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:
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Law Enforment" tab. 8 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Recreation and Parks" tab. 5 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Taxes" tab. 5 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Water" and "Welfare" tabs. 6 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Nixon" tab. 3 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Brown" tab. 16 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "California Facts and Figures" tab. 4 pages. [Report], n.d.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26128139
label
WHSF: Returned, 64-8
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26128139
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 64-8
description
This file contains:
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Law Enforment" tab. 8 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Recreation and Parks" tab. 5 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Taxes" tab. 5 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Water" and "Welfare" tabs. 6 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Nixon" tab. 3 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Brown" tab. 16 pages. [Report], n.d.
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "California Facts and Figures" tab. 4 pages. [Report], n.d.
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
26128139
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f9fdf413476323a6
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date Document Type
Document Description
64
8
n.d.
Report
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob
Haldeman by the Republican Research
Center. "Law Enforment" tab. 8 pages.
64
8
n.d.
Report
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob
Haldeman by the Republican Research
Center. "Recreation and Parks" tab. 5 pages.
64
8
n.d.
Report
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob
Haldeman by the Republican Research
Center. "Taxes" tab. 5 pages.
64
8
n.d.
Report
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob
Haldeman by the Republican Research
Center. "Water" and "Welfare" tabs. 6 pages.
64
8
n.d.
Report
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob
Haldeman by the Republican Research
Center. "Nixon" tab. 3 pages.
64
8
n.d.
Report
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob
Haldeman by the Republican Research
Center. "Brown" tab. 16 pages.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Page 1 of 2
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
64
8
n.d.
Report
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob
Haldeman by the Republican Research
Center. "California Facts and Figures" tab. 4
pages.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Page 2 of 2
LAW ENFORCEMENT
REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
1 August 1962
CRIME IN CALIFORNIA
THE CRIMINAL RECORD:
Lawlessness Skyrockets
Under Brown and Mosk !
Between 1954, the end of Pat Brown's first term as Attorney General, and
January 1, 1959, when he became Governor, crime in California shot up by
55 per cent. During the same period the population only went up 18 %.
Narcotics offenses shot up astronomically, especially among juveniles,
and California became a national leader in the FBI's rankings, not only
for the amount of crime, but for the rate (per 100,000 people) major crimes
were committed.
With this kind of background, you might conclude that when he became
governor Brown might attempt to provide legislative aid for hard-
working local law enforcement officers. But, in 1959, his Democrat
legislature ran up a perfect score in killing crime-control bills.
Of fifteen measures introduced to aid law enforcement, including
stronger penalties for dope peddlers, not one passed into law!
Today Brown and Mosk boast of a 1.4 % drop in the crime rate in 1961, but
during Brown's term as governor (1959--1961), felony crimes reported have
risen 26.7 %, while the population has risen only 11 %. According to Mosk's
own figures, adult arrests for major crimes were up 24 %, while juvenile
arrests were up 17.8 %.
Today, California's crime rate is the highest of all the states, except
for sparsely-populated Nevada. There were about the same number of major
crimes committed in California in 1961 as in New York, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania combined. And those three states contain better than double
our population.
Among states in our population class, California stands first by a very
wide margin:
II
MAJOR CRIME RATE 1961
II
II California
1928 per 100,000 population
II
Illinois
1696
"
"
"
"
"
"
u
II Michigan
1228
"
"
"
"
"
"
II
Texas
1125
"
"
"
"
"
"
=
= New York
1066
"
"
"
"
"
"
и Ohio
762
11
"
"
"
"
"
II Pennsylvania
654
"
"
"
"
"
"
II
NATIONAL AVERAGE 1052
"
II
"
"
"
"
"
II
* FBI categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
grand theft, and auto theft.
According to Mosk, the State Isn't Concerned with Crime!
On October 9, 1961, in a speech in Los Angeles, Mosk blamed the recent
rise in unprovoked attacks upon policemen on "the lag of both local and
national government in meeting the problems of ever-growing urbanization,"
the breakdown of general moral and family standards, minority group inte-
gration and assimilation and a general revolt against authority. Note in
the direct quote that he apparently considers state government to be blame-
less! In hitting out at the cause of lack of respect for police authority
and the rise in violence, Mosk also failed to mention the dedicated efforts
of a legislative leader of his party, John O'Connell (San Francisco), chair-
man of the Assembly's Criminal Procedures Committee.
On April 4, 1961, this committee considered an O'Connell measure
which would have removed restrictions on persons who resist arrest
if it is later proved that this arrest was not "lawful", certainly
a difficult thing to determine on a street corner. Speaking for the
District Attorney's Association against the bill, a deputy district
attorney of Alameda County said it was "an invitation to resist
arrest--with violence--on the legal nicety of an unlawful arrest."
The committee approved the bill anyway and sent it to the Assembly floor
with a "do pass" recommendation. It died nonetheless, but good insight into
trends among "far-out" Democrats may be seen in other O'Connell bills which
even his own committee refused to approve:
(1) restrict an officer's authority to search a person for con-
cealed weapons! (2) restrict the authority of the officer to make
a misdemeanor arrest for an offense not committed in his presence,
and (3) require an officer to show a warrant to the arrested per-
son within two hours of the arrest.
Warnings Ignored
In 1959, a Rackets Subcommittee of the Assembly, and the Joint Juci-
ciary Committee on the Administration of Justice, both warned of increasing
criminal activity within the state in reports filed with the Legislature.
The Joint Committee said "there is every indication that an advance guard
of eastern hoodlums and Mafia members--men who know how to organize the
narcotics traffic, and bookmaking, prostitution and rackets--is here seeking
a foothold."
Brown labeled the rackets report "irresponsible" and a "waste of the
taxpayers' money. How "irresponsible" the report was may be judged by the
fact that in the interim several of the active gangsters mentioned have
been indicted and convicted of crimes ranging from extortion and murder to
income tax evásion.
Today under Brown and his legislative followers there is no rackets
committee, joint judiciary committee, or state crime commission, all of
which were created during Republican administrations.
AMMUNITION !
from
The Research Center,
REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
A REALLY "HEROIN" STORY
Straight Dope on Governor Brown and Our New Narcotics Law!
On Thursday, May 4, amid a fanfare of sycophantic Democrat approbation, Governor
Brown signed into law the Regan-Dills Act providing stiffer penalties for narcotics
offenders; he--or his writer--saying:
"For the first time in its 99 year struggle against the dope traf-
fic, California has put together a comprehensive, effective and
strong code of penalties to strike at this illicit traffic."
What Brown failed to mention was that for the last eleven of those ninety-nine years
he has been in a position to do something about our disreputable dope laws, but has
dragged his feet in the face of demands for stronger penalty bills.
"STRICTLY AN OVERDUE BILL"
The Regan-Dills Act is good legislation. It passed the Senate unanimously in its
final form, and the Assembly concurred 69 to 3. But the measure was strictly an
"overdue" bill, at least one year, and probably two years, later than necessary.
There is nothing so complex in the new law (see below) that it could not have been
hammered out during last year's budget session (for which the Governor sets the
agenda). Brown found time on the docket for such earth-shakingly urgent items as
"dues of the bar association", "formation of new library districts", and "the testing
of the juice of fresh grapes"
...
but had no time for narcotics.
NEEDED
...
A political "shot in the arm".
Now, haunted by the ghosts of the 1960 primary and general election defeats, Brown
has turned to tough narcotics laws for a political shot in the arm counting on
the pitifully short memories of the electorate and eight-column headlines to erase
certain hard cold facts:
1
during eight years as Attorney General he stood
by doing nothing while juvenile narcotics crime
rose 877 per cent.
2
in two years as Governor-in the face of action
by other states and the federal government in
fixing stronger penalties and reducing narcotics
offenses--he fought against passage of stronger
penalty bills.
Sacramento: Rm. 421, State Capitol Los Angeles: 315 W. Ninth, L.A. 15
Don C. Frey,
GI 3-6801
MA 8-5291
Research Director
3
while the U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics called
California laws "the weak link in the chain of
all the states", Brown refused the requests of
hundreds of civic clubs and law enforcement
officials, and his own legislature, to place a
penalty bill on the agenda of the 1960 session.
IS THE DIFFERENCE WORTH OVER TWO YEARS OF "Thinking"?
In signing the Regan-Dills Act, Brown said:
"Our splendid legislators have responded magnificently to this
call, and as governor I am pleased with the thought ful product
which we bring to life today." (underlining ours)
Now, what we'd like to know is why this bill is so much more "thoughtful" than the
1959 Dills Bill (AB 2727), which Brown opposed and had killed in the administration-
dominated Senate Rules Committee that year. Compare the penalty provisions of the
present act and the 1959 proposal below.
Is the difference worth two years of "thinking"?
Is the difference so great that a little work by the Governor's office,
especially during his "honeymoon" 1959 session, couldn't have produced
an acceptable bill?
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE REGAN-DILLS ACT & 1959's AB 2727 COMPARED
(for Narcotics other than Marijuana)
Category
1961 Regan-Dills Act
1959 AB 2727 (Dills)
Possession
2 to 10 years
2 to 10 years
Illegal Sale
1st Offense
5 years to life
5 to 20 years
2nd Offense
10 years to life
10 to 40 years
Sale to Minor
10 years to life
10 years to life
Probation?
None except first offenders.
None except first offenders
(none for sellers to minors)
On a recent TV interview Brown blasted our publicity director for calling him "soft on
narcotics". All right, in the light of his signature of the Regan-Dills Act he is no
longer soft
just slow. And knowing Pat Brown as we do, THIS we can understand!
LEST WE (and others) FORGET! GOP ACTION
Even with all the Governor's high-sounding language and the final concurrence of
administration leaders--followers of this legislature will remember an attempt by
Brown's leadership--including Jesse Unruh--to send the bill into an unfriendly assembly
committee on February 15.
