Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564102",
    "label": "Transcripts - 07/07/1970, 07/15/1970, 07/21/1970, 07/28/1970",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564102"
}

{
    "id": "118564102",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564102",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 07/07/1970, 07/15/1970, 07/21/1970, 07/28/1970",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564102",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-004-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-004-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-004-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564102",
    "naId": 118564102,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-004-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "ba150f80cd5b6045",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n07/07/1970, 07/15/1970, 07/21/1970, 07/28/1970\nBox: P03\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\n7/7\nPRESS\nFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONAI\nREAGAN\nHELD JULY 7, 1970\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corpsfor their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nWell, Happy past 4th of July. No\nopening statement other than How do you do.\na\nGovernor, Hugh Fluornoy says something has to be done to\nprevent this budget impasse from occurrding again and one of the\nthings he suggested was doing away with the two-thirds approval\nrequirement of the budget. Would you favor that or would you favor\nany of his other suggestions?\nA\nWell, I've got an open mind on what would be the best\nmethod, but I think definitely smething should be done. My mind\nhas been turning to possibly a continuation of the past year's budget,\nbut I think you'd have to then have no retroactive feature with regard\nto the new budget that had to be some pressure on them to keep them\nmoving. But whatever it is, all I can tell you is that I am in\nagreement, something must be done.\no\nGovernor, one of the discussions in the Assembly was having\na special legislative committee to screen budget requests as they\nare made to the Finance Department so that the legislature will be\nmore aware of what -- of the entire budgetary process, king of a check\non the Executive Department. Would you support this concept?\nA\nWell, I don't think they quite understand how long and\nhow hard this budgetary process is when department heads are going\nover priorities, the changes of mind that occur, the alternatives\nthat are presented and the long selection of alternatives. I didn't\nreact too favorably to that one. I must point out that in this last\nbudget and in last year's budget, actually the legislature has had\nit for a long time. The only thing that happened this year was the\nlast minute change that had to be made due to the reduction of the\nbudget because of -- of the change in estimates both as to welfare\nspending and as to revenues.\nBut even there it was simply a case of\n-1-\ngoing back to th Conference Committee with e priorities that had\nbeen considered at one time things that had been left in the budget and\nhelping and consulting with them on what further reductions could be\nmade in that budget. I think the legislature has had the budget\nfor a long time.1 Last year it was gotten out to the floor earlier\nthan it had ever been done in history, to my understanding.\n0\nWell, their argument was that they should be more aware of\nwhat's going on and how the -- how the budget recommendations are --\non what they are based, the information that goes into the Finance\nDepartment and then comes out in your budget when they frist see it.\nA\nWell, possibly there couldbbe some earlier meetings with\nlegislative leadership or the appropriate committees on some of these\nthings and how we were doing what we were arriving at, consultation\nwith regard to priorities.\nQ\nGovernor, how did that $15,000 for the rent of the mansion\nget into the budget and do you approve of it?\nA\nIt came out of the Converence Committee and yes, I have\nto tell you I approve of it. As a matter of fact, when the fuss\nwas raised a fe W months ago about that, I had to say at the time,\ncame in and told my own people and told some of the legislators that\nas far as I was concerned the state could buy the house or the state\ncould rent the house, but I was sick and tired of being held up to pub-\nlic view for committing the crime of renting my own house when the law\nrequires that the state provide one. Maybe I made the mistake in\nthe first place by paying the rent myself, it did set a precedent\nthat could be quite a problem for someone elected Governor, who was\nunable to do such a thing. So I'm glad to see it is there.\nQ\nWell, along those lines, Governor, would you like to see\nan appropriatinn bill go through for the construction of the\nGovernor's Mansion?\nA\nWell, right now that's, of course, a rather rough problem\nwith the present state of the budget. The economy -- but yes, it's\nbeen about 30 years too long in coming. Something should be done\nof that kind as we have said before. There are groups of citizens\nin the State, onee again, working with the idea of raising funds outside\nof government for this purpose, and I certainly hope they're success-\nful.\nMaybe it will wind up as a kind of combination of the private\ncitizens and supplemental help from government. But it's long overdo.\nQ\nGovernor, you talked several times this year about abuses\n-2-\nin the area of W( are. You advocated cuts 1 the Welfare Depart-\nment.\nThere aren't any such cuts in the present budget that you\nsigned. In fact there were increases in that area. Do you think\nthat -- is that a disappointment to you or are you trying to do\nanything -- are you taking any initiatives on your own to try and cut\nwelfare spending?\nA\nWell, we are engaged in quite a program now. There was\nlegislation introduced to cut welfare, legislation which SO far the\nlegislature has seen unfit to pass. The biggest problem we have is\nthat most of what is wrong with welfare is mandated either by state\nstatutes or mainly by federal laws and regulations. We are working\non a welfare reform program with the idean then of coming forth\nbased on that program of asking for changes in the federal regulations\nand laws and asking for changes in whatever state laws. I have\nissued orders to review again whatever state regulations are responsible\nfor some of the growth in staff at the county level, to review and\nsee if there are places where we can change or eliminate state regu-\nlations, such as regulations pertaining to the proportion of super-\nvisors, the proportionate number of welfare workers to those on welfare\nand so forth. This problem, as I have said before, must be controlled.\nThis is the greatest single cause of the State's financial condition\nthat we have. And was more than half responsible for the out of\nbalance of the budget we discovered in May. But, as I say, it is\nmandated by statutes and by law, federal law.\nQ\nIf you had studies of this kind in the past and still\nhaven't been able to come up with any substantial out, in welfare\nprogram, why is there this consistent problem of no solution offering\nitself?\nA\nWell, that's not quite true. We have made great savings\nin the administrative overhead of welfare. We have made great\nadministrative savings in the overhead of Medi-Cal. We have been\nfrustrated in several of our attempts by court decisions, both at the\nfederal level and hear in the state and again we have been frustrated\nin several experimental attempts that we have made and which they --\nthey didn't pan out and usually because of court decisions and\nbecause of running afoul of federal regulations and laws. Now,\nthe one program we inherited that was passed by the previous administra-\ntion and which they didn't have to provide anything for it, that fell\non our necks, was Medi-Cal. I would call to your attention a number\nof times that we have been reversed on things we tried to do with\n-3-\nregard to that program. So we are trying again. This time we\nare going at it on an over-all experimental basis openly aimed at\ngoing outside the regulations and then seeking permission to do so,\ninstead of trying to reform it and make our reforms within the frame-\nwork of the multitudeness regulations that are imposed on us.\nQ\nGovernor, the Democrats --\nQ\n-- the Court decisions, doesn't that suggest there is\nsomething wrong with your changes rather than necessarily the courts?\nPAUL BECK: Governor --\nA\nNo, I would suggest that sometimes it might suggest that\nthere is something wrong with the Court's interpretation and I'm not\nabove criticizing the Court now and then.\nPAUL BECK: Governor, if I could add, I think in the next\nperiod -- short period there will be some further announcements on\nadministrative changes in welfare.\nQ\nGovernor, the Democrats in the Senate have indicated that\ntheir next target is your tax reform plan. Among two of their\nproblems, as they see it, are the 20 per cent discount on the property\ntaxes after the thousand dollar deduction. They say this is\nunfair to the lower income people. And the other is that they have\nan idea that part of that money earmarked for property tax relief\nshould be instead -- be sent to the schools. Without those changes\nthey have indicated they will oppose your bill. Are you receptive\nto those kind of changes in the program?\nA\nNo, and I am very much concerned that the same element of\nDemocrats who frustrated the budget for a while are going to continue\nin the same way on this tax reform program. You mentioned two\nproblems there and I'll have to address myself to both of them.\nNumber one, the idea that a 20 per cent across the board\nreduction in property tax is somehow unfair to those with the lower\npriced homes and the lower income bracket just isn't quite true.\nFirst of all, the total reductions for every home in California will\nrange from a. minimum of about 25 per cent to about 40 per cent and\nthe 40 per cent will be at the lower range in home value. Now,\nthere is a certain dichotomy in what I'm going to say at this point,\nbecause we ourselves by going partially for a flat exemption of a\nthousand dollars and then 20 per cent on top of that have in a sense,\nif this bill is adopted, made the property tax a little bit progressive\n-4-\nbut only a little\nit.\nThe thousand dollar xemption, is of course,\nof greater value in the lower priced home, percentagewise, than it\nis when you get into the -- into a higher priced home, but to suggest\nthat this 20 per cent flat cut across the board is somehow discrimi-\nnatory is to go against the theory of property tax that we have known\nsince the property tax inception. Property tax is not progressive,\nit is proportionate. You pay on 20 per cent -- 25 per cent of the\nassessed valuation of theproperty and you pay the same rate whether\nthe property is worth a million or whether it is worth a thousand.\nNow, for us to change and have a decreasing percentage depending on\nthe value of the home would be for the first time in history to make\nproperty tax progressive. It would have a different scale or rate\nof taxation and I think that the -- even the fact that to benefit\nthose at the extremely lower income range we have made first of all\nthe flat exemption and then have added the 20 per cent to it violates\nwhat I've said about a sliding scale. It doesn't do it to such an\nextent that we are in violation of the principal of proportionate\ntaxation.\nQ\nThen about the schools.\nA\nNow, about the school thing. Here again I can only repeat\nwhat I've said to you before, and which I guess I got lost in the\nnews some place and other things of more interest captured your\nattention, we recognize there is a problem of school financing.\nWe\nhave frankly stated that the $102 million dollars in this budget is\none-time revenue for the coming year to hopefully get the schools\npast and through this period of needwhile we come up with a long\ntime reform of school financing. We recognize that this must be\ndone from the state level. We are prepared to deal with this.\nWe\nintend to deal with it. We have a task force going forward already,\nwith this in the session -- coming session we hope that with the\nhelp of the legislature we will be able to present a program that will\nlocal\nonce and for all meet the problem of/school financing, and we are not\nneglecting\nthis\nin\nany\nway.\nWhat I have answered to those who right\nnow want to -- first wanted to hold the budget for ransom and now\nwant to oppose the tax reform program unless it can become a tax\nincrease of some $180 million dollars is that they are suggesting\nat this point throwing 180 million dollars into school financing\nwhen they, themselves, cannot tell you or tell the public that this\nis absolutely needed and all we know is that we have had in these\nfour years, including the budget just passed, the greatest four-year\n-5-\nincrease of state funding for schools in any four year period in the\nhistory of California. I'm a little tired of this administration\nbeing picked on as not supporting the schools when we are 172 million\ndollars above, in these four years, the largest four year period of\nthe Brown administration in its eight years, in state help to schools.\nBut we do know there is something wrong. We know something's wrong\nwhen 85 per cent of all of that money we have given to the schools\nhas gone only to increase teachers' salaries, not to solve the many\nother problems of the school financing about which they are talking\nat present. So we believe that we are right in doing something\ntemporary while we go forward and try to solve the problem on a long-\nrange basis.\nQ\nGovernor, part of the criticism from Democrats and others\nseems to be that that by going ahead with tax reform at this time\nand delaying the schools, which is maybe justified, that you are using\nup tax sources that perhaps if it does come -- if your studies do show\nyou need massive infusion of funds for the school system, where are\nyou going to get it after you've used it up for property tax relief?