Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564112",
    "label": "Transcripts - 05/11/1971, 05/18/1971, 05/25/1971, 06/10/1971",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564112"
}

{
    "id": "118564112",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564112",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 05/11/1971, 05/18/1971, 05/25/1971, 06/10/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564112",
    "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-P03-009-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-009-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P03-009-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564112",
    "naId": 118564112,
    "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-P03-009-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "1927d0dc5ffc0efd",
    "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 -\n05/11/1971, 05/18/1971, 05/25/1971, 06/10/1971\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\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD MAY 11, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their conven-\nience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly\nas possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is\nno guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Eadres and gentlemen, I've had a few\nwords for opening here, although I don't have a prepared statement\nfor you. I know that you've just had a press conference with a legis-\nlative leadership of both parties who met with me in the office this\nmorning. Let me just give my few words on it here before you start\nwith questions and perhaps anticipate some in advance. I think it\nwas a fruitful meeting. I think it started a communication that\nhasn't existed for sometime now, and out of the meeting which was\nwide-ranging and certainly covered a number of subjects, came the\nassurance that the budget is going to move and that very possibly\naccording to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a budget\nwill come out tothe floor in the Assembly within a week. At the\nsame time I think one of the most fruitful and forward steps was the\nAssembly Speaker's declaration that we would go forward meeting on the\nsubject of welfare and see if we could not come down to those areas\nof agreement and find out where our, if any, areas of disagreement are\nand that welfare wenld be resolved in this way prior to the adoption\nof a budget. We were also assured by them that they have the inten-\ntion ofhaving a budget for us by the end of the Siscal year so that\nwe can start the new fiscal year with a budget instead of what we have\nhad in the last few years. The Speaker of the Assembly, who has\nnot as yet actually had a briefing firsthand from our people in\nwelfare, and the welfare reform program, agreed that he would have\nsuch a briefing. I think it would be helpful. I think there is\nstill some areas where even though he of course has had counseling of\nhis own staff and others, I think there's some questions of his that\ncould be resolved if he had a chance to ask it firsthand and to see\nthe briefing of the others.\n-1-\nThe final subject that came up was brought up bu. Republican Senator\npresent, there was the matter of withholding and why, because of the\ncash flow problem, withholding could not be treated as a separate\na\nitem and adopted. It seemed/perfectly logical thing when I broke\nthe concrete around my feet and surrendered to the thoery of withholding\nit seems a long time ago now, put it into our tax reformpproposal\nof last year, I made it plain that it was not in my mind an essential\npart of tax reform. We had only put it in because it filled a slot\nand the money that could be raised from withholding was roughly what\nwe needed to balance out our home owner's relief last year. But that\nI warned then that the reason why I had given in and changed my mind\nin withholding was for the state's needs. The cash flow needs and I\nwarned -- well, it's been a year and a half ago, I guess that as of\nthis coming fall we would have to go to tax warrants or tax anticipa-\ntion notes unless we had withholding to even out the cash flow.\nWe will have to do that, it is too late now for us to implement with-\nholding even if it were passed right now, so I suppose the next target\ndate is January 1. But sinee they put it in their own tax reform\nprogram, since we have made it evident that it is acceptable to us,\nwe felt that there was no reason why it couldn't be taken out and voted\non separately and we could then go forward with the implementing of\nit at the same time that we negotiated out the use that would be made\nof the increased revenues because of withholding as well as negotiate\nout what could be a paactical one-time use of the overlap or windfall\nthat would come about because of the implementing of withholding.\nThatpretty much is the meeting.\n8\nDo you expect to get a formal or informal commitment from\nDemocrats next week on what parts of the welfare reform plan they\nwill agree to pass?\nA\nWell, I think it would be informal. The original purpose\nof this morning's meeting actually we went farther and talked longer,\nactually got into these subjects, but I called the meeting for the\npurpose of seeing if we couldn't set up a schedule of meetings and\nmachinery whereby we could get together and discuss these points.