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. "Miscellaneous" tab. 5 pages. [Report], n.d.
Remarks by Richard Nixon: Support of School Construction Bonds (Proposition 1-A). 1 page. [Other Document], 9/14/1962
Richard Nixon at Republican Associates Luncheon: New Industry Means Employment. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/12/1962
Richard Nixon at Luncheon with "Celebrities for Nixon" Committee: Unemployment in the Film Industry. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/26/1962
Richard Nixon at South Bay Rally, Manhattan Beach, Ca.: Brown Considers Tax Increases. 2 pages. [Report], 10/4/1962
Richard Nixon remarks at Masonic Constitution Day Celebration, Chico: Anti-Communism Program for California. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/13/1962
Richard Nixon, San Jose, Ca: Program for Progress in Welfare. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/20/1962
Richard Nixon statewide radio address: Protecting Our Citizens-Programs for Progress. 4 pages. [Other Document], 9/23/1962
Richard Nixon remarks; Sacramento Kick Off Barbecue: Recreational Facilities and Conservation. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/12/1962
Richard Nixon statewide radio address: Educating Our Children: Programs for a Greater California - Number 2. 5 pages. [Other Document], 9/30/1962
Richard Nixon remarks; Before the North San Diego County Nixon for Governor Barbeque: Should Subversives Speak on Tax-Supported Campuses. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/22/1962
"Believe It or Not" re: signed letter addressed to John Bailey, DNC, seeking cancellation of scheduled hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee in Los Angeles. 1 page. [Report], n.d.
"Defeat of UNRUH Anti-Communist Resolution by Democratic State Committee." 1 page. [Report], 8/26/1962
Remarks by Richard M. Nixon; Before the Republican State Central Committee Meeting; Sacramento, Ca. 2 pages. [Other Document], 8/5/1962
Remarks of Richard Nixon at Annual Meeting of the Section on Family Law, American Bar Association, Bellevue Hotel, San Francisco. 2 pages. [Other Document], 8/7/1962
Nixon's Support of the Central Valley Project and Other Reclamation Programs. 2 pages. [Report], 8/28/1962
Nixon Civil Rights - Dick Nixon's "Deeds" in Eliminating Discrimination in Employment. 2 pages. [Report], 8/28/1962
Richard Nixon remarks: The Brown Myth of Fiscal Responsibility; Nixon for Governor Rally, Pasadena. 2 pages. [Other Document], 10/3/1962
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26128141
label
WHSF: Returned, 64-9
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26128141
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 64-9
description
This file contains:
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob Haldeman by the Republican Research Center. "Miscellaneous" tab. 5 pages. [Report], n.d.
Remarks by Richard Nixon: Support of School Construction Bonds (Proposition 1-A). 1 page. [Other Document], 9/14/1962
Richard Nixon at Republican Associates Luncheon: New Industry Means Employment. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/12/1962
Richard Nixon at Luncheon with "Celebrities for Nixon" Committee: Unemployment in the Film Industry. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/26/1962
Richard Nixon at South Bay Rally, Manhattan Beach, Ca.: Brown Considers Tax Increases. 2 pages. [Report], 10/4/1962
Richard Nixon remarks at Masonic Constitution Day Celebration, Chico: Anti-Communism Program for California. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/13/1962
Richard Nixon, San Jose, Ca: Program for Progress in Welfare. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/20/1962
Richard Nixon statewide radio address: Protecting Our Citizens-Programs for Progress. 4 pages. [Other Document], 9/23/1962
Richard Nixon remarks; Sacramento Kick Off Barbecue: Recreational Facilities and Conservation. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/12/1962
Richard Nixon statewide radio address: Educating Our Children: Programs for a Greater California - Number 2. 5 pages. [Other Document], 9/30/1962
Richard Nixon remarks; Before the North San Diego County Nixon for Governor Barbeque: Should Subversives Speak on Tax-Supported Campuses. 2 pages. [Other Document], 9/22/1962
"Believe It or Not" re: signed letter addressed to John Bailey, DNC, seeking cancellation of scheduled hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee in Los Angeles. 1 page. [Report], n.d.
"Defeat of UNRUH Anti-Communist Resolution by Democratic State Committee." 1 page. [Report], 8/26/1962
Remarks by Richard M. Nixon; Before the Republican State Central Committee Meeting; Sacramento, Ca. 2 pages. [Other Document], 8/5/1962
Remarks of Richard Nixon at Annual Meeting of the Section on Family Law, American Bar Association, Bellevue Hotel, San Francisco. 2 pages. [Other Document], 8/7/1962
Nixon's Support of the Central Valley Project and Other Reclamation Programs. 2 pages. [Report], 8/28/1962
Nixon Civil Rights - Dick Nixon's "Deeds" in Eliminating Discrimination in Employment. 2 pages. [Report], 8/28/1962
Richard Nixon remarks: The Brown Myth of Fiscal Responsibility; Nixon for Governor Rally, Pasadena. 2 pages. [Other Document], 10/3/1962
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26128141
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
62f5df07244c97e1
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
64
9
n.d.
Report
Candidate's FACT BOOK prepared by Bob
Haldeman by the Republican Research
Center. "Miscellaneous" tab. 5 pages.
64
9
09/14/1962
Other Document
Remarks by Richard Nixon: Support of
School Construction Bonds (Proposition 1-
A). 1 page.
64
9
09/12/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon at Republican Associates
Luncheon: New Industry Means
Employment. 2 pages.
64
9
09/26/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon at Luncheon with "Celebrities
for Nixon" Committee: Unemployment in the
Film Industry. 2 pages.
64
9
10/04/1962
Report
Richard Nixon at South Bay Rally,
Manhattan Beach, Ca.: Brown Considers Tax
Increases. 2 pages.
64
9
09/13/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon remarks at Masonic
Constitution Day Celebration, Chico: Anti-
Communism Program for California. 2 pages.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Page 1 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
64
9
09/20/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon, San Jose, Ca: Program for
Progress in Welfare. 2 pages.
64
9
09/23/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon statewide radio address:
Protecting Our Citizens-Programs for
Progress. 4 pages.
64
9
09/12/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon remarks; Sacramento Kick
Off Barbecue: Recreational Facilities and
Conservation. 2 pages.
64
9
09/30/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon statewide radio address:
Educating Our Children: Programs for a
Greater California - Number 2.5 pages.
64
9
09/22/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon remarks; Before the North
San Diego County Nixon for Governor
Barbeque: Should Subversives Speak on Tax-
Supported Campuses. 2 pages.
64
9
n.d.
Report
"Believe It or Not" re: signed letter
addressed to John Bailey, DNC, seeking
cancellation of scheduled hearings of the
House Un-American Activities Committee in
Los Angeles. 1 page.
64
9
08/26/1962
Report
"Defeat of UNRUH Anti-Communist
Resolution by Democratic State Committee."
1 page.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
64
9
08/05/1962
Other Document
Remarks by Richard M. Nixon; Before the
Republican State Central Committee
Meeting; Sacramento, Ca. 2 pages.
64
9
08/07/1962
Other Document
Remarks of Richard Nixon at Annual
Meeting of the Section on Family Law,
American Bar Association, Bellevue Hotel,
San Francisco. 2 pages.
64
9
08/28/1962
Report
Nixon's Support of the Central Valley Project
and Other Reclamation Programs. 2 pages.
64
9
08/28/1962
Report
Nixon Civil Rights - Dick Nixon's "Deeds" in
Eliminating Discrimination in Employment.
2 pages.
64
9
10/03/1962
Other Document
Richard Nixon remarks: The Brown Myth of
Fiscal Responsibility; Nixon for Governor
Rally, Pasadena. 2 pages.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Page 3 of 3
MISCELLANEOUS
REPUBLICAN
RESEARCH CENTER
BY THEIR VOTES YE SHALL KNOW THEM
COMMUNISM
(And Sometimes By The Way They Don't Vote!)
"This is our chance to stand up and be counted."
Assemblyman BRUCE REAGAN
(R-Pasadena) 4/18/61
On April 19th the Assembly voted overwhelmingly to pass AB 1559 (Louis Francis
(R-San Mateo) and twenty other Republicans) which gives school boards the power
to prevent use of school buildings for subversive purposes.
The fact that the bill was introduced and that it passed overwhelmingly were
almost foregone conclusions, ever since the state supreme court by a 4-3 decision
upset the former statute which prohibited the use of school buildings by subver-
sive organizations.
In the opinion of the legislative counsel, the new provisions are
constitutional. Briefly they require that a school board may re-
fuse authority to use its property to any person or organization
--unless, under penalty of perjury, they file an information state-
ment stating that the property will not be used "for the commission
of any act which is prohibited by law."
Use of school property by an individual or group "for the commission
of any act intended to advocate or teach concrete action for the over-
throw of the U.S. Government" is prohibited.*
As is often the case with good legislation in this area, the significant thing
here is not who voted for the bill--we expected substantial support--but who
voted against the bill. In the words of Minority Floor Leader Joe Shell (R-Los
Angeles):
"If you want, at the taxpayers expense, to provide a platform for subver-
sive groups, you will vote against the bill."
Well, eight people did vote against the bill. The eight, all Democrats, were:
Phil Burton (San Francisco), Robert Crown (Oakland), Bert DeLotto (Fresno),
Edward Elliott (Los Angeles), John Knox (Richmond), Lester McMillan (Los Angeles),
John O'Connell (San Francisco), and Nicholas Petris (Oakland).
*Note that this interferes with no ones constitutional rights of freedom of
assembly on public property. It does, however, provide a safeguard against
the use of that property to "bite the governmental hand which provides the
service.'