\nA\nWell, let me answer that on the problem of property tax\nright now, and I think everyone has agreed on this. Number one, you\ncannot ask, and this is the very thing not only the people but the\nschools themselves are saying, you cannot ask the property taxpayer\nto pay a bigger share than he's now paying for education support.\nThis is what is wrong. There is too much reliance on it. Also, I\nthink almost all of us agree that the property tax burden at present\nis too large. Now, all we are doing with tqx reform is trying to\ncorrect an inequity in the whole tax structure of California. There\nis one area where the tax is out of line. The people say it is in\nevery survey, fantastic numbers that cross party lines, that the\nproperty taxpayer is paying an unjust share, it is out of proportion frc\nthe burden imposed on taxpayers who aren't property owners. Now, all\nwe are seeking to do with tax reform is shift some of that unfair\nburden to broader based taxes that are paid by everybody, including\nthe property taxpayer. It is simply a restructuring of a tax program.\nThe matter of whether additional revenues must be raised if schools\nnext year should call for it às a result of our task force approach,\nthen this must be weighed against a fair tax structure. And it\ndoesn't do any good to maintain an unfair tax structure until you know\nwhether you are going to need more money in the future. And I don't\n-6-\nsee\nthat\nit\nmakes\nany\nchange\nat\nall.\nWe wou_d still have to face this\nproblem of giving the home owner, particularly, some tax relief.\nAnd we are trying to do that now with this program. And the terrible\nthing is those Democrats who at present say they are going to oppose\nthis program are doing it because they demand that half of that tax\nbe\nreduction for the property owner be taken from him and/added to the\nincreased cost of government.\nQ\nGovernor, on this matter of 85 per cent of the new school\nmoney going into salary increases, isn't there a misunderstanding\nthere? I heard this argument used upstairs, but I think the school\npeople will admit that 85 per cent of the school money goes into\nsalaries, but not salary increases. In other words, the new money\nwould go to hire more teachers to reduce class ratios, etcetera.\nAnd some maybe for salary increases, but to say that all of the 85\nper cent of it goes into salary increases, I think, is misleading\nfrom the arguments I hear upstairs.\nA\nI'd be happy to check with Finance Department, but that\nwas my understanding, that of the money we have increased that is\nwhat has happened. So it is not a theory of the future, it is what\nhas happened in the past and I know some of our people who met with\nsome of the school authorities asked them if they could guarantee\nthat this would not be the fate of additional money to the schools\nand there was no guarantee, they had to admit this is' probably what\nwould have happened.\nQ\nGovernor, have you contemplated campaigning in the districts\nof those legislators who held out against your budget and will against\nyour tax program further?\nA\nNow, you've got a kind -- you've got a double question\nthere.\nWhat will I do with regard to those who held out against\nthe budget or what will I do if they hold out against the tax reform.\nAs far as the budget is concerned, the budget has been passed. I\nhave no spirit of vengence at all. I would feel, however, that if\nthere were legislators that made it impossible to give the home\nowners in this state a tax reduction from their unjust burden, I\nwould feel that I had a responsibility to point out to the people\nthat -- who had denied them that tax decrease.\n8\nSenator Teale today characterized the 20 per cent part\nof the assessment reduction as richman's welfare, they will get that\nmuch a greater share. How do you respond to that argument that's\nsure to be made?\n-7-\nA\nWell, I\nlike to compare it to the\nill\nthat\nso\nmany\nof\nthem seemed to want to support earlier in substitute for mine, the\nGonsalves bill, which by analysis did give the greatest tax break to\nthe higher priced homes and if anything worked a hardship on the\nlower priced homes, and they didn't seem to find anything wrong with\nthat particular bill. We did, for that very reason. Now, I don't\nsee how they can suggest that we are giving someone welfare when we\nare suggesting a cross-the-board reduction of the home owner's tax\nand they instead want to use some of that reduction instead to\nincrease the cost of government. They are not benefiting in wanting\nto npenalize one section of the economy. They are not doing anything\nto benefit someone in the lower brackets at all. The average price\nhome in California is $20,000, and I think you'll find that a\n$20,000 -- our tax reform program from there down to about a $10,000\nhome is giving a better break than anything that's been suggested\nby the opposition.\n0\nAnother topic, Governor. There are reports that Murray\nChotiner and Lyn Nofziger will come to California to campaign\nfor Senator: Murphy. Two questions. Do you think this indicates\na feeling of doubt about Senator Murphy's chances of re-election and\nwill you welcome these two men coming into California to campaign?\nA\nOh, I don't know anything about Murph's campaign or whether\nhe wants -- I know national officers that way, many times, have\npeople from the Washington scene help them. The opposition in 166\nto me even had help from Washington and those weren't national offices.\nBut I don't know. I met with Lyn Nofziger when he was out here\nthese past several days at the summer White House, and he didn't say\nanything to me. As a matter of fact, he indicated no, that he would!t\nbe doing anything in California, he's got a job in Washington and that's\nwhere he'll be.\nQ\nWhat is your feeling on them coming out here and working\nin the Senator's campaign?\nA\nWell, that's his campaign and whatever he's chosen as his\nstrategy, that is up to him. I won't be doing that for my own, but\nthen I'm not running for an office that -- a national office in\nWashington.\nQ\nGovernor, legislators in the final version of your budget\nwiped out the office of Consumer Council. What is your reaction\nto that and do you plan to reappoint Kay Valory in some other post?\n-8-\nA\nWell, he\nS one I can't answer in (\ndetail on this because\nthey -- in the cuts that came out they gave us a great many problems\nin the Executive Department that administratively we are going\nto have to solve and we just haven't had time to get down to solving\nthose.\nQ\nDo you feel you could get along without her?\nA\nNo, we -- no, I'm not giving an answer to that, until we --\nit is going to call -- well, we are engaged, as you know, in a desire\nto reorganize the whole department and this has just further compli-\ncated that reorganization.\n2\nGovernor, on another subject, the State constitution requires\nyou to \"immediately\" call a special election in case of vacancy.\nNow, you've done so in the case of the vacancy caused by the recent\nelection of Senator Schmitz, the Congressman, not in the case of the\nvacancy created by the death of Assemblyman McGee. Will you explain\nwhy you. have delayed in the McGee vacancy calling a special election\nthere despite the constitutional provision?\nA\nThere was a problem of the dandidate in the November election\nand working out both the time of the election and the candidacy\nsituation in regard to that. It just was the time. I know we\ndiscussed all of those that were caused and I honestly couldn't stand\nhere now with what's been going on in the last couple of weeks and\nremember.\nQ\nAre you going to call a special election in the McGee seat\nor let the Central Committee --\nA\nThe Central Committ has already named the nominee.\nQ\nWill you call any special at all for the interim?\nA\nThat -- you usually ask the Central Committee, the State\nCentral Committee their advice and counsel on these things.\nQ\nYou don't consider a constitutional provision mandatory\nthen that says you must call a special election immediately?\nA\nWell, I remember a couple of times in the previous admini-\nstration when immediately took about two years.\nQ\nAnd you were critical of the previous administration.\nA\nBut I haven't taken two years, we are talking about two\nmonths.\nQ\nWasn't there also the hopeful assumption that the legisla-\nture might adjourn sometime before December?\nA\nI was hoping that, which would sort of ob viate the\n-9-\nnecessity for a S. cial election.\nQ\nThroughout the last week we heard repeatedly the assertion\nyour budget will leave the state in the same kind of position as\nPat Brown's last budget, that built in is a guarantee of five hundred\nmillion dollars or larger tax increase next year. When will you\nknow whether that's true or can you deny that now?\nA\nNo, I don't -- I don't subscribe to that at all.\nI\nrecognize that there are things in the budget such as the one we\ndiscussed earlier, welfare, that are beyond our control, because of\nmandate bylaw. So far we have been bringing the budget into control\nwith our own savings and not with the kind of gimmicks that were\nemployed before, where someone created a single source of revenue.\nThe only one-time funding with single sources is the one that I told\nyou was one-time, which was the present 102 million dollars for\nschools. Others we have created out of our own savings, we are\ncontinuing along that line and at the moment no, I'm not prepared\nto say that a tax increase is necessary. I realize that for\npolitical purposes that seems to be a song that is being sung\nby some here in the state. But I haven't bothered to learn the\ntune.\nQ\nBut, Governor --\nQ\nGovernor, following up that question, two years ago you said\nyou were moving away from bond funds used for construction and going\nto pay as you go construction. Yet to balance this budget you've\ndone just exactly the opposite. Now, how do you justify that in\nreference to your last statement?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nIsn't that in effect a gimmick in order to balance the\nbudget?\nA\nNo, we were caught by this emergency this time, with the\ndeclining revenues and the excessive costs of welfare. We also at\nthe same time have undergone a long period of -- in which we could\nnot keep pace with construction because of the inability to sell bonds.\nI don't think there is anything wrong with now taking advantage of --\nof the breaking of that log jam with the passage of Proposition 7,\nbut the gimmicks that I'm referring to are gimmicks such as changing\nthe bookkeeping structure of the state so as for one year to get 15\nmonths revenue to pay for 12 months cost of government, without facing\nwhat you are going to do when you get to the next year and only have\n-10-\n12 months revenue or the government you've 1 lt up to that size\nor one time advancing the collection of taxes for a one-time windfall\nto pay for programs you tried to pass. We have done exactly the\noppssite. We have been balancing out of our own fat, we have\nbeen cutting the cost of government in areas where we could cut and\nusing that money in those areas where we couldn't cut to balance\nbudget and I don't think that this could be called gimmickry.\nQ\nAre you still committed to pay as you go financing for capital\nconstruction?\nA\nIf you are referring to the fact that back during the '66\ncampaign it was my understanding that this could be the policy of the\nuniversities when they came to me and asked me as a candidate to\njoin the then Governor as honorary -- or campaigncchairman for the\nuniversity bond issue, I was told at that time that that was the last\nbond issue the university required. I took them at their word.\nThey said it could be pay as you go. Subsequent to that I learned\nthat the university was even then planning a second bond issue, the\none that was defeated in '68, and that the expansion of the univer-\nsity and the campuses still to be built could not possibly be built\nout of -- on-going revenues. I didn't know that at the time that\nthey had solicited my support for the first bond issue. I have to\ntell you now as a Regent, if this univeristy is to complete the\ncampuses and keep pace with the growth over the period of time, obvi-\nously it cannot be done out of on-going revenues, it must be the\nresult of bonds. Wait a minute, I recognized someone over here.\nQ\nGovernor, last week Mark Hatfield made some observation\nabout the 1972 Presidential election. He said the Nixon administra-\ntion doesn't solve the problems, that you would be the benefactor.\nDo you have any comment on that?\nA\nYes. There was absolutely no reason or need for his\nstatement. I find that utterly ridiculous and I don't see why in\nthe world he would lend himself to those whose idea of politics is\nto seek to drive wedges within a party. We have cooperated fully\nwith the administration. I am in support of the policies. And as\nI have said here before, I intend to be re-elected Governor for the\nnext four years in the State of California, add that's as far as any\npolitical aspirations of mine go, and I suspect in about another two\nyears -- well, whether I'm elected or not, to be supporting the\n-11-\nrenomination of th encumbent president.\nQ\nWhat forces did Senator Hatfield lend himself to?\nA\nOh, I think this attempt to drive wedges to split and\nfactionalize a party is standard politics, and if he was in the other\nparty I could understand his lending himself to that. I can't\nunderstand him as a Republican Senator playing that same game, which\ncouldn't help but try to be harmful to both the President and to my--\nself.\nD\nDid you communicate these thought S personally to the\nSenator Hatfield since he made his statement?\nA\nNo, I haven't communicated with him at all. I'm still\ncounting to ten.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nGovernor, back to the budget again, a few weeks ago you\nsaid you were fearful of one-time windfall money for -- at the time\nthe suggestion was for education, to use this forgiveness money for\neducation. Now, you signedua budget which contains one-time money.