This was only defeated by the solid opposition of 33 assembly Republicans who picked up
enough Democrat support to keep the bills in the Public Health Committee. Given the
chance, out of the publicity spotlight on the assembly floor, administration leaders
would have come up with considerably softer bill.
(see Ammo #2)
THE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
1 August 1962
CRIME AND NARCOTICS
THE SEQUEL TO " A HEROIN STORY "
A Tough Narcotics Law in Action
In 1960, despite a continuous rise in the narcotics crime rate, despite
pleas from law enforcement, civic and church groups, despite deaths in
Los Angeles County highschools, Pat Brown steadfastly refused to make a
tough narcotics penalty law a subject for action in the special session
of the legislature.
On March 29, 1960, he said:
"We know from long experience that stiffer sentences do
not necessarily curb serious crime."
And on April 4, 1960:
"I have had over sixteen years experience in this field
as district attorney, attorney general, and now governor.
I know that simply enacting further increases in penalties
or restrictions would not rid us of this menace."
Of course, no one was saying that stiffer penalties were the sole answer
to the problem. Brown's critics were simply pointing to the fact that
stiffer penalties had materially reduced the narcotics crime rate in Ohio,
Illinois and other states, and California had an addict problem which was
rapidly assuming menacing proportions. But Brown remained unconvinced, as
he had in 1959, and for eight years as Attorney General.
He did, however, to no one's surprise, appoint a commission to study the
problem. And when, again to no one's surprise, except possibly his own,
the commission recommended stronger penalties, Pat Brown finally decided
to move. Cynics say that the defeat of at least one state senator on this
issue and heavy election pressure in the 1960 campaign may also have had
something to do with his decision.
In any event, on January 31, 1961, he stated:
"We propose harsher penalties for narcotics offenders--so
that for the peddler, the profit will not be worth the risk."
And in 1961, we finally got the Regan-Dills Act. The results:
In 1961, Attorney General Mosk's figures show an EIGHTEEN
PER CENT DROP in the rate of adult felony narcotics arrests.
While narcotics offenses were the category of crime with the
largest increase in the period from 1959 to 1960, they were
the category with the largest decrease in 1960 to 1961.
Sec. Examiner Thursday, Feb. 16, 1961 CCCC*
Gain in Fight for
Tougher Dope Laws
By SYDNEY KOSSEN
Fresno, made a motion to
by Assemblyman Clayton
Examiner Capitol Bureau
withdraw two bills from the
Dills, Democrat of Gardena,
SACRAMENTO, Feb. 15.-
Public Health Committee and
with strong backing by the
Advocates of tougher Califor-
refer them for hearing, in-
Los Angeles County Board of
nia narcotics laws won their
stead, to the Criminal Pro-
Supervisors.
first floor battle in the State
cedures Committee.
MORE STRINGENT
Assembly today.
DeLotto lost. A few hours
DeLotto noted that a num-
THE WIRE
Some viewed it as a defeat
later the Public Health Com-
ber of other narcotics meas-
"He certainly has had plen-
h
for the Brown administra-
mittee approved the bills and
ures were scheduled for hear-
tion.
ty of opportunity to meet
St
sent them back to the House
ing next month in the Crimi-
with a lot of people on the
mu
It started on an innocent-
for final debate at a later
nal Procedures Committee,
problem. Now we are up to
sounding note. Assemblyman
date.
which is headed by San Fran-
the wire."
Bert DeLotto, Democrat of
The bills were introduced
cisco Democrat John A.
"The real issue," declared
O'Connell.
Los Angeles Democrat Jesse
DeLotto said Assembly
Unruh, often an administra-
da
They Gotta Go So
speaker Ralph Brown had,
tion spokesman, "is not to kill
therefore, mistakenly sent
dr
the bills but to put them in a
the Dills bills which are
committee made up of fair
W
State Budget Waits
more stringent than the oth-
minded persons just like the
ers to the Public Health
rest of us on this floor."
Committee.
DeLotto, seeing the tide
fl
SACRAMENTO, Feb. 15-(UPI)-"Coffee breaks are
Assemblyman Bruce F. Al-
running against him, request-
costing California about $75,000,000 a year," Senator
len, Republican of San Jose,
ed permission to withdraw his
Randolph Collier, Democrat of Yreka. commented today
who is a co-author of the
motion but was turned down
in a committee hearing on the State budget.
Dills bills, argued:
32-44.
"I also understand that male office employes go
"The real purpose of the
Then recognizing imminent
to the bathroom at least six times a day, on the aver-
motion and the effect of it
defeat, Unruh signalled his
age," he added.
would be to defeat the nar-
on
Democratic colleagues for a
"We've made some preliminary studies which in-
cotics bills by bottling them
his
strategic withdrawal and on
dicate a direct correlation between the two kinds of
up in an unfriendly commit-
59
the final vote the bills stayed
time-off," said Legislative Analyst A. Alan Post, an
tee.
in the Public Health Commit-
efficiency expert.
"The issue is whether you
tee by a tally of 73 to 3.
At this point in the hearing, Senator Richard
want any bill at all or wheth-
The "no" votes were cast
Richards, Democrat of Los Angeles, suggested, "It's
er you want them killed in
by Democrats Phillip Burton,
time for a break."
committee."
San Francisco; Ronald Brooks
The lawmakers and audience, mostly State em-
Assemblyman Jack Beaver.
Cameron, Los Angeles Coun-
ployes, headed in two directions-for the coffee shop
Republican of Redlands, said
ty, and James R. Mills, San
and the men's room.
he saw Democratic Governor
Diego.
Brown's influence in the
In the committee hearing,
strategy.
an amendment was added
Day in Sacramento
"The Governor is looking
calling for even stiffer sen-
for an opportunity to gel
tence for narcotics offenders
The Associated Press
some ideas how to meet the
than Dills had contemplated.
than
Hegland. Demo-
narcotics problem and that
andidate
one reason this is being done
here today said Beaver
Politics Today
fa
tl
pc
Demos Are KO'd
livil
wee
In Floor Fight
to a
-TI
By JACK S. McDOWELL
he
News-Call Bulletin Political Editor
the
SACRAMENTO, Feb. 16-Certainly the most spectacular
Pr
foad
-and possibly the most important-action of the 1961
Legislature occurred in the Assembly yesterday.
I
and
The varsity team of the
cient administration team
desir
administration Democrats
safet
threw all the muscle they had
didn't have all the players
into a floor fight
coached. And the leaders
Co
-and were kay-
new
misjudged the touchiness of
oed.
might
Assem b lyman
the dope-peddling issue.
ratios
Jesse Unruh, big
THE REPUBLICANS
in eff
EESON
daddy of the
moved in for the kill-with
reven
Democratic war-
which
all of their own members
TH
riors, led the
hey can
and 10 Democrats. They beat
are ta
sh for
charge person-
the Democratic leaders at
rathe
ally and probably
McDOWELL
every turn-and wouldn't
tem is
wishes he had stood in bed.
has no
even'let them give up with-
Ca
patient
The defeat was bad enough
out the agony of a recorded
nance
in view of the Democratic
ards feel
rollcall. Now they face a
oblige
brodding
majority in the Assembly.
recorded vote on the bills
would
ways, po-
The whole thing began
themselves.
explos
tably, but
over a couple of bills to put
GOP morale zoomed and
Pierce
ich he can
tougher penalties on the
Gov. Brown's legislative
SS experi-
books for narcotics violators.
backfield huddled in gloom.
adminis-
A number of Democrats who
Butrealistic Republicans
favor stiffer dope laws com-
weren't dancing in the street.
When
plain that these measures—
They know Unruh is a
Editor
appear
by Assemblyman Clayton
this junc-
tough, crafty warrior. They
the area
Dills (D-Gardena)-are too
traditional
expect he'll try to offset yes-
injustice
severe to be workable.
ership. in
terday's damage-in spades.
tributions
Irea, some
THE BILLS have the
They know the Assembly
Guy
relation-
zealous backing of some im-
still has a Democratic major-
"Here's
intrude
ity.
which ap
portant civic groups and
ed pattern
But the Republicans also
His SO
received a "do pass" from
and effi-
know that they have some
utter gibl
the Assembly public health
rollcall records that can be
God h
committee yesterday after-
used against the Democrats
readers
gor of the
noon. Unruh knew they'd
in the next elections.
about wh
ne Presi-
be about
come sailing out of there—
nism.
and they did. Unanimously.
Until
sidential
to sug-
To avoid having many
in self-
te and
Democratic troops on record
Views on
many
line. It
as voting against tough dope
is not
laws, Unruh led an attempt
The News
res to
to take the bills away from
com-
the public health committee,
By DAN KIDNEY
headed by Assemblyman
President Kennedy's
vily
Byron Rumford (D-Berke-
time press conferer
ging
ley) and reassign them to
develop a new typ
on
the criminal procedures com-
ington reporter
ne
mittee of Assemblyman John
gets his news
e
O'Connell (D-SF). Their
TV.
death would be certain there.
Astronomi
0-
But things went real
nus looks
wrong. The normally-effi-
fooled by
Crocodi
RECREATION & PARKS
AMMUNITION !
1. BROWN VETOES STATE PARK
from
CONCESSIONAIRE CONTROL BILL
2. A REALLY "BURNING" ISSUE
The Research Center,
REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
August 31, 1961
Governor's "Indian Sign" Blazes Trail To
More "Squaw Valley Massacres" Of Taxpayers !
Buried among the many bills vetoed by Governor Brown after the close of the legisla-
tive session was SB 268 (J. Howard Williams, R-Porterville), which was designed to
close a glaring loophole in the arrangements by which the State Department of Natural
Resources lets contracts to concessionaires in state parks. The law was proposed
because of a "series of somewhat questionable and unorthodox procedures"* followed by
the department in letting a contract for the operation of Squaw Valley State Park.
"Questionable and unorthodox" puts it very tactfully indeed. The
department apparently let the contract for an area in which the
state had invested over twelve million dollars with no more con-
cern than you might in reaching an agreement for operating a hot
dog stand at Dockweiler Beach.