The Mystery of the Missing Votes!
The vote was 69 AYE, 8 NAY, which of course adds up to 77, but this was one of those
days when all 80 assemblymen were present and voting. Obviously, three people
"ducked" this roll call for reasons of their own. A check of the list revealed that
these were also Democrats, Gus Hawkins, Tom Rees and Jesse Unruh (all Los Angeles).
We've included a reproduction of the Assembly Journal page on this vote, and you
might also note that all three of these gentlemen were recorded on the very next
roll call. It would be interesting to hear their explanation of failure to vote-
especially in the light of the fact that Jesse Unruh apparently has the inside track
to be the next Speaker of the Assembly, which position, with his present White House
connections, bids fair to make him the most powerful Democrat west of Sam Rayburn
April 18, 1961]
ASSEMBLY JOURNAL
2591
Speaker Presiding
At 10.23 a.m., Hon. Ralph M. Brown, Speaker of the Assembly,
presiding.
CONSIDERATION OF DAILY FILE (RESUMED)
THIRD READING OF ASSEMBLY BILLS (RESUMED)
Assembly Bill No. 1559-An act to amend Sections 16564 and 16565
of the Education Code, relating to use of school property.
Bill read third time.
THE FOLLOWING ITEM
Speaker pro Tempore Presiding
At 10.37 a.m., Hon. Carlos Bee, Speaker pro Tempore of the Assem-
IS RE-PRINTED IN ITS
bly, presiding.
ENTIRETY FROM THE
Demand for Previous Question
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER
Messrs. Don A. Allen, Hanna, Hegland, Burke, and Beaver demanded
the previous question. Demand sustained.
3/25/61
The question being on the passage of the bill.
Bill passed by the following vote:
AYES-Bruce F. Allen, Don A. Allen, Bagley, Bane, Beaver, Bee, Belotti, Bradley,
Britschgi, George E. Brown, Burke, Busterud, Cameron, Carrell, Casey, Chapel,
'I Never
Collier, Cologne, Conrad, Coolidge, Cunningham, Cusanovich, Dahl, Davis, Dills,
Flournoy, Francis, Frew, Gaffney, Garrigus, Grant, Hanna, Hegland, Hicks, Holmes,
House, Kennick, Kilpatrick, Lanterman, Leggett, Levering, Lowrey, Luckel, Lunardi,
Felt Better,'
Marks, Meyers, Mills, Monagan, Mulford, Munnell, Nisbet, Pattee, Porter, Reagan,
Rumford, Schrade, Sedgwick, Shell, Sumner, Thelin, Thomas, Waldie, William-
Says Brown
son, George A. Willson, Charles H. Wilson, Winton, Wolfrum, Z'berg, and Mr.
Speaker-69.
SACRAMENTO-Radio and
NoEs-Burton. Crown. DeLotto, Elliott, Knox, McMillan, Q'Conpell, and Pet
TV stations reported Thurs-
ris-8.
NOTE: Present but not voting-Unruh, Rees
day night Gov. Brown was
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.
suffering from physical ex-
and Hawkins
haustion.
Assembly Bill No. 1765-An act to amend Sections 8560 and 8562
"I never felt better in my
of the Business and Professions Code, relating to structural pest con-
life," Brown told his Friday
trol.
news conference.
"But, I have been told to
Bill read third time, and passed by the following vote:
take it a little bit easier."
AYES-Bruce F. Allen, Don A. Allen, Bagley, Bane, Bee, Belotti, Bradley,
Stems that after being up
Britschgi, George E. Brown, Burke, Burton, Busterud, Cameron, Carrell, Casey,
all day in conferences, meet-
Chapel, Collier, Cologne, Conrad, Coolidge, Crown, Cunningham, Cusanovich, Dahl,
ings, speech making activities
Davis, DeLotto, Dills, Elliott, Flournoy, Francis, Frew, Gaffney, Garrigus, Grant,
Hanna Hawkins, Hegland, Hicks, Holmes, House, Kennick, Kilpatrick, Knox, Lan-
and evening dinner affairs
terman, Leggett, Levering, Lowrey, Luckel, Lunardi, Marks, McMillan, Meyers,
and more speeches six or sev-
Mills, Monagan, Mulford, Munnell, Nisbet, O'Connell, Pattee, Petris, Reagan,
en days a week "I have been
Rees, Rumford, Schrade, Sedgwick, Shell, Sumner, Thelin, Thomas Unruh, Waldie,
getting awfully tired at night
Williamson, George A. Willson, Charles H. Wilson, Winton, Wolfium Z'harg, and
Mr.Speaker-79.
around 11 or 11:30."
NOES-None.
He hasn't "even got a doc-
tor."
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.
All voted on next
However, Dr. Dan Blain
Speaker Presiding
dropped in to see him about
At 10.46 a.m., Hon. Ralph M. Brown, Speaker of the Assembly, pre-
bill!
another matter and "told me
to go to bed early."
siding.
Dr. Blain is State Director
Assembly Bill No. 1989-An act to amend Section 11012 of the Gov-
of Mental Hygiene.
ernment Code, and Section 13911 of the Education Code, relating to
investment of State Teachers' Retirement System funds.
Bill read third time, and passed by the following vote:
AYES-Bruce F. Allen, Don A. Allen, Bagley, Bane, Bee, Belotti, Bradley,
Britschgi, George E. Brown, Burke, Burton, Busterud, Cameron, Casey, Chapel,
REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
1 August 1962
VETERANS
BROWN AND THE STATE VETERANS
The way Governor Brown (a non-veteran) and his Director of Veterans
Affairs, Joseph M. Farber, have handled veterans programs in California
have kept them under fire since 1959:
The Brown Administration cut certain items from the
Department of Veterans Affairs budget, then reversed itself
and reinstated the items.
Long-time civil service employees have been shuttled
around without regard to proper procedures or consultation
with the Veterans Affairs Board.
Reports by one state department have been repudiated and
countermanded by other state departments and officials, in-
cluding Brown himself.
Important contracts have been awarded through question-
able procedures.
Specifically, here is the Brown-Farber record:
In 1959, Brown cut from the budget the so-called "Field
Bill" funds--a subsidy to private veterans organizations for
furnishing claims and rights services to veterans and their
dependents--and placed these services under state control.
Leaders of veterans organizations are still complaining of the
poorer service afforded to veterans by the state, as compared
with that provided previously by veterans organizations them-
selves.
Also in 1959, Brown deleted the subsidy to the counties for
County veterans service officers, but has since reversed himself
and reinstated the item in the budget in its former full amount
($500,000).
Veterans Affairs Director Farber in 1959 cut down on the
sale of bonds for the "Cal-Vet" Loan program, and dismissed
57 appraisers from the payroll. Backlogs grew rapidly and
soon the department found itself over 6 months behind. By
1962, however, the backlog had been eliminated.
Insurance Problem
Under Republican administrations the required insurance on veterans
homes under the loan program was spread among a combine of 238 insurance
companies. The Brown Administration, without allowing other insurance
companies adequate opportunity to bid separately, awarded the multi-
million dollar contract to a single company - the National-American
Insurance Company - owned by Howard Ahmanson, a campaign contributor to
Brown in 1958. Under the new set-up, veterans were required to have
100% coverage, and were offered no choice of companies.
Farber sent a memorandum to all holders of veteran loans implying a
state endorsement of a National-American "homeowners" policy which in-
cluded not only the required "fire and hazard" coverage, but also insurance
on household contents and personal property. After protests from veterans
and insurance companies, who objected to implied state endorsement of a
single insurance company for insurance which went far beyond that required
by the state for the loans, Farber retracted the memorandum, and admitted
that veterans could secure insurance for personal property from any company
they desired.
State Veterans Home
Farber charged poor administration and fiscal mismanagement at the
Yountville Veterans home, proposed sweeping reforms, and summarily fired,
without consulting or notifying the Veterans Affairs Board, Stanley F.
Dunmire, the Commandant of the Home, a civil service employee. Key
Democrats charged Farber with lack of authority.
In the words of Democratic State Senator Samuel Geddes, Farber chose
to "flaunt the will and intent of the Legislature, the laws of civil
service, and the State Constitution."
Legislative Counsel, Ralph N. Kleps, confirmed that Farber had acted
outside the bounds of his authority, and held that civil service employees
can be removed only by procedures prescribed in the state civil service
act, involving notice and hearing. Farber admitted his wrongdoing, and
reinstated Dunmire.
While the Yountville fireworks were popping, the State Department of
Finance issued an official report recommending the changing of the Yount-
ville Veterans Home to a mental hospital and the transfer of the facility
to the United States Veterans Administration. Both Brown and Farber
immediately repudiated this report, adding evidence to the already estab-
lished fact that, in the Brown Administration, co-ordination is virtually
non-existent!
SUPPORT OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS (PROPOSITION 1-A)
Remarks by
RICHARD NIXON
Turlock
September 14, 1962
We cannot short change the youth of California. As we become the
first State in the nation, our future depends on the education of our young
people. It is therefore imperative that we have the necessary school con-
struction funds for our rapidly expanding educational needs.
That is why I strongly endorse Proposition 1-A. This is why I
endorsed the original school construction bond issue on April 28th in an
address before the California Teachers Association and the National Education
Association. This is why I reaffirmed my strong views by approval of a
school construction bond issue on June 6th, the day after the primary.
In June, when I called upon my opponent to call a special session of
the Legislature, I urged him to separate the education aspects of the Proposition
from the other issues. To have had a straight school construction proposition
on the ballot, unencumbered by other questions, would have shown good faith
in the educational system of our State. For I believe that the people will vote
for school construction when it is a legitimate need.