\nAs I say, we went a little beyond that and so this was the -- they\nare coming back to us with their views on the welfare reform proposals.\nAgain it is one of those subjects where everybody is for it,\neverybody wants welfare reform and if there is any difference I\nsuppose it is going to be a difference of how we go about it.\n-2-\n8\nHow do you iew the movement of the W fare-Medi-cal proposals.\nin the Assembly subcommittee yesterday?\nA\nWell, I am encouraged now by the fact that we are going to --\nthat they are now going to come back. So far all we have -- all we\nhave dealt with is the -- they went into limbo -- oh, on the Senate\nside, I must say there are some discussions going forward between\nSenator Burgener and Senator Beilenson and others on that committee\nabout welfare points. And as the Speaker made it plain, there was\nno reason at all -- they are aware of the program, why even though\nthis is on the Senate side the Assembly could not come in with some\nareas and tell us where -- what was asceptable and what they would find\nthey could go along with.\nQ\nGovernor, the Ways and Means Chairman seemed concerned that\nthe new estimates of anticipated revenue shortfall next year is\ngetting bigger and this will necessitate new taxes. Do you agree\nwith that?\nA\nWe don't have those final figuresyyet.\nI don't know where\nhe was -- he was quoting the legislative analyst. I don't know\nwhere the legislative analysttgot his figures. I have to say this,\nthat we are waiting, as you know -- this is about the period when\nwe will get the official new estimates. I think it would be highly\noptimistic for anyone to think that in the present economic climate\nwe are going to find that we can make our adjustments upward and\nI don't think anyone would be too surprised if there are further\ndownward adjustments. But as of now we don't know what those figures\nare. When we have them, why we will of course go Worward with\nwhatever adjustments have to be made, budgetwise.\nQ\nDo you still think the budget can be balanced without newer and\nhigher taxes?\nA\nWell, now you are asking me before I have all the information\nor know what all the taxes are. I still think that before we talk\nnew revenues that we are certainly duty-bound to do everything we\ncan to meet the crisis by reducing the cost of government and the\nbiggest and the best way to do this is in the area of welfare reform.\nI think that if -- if those figures should be accurate that they are\ntaking about , or should even be close, I think this is another\nindication of why the taxpayer should be our prime consideration,\nbecause if revenues are down it means that more people are unemployed,\nmore people have lost income or have lowered incomes, and I don't see\nwhy the state should think that the automatic and easy answer to our\nproblems is to simply take more money away from those people who are\nalready suffering because of this economic slump.\nJohn, you had\nyour hand --\nQ\nBill --\nA\nI'm sorry, Bill.\n8\nGovernor, how far would you like to see welfare move before\nyou are willing to make an agreement on the budget? Before you were\nsaying you wanted the bills passed by July 1.\nA\nWell, if we had an assurance -- the thing is the budget is\npredicated upon what has to go in for welfare, it is about our biggest\nspending item and until we know what that item can be I don't see how\na budget -- a budget could be put together until you are able to\nput in a figure that you say this is the budgeted amount for welfare\nand that's why I have insisted all this time that until we knew what\nnumber or percentage of our welfare reform proposals they are agree-\nable to, there is no way that they could close the budget. You now\nand then here.\n8\nDoesn't your budget balance itself, though, without the\nnecessity for welfare legislation? Isn't it balanced on welfare\nregulations?\nA\nWell, no, the -- the thing is we submitted a budget and\nfrankly told them -- in other words, we submitted to -- to meet the\nconstitutional requirement of submitting a balanced budget, we put in a\nreduced figure for welfare. We then presented at the same time a\nprogram with it of the welfare reforms that would make this figure\nbe an accurate figure, a practical figure. Now, if somebody passed\nthat budget without this accompanying legislation, we would have a\nbudget which the only way it could be balanced would simply be to\nreduce the welfare grants and since our welfare reform proposal is\njust the opposite for the truly needy, the raising of their grants,\nI hardly think anyone in California would beliefe that the solution\nto our problem would simply be an across-the-beard reduction of grants\nto people who are not getting enough now.\nQ\nGovernOr, with regard to withhodling, one of the Republican\nSenators that came out of the meeting indicated today that one think\nthat did seem apparent is that there would not be a separate withhold-\ning\nbill.\nDid you get that same impression?