SB 268 stipulated that competitive bidding be required on all concessionaire agree-
ments lasting for more than five years. The measure passed both the Assembly and the
Senate unanimously, and if ever a law was needed it was this one ...
the record of
bureaucratic bungling and worse in negotiating the Squaw Valley State Park contract--
as revealed in the official report of the Senate Fact Finding Committee on Natural
Resources is well nigh unbelieveable.
Background on Squaw Valley: As you may recall, Squaw Valley was the site of the 1960
Winter Olympic Games. In bringing the games to California, the state invested a total
of $12,250,000
certainly a sizeable chunk of the taxpayers money
in
development and promotion, under an arrangement which turned over all assets to the
state for a park at the close of the Olympics.
"An athletic but not a financial success."
The games were an athletic but not a financial success. At their
close the state received assets valued at $6,997,000--a net loss of
"only" $5,253,000. This is not bad as such things go. Olympics
aren't supposed to make money, and the Italian government reputedly
dropped some $14 million in staging the previous winter games at
Cortina in 1956.
* quote from the report of the Senate Fact Finding Committee on Natural Resources
315 West 9th Street, L. A. 15
Don C. Frey
MAdison 8-5291
Research Director
With the close of the games, control of the Squaw Valley State Park area passed
into the hands of the Department of Natural Resources, and specifically into the
purview of the Division of Beaches and Parks headed by Charles A. DeTurk. Against
the wishes of the legislature, as stated in the senate report, DeTurk and his
department entered into a contract which, among other things:
bound the state for 27 years, but allowed the conces-
sionaires to get out whenever they liked.
committed the state to expenditures of some $300,000 a
year in the area for an undetermined number of years.
Even more incredible, as reported by the senate committee, there were
at least five responsible prospective concessionaires offering BETTER
TERMS to the state than those who were awarded the contract.
Now just how do you get a contract when others are offering better terms? We don't
know, but one reason may be that one of the recipients*, William A. Newsom, was in
the employ of the state at the time in a $17,000-a-year job; and, according to
Capitol News Service 2/24/61, is "a friend and former appointee of Governor
Edmund G. Brown!"
Senators Join in Blunt BIPARTISAN Criticism
At committee hearings on Williams' bill to require open competitive bidding on
contracts of this type in the future, there was blunt bi-partisan criticism of
the Squaw Valley affair. Republican Williams, as chairman of the fact finding
committee, was scathing enough:
"It is my personal opinion that they seemed to have one man in
mind that they wanted the contract to go to and they by-passed
everyone else
it looks kind of fishy to me."
But it took a Democrat, in this case Sam Geddes (Napa), to say what everyone was
thinking:
"We don't need people in state employ that write contracts
like that, giving away all the rights of the people. This was
really a fast shuffle job -- done under the table."
BROWN COVERS UP FOR HIS BUNGLING BUREAUCRATS
The heat was on, unquestionably, but Governor Brown seems to have a positive genius
for discovering outside "experts" to whitewash crises of this type. Within two
weeks of the submission of the Senate Report, Sterling Cramer, a Democrat and con-
troller of the Yosemite Park Company, reported to the Governor that the agreement
was "as good a contract as the state could have obtained." It may be coincidental,
but nine days following the submission of his statement, Cramer was appointed to
the State Park Commission.
*
The successful bidders had no previous experience in the operation
of a winter sports area. In fact, just how well they grasped what
they are doing may be revealed by a comment from Newsom that as late
as May, 1961, he still didn't know the boundaries of his concession.
For that matter, Charles DeTurk admitted at the same time that he
didn't know either.
(source-San Francisco Chronicle 5/2/61)
"An Administration Whitewash of a Badly-Handled Situation"
The facts we have outlined certainly show that this was an administration white-
wash of a badly-handled situation. Following Cramer's remarks, Senate Republican
Leader Jack McCarthy (Marin), commenting on the statement that this was a "good"
contract, said in an interview:
"As outlined in our report (McCarthy was also a committee
member), there were at least five responsible concession-
aires offering terms which were more favorable to the state
and to the taxpayers' investment
one had offered terms
which promised the state immediate and continuing income.
The present agreement which was signed precipitously binds
the state to expenditures of $300,000 a year for many years
to come.
"At the same time that the Division of Beaches and Parks was
speedily consummating the agreement with the present operators
it was writing letters to other possible concessionaires
stating that the Division was in no hurry to enter into a long-
term binding contract.
"Further, the department, while admitting that it had no
previous experience of its own with winter sports concessions,
apparently made no attempt to investigate the type of arrange-
ments in force in similar situations elsewhere, such as those
operated by the National Park Service."
SQUAW OR "SQUAWK" VALLEY
and a Question for Brown
The Senate report is some forty pages long. It even touches Attorney General Mosk
in accusing him of misleading or discouraging prospective contractors. The charges
and countercharges were so vehement in fact that one newspaper writer suggested
that the area be renamed "Squawk" Valley.
However, one thing is clear: SB 268 was written to keep future dealings open
and aboveboard and prevent repetition! One of the advantages of the pocket veto
after adjournment is that there is no necessity for explaining "why" in a veto
message. We think the people and the legislature are entitled to an answer.
"NEVER LET YOUR LEFT HAND KNOW
"
Another veto mix-up indicated that whatever efforts the image-makers have made, we
still have the same old quivering mass of indecisiveness in the corner office at
the State Capitol. As the clipping on the reverse side shows, Brown--after having
his picture taken ostensibly signing a bill granting "service connected" benefits
to policemen and firemen with more than ten years service who suffer heart attacks--
suffered a "change of heart" of his own and vetoed the bill.
We wonder if any officer of the police or firemen's associations suffered a heart
attack as a result of Brown's quick change could claim it was service connected?
Long Time Alliance Smoulders
Firemen Burn Over Brown Photo Signing Dead Bill
Gov. Brown's long friend-[of the session, June 15, to
autographed picture right,
he was returning the photo
ship with San Francisco po-
have our picture taken with
back to Brown with a letter
because "I have no place to
lice and firemen was in trou-
Pat signing it."
which Driscoll said, informed
put it."
ble today-all because of a
"We all" included Dris-
There was no immediate
photograph of Brown sign-
the governor that "evidently
coll, Callahan, McAteer,
explanation from Brown's
ing a bill which he actually
Sgt. Ted Dolan, police rep-
the rumors are true, and
office. When the bill in ques-
didn't sign.
resentative at Sacramento,
Brown doesn't know what
tion, plus a number of oth-
Bob Callahan, secretary
and Asst. Police Chief Al-
he's doing, and that his staff
ers, were allowed- to die, it
of Fire Fighters Local 798
fred Arnaud, the depart-
is running the organiza-
was said to be because they
and Brown's buddy for 20
ment's legal officer.
tion."
did not have "adequate jus-
years, notified him in writ-
Callahan notified Brown
tification."
ing that they. have "come
THIS IS the time-honored
to the parting of the ways."
political gambit whereby a
Daniel Driscoll, the fire-
governor's picture thereafter
fighters' president, said the
is proudly displayed in the
offices of the organization in-
whole thing amounted to "a
slap in the face to all of us,"
volved. Those photographed
which "might cost Pat up to
with the governor usually
100,000 votes."
take a bit of pride in it.
Those pictured with
PHOTO THAT SET OFF POLITICAL FIREWORKS
THE BILL, SB 7045, was
Brown were told they could
introduced by San Francisco
order prints for themselves
Sen. J. Eugene McAteer, at
-and did. A personally-
the request of the police and
autographed one went from
fire organizations.
Brown to Callahan.
S.F. News-Call Bulletin 5
It provided that should
Then-without any no-
*** Mon., Aug. 21, 1961
heart trouble strike a police-
tice, Driscoll said-Brown
man or fireman after 10
allowed the bill to die via
years of service, this would
the pocket veto procedure.
automatically be considered
"He never had the de-
service-connected, thus sim-
cency to explain why he let
plifying pension procedures.
it die," Driscoll declared.
"It went through both
"It was a real blow, a slap
houses without opposition,"
in the face; it hurt our
Driscoll said. "Then we all
pride."
went up there the last day
CALLAHAN sent his
TAXES
REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
1 August 1962
TAXES
BROWN'S TAX TROUBLES
The 1959 Tax Program
In 1959 the Brown Administration proposed a tax program designed to raise
enough money to meet their proposed deficit of over $200 million. The proposed
annual revenue to be raised was estimated at:
Beer tax
$ 4,000,000
Cigarette tax
.......
61,750,000
Horseracing tax
......
10,425,000
Bank and Corporation tax
60,600,000
Inheritance tax
......
5,000,000
Personal Income tax
....
73,900,000
$ 218,700,000
(actual revenues were about $250 million annually)
This was the largest single general tax increase ever passed into law in any
state. While Knight had attempted tax increases and failed in 1957, Republicans
in the Legislature protested strongly that this new tax program was unduly high.
These predictions were increasingly confirmed throughout the 1959-60 fiscal year.
Finally, on July 15, 1960, the State Controller admitted in his Annual Report that
the 1959-60 budget surplus amounted to a whopping $131.3 million.
Republicans in the Legislature pressed for a number of tax cut bills in the
1960 Special Session. Tax cut bills endorsed by the Republican caucus included:
1. Across the board 10% personal income tax deduction, saving tax-
payers an estimated $26,150,000 annually. (AB 4, Busterud)
2. Sales tax exemption for prescription drugs and certain doctor-
prescribed medical appliances, such as eyeglasses and artificial
limbs, to save taxpayers an estimated $8,500,000 annually.
(AB 6, Busterud)
3. Reduction of the minimum corporation tax from $100 to $50 (Brown
penalized small business by quadrupling this tax in 1959), saving
small businesses an estimated $1,870,000 annually. (AB 7, Busterud)
4. Designation of cigarette taxes as consumer taxes and thereby de-
ductible. (AB 9, Marks)
5. Various tax deductions for working mothers, surviving spouses, the
aged, ill and afflicted, and those of limited income by bringing
California laws into closer conformity with federal laws bene-
fitting these groups by an estimated $4,000,000 annually.