But the present State Administration placed politics above education
and insisted on putting the bond issue before the people in November in exactly
the same form in which it was defeated three months ago.
While I strongly favor Proposition 1-A, I regret that my opponent's
administration has planned its budget so badly that the money for school con-
struction cannot be raised unless the people further mortgage their future
through more bonded indebtedness.
My opponent's irresponsible spending policies have made this bond
issue necessary. But our worthy institutions, such as Stanislaus State College,
must not be penalized for his recklessness. We must continue to expand our state
colleges and universities to produce the type of young men and women who will
be able to build a greater California.
The present administration is the first government in California history
that has attempted to finance current expenditures from the proceeds of a bond
issue that the people have not yet approved. I am sure that my opponent does
not kite his personal checks. Why should he then kite the public checks of
our state?
The history of Proposition 1-A is graphic proof of the fiscal chaos
in Sacramento under the present State government.
NEW INDUSTRY MEANS EMPLOYMENT
RICHARDHARD NIXON
at Republican Associates Luncheon
San Diego
September 12, 1962
The job gap in California must be of vital concern to every citizen.
For as long as any section of California suffers from unemployment, or not
producing up to its potential, all Californians suffer.
This applies equally to the depression in the lumber and mining industries
in the northern counties, the depressed film industry in Los Angeles, or con-
struction stoppage in San Francisco.
But it is particularly true in San Diego. For, as you know, San Diego
has been a major labor surplus area since September, 1960. Today, aircraft
industry employment alone is 12,800 below a year ago.
Two years ago, on the day I arrived in San Diego, my present opponent
announced, "Unemployment is something that I am deeply concerned about." At
that time, the unemployment rate in San Diego was 6.7% Now, after two more
years of the present State Administration, the latest complete monthly figures
show that unemployment in San Diego is 8.4%
In fact, these current figures show that San Diego has its highest unem-
ployment rate since 1950 and its lowest employment rate since 1956.
The way to solve this problem is not to sweep it under the rug and say
that everything is fine.
The way to solve this problem is not to appoint another meaningless study
committee or phony task force.
The present State Administration has done both these things. And last week
the study committee chairman, when asked for a progress report by a San Diegan
said, "The fact is the key to an early reversal of the downward employment trend
in San Diego is in obtaining Federal recognition of the economic value of, and
high utilization of, the air frame and aerospace production potential."
In other words, the State committee to solve San Diego's unemployment
problem has made this record in seven months: 1) It has abdicated its res-
ponsibility to Washington; 20 It has done nothing.
San Diegans have done a first-rate job on their own to attract industry
and to diversify. This is a city of unusual vitality and one with an even
greater future. You are people who do things and do them well. San Diego has
fought for its city's development in the best tradition of our state. But, as
I have sate, this is all California's fight -- not just San Diego's. And this
city needs forceful state action to build an economic climate which will help
attract the new industry needed here.
I believe that the only way to honestly make new progress in San Diego --
and throughout the State -- is to end economic ignorance in California government.
NEW INDUSTRY MEANS EMPLOYMENT - 2
As long as we retain a State Administration that has brought to California
the most costly and wasteful government in the nation and the highest taxes
in the nation, we cannot expect new industries to locate in California in the
numbers we need to provide jobs we must have.
As long as we retain a State Administration whose answer to our economic
problems is to sit back and hope for Federal contracts, we cannot expect
businesses to remain in California. We will continue to lose too many.
We must fight for California's fair share of Federal contracts, but we
cannot expect this to solve our problems alone.
The way to bring business and jobs to California is threefold:
1) We must have a vigorous, dynamic "California Crusade for New Business
Investment" that will help our chambers of commerce and others as they search
out and attract new industries.
2) We must have a state government that cares for the poople's welfare
while living within its means, so that businessess can operate with the assurance
that taxes will not continue to skyrocket.
3) We must have a state government in which there is confidence --
an administration that is known throughout the nation for its dedication to
private initiative, not government handout.
*
I believe that discerning Democrats agree with this analysis and this
program. And the presence here today of so many good Democrats attests to this.
As Democrats, you are not deserting your party. Your party in California,
under the radical influence of the CDC, has deserted you and the true principles
of Democracy.
The handpicked candidates of the leftwing CDC, including my opponent,
have put too much faith in government and too little faith in people. And they
will find, on November 6th, that the people of California have lost faith in them.
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE FILM INDUSTRY
RICHARD NIXON
At Luncheon with
"Celebrities for Nixon" Committee
Beverly Hills, California
September 26, 1962
California can only be as great as the sum total of all its parts.
When any California industry suffers from unemployment or is not producing
up to its potential, this must be a serious and personal problem for all
Californians.
Thirteen days ago I was in Eureka in the heart of our great timber
region. Lumber production has fallen more than 15% during the present State
Administration. This is a serious problem for all Californians.
Four days ago I was in San Diego, where there are 12,800 more
people out of work in the aircraft industry than a year ago. This is a serious
problem for all Californians.
Let us look at the motion picture industry. The most recent
figures show that almost 30% of the film cameramen in Local 659 are out of
work; 17% of the film editors in Local 776 are jobless; many other technicians
and performers are without employment. And this is a serious problem for all
Californians.
The problem takes on added dimensions because movie production is
more than an industry -- a means of making jobs. It is a symbol. During the
formative years of our state, California became famous because of a seal that
flashed on screens throughout the world. It said, "Made in Hollywood."
Now Hollywood is in trouble. And now California must pay its
obligation to the industry that first made us world famous.
The root of Hollywood's trouble is in production of American motion
pictures in foreign countries -- runaway productions.
In 1960, about 20% of American financed movies were made abroad.
In 1961, this figure rose to 40%. And so far this year, 60% of American
financed movies were produced overseas.
The reason for this exodus from Hollywood is not cheap labor or
more skilled help or exotic locales. The reason is that foreign governments
are giving subsidies to our productions. Britain gives a 75% guarantee on
funds to finance a movie there. Yugoslavia, which accepts U.S. foreign aid,
turns around and gives 90%-guaranteed financing for movies made in Yugoslavia.
To the great credit of our American motion picture industry, it has
never received a government subsidy from Washington, has never asked for one,
and does not want any such help today.
Yet it is imperative that something be done before it is too late.
The present State Administration has had a do-nothing record for four years.
These are two actions that I propose to take.
1. There will be a major tax reform bill before the next session
of Congress. It is important at that time to plug the tax loopholes that make
run-away productions feasible. As Governor, I will carry our case to Washington
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE FILM INDUSTRY - 2
and fight to prevent Hollywood from becoming a tax-created ghost town.
2. By December 1, 1962, I will announce the appointment of the
Governor's Council on the Motion Picture Industry. This Council will consist
of top film industry leaders in management, labor and the performing arts.
It will draft a plan of voluntary, cooperative action to bring
new life and spirit to Hollywood. And the prestige and support of the
Governor of California will back up this action program.
BROWN CONSIDERS TAX INCREASES
RICHARD NIXON
South Bay Rally
Manhattan Beach, California
Thursday, October 4, 1962
California cannot afford four more years of the Brown Administration --
the most expensive state government in the history of our country, which has
imposed on Californians the greatest additional state tax burdens known to man.
The voters must now choose between Mr. Brown and raising taxes, or new
leadership and cutting the cost of government so as to reduce taxes.
While my opponent pledges no new taxes next year, his administration is
now considering three proposals to increase taxes.
Either the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing or else
the people are being told less than the full story of our state's financial
condition.
Right now state planners are looking into the advisability of soaking
Californians with a statewide property tax, a rise in the cigarette tax, and a
state withholding tax.
I oppose all three moves. I call on my opponent to also publicly
repudiate these taxing schemes.
1. Statewide Property Tax
On September 28, Dr. Wallace W. Hall, State Associate Superintendent
of Public Instruction, testified before the Assembly Interim Subcommittee on
Higher Education in favor of a statewide property tax. He recommended a tax
of 20 cents for each $100 of assessed property.
Yesterday I strongly stated my views on this plan in detail. I oppose
any state attempt to invade a tax field that has long been reserved for local
government. And I oppose any state move to add a heavier tax burden on our
homeowners.
2. New Cigarette Tax
In 1959, as part of the program that gave California the largest tax
increase in the history of any state, my opponent put through a three cents a
package tax on cigarettes.
Now, according to veteran Sacramento reporter Henry C. MacArthur of
the Capitol News Service, "The administration is considering asking for an
additional cent on cigarettes."
Mr. Brown has never denied this report. What is his position now?
BROWN CONSIDERS TAX INCREASES - 2
3. State Withholding Tax
At the last session of the legislature, a resolution was passed
to study a state withholding tax. Then, on May 8, the Department of Finance
sent a questionnaire to all states that now have withholding taxes. But,
far from simply trying to find out how withholding tax systems work, the Brown
Administration asked questions designed to anticipate the politics of getting
a withholding tax passed. On page three, this questionnaire asks: "Was there
any opposition to the legislation which proposed withholding from any of the
following? Employer, Taxpayer, Unions, Chamber of Commerce, Special Interest."
If the State is now preparing the groundwork for a withholding tax,
the people should know about it.
I am opposed to this system of state taxation. In operation, a
withholding tax borrows money from those who can least afford it. Officials
at the State Board of Equalization have already been asked to compute the cost
to the taxpayer of this scheme.' By their calculations, an additional $45 to
$60 million will be collected each year. The catch is that the State will have
to return all but $15 million because it will have been collected from those
people who earn so little that they will not owe the State the taxes which have
already been withheld.
