautas Aleksandrünas, Edmundas
*
Nation for fighting communism - including education,
Arbas. Juozas Andrius, Bernardas Brazdžionis, Bronius
on the student and adult levels, on both the dangers of
Budriunas, Balys Ciurlionis, Aleksandras Dabšys, Adele
communism and the positive alternatives of freedom.
Deringiene, Alice Dotts, Bruno Gediminas, Algirdas Gustai-
DICK NIXON
tis, Julius Jodele, Dr. Juozas Jurkunas, Vincas Kazlauskas,
Julius Jodelé (dešineje), ALT-bos Los Angeles
Juozas Kojelis, Feliksas Kudirka, Birute Lembergas, Al-
fonsas Latvenas, Ann Laurinaitis, Ruta Lee-Kilmonis, Kos-
skyriaus pirmininkas, susitinka SU senatoriumi Thomas
Kuchel (kaireje), painformuodamas senatoriy, kad
ALT-bos Los Angeles skyrius, apjungias visas patriotines
lietuviy organizacijas Pietineje Kalifornijoje, remia jo
U. S. Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (left) meets
Julius Jodele, President of the Lithuanian American
Council, Inc., Southern California Division, embracing
all patriotic Lithuanian-American organizations in South-
ern California. The Lithuanian American Council, Inc.,
Southern California Division has endorsed Sen. Thomas
Please Urge All Your Friends And
tas Liaudanskas, Charles Luksis, Vytautas Mažeika, Dr.
Neighbours To Vote For These
Petras Pamataitis, Vladas Paziura, George Rudelis, Antanas
Skirins, Francis Skirmantas, Brone Starkiene, Vytautas
kandidaturą.
Kuchel for re-election.
Candidates!
Seštokas, Jonas Uzdavinys, Petras žilinskas.
H.
0 0 Lietuviai SU Nixonu. Richard M. Nixon, kandidatas i Kalifornijos
Kita Los Angeles lietuviq grupè kalbasi SU Dick Nixon'u.
Lietuvaités jteikia dovanele Nixon'vi. Lietuviu su Dick Nixon
gubernatoriaus posta, 1962 mety spalio men. 24 d. turejo susitikima
Nuotraukoje is kaires desinen: Antanas Mažeika, Kostas Liaudanskas,
susitikimo metu lietuvaites jteike buv. JAV-biy viceprezidentui dovanele
su Los Angeles miesto lietuviy darbuotojais. Pirmoje nuotraukoje is
Juozas Kojelis, Dick Nixon, Aleksandras Dabsys ir Edmundas Arbas.
- knyga Lithuania - Land of Heroes. Nuotraukoje is kaires desinen:
kaires desinen: Kazys Luksys, Bernardas Brazdžionis, Dick Nixon,
Danute Gustaite, Birute Lembergaite, Dick Nixon ir Giedre Gustaite.
Julius Jodele, dr. Petras Pamataitis ir Antanas Skirius.
o
Some of the leading Lithuanian-American functionaries of Los
o Former Vice President of the United States Dick Nixon receives
o
Leading functionaries of the Lithuanian-American community
Angeles meet Dick Nixon; from left to right: Antanas Mažeika, Kostas
a present from charming young Lithuanian ladies of Los Angeles;
in Los Angeles meet Richard M. Nixon; from left to right: Charles
Liaudanskas, Juozas Kojelis, Dick Nixon, Aleksandras Dabšys and
from left to right: Miss Danute Gustas, Miss Birute Lembergas, Dick
Luksis, Bernardas Brazdzionis, Dick Nixon, Julius Jodele, Dr. Petras
Edmund Arbas.
Photo by L. Kančauskas
Nixon and Miss Giedre Gustas. Dick Nixon was presented with a copy
Pamataitis and Anthony Skirius.
Photo by L Kančauskas
of the book, Lithuania - Land of Heroes.
Photo by L. Kančauskas
UNITED STATES CONGRESS
46th A. D. - Charles E. Chapel MA
47th A. D. - Frank Lanterman MA
17th C. D. - Ted Bruinsma
48th A. D. - David H. Macdougall
o
Balsuokite už kandidatus, išvardintus
19th C. D. - Robert T. Ramsay
49th A. D. - H. I. Flournoy MA
20th C. D. - H. Allen Smith MC
50th A. D. - Carl Groene
šiame lape!
21st C. D. - Herman Smith
51st A. D. - Joe Lopez
22th C. D. - Charles S. Foote
Vote For The Candidates Listed in This
52nd A. D. - John R. Corcoran
23rd C. D. - Del Clawson
53rd A. D. - Louis V. Cole
Folder!
24th C. D. - G. P. Lipscomb MC
54th A. D. - J. L. E. Collier MA
25th C. D. - John Rousselot MC
55th A. D. - Paul T. Anderson
26th C. D. - Daniel Beltz
56th A. D. - Chet Wolfrum MA
27th C. D. - E. W. Hiestand MC
57th A. D. - Charles J. Conrad MA
CANDIDATES - GENERAL ELECTION -
28th C. D. - Alphonzo Bell MC
58th A. D. - Mel Miller
NOVEMBER 6, 1962, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
29th C. D - H. L. Richardson
59th A. D. - Peter S. Smith
30th C. D. - G. L. McDonough MC
State Offices
60th A. D. - Robert S. Stevens
31st C. D. - Gordon Hahn
61st A. D. - Edward B. Davenport
GOVERNOR - RICHARD M. NIXON
32nd C. D. - Craig Hosmer MC
62nd A. D. - Donald c. Kahl
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR - GEORGE CHRISTOPHER
63rd A. D. - Don Tarbell
SECRETARY OF STATE - FRANK M. JORDAN
MC - Member of Congress
64th A. D. - Lou Cusanovich MA
CONTROLLER - BRUCE V. REAGAN
65th A. D. - Robert Wright
TREASURER JOHN M. BUSTERUD
66th A. D. - Robert E. Mitchell
ATTORNEY GENERAL - ToM COAKLEY
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION JAMES L. FLOURNOY
67th A. D. - Alfred H. Thorsen
UNITES STATES SENATOR - - THOMAS H. KUCHEL
38th A. D. - Beatrice Gale
68th A. D. - Richard M. Wonder
STATE SENATOR - PATRICK D. McGEE
39th A. D. - George Deukmejian
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION -
40th A. D. - Joe Y. Jimenez
MA - Member of the Assembly
MAX RAFFERTY
41st A. D. - John Mathews
42nd A. D. - Paul Burkhart
County Offices
43rd A. D. - H. J. Thelin MA
Patark visiems savo pažistamiems ir
44th A. D. - Wilbur R. Richardson
ASSESSOR - PHILIP E. WATSON
45th A. D. - Lloyd S. Pedersen
kaimynams balsuoti už šiuos kandidatus!