(SB 2, MacBride)
6. Sales tax exemption for prescription drugs, etc. (Senate
version of AB 6) (SB 4, McCarthy)
Governor Brown stated that even if a tax cut bill were to pass the Legislature,
he would veto it. With this pressure from the Governor's office, all tax cut bills
were defeated on party line votes in committees and on the floor of the Legislature.
None reached the Governor's desk.
The 1961 Tax Reductions
These facts were used heavily by Republican candidates in the 1960 elections,
and in January, 1961, several of them appeared as part of Brown's legislative pro-
gram. These included:
sales tax exemption for prescription drugs, but without the in-
clusion of doctor prescribed prosthetic appliances or eyeglasses.
GOP attempts to amend these provisions failed, but the bill
passed and was signed by the Governor
and later lauded in his
"report to the people" as Democrat accomplishments.
a cigarette tax reduction bill which allowed state cigarette
taxes to be deducted from federal income taxes as consumer
taxes but not state income taxes. Saving to taxpayers:
$6,000,000 instead of $9,000,000.
bringing California laws into conformity or near-conformity
with federal provisions, giving working mothers, etc., about
$2.3 million in tax relief.
Conclusions
Considering the current state budget, it is problematical whether or not any
candidate can honestly offer tax reduction, other than a possible refinement of
some of the programs outlined above. In fact, considering the rising costs of
state programs which have already been initiated, it may well be that the 1963
Legislature will have to find additional sources of revenue.
INSIDE POLITICS
by the INQUIRING ELEPHANT
A MONTHLY POLITICAL DIGEST FOR MEMBERS OF REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
July 30, 1962
The Background on the June 5th Taxpayer Rebellion
or BREAKING OUT OF BROWN'S BONDS
The "breaking of the bonds" on June 5th proved one thing: that the voters of California
have finally realized that when a Governor goes on a fiscal spree, it's the taxpayer
who wakes up with the morning-after headache -- one which will "hang over" generations
to come.
Let's look for a minute at where the jolly spenders of the Brown Administration have
taken us in four years, operating on the idea that "just one more little nip won't
hurt us":
California boasts the second highest tax rate per $100 of personal
income of the ten large industrial states
this is 8.6%
higher than the average of all the states, and 22 percent higher
than the average of the industrial states.**
In 1959, Brown and his legislative followers passed the largest single tax increase
in the history of any state.
They raised per capita tax COLLECTIONS 23 percent in four years
PER CAPITA INCOME WENT UP ONLY 9 PERCENT!
In addition, the Democrat "friends of the little man" placed much of the burden on
the backs of those who can least afford to pay:
on the workingman's beverage, beer, the tax went from
2c to 4c per gallon
cigarettes were taxed 3c a pack
personal income taxes were increased and personal exemption
reduced. Result? 400,000 people, mostly low income families,
were forced to pay taxes for the first time.
the minimum corporation tax went up 300 percent, placing a
burden on small business and non-profit incorporated groups
inheritance and gift taxes were increased
TODAY, TOTAL TAXES (local, state and federal) PAID BY CALIFORNIANS AMOUNT TO ONE-THIRD
OF THE STATE'S PERSONAL INCOME.
**
source, California State Budget, 1962-63, page A-22
Brown Solves the Surplus Problem by Finding New Ways to Spend Money
In 1960, with an embarrassing $131.3 million surplus produced by the new taxes on hand,
Brown sought new ways to spend money. Ignoring Republican attempts to return some of this
to the taxpayers, he spent nearly $100 million on welfare and building construction in the
1960-61 Budget. The problem with welfare spending is that what may be enough this year is
never enough next year because of the increase in case loads. And Brown's welfare increases
were pyramided on to what was already one of the most generous welfare programs in the nation.
Brown killed GOP proposals to reduce the surplus by exempting prescription
drugs from the sales tax, modify income tax provisions to aid the ill,
infirm and working mothers -- prefering to defer these until we got closer
to an election year before he saw that they were passed.
By 1961, when the Democrats passed an additional $70 million welfare package, even the
increment from Brown's tax program wasn't enough, and they had to dip into bond authori-
zations left over from the Knight Administration to balance the budget. Only a year before
he had promised to put the state back on a "pay-as-you-go" basis.
Nearly ONE BILLION in New Tax Money Spent
To date the Brown taxes are directly responsible for the collection of $972 million in
state revenues -- of which Brown has spent every penny. In addition he has spent every
penny of the substantial revenue increases from the previous tax program accruing from
increase in population.
GENERAL FUND TAX RECEIPTS
(in millions)
Year
Amount Due to Brown 1959 Taxes
Total General Fund Taxes
1958-59
$ 55 million
$ 1,210 million
1959-60
187
"
1,491
"
1960-61
235
"
1,598
"
1961-62
245
"
1,699
"
1962-63
260
"
(estimate)
1,869
11
Brown's taxing and spending is an excellent illustration of Parkinson's Law*: "that expen-
ditures rise to meet income." In fact, in Brown's case, expenditure has exceeded income
in the last two budgets.
And, caught in the squeeze of his expanded programs -- which become progressively more costly
as the years pass -- Brown was forced to "balance" his 1962-63 budget by the use of a "post-
dated check" in the form of bond funds not even authorized by the people. The rejection of
the bond proposals on June 5th threw his budget out of whack by $89 million dollars. Now he
pins his faith in re-submitting the state construction bonds to the voters in November.
But Our Troubles Have Just Begun
And that ain't all. The eclectic economics of Brown's newspaper-man-turned-Finance-Director,
Hal Champion, also "balanced" the budget through projected revenues which were optimistic in
the extreme. They based their budget on a 10 percent rise in General Fund Revenue, some-
thing no previous administration had done, apparently pinning their faith in Kennedy's
promise to "get the country moving."
With every economic indicator suggesting that this was wishful thinking, with strikes in the
building trades, and a falling stock market -- all signs point to the fact that personal and
corporate income in California will not live up to expectations. Outlook? A budget deficit
by the end of the fiscal year, and a king-size fiscal mess for the next Governor!
*
Professor C. Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson's Law, and The Law and the Profits,
should be required reading for students of bureaucracy and taxation.
WATER
WELFARE
REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
1 August 1962
WELFARE
SOCIAL WELFARE IN CALIFORNIA
Californians are becoming more and more concerned about the growing
image of California as a "hand-out" state, and rightly so. This year,
more than 720,000 persons will receive over $750 million in welfare
services and aid.
Social Welfare Costs--1962-63
(does not include county general relief)
State
$ 296,638,793
Federal
336,746,780
County
118,500,100
Total
751,885,583
Moreover, this large social welfare bill is butarung in the ladder
of costs; each year the costs climb to a higher rung.
Summary of Aid Costs*
(in millions of dollars)
State, County, and Federal Funds
year
cost
caseload
1949-50
$ 310.0
365,203
1958-59**
431.5
534,180
1959-60
501.3
543,468
1960-61
542.4
515,262
1961-62 (est.)
633.6
544,780
1962-63 (est.)
751.9
576,500
* Does not include county general relief. Does include state
and county administration, child welfare services, licensing
adoptions, prevention of blindness, administrative assistance
to county welfare departments, community services for older
citizens, and the Welfare Study Commission; in other words,
all state and federally supported programs for the counties.
** These figures may not be exactly comparable to the others in
the chart because they do not specifically include the state
and federal expenditures on administration and special ser-
vices mentioned in the first footnote.
In the first two years of his administration, Brown increased the
cost of the social welfare program approximately 20%. His 1962-63
budget reflects a further increase of 39% over 1960.
In other words, in the 1962-63 budget Governor Brown would spend
almost 18 cents of every dollar for health and welfare purposes. This
compares with 11.7 cents during the last year of the Republican Knight
administration.
Much of the cost increase of social welfare has been due to exten-
sive liberalization of the aid programs under Brown, both in 1959 and
in 1961.
In 1959 the following increases were legislated:
OAS basic grants were increased, as were the maximum grants
for special needs.
ANB maximum grants were raised.
APSB maximum grants were increased, the income exempted before
determination of the grant was raised.
AND average grant limitation was adopted (to replace the maxi-
mum grant) at a higher level than previously granted,
and recipients were included in the Medical Care
program.
It has been estimated that more than one half of the increase between
1960 and 1962 is the direct result of changes in the law made by the 1961
Democrat Legislature as part of Governor Brown's program.
"According to the director of the department, social
welfare legislation passed during the 1961 General Session
provided more program increases than at any single time since
the original enactment of the categorical aid programs in 1937."
-- A. Alan Post, Legislative Analyst
The following is a summary of the liberalizations made in 1961.
OAS maximum grant was again increased, provision was made for
adjustment of maximum grants according to a cost of
living index, citizenship was repealed as a require-
ment for aid, and contributions from responsible
relatives were essentially ended.
ANB maximum grants were increased with an escalator clause to
raise them according to the cost of living index and
responsible relatives provisions were entirely repealed.
* Glossary
OAS - Old Age Security
ANB - Aid to the Needy Blind
APSB - Aid to the Partially Supported Blind
AND - Aid to the Needy Disabled
ANC - Aid to Needy Children
AND maximum average grants were increased, the definition of
disability was liberalized (increasing the caseload)
and relatives responsibilities and citizenship re-
quirements were repealed.
ANC recipients in boarding homes and institutions received a
grant increase.
A medical assistance program for aged persons not currently
receiving OAS was passed to take advantage of federal
funds offered through the Kerr-Mills Act.
A new Division of Housing for the Elderly in the Department of
Finance was created to stimulate the development of
low cost rental units for the elderly; a $100 million
bond issue to provide loans to nonprofit corporations
to construct such low cost rental housing was defeated
by almost 2 to 1 in the June elections.