This will just be another example of the boondoggling with kited
checks for which this administration is already famous. The refunded money is
nothing more than an interest-free loan to the state from people in the lowest
income brackets.
*****
Only a Houdini could pledge massive additional government spending
and no new taxes and not welsh on one or the other of his promises.
Yet my opponent pledges no new taxes while running on a Party platform
that promises $1,360,000,000 in new spending over the next four years. Where
does he propose to get this money? From a state property tax? From a new
cigarette tax? From a withholding tax? The people of California have the right
to know whether Mr. Brown is already hedging on his "no'new'tax" promise.
ANTI-COMMUNISM PROGRAM FOR CALIFORNIA
From Remarks of RICHARD NIXON
MASONIC CONSTITUTIONDAY CELEBRATION
CHICO
September 13, 1962
This is the three-pronged anti-Communist program that I believe
must be vigorously pursued in California.
1. Investigation:
There must be public support for legislative investigating committees
on both the state and national level.
I served on the House Committee on Un-American Activities for
four years. My work was often unpopular. But I am proud of my service.
And I am firmly convinced that the Committee performs a necessary
function; first, of exposing the Communist tactics for the American
people to see; second, of investigating the executive branch of
government to uncover weaknesses in our security programs; third, of
developing legislation to deal with Communism in the United States.
2. Legislation:
There must be public support of loyalty and security programs for
federal, state, and local employees.
Working for the Government of the State of California -- or the United
States government -- is a privilege, not a right. And a government
employee should not be allowed to belong to an organization whose
objective is the overthrow of the very government for which he is
working.
We must deny the use of tax-supported schools for speeches by
individuals who defy the subversive activities control act or who
plead the fifth amendment before grand juries or legislative committees.
During the past few months I have had the privilege of talking on
15 college and university campuses in our state. I have found that
there is no policy by the state administration to guide the college and
university presidents in the state system on Communist speakers. I
believe that a firm policy directive must be laid down by executive order
and legislation.
3. Education:
We must greatly improve and make mandatory a program of teaching
Communism tactics and the alternatives of freedom in our high schools,
using authoritative text-books and trained teachers.
We must also have a voluntary program on Communism available
on the adult level.
ANTI-COMMUNISM PROGRAM FOR CALIFORNIA - 2
I feel very strongly about this question of education. As
I have travelled around the country, I have found that the trouble
with our attitude toward is not too much patriotism or too little
patriotism, but too little knowledge.
PROGRAM FOR PROGRESS IN WELFARE
RICHARD NIXON
San Jose, California
September 20, 1962
Based on a study of California Welfare costs by nationally
recognized experts, I shall make recommendations in the field of welfare that
will result in a savings of 27 million dollars in federal, state and county
costs and still give California the mosg generous and humane program in
the nation.
Moreover, this saving to the taxpayers will be made without
cutting one cent from the aid to the needy aged program or from others who
are entitled to welfare payments.
Without drpriving a single child in need, 25 million dollars can
be cut from the Aid to Needy Children program by responsible changes in the
law and regulations.
Another 2 million dollars will be saved in the handling of
prescriptions by cutting the cosť of red tape. California now pays 75 cents
on each prescription for paper work alone, while the Veterans Administration
processes prescriptions for only 21 cents.
Today, under the present state administration, California's handling
of welfare programs has become a national disgrace. Costs have risen three and
one half times faster than our population growth. Chiselers by the hundreds
have been allowed to invade the relief rolls. And two national magazines, a
study by the State Senate Committee on Social Welfare, and, numerous Grand Jury
investigations have exposed loose administration, excessive red tape and un-
productive increases.
But the cost of my opponent's failure to properly run the vital welfare
program of California must be measured in more than dollars. It must also be
measured in the destruction of character, moral fiber and self-reliance.
When welfare programs make it more profitable for a man not to work
than to work, there is something radically wrong with the program.
When welfare programs make it more profitable for a man to desert
his family than to support them, there is something radically wrong with the
program.
From all over the state we have such reports: A man who earned
$242.00 a month by working, but gets $364.00 a month for his family by deserting
them; another man who increased is monthly income by $110.00 by not working.
By adopting this five point action program of welfare reform,
California will get more service for less money.
1. We must spend up action to find welfare chiselers and get them
off the relief rolls. A recent state Senate report reveals that 58.2 percent
of ANC cases are illegally receiving aid.
PROGRAM FOR PROGRESS IN WELFARE - 2
2. We must concentrate state efforts to reunite ANC families
or make absent fathers support their families. In 44 percent of ANC cases
involving absent parents, no investigation was made to locate the missing
person, according to the Senate Committee's findings.
3. We must re-examine the size of welfare payments to end the
common situation where family income is much greater on relief than when
gainfully employed.
,
W. We must replace duplication and state dictation to the counties
with greater local control and local autonomy.
5. We must restore the concept of personal responsibility; re-
focusing our efforts on helping people to help themselves, rather than just
doling out money.
PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS
PROGRAMS FOR PROGRESS
From a Statewide Radio Address
by RICHARD NIXON
September 23, 1962
This is the first broadcast in a series that I call, "Programs
for a Greater California." Each Sunday evening until election day, I will
tell you how I propose to give decisive leadership in dealing with the
pressing problems of our state.
Tonight I will talk about "Crime in California."
We are all proud that California will soon be the first state
in the nation in population. As the first state, we can also set an
example for all the other states to follow.
Today, under the Brown administration, the record shows that
instead of being the first State in crime prevention, we are first in crimes
committed.
By the time this broadcast is over, there will have been nine
major crimes committed in our State -- burglaries, robberies, auto thefts,
murders, rapes and assaults.
We have the best local law enforcement officers in the nation,
yet there were more major crimes committed in California last year, according
to the F.B.I. than in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey combined -- three
states with a total population twice that of California.
We have the best local law enforcement officers in the nation, and
yet from 1959 to 1961, according to the California Attorney General, felony
crimes increased 26.7%, adult felony arrests were up 24% and juvenile arrests
rose 17.8% -- and these great increases in crime took place during a period
when our population rose only 5.6% In other words, we cannot blame more
people as the reason for more crime.
Why then has crime skyrocketed in California?
The answer is that our dedicated local crime fighters have not
had strong support from the present State administration. The Governor's office
is the weakest link in our law enforcement chain. And Remember: A police
badge is only as good as the Governor who backs it up.
What has been the record over the past four years?
1. There has been the endless agonizing in the Chessman case.
This is a graphic example of executive indecision. But what is important
is the effect of this indecision. The threat of the death penalty is a
major deterrent to crime. And the handling of the Chessman case undercut
this deterrent.
PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS - 2
2. There has been a steady stream of authoritative reports showing
that organized crime now has a firm foothold in California -- reports by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, by the United States Commissioner of Narcotics,
by the Joint Judiciary Committee on the Administration of Justice, by the
rackets subcommittee in the State Assembly, and by U.S. Congressional in-
vestigating committees.
The State Assembly Committee concluded in 1959: "Organized
crime does definitely exist in California and to an alarmingly dangerous
degree. The hoodlum and gangster population of California, both permanent
and
transient, is sizeable. and 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."
When my opponent was confronted with this intelligence, did he
immediately take forceful action? No. Instead he ignored these findings and
called the study a "waste of the people's money.
3. There has been a population explosion in our prisons. They are
now overcrowded and have become the breeding ground for forty cases of riots,
murders and escapes in close-security facilities isnthe last three years alone.
4. There has been an executive record of stalling on vital narcotics
legislation and building roadblocks against the efforts of law officers to get
stronger crime fighting legislation.
In 1959, 15 anti-crime measures were introduced in the legislature
with the support of the California District Attorneys Association, the Califor-
nia Peace Officers Association and the State Sheriffs Association. This
program would have brought stronger criminal penalties and more effective
narcotics control.
But without support from the Governor's office the anti-crime
program was killed.
This then is the law enforcement climate in California today. This
is how our state, county and local officials have been handcuffed by the
present State administration. This is why California's crime rate is nearly
double the national crime rate.
Crime in California must be recognized and rooted out. We cannot
afford a state administration that hears no evil and sees no evil.
@ believe that this eight-point action program will make our state
into a model for effectively preventing and fighting crime.
1. Capital punishment -- the law of California -- must be firmly
supported from the Governor's office. We must not encourage crime because of
public vacillation over the death penalty. My opponent and I are diametrically
opposed on this issue.
PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS - 3
2. We must smash the narcotics traffic -- and my program includes
giving the death penalty to big-time dope peddlers.
We must have stronger penalties for the possession and sale of
dangerous drugs. We must speed up research on the causes and cures of
narcotics addiction and we must improve public school educational programs
on the menace of narcotics and dangerous drugs.
3. We must support our conscientious local law enforcement
officials with a realistic legislative program.
Such a program must overcome the adverse effects of the Carol Lane
decision. This decision ruled that softer state law superseded stronger
local laws. We must take immediate action to clarify jurisdictions and
put strong local laws back into effect.
We must adopt legislation, within our constitutional framework,
to protect the identity of informers, who are essential in narcotics cases.
We must reasonably define our search and seizure laws.
We must get tougher enforcement of our parole laws to prevent the
unsafe release of dangerous criminals.
California needs a Governor who will work with our dedicated local
crime fighters, rather than against them.
4. We must set up a top-level Governor's Council on Crime Prevention
and Law Enforcement to coordinate the fight for a safer California.