copy to: mr. H. R. Haldeman, Initon Campaign manager
The highn Rally in Vallejo Oct26th was the largest political
rally ever held in Holans County. Over 1100 Republicansand
709 Jackson St, Fairfield Democrats turned
out to welcome Dide and
cheer October him 27, on 1962 to victory as
our next
The Honorable Richard M. Nixon,
Republican Nominee for Governor,
901 N. Bundy Drive,
We feelthat governor! we have the
Los Angeles 49, California
and the spirit to overcome
Organization the candidate,
Honorable Sir:
deficiency on nov 6th!
our to registration
I bring to your attention a matter of considerable concern to California's
275,000 boat owners, to boating supply houses, recreational resorts, and to our Best
million boating enthusiasts in California. It is the proposal to single out
Wishes,
assessed and taxed by the counties of the State of California. This special tax Ray
boats for special tax treatment, out of the mass of personal property, which is
treatment is to take the form of a two percent ad valorem, in lieu property
tax, imposed and collected by the State of California, similar to the present
motor vehicle in lieu tax.
The proposed in lieu tax on boats is currently before the State Senate
Revenue and Taxation Fact-Finding Committee, chaired by Senator Charles Brown,
28th Senatorial District, and, a recommendation for passage is to be made to
the 1963 Session of the California State Legislature.
This special tax on boats is being vigorously opposed by all boat owners,
resort operators, and recreational groups, not only because they consider it
unfair and inequitable tax treatment, but, also, due to its probable unconsti-
tutional nature in seeking to prohibit the operation of boats upon the navigable
waters of California - an area of national, not state, jurisdiction.
Currently, boats are subject to taxation within the various counties in
which they are located, as are all items of personal property. It is the pre-
vailing view among California's boat owners that an analogous situation does
not exist, in the reals of taxation and regulation, between a boat using a
public water course and a motor vehicle using the state-owned highways or
county roads.
A public statement on this proposed in lieu property tax on boats from
the Republican gubernatorial candidate would definitely case the minds of
California's 275,000 boat-owning citizens. We all know that boating has become
a major California enterprise, one which provides income, employment and pleasure
to millions of Californians. If such a special tax would inhibit the growth of
this industry, is inequitable, or runs counter to a public position and pledge
of no tax increases in 1963, 1964, and 1965, a statement in opposition to this
type of special tax on boats would seem justifiable by the Republican nominee
for Governor of California.
I look forward to being of service to the new Republican Governor and his
administration, as they assume the awesome responsibility of guiding the public
affairs and state-destiny of the people of California, come January 1963.
Yours respectfully,
Raymond E. Vandegripp
HARRISON 5.8145
SOLANO COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
RAYMOND VANDEGRIFF
709 JACKSON STREET
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
FAIRFIELD. CALIFORNIA
FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES: TO MR. H. R. HALDEMAN, NIXON CAMPAIGN MANAGER
709 Jackson Street
Fairfield, California
October 20, 1962
The Honorable Michard M. Nixon,
Fepublican Nominee for Governor,
901 N. Bundy Drive,
Los Angeles 49, California
Honorable Sir:
It is obvious to me, judging from their daily activities, that most all
of the department and agency executives in the Brown Administration are
engaged in full time campaigning for the reelection of Governor Brown on a
scale unprecedented in California political history. It seems as though the
entire State Administration in Sacramento has been mobilised into a vast
reelection campaign machine for the incumbent governor!
This means that public offices, civil service manpower, public materials
and equipment are all being used in a coordinated effort to return 'Pat' Brown
to office, as our Chief Executive. Gubernatorial appointees, such as Hale
Champion, Director of Finance, William Warne, Resources Administrator, Robert
Bradford, Highways and Transportation Administrator, and many more, are obvious-
ly neglecting their assigned public duties and responsibilities to campaign for
the incumbent governor. They are using their civil service staffs to bolster
the sagging Brown election effort, to such an extent, as to hamper important
state planning for the next fiscal year and day-to-day program operations.
The Department of Finance, in particular, has failed to meet its admin-
istrative dead-lines on the budget calendar and has been doing a sloppy job in
preparing the necessary support data for proper budget allocations in fiscal
1963-1964. All of this is due to the full-time electioneering of Champion and
his deputies within the Department of Finance.
I hope you, as Republican nominee for Governor, will take the opportunity
to point out to the people of California this unprecedented, partisan campaign
activity by the appointees of Governor Brown, and, how this full-time campaigning
by important state executives and administrators has seriously hurt the proper
administration of California public service programs.
Please comment also on the amazing similarity in writing of the news
statements supporting Governor Brown, supposedly written by a variety of State
department directors, as individuals. Many of these news releases criticizing
various aspects of the Republican Program for California have been prepared on
state-owned duplicating equipment, using state purchased paper and ink, and are
delivered to news media offices by state employees, during regular working hours!
Respectfully submitted,
haymond E. Vandegriff
Trandequiff
Enclosure: Vict Trail Edition
#9, Brown Fiscal Record
The Election Victory Trail
A DIGEST OF CAMPAIGN ISSUES, ARGUMENTS, AND SUGGESTED
POSITIONS FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICES
BY
RAYMOND E. VANDEGRIFF
Public Finance Analyst
Vol. 1, Edition 9
709 Jackson Street, Fairfield
October 22, 1962
CALIFORNIA FISCAL FACTS ILLUSTRATING THE SORRY PUBLIC FINANCE RECORD OF THE BROWN ADMINIS-
TRATION - A STORY OF UNPRECEDENTED PUBLIC SPENDING AND TAXING DECEPTIVELY LABELED!