State grants to communities (50/50 basis) were authorized for
local plans to increase community activities for older
citizens.
Administrative assistance to county welfare departments was
initiated with state and federal funds in the form of
grants for research projects, scholarships, training,
and improvement of services.
At the time of enactment the Legislative Analyst estimated that the
changes in assistance programs would increase the cost in 1961-62 by
$39 million and in 1962-63 by $126 million. Of the 1962-63 figure, $72
million would have to come from state funds. Yet Brown has only written
a $55 million increase into the budget. It will be interesting to see
whose estimates will be more accurate. Since the local assistance sub-
ventions are "open-end" appropriations, the state will face a sizeable
deficit should Mr. Post's predictions come true.
It should be noted here that in addition to these federal/state/
county assistance programs, California's counties also provide general
home relief for their indigents who do not qualify for any of the other
programs. In 1961-62 the estimated cost of this relief (statewide) is
$25,301,800.
Recently controversy has arisen over the "cost of welfare to Cali-
fornia taxpayers". The Democrat administration has slyly pointed only
to the portion of the total bill which is labeled "state" -- that comes
directly from the state's general fund. This is a distortion of the
truth, however, for the county funds and the federal grants are supported
by taxes as well.
It must be remembered, in addition, that it is the state legislature
which sets benefit rates and eligibility rules--thus determining the
entire cost. THE FEDERAL AND COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS ARE DETERMINED BY
THESE COSTS.
The county taxpayer is also a state taxpayer - so
he is picking up both tabs. Also, inasmuch as Californians
pay more taxes to the federal government than are returned
in various contributions, the California taxpayer is more
than footing the bill for the federal share.
--Jack McDowell, S.F. News-Call Bulletin
Note, then, that increases on a state level by the legislature place
a greater burden not only on state finances, but on county, and even
federal budgets. County officials are well aware of their "taxation with-
out control" when it comes to determining the assessment rates for the
county. In many counties welfare costs constitute more than one half of
the annual budget.
State payments for assistance programs are not subject to legis-
lative review with the budget. Once they are written into law their
obligation must be met. For this reason California legislators must be
conscious of continuing costs when they vote to change welfare laws.
It has been customary for Democrat administrations to increase pay-
ments today - with little thought for how these same changes will be
financed in future years. Some of the assistance programs are going to
expand simply because our population is growing; the state will have to
face this natural added expense - but this fact should make responsible
citizens even more wary of further increasing the burden by liberalizing
the laws.
Californians would do well, then, to concern themselves with the cost
of welfare in the state. California ranks first in total assistance pay-
ments. California ranks first in the number of Old Age Security (and,
for that matter, Aid to Needy Children) recipients. BUT, California
ranks 30th in the percentage of her population which is 65 or over.
California, in short, already has the most extensive welfare program
in our nation. We are not lagging behind in implementing our humanitarian
ideals. But humanitarian citizens should also be concerned about the
growth of reliance upon county, state, and federal government to provide
for individuals. We are lagging behind in assuming fiscal responsibility.
NOXIN
Guest Column for Victor Riesel
by RICHARD NIXON
July, 1962
OUR FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM
We no longer live in an era where a Vanderbilt could get away with saying,
"The public be damned." Neither can our nation afford to allow its government
to say, "Business be damned."
The indignant response of the National Administration last April to a
steel price rise was the typical reaction of a bully.
Regardless of the merits of the case, government acted in a way that was
destined to create a public loss of confidence in private industry and a business
loss of confidence in government.
The primary way we make new jobs in our society is still through the
expansion of private industry. It is the expectation of private profit-making
that determines whether there willbe a job gap or a job surplus. When men are
eager to expend time, talent and money in the hopes of gain, there will be more
jobs available. When men are convinced that such expenditures will result in
losses or meager profits, jobs dry up. Man's will to risk by investing and re-
investing goes hand-in-hand with the need for labor.
This is why the present anti-business sentiment on the part of our
government is so distressing.
The stock market is no longer a rich man's gaming table. There are now
more than 15 million American share-owners. Few of these people are "fat-cats" --
many are retired persons, housewives, middle-income families, and blue-collar
workers. Many more of us are affected through our deposits and savings and loan
associations. And all of us are affected by any canceled business expansion or
postponed purchases that result from a government-created loss of confidence in
American industry.
Nothing could be more mistaken than government policies that could "kill
the goose that Lays the golden egg." For it is not government that creates jobs,
plows back profits into expansion and research, and generates the wealth that
assures the world's highest standard of living. It is private free enterprise.
Today the United States is confronted by a state-controlled economic
system that VOWS to bury us. We are also faced with fierce competition from
Western Europe and Japan. This, then, should be a time for our government to
encourage industry to greater heights of productivity.
Instead this seems to be a time when some state governments and our
national administration are too often influenced by men of little faith in free
enterprise. Our elected state and national leaders have a duty to leash these
appointees who shoot from the hip. There have been entirely too many government
pot-shots at private enterprise lately. No one should condone wrong-doing --
whether in business, labor, or individual action. But when government uses a
shot-gun, innocent bystanders are bound to get hit. This is what happened when
Washington muzzled the steel industry. And, the shock waves hit the stock market.
OVER
But what is past is prologue, and as we look to the future it is impera-
tive to take remedial steps to strengthen our economic system. I believe these
six actions are of crucial importance:
1. We must do a much better job in our schools of teaching the
theory and facts of free enterprise.
The shocking results of polls taken in schools across the
country reveal that our youngsters have little knowledge of
the free enterprise system. Among many misconceptions, there
are surprisingly widespread beliefs that profits are somehow
evil.
Until we fully understand that American industry carries a
large part of our country's greatness on its shoulders, we
operate with a debilitating handicap.
2. We must have government dedicated to the primacy of private
action.
Government must believe that the right way to get a job done
is to first turn to private enterprise; only if the private
sector cannot do the job should government step in and do it.
This is how government sets an example for individual
initiative.
3. Government must create a climate that is fair to both
management and labor.
Government must not use its vast power unfairly to tip
the delicate balance in labor-management negotiations.
In this era of tough foreign competition, labor and manage-
ment leaders must act responsibly to hold costs in check.
4. Government must reduce the burden of taxation on savings
and investing in order to provide the necessary incentives
for growth.
5. We must have cost-conscious government in order to assure
that taxes will not go up.
6. Government and non-goverment leaders must provide a
greater sense of national purpose.
Our nation can win the battle between freedom and slavery. But it is
not enough to know the tactics of communism. We must also know our own
strength. The United States has grown and prospered under the free enterprise
profit system. We must not be defensive or apologetic in speaking up for that
system. We need to have an honest pride in our past accomplishments. And we
need to want to do still better in the future.
BROWN
THE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
1 August 1962
BROWN CLAIMS
LEADERSHIP BY HINDSIGHT
Brown Claims versus The Facts
In coming months, by brochure and billboard, by television and table talk,
from platforms and on porches, Brown and his followers will be singing the
praises of the present administration. In a sort of "leadership by hind-
sight", Brown now lays claim to many things as "his" accomplishments when
the best of these were either bi-partisan or even Republican programs.
IN EDUCATION
Brown Claim: That the Master Plan for Higher Education, co-ordinating the
growth and development of state colleges and universities, is a "Brown"
accomplishment, achieved over the objections of GOP obstructionists.
The Truth: The master plan represents decades of bi-partisan work
going back to 1899. Principal architects of the legislation were
Assemblymen Dorothy Donahoe, a Democrat, now deceased, and Ernest
Geddes, a Republican, now retired. They did most of the work during
the Knight Administration, and the bill passed both houses in 1959
with nearly unanimous support from both parties.
Brown Claim: The "Democratic Team" has "in this session (1961)" given
us "upgrading of teacher credentials to require a college major or
minor in the subject they teach; a stronger curriculum and statewide
testing to determine the quality of education we are giving.
"
The Truth: All these things are the recommendations of a blue-ribbon
non-partisan Citizens Advisory Commission which was created by unani-
mous legislative action in the Knight Administration. A fourth
recommendation was killed in Senate Committee under Brown's urging;
it called for multiple selection of textbooks, giving school districts
a choice. The three measures which passed got vigorous bi-partisan
support in both houses, despite Brown claims to the contrary today.
IN WATER
Brown Claim: The "Brown" Water Plan (even Life magazine swallowed this
fiction) passed the legislature over the objections of Republicans.
The Truth: When he campaigned for it in 1960, it was the "Calif-
ornia" water plan and the result of years of work in the Warren
and Knight Administrations, all bi-partisan. Further, the plan
only arrived on the ballot because nine northern Republican Senators
provided the necessary votes.
IN RECREATION
Brown Claim: We're doing big things in beaches and parks. (There's
a lot more language, but it boils down to this.)
Fact: There is no state master plan for the development of beaches
and parks to keep pace with our growing population, no system of
priorities for acquisition and development in logical order. One
of the reasons for the defeat of the park bonds on June 5 was the
fact that the proposition was a giant pork barrel for spreading
money around, without regard for the real areas of need.
PRESCRIPTION SALES & OTHER TAX RELIEF
Brown Claim: Out of our deep concern for the ill, the afflicted, the
aged and working mothers, we have given tax relief by exempting pre-
scription drugs from the sales tax, and by bringing state income tax
deductibility provisions into line with those of the federal government.
The Truth: In the 1959 and. 1960 sessions of the legislature Brown
ignored Republican-sponsored bills providing these kinds of tax
relief. In fact, in 1960, he threatened to veto any such bill
which passed. Only because of voter reaction in the 1960 elections
did these things become part of 'his' program in 1961.
WORKER BENEFITS
Brown Claim: We paying higher 'insurance' payments to the unemployed.
The Full Story: Another three years like 1961, even with the
higher contributions now required of employers, and there will be
nothing left in the unemployment insurance fund. And 1961, according
to Brown, was a year of record employment.
TAXES
Brown Claim: The brochure says NO NEW TAXES IN THREE YEARS.