\nWhat made you change your mind in thae three weeks?\nA\nNo, I frankly stated that with this problem that we have\nbeen trying to solve of school financing and recognizing that they\nabsolutely had to have some money, regardless of the cost, that they\nhad to have some money for this coming year, while we tried to find\na long-range solution to their problem, that we had to -- we had to\nfind one-time money such as the one-time use of the truck tax, the\nuse of some money that was made available by way of surplus and so\nforth, and I frankly explained that we were justified in doing this\nbecause this is a one-time problem, we hope to come forth next year\nand expect to come forth with a long-range answer to a long-time\nproblem that a great many in the legislature and the administrations\npreceding us have not had the courage to face, and that is that\nreform of school financing was desperately needed in California. And\nQ\nGovernor, there is somebody wants a civil rights question\nback there, I think.\nA\nThere.\nQ\nGovernor, another subject. In a recent article in a\nLondon Observer, stated you were working on a super secretive plan\nto stop revolution in the state, using all sorts of electronic means to\nstop campus disputes and -- was told those sorts of thing. Do you\nknow anything about this article written by Charles Foley in the London\n-12-\nObserver?\nA\nI sure don't and if he -- and if he knows a secret about\nstopping campus disturbances, I'd be delighted to hear it. He\ndidnt print an answer as to how it could be done?\nD\nHe named some advisors that are supposed to be working\nwith you on this plan.\nA\nYou are pretty well aware \"of all the things that we have\ncontinued openly to try to do by way of the Regents and all the\nRegents meetings -- no, I have no super secret plan.\nI'd like, however, to hear one.\nD\nWilliam Buckley now suggests that the police in Santa\nBarbara, all the law enforcement agencies in Santa Barbara were a\nlittle over-enthusiastic in this recent Isla Vista fracus. Are you\ninvestigating the conduct of law enforcement people down there?\nA\nWell, I read Mr. Buckley's column which was quoting one\ngraduate student there as to some experiences, and Mr. Buckley was\nproperly expressing his abhorrence of that, if those things took\nplace. I will express the same abhorrence, if law enforcement was out\nof line, we should know it, and something should be done about it.\nThe investigation is being conducted by the Attorney General's office\nand they know our interest in it and we have communicated with them.\nWe want to keep informed. There still seems to be a great deal\nof controversy about those things, whether they happened. For\nexample, I myself have had communication with someone who claims to\nhave been in a building where the doors were kicked in and a needless\nsearch was made because someone shot a marble out of a window with a\nsling shot. Well, that was one version. The real version was\nthat observers with field glasses saw from a number of windows in that\nbuilding the police being fired on with sling shots that were not the\nfork-stick-rubbert band variety that kids make, but were a real sporter\nsling shots firing metal objects that -- metal bails that I guess are\nused for hunting now, and that have the principle of a dum-dum bullet\nand this was why the raid on the buildings, the result of actual\nobservations.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nQ\nAs a result of the investigations we can expect some kind\nof a result?\nA\nI would think so, yes.\n000\n-13-\n7/2\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR REAGAN\nHELD JULY 15, 1970\nReported by\nBeverly Toms\n(The transcript of the press conference is for the\nCapitol press corps. Because of theneed to get it to them as soon\nas possible, there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy, and no\ncorrections are made.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nWe have some visitors here from the\nUniversity of California, Santa Barbara; one from UCLA, who's also\nworking here in the capitol. Education will be equally effective.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read release No. 369.)\nQ\nGovernor, do you expect the United Republican support for\nthis program in the Senate?\nA\nI'm going to do my best to see that we have it. I know\nthat there are some individuals up there who found here and there a\npointwhich they take issue, but I believe the over-all tax reform pro-\ngram is probably the best one that has ever been submitted in this\nstate, and I believe that almost anyone should be able to swallow\nwhatever difference he has here and there on a point or something\ncontrary to go along with it.\nQ\nGovernor, apparently part of this maneuver, all the organi-\nzations representing local governments and all the organizations\nrepresenting the schools, they all claim problems with it. How come\nyou haven't been able to convince them that they should be happy?\nA\nYes, that's right, and I don't know that I could convince\nthem, but I would like to also call to the attention of the taxpayers\nas to the manner in which they're being represented at the local level.\nThe principal objection which some local government representatives\nand some school representatives have to our tax reform proposals is\nthe fact that once having reduced the property tax and giving relief\nthere we have included measures to try and see that the property tax\nwill not just automatically go right back up. And these people seem\nto have SO: little faith in the American system that they object to\nour provisions which would insist that the people themselves, the\ntaxpayers, be allowed to vote on whether their property tax is increased\nin the future and it is hard for me to understand how they aan hold\nto this position. What they in reality are saying, is that they would\nhave no fault with our tax reform program basically if we would give\nthem the authority without a vote of the people to go back and increase\nthe property taxes. If we get them reduced, this is our goal, to\ninsure that the people have some measure of protection and that this\narchaic and outmoded form of taxation does not go right backup to\nbecome the burden it now is.\nQ\nGovernor, what's this got to do with the American system,\nasyyou mentioned?\nA\nI think the American system of having some faith in the people\nright to make decisionsin their own behalf; all that we have really\nsaid with regard to restrictions on further increases of the property\ntax is to allow the voters themselves to decide whether they want\nthat tax to be increased, and a number of local government officials,\nnot all of them -- we have had many county Supervisors come in and\ntell us they have no quarrel with this tax pregram whatsoever, and they\ndo not go along with the position of their own organization, but we\nhave insured that the voters can -- this is what I mean by the\nAmerican system, that those who have so little faith in the people\nthat they want to deny them this control over their own welfare.\n8\nGovernor, are you saying then this is a democracy, not a\nrepublic?\nA\nNo, I believe it is a republic. We tried every way we\ncould to find some way to insurenthat the property tax would stay\ndown and the best way we foundis to put this in the hands at the local\nlevel. It is not too far afield from custom in the past, tax\noverrides and so forth for educational costs that must be submitted\nto the people, school bond issues.\n0\nGovernor, this morning Mr. Unruh said you are downgrading\neducation. You head the heaviest cuts in education. He wants to\nknow if this is a conspiracy against public schools and so forth\nWhat\nabout that?\nA\nWell, no, since Mr. Unruh was called by many of you here\nin this room for several years before I got here, the most powerful\nman in Sacramento, he might be interested in explaining how the most\npowerful man in Sacramento over the years preceding this administration\nlet the state's share of public school funding decline from 45.6 per\ncent down to 41 per cent and why this administration in the few years\nwe have been here have increased it -- well, the actual increase over\nany other four-year period in state's history, we have exceeded it\nby 175 million dollars, over these four years. So his figures just--\nor his claim isn't substantiated by his record.\nQ\nGovernor -- well, Governor, he says there is going to be a\n$400 million dollar tax increase next year regardless of who's governor\nand that this is largely because of fiscal irresponsibility on the part\nof the Reagan administration.\nA\nWell, he should be an authority on fiscal irresponsibility.\nHe precided over some of the greatest that had this state virtually\ninsolvent three and a half years ago, but I find it a little hard to\ntake seriously the remarks of a man who has only been in the Assembly\nsix days since last April, and on his first day home from a European\nvacation, having missed the budget battle and some of the more impor-\ntant legislative matters that go on perhaps this explains his lack of\nunderstanding of just what we have been accomplishing here.\nQ\nGovernor, back to the tax reform package, one of the criti-\ncisms voiced against your plan is that for renters with a family\nand earning less than $9500 a year, the net effect of all your changes\nwould be to increase their taxes. Would you address yourself to that\ncriticism and say whether you would be willing to have any changes\nmade to meet that criticism.\nA\nYes, I don't think that it holds up and it doesn't match\nours. We were -- you might be able to find a particular example\nsomeplace of someone whose taxes would be increased. Now, there is\nno question but that in getting the same total amount of revenue from\nthe people of California, and by relieving one particular group of a\nburden they are now paying, the excessive property tax, that it would\nseem obvious that in spreading this burden over all of them that some\ncitizens who are not now paying what is -- should be an equitable\nshare might find themselves paying more, but we disoover that there\nare enough of our -- enough of the sources that we are turning to\nare business oriented, that over-all the average taxpayer is probably\ngoing to come out with a slight reduction. Because in gaining the amount\nof money that is presently being paid by the citizen and by the --\nof course now, you can hang me up to dry on this, and I'm not refuting\nmy original belief, I believe that those business taxes will eventually\nbe paid by the people in the price of the product they buy. But\ntalking about direct taxes, we have made shifts of some of the money\nto additional business taxes, and this is helping compensate for the\nproperty tax reduction. So we -- we find over-all that if anything\nQ\nGovernor, would you favor a vote of the people on every tax\nraised by the legislature?\nA\nNo, and I don't think I've said that, but I think it is also\none of those that you can't draw a hard line and say it all must be\nthis way and all must be the other, then we would -- we wouldn't turn\nto the people again for bond issues, for tax overrides and that sort\nof thing. We have always recognized a certain amount of turning to\nthe people for this kind of tax and I think in this instance we are\nin keeping with that tradition in saying that the property taxpayer --\nI, as you know, have favored such as for the income tax -- I have\nfavored having a two-thirds vote in the legislature and you'd think\nafter the budget battle that I'd be a little frightened of that, but\nI'm not. I would like to see it take a two-thirds vote.\nQ\nGovernor, back to the $400 million dollar tax increase that\nAssemblyman Unruh says will come regardless of who's governor.\nThen you deny that this will happen or dispute this?\nA\nWe are working already on the budget for next year and\nour goal is going to be as it has been for the last three years.\nOur goal is to come forth with a budget and a balanced budget with no\ntax increase.\no\nAre you optimistic about that, Governor?\nA\nI'm optimistic, maybe more so than others. You'll remember\nthat in a week or so ago, in here I told you that there were factors\nbeyond our control that we have trouble getting a handle on this\nwelfare spending. This is mandated on us by the federal government\nin such a way that if we just cannot come up to meet the increased\nwelfare demand with the savings and economies we can make in other\ndepartments of government as we have done in the past, this would be\none that -- where we'd have no other choice, but I am reasonably\noptimistic right now,' and certainly, as I say, our goal is not what\nseems to be the goal of some others upstairs whoever, just automatic-\nally assuming that they are going to have it. I call to your atten-\ntion also that some of those that were preaching this the loudest\nhave made every effort to begin now with increasing the spending\nof state government and they number among them the authors of some of\nthe $335 million dollars in spending bills which I have vetoed in the\nlast three years.\nQ\nIf you are optimistic, Governor, who is less optimistic\nwithin the administration? Is it the director of the Department of\n-4-\nFinance who is less optimistic?\nA\ntho could look at Verne Orr and believe that he is anything\nbut optimistic, his smiling face would reassure you at all times.\nQ\nGovernor, you are not definitely ruling out the possibility\nof a tax increase next year though, are you?\nA\nNow, fellows, here we go again with somebody wanting me to\nwrite the lead for them. I cited the one instance and I -- to be\nhonest could cite the other one, I said last week that I have said to\nyou that when our task force on public school education has hopefully\nsolved all the things with the present formula and all, if we find\nthen that it is true that additional funds are needed and additional\nsource of revenue, we certainly will come forward to the people in\nthe legislature and make that known. But when I say write a lead\nI hope that you are not looking for me to say something that you'll\nsay, Governor says prospect of tax increase. I'm -- as I say, my\ngoal is to continue without a tax increase.