TO ALL CALIFORNIA CITIZENS: DO YOU KNOW THE 'PAT' BROWN RECORD ON PUBLIC SPENDING AND
TAXING?
Edmund G. Brown, the incumbent Governor of the State of California, has been an undis-
puted and unchallenged success in only two areas - Public Spending and Taxing! 'Pat' Brown
is the greatest spender and taxer of the people to ever sit in the governor's chair in
California State history. History will record that the Brown Administration was a complete
failure in controlling the costs of State government; having failed to utilize the available
fiscal machinery within the Department of Finance to effectively monitor, determine, and
control State government expenditures, Governor Brown allowed government costs to increase
an unheard of fifty percent in only four years' time! How is that for a"fiscally respon-
sible" governor?
The second important financial fact which the people will remember about the incumbent
governor is that in 1959 he insisted in imposing the largest tax increase upon the people
of California, their commerce, their industries, their farms and ranches, their personal
incomes, in State history. This Brown tax rise of 1959 has succeeded in taking over a
billion dollars from the pockets and payrolls of Californians in just four years. Yet
through the public waste, excessive spending, and inefficient management, the Brown Admin-
istration has already exhausted these additional tax resources, from the greatest tax boost
in California history, and stands ready to raise taxes again, in fiscal 1963-1964, so as to
maintain its present massive rate of public spending, as California is changed by design
from an Opportunity State to a Welfare State, which is Governor Brown's admitted goal!
California State financial records show that in the period from 1954 1958, which was
one of rapid growth in California, State government costs rose by $580,273,126, while under
'Pat' Brown, in the period 1958 - 1962, government costs increased by one billion dollars
in run away fashion. The reports of the State Controller reveal how Governor Brown, when he
took office in 1959, inherited a State expenditure program of 1.9 billions per year, and
that our State budgets had been working on their second billion, dating back to fiscal 1950.
However, under Governor Brown's spendthrift policies in the care of public money and because
of his wasteful attempts to turn California into a model Welfare State, the State budget has
passed through another Billion in State expenditures within the short period of four years'
time, the period of one State Administration, that of 'Pat' Brown, California's Number One
Public Spender, Our Billion Dollar Governor!! This again is the Brown financial record!
CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA, DO YOU KNOW: that in spite of Governor Brown's denial that he
plans to sponsor any increased taxes for Californians, in 1963, his Department of Finance
has been conducting extensive studies on what State taxes could be increased, to yield what
amounts of extra revenues, and with the least political reaction from the people against
Governor 'Pat'. Do you know, fellow citizens, that if Governor Brown is reelected on Novem-
ber 6, 1962, he will undoubtedly sign any and all tax increase measures which pass the State
Legislature, whether introduced as a Governor sponsored bill or not. We can say this with
certainty and conviction because the record of Governor Brown shows conclusively that he
favors maximum public spending levels and debt financing to feed the insatiable demands of
the Welfare State for tax dollars!
CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA, DO YOU REALIZE: that while Governor Brown makes a big show of
and pretense at being concerned about maintaining fiscal responsibility and a balanced
budget in California, this concern is unreal and for political purposes only. The supposed
concern of the Brown Administration for fiscal responsibility is designed to quiet public
fears and suspicions about the tax-spend-tax, welfare-state program of Governor 'Pat' Brown
and is not borne out by the spending, taxing and budget reports of the Brown Administration,
nor by its legislative record, nor by its ineffective cost control program.
How can Governor Brown really be concerned about fiscal responsibility in State govern-
ment when he makes no real effort to control the unit and per capita costs of California
State government. The gross failure of the Brown Administration to maintain adequate cost
control over State governmental operations cannot be laid wholly to the inept and indecisive
leadership of our incumbent governor, but stems in equal measure from personal welfare state
spending and taxing policies.
It is questionable, whether people who espouse Welfare Statism, as does Governor Brown,
can ever really believe in the theory, let alone the practice, of fiscal responsibility in
government. Welfare State spenders, like our incumbent governor, may of course give lip
service to this fiscal ideal, and attempt to collect whatever political advantage they can
obtain from a demogogic repetition of the term, but the people are rarely fooled for long
by the deceptive labels placed by vote hungry politicians on their political programs!
Page #2, Vol 1., Edition 9, The Sorry Public Finance Record of Governor 'Pat' Brown -
The People of California know that to be fiscally responsible is not to allow run-away
government costs, nor to spend public moneys just because they are available, nor to attempt
to provide nurse maid care and cradle to the grave security, at public expense, for almost
one third of our population at the expense of the other two thirds, and at staggering costs
to California business, industry, agriculture, property values, and investment-job prospects!
THE BROWN BALANCED BUDGET GAME: The incumbent State Governor, Edmund G. Brown, makes an
equal pretense at having given California four balanced budgets. However, as our Republican
nominee for Governor, Richard M. Nixon, has pointed out, the Government of California is
prevented by law from engaging in deficit financing, so 'Pat' Brown has no choice in the
matter If it were not prohibited by the California State Constitution, Governor Brown
would probably willingly spend this State down the bankruptcy trail; for Brown undoubtedly
agrees with his New Frontier mentor and leader, John F. Kennedy, that balanced budgets are
really unnecessary to fiscal stability and their importance is mythical, a matter of public
misconception which must be changed by New Frontier educational programs and leadership.
But query - Are the Brown budgets really balanced in the real sense or do they reflex mere
accounting or paper balances which are useful fictions and public illusions?
The State budgets, under Governor Brown, are not balanced from the stand-point of
income equalling outgo, which is the normal public and accounting understanding of a balanced
budget. The Brown Administration could have a balanced budget, instead of just its
illusion or appearance, if it had the will and desire to pare state expeditures to match
annual revenues; however, such an action requires leadership, courage, a regard for fiscal
responsibility, and administrative talent - all in short supply within the Brown Adminis-
tration.
It is much easier to spend public money than to save it ; it is also fairly easy to
use a variety of accounting and financial reporting devices to maintain a "paper" or ficti-
cious balance in the State budgetary accounts which can cover actual cash deficits in
operating funds, through inter-fund borrowings, the use of special reserves, and that of
bond funds for capital outlay financing within the current operating budget of the State.