The Story Behind the Statement: Brown's 1959 tax program was the
largest single tax increase in the history of any state--about
250 million dollars a year--and every dime of this new money has
been used up in subsequest Brown budgets.
Brown Oversight: The fact that much of this 1959 tax increase
hit the "little people" he claims to be for
beer tax on
the workingman's drink
400,000 low income families added
to the state's income taxpayers.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Brown Claim: Toughest and most advanced narcotics laws in State history
keep peddlers behind bars but give addicts a chance to rehabilitate.
Fact: Brown fought similar laws in the 1959 and 1960 sessions
of the legislature, until overwheming public pressure forced
him to act in 1961. In 1960 placed"testing of the juice of fresh
grapes"on the agenda for the special legislative session, but
turned down all pleas to do the same with narcotics.
GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND SAVINGS
Brown Claim: First Government Reorganization in 30 years merges State
agencies, boards and commissions into efficient master agencies.
Fact: The "master" or "super" agencies have yet to save dollar
one of the taxpayer's money. The present budget is 200 million
dollars higher than the one during the year the agencies were
created. Further, the agency heads have no power to abolish
jobs or combine departments, the only way savings would possi-
bly come about. Result: $25,000 a year jobs for deserving
Democrats.
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Brown Claim: Created first Consumer Counsel to protect you from retail
frauds.
Brown Oversight: There were already six state departments, agencies
and commissions engaged in consumer protection when he created the
Consumer Counsel. In some ways, perhaps, the consumer is
getting more protection than he can afford.
JOBS
Brown Claim: Policies keep the economy of California booming and employ-
ment high.
Fact: Brown policies are driving industries, particularly non-defense
industries, out of California. Bay Area lost 8600 jobs in metal trades
in recent years. New York has had more than three times as many new
industrial plants started in the last year as California. We export
less non-defense connented industrial products to other states than
we did ten years ago.
AMMUNITION !
The 1961 Legislature:
from
Triumph
or Turkey?
The Research Center,
REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Ready
Reference
Refutation *
for
Republicans on
Brown's "Accomplishments"
On June 19, beginning his so-called "Report to the People" (we think
"cover-up" would be a more appropriate word, but every man to his own
semantic choices), Governor Brown said:
"We can take pride in one of the most productive, most
progressive sessions in the modern history of California."
On the same day, one of the state's great newspapers, the San Francisco
Chronicle, said in a stinging editorial:
"We think that the taxpayers of California, who invested
$6.6 million in the 1960-61 Legislature, bought a turkey."
The next day in Los Angeles, Republican legislative leaders Shell and Dolwig,
trailing Governor Brown's heavily-financed junket at their own expense,
said that the administration's record was:
"Sterile
totally devoid of new ideas, with the sole
objective being to cover up the past errors of the Brown
regime."
GOPinion in a Nutshell
The best SUMMATION of the febrile accomplishment of the 1961 legislature
we know is contained in the first news release issued by the GOP team of
Shell, Dolwig, Busterud and McCarthy, who pursued Brown in his "migratory
misrepresentation" by means of commercial aircraft, automobile, taxi, bus,
cable car and even ferry boat. They said:
*
Alphabetized by Subject for Your Convenience.
315 West 9th Street, L. A. 15
Don C. Frey
MAdison 8-5291
Research Director
Most of the progressive measures of which Governor Drown
now boasts are a result of his embracing programs which
were conceived by Republicans in earlier sessions, and
pirated by the Brown press staff this year. Republican
programs for the past two years include such items as the
prescription drug tax exemptions, state income tax relief
for individuals by placing our state program in line with
the federal exemption stipulations and the cigarette tax
exemption.
"Republicans also have long advocated stronger narcotics
laws, the Regan-Dills Act of this year being almost
identical in its provisions with Republican-endorsed
programs in the 1959 and 1960 sessions of the Legislature.
"The real import of Governor Brown's message in his so-called
'report to the people' is not in what he's saying but in
what is left unsaid. Brown makes no mention of shaky
state finances or of his failure to implement meaningful
legislation in the fields of metropolitan problems, auto-
mobile glove compartment narcotics peddlers, highway
safety, corporate tax relief for small businesses, and
many other areas of need."
THE '61 SESSION POINT-BY-POINT
Listed below under alphabetized subject headings are some of the major errors--
both of commission and omission-of the 1961 Session. As stated in the
Book of Common Prayer:
"We have done these things which we ought not to have done,
and we have left undone those things which we ought to
have done."
The 1961-62 BUDGET:
An election year fraud aimed at lulling the people into
forgetting the wild spending and taxing of the first two
years of the Brown Administration.
It must be remembered that this budget is about 35 per
cent higher than the last Republican budget of 1958-59.
During the intervening period the state population has
gone up only 12 per cent.
In the period per capita income has gone up only 8 per
cent, while per capita taxes have gone up over 17 per cent.
The average California breadwinner's income has not kept
pace with the extravagances of the Democrats, who have
added more than 20,000 additional bureaucrats to the state
payroll, and may have to introduce new taxes next year to
finance the social welfare 'package' passed this year.
ELECTION LAWS:
This will be the year remembered as the time the
Democrats began to install eastern big-city machine
politics of the Tammany type in California through
changes in the election laws.
Removal of the literacy challenge provision from the
polling place and placing it in the hands of the volunteer
deputy registrar, who has a conflict of interest, all but
negates the constitutional provision which requires that
California voters be able to read.
Requiring that absentee ballots be returned three days
before elections will deprive many voters of fair con-
sideration of all the issues, and will unquestionably
disenfranchise some of our men in service in far-flung
points on the globe.
An attempt to bring the partisan label into local politics
was fortunately defeated, but not before Governor Brown
talked on both sides of the question, and apparently had given
it his approval in his final switch of position.
Killed by administration forces was a purity of elections
bill which would have required more complete reporting of
campaign expenditures. This measure was endorsed by the
Republican Assembly caucus.
Also killed was a bill by Assemblyman Chet Wolfrum (R-LA),
which would have required at least one member from each of
the two major parties on every local precinct election
board. Currently there are 1090 all-Democratic Boards in
Los Angeles County alone.
EDUCATION:
Despite the passage of a new teachers credentials law, many
of the recommendations of two years of intensive effort by
a blue ribbon citizens committee were either ignored or
defeated.
FISCAL AFFAIRS:
Exemptions granted in the areas of prescription drugs,
cigarettes and state income tax were all proposals intro-
duced in bills in the 1960 session by Republicans--Senator
Jack McCarthy and Assemblyman John Busterud. At that
time they were threatened with veto by Governor Brown.
It was only after these issues were taken to the people in
the campaign of 1960 that they became part of the Governor's
program. His delay has cost the people of this state some
$16,000,000 in tax benefits.
Brown makes much of the fact that he will sign bills
"saving" the taxpayers some $8,000,000. Deducting this
from the increase in this budget over last year still
leaves more than 100 million dollars more that taxpayers
will have to ante up to meet state expenses. This is
"saving" only if you look at matters through "Brown tinted"
glasses.
HIGHWAY SAFETY:
Despite the obvious need for increased control of speeders,
this session did not see passage of an adequate radar law,
chemical tests for drunken drivers, or the use of multi-
colored patrol cars.
METROPOLITAN PROBLEMS:
Hope for Golden Gate Commission to solve the conflicting
problems of the San Francisco Bay Area traffic and transpor-
tation situation died in this session, despite Governor
Brown's endorsement and Administration control of both
houses of the legislature by substantial majorities.
Nothing was done about the increasing smog problem in both
Los Angeles and the Bay Area, and the administration took
no action toward reaching a solution in controlling auto-
mobile exhaust fumes, the single largest contributor to
smog formation.
NARCOTICS:
We have not moved against the glove compartment peddler with
an adequate automobile narcotics law, despite the fact that
this was included in Governor Brown's narcotics message of
February 15.
The Regan-Dills Act is no different in its essential provisions
than the Dills Bill (AB 2727) of the 1959 session. That
measure was opposed by Governor Brown. We could have had the
protection of a tougher law for two years if Brown had had
sufficient foresight.
Further, we might not have had this law even this year if
Republicans had not joined with some Democrats in February
to prevent Brown's Assembly floor leaders from sending the
1961 Dills bill to the unfriendly Criminal Procedures
Committee, headed by John O'Connell, one of whose major
missions in life seems to be killing any bill which would
aid law enforcement officials.
REORCANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT:
This much-touted scheme of Brown's promises to provide greater
efficiency by adding more highly paid jobs on top of a state
bureaucracy already overloaded with Democrat appointees. It
makes no provision for compulsory consolidation of agencies
or elimination duplication 01 services.
AMMUNITION !
1. A "CURIOUS" CHOICE
from
The Research Center,
REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
"BROWN'S FISCAL CHIEF IS A CURIOUS CHOICE
"
(headline, Los Angeles Times 7/4/61)
Curious indeed. Hale Champion, Brown's Executive Secretary, on July 1 assumed the
post of Director of the Department of Finance, often called the "second most
important job in state government." The Department is well-nigh all-powerful in
its control of state fiscal and business matters.
BRIEF FACTS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
It has sole and complete control over the
Before becoming Brown's Press
spending in the whopping $2.6 BILLION
and then Executive Secretary,
DOLLAR budget passed this year--
Champion was a reporter on the San
Francisco Chronicle, with no ex-
perience in economics or finance.
The Department has 2000 employees in 12
From all we can learn,
major divisions which either supervise
Champion's only previous executive
expenditure of state funds, or provide
experience is with the 60 secre-
support services--
taries, clerks and typists in the
Governor's office.
It has charge of maintenence of all state
We hope that Champion is at
owned building (6,599,549 sq.ft.),
least a home owner.
property acquisitions, communications,
and local planning--
It operates the Economic Development
Champion obviously believes
Agency, which "promotes and encourages
in economic development. He moves
the expansion of markets and develop-
from a $19,845 per annum job to
ment of new business in California"--
one paying $30,318, second only to
the Governor.