\nQ\nGovernor, you seem to be at variance with Mr. Monagan and\nMr. Post then.\nA\nI may be at variance with Mr. Post. I think that if you\nlook at Bob's remarks to you all the way he said virtually what I have\nsaid, that there are these possibilities that could be beyond our control\nbut that he knew that every effort would be made not to -- to have such\na tax increase. This is quite contrary to those who are upstairs\npronouncing now that it is inevitable and you'll have to have it.\n8\nNew subject. Attorney General Mitchell said he's given\nthe states until August 3 to pledge full compliance with the new\nvoter's rights act and he's written letters to each of the 50\ngovernors asking them to specify the states at which they would\nregister young voters. How are you going to reply to that, Governor?\nA\nI haven't actually -- I just say that as you have seen it.\nI haven't actually gotten into this. I suppose that we are going\nto have to go forward. It would seem that the federal goverment is\nmoving foward the day, hopefully, for a test of the constitutionality\nof that measure that was passed andwhich they themselves questioned.\nI'm sure we will have to go forward. I signed the legislation the\nother day for our young people under 18 to be allowed to circulate\npetitions on their own behalf to seek to put this on the ballot.\nIt figures now in what has just been asked, but I'm sure we do have\nto go forward. We have been handed a law. But I haven't had a\n-5-\nchance to even talk to anyone about it.\nQ\nAre you any more sympathetic to the idea of the 18 year old\nvote than in the past?\nA\nWell, I've never disguised the fact that I lean away from\nit, but I am sympathetic to the idea that I think they aught to be\nallowed to go out and circulate petitions and let the people take a\ncrack at it on the ballot.\nQ\nGovernor, you have been spending a good deal of time with\nyoung people of late, the Girl's State and the Boy's State and this\nafternoon Miss California.\nAre you going after the 18 year old\nvote just in case?\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo, no, it just happens that this is the season of the year\nwhen Girl's State and Boy's State comes along and it is also the\nseason of the year which one of the nicer things that happens to you,\nwhen along about this time every year Miss California is brought into\nthe capital as a visitor and we are all very happy to see her.\nQ\nIf that 18 year old vote measure is on the ballot this\nNovember, are you going to take a position during the campaignagainst\nit?\nA\nI've told everybody, and particularly the young people, I\nlean away from it. I'm still waiting to be convinced. I want to\nhear their arguments. I'm trying to keep an open mind on it, but\nI have to be frank and honest and say that so far the evidence I've had\nmakes me lean away from it.\nQ\nDoes that mean that you will include it in part of your\nplatform, the opposition to it or you take no stand?\nA\nWell, as I said, I've just told you here, I am in this waiver-\ning indecisive state af mind on this, so don't try to pin me down\nfor an answer yet.\nQ\nThe measure passed by the Assembly this morning, the\nconstitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18, incl uded a\nlowering of the age of the majority, leaving the drinking age the same.\nWith those qualifications would that make that measure more attractive\nto you?\nA\nWell, I'm one who has always believed that you can't have\none without the full citizenship status. That the -- that if a\nperson is deemed qualified mature enough to vite, then that person\nalso should be deemed mature enough to stand trial for example, as an 1\n-6-\nadult in the event of law-breaking and not fall back on a juvenile\nstatus and not having full knowledge of\nright and wrong and so\nforth. No, I think full citizenship has to go with it if you are\ngoing to have the vote.\nQ\nAnother subject.\nQ\nSame subject. Yes, two months ago when you spoke to the\nRepublican Women's Convention here in Sacramento you had one sentence\nanswer for that statement on the subject of 18 year old vote. You\nsaid, \"I'm against it,\" and that's kind of different from what you\ntold the Girls Staters the other day, but I was wondering if you\ncould clarify exactly where you stand on the issue.\nA\nNow, in answering questions at one meeting or the other,\nif I said that, I think all of you though who have been present at\na number of meetings and Over a period of certainly the last couple\nof years have heard me say repeatedly that -- that while I have taken\na position and I think I've used the expression \"lean away from it\"\nor tend to be against it, you've also heard me say many times that\nI can't say that my mind is totally made up, that I'm in opposition,\nthat I am willing to hear the arguments for it and I have usually,\nwhen there's been time, explained that some of my reasons are not only\nbased on the age of 18 and the young people themselves, but based\non some concerns I have about what would happen to the campus, to\nacademic freedom and to higher education if politicians and political\nparties year after year are in trying to organize the campus when\nthere's an election almost every year; major election every other\nyear and in between the years local and county elections, and so forth.\nAnd I might have -- I might have answered a question some place and\nbeen briefer than others, but I'm sure I did it with the confidence\nthat my position has been well stated on a number of occasions.\nQ\nWell, when you talk about keeping your mind open on this\nissue does that mean you are looking for votes?\n(Laughter)\nQ\nThat's another word for the same thing.\nA\nNo, because I said it when it wasn't an election year\nalso. I'm not one who believes that the young people of this country\nare automatically one way or the other. I have a hunch that far\nmore than people realize they represent pretty much some of the same\ncross-sections. No, I've made my reasons very clear about why --\nwhy my doubts and one of them -- one of the principal ones has nothing\nto do with the young people, it has to do with the campus and with\neducation and what happens if political parties are going into a\nprofessor's class, demanding equal time because of something he said\nin a lecture the day before. I think it is something to be reckoned\nwith.\n2\nNew subject, Governor.\nA\nAll right.\nQ\nYou seceived, as has Mr. Unruh, numverous offers from broad-\ncasting stations across the state for live debate or face-to-face\ndebate with Mr. Unruh on the issues. Are you willing to meet Mr.\nUnruh under these conditions?\nA\nNo, I don't see any need for meeting Mr. Unruh on these\nissues. I think he's been here long enough and certainly now I\nmust have been here in these last few years long enough that the people\nmust know our viewpoints and they can -- they can hear both of us\nthroughout the campaign, what we advocate and what we believe.\nQ\nGovernor, on that subject, though, do you feel that public\nofficials have some responsibility in this country to face each other\nto give the voters a choice every time they come up for election?\nA\nNo, I think -- I think the people who run for office have\nan obligation to the voters to make themselves as available as they\npossible can to appear before as many voters as they possible can\nby every medium, to speak as clearly and as broadly as is possible on\nall their views and what they intend to do and what they advocate,\nAnd there is no question as to where they stand, what their platform\nis and this is their obligation and I don't think that -- this\ndepends on each individual. as to how he thinks he can do this best\nand frankly I don't see any reason to share the platform with Mr.\nUnruh. I find it -- I believe that I can relate to the people what\nit is I stand for and what I believe in.\nQ\nGovernor, are you saying you think the printed press is\nadequate and you don't need to look for votes on the television?\nA\nOh, no.\n(Laughter)\nA\nI said by every means possible. I'm -- the electronic\nmedia, I think, is a pretty good -- pretty good way to do it.\nQ\nGovernor, will you be sharing the platform with Frank\nSinatra?\nA\nWell, now, I don't know what might be planned in the line\n-8-\nof fund raisers or political rallies in which, as you know, this is\na kind of standard thing in campaigning any more, that the entertain-\nment world does contribute in that way and entertains audiences at\npolitical rallies, and so forth and Frank has expressed, as has\nDean Martin, and some others, a desire to be a part of those kind of\naffairs when they take place, and so it is possible.\nQ\nAre you making another announcement here, Dean Martin.\nDean Martin is part of the crew?\nI think you just broke Jack\nMC Dowell's (phonetics) heart.\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo, I guess -- no, I guess I was just, you know -- now,\nthis is -- this is the old show business side coming out, I imagine\nI was -- those names kind of go together like ham and eggs, and I\nguess I --\n0\nHam and eggs.\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo, I guess -- I was just -- I was just talking names, I\ncould have added a few more in there that you usually associate\nwhen those people --\n8\nDean Martin will support you this fall?\nA\nPardon?\n0\nWill Dean Martin support you this fall?\nA\nI have no authority to say that though.\n8\nAre we off the record, Governor?\n(Laughter)\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes, there is a couple back there.\nQ\nGovernor, a two-part question. How many more of admini-\nstrative cutbacks on welfare, such as the two you announced during\nthe past week, do you have coming up and how prominently will you\nuse these actions in your campaign for re-election?\nA\nWell, first of all, how many more, there are several more.\nAs we have told you, we are doing our best to get a handle on this\nprogram. If we, who are elected by the people at every echelon, from\nCity Councilman and County Supervisors, but mainly County Supervisors,\nbecause that's where the welfare is administered, and here in the\nstate and at the national level, do not do something to balance this\nprogram with regard to our obligation to the taxpayers as well as to\nthe needy, this is going to bankrupt government at every level. And\n-9-\nSO something has to be done. As for where it may figure in the\ncampaign, I've told you before, I'm going to campaign as honestly as\nI can on the basis of the record of what we have done and what we are\ntrying to accomplish and what our goals are, and I would recite this\nin what our problems have been with welfare and what we are trying\nto accomplish. I am concerned right now about some of the miscon-\nceptions concerning one of the two reforms we have just announced.\nThere seems to be very little quarrel with the announcement about\ngiving the counties flexibility with regard to the number of welfare\npersonnel they have to employ. But by looking at the Los Angeles\nTimes this morning, I was aware that once again you can color some\nof the Los Angeles Supervisors as Chicken Little. They are screaming\nthat they are not going to stand by and see the disabled die in their\nbeds for want of care, and anyone who looks at the program, the first\nannouncement that we made, knows that no one is going to lie on their\nbeds and die for lack of care, nor do we intend anything of the kind.\nWe just think that there are some corrections needed in a program\nwhere a disabled recipient receives $169 a month and the person who's\ntaking care of him is paid $300 a month. Now, when I say taking care\nI do not mean nursing care. Nothing in the change we made reduces\nor removes nursing care, nothing will remove people from their homes.\nWe are talking about marginal cases where some people are being paid\nfor rendering no service at all, simply stealing the money. Relatives\nand friends and neighbors who have been doing favors for a neighbor\ndisables for sometime suddenly finds out they can be paid for this\nand we have put a ceiling on some in the marginal cases and making\nsure the people who are able to do their own marketing or sweep their\nown floor do not have an added grant, but there's been no change\nwhatsoever in the total basic grants which include food stamps,\nspecial allowances, medical care, rent and nursing care. There's\nbeen no reduction at all. And the plain truth of the matter is that\none of the objections at the county level was the fact that we would\nnot include in our change of regulation a mandate that the county\ncould not replace with county money our cutback because they frankly\nstated to us they didn't want to take the heat, they would prefer\nto be able to blame the state, but they did want the advantage of not\nhaving to spend the money. Well, I think it is time if you are going\nto be: hold-offish you better stand up and be counted, and they better\nstart being counted honestly also.\nA\nYes, let's be cheerful, fine.\nQ\nThere's quite an argument in Los Angeles with respect to\noil drilling in Pacific Palisades. I was wondering as a property\nowner in that area do you have any opinion on it?\nA\nThe Palisades is a large area. It is quite\na\nway\nfrom\nus.\nI've heard of it. I know that there was a hearing, I don't know\njust what the views are that were presented. I think all of us\nin this day and age who are concerned with the environment are\nlegitimately concerned about how necessary is such a thing in a\nresidential area, what happens to a neighborhood and to the people\nwho are living in that -- in that area. I recognize also that\nsometimes there are needs, reasons why we have to compromise in\nwhat we would like to see, but I really don't know the case. I\ndon't know whether there is that much oil there to make this a valuable\nthing. I know they picked a very shaky piece of ground. I know\nit is the foot of the slide.\nQ\nI also wonder if you favor legislation which the Ways\nand Means Committee reported out to cancel the leases on the State\ntidelands in Santa Barbara channel, the Unruh Bill.