These accounting and reporting devices have been freely used by the Brown State bookkeepers
to create a balance in the State Budgets.
In similar fashion, much of the claimed, so-called budget savings said to be realized
in the Brown years have been deliberately caused by practicing the art of over budgeting for
many State Departments. The Department of Finance through its use and control of budget
allocations can provide for built in savings, which can later be "realized" supposedly
through "careful and prudent" managements of State operations, as part of a gubernatorial
program of fiscal economy and responsibility, perhaps!
Likewise, the inclusion by design and regular practice of many new and vacant State
positions within the operating budgets of the various departments, which are not to be
filled, is another device useful in authenticating a fictitious claim to fiscal responsi-
bility, The public must be wary and decerning lest they be shown the illusion but not the
substance of fiscal responsibility, and a mere balancing of accounting entries in place of
a real balance of income and outgo.
In only one of the Brown years has California had such a real balanced budget, one where
income equalled or exceeded outgo. This was in fiscal 1960-1961, after the Brown dictated
$250 million tax increase of 1959 produced a $100 million surplus in the State Treasury.
Use of special reserve funds, loans and bond fund borrowings to create a fictitious balance
in the budget of the State of California is a practice which should not be countenanced by
the People of California either from their Governor or State Controller. State governments
which are managed with an eye to fiscal. responsibility and financial stability need have no
use of accounting devices to hide the fact that their spending level is much too high for
their income level.
The Republican nominee for Governor, Richard M. Nixon, is pledged to restore true
fiscal responsibility and real balanced budgets to the State of California. He is committed
to a program of ending the four year Brown tax and spending spree, which has put a damper
on California's industrial growth and weakened our investment and job creating climate.
Dick Nixon has the demonstrated leadership ability, the executive talent, and the personal
and political courage to honor this pledge to bring efficient management, cost control,
and financial stability to the public service programs of the State of California. I urge
his election as a superlative choice as the next Governor of California!
Ray Vandegriff
October 17, 1962
Dear Leonard:
First, let me say that as I am sure you
know, Dick has been spending a great deal of time with
the various nationality groups of all sizes and types.
In just the last few weeks, he met with
the Japanese group, the Chinese group and the Mexican
group. Today he attended a reception for 5,000
nationality members in San Francisco. Some months
ago he spoke at the Polish Independence Day Celebration
in San Francisco. We have featured various important
nationality leaders on the Telethons, and of course
Dick started out his campaign with a meeting with
LACRANC.
As I am sure you realize, there has never
been any intention to ignore the nationality groups;
on the contrary, we are very much aware of this important
segment of the voting public. We have, however, devoted
all of our efforts to getting Dick maximum exposure
to large numbers of each of the nationality groups,
rather than setting up small meeting with one or two
leaders. This same policy has been followed in all
aspects of the campaign. I am sure you will agree it is
a wise one.
I certainly think your suggestion of getting
some pictures with various nationality leaders for
2
publication in their papers would be very worthwhile,
and I know the Schedule Office is trying to work
this out for you - possibly this Saturday.
As to your suggestion that Dick join the Honorary
Committee of the Americans for Congressional Action
to Free the Baltic States, I am sorry to say that his
firm policy regarding all such requests for membership
on committees during campaigns is to decline. So
many requests of this nature are received that it
is impossible to deviate from the policy in fairness
to all concerned.
You know that we greatly appreciate your interest and
efforts. I am sorry that at times it seems to appear
to you that we do not, but certainly hope you realize
the necessity for trying to cover all areas of the
state and all segments of the population in a very short
and intensive period.
Sincerely yours,
H. R. Haldeman
Mr. Leonard Valiukas
902 West 34th Street
Los Angeles 7, California
October 18, 1962
Dear John:
This will acknowledge your note
of October 17th.
I agree . the Cliffords certainly
deserve that "pat on the back", and we
will do the needful. A letter from Dick
will reach them.
Thanks for bringing this to our
attention, and our thanks to your Mr. Behdjou.
Best regards.
WIN WITH NIXON!
H. R. Haldeman
Mr. John V. Vaughn
President
Dartell Laboratories, Inc.
1226 South Flower Street
Los Angeles 15, California
Loie
10-18
Bob Haldeman
RN letter to Mr. and Mrs. Jack Clifford
Attached is suggested draft, together with
copies of letters from John Vaughn and Mr. Behdjou.
Copy of the letter should go to Mr. Behdjou, as he
has requested.
Many thanks.
draft
Mr. and Mrs. Jack Clifford
12707 Ocaso Avenue
La Mirada, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Clifford:
The assistance which you are offering the
organization in your area, your substantial
support, and the enthusiasm with which you
are approaching the job to be done, all
mean a great deal to me personally and to the
campaign organization generally.
It is heartening to learn of the activities
which you have spearheaded and to which you
have unselfishly devoted your time and energies.
It is with this type of help that victory will
be assured, and I did want you to know that I
am aware of your generous support and all you
are doing to help the campaign effort.
My personal thanks and warmest regards.
October 18, 1962
Dear Mr. Vandegriff:
Mr. Haldeman is now
required to be away from the office
much of the time, traveling with
the Candidate.
In his absence I wanted to
acknowledge your most recent letter
of October 15th and the copies of your
Campaign Digest #8.
We are, of course, using
Radio and TV Spots, but I know
Mr. Haldeman will appreciate having
your comments and suggestions in
this connection.
He appreciates too all you
are doing to help in the campaign effort.
WIN WITH NIXON!
(Mrs.) Dorothy M. Wright
Secretary to Mr. Haldeman
Mr. R. E. Vandegriff
709 Jackson Street
Fairfield, California
October 15, 1962
Mr. H. R. Haldeman,
Nixon For Governor,
Campaign Director,
3908 Wilshire Blvd.,
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Haldeman:
I hope the Nixon For Governor campaign intends to make liberal use of
radio spot announcements and television shorts, in the closing days of this
gubernatorial campaign, as our finances permit. I am a great believer in the
efficacy of short radio announcements to win the last minute, undecided voter,
just before election day.