This Council will have representatives from all the major state
and local law enforcement agencies, and representatives from the private
voluntary groups that work in the field of crime prevention.
The Governor's Council will work closely with the F.B.I., the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the other national agencies in the law
enforcement field.
The Council will have a major responsibility for seeing that the
state gives the necessary backing to local law officials and for making the
legislative recommendations to give them the proper tools to do their job.
5. We must initiate educational programs to create a greater
respect for our law enforcement officials.
This is especially important among the young people, and must be
done in cooperation with our schools.
The Governor must take the lead in defending law enforcement
officers when they come under unjust attack.
PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS - 4
6. We must have a Governor who will personally lead the fight
to drive the racketeers and hoods from California.
We must make California "off limits" to the eastern gangsters
who are coming here because they think our state is a happy hunting ground.
7. We must have fast action to provide adequate prison facilities
so as to end our state's shocking record of prison riots, murders and escapes.
8. State government must give meaningful encouragement to our
voluntary agencies, church groups and boys clubs in their programs of crime
prevention. This will be a primary function of the Governor's Council.
We must help curb juvenile delinquency by improving the employment
opportunities for our young people.
Law enforcement is government's business, but crime prevention is
everybody's business.
Together we can greatly strengthen our voluntary programs of
education and recreation to give our youth the chance they deserve to lead
full and productive lives.
These eight actions will assure a greater, saner California.
These actions will restore Californians' confidence in our state government.
These crime prevention and crime control programs will make California a
model to the nation.
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND CONSERVATION
RICHARD NIXON
Sacramento Kiek Off Barbecue
September 12, 1962
While we live in the greatest sportsmen's paradise in the world,
good hunting and fishing areas have gotten harder and harder to find during
the present administration in Sacramento.
As California becomes the first state in population, it is vitally
important that we have adequate recreational facilities. Our State, which has
always been world famous in this area, now ranks below New York in public
recreation area and below Michigan in campsites.
We must take immediate action to speed-up the development of our
unsurpassed natural resources, open them for use, and conserve them for the
future.
We must particularly open up new areas for fishing and hunting -- an
area that has not been given the priority treatment it deserves.
I believe that a seven-point action program is imperative.
1. Fishing
To inspire better fishing -- and perhaps fewer tall tales -- we must
expand the catchable trout program. At the same time, there must be more
emphasis on warm water fishery development in the many lakes, new reservoirs
and canals of California.
2. Hunting
We must adopt a system to open up for hunting private and public
lands that are now closed to sportsmen.
One possibility is a cooperative program through which landowners
would be reimbursed by the hunters themselves for the use of their lands. This
could work mainly for deer hunting through permits issued by the State to
landowners and reissued by the landowners to the hunters. Another possibility
is for the State to lease private lands and then issue permits for a fee
sufficient to pay for the lease.
The other great area for recreational expansion in California is in
public land. Nearly half of all the land in the State -- 47 million acres --
is owned by the Federal government. Great tracts of this wilderness can be
opened to public use. And, by president ial order, the minimum security prison-
ers, now used for fighting forest fires, could also cut trails and roads in the
wilderness areas and build campsites.
3. Legislation
The present local firearms registration is sufficient, and a bill
requiring national registration of hunting weapons is not needed.
recreational facilities and conservation
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND CONSERVATION - 2
The bill that would outlaw carefully regulated dove hunting
should also be opposed.
The Tule-Klamath waterfowl refuge must be retained as one of the
greatest hunting and refuge areas of the West.
4. Resources vs. Industry and Water
There must be more spirit of compromise between the preservation of
natural resources and the development of industry and water projects.
The State should investigate the effect of development on fish and
wildlife so that it can propose changes or alternatives rather than flatly
opposing new industry and water projects.
5. Federal-State Relations
The State must work to develop its own recreational facilities,
rather than always holding out its hand to Washington for Federal help.
The Federal government has an important role in opening public
lands and the collection of taxes for fishing and hunting equipment. But
Federal action is neither a substitute for State action nor an excuse for
State inaction.
6. Predatory Animals
The control of predatory animals must be improved. Too much game
that could be utilized by hunters is being lost to predators because of the
State's failure to control them. In no case should control of pedatory
animals be based on the acceptance of State deer management in local areas.
7. Safety
Study should be given to possible future regulation of deer hunters
and other sportsmen in areas where hunter concentrations may impair their
safety or the welfare of the game. Such steps probably will never be needed
in some areas, but such regulation already appears to be indicated in such
areas as the Modoc-Lassen region. Studies should be made now to gain proper
acceptance when and if they might be required.
* *
The State, under the present administration, has been dragging
its feet in expanding the hunting and fishing resources and areas of California.
A greater number of California's waterways and wilderness areas must be
developed for present and future use by the growing armies of sportsmen. We
must reverse the trend of too little and too late -- fewer and fewer oppor-
tunities for more and more sportsmen. I strongly believe that with greater
effort and more imaginative planning the outdoorsmen of California can wind up
with more fish in their creels and more game in the bag. And I pledge to give
leadership to a program that will accomplish these goals.
EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN
PROGRAMS FOR A GREATER CALIFORNIA -- NUMBER 2
FROM A STATEWIDE RADIO ADDRESS BY
RICHARD NIXON
(over CBS Network from Los Angeles)
September 30, 1962
Each Sunday evening until election day, I will show you how
decisive leadership can solve the pressing problems of our state.
Tonight, I will talk about education and I will propose
12 steps to better education for all our young people.
A leading educator has said, "Knowledge, freely available
to a people who have the right and the will to use it wisely, is the
only real safety this world provides. Freedom of the mind is the
foundation of all other freedoms, and if it is lost the others are
soon found not worth keeping.
This is the basic reason why education is so important.
Our educational emphasis must be on giving all children
an equal chance at the starting line. But it must also be geared to
sti Lulating the students who are more creative -- who have exceptional
abilities. I oppose the idea of using our schools as a leveling device
with an inordinate emphasis on adjustment, rather than on opportunity
and challenge.
Here is my program for progress, opportunity and freedom
through education.
1. I believe that the strength and vitality of our educational
system lies in the autonomy of the local, diversified school system.
The quality of our education largely depends on our local
school districts and the decisions made within these districts. This is
the best means that has ever been found of tailoring education to meet
local living conditions.
Yet, during the past four years, there has been a trend toward
greater and greater state dictation of curricula to the local school
districts. This trend must be reversed. One way to do this is to see
that each new State program imposed on the local school district includes
a legislative act providing for the financial support of the program.
2. I believe our goal must be better salaries for our teachers
and less emphasis on fancy buildings.
What is taught, and how it is taught, is far more important
to our children's futures than having the fanciest drinking fountains,
indirect lighting and ultramodern gimmicks.
We must create a renewed respect for our school teachers. They
are professional people who are engaged in an important, honorable career --
often at considerable financial sacrifice. They should be relieved of
non-teaching duties insofar as possible.
EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN - 2
Like all professional people, our teachers have an obligation to
those they serve -- an abgigation which has traditionally caused them to refrain
from going out on strike. However, the 1962 Democratic State Platform, in its
Labor plank, appears to favor such strikes. I call on my opponent to repudiate
this unfortunate impression that is clearly not in the best interests of our
State.
3. I believe that the Fisher Bill should be amended, although I
agree with the philosophy behind it -- renewed emphasis on teaching academic
subjects, rather than "frills."
We must remember that we use our schools as training grounds for
many types of jobs. Besides academic training, we must also teach vocational
and specialized subjects. We cannot afford to discourage teachers in these
fields. Nor should we penalize children who must have this kind of education.
Under a rigid interpretation of the Fisher Bill, we could unfairly
and unwisely penalize vocational instruction. Yet more than half our students
will eventually have jobs that require these vocational skills. I believe we
must amend the Fisher Bill to take this into consideration in granting teacher
credentials.
4. We must take immediate action to solve the serious "drop out"
problem in California.
Between the eighth and twelfth grades, one out of every four pupils
drops out of school.
Our state now pays welfare or institutional care costs for 25% of
the young people who drop out of school. It would be better to spend this money
on tailoring education for their needs, than to have to spend it after they are
unemployed or in trouble with the law.
5. We must give greater support to our junior colleges from money
out of the State's General Funds, so as to relieve some of the burden from the
local property taxpayers.
Our junior college system is designed to prepare students for higher
education; to round off the education of other students, and to prepare young
people for vocations.
The Master Plan for Higher Education recognizes the need for junior
college education, but the State has steadfastly refused to give it substantial
support.
The local property taxpayers are not capable of taking on the great
burden of the junior colleges, as they are now doing. The program was not adopted
with this intent. And this situation must be remedied.
6. We must greatly improve our pupil-teacher ratio.
Of the 50 states, 44 do a better job than California in providing an
adequate number of teachers for its students. At the present time, our statewide
average is 33 students to one teacher at the elementary school level.
EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN - 3
#
Our children must have adequate Instruction -- and an overworked
teacherup forced to do a disservice to herself and her pupils.
7. The State must once again pay a fair share of the cost of the
local school districts.
At one time the State traditionally paid half the cost of the local
school districts. Under the present administration, State support has gone
down to an average of about 38%. And in some school districts, the State barely
pays 20% of the costs.
Yet the State has been forcing the local districts to add more and
more mandatory programs to their curricula, without paying its faire share of
the added costs of these programs. I do not believe that the State should
impose expensive programs on the local school districts and then simply pass
the tab along to the local property taxpayer.
8. I believe that the State Constitution must be amended to allow
local school bond issues to be approved by a simple majority of the voters.