\nA\nWell, yes, we did, and this is what seemed kind of surprising\nto me, since -- since I'm the one that surrendered on it and gave in\n-4-\nsometime ago, and t y are the ones who for mar years have been\ndemanding it, and since they have proven that they also seem to favor\nit by making it a part of their present tax reform program, I can 't\nfor the life of me see why we can't at least show signs of progress\nand go forward with this one step. And this was part of the discussion\nand we -- we so stated. And at least then we would ensure that\nthe -- this fall would be the only time that we wald have to resort\nto warrants or tax anticipation notes, because by the following year\nwe would have that on-going revenue.\n8\nWho regected the withholding as a separate measure?\nA\nWell, there was -- there was disagreement in the room and\nthere was no single individual that was a hold-out in that sense.\nIt was just a -- we were on one side and they were on the other.\nD\nWell, nevertheless, Governor, are you now resigned -- we\ngathered from everything all the members said here today, that you\nmet with, are you resigned to the fact that there will not be a\nseparate bill on withholding?\nA\nNo, I'm hoping that they will give that some further consider-\nation and see that there is no valid reason with all of us agreed\non the need for it, all of us agreed in the desirability, that they\nwill take a second look at whatever their own strategy is, and\ndecide to go forward with it.\nQ\nGovernor, would you like to use the one-time windfall to\nbalance the budget?\nA\nNo, no, but I have said that I am willing to meet, as I\nindicated to you gentlemen here prevsiouly last week, as a matter of\nfact I'm willing to sit down and in this time of stringency where we\nhave had to forego certain capital one-time expenditures, where we\nhave the problem of the schools with regard to meeting earthquare\nproof standards that I am certainly willing to sit down and negotiate\nout some arrangement with regard to the use of that, but it would have\nto be an a one-time basis. I don't think that you use a single\nwindfall for on-going costs of government and then come up a year from\nnow saying, \"Well, We don't have the windfall anymore, where do we\nfind the money?\"\nQ\nAnother subject?\nA\nAnother subject?\nQ\nI've got another question on that. What is your position\non forgiveness now, are you for a hundred per cent forgiveness?\n-6-\nA\nNo, this is the windfall we are talking about?\nQ\nRight.\nA\nAnd --\nQ\nI mean how much windfall would there --\nA\nI suppose we are talking about some place between 400 and 500\nmillion dollars, if it should go into effect in January, and my\nown -- my own feeling about that is that very possibly -- I have\nalways been for forgiveness, I've always heen for giving it back to\nthe people, but as I say, there are some needs that because of the\neconomic slump we haven't been able to meet, in one-time construction\nneeds -- I would be willing to sit down and listen to what I think\nwould be the ideal, is bd kind of a split, give some of it back to the\npeople and use some of it to meet these Immediate needs. Particularly\nin the area of schools.\nQ\nLike half and half?\nA\nI'd settle for that.\nQ\nGovernor, four months ago or so when you were first intro-\nducing all your various packages, they were predicated on the fact\nthat the economy was indeed turning around.\nA\nYeah.\nQ\nThe Nixon administration was going something and you\nwere doing something. You don't sound as optimistic now as you did\nin January. What is the ecnnomic picture today?\nA\nNo, when you say it is turning around, I think this is what\nmakesyo -- and I always use that in connection with the fact that\nthis is a temporary situation, that to try and solve this temporary\nslump by rushing out and imposing new taxes which you always find\nit difficult to get rid of once they are -- they are passed,\nis to act as if this is the permanent situation, as if this is an\non-going fiscal crisis. And I think that the comeback in employment\nand so forth are always the last thing S that come back, but I think\nthe business corner has been turned. I think many indexes -- every\nweek in the financial pages you see further indeces that -- that we\nare coming out. There is an upsurge. For example, Christmas,\nretail trade was one of the indicators that we were going to be way\ndown in our sales tax, there was no Christmas rush, but just a short\ntime ago there was a decided difference with regard to the annual\nEaster rush, it was beginning to come back more toward normal.\nAnd\n-6-\nmany other indicators of this kind. But everyone knows that when\nyou come out of a slump of this kind the last recovery is in the\narea of unemployment.\nQ\nGovernor, Senator Mills said that he came away from this\nmorning's meeting with the impression that you are willing to com-\npromise on this question of new taxes. Did he read you correctly?\nA\nWell, let me just say first of all, not until I have seen\nthat everything has been done to reduce the cost of government to\nsolve this welfare problem. Now, again you have me with the\nunknown factor here of what might happen with further decline in\nrevenues. Let me just say that the last resort that I would ever\nfind acceptable is the increase of taxes and I recognize that you can\ntheoretically come down to a point where you have done everything you\ncan to save and then certain constitutional requirements cannot be\nmet and you have to turn to 10g butjlet me point out that the\nleadership of the other party has indicated that they want new\ntaxes and they have indicated this quite definitely from the first,\nnew taxes for such things as a pay increase for faculty in higher\neducation, pay increases for employees, further increased grants to\npublic school education, and we know that 85 per cent of that is\nfor salary increase. Now, these are talking tax increases in this\ntime of hardship for the people that have nothing to do with balancing\na budget. These are deeaming up new expenses and then passing\ntaxes to pay them. And what you have asked about would be if we were\nfaced having done everything we could to save, if we were faced then\nwith still an inability to balance the budget.