Think of the thousands of housewives who listen to radio all day. Here we
have a nominee for governor who has a nationally-known, respected public name, a
pleasing baritone voice, coupled with a positive message for the voters of Calif-
ornia. We can put these basic ingredients together in a political potion which
will decisively win for the Republican cause on November 6th!
Already I have observed a Brown For Governor Television short, the time of
an average commercial. It was rather effective and I want our Republican nominee
to be competitive in this medium, as well. I am sure the opposition will make full
use of radio and I urge that we do likewise. Dick has the voice, let's hear it
on radio by means of transcribed two or three minute messages! Radio and television
should be used especially in bad press areas!
Yours respectfully,
Raymond E. Vandegriff
Postscript: I enclose my latest campaign
issue digest, Edition #8
The Election Vistory Trail
A DIGEST OF CAMPAIGN ISSUES, ARGUMENTS, AND SUGGESTED
POSITIONS FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICES
BY
RAYMOND E. VANDEGRIFF
Public Finance Analyst
Vol. 1, Edition 8
709 Jackson Street, Fairfield, Calif.
October 14, 162
PART I - BIG GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA UNDER 'PAT' BROWN - AN ILLUSTRATION OF ITS GROWING
IMPIGNMENT ON NORMAL BUSINESS RELATIONS, ALONG WITH A PERSISTENT TENDENCY AT
INTERFERENCE WITH THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ALL CALIFORNIANS.
Big Government came of age with the election of Governor Edmund G. Brown in 1958.
The incumbent governor is not only an advocate of the welfare-state, but he is an ardent
believer in Big Government for California and in the proposition that all social and
human problems should be, and are susceptible of solution in the best manner by governmental
action at public expense. No where is this more clearly seen than in the establishment
in 1959 of a public Office of Consumer Counsel by Governor Brown soon after he assumed the
reins of State government. This new government bureau was created by 'Pat' Brown with great
publicity as a unique public welfare service, a corner-stone in the Brown Welfare State
Program, which is labeled "Responsible Liberalism" by his press agents.
The People of California, in this crucial election year, should closely examine the
activities and shift the final product, the results, of this key Brown experiment in welfare-
state paternalism, the Office of the Consumer Counsel, after some three years of its tax
supported existence. Implicit within any such analysis of program and results should be
the fundamental questions and answers as to whether the State of California has a direct
and important responsibility and duty to give public counsel to the mass consumer markets
at all. Second, whether such a direct responsibility, assuming it is one within the proper
role cf the State government, can be effectively implemented by the addition of one more
governmental agency to the great bureaucratic complex and confused disarray of over 300
departments, bureaus, commissions, and boards, which is our State government today. Other
questions necessarily to be answered are if consumer counsel can be dispensed to the public
in a prudent and impartial manner, which is fair to all segments of our competitive, free
enterprise market, and without the presence of questionable ideological content and indoc-
trination. Another question bearing on the worth of this Brown experiment in welfarism is
whether the end product of this public consumer counsel agency, namely consumer information,
is not now available through privately financed news media, such as newspapers, consumers
magazines, the reports of public testing laboratories, their private counterparts, publica-
tions of the Federal Government, trade and producers' associations, or through the activities
of the multiplicity of non-tax, consumer counsels provided by every important public utility,
milling and food processing company in the land.
To strike at the heart of this question of the worth and continuance of this, so-called,
public welfare service, the Consumer Counsel, we. might well doubt that this is a proper, or
important role of the State of California; we should also deny the feasibility of any
public financed "advisory" service to the more than seventeen million consumers of this
State in a multitude of varying and complex consumer markets. The end product of this
Office of Consumer Counsel can be little more than a series of prepared press releases
and reports, which the agency attempts to disseminate to the public through the free and
gratuitous services of privately owned news media, hoping for their publication or broad-
cast.
If placed in true prospective, the Office of Consumer Counsel, like many of Governor
Brown's public welfare and governmental experiments, is little more than a tax supported
public relations effort, run by overly paid public press agents, as window dressing for
the Brown welfare show. The final product of this agency is nothing more than a particular
line of highly selected consumer information and advice, which the Brown Administration or
its patronage appointees wish to promulgate to the California consumer market for political
or non-political purposes. The consume news releases must be limited because private news
media will only publish so much copy from any one governmental agency, due to obvious space
and time limitations. If in preparing these consumer news releases, the Office of Consumer
Counsel makes the usual errors of bureaucrats in failing to determine what is really useful
consumer material for dissemination to the public, and the best manner to obtain public
communication, these errors can render the whole costly "service" of little public consequence.
However, as has been previously intimated, the mere publication of consumer information
and facts in an undigested form is of small, admitted value, for most of this information
is available to the public without cost, and without the so-called services of the Consumer
Counsel. The real goal of this welfare-state agency is to give public instruction and
advice to consumers, organize a pressure and clientele group for itself and the present
administration, and bring the heavy hand of bureaucratic control and regulation into the
free, competitive consumer markets of California, on the specious grounds of preventing
consumer exploitation and marketing duplicity by control of marketing packaging, labeling,
advertising, and credit financing. Such a system of marketing control in the name of the
consumer, at the hands of the State, is completely Un-American, will mean the end to our
free, competitive markets in California, but is a logical extension of the theory of a
Public Consumer Counsel and its supporting welfare-state philosophv of government!
Page #2, Big Government in California Under 'Pat' Brown, continued -
PART I
THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL SHOULD BE ABOLISHED IN 1963 ALONG WITH MANY OTHER MINOR
STATE OFFICES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHICH PERFORM NO DEFINABLE PUBLIC SERVICE, YET AT
GREAT COST TO THE TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA.
In urging the demise of the Office of Consumer Counsel in 1963, Republicans should
stress these facts: (1) the performance record of this costly agency indicates that its
so called service function is really illusory and in fact, the activity of the agency,
its output of publications etc., shows conclusively that it is but an expensive duplication
of well established sources of more authoritative consumer information; (2) an examination
of the consumer message which this tax supported office has tried to convey to the mass
consumer markets of California, shows it to be but a repetition of matters of common
knowledge, styled in the language of a paternalistic bureaucracy; (3) all evidences
indicate that whatever the consumer message, public instructions on marketing, or other
consumer information which this Brown agency has sought to communicate to the public over
the last three years, the communication effort has largely failed, not only because the
consumer releases were stale and second hand information, but also because of poor public
relations techniques employed in the attempted disseminations.