It handles central purchasing for the
.
We assume that as a reporter
state, everything from scratch pads to
Champion bought necessary items in
bulldozers and police cruisers
his travels and placed them on his
expense account.
(continued)
Los Angeles
315 W. Ninth. L.A 15
Don C. Frey
MA 8-5291
Research Director
"NOT AS INCREDIBLE AS IT SEEMS"
Strangely enough, from Brown's point of view, this may not be as incredible an
appointment as it seems. As the admitted author of the Governor's three budget
messages, Champion has managed to mask the largest single tax increase in the
history of any state
a thirty-five per cent overall three-year rise
and the acquisition of some 20,000 additional bureaucrats
as "fiscal
responsibility.'
This is no mean feat. Now with the increment of the quarter-billion dollar annual
tax increase passed just two years ago all but used up, and Brown in serious
danger of having to ask for new taxes to meet the expenses of the latest "package"
delivered by the legislature-- it seems to us that what the Governor needs in his
chief financial adviser is not a bookkeeper but a propagandist. Champion--one
of his own chosen "image builders' fills this job description amply.
CARR "PROTESTS TOO MUCH"
With the resignation of Champion's predecessor, John E. Carr, many of the wild
blue yonder Democrats in the administration and legislature heaved a sigh of relief.
The outspoken Carr, a prophet crying in a Democrat financial wilderness, warned of
impending fiscal disaster if state spending was not curbed.
On January 31, 1961, he told members of the Governor's Council that California's
business operation has "gotten away from us." A favorite Carr expression was,
"It might save the taxpayers some money."
Some Carr recommendations and observations:
The state's expenses have increased 1000 per cent in less than 20 years
the population has increased only 164 per cent in 30 years, but personnel
on the state payroll has increased 522 per cent.
The cost of government was going to have to be reduced
It is ex-
tremely expensive to borrow money, and California leads all states with
a bonded state and local indebtedness of $1,840,000,000. No other state
has more than 1 billion!
"I might suggest that we do not fill some of these civil service jobs
when they become vacant, even though they are authorized
We should
try to level off the civil service force and try farming things out more."
In the light of Brown's statements on March 28 that the 1962 ballot
would carry billions of dollars in proposed bond issues, Carr's obser-
vation) that there is a limit to the amount a state can borrow if it
expects the capital market to absorb it at reasonable interest rates.*
With this background, Carr's resignation statement of "I don't want this to be inter-
preted as any break between myself and the Governor" sounds a little like the remark
which called forth the Queen's comment in Hamlet: 'The lady doth protest too much,
me thinks.
* Estimates for 8.33 per cent of the state's expected General Fund Revenues
to go for debt servicing by 1972--against present expenditure of 2.68 per cent.
AMMUNITION !
from
The Research Center,
REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
September 13, 1961
$5800 A MONTH FOR NOT USING OFFICES!
Bureaucrat Bungle Commits State to $348,000 Lease
On August 30 in Sacramento at a hearing of the Interim Water Committee, it was disclosed
that the Department of Water Resources has signed a five-year lease for two offices in
Fresno, despite the fact that action of the L.gislature nullified the transfer of employees
who were to occupy the offices.
Under questioning by Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R-La Canada), James Wright,
chief deputy director of the department, admitted that the Department had signed
the leases committing the state to rentals of $4,000 a month for one office and
$1800 a month for another (a total of $348,000) because they had "anticipated"
legislative approval of a decentralization plan.
The Legislature, however, after looking at the Water Resources Department proposal to estab-
lish regional offices and move employees out of Sacramento, threw up its hands in horror
and refused to authorize the move. Legislative Analyst, A. Alan Post, told the Senate
Finance Committee on May 31 that the staff report on decentralization was:
"one of the poorest reports and contained the poorest logic of any I have
ever seen since 1 have been in Sacramento
It looks like it was built
around a set of assumptions. It could certainly stand careful review. It
is not what I would call a report equivalent to others customarily made on
such matters,"
As a result the Department of Water Resources is searching frantically for some other state
agency to assume its leases. The department is in the unpleasant position of having signed
leases for which the legislature has refused to authorize the money!
The man ultimately responsible for this bureaucratic bungle--aside from Pat Brown who
appointed him--is William E. Warne, Director of the Department of Water Resources and newly-
appointed head of Brown's super Resources Agency, And with Warne's record (over) this
kind of fiasco was only to be expected!
SINCE THE GENERAL CIVILIZATION OF MANKIND I BELIEVE
THERE ARE MORE INSTANCES OF THE ABRIDGEMENT OF THE
FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE BY GRADUAL AND SILENT ENCROACH-
MENTS OF THOSE IN POWER THAN BY VIOLENT AND SUDDEN
USURPATIONS.
James Madison
Sacramento: Rm. 421, State Capitol Los Angeles: 315 W. Ninth, L.A. 15
Don C. Frey,
GI 3-6801
MA 8-5291
Research Director
No. 1 on The Men Around Brown
*
WILLIAM E. WARNE: A Proven Record of "Waste and Lax Administration "
William E. Warne--newly-appointed head of Brown's super Resources Agency, the top official
in the construction of our 1.75 billion dollar state water plan, head man for parks and
recreation, fish and game, and other natural riches of California--was appointed by Brown
despite a proven record of waste, lax administration and extravagance in government service
going back more than twenty years:
Entering the Federal Department of the Interior as a publicity writer
in the '30s, he quickly rose to be Assistant Secretary At least $60
million in dams constructed under & "hurry up" policy he installed turned
out badly
there isn't enough water in the Rio Grande to fill the
reservoir for one, and another has water so salty that not one drop was
ever put on crop land.
Howeve :, it was as head of the International Co-operation Administration's (Point 4) mission
so Iran that Warne wrote his real record In spending some quarter-of-a-BILLION dollars
01 our money, his activities prompted the 17 Democrats and 13 Republicans of the House Govern-
ment Operations Committee 10 unanimously recommend:
That the Department of State and, International Co-operation Administration
dentify the individuals responsible for the waste and lax administration
described in this report and take prompt action to insure that they shall no
longer cocupy positions of trust and authority in the expenditure of the
United States aid funds.
Lew nighlights of Warne's record in Iran; as taken from a Readers Digest article of
February, 1957:
"Warne, with the approval of his Washington chiefs, distributed checks
directly to Iranian ministers
with which they not only met their
government payrolls but raised the.r own salaries.
"He built a sugar beet factory. It couldn't operate at capacity for two
01 three years because Iranians had to be taught to grow the necessary
beets. Nevertheless, Warne bought machinery for a second refinery which
could only be stored,
"Machinery and other physical assets worth at least 2 million dollars
were scattered in such a way that no one has yet been able to discover
where they went,
"In doing such things, Warne built up a staff of more than 400 assistants
in ten regional offices. One of these offices "needed" 53 automobiles
and 41 chaufreurs for its 55 employees (including clerks and office boys).
last is particularly interesting in the light of the fact that, according to Warne him-
18, the Department of Water Resources has expanded from 500 to 1800 employees during the
five years and will "need" 2700 by 1965. How many of these will be chauffeurs he doesn't
any.
*
these strong words come from the House Government Operations Committee's
report, UNITED STATES AID OPERATIONS IN RAM, 1957.
3.
A Dam Mess in Iran
We suggest you look up the Readers Digest article in your local library; it's too long for
reprinting here. However, in the light of the Oroville dam--an integral part of the
California (now Brown:) Water Plan.
and Warne's earlier dam fiascos, the Karadj Dam
mess is Iran should be mentioned.
Withholding $500,000 in order to Waste $3,500,000!
With Brazilians it's coffee; with Iranians it's fuel oil--if anything, the countries have
too much of each. So the practical Iranians determined to use fuel oil steam power to
double the electrical output in Tehran, the capital city. They needed and asked for
$500,000 to buy generators.
Warne, however, refused to advance the half-million. Hydro-power enthusiast that he is,
he wanted to build a huge, U.S. -style dam on the Karadj River. Against the advise of his
own engineers, Bureau of Reclamation experts, and three leading U.S. consulting firms--all
of whom said that steam power could be made available sooner, at smaller cost--Warne went
ahead with his program for the Karadj Dam. Incidentally, he had also given the Iranians
$2,246,000 to construct an Itra-modern cotton mill in Tehran-which lacked the power to
operate it!
Cost estimates on the structure rose from Warne's original $17 million (the Bureau of
Reclamation in reviewing this promptly upped it to at least $28 million) to an eventual
ninety million dollars. Warne put $2,500,000 in access roads and a construction camp at
the site, complete with swimming pool, and then work was abandoned.
In 1961, the dam is listed as "under construction". In order to save
political face, the Iranians can't let go of the thing, despite the
fact that the Export-Import Bank, to whom they applied for a loan,
advised them to drop it.
In the meantime, as times got better in Iran, the Iranians went ahead and bought generators
themselves and are producing fuel oil steam power!
This is one of the key men around Brown, a man whose major responsibilities include che
1.75 billion dollar water plan. How well he (and Brown) have learned from the past may be
seen in the fact they they are proceeding with single-stage construction of the Oroville
Dam on the Feather River. The consulting experts hired by the state insisted that the whole
project cannot be completed for the estimated total--unless the Oroville Dam was built in
stages or construction delayed till 1975!
An Answer
for
William Warne
April 25, 1962
"Why
talk of Iran six or eleven years
ago and not California?"
William Warne
Director of Water Resources
State of California
Because what happened in Iran six or eleven years ago is very relevant to what is
happening in California today!
The same kind of waste, sloppy administration, empire-building and lax accounting
on the part of William Warne which was condemned unanimously by 17 Democrats and
13 Republicans of the House Government Operations Committee in 1956 is being
carried on today under Warne's direction in the Department of Water Resources of
the State of California.
And this highhanded incompetency is not confined to Iran or the Department of Water
Resources
it also occurred in Brazil, Korea and United States Department of
the Interior.