At this time, the State can float a bond issue for school support
with a simple majority vote, but local school districts are required to get
a two-thirds vote..
A state school bond issue aids only such districts that must borrow
from the State. But the money from local school bond issues stays right in
the district. It is unfair to make it more difficult to support your own
district than to lend money to other districts.
9. We must end our crowded classroom situation by a responsible
school construction program.
On the elementary level, we now have 90,000 school children on half-day
sessions and this number will increase unless action is quickly taken. These
children must not be short-changed.
We must also approve Proposition 1-A so that construction will keep
pace with needs on the higher education level.
10. We must end wasteful land requirements for state-financed schools.
Today a state-financed high school must have forty acres of ground, whether it
needs it or not. This is an unrealistic requirement in many rural communities
and leads to wasteful practices.
There are other unnecessary and arbitrary state-imposed building
requirements that substantially increase the costs of school construction.
11. We must improve the variety, quality, and management of textbooks.
The State must not place artificial restrictions on the variety of
textbooks available by requiring publishers to lease their plates to the State
Printing Office. California students should be able to learn from the best
textbooks -- not just from the textbooks that the State is able to print itself.
The State must give the school districts a multiple choice of
EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN - 4
textbooks at all levels. This will reduce the possibility of errors in
selection and will give the local districts greater control over education.
The Brown Administration is guilty of shocking mismanagement of
our school textbook program.
Thousands of children throughout California are now without
textbooks. At the present time, there is an acute classroom shortage of
arithmetic, handwriting, history and geography texts.
This serious and irresponsible situation has been admitted by
Burtis Claypool, State Supervisor of Textbook Distribution.
The Cupertino Elementary School District, for example, is now
short 4,910 basic texts. The Jefferson Elementary School District must
have nearly 6,000 more books to meet its pupils' needs.
While students are going without books today, only two years ago
the Brown Administration burned thousands of surplus books.
This is a clear indication of how the present State Administration
has failed our children and is incapable of fulfilling the basic needs of our
classrooms.
12. I am firmly opposed to Federal Aid to Education. On this,
my opponent and I are diametrically opposed.
From my experience in Congress and as Vice President, I know that
Federal Aid to Education will soon lead to Federal Control of Education. And
I do not want bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to tell us how or what to teach
our children here in California.
Beyond the philosophical reasons why I reject Federal Aid to Education,
let me ask this question: Can Californians afford it? California would pay
much more to the Federal Government for support of an education program than
we would get back in Federal funds. It would cost Californians six dollars for
every four dollars returned to us. In other words, we would be paying a great
premium for Washington red tape.
But opposing aid to education from Washington means assuming the
responsibility to support better education in California. Only wa can give
California the best paid teachers, the lowest drop out rate, and the best
educational system at all levels in the nation.
As parents, we know that there is nothing more important than the
education of our children. We want our children to have the very best --
not only in educational facilities, but also in educational quality. If it
takes sacrifice to give this to our children, then sacrifice we must.
EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN - 5
As free citizens, we also know that there is nothing more
important than the education of our children. We have not been able to
give our children an inheritance that will allow them to deal with the
problems of a world half-free, half-ruled by Communist dictatorship.
And the survival of our great nation depends on how well we prepare them
for the challenges they must face.
SHOULD SUBVERSIVES SPEAK ON TAX-SUPPORTED CAMPUSES
RICHARD NIXON
Before North San Diego County
Nixon for Governor Barbeque
Saturday, September 22, 1962
On the issue of whether subversives should be allowed to speak
on the campuses of our tax-supported institutions, my opponent has again
displayed an incredible ignorance of what has been going on, what this
issue is all about and what should be done about it.
1. This is the record of my opponent's ignorance on what the issue
is all about.
On March 21, 1961, when asked his views about the scheduled campus
appearance of Frank Wilkinson -- who had refused to answer Congressional
Investigators' questions on the grounds of self-incrimination and who had
been identified under oath as a member of the Communist Party -- my opponent
replied, "Well, my view of Mr. Wilkinson and anybody of that nature is that
he should be permitted to speak.'
However, on September 19, 1962, after I had made my position clear,
he made this statement: "I don't believe we should permit any subversives to
speak on our campuses. I don't see any reason why we should give them a
platform from which to spread their poison."
For the sake of California, I am glad that my opponent has completely
reversed his position. But, unfortunately, he completely misses the point.
The question is not of disallowing "subversives" to speak. Rather, it is
a question of determining who is a "subversive." His undefined statement on
"subversives" is a clear mandate for actions based on unfounded charges. On
the other hand, my position clearly defines "subversives" and what to do
about them.
2. This is the record of my opponent's ignorance on how to handle
this situation.
My program states two criteria for banning subversives from appearing
on State campuses: (a) I would deny the use of tax-supported schools for
speeches by any individual who pleads self-incrimination (the Fifth Amendment)
before a legally constituted legislative committee or grand jury investigating
subversive activities, and (b) I would deny the use of tax-supported schools
for speeches by any individual who defies the provisions of the Subversive
Activities Control Act of 1951.
I again call on my opponent to answer these two questions:
Does he agree or disagree with my program to deny a state platform
to individuals who have taken the Fifth Amendment about subversive activities?
Does he agree or disagree with my program to deny a state platform
to individuals who have flaunted the basic Federal anti-subversive law?
SHOULD SUBVERSIVES SPEAK ON TAX-SUPPORTED CAMPUSES - 2
This is what the people of California want to hear -- not some
vague, meaningless statement.
3. This is the record of my opponent's incredible ignorance of
what has been going on.
On September 19, 1962, he stated, "There hasn't been a Communist
speaker on a university campus in the four years I have been Governor."
Now let us look at the facts.
During his four years in office, there have been eight speakers
on State-run campuses who have refused to answer questions about subversive
activities before legally constituted legislative investigating committees.
--On February 22, 1961, Anne Braden addressed a noon meeting at
Dwinelle Hall on the Unitersity of California campus in Berkeley.
--On May 16, 1960, Archie Brown spoke in Griffith Hall on the
Berkeley campus.
--On March 17, 1960, Harry Bridges spoke at a noon rally in
Wheeler Hall, University of California, Berkeley.
--Frank Pestana spoke at a noon rally in Wheeler Hall Auditorium,
Berkeley Campus, on May 1, 1961.
--Frank Wilkinson has spoken at least twice on the University of
California Campus -- once on March 22, 1961, in the Wheeler Hall Auditorium
and once on February 16, 1962, in a room of Wheeler Hall.
--John Howard Lawson spoke on October 10, 1960, at Dwinelle Hall,
Berkeley Campus, and again on November 23, 1960, on the Los Angeles Campus
of the University of California.
--Maud Russell spoke on the University of California Campus at
Santa Barbara, according to Chancellor Kerr's list of 1960-61 Campus Speakers.
She also spoke on the Berkeley Campus, on November 28, 1960.
--And, most remarkable of all, Clinton E. Jencks appears on the
1960-61 and 1961-62 payroll of the University of California as a teaching
assistant in the Department of Economics.
I am turning over to the press the public records on these eight
individuals -- showing the chapter and verse on their subversive activities
as reported by legislative investigating committees.
Under my programs, these eight individuals would have been barred
from speaking on the campuses of our State colleges and universities. And I
believe this is the action that the people of California want from their
Governor.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
1. On April 22, 1962, 43 officers, including presidents and
vice presidents, of Democratic clubs in Los Angeles County Central
Committee signed a letter addressed to John Bailey, chairman of
the Democratic National Committee, urging him to use his influence
to seek cancellation of scheduled hearings of the House Un-American
Activities Committee in Los Angeles. The letter stated in part that
the hearings should be cancelled "in the interests of insuring a
Democratic victory" and "there is the very obvious danger posed
against local Democrats of liberal persuasion".
2. On May 28, 1962, the Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner carried a story which included the following
statement: # A spokesman for the Governor replied that Brown
'had never heard of such a letter. Naturally, he would not
comment on something he had never seen'."
3. Brown has had enough time to comment. He remains silent.
Does he agree with the 43 signers or is he afraid that he will
lose their support and campaign aid if he repudiates the stand
of the 43?
3
DEFEAT OF UNRUH ANTI-COMMUNIST RESOLUTION BY DEMOCRATIC STATE
COMMITTEE
AUGUST 26, 1962
On Saturday, August 25th, Eugene Wyman, the new Chairman of the
Democratic State Committee, said the Democratic party was prepared
to adopt an anti-Communist resolution which would be the answer to
GOP charges that the CDC is an extremist left-wing organization.
He said: "The resolution committee, with the assistance of responsible
Democratic leaders, is working on an anti-Communist resolution which
I feel will be unanimously adopted.
"It will be so stiff and unequivocable in its language that it will
put the Democratic Party on record in a manner that no Republican has
been able to achieve."
He said the proposed resolution "probably will contain provisions to
bar the use of the name Democratic in connection with any organization
or individual who has been remotely linked to any truly subversive
cause."
On Sunday Assemblyman Unruh introduced an anti-Communist resolution.
But, lo and behold, the left-wing CDC maintained its control over the
Democratic party and succeeded by a vote of 267 to 193 to eliminate
a portion pledging the Committee to take all legal steps to deny
Communists membership in any official or semi-official branch of
the Democratic party.
The successful attack by the CDC was led by State Senator George
Miller, Jr., Assemblyman Philip Burton, and Tom Carvey, president
of the CDC.
When the amendment was adopted, Unruh didn't recognize "his own
child" and moved immediately for adjournment of the Committee session,
thus killing his resolution.
Brown should be challenged again and again to repudiate the support
of the left-wing CDC. He has termed the organization his strong right
arm. It is obvious he will not cut off his right arm.