\nQ\nThat other subject. Governor, a mock war tribunal was\nplanned for Sacfamento State College tomorrow, and it's how been\ncancelled. There were reports that were -- the cancellation came\nfrom higher than the college, the Chancellor's office, even from your\noffice. Are you aware of -- of that planned tribunal?\nA\nI have found out after it was all over that there came a\nreport to our office that such a thing was planned, and an inquiry\nabout it was forwarded automatically to the Chancellor's office, and\nI don't know anything about it until somebody came in and told me that\nthe Chancellor and the President had gotten together and that had\ndetermined that there would be different arrangements for such a\nmeeting.\n-7-\n0\nCan you tel 1 us more about that, those reports, where did\nyou heart the reports of it?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nIt was a fairly routine thing. Where did you get your\nreports about the tribunal?\nA\nFrom Der. Sheriff's and the Education office. Certainly\nthat was -- it was an accomplished fact before I even heard anything\nabout it, I didn't even know there was any such thing going on.\n&\nGovernor, how is your mail running on the facts around the\ndiscoceure about your income tax last year?\nA\nI haven't had any accounts of any unusual mail or anything.\nI received the usual two orthree anonymous postcards that you --\nthat you get.\n8\nAnother subject.\nD\nNo, same subject.\nQ\nSame subject, Governor. Governor, yesterday Mrs. Reagan\nsaid she hopes you don't run for political office as a result of\nthis.\nIs that your sympathy, too?\nA\nNo, I just think you have to accept that I don't think any\nwife enjoys having her husband in politics. I think it is especially\nhard on them with some of the thingsthat go on with politics.\nQ\nHad you known she was going to make that statement, sir?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nGovernor, there is a report today that almost all of the\n$91,000 that you said you paid in state taxes came as the result of\na single transaction, the sale of the land to 20th Century Fox, is\nthat true?\nA\nLook, I gave you a statement about my taxes, and it would\nseem that someone evidently has access to or is privileged to have\ninformation that is not available about any citizen's tax returns.\nAnd I have nothing further to say. No, this was over a period of\nmore than one year. And the amount speaks for itself.\nQ\nNevertheless, is it true it is all due to the same transaction?\nA\nWell, it obviously had to be on transactions outside of the\nGovernor's salary, didn't it?\n8\nGovernor, would you give us your definition of how public\na public official should be? In the light of what has happened this\nlast week. What is your -- where are the limits?\n-8-\nA\nI would tl k that the limits are the ame legal limits that\napply to all citizens and then those ather limits that apply to good\ntaste and none of us are very happy about prying neighbors.\nQ\nGovernor, last Wednesday you said that the press had invaded\nyour privacy by asking the question about your tax status. How do\nyou explain that in light of the fact that you at least attempted to\ngive an answer to the question rather than saying that it was improper?\nA\nWell, I think that I said that all that needed to be said\nand as I said in my copening line of my explanation , I still found it\ndifficult to anderstand or accept that I was put in the position where\nI had to make such anstatement.\n0\nSame subject. There is an investigation under way.\nCan\nyou tell usmore about that investigation, from the Attorney General's\noffice.\nA\nDon't know a thing about it.\n0\nGovernor, Senator Ribicoff in Connecticut is protesting\naction by the HEW in Washington, in granting you certain waivers on\nyour welfare reforms. Do you have any reaction to the Senator's\nprotest?\nA\nYes. Senator Ribicoff was once the Director of Health\nEducation -- or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and\nperhaps if he laid a better foundation when he was in that job we\nwouldn't have some of the problems we have today, but Senator Ribicoff\nwas present in the Senate Finance Committee in Washington when we\nmet with them and when Governor Rockefeller and I made a presentation\nto them about the problems of welfare. Senator Ribicoff made it\nimmediately plain that he did not put any stock in the stories of\nwelfare abuses, that he did not seem to think that there was anything\nneeded to correct in welfare and then he departed the meeting without\nwaiting for an answer from us to attend the mardi gras in New Orleans.