\nA\nWell, yoy know me, I don't comment until I see them when\nthey come down to me. I think that -- I think there have been\nsome proposals made and -- that would be terribly destructive to our\neconomy and destructive to the state itself. And here again it is\none of those areas where I think we have to be willing to accept\nsome compromises. The state, as you know, has a sanctuary out\nto the three mile limit off Santa Barbara which we have not permitted\nleases and this was -- is one of the causes of trouble, the federal\ngovernment went out in that sanctuary or beyond that sanctuary area\nand permitted leases outside. But we have finally succeeded in\npersuading the federal government that they should also maintain that\nsanctuary and continue it on out to sea, which we think is a very\nforward step. But there are some areas -- California is not self-\nsufficient in oil. We are an importing state as to oil, and there\nare -- there's a limit as to how far we can go in just refusing to\ntake advantage of some of the deposit S that we have.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\no0o\n-11-\n7/21\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JULY 21, 1970\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and\nthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, we have some visitors here, very\nwelcome, glad to have, aboard. These are members of the military\nassistante program under the Department of Defense. There is\nSergeant Ellis and Sergeant Dohr of McClellan Air Force Base. These\ngentlemen are here under this program from virtually every corner of\nthe world. Glad to have you present. And there is no other opening\nstatement, so --\n8\nGovernor, since last week when you said that the counties\nwon't have to pick up the state cutbacks in homemaker -- rather home\ncare programs, some of the county welfare people have bean saying that\nthey will have to pick up those costs in order to keep patients at\nhome rather than sending them to the hospitals, which would be more\nexpensive. In view of those findings by the counties have you\ndecided to review your original cutbacks?\nA\nNo, because the entire program is still under a state of\nreview. Hearings have to be held on this. We announced a program\nto try and cure an abuse and we announced also that we did not intend\nwith that program for any individual to be forced out of his home into\nnursing care. We did not in any way intend to deprive anyone of care\nthat was absolutely necessary. We were trying to curb what had\nbecome a runaway abuse and if welfare workers at the local level\nchose to sabotage efforts of this kind to cure welfare abuses by\ntrying to create particular cases or force someone from their home\ninto a nursing home so they can make a case, it would be very difficult\nto stop them. And I think it is on their conscience if they try to\ndo this, but we have made it very clear to the counties, we have made\nit very clear to welfare, that we are seeking to cure a runaway abuse,\nan advantage that's been taken of ahprogram that was well-intentioned\n-1-\nfrom the very beginning and that where was no intention to in any way\ninfringe upon the necessities, requirements of the truly needy and we\nwould not do that.\nQ\nAre you then going to have hearings on this program that's\nnot in effect, is that what I understood you to say?\nA\nWell, yes there have to be hearings. The hearings are\nschedule,\nI think, for late in August.\nED MEESE: Emergency regulations take effect, but then\nthe hearings follow that. It can be amended.\n8\nThe regulations in effect now?\nA\nYes, but we gave very careful instruction of what was not\nto take place.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have any idea of the extent to the abuse\nto which you refer, was it 15 per cent or some figure like that, which -\nA\nWell, I think the people over in welfare have some because\nthey made the recommendations as to the amount. The thing was that\nthe program is being reduced back to about the level of last year.\nThe state's contribution then was 14 and a half. It jumped suddenly\nto 24 and a half for the present year and the -- the projections for\nthe following year were up to as much as $50 million dollars, which\nwhen this happens, in the past in our experiences revealed, this\nusually indicates that there has been some loophole found and some\nabuse of the program taking place, because there has not been a\ncomparable increase in the number of dependents requiring this kind\nof care.\n8\nRegardless to the intent, though, aren't there those who\nwill be hurt along the way?\nA\nWell, any time when you have a large program involving\nthousands and thousands of people, and this is one of the great\nproblems with the federal government trying to run things from 3,000\nmiles away, blanket programs tend to ignore the -- the requirements\nor the needs of individuals. Now, this is the idea of getting\nwelfare back to the local level, where you can take into -- into\naccount the actual individual requirements and we intend that they\nshould be, and we -- we intend that no one should be hurt by this.\nAnd when I say that, I mean that no one who actually requires some-\nthing should be deprived. The bulk of the -- of the help that is\nbeing given in this program is between -- well, about a one -- a\n-2-\n$50 level or the most about a hundred -- about 50 to a hundred dollar\nis the bulk of the care. This would not be affected by any of the\nchanges at all other than careful screening of whether the actual\nfifty or a hundred dollars is being used for the purpose intended\nand is needed. As I said before, if someone wants to sabotage the\nbureaucratic level, wants to say, well, we will prove this can't work\nby just simply applying it in such a way that we -- we don't show any\nregard, then they can. As a matter of fact, there is a little bit of\nthat going on already with the campaign against this. The panicky\ngetting of people who are on welfare or who are on these aid programs\nand putting them on certain news programs and interviewing them and\nfrightening them into the belief that they are going to be deprived\nwhen there is no evidence whatsoever, that some of those individuals\nare going to be deprived or in any way affected under the reform of this\nprogram. We again are trying to curb an abuse. We did not caneel\nthe program. We cut back on what is a known, on the basis of evidence,\nabuse of the program and if we are not allowed to do this in welfare,\nif we cannot begin to get a handle on the abuses of welfare, then all\nof you better be prepared to dig down in your pockets pretty deep\nbecause it is going to go beyond all bounds of our ability to afford\nit.\nQ\nDo you have any evidence, Governor, that social workers\nare abusing us by loading the program up with cases that don't belong\nthere?\nA\nI couldn't tell you that from firsthand knowledge, I only\nknow that in talking to local government representatives, talking to\ncounty Supervisors, oh, in many instances they complain that the\nwelfare workers have in a sense been out -- not only in this, but\nin other programs proselyting to find every way and every avenue whereb]\nsomeone can be placed on additional programs and I think this was\nevidenced in the stories that came out from so many counties just a\nfew weeks ago about the numbers of welfare workers and government\nemployees as well as others, who are full-time employees and also\nreceiving welfare grants by way of the technical loopholes that exist\nin this -- in this program.\nQ\nGovernor, in view of the state's fiscal condition, do you\nthink it is advisable at this time to pass legislation, as the Senate\ndid yesterday, which would give accountants and chiropractors special\n-3-\nincome tax privileges by allowing them to form professional corpora-\ntions?\nA\nOh, I haven't had a chance to go into what they passed\nyesterday. I think if -- and I stand to be corrected, if I'm\nwrong. in this, I think what we are talking about is the right of\nindividuals to incorporate as doctors have in clinics and thus have\nthe advantage of being taxed as a corporation instead of as individuals.\nand if there is an inconsistency between one classification,\nprofressionals and another, then that inconsistency should be\ncorrected.\nQ\nThis would result in a loss of about 1.6 million dollars\nto the state in the first year.\nA\nWell, see, I have to go along with this, that whatever is\ncalled a loss to the state, if the money -- the state is getting\nis based on an inequity to the taxpayers, then the state has to bear\nthat loss, because the state has no right to be gaining money, tax\nrevenues by personalizing one group of taxpayers as against another.\nQ\nGovernor, yesterday there was a Senator came in with a group\nof people in wheel chairs and they all claim that those are getting\na $300 allowance from care, particularly those badly crippled are\ngoing to be cut in half, won't be able to take care of themselves.\nNow what about that?\nA\nWell, in an effort to get at this program it is true that\none of the points raised was to change the ceiling in that partigular\nprogram from $300 to $150. But I have to wonder in the interpretation\nof this if some of these people aren't confused again between nursing\ncare and just simply the attendant care or outside care of people\ncoming in to do household chores or marketing or run errands and so\nforth, and if it is -- if it is indeed involving personal care of a\nnursing nature then there are other programs to provide that. And\nthere is no intentinn to cut those.\nQ\nGovernor, I want to talk about the tax program a bit. It\nis scheduled now for debate, at least, and probably a vote in the\nSenate on Thursday. Last week you indicated that you wanted some\npublic support to get the Senators on the ball on this thing. Have\nyou counted noses or anything at this point? Are you confident at\nthis point anything in the Senate --\nA\nI continue to be optimistic, I just find that -- it hard\n-4-\nto envision how a Senator can go back to his district, particularly\nthose who are up for election, and explain to the constituents how\nthey voted against this tax relief for the home owner. And face\nthem on this in view of all the evidence we have that the -- that\nthe home owners are virtually to the point of tax rebellion with regard\nto property tax. So I continue to believe that while it is very\npossible that the -- and I think the evidence indicates that roughly\nthe same group of Senators who blocked the budget are mobilized\nagainst this program. It may be the end result would be the same\nas it was with the budget.\nQ\nGovernor, oh --\n8\nGovernor, Senator Schrade has been pro tem not/ for nearly\nsix months. How are you getting along with him?\nA\nJust fine. And I must say his leadership during the\nseveral dark days of the budget battle was outstanding and I'm grateful\nto him fo r the cooperation that we had.\n8\nThere are a number of bills pending in both houses of the\nlegislature that would -- constitutional amendments as well, that\nwould divert gas tax from the state highway fund to rapid transit\nand there have even been suggestions it would go for education, but\nit is diversion nonetheless. How do you stand on the general subject\nof gas tax diversion?\nA\nWell, Jack, let me divide that. If we are talking about\nprograms that actually have to do with the automobile bser that\nstill come within the framework of this being a service tax assessed\nagainst the user; smog, for example, I believe the automobile caused\nthe smog, therefore it is fair that the automobile use should contribute\nto the research and to the battle against smog. With regard to\nrapid transit, I have always felt that that program really belongs\nin the hands of the peop/e at the local level where the rapid transit\ndistrict would be created. If they are talking about a diversion of\ntheir own highway funds for that purpose within their district, the\nlocal share of highway funds, I could be persuaded to that. On the\nbroader scene, if you are asking my position with regard to simply\nopening up the gasoline tax as a source of revenue for the running of\ngovernment, I am opposed. I think it is a fine tax in the sense of\na service charge against the user and I would be opposed to simply\ntreating it as a source of revenue and a grab bag for everybody to get\ninto for their particular program. It still isn't sufficient for us\nwas created some years before I got here, and which is way behind\nschedule because of inflation and increasing costs or maybe because\nof over-optimistic estimates in the beginning. We do know that\nevery mile of modern expressway or freeway that we build we can\nactually count the number of lives per mile that are saved because\nof the reduced accident rate and fatality rate on those freeways.\n8\nGovernor, Attorney General Mitchell indicated that he was\ngoing to write to the Governors, all the Governors, ask them how they\nVoter Rights Act,\nintended\nto\nimplement\nthe\nfederal\nhave you formulated an\nanswer to that letter?\nA\nWe received the letter.\nI have to tell you on this one you\nare going to have to wait a while. We haven't -- we haven't been\nable to get into this or give any attention to it at all as to what\nwe are going to do. I'm -- I'm one who believes that the statute\npassed in Congress is unconstitutional. I think that the voting\nqualifications properly belong in the hands of the state.\n8\nYou might take some action then that would force the\nmatter into the courts in California?\nA\nAs I say, we haven't had a chance to sit down and go into\nthis and I'm a layman, not a lawyer, so I may have shocked some of\nthe lawyers on the staff already with my statement I have just made.\n8\nGovernor, the Controller's preliminary annual report came\nout and it shows over-all about 182 -- $185 million dollar increase\nin collections, and the only area where there was down in the\ncollections was Bank and Corporations and cigarette sales tax. Is\n$185 million dollars too small of an increase to run the state or\nwhere does that reflect in a recession in the state that causes the\n$145 million deficit?