Remarks by Richard M. Nixon
Before the Republican State Central Committee Meeting
Sacramento, California
Sunday, August 5, 1962
Today, for one overriding reason, we are assembled in the most significant
convention in the history of our Party in California.
This November, for the same reason, Californians will vote in the most import-
ant election in our State's history, and the most important in the nation in 1962.
What makes this convention and this election so significant and so important
is that the next Governor of California will lead the most populous State in the
Union.
We, as a State, will have finally realized a destiny that was predetermined
from the beginning by the energy of our people, the bounty of our soil, and the
beauty of our climate.
Over fifty years ago, a great English historian, Lord James Bryce, wrote,
"California is in many respects the most striking in the whole Union, and has more
than any other the character of a great country, capable of standing alone in the
world."
For the first 180 years of our country's history, national leadership rested in
the East because of the population factor. But now, with California leading the
way, the West assumes the responsibility of leadership. And so, right now we are
confronted with this basic question: Will our State be led by men with the
imagination, the determination, and the drive equal this great challenge?
I charge that the present State Administration -- by its record, by its words,
by its action -- is completely incapable of giving this sort of dynamic leadership.
Even their billboards symbolize an attitude of complacency and smugness.
"Keep California First," they read. Does this mean that they are merely satisfied
with being first in population? Or are they also satisfied with this record:
First in the cost of government;
First in taxes;
First in unemployment;
First in crime.
Mr. Brown is apparently satisfied with this record of dubious "firsts." But
I am not satisfied. And millions of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are
not satisfied.
Now is the time to deal with these problems -- not sweep them under the rug.
We offer all Californians a clear choice. We pledge to bring this choice before
the people in the most intensive, hard-hitting campaign in California history. And
we pledge to carry this campaign into every precinct, every home, every factory,
every farm.
We pledge to bring to California a State Administration that is worthy of the
first and greatest State in the nation. We shall put an end to rule by clique and
crony.
-OVER-
We pledge to bring into State Government a team of the best executives and
technicians in the State. And we shall kick the second-raters and political hacks
out of Sacramento.
We pledge to lead the nation in job opportunities for all our citizens by
creating the best climate for new private investment of any State in the Union.
We pledge an Administration dedicated to attracting new industry not an Ad-
ministration that can be smug while we rank ninth among the major industrial States
in building new plants since the beginning of 1961.
We pledge to replace the spineless soft-on-crime attitude of the present
Administration with strong, vigorous backing of local law enforcement officials.
We shall wage an all-out campaign to make the homes, streets and highways of
California safe for our citizens.
We shall initiate the most effective State program for fighting communism in
the nation -- a program that will include education, on the student and adult level,
on both the dangers of communism and the positive alternatives of freedom,
We pledge to cut the costs of State government so that we can reduce the tax
burden borne by our citizens.
People from all over the country have come to California because our State
offered greater opportunity than they had in their home states. It is our goal to
create even greater opportunity for better jobs, greater opportunity for new busi-
nesses, and greater opportunity for human dignity. But this goal can only be
attained if our State is led by men who believe in and encourage free, private
enterprise.
We can make California a model for other states to follow -- but we cannot do it
by throwing up our hands and turning to Washington, D.C. for the solutions to our
problems.
Californians have always been proud of our self-reliance and individual enter-
prise. We will not be meekly made into a giant puppet pulled by strings in Washing-
ton. This is a standard that unites all Republicans and appeals to all Californians.
This is a cause worth fighting for, working for, voting for.
The present State Administration is incapable of doing this job because it is
handcuffed by the California Democratic Council, an official Party organization,
whose radical philosophy puts too much faith in government, and too little faith
in people. This is the organization that Mr. Brown has described as his "good
right arm."
And this is why millions of Democrats will join with us this fall -- not because
they have deserted their Party, but because their Party, under the influence of the
CDC clique, has deserted them and the true principles of the Democratic Party.
The people of California know that in the continuing fight for freedom there is
no greater need than to strengthen the responsibility and quality of State Govern-
ment. They know that now is the time to reverse the insidious trend toward more
arrogant, power-hungry bureaucracy in Washington. And they know that the best
answer to bigger government in Washington is better government in Sacramento.
In this fall's election California will speak to the nation. Let our message not
be that we will continue down the dismal road to bigger government, higher taxes, and
less freedom. Rather let our voice ring out from the West, saying, "We, the people of
California, with a great tradition of seeking opportunity, with a true frontier spirit
cast our vote for free enterprise, self-reliance, local responsibility, and for the
best State Government in America."
###
Remarks of Richard Nixon
Annual Meeting of the Section on Family Law
American-Bar Association
Noon, Tuesday, August 7, 1962
Bellevue Hotel, San Francisco
There is nothing more important to the survival of our system than the preserva-
tion of family ties. Too often we tend to look at great problems, such as the world
struggle with communism, merely in terms of governmental actions and solely as the
responsibility of high officials. What we fail to bear in mind is that our basic
strength derives from our families, our churches, and our daily relations with each
other. And the nourishment of our basic strength is just 8.5 vital to winning our
international struggle as dramatic events in Geneva, Washington, or at the UN.
History tells us that the break-up of families precedes the break-up of civili-
zations. It is therefore particularly tragic to report that there were 400,000
divorces granted last year in our country -- more than 1,000 each day -- affecting
the lives of 300,000 children. And I am sad to say that my State of California had
the highest divorce rate in the United States.
For these reasons, it is clear to me that no members of the Bar have greater
social responsibility than you who work in the field of family law -- responsibility
that goes beyond the "letter of the law." As counselors to those in marital diffi-
culty they must go beyond legal procedure and attempt to strike at the root of the
problem.
We all realize that the problems of instability in the home are only symptoms
of some malfunctioning in our society -- distressing, fundamental symptoms -- yet
not the basic causes of the illness.
These problems are relatively new in our society. In fact, the recent origin
of the Section on Family Law of the American Bar Association attests to the newness
of the problem. Why is this so?
I believe the difference between ourselves and our ancestors can be summed up
in one word -- discipline.
The discipline of our forefathers was partly based upon religious ideals;
partly upon exacting demands -- the necessity to tame a continent.
Today we have conquered the wilderness and are a prosperous society.
Fortunately today's freedom from want has encouraged some men to look to new
horizons -- to conquer space and do other once undreamed of things.
But regrettably it has also freed other men to look on life as one big free
lunch counter.
Basically, and non-legally speaking, this is what we are dealing with in our
juvenile courts and our divorce courts.
When we no longer have other battles to fight we tend to fight each other.
To counter this trend, we must work on two levels: the substantive and the
procedural.
Turning first to the procedural.
1. I am sure you are all familiar with the work of the Conciliation Court of
Los Angeles County, first under the direction of Judge Louis H. Burke, and now
-Over-
presided over by Judge Roger Pfaff.
With a staff of trained marriage counselors, this court has restored over
15,000 children to united homes during the past seven years. The court now recon-
ciles an average of sixty out of every one hundred couples.
I might also add that the savings to the taxpayers by keeping these cases off
the relief rolls have been substantial.
Here in California six counties have established conciliation courts modeled
on the Los Angeles plan since 1958.
All counties throughout the nation that have a divorce problem warranting special
attention should give serious consideration to adopting this system.
2. I believe the time has come to institute widespread teaching of domestic
relations in our secondary schools. Here I refer not to sex education but to the
teaching of the sanctity of the home, the responsibilities of parenthood, and the
fundamentals of marriage relationships.
Let us squarely face up to the fact that the incidence of divorce among teenage
marriages is twice as great as any other age group -- and let us do something about
it.
3. I believe that much could be accomplished to insure the stability of the
home through education in the mass media -- the press, radio and television.
This is a fitting campaign for the Advertising Council. I do not mean anything
as trite as "Is This Divorce Necessary?" -- but the dissemination of information on
the availability of pre-marital, marriage and family counseling through our community-
supported agencies would serve a very useful purpose.
Turning now to the substantive level.
We must rededicate ourselves to our religious ideals, which in too many cases
have been eroded by pragmatism in conduct; we must seek the pleasure in duty,
rather than the duty of pleasure; we must substitute work and achievement for ease
and indolence; and we must return to individual responsibility, not diluted col-
lective responsibility.
In these ways we will recreate the American character that tamed the wilderness.
For although the problems we face are not from hunger and want, we nonetheless have
very great difficulties ahead.
From without, our country is faced with intensive political and philosophical
competition from the communist world. We face a new kind of economic competition
from the European Common Market, which will require far-reaching adjustments in our
economy. We face new social problems at home, which have been created by an in-
creasingly urban and industrial society. And we continue to face the problems
that are always inherent in a democracy.
I firmly believe that as a nation we have the capacity to solve these problems.
But it will take renewed effort and dedication, as well as strong individual self-
discipline. The work of members of this organization with youth and families can
be a major building block in restoring the national qualities that have made America
great.
REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
August 28, 1962
NIXON
NIXON'S SUPPORT OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
AND
OTHER RECLAMATION PROGRAMS
When Brown accuses Dick Nixon of voting three times against
the Central Valley Water Project he not only shows his abysmal
ignorance of the legislative process, but even worse he shows his
fiscal illiteracy. Using C.O.P.E. -supplied materials, Brown whole-
heartedly accepts the "spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect
and elect" point of view.