Therefore, Republican candidates can properly conclude that the net accomplishments
and results of this 'Pat' Brown experiment in welfare-state politics, the Office of Con-
sumer Counsel, are nil on the affirmative and productive side of the ledger. On the cost
side, the Brown Administration has obviously wasted in this ill-conceived public relations
experiment in welfarism some $300,000 in public money; in addition, considerable ill-will
and antagonism has been created within retail trade channels, trade associations, and
producer-distributor organizations against the State government because of the actions
of this Office of Consumer Counsel.
A PROPER SOLUTION -
The problem of the unwise buying habits of the individual consumer, if considered a
public problem suitable for governmental action, is certainly a relative one; it waxes and
wanes, depending upon the subjective judgement of the particular observer. There is no
question that buymanship and consumer knowledge can be improved, so that the average con-
sumer receives more product and service for his trade dollar. However, most other import-
ant areas of the lives of individual Californians are similarly susceptible of improvement-
one's marital relations, his program and methods of child rearing, his performance of the
job, his use of leisure time, his health and food habits- to name a few. But query - Are
these areas of primary State responsibility and governmental operations? I certainly hope
not!
The consumer problem, if one exists, is a matter for education and instruction of a
highly personal and individualistic nature. The place for such consumer education is in
the curriculum of the public schools, or through adult education courses, and not through
an ineffective consumer press bureau, attempting to reach a mass consumer market through
news media releases of second-hand information, and biased instruction, which largely
duplicates the work of established and legitimate sources of consumer information and
assistance.
Poor marketing practices, like poor family budgeting, and marital relations, have
been common human failings for ages without number. Their causes are not alone imputable
to individual ignorance and a want of basic education. To suggest that failings of this
sort can be corrected either through the services of a government press bureau or through
government regulations is to ape the totalitarian system-yet is not this the ultimate
promise of the welfare state!
PART. II - THE ALARMING RISE IN STATE DEBT AND THE RATE OF PUBLIC BORROWING UNDER GOVERNOR
'PAT' BROWN!
The State of California has become a bond underwriter's and debtor's paradise under
Governor "Pat! Brown and his free spending, debt financing administration. Since Brown
took over in 1959, the State debt has more than doubled. The authorized California State
debt has now exceeded the six billion dollar mark, even though Californians are still
paying for the First Highway Bonds of 1909 and for our original State office buildings,
together with the Tenth Olympiad Bonds which built the Los Angeles Coliseum.
Debt service cost the people of California some $55,600,000 in fiscal 1960-1961, while
in fiscal 1961-1962, the cost of servicing the mounting State debt jumped to $64,120,000.
Governor Brown has evidenced no great concern about our rising State debt total, nor about
the astronomical amount of public borrowing which his administration has approved. He is
apparently only concerned about maintaining maximum government spending 'outlays; and, when
it becomes impolitic to tax the people more to pay for the rising level of government
spending, as in election years, the incumbent governor is eager to sponsor multiple bond
issues and to promote their public approval with tax money by government press agents.
It is fortunate for California that many of the Brown approved bond issues remain
unissued, SO that a new administration will have an opportunity to make an objective study
of the projects they are intended to finance, as to both engineering and financial feasi-
bility, prior to any public sale and addition to the outstanding debt of the State of Calif-
ornia. A new State Governor and administration will be able to restore California to its
historic modified, pay-as.you-go program of financing State construction projects from
current revenues instead of through bond financing and public borrowing. In pre-Brown days
State bond issues were a rarity, now we have not one but four separate issues presented
in election years. The people of California should be gravely concerned about the rising
State debt for California is well on its way to become the State with the highest per capita
debt in the nation. As the debt total mounts so will the fixed costs of State government!
A new Republican governor will chase the debt mongers out of Sacramento & end govt. by borrowing
709 Jackson Street, Fairfield
October 4, 1962
Mr. H. R. Haldeman,
Campaign Manager,
Nixon For Governor,
3908 Wilshire Blvd.,
Los Angeles 5, California
Dear Mr. Haldeman:
It is apparent to me, at this stage of the present gubernatorial campaign,
that the two winning campaign techniques for Dick Nixon will be: (1) the telethons,
and (2) face to face, informal meetings with as many California voters as possible
in their places of employment, in shopping centers, picnics, conventions, etc.
Too much reliance cannot be placed on press coverage and endorsements by the
metropolitan dailies of California, judging from the very biased, distorted, anti-
Nixon news copy, prepared by the working press, which supposedly described the
Nixon-Brown encounter in San Francisco on October first. To read the press re-
porting of this confrontation, one would have thought that Pat Brown won with
ease and that the major point of discussion was the Hughes loan. I have been
told that a majority of the working press (reportorial staff) at the great news
bureaus, and even on pro-Republican newspapers, are Democrats, or anti-Nixon,
for some reason, but, heretofore, I had not believed it.
Mr. Haldeman, it seems from my vantage point that very few pro-Nixon news
stories (either based upon your news releases or the reported descriptions of
Mr. Nixon's campaign travels and statements) are appearing in the dailies that I
read here in Sacramento and Solano Counties. I hope this is not the case with
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, the many California weeklies, and, of course,
the Los Angeles dailies.
The telethons, in my estimation, will be most important to the success of
our Republican nominee, in overcoming either biased press coverage or lack of
press coverage. Dick Nixon does these well and I urge that they be planned
closely for maximum, sustained viewer interest and for dramatic effect. In
this regard, has the possibility and appropriateness of the "vacant chair"
technique been considered for the Nixon telethons. By this I mean, having a
vacant chair and desk, with name plate, "Governor Pat Brown", shown to the
television audience from time to time, with our Republican nominee explaining
that they are reserved for the use of Mr. Brown, who has been invited to be
present, free of charge, on this program with me, to answer public questions
on the conduct of his office, as a public service.