\nA\nWell, now, wait a minute, are you talking about a projection\nor upon the figures --\nQ\nHis preliminary report, annual report, receipts and --\neverything was up.\nA\nNo, we are talking --\n8\nThe sales tax.\nA\nWe are talking about the Controller's cash balance that he\njust gave us, weren't we, on the cash balance for the year that we\nhave been in?\nQ\nGross receipts, not a cash balance.\n-6-\nED MEESE: No, that is the cash report.\nA\nThat's the cash balance. This really has nothing to do\nwith whether we are deficit plas or minus.\nQ\nI was referring everything was up except banks and corpora-\ntions, how does this reflect a bad recession? There is still an\nincrease in the collection of taxes.\nA\nWell, aren't you comparing what is true of the year we\nhave just gone through and what is the prediction for the revenues\nin the year ahead? Well, maybe I'm confused, but if we are talking\nabout the Controller's report, the Controller has just issued a\nreport, as he explained to me, that he was going to, that he was --\nwas issuing a cash balance report on -- as of June 30, -- July 1,\nthe amount of cash that had come in as against the cash outflow and\nthere was a difference, but this is not the balance of whether there\nis a surplus or deficit in the state. That won't be known until\nNovember because all the cash isn't in.\nQ\nI crossed over that, I didn't mean to go into --\nI'm just saying that personal income tax and the sales tax, cash\nreceipts is still up. There is an increase from last year.\nA\nOh, I think that's true. The question is whether the\nincrease is up to the amount of increase that you base your projections\non. We normally expect our tax revenues, normal growth in the economy\nto be reflected in anywhere from a six to an eight per cent increase\neach year. Now, it is my understanding that the report that we\nwould be $70 million dollars off in our projections from the projection\nmade last December was that the increase -- there would still be an\nincrease, but it would be $70 million dollars less than the increase\nthat we had normally anticipated in December because in the interim\nhad come this economic slump.\nQ\nAnother subject, Governor, a couple weeks ago you indicated\nyou needed some time to decide what you intend to do about the loss\nof Kay Valory. Have you made up your mind about that yet?\nA\nNo, Kay Valory has been a valued member of this staff and\nI hope that we can retain her in government and intend to. We --\nthe re-organization with regard to the whole consumer affairs thing\nis apart from that. That's a part of our reorganization of the\nexecutive branch.\nQ\nGovernor, another subject. The State Senate last week\n-7-\npassed a bill which would give legislative employees much greater\npension benefits than other state employees atdan estimated cost\nof about one million dollars a year. TWO years ago you vetoed\na\nsimilar\nbill.\nIs your position still the wame towards such\nlegislation?\nA\nWell, I haven't had a chance to take a look at this and see\nif they have done anything different. I think the one I vetoed a coup]\nof years ago was restricted to a much narrower group of employees,\nif I remember correctly. I don't think I've ever faced one that took\ncare of the entire legislative employees staff, I think they had a\nsmall narrow group in mind.\nQ\nGovernor, the same thing, the Senate passed a bill this\nmorning, Assemblyman Ryan's teacher reform bill, and has some of\nthe recommendations from your reform commission in it. I'm wondering\nwhether you are looking favorably on that.\nA\nWell, let me say that I vetoed with -- because of some\nprovisions of the bill the other one and told Ryan that I was very\nmuch in favor of that -- the goal of the bill of removing school\nadministrators from the necessity of having teacher credentials.\nI'm still in favor of removing that necessity, but it is my -- all\nthat I've heard so far is that that bill has undergone a great many\namendments and on its way down, and I frankly haven't had a chance\nto get into the whole bill and see if it contains the same things I\nobjected to last year or whether they have been changed.\nQ\nGovernor, back on the tax bill, you said that you -- there\nmay be the same problem with the same Benators that you had on the\nbudget but this time you don't have the lever of the deadline.\nWhat are you willing to -- what are you planning or intend to do in\norder to get that tax program passed if those Senators hold out?\nAre you going to talk to them, are you going to threaten, are you\ngoing to promise, have you yet or what?\nA\nJust be my most persuasive self. figure that they are\nnot totally without a deadline. I think there is a kind of a built-\nin itch to get home upstairs and every day that goes by the itch\ngets greater.\nQ\nYou haven't been up there lately.\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo, I only go by what they say when they come downstairs.\n-8-\nQ\nOn\nanother subject. The University of California.\nCan\nwas\nyou tell us why/Professor of Physiology Hardin P. Jones given a raise?\nA\nYes, there were two changes in the submission of over-\nscale raises that came in. This list was submitted a month ago and\nsome questions were raised about some of the overscale approvals\nthere. This approval is in the hands of the Regents, must be approved\nby them. The list was taken back by the President of the University\nat his request for a review and some changes were made that -- that\nhe made in the entire list, that came back in and one of the newer\nmembers of the Board, Dr. Lawrence, himself. a Professor at Berkeley,\nraised some questions and presented some evidence regarding the work\nthat was being done by Dr. Jones and one other Professor and upon the\nbasis, upon the testimony that he gave as to what they were doing and\nthis man had been in his particular department, his recommendation\nwas accepted by the Board.\nQ\nGovernor, can you tell us whether some of that evidence\nhad to do with Mr. Jones' speeches on anti-drug use?\nA\nNo, this had to do with the work load he's carrying, the\nresearch that he's been doing and one of theindividuals, it was\npointed out by the president, that one of the individuals was a\nprofessor at large and therefore he didn't actually have a department\nor a Chancellor plugging for him like so many others have, and this\nwas why he had been lower than Dr. Lawrence thought he should have\nbeen on the first time a month ago. And Dr. Lawrence did present\njust the factual evidence as to the load they are carrying, the\nteaching load, the research that's being done, their record, point\nof service and the Regents just thought that it warranted the raise.\n8\nGovernor, a couple more questions around here.\n8\nGovernor, the Anti-Vietnam bill is up before the Ways and\nMeans Committee. What is your view on that?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nThe Anti-Vietnam Bill by Vasconcellos.\nA\nOh, this is the bill that Californians shouldn't go.\nI've answered that before, my position is -- it's been declared\nunconstitutional already by the one state that passed it, Massachusetts\nThe Supreme Court overruled them and I for once agree with the Supreme\nCourt decision. I think that the obligation of the federal government\n-9-\nthe responsibility is the protection of the nation and I don't think\nthat the states should be involved in deciding whether they would aid\nin the defense of the nation or not.\n8\nWould you veto it if it should pass?\nA\nWell, you know, you keep wanting me to violate my rule about\nsaying I would veto or not veto. Let me just tell you that I don't\nbelieve a state should be telling the federal government it is going\nto keep its young men from serving in the defense of the nation.\nQ\nGovernor, regarding the university question. Could you\nmore specifically address yourself to the complaints that the Regents\nshowed a political bias by holding up the promotions of two liberal\nProfessors and granting pay increases to two conservative Professors?\nA\nI would be delighted to answer that because the stories\nthat have been carried came evidently by way of someone who went out\nof an executive meeting and in violation of what I think is ethical\nconduct in an executive meeting relayed their version of what had\ntaken place in the meeting. There were two professors -- here again\nthis is a right of the Regents and a responsibility that appointments\nto tenure must be approved by the Regents, and if a Regent and the\napproval comes not so much in us voting to approve as it comes in and\nsays that appointments to lifetime tenure, that if a Regent has\nquestions and wants more information or questions or challenges the\nappointment that the University then will provide this or then it\nwill come to a vote and the case will be made. In this instance\nthere was no blocking. What happened was two members of the Board\nof Regents, both incidentally who aren't professors by profession,\nasked for additional information on the academic qualifications.\nThere was no issue raised by them or any other Regent as to the\npolitical views or outside conduct of these two individuals. The\nonly mention of this came from a member of the Board of Regents oppos-\ning these -- the questioning who challenged that he felt this was what\nit was about, and both Regents made it very plain that they wanted\nno information of that kind, they were asking merely for additional\nacademic qualifications, and the administration of the University\nsaid that that information they would provide for the next meeting.\nQ\nWell, is it just a coincidence then that these two faculty\nmembers were active in liberal-radical causes?\n-10-\nA\nWell, I would have to say it is a coincidence. One of\nthem his name seemed familiar to me in association with some of the\ncauses. The other one I never even heard of him, and I'm sure this\nwas true of many of the Regents present and it isn't anything that\nrequires a vote, it simply required Regents who had questions raising\ntheir questions and the questions were with regard to the academic\nqualifications.\n0\nGovernor, who is the Regent who -- who you say disclosed\nthese arguments?\nA\nWell, now, if I -- I've already said a lot of what went\non in an executive session. I'd just rather not be in the same\ncategory as the Regents that keep running out of those meetings to\nthe press and revealing what goes on. The purpose of an executive\nmeeting is not to protect the Regents, it is to protect the individuals\ndiscussed by the Regents and this is being violated. And violated by\nsomeone on the Board of Regents and I'm not going to join them, so I\ncan just say there was a regent who questioned these other two Regents\nif this was the reason for their objection. They made it very plain\nthat was not and I'm not going to reveal his name.\nQ\nGovernor, I understand a manufacturer is coming out with\na Ronald Reagan wristwatch. I wonder what your reaction is.\n(Laughter)\nA\nWell, I figure it was inevitable. I doubt if it will\ncatch on. I think it is probably a fad that's already run its way\nand I'm not going to take a poll and find out how many buy them.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: You bet.\n060\n-11-\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JULY 28, 1970\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\nSQUIRE:\nHave you got an opening statement?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nNo opening statement.\nQ\nGovernor Reagan --\nQ\nGovernor, you and the Lieutenant Governor Reinecke have said\nthat on the cutback in the attendant care program that you had\ninformed the counties that there could be exceptions to the new $150\nceiling if situations warranted it. Santa\nClara\nCounty\nsais\nthey can't find anywhere any written or oral communication from the\nstate saying that and they said there is nothing in these regulations\nthat went out.\nA\nIt was not said in the sense of that actual exception.\nWhat we said was that nothing in the changed regulation should be\nused to remove anyone from their home into a nursing home or into --\ninto any kind of an institution. And I would think that this would\nmean that when you got to that ceiling, you had a conflict there\nin which it would have been logical for them to say what do we do in\nthe event that a cut in the ceiling would force this person out of his\nhome, then I think they -- that no one ever bothered to inquire of\nus.\nNo one ever bothered to ask what do we do. Ray?\nQ\nGovernor, a report out of Washington yesterday says that\na study in California --\nQ\nExcuse me, I'd like to -- on welfare.\n0\nThis is.\n8\nO. K.\nQ\n--\nwelfare. -- that 22 cases out of 260 studied in Cali-\nfornia showed nursing homes billing sometimes up to ninety days\nafter a person had died, double and triple billing, and things of this\nkind.\nAre you aware of this report and what is the situation?\n-1-\nA\nYes, and some of the cases that they are talking about\ngo back as much as two years. This has been a problem we have\ntalked about before and we have been working with this problem of\ntrying to clear up the billing process and avoid errors. We are\ngoing to computers, as you know, and already the computerizing of\nwelfare or Medi-Cal billing has resulted in what runs to millions of\ndollars a month in savings in -- in detecting errors. I notice the\nreport also said that in some of those instances even the nursing homes\nwere unaware of the error and in some instances nursing homes them-\nselves had found the error and corrected it. And this is an omgoing\nproblem and I think you'll -- you'll find if you check it that it --\nthat some of what they found, as I say, goes back as much as two years\nand has long since been corrected.\nQ\nIs there any indication of outright fraud?