The facts are that Nixon has supported the Central Valley
Project and other reclamation projects in California and elsewhere,
but he also supported the concept of responsible and prudent
expenditure of funds. Here is what happened in the legislation
cited by Brown:
The 1949 Bureau of Reclamation Appropriation
In August of 1946, President Truman requested the Secretary of
the Interior to postpone work on all public works projects which
could be deferred and specifically to limit expenditures for
construction projects to $85,000,000 in each of the fiscal years
1947 and 1948. Mr. Truman's reason for this request was to reduce
inflationary pressures which at the time were severe.
As a result of Truman's order, the Bureau of Reclamation had
large unexpended balances that enabled it to expend more than
$141,000,000 in fiscal year 1949. This was more than twice its
1946 outlay. The House Ways and Means Committee accordingly
recommended a reduction in appropriations for 1949 for the simple
reason that the Bureau could not spend more money in an effective
and appropriate manner.
Moreover, there was a large measure of suspicion in the Congress
of the Bureau of Reclamation's operation in the Central Valley
under the direction of Richard L. Boke and William Warne, now
Brown's Super Agency "Water" Czar. In hearings on the Interior
Department Appropriations Bill, the committee report castigated
Warne and said specifically:
"
The Bureau of Reclamation
expended funds in direct contravention of the clearly expressed
intent of Congress and positive instructions issued by the
Secretary."
The vote on April 25, 1947, on the Kirwin Amendment to
recommit the bill to restore the reductions made by the
committee was 140 for and 197 against. Nixon voted no. In
the vote following the final passage of the bill the vote was
307 for, 30 against. Nixon voted yes.
The Fifth Year Maximum Debt Pay-Off Period
The second vote that Brown cites: Under the Reclamation Act
of 1939 as originally passed it became established policy that
repayment of construction costs on dams would be made within 50 years
from the date when the power feature became revenue-producing. The
committee on public lands had reported a bill that would have increased
the amortization period up to 78 years. The Bramblett Amendment
called for establishment of a maximum of 50 years for repayment.
Opponents of the legislation contended that:
(1) A basic condition for any reclamation project is economic
feasibility. If the costs of construction cannot be paid out in
50 years, there is good reason to question the economic
feasibility of the project.
(2) Reclamation increases the value of the lands in the project
area and for this reason, 50 years is ample time to pay off the
reclamation costs of the project.
(3) It is not a good principle to burden future generations
with costs that can and have been met on a pay-as-you-go basis.
(4) Proponents did not establish that requiring repayment
within 50 years would cause rate increase charges to users of
power. In fact, interest rates over an extended period might
have the opposite effect.
On January 2, 1947, the amendment was approved by 320 to 134.
Nixon voted yes. The bill was given final approval 231 to 121.
Nixon voted yes.
Other Nixon Support NOT Mentioned By Brown
Brown doesn't bother to mention other Nixon votes for
reclamation. Here are the facts: on the 1952 Interior Department
Appropriations, Nixon opposed a reduction in funds for the Bureau
of Land Management. He opposed an increase of $12,026,000 for the
Bureau of Reclamation for eight new projects. He supported an
increase of $16 million for the following existing projects:
All American Canal, the Central Valley Project, the Columbia Basin
and the Missouri River Basin. He opposed a reduction of $10,417,222
for the Bureau of Reclamation which would have cut back existing
projects. He supported final passage of the bill appropriating a
total of $520,082,307 for the support of the Department of Interior.
In all of these votes, Nixon was with the majority.
REPUBLICAN RESEARCH CENTER
August 28, 1962
NIXON CIVIL RIGHTS
DICK NIXON'S "DEEDS" IN ELIMINATING DISCRIMINATION
IN EMPLOYMENT
The Committee on Government Contracts
On August 13, 1953, the Committee on Government Contracts
was established by the executive order of President Eisenhower,
and given the assignment of "improving and making more effective
the nondiscrimination provisions of government contracts."
During the seven years of its operation under the Eisenhower
Administration, Dick Nixon served as its chairman.
During the period from 1953 to 1960 the committee made the
following important breakthroughs in solving the problem of
economic deprivation based on race, color, religion and
national origin:
Eliminated much employment discrimination in the District
of Columbia by securing the agreement of the D. C. Board of
Commissioners to include the non-discrimination clause in all
contracts after November 16, 1953, and secured agreement from
Capital Transit Co. and Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co.
to integrate their work forces and employ the non-discrimination
clause in their work contracts.
The standard non-discrimination clause for government
contracts was strengthened to include upgrading, promotion,
recruiting, recruitment advertising, training, and apprenticeship.
Direct negotiations were undertaken with major contractors
to integrate their work forces at technical, professional, and
clerical levels. For example, one automotive parts fabricator
who never before had employed Negroes was persuaded to employ
them on the basis of merit throughout his vast industrial plant,
including semi-skilled, skilled, and supervisory workers.
A Negro electrician was hired for the first time in the
District of Columbia by a contractor engaged in the construction
of a federal building.
-2-
A Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago agreed to employ Negroes
for the first time.
A large public utility in St. Louis advised that its
company offices would be integrated.
A large chemical company in St. Louis completely revised
its employment practices so that Negroes are now employed in
many jobs, as opposed to the former practice of hiring Negroes
only for janitorial work.
A large packing company in Omaha, Nebraska, for the first
time, hired Negro clerical and white-collar workers.
A manufacturer of precision production tools in Cleveland,
Ohio, employed Negroes in the production line for the first time.
A large manufacturer of component parts for jet aircraft in
Kansas employed Negroes in the production line.
A large government activity in the South increased its
employment of Negroes fourfold and has opened job opportunities
in higher job levels than previously.
Summing up the results of the Committee's work, Nixon
stated:
"A way to sum up what has happened is this in scores of
companies throughout the country a laborer can now become a
welder; a janitor can become a machinist; a hod carrier can
now become a bricklayer; a maintenance man can now become a
mechanic; a mechanic or machinist can now become a foreman.
And this is true of any employee regardless of his race,
creed, or color."
The work of the committee was also praised by someone who
has never been a particular fan of Dick Nixon's:
"This committee, headed by Vice President Richard Nixon,
has done a very good job on elimination of discrimination
on work done under government contracts,"
Eleanor Roosevelt
My Day
August 11, 1960
THE BROWN MYTH OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
RICHARD NIXON
Nixon for Governor Rally
Pasadena
October 3, 1962
If my opponent is elected, he will have to increase taxes. If I
am elected, I will stop the rise in taxes. I will cut government expenses
so that we can get the surplus that will allow us to reduce taxes.
The choice is clear! A vote for Brown is a vote to increase taxes:
a vote for Nixon is a vote to cut spending, stop the rise in taxes, and reduce
the burden on the taxpayers.
My opponent has made a "no tax" promise that he can't possibly keep
and still keep his other campaign promises. It is this stark fact that the
present State administration now tries to cover up by manufacturing myths of
fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, and meaningless pledges to turn over
a new leaf and go straight next year.
1. The Myth of Fiscal Responsibility
Mr. Brown, October 1: "The first thing I had to do as Governor of
the State was to assure the people of the State that they would have fiscal
responsibility in their State government. My friends, they have had it."
Is it fiscal responsibility to raise the State budget 52.6%, while
the papulation has gone up only 15.5%? This has been done.
Is it fiscal responsibility to raise individual personal income
taxes 106.2%, while the population has gone up only 15.5%? This also has been done.
Is it fiscal responsibility to raise the authorized bonded debt of
the State 110.4%, as has been done?
Is it fiscal responsibility to raise the State payroll 47% and the
number of State employees 26.4% ?
After looking at the Brown record of so-called "fiscal responsibility",
I can only agree with him that the people "have had it."
2. The Myth of the Balanced Budget
Mr. Brown, October 1: "We have had four balanced budgets.
Last year, the present State administration spent $4,222,000,000 --
the highest State spending in the nation.
Last year, the present State administration taxed the people
$4,156,000,000 -- also the highest state tax collection in the nation.
In other words, Mr. Brown spent $66 million more than he took in.
THE BROWN MYTH OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY - 2
In order to claim a balanced budget, as he now does, he had to
borrow $66 million, which he did.
For the moment, let us stop talking about billions and millions. Let
us say that you earned $5,000 last year and spent $6,000 -- you would be a
thousand dollars in debt. If you then went to the bank and borrowed the extra
thousand dollars to pay your bills, you would actually be further in debt -- for
you would have to pay interest on your loan. You would hardly brag that you
had balanced your family budget.
Yet Mr. Brown has done just this -- and on the grandest scale in
history. Clearly, his claim of a balanced budget is nothing more than a
grandstand play.
3. The Myth of No Tax Increase Next Year.
Mr. Brown, October 1: "I have made a pledge that there will be no
new taxes next year. "
As long as Mr. Brown supports his party's platform, a tax increase
is inevitable. The cost of the 1962 Democratic State Platform in additional
spending in California over the next four years will be a minimum of
$1,360,000,000. Where can the State possibly get that kind of money without
raising our taxes?
Last Monday, in our joint appearance, I gave my opponent the oppor-
tunity to repudiate this plan to drive our State to the poorhouse. He refused
to do SO.
In fact, while pledging "no new taxes, I have learned that the
present State Administration is right now considering three new taxes. Thmorrow
in Manhattan Beach I will set forth the new tax proposals now under consideration
by the Brown Administration.
The people of California already pay out 30 cents on every dollar
in taxes. They deserve more than the meaningless moratorium on new taxes that
the present State administration proposes in an eleventh hour attempt to disguise
its record of increase of nearly one billion dollars in new taxes over the past
four years.
The people of California deserve a government dedicated to bringing
taxes down -- and this will only happen when government stops spending the
taxpayers' money as if it were going out of style.