I think such a staging, if well prepared and conducted with proper dignity
and sincerity, would be most beneficial. It would help keep before the public
mind the fact that Dick Nixon stands ready to debate the issues and problems of
California, face-to-face with the incumbent, for all the people of California to
witness, but that Mr. Brown is unwilling to do so, either with or without notes
to help him. We must continue to press this issue of lack of political courage
on the part of the incumbent governor, as well as that of indecisive leadership.
Page 2
On another matter, the Democrat incumbent seems to be trying to build up
an effective counter-challenge to ours of promising a cut in State public
expenditures if a Nixon administration is installed in Sacramento. This Brown
counter-challenge is directed at where the planned cuts are to be made. Our
side should be working on a definite meeting of this effort to force our nominee
on the defensive with respect to this expenditure issue. I plan to start work
soon on this matter and will present the results of my analysis and research to
the nominee and his campaign managers.
Yours respectfully,
Raymond E. Vandegrift
Han
1.4.1
709 Jackson Street
Farrheld, California
Sep October,
mr. H.R. Holdeman
nigon For bovernor Campaign manager
3908 Wilshire Blvd.
Losangeles, California
Dear Tnr. Haldeman:
Enclosed you will find my latest digest on campaign
issues affecting the governatorial base. I certainly hope
they have been of value to the Injurn For Governos campaig
The tempo of the campaign now teems to be shifting
into high gear with the Republican nominee running
neck and heak with the Democrat insurant and
approximately ten per cent of the voters still undesided
Mr. Nixon scoreda major triumph over bovernor
Brown in the radio-tetevision joint appearance of today.
It will lend chedence to the nixon side on why the
heralded debates folded - Brown is clearly nomatch for
Dick highn and shows up as the second rater he is when
the two are open to public comparison in a face to face
encounter. Please continue the debate challenge to the
eve of the election! Why not musts Brown to appear on
the television broadcasts and even offer to send a car to pick
him up ? The California voter resents a scared politician
who refuses to face aig opponent even if his public
speaking talents are inferior
2
you might be interested in knowing that Bob Powers
that a reliable telephone poll of Democrats in the Courtland
of the Vacaville, hut Tree Powers, told me only yesterday
(fachamento) area revealed that twenty -five per sent
wereplanning to vote for Tripon. Bale says this is exactly
what we need in this area because of the registration
diversity. However, this is good news for Sacramento
County which has always been a weak spot for the
Republicans, because of weak party organizations and
the strong influence of the The Clatohy Publications.
We are opening a Fairfield nixon Headquarterson
the main street (best location in town) of this 20,000
population city. already the Infon activity is picking
up even though we don't officially open until
tonight at 8 PM.
I see where the California Poll says Frigon is
weakest in northern and Central California, while
running well in southern California Can this weakness
be corrested prior to november 6 th? d hope so.
We are know the size of the Los angeles vote, but the
San Francisco Oakland and fashamento areas have
at least One half the for angeles County vote and must
not be negleated!
Cordially yours,
Ray Bendequift
A DIGEST OF CAMPAIGN ARGUMENTS, AND SUGGESTED
The Election Victory Trail
POSITIONS FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICES
BY
RAYMOND E. VANDEGRIFF
Public Finance Analyst
Vol. 1, Edition 6
709 Jackson Street, Fairfield, Calif.
Sept 29, 1962
THE STORY BEHIND THE DETERIORATION OF OUR BUSINESS CLIMATE IN CALIFORNIA UNDER PAT BROWN!
Under Governor Pat Brown industrial growth in California has been confined almost
exclusively to government subsidized, and created, defense industries, such as aero-
space, missile, and allies, with a sharp decline in the rate of expansion of California's
permanent, non-government, industrial plant. While Californians welcome these massive
Federal Government expenditures which have made our Golden State the aero-space center for
the nation, business and political leaders, economists and thoughtful citizens alike are
rightly concerned with the growing one-sided development of the California industrial base,
with its increased lack of diversification, with its over-dependence on Federal defense
spending, and with the awesome economic and employment conversion problems in store for
California and its citizens, when the Congress inevitably tightens the Federal purse strings,
orders a reallocation of missile research and production contracts, or there is a general
slow down, phase out of the various aero-space and missile programs.
Today, California is doing 41% of the rocket research, development, and testing for
the Department of Defense. In addition, our aero-space industry has been awarded 23.9% of
the prime, defense contracts for the production of missiles and rocket weaponry. It appears
that upwards of twenty-five percent of our work force is employed in the direct execution
of Federal government defense contracts, This is fine for now, but what of the future!
Since the aero-space, missile, and allied industries are the products of government
enterprise, and but a small portion of it can be considered as a permanent part of the
industrial plant of California, the leaders of our state, in business, labor and government,
hould commence a united effort to correct this growing imbalance in our industrial base by
stimulating the expansion and/or migration of permanent, diversified, private enterprise
within and into California. This is absolutely essential if our State is to permanently
support a population, the size of New York State's, at the traditional California standard
of living.
If we think of the job opportunities alone that must be provided for a population
of some 18 millions in California by 1963, increasing at the rate of 600,000 per year, we
must put it down that one of the primary responsibilities of our California State Government
and its administration is the creation of a Sound Business Environment, one which facilitates
the economic development of the Golden State by private enterprise.
HOW CALIFORNIA HAS LOST ITS ONCE FAVORABLE INVESTMENT CLIMATE FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE?
Just as the President, the policies of the national administration, and the tenor of
the Congress plays so large a part in determining the national business atmosphere, so do
their equivalents at the State level of government. There is no question but that the
taxing, spending and administrative policies of the Governor of California, as implemented
or distorted by the State Legislature, largely establishes the prevailing climate for
business activity and enterprise in California. Recognizing the great influence which the
state administration exercises over the business investment and expansion climate in Calif-
ornia, it is appropriate in an election year to examine the record of the Brown administra-
tion on this vital state responsibility. We know that Governor Brown inherited a state
reputation for an unmatched climate for business expansion, new plant location, and private
capital investment in 1958 - the question before the people of California is "What did
Governor Brown do to California's Nationally Acclaimed Business Investment Reputation?"
Reviewing the past four years, it is apparent that the Golden State has experienced a
declining rated of industrial expansion in non-government, non-subsidized, private industry.