\nA\nRay, I --- I would hesitate to stand here and say that\nthere's been no case of cheating in Medi-Cal, or in any one of the\nsocial welfare programs. But I also would tell you that at this\nmoment I haven't spoken to them about, well, what do we find in\ndeliberate fraud or not. I know there is - - there's been a long and\nunending struggle since we have been here. I remember when we came\nhere Medi-Cal was in its first year, just a brand new program, but to\nintercept and correct those abuses where sometimes the recipient and\nsometimes the purveyor of the service or drug has attempted to cheat.\nBut I think we have got that pretty well corraled also. Our biggest\nproblem there is just the same as it is in every other welfare program.\nIt is the legal abuse that can come about through taking advantage\nof technicalities and loopholes in the exising regulations.\n8\nExcuse me. Yes, Governor. You said a minute ago that\nyou did not tell the counties in the regulations that they could make\nexceptions to the $300 maximum, if that's what I believe we were talking\nabout, in the attendant care program to the $150 maximum, that you said\nthere could be exceptions so as to keep a person in his home. You\nsaid this was not -- that statement was not made in the regulations.\nA\nI\ndon't recall. AsI recall it, I don't think there was\nanything we said specifically that if this ceiling -- the change of\nceiling interferes, but we felt and I was confident that in the explain-\ning that under no circumstances was anyone to be moved from his home\nbecause of his change in regulation or nursing home, that would be\n-2-\npretty apparent, that whatever in the regulation ran into conflict\nwith that, that it would be apparent we meant selectivity. We meant\nexceptions.\n8\nIn a letter to the Board of Supervisors announcing them, you\nsaid the regulations which are now being mailed to county welfare\ndirectors also will enable counties to operate the program within the\nreduced allocation without forcing any recipient into out-of-home care\nbut apparently the counties say or some of the ones -- people I have\nspoken with say there is nothing in the regulations that does allow\nthem to do that.\nA\nI said, I think, the other day in my statement, what I\nexplained was welfare workers who show a great versatility in their\nability to loosely interpret the regulations that they have -- or\nto interpret them strictly and I made the charge the other day, and I\nstand by the charge, they make no effort to do anything except go by\nthe letter of the regulation in spite of all of the public statements\nand the written statements that we have sent with regard to what the\nintent or spirit was of this. Now, since that time, at least one\npaper here in the community that was more concerned with fact than\nwith emotionalism had cited, quoting welfare workers at the county\nlevel, a number of violations of the type of thing we were talking\nabout. The type, for example, of a young man from a well-off family\nwho is incapacitated and going to college and his mother is being\npaid a hundred dollars a month to take care of him and yet he is able\nto go to college and there are a number of other instances of that\nkind. As far as I can determine, no effort was made whatsoever to\nfind that kind of case and to recognize this is what we were trying\nto get at.\nQ\nGovernor, has there been any effort made to stop such a\nsloppy regulation again in your administration?\nA\nWell, this was -- I told you the other day, before we do\nthis again the regulation is going to say -- is not going to offer that\nsame opportunity when we know that there is a tendency on the part of\nthose people to interpret contrary to what it is we are trying to\naccomplish. I think you only need to refer back to the fact that\nthe same welfare workers are just as upset about our giving elasticity\nto the counties with regard to how many welfare workers they have to\nhire or what proportion of supervisors they have to have. They are\n-3-\njust as enraged about that. In other words, they seem to be enraged\nabout anything that is going to reduce the overhead in distributing\nthe welfare dollars. And we are just as determined that we are going\nto find some way to make sure that we can continue to deliver the\nservices or even improve them to those people who truly have need\nwhere at the moment we are being spread so thin with people who neither\nneed it nor deserve it that we are coming to the day when we are not\ngoing to be able to provide adequate care for those who must have it.\n8\nGovernor, your fear of sabotage by local welfare workers,\ndoes that extend to anybody, you think, in the State Department of\nSocial Welfare who helped write that regulation didn't have your best\ninterests in mind?\n(Laughter)\nA\nLet me say, I would not throw up my hands and fall over\nbackward in surprise if that too developed.\nQ\nGovernor, Robert Anderson of the Social Services Union\nsaid that he felt that the press coverage had done your whole effort\nin.\nDo you feel that way about it? The playing on sob sister type\nstories.\nA\nNo, the thing that did us in is when I discovered that there\nwas no way that I could join the fight with them and guarantee\nprotection to the truly handicapped who needed this help. That\nin other words by their willingness to use those people as pawns there\nwas no way that I could stand here and guarantee to those helpless\npeople that protection against this in a state the size of this one and\nwhat was going on. And it was evident that they were victimizing\nas I told you the other day in here. When a case arrived so close\nto home that I was personally acquainted with people who had received\nthe telephone call, then I think in conscience I only had one thing\nto do. I had to back away until I could find a way to correct the\nabuses and protect at the same time the handicapped.\n8\nGovernor, you indicated that none of the counties had\nbothered to get in touch with the state and find out whether or not\nit was the intention Los Angeles County people claim they did\nattempt to get in touch with the state and ask for clarification.\nThey didn't get any cooperation.\nA\nI don't know who they tried to call or who they were in\ntouch with, but we preceded this by meetings with county Supervisors\nand the County Supervisors' Association. They knew the intent and\n-4-\nthey knew what we were trying to correct.\nQ\nThey knew in advance of the announcement?\nA\nThat's right.\nQ\nChange of subject, Governor.\nA\nAll right.\nQ\nThe first round has gone through on the Senate floor on\nyour tax reform package.\nA\nYes.\nQ\nThe numbers look pretty darn close. What do you think\nis going to happen now and what are you going to do besides just\nbe your normal natural self in convincing some Senators how to vote?\nA\nI shall sit persuasively in the corner office until it\npasses. I'm optimistic that we are still going to get it because\nti is a good tax bill and some of the Mickey Mouse attempts to make\nchanges have revealed that most people can find either side of the\naisle, can find little fault and I'm greatly gratifying by what seems\nto be a good solid bi-partisan approach to this. There are people\nup there on both sides of the aisle who aren't playing politics.\n8\nAre you saying we are going to get the tax package as it\nexists right now or no tax package at all?\nA\nWell, I know that there are a number of changes, some minor,\nsome major. I couldn't swear that there won't be some minor ones.\nI don't know that we are going to bat a hundred per cent. I would\nlike to see it go through as it is. I think in all the long months and\nall last summer before the session took place, when we were working\nwith the legislative leadership on this, I think we anticipated most\nloopholes and did a pretty good job of putting forth a sound program.\nQ\nYou said before that you compromised enough on this tax\nreform program. You mean by what you said you are not going to make\nany more major compromises in this package?\nA\nWell, some of the major compromises, such as the amendments\nthat were proposed and defeated yesterday, I'm sorry, I think that\nthey so subverted and destroyed the program I just couldn't have\naccepted it with that kind of change.\nQ\nWhat will you offer Democratic Senators for their support?\nA\nJust the knowledge that they will be able to go back to\ntheir constituents and say \"we defended the people of California.\"\nWe don't make deals. I haven't bought a vote up here yet and nor\nhave I tried and I'm not going to start.\n-5-\nQ\nGovernor, on that, there were rumors around when your budget\npassed that some Senators got judgeships for themselves or for elders\nor acquaintances. Could you comment on that?\nA\nYes, I can comment. That, too, is totally false. I\nheard the rumors when they went around. I think the cave-in and the\ndecision to pass the budget led to this to this thought. No,\nthere was no such thing, there was no deal. We just simply said\nthis budget has to be passed. We had accepted the budget without\nchange that was as it came out of the Conference Committee. I\nannounced -- the only thing I did was send the word upstairs, which\nI thought they should know, that the budget they were talking about\nand debating was the budget that I would sign, that I saw no need in\nmy study of it to do any blue-penciling. There was no deal made\nwhatsoever of any kind.\na\nGovernor, the Democrats in proposing their amendments seem\nto give the impression they felt that they were doing what they\nbelieved was right for their constituents. Do you mean intend to\ncall their efforts Mickey Mouse?\nA\nNo, I -- I used the word \"some\", I think. I hope the\ntranscript will show that, that some amendments. No, I'm sure\nthere are people up there with and on both sides of the aisle.\nThere are Republicans who have had changes that they would like to\nsee and amendments and they believe in them very much and so do some\nof the Democrats. On the other hand, I think there have been some\njust sheer obstructionist type of amendments that would have literally\nturned the purpose of the bill around even. Even some at times that\nwere discussed that would have made it a tax increase rather than just\na tax reform.\nQ\nGovernor, change of subject?\nA\nAll right.\nQ\nHave you planned any investigation or have you made any\ninquiry into the conditions at Solidad prison at all, the tensions\nthat apparently exist there?\nA\nOh, we have had yes, we have had cabinet meetings on this\nand with the people from the Department of Corrections. We know that\nthis is a great problem. What is happening and what you are seeing\nreflected inside the institutions is a reflection of what is taking\nplace outside. The great increase in violence and violent crime is\n-6-\nreflected because these type of people are the ones who are now\ncoming into these institutions and presents a very real problem.\nThere is no question about it, the nature of the jobs of the men\ninside is -- I can't say different than what it was in the past, but\nthe degree of risk and tension is greater.\nQ\nIs this a black and white -- black versus white conflict\nthat exists in Solidad, and if so, how do you overcome that in insti-\ntutions?\nA\nWell, this is not -- this might be involved in the last\nissue of what has taken place there, but this is not new. This\nhas been happening and again is a reflection of what's taking place\noutside the prisons. This has been going on and there's been an\nincrease in tension in that line in a number of institutions, not\nonly in California, but across the country, but I think basically\nyou have to face that with or without that you have a -- you have an\nincreased problem because of just the greater increased proportion of--\nof violence. Violence outside. You add one other factor to this,\ntoo. The percentage of that kind of individual inside the institu-\ntion is greater because of our subsidizing of probation. As you\nrecall, we have a program now where we underwrite or subsidize to\nlocal government their taking, particularly first offenders, and\nkeeping them on probation instead of putting them into institutions\nand it's been very successful. But in so doing you have thinned\nout and left a higher proportion of the truly violent while the first\noffenders, the less violent, the ones who always. kind of gave you\nsome stability and order in those institutions are out on probation.\nQ\nGovernor, another subject. The Senate killed a $750,000\nmansion bill yesterday. Do you have any comment on that?\nA\nThey did? Well, as I told you the other day, I wasn't going\nto spend the money right away in the condition that we are in now.\nBut I think it is sort of -- I don't know what basis they killed it on,\nif they did. But it -- it is just a pattern of the last thirty-two\nyears and I still say it is a disgrace and some day maybe they will\nquit playing politics. In the meantime maybe we should go back to\nthe original plan and let the people of California do what a great\nmany of them have shown they are willing to do and present it to the\nstate instead of relying on the --\nQ\nGovernor, will you propose the $750,000 in your' budget bext\n-7-\nyear if you are re-elected?\nA\nWell, that's going to have to depend on what the budget\ncondition is or what the financial condition is of this state.\nObviously, that like anything else would have to take its place in\nthe priority.\nQ\nGovernor, are you calling this partisan politics? The\nbill was sponsored by a Democrat.\nA\nI beg your pardon?\n8\nYou said they are playing politics. The bill was sponsored\nby a Democrat.\nA\nNo, I guess that was you know, blood bath, that was a\nfigure of speech. I don't think it was partisan because I've been\nassured by some Democrats that they have believed for a long time\nthat we should have resolved this issue years ago. No, it wouldn't\nbe partisan in any sanse.\nQ\nGovernor, if that new mansion were built downtown, would you\nwant to live in it?\nA\nFrankly, no. We had that experience once. I learned\nto hate the sound of trucks shifting gears. I think if anyone\nwould stop to think about it, they'd realize that this is a residence\nand in the increasing youthfulness of our population, I'm sure the\nodds are that in days to come there are going to be Governors of\nCalifornia you are building something for a hundred years -- that\nthere are going to be Governors who have small children and you take\na look and you say, \"Well, what do you do with a family of that kind?