\nQ\nGovernor, on this welfare and tax business, your personal\nincome tax business, linked together, do you have any proposal to\nthe legislature right now that would allow examination of the income\ntax returns of welfare recipients? Would you tell me the difference\nbetween that invasion of privacy and the invasion of privacy you\nsay you --\nA\nYes, because that is the same privileged information for a\ngovernment agency as it is in the paying of your tax to a government\nagency. Obviously that agency has to have access. The situation\n-9-\nis that when you go eyond that when that agenc carèlessly reveals\ninformation -- now welfare presently has a clause of confidentiality\nregarding case records that has gone so far that, as I have told many\nof you, one county welfare director in California actually had to\nget a court order even though he is the entire county director to get\nhis own employees to give him information on this -- on these records.\nAnd it would seem to me that some of the people who are so insistent\non even more confidentiality of welfare records are also among the\nmost vocal critics regarding the -- or at least in their demands that\ntax information not be so privileged.\nQ\nGovernor, during your last press conference you said that\nit might be embarrasing to some legislators to discuss handling\nof their per diems. Would you like to expand on this comment?\nA\nNo, I just -- they were having so much fun up there I\nthought I ought to give them something more to worry about.\nQ\nYou haven't had any access to any of their income tax\nreturns, have you?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nGovernor, relative to the question asked before, it did not\nC ome from anyone who has access to your income tax returns, but\npublic documents do indicate that you realized a capital gain on the\nsale of that property that would produce or require the state tax\nin an amount of about 85 to 80 --88 thousand dollars, that's why I\nasked the question. In view that it does come from public documents,\ncould you give us an answer? Is that true?\nA\nI gave you gentlemen a statement on this entire situation,\nonly because all ofyou seemed to have successfully created a kind of\nimpression that there might have been some wrnngdoing and there was\nnone. And I don't see why I should go any farther with any further\nstatements on this.\nQ\nDo you feel that the disclosure about your --\n8\nWhat caused you to think that there had been some mention\nof wrongdoing? Was there any single story or any connotation in any\nstory which alleged that you had committed some wrongful act?\nA\nWell, gentlemen, 10you have to ask that question --\n8\nYou raised the point, Governor.\nA\n-- about the whole atmosphere that was raised, then you\nevidently don't even read each other or yourselves.\nQ\nDo you feel that the flap about your tax status will have\n-10-\nany effect on your litical future?\nA\nWell, now you opened all of this by asking whether I had\na\npolitical\nfuture\nor\nnot.\nNow I've told you that I hav e not thought\nbeyond 1974 when, as I have made it plain, I would not try for a\nthird term because I don't believe in three terms for a Governor of\nCalifornia, and so no, I think that overwhèlming majority of the\npeople understand that there was nothing wrong. IJthink they -- if\nthey got the full treatment of the statement I made, they understand\nthat I very obviously could not have been seeking this profession or\nthis particular career for any monetary gain. And I don't see why\nthere should be.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-11-\n1/5\nPRESS CON. {ENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD R. GAN\nHELD MAY 18, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conferense\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\n(Calit. Ecology Corps)\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Press Release No. 303)\nD\nGovernor, how much money could be available for this?\nA\nI'd have to leave that to Jim Stearn. The reason why\nwe had first simply announced it at the $15 level is we were simply\nstaying within the framework of those campssthat will be closed or\nwere going to be closed because of the lack of juvenile offenders\nto man them anymore.\nD\nGovernor, if you are having no trouble recruiting, why are\nyou upping the salary?\nA\nWell, as I say, the -- this again you can go to Jim Stearn.\nWe recognize that it was not particularly an inducement or an advantage\nat such a rate. The rate was possible before because the people who\nwere getting it didn't have much choice. They didn't volunteer to\nbe in those camps and it was way out of line with the other kindsof\ncommunity effort and so forth that we made. And there was question\nabout it even from some of the draft boards, so evidently Jim Stearn\nhas found a way whereby it could be made more compatible with the job.\n8\nGovernor, does adjustments within allocations mean that\nmoney that would have been spent for something else will now be used\nto\nA\nAgain VOI'll have to refer you to Jim Stearma. I haven't\nhad a chance to find out exactly how he worked this.\n8\nThere is a girl from Davis who wants to join. She's written\nthe state. Will girls be eligible for this?\nA\nWell, now, you've brought up a whole new subject. I'll\nhave to ask -- our hope is, as we have said before, that beyond the\nconstientious objector thing that we might be able to carry this\nout and take other kinds of volunteers. Now, if there is a place\nand possibility of a girls camp, I doubt if we will go co-educational.\n-1-\nD\nGovernor, ve you talked to anyone 11. the White House about\nthis?