Our lagging industrialization is attributable to a number of factors but all generally
describable under the heading - a worsening or deteriorating Climate for private business
in California. Although incumbent Governor Pat Brown has denied publicly the Republican
charges that California is Becoming a "bone yard for business" or that any actions of his
administration, during the past four years, have caused a slow down in the industrial growth
of California or in our state's attraction of private investments for capital expansion,
the facts seem to refute the apologetic defense of the governor and belie his assertion that
"California has a good business climate". Aero-space expansion between 1959-1962, due to
Federal government defense contracts, will not be accepted by the people of California that
our business climate is good, or even acceptable, in this state. They will not "buy" the
Brown subterfuge on this business climate issue of the present gubernatorial campaign.
In the nature of things, a public welfare oriented, "hand out" of public funds, state
administration, such as that of Governor Pat Brown, cannot possibly give this state a good
business climate. The people of California have enough business sense to know, if Brown
does not, that a "tax-spend-tax more" philosophy of government repels private investment
and will in time turn this state into an industrial bone yard and a financial wreck!
The State of California obviously does not have a good business climate for private
enterprise migration or expansion, when it calls upon our businesses and industries to
pay the highest state taxes per investment and per profit dollar in the nation, has the
Vol. 1, Edition 6, The Election Victory Trail, Business Climate
(continued)
greatest number of costly State reports to prepare and file on business activities, the
largest number of State bureaucrats to contend with, more State regulatory agencies to
satisfy, and over 300,000 people drawing unemployment or idleness benefits out of a State
trust fund, supported by an employment or payroll tax on California business, where the
disbursement rate is over two and one half times the amount of receipts per year, and
where workmen's compensation premium rates have had to be increased twice in less than
four years because of the ultra liberal benefit policies of the Brown appointed State
Industrial Accident Commission.
AN ENLIGHTENED SOCIAL WELFARE MEASURE, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, TURNED INTO A"GIVE AWAY"
PROGRAM BY THE BROWN APPOINTED STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
Under the first two years of the Pat Brown administration, Workmen's Compensation
payments have increased 32% from $119,087,000 per year in 1958 to $156,979,000 in 1960.
These monetary benefits do not come into the hands of the State Compensation Insurance
Fund, or the funds of private insurers, from the thin air, but, rather in the form of
insurance premiums or fees .for compensation coverage of employees, while on the job.
Naturally, compensation insurance premiums must be considered as one of the many over-
head costs of doing business in California. And, as the compensation insurance rates
go up, as they have under the administration of Governor Brown, such costs must be shifted
to the consumers of California business in the form of price increases.
Needless to say, a 32% increase in compensation benefits paid out by the State of
California alone, in addition to that paid by private compensation insurers at the direc-
tion of the State Industrial Accident Commission, is cause for alarm within California
business, investment, and industrial circles. This is so because, compensation costs of
such magnitude as these, form an important item in the costs of manufacturing, selling,
and distributing goods in California, and, if our compensation benefit payments and
rates are disproportionately higher than in other states, California business and indus-
try is put at a competitive disadvantage, with further industrial and commercial growth
of our State discouraged.
The theory of our workmen's compensation legislation, which was set up in 1914,
under the Republican-Progressive Governor, Hiram W. Johnson, is that the Industrial
Accident Commission will stand guard over the California Compensation Insurance Fund and
the funds of private compensation insurance companies, to prevent their dissipation and
protect California business and industry from having abnormally high compensation costs.
The gubernatorial appointed Accident Commission provides protection against excessive
withdrawals and raids on the compensation funds, mandatorily built up by California
business and industry, by refusing to approve doubtful claims, setting reasonable awards
for cases with merit, and establishing various benefit control policies.
The outstanding failure of the Brown appointed State Industrial Accident Commission
to properly protect California business and industry from excessive compensation costs
is seen not only in the 32% increase in compensation payments within two years' time,
but in the comparative fact that California business pays one-third again more benefits
each year than do the States of Pennsylvania and Illinois combined, and our compensation
benefit payments are about the same as those of the State of New York, the leading
industrial and business state in the nation. It appears without question that business
and industry in California is carrying a much greater compensation cost burden than
exists in other leading, industrial states, and that these abnormal increases in compensa-
tion costs are due to the Brown appointed Industrial Accident Commission, which has
seemingly turned inself into a give away agency for the disbursement of California's
public and private compensation funds, all of which must be replenished by substantial
increases in the costs of doing business within this state. Such is the status of the
business climate in California!
MOST STATE AGENCIES AND COMMISSIONS UNDER GOVERNOR BROWN ARE ANTI-BUSINESS IN POLICY!
It is now the commonly held view by the leaders of the California business community
that businessmen and employer groups cannot win appeals before such important state
commissions as the Industrial Accident Commission, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Board, the Labor Commission, and most other state regulatory agencies, possessing quasi
judicial powers. The reason given is that Governor Pat Brown has doliberately weighted
these vital state commission against business interests by his partisan packing of these
supposedly non-partisan or bi-partisan commissions, with his organized labor supporters
and anti-business cronies, who delight in the substantial yearly salaries which many of
these commissionerships carry. Today, business influence and cost protection within most
Brown appointed commissions and agencies are virtually nil, notwithstanding the fact that
business pays the bills for these public benefit programs.
OUR DETERIORATING BUSINESS CLIMATE IN CALIFORNIA MUST BE IMPROVED BY NEW GUBERNATORIAL
LEADERSHIP AND FAIR PLAY TO BUSINESS FOR THE CONTINUED INDUSTRIALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA.
The major causes of our growing inhospitable climate for business investment and
expansion in California can be summarized as follows. There has been a crying lack of
executive leadership in protecting and promoting the interests of California business by
our incumbent governor. He has permitted a growing bureaucratic harrassment of business,
through over regulation and excessive reporting and state interference with management
decisions and prerogatives. He has failed to obtain fair railroad freight rates for
California industry, failed to act in our depressed lumber and mining industries. In order
to carry out his welfare (vote buying) policies, he has imposed the highest state taxes on
California business in history. We conclude that Brown has damaged our business climate!