\"\nThe kids come home from school and what do they do, go out and count\nthe cars going by or who do they play with, what kind of a neighborhood\ndo they live in? The lot that they have picked out over here, I\nthink you'd have to put a roof over the place, also, because there\nis a high rise apartment building next door, they could sell tickets.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nGovernor --\nQ\nGovernor, you said that pardon me, that you had met\nwith Supervisors before announcing the welfare cuts. Some of the\nwelfare people have complained they did not get any notices of cuts\nbefore the time of the announcement publicly. Could you tell us\nwhen you met with the Supervisors?\nA\nWell, our people were meeting with them -- not me, our\npeople were meeting with them on this for quite some period of time\n-8-\nand if there is a the of communication there then that ought to be\nstraightened out at the county level.\nQ\nThey were notified how long in advance, do you think?\nPAUL BECK: Warren, I think -- I guess about two weeks.\nQ\nExcuse me, on that point, two weeks before that you signed the\nbudget bill. Why didn't you just take the ten million dollars out-\nright then and announce the regulations then?\nA\nWell, because we were probably still talking to them, but\nalso because I said upstairs that we wouldn't -- we wouldn't blue-\npencil the budget bill.\na\nGovernor, I apologize for belaboring this subject, but I\nwant to make sure I understand. On the -- if there was an exception\nallowed to that new $150 ceiling wouldn't it have had to be stated\nin the Executive order? How could the connties approve an exception\nif it wasn't in the law?\nwelfare\nA\nExcuse me, it isn't a law, it is a regulation, administrative\nchange.\nQ\nSecondly, who would pay for the extra money above the $150,\nthe state or the county?\nA\nWell, I think that program, you'll find, was a three-way --\nthis is why we warned them about their own expenditure. There is\nfederal sharing in this and there is county sharing, so that we always\ntalk to you and to the public in terms of the dollar that's a saving\nstatewise, ever since our first several months up here in trying\nto explain Medi-Cal in terms of total cost as against the state\nsavings, and so finally I think some of youdwereeready to stab me\nover is it $800 million or $200 million dollars, and we were being\nhonest at every time, but we have since then tried to talk in what is\nthe state cost. But every time we save a dollar in state cost you\nhave to add on and say we are really saving two and a half to three\ndollars because there are the matching dollars. The county is thus\nrelieved of a -- of a matching sum and the federal government is\nrelieved of a matching dollar.\nQ\nWell, back to the question, Governor, how could they make\nan exception if it wasn't in the regulation, though?\nA\nWell, I admitted in my statement the other day that it was\npossible the wording of the regulation -- you've had some questions\nabout that here today, why the regulation was worded in that way.\nI went on the explanation and the surrounding language that we had\ninformed them. But it doesn't seem to me that it is too far fetched\n-9-\nright now by a liberal interpretation of welfare regulations, we\nhave just discovered at least one publication's revealing the increas-\ning numbers of college students who are going to college on welfare.\nThey have just discovered that there are loopholes that with a liberal\ninterpretation they can get money if their fathers and mothers aren't\nsending them enough money to go to school on welfare. Now, by this\nsame thing, if I -- when we put a ceiling but announce that that\nceiling must not be imposed if it is to bring about a change in the --\nin the residence of the individual, it seems to me common sense that\nsomeone would assume that we are agreeing there can be exceptions.\n8\nAre you going to try --\nQ\nGovernor, why does this liberal interpretation on welfare\nlaws upset you and we don't hear a similar degree of distress about\nliberal interpretation of tax laws and open space subsidies and\nthose sort of things which -- from which wealthy people prosper? We\nhear it all the time about welfare workers. We don't hear coinciding\nfigures on the other.\nA\nWell, your question is asked, I think, based on a false\npremise. I think -- I don't think that there is any liberalizing\nor conservative interpretation of what is a legitimate deduction or\nwhat is a legitimate protection in -- say in open space, the\nWilliamson Act. I think it is very explicit that a person can sign\nan agreement and get a reduction in his property tax. And the state\nin turn under our proposal is going to reimburse the county for the\nlost revenue. Now, I doubt that the wealthy are being subsidized\nto the extent that it makes this a scandal and if so I'd be the first\nto stand in line and say let's plug it. But what you are talking\nabout is a welfare situation that I don't believe any fair person\ncan deny has gotten out of hand nationwide. The federal government\nis trying to solve it because they know it is out of hand. As we, who\nseveral years ahead we can have projections that show. that the tax\nstructure of California admittedly the highest in-the nation, cannot\npossibly afford what is going on. San Diego County, for example,\ntheir budget for welfare is now greater than the total county budget\nwas just a fewyears ago, and it is increasing this year. There are\n239,000 more people on welfare. When I talk about liberal interpre-\ntation I'm talking about such examples as a professional man and his\nwife who can put their children in a boarding home for care while they\ntake a vacation and the taxpayers pay the bill for that. I'm talking\nabout the example I gave you a little earlier, I'm talking about anywhere\nfrom ten to fourteen thousand dollars a year, government employees\nas well as private industry employees who have found that through the\nlegal loopholes that they discovered in the law they can put themselves\non welfare in addition to getting these salaries. And I'm only\nsaying to you that not only must there be some fairness with regard\nto the taxpayers who are -- who are bearing this burden, but we are\nreaching the point in which we will be able and can point to cases of\nreal need that are not getting what they should have.\nQ\nWell, no, I'm -- that certainly you are to be commended\nfor attacking that problem. I just wondered why there isn't a similar\ndegree of industry on the other end of the scale, because that's\ncosting taxpayers money, too.\nA\nWell, I think there is, but are you talking about -- are\nyou talking about an abuse of an existing program or are you talking\nabout changes in the tax structure such as : restricting someone's\ncharttable contributions because you think that that is a tax out.\n8\nOh, I don't know --\nA\nDepreciation.\nQ\nSenator Danielson yesterday pointed out a whole flock of\nfarmers who take advantage of the Williamson Act, like Standard Oil\nCompany and J. Paul Getty and other farmers like that, who get tax\nbreaks and he questioned whether they really needed those tax breaks.\nA\nWell, all right, whether they need them or not, is it a\ntax break to take someone who is -- we have the reverse of that.\nWe have the man who wants to remain a farmer but because suddenly a\nfarmer three miles away has -- and I've been through this and had to\ngive up a ranch because of it -- we have a farmer three miles away\nsells his land for a subdivision and suddenly this farmer has to pay\na tax on the potential value of his farm as a subdivision sometime\nin the future rather than on the ability of that land to earn as a\nfarm. And the Williamson Act admittedly doesn't go an awful long\nway on this, but it makes some break for the man who is willing to\nsay, \"I intend to farm this,\" and every year he signs for ten years\nahead that he's not going to make this a subdivision and that he\nintends to keep it at its present use.\nQ\nGovernor, do you have any evidence that any social workers\nwere not enforcing the regulations on the abuses -- the new regulations\nthat you had proposed July 9th, on the abuses on the cases involing\nabuse? That is, were they just enforcing the regulations on the end\n-11-\nof the scale where people would be hurt and not enforcing them on the\nother end or do you feel that their enforcement was level across the\nwhole range of regulations?\nA\nI have no evidence the other way.\nI have no evidence\nthat there was any effort made to comply with the intent and to simply\neliminate those abuses. I know of no such case. I know of countless\ncases that all of you held up to view and understandably so, it was\nquite emotional of the truly handicapped, the very ones that we\nwanted no change in their status, that they were going to have a change\nin their status.\nQ\nWhat would you have done if you found some welfare worker\nsaid well, he really didn't mean it in the regulation and kept\npaying the $300 instead of cutting it back to $150? What would you\nhave done to some welfare worker if you found that to be indicated?\nA\nWell, frankly I would have thought -- frankly I would have\nthought that he was complying with exactly what we said he should do.\n8\nGovernor, there are reports of a planned meeting last night\nwith you, President Nixon and Senator Murphy. Did that come about?\nA\nYes, it was a very lovely social evening.\nQ\nDid you discuss --\nA\nNancy and I and George Murphy dined with the President and\nMrs. Nixon and Dr. Kissinger.\nQ\nDid you discuss the federal welfare regulations you've been\nso critical of?\nA\nYes, we had a little opportunity before dinner which was\nsocial, with a few others. of the White House staff, who were present,\nand I had a chance to explain our criticisms of that, and they were\nquite interested. They were also quite surprised to learn some of\nthe ways in which welfare is being misinterpreted at the local level.\nQ\nYou think somethingwill come out of this particular meeting?\nIn that area?\nA\nI sure hope SO.\nQ\nGovernor, did you or Senator Murphy ask the President to\nspeak in either of your behalf yere in California in the coming elec-\ntion?\nA\nSubject never came up.\nQ\nDo you expect that he will come into California and campaign?\nYou are constituents.\nHe's a constituent of yours.\n-12-\nA\nI don't know, I've read -- I've read some accounts that\nhe is trying to avoia campaigning at all in this election, but it --\nit never came up.\nQ\nDo you feel at all responsible in any way, Governor, for some\nof the confusion of the welfare regulation?\nA\nWell, as I told you the other day, I suppose I was a little\nnaive. I should have anticipated the kind of thing that happened,\nand if there is a responsibility, perhaps it is in my not being more\ncareful about the regulation itself, but then as I say, not antici-\npating that anyone would do what they did I just assumed that our\nlanguage was -- our intent was so clear that there wouldn't be that\nkind of violation.\nD\nGovernor, another subject. What kind of conversation did\nyou or your staff have with Assembly Republicans over the Unruh bill\nto prohibit further oil drilling in Santa Barbara channel? Unruh is\nblaming you for arm-twisting Republicans, saying that it is you now\nwho must bear the responsibility for, as he put it, besmirching the\nbeaches and befouling the water.\nA\nWell, he who goes barefoot should be careful about throwing\nthorns.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nWhat -\nA\nIt seems to me Mr. Unruh is reaching a long way. First\nof all, I didn't talk to anybody about his bill. It was up before\nthe Legislature, it was defeated by one vote, and the one vote that\ncould have been the difference was Mr. Unruh's and as usual he was\nnot present. I would suggest that if he has something he feels\nstrongly about again he ought to be present when it comes to a vote\non the floor.\nQ\nGovernor, your reorganization plans, too, have had quite a\nbit of problem in the Senate. One of the complaints of your opposi-\ntion is that you are not following through as you said, you are still\noverlaying and overlapping government. You are not streamlining.\nWhy not?\nA\nWell, I don't know what some of the objections are. I\nknow some people have legitimateobjections to some of these. It is\nthe prerogative of the Executive Branch, has always been considered\nso, to do what it thinks is necessary. On the other hand, the\nlegislature does have the right to object if they find something in\nthere that they believe goes too far. My quarrel yesterday with\ntheir coming on the floor was that they were not actually being treated\nas individual programs. They were simply lumped together, and I think\nthat each reorganization program should be treated separately, but\nall I said to some of our own people was let's take a little more\ntime, let's sit down with you and see if we can iron out these diffi-\nculties. I call to your attention that we ourselves last year with-\ndrew one of our own plans when the debate and the hearings in the\ncommittees revealed the things that we thought should take -- we\nshould take more time with and study again. These particular bills\nprobably had the most extensive hearing before the Senate than any\nother legislation or any other program that's been up there and we\nare willing to sit down and try to work something out.\n0\nAt the same time, Governor, what's your feelings about\nSpeaker Monagan's plan to recrganize the legislature and make it a\ntwo-year legislature and continuous --\nA\nWell, I haven't paid too much attention to that, there have\nbeen a few other things on my mind, but once again, my first inclina-\ntion would be that unless I found something against which I was very\nmuch opposed, that this is -- this is the legislature. Just as the\nExecutive Branch is the Executive Branch.\nSQUIRE: More questions? Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-14-"
}