WASTE AND EXTRAVAGANCE
In IRAN -- Warne "lost" some 25 million dollars worth of machinery and other physical
assets. No one has ever been able to discover where they went. His successor had
to initiate "Operation Search" to find out what was on hand. (U. S. Aid Operations
in Iran, report of the House Government Operations Committee, January 28, 1957.)
In CALIFORNIA -- more than $60,000 in general claims were added to the
1962-63 Budget for expenses incurred when Warne leased buildings in Fresno
which were never used. Warne's departmental travel budget, called "excessive"
by the Legislative Analyst, has enough in his personal account to finance better
that two trips a month to the East Coast. (Analysis of the Budget, 1962-63)
EMPIRE BUILDING
In IRAN -- Warne built up a staff of more than 400 assistants in ten regional offices
One office with 55 employees (including clerks) had fifty-three automobiles and
forty-one chauffeurs. (HOW NOT TO HANDLE FOREIGN AID, Readers Digest, February,
1957)
In CALIFORNIA -- it now takes a conference or committee in the Department
of Water Resources to decide a matter which previously could be handled
by one or two persons. (Analysis of the Budget, 1962-63)
HIGHHANDEDNESS
In BRAZIL -- it took a visit by an investigating team of congressmen to get Warne to
show the U. S. Ambassador the facts on the projects our tax dollars were financing.
In the words of Congressman George Meader of Michigan: "Here were expenditures of
United States tax dollars for the purpose of promoting United States interests in
Brazil. And yet the United States Ambassador in Brazil was not consulted."
(Congressional Record, March 28, 1957)
In CALIFORNIA -- at interim hearings of the State Legislature, subordinates
were sent to testify, despite the fact that there are many top-level staff
members in the Department. However, these same top-level staff people have
been consistently available to speak before conferences outside the state.
VINDICTIVENESS TOWARD SUBORDINATES
In IRAN --when his mission controller wrote a memorandum to Washington recommending
stricter accounting procedures in the spending of funds granted to Iranian government
officials (some of whom used the money to raise their own salaries!), Warne fired the
man. (Government Operations Committee Report, 1957)
In CALIFORNIA -- when someone "leaked" a departmental memo to the press
which directed the public relations staff to mention Governor Brown's name
in every press release, two men resigned and another was transferred in the
furor which followed. One of the resigning press men said that everyone
involved, including secretaries, were dragged into Warne's office and given
the "third degree" in the search for the leak.
LAX ACCOUNTING
In IRAN -- of the fiscal years 1952-53, the official report says "whether substantial
sums were dissipated through carelessness or dishonesty can never be established"
(because of poor bookkeeping and management). Nearly one-third of the total expendi-
tures for fiscal 1953 were charged to "program direction" without any further
breakdown.
In CALIFORNIA -- the Legislative Analyst says of Warne's departmental re-
organization, "the true costs
are almost impossible to identify." There
is also an ominous parallel in one of the Analyst's recommendations, to "place
language in the Budget Bill which will limit the amount of money which can be
spent upon general administration." (underlining ours)
POOR PLANNING
In IRAN -- Warne committed millions of United States dollars toward the construction
of a dam with only "oral assurance" from the Iranian government that it would go ahead
with the project. Eventually 3½ million in U.S. funds were spent before work was
abandoned. At the same time he refused to advance the Iranians, who are all but
floating in oil, $500,000 to buy generators to produce oil-steam power for their
capital city. But, he did give the Iranians over $2 million to construct a cotton
mill, although they didn't have the power to operate it! (Government Operations
Committee Report)
In CALIFORNIA in launching his expensive decentralization plan for his
department, again only an oral report was given to the Senate Finance
Committee, which was supposed to find the money to pay for the move. Of
the staff report on decentralization, A. Alan Post, the legislative analyst,
said it was "one of the poorest reports and containing the poorest logic
that I have ever seen since I have been in Sacramento."
*
Brown and Warne
...
Companions in Cloudland!
Warne was probably best summed up by one of his departmental superiors in the Foreign
Operations Administration. In a memo on June 29, 1954, this man wrote:
"Embassy USOM (United States Operations Mission) must think we are
Fort Knox. Something must be done to get them down out of the clouds."
Nothing ever did, not in Iran or Brazil or Korea (where the foreign aid program built
flour mills in a country which neither grows wheat nor eats bread)
and
certainly not in California, where Warne inhabits Cloudland with Edmund G. Brown.
One by one the men with their feet on the ground have left the Brown Administration --
the Carr's, the Levit's, the Bank's, the McCarthy's. Other men with their feet or
the ground, Democrats and Republicans, have sounded their warnings, as did the
Democratic leader of the Senate, Hugh Burns, recently on the Fresno leases:
"If I were an executive of a corporation, I wouldn't have such a man
working for me."
But this doesn't disturb Pat Brown. He's at home in the capitol clouds: appointing
finance directors who have no background in finance to manage California's fiscal
affairs
... nodding his approval when the Director of Beaches and Parks betrays
12 million in tax dollar investment with a botched-up contract in Squaw Valley
...
and keeping William Warne, a federal government cast·off with a twenty-five year
record of failure, in charge of the California Water Plan, the biggest project ever
attempted by any state.
CALIFORNIA FACTS & FIGURES
REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
1 August 1962
ARE WE DOING AS WELL AS WE SHOULD?
PERTINENT STATISTICS ON CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES:
HIGHWAY
FATALITIES:
California ranks first in the nation. Over the last 10 years
highway fatalities have gone up about 25% compared with a 10%
increase for the United States as a whole.
TAXES:
In total tax revenue, California leads the nation with
$2,124,369,000. New York was second with $1,961,008,000.
In per capita total general revenue of state and local govern-
ments, 1960, California ranked fourth in the nation with $373.67.
The U.S. average was $280.62. Only the sparsely-populated
states of Wyoming, Nevada, and Alaska ranked higher.
In per capita state tax collections, 1961, California ranked
fifth with $141.55. U.S. average was $106.03. Only Hawaii,
Washington, Delaware, and Nevada were higher.
EDUCATION:
Even though California had by far the highest enrollment in higher
education of any state, she ranked seventh in number of scholar-
ships awarded through institutions, with 12,599. New York was
first with 21,381, and Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan,
and Texas also led California in scholarships.
California ranks third to Alaska and Delaware in amount spent per
capita by state and local governments on education; pays the
highest average salaries ($7,025) to its instructional staff and
classroom teachers except Alaska; leads the nation in total
expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools, with
$1,600,000,000 in 1961-62.
Yet, in pupil-teacher ratio in public elementary and secondary
schools, 1960, California ranked 44th in the nation with 28.1
against a national average of 25.7; ranked 21st in the nation in
percent of population 14 years and older unable to read and write,
with 2.2%; and ranked 42nd in the percentage of secondary school
classroom teachers with less than standard certificates, fall 1961,
with 7.4%. National average was only 4.3%.
In percent of elementary school teachers with less than standard
certificates, California ranked 41st with 10.4%, against a national
average of 7.4%.
2.
STATE
EXPENDITURES:
In per capita general expenditure of state and local governments,
California ranks third only to Wyoming and Nevada, with
$390.42, against a national average of $277.19. New York spent
only 353.30, and Pennsylvania spent only $238.11.
In total general expenditures by state government, California led
the nation in 1960, with $3,050,525,000. New York was second
with a budget of about 10% less.
AGRICULTURE:
California leads the nation in irrigated land in farms, 1959,
with 7,386,748 acres; leads the nation in total value of farms,
with $18,863,000,000; leads the nation in value of all farm
products sold, 1959, with $2,816,707,000; and ranks first in farm
income, 1960, with $3,186,800,000.
FISHERIES:
California ranks first in value of fish catch, 1960, with $47,474,000.
VOTING:
In votes cast in the 1960 presidential election as percent of
number of persons of voting age, 1960, California ranked only 29th,
with 70.6%.
PERSONAL
INCOME:
In increase in per capita personal income, 1950 to 1960, California's
growth rate was 49.0%, ranking it 26th in the nation, and behind
New York.
GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYMENT:
In 1960, California led the nation in employment by state govern-
ment, with 136,000. New York had only 121,000.
California ranks fourth nationally in employment of state and local
governments per 10,000 population, 1960, with 370.0. Only the
sparsely-populated states of Wyoming, Nevada, and Montana had
higher rates of employment in proportion to the population.
Californa leads the nation in payrolls of state and local govern-
ment, and in total state payroll.
BUSINESS:
California leads the nation in defense expenditures, with
$6,409,000,000 in 1960.
California led the nation in value of construction contracts in
1960 with $4,947,000,000.
In 1960, California ranked third in the nation in business failures
as a percentage of concerns in business. Out of 224,999 business
concerns, 2,534 failed for a percentage of 1.13. National average
was 0.57%.
3.
DIVORCE
RATE:
In 1959, California had a divorce rate of 3.2 per 1,000 population,
against a national average of 2.2.
CRIME:
In 1961, California led the nation in total major crimes with
316,208. New York had only 175,374, for second place.
In rate of criminal offenses per 100,000 population, California
was second only to sparsely populated Nevada. California had a
crime rate of 1,928.5. By contrast, New York's crime rate was
only 1,066.0, and Pennsylvania's was only 654.6.
California leads the nation in prisoners present in federal and
state prisons, 1959, with 19,299.
LABOR:
In 1960, California ranked fourth in the nation in number of work
stoppages, climbing from 7th place in 1958. In 1960, California
had 292 work stoppages involving 104,000 workers, and 855,000 man
hours lost.
PUBLIC
WELFARE:
California ranks first in total amount of public assistance, 1960,
with $482,659,000 to New York's second-place $336,305,000.
California ranks fifth nationally in per capita expenditures by
state and local government for public welfare, with $34.61.
National average is $22.79. Only Louisiana, Oklahoma, Colorado
and Washington spend more per capita on public welfare than
California.