\nHave you spoken with the President about this idea?\nA\nAs a matter of fact, I have just gotten off a letter to the\nPresident explaining it to him, telling him about it, calling his\nattention to it in case it is of interest to anyone else.\n2\nGovernor, do you think this Ecology Corps encourages people\nto become C.O. 's?\nA\nOh, I don't think so, and I think the test for conscientious\nobjectors is pretty firmly fixed. It's been a long -- very frankly\nan honorable tradition in our country that we have in our separation\nof church and state never forced anyone against their religious\nconvictions and beliefs to bear arms for the country.\n0\nAnother subject, Governor. Last reports, the Governors of\ntwo states indicated they would delay imposition of the death penalty\nuntil the U. S. Supreme Court meals with the last legal question,\nwhether it is cruel or unusual punishment.\nCan you tell us whether\nyou have given any particular thought to this?\nA\nNo, I think that things are following their normal course\nhere.\nI don't think we have any intention of declaring a moratorium\nover and beyond the decision that's been handed down.\n0\nIn other words if the -- any dates are set, then you will\nnot interfere with the -- with the dates that are set by the courts?\nA\nNo, unless there would be circumstances warranting clemency\nand the commuting of the sentence on that basis.\na\nGovernor, would that create a problem if people were executed\nand then subsequently the court declared that the death penalty was\nunconstitutional?\nA\nWell, wouldn't that apply to all the people who have been\nsentenced to death and have been executed?\n8\nAnother subject?\nA\nYes.\nQ\nAll right. Governor, Assemblyman Gonsalves modified his\nretorm\ntax bill before it was voted out of committee yesterday.\nDo you now\nfind it more palatable?\nA\nWell, I -- we haven't paid very much attention to that bill\nas it went through because as I say my principal objection mas that\nit was actually a half a billion dollar tax increase and I can't say\nthat I know in detail all that he has or that has been suggested in\namending it.out of there.\nOne of the other great weaknesses of the\n-2-\n(from page 2) wea esses of the bill was tha it contained really\nno restriction on going right back and starting to increase property\ntaxes again, and we don't believe that any tax reform that's aimed\nat giving the home owner relief is sound unless it contains some\nlimitations so thatproperty taxes can't go right back up to there\nthey presently are.\nQ\nDo you plan to counter this with your own program as\nrumored around here?\nA\nWell, we -- we have this under donsideration in the Senate.\nThey are still -- representatives of both parties meeting trying\nto find out as we set out to do at the very beginning of this session,\nif there isn't some area that we can get together on a tax reform\nproposal and we are giving them more time to see if they can arrive\nat some agreement.\n8\nAnd you may have a proposal, is that right?\nA\nThis could be, yes.\n8\nGovernor, you are going to have to explain this to me\nbecause I've asked a lot of people and I still don't understand it.\nIt's been said that you do have and have had the administrative power\nfor the last five years to implement some of the welfare reforms\nto the tune of $176point million dollars. I asked Paul Beck.\nHe\nsaid you are just getting a handle on it, and I don't know what that\nmeans.\nPerhaps you can explain.\nA\nI know what he means by just getting a handle on it. Yes,\nI understand the Speaker was quite concerned and said we could do\nthat. That's a very curious thing, coming from someone in the\nlegislature because I guess virtually every yearssince I've been here\nwe have had bills in the legislature asking for legislative help in\nreforming welfare. Also I would call to your attention that attempts\nadministratively to change welfare over the last four years, adverse\ncourt decisions on those, have resulted in an increase of more than\n$440 million dollars in welfare costs. Now, many instances help\nfrom the legislature with regard to those administrative or -- or\nthose adverse decisions, could have been forthcoming. All that\nwould have bean required in some instances was for the legislature\nto simply pass by statute what we were trying to do administratively.\nThe plain truth is yes, if we had known four years ago and had the\ninformation that we have now, I'm sure that administratively we could\nhave gone forward with these things.\nWe didn't have that informa-\ntion.\n2\nWhy?\nA\nWell, for one reason we had difficulty learning It until\nwe appointed about a year ago a task force to go in and on a task\nforce basis find this for us, but the other reason, even much more\npertinent than that, was that it is our advance in electronic data\nprocessing that has now made us able to correlate the information --\nthe great mass of information we get back from the county level and\nto find some of the things that we have found. We are probably the\nonly state in the Union that can do that. As a matter of fact, we\nare so far ahead of them that many of the other states that are using\nour reform proposals are also using the -- the information we found\nbecause we just were the first to do it. Now we still have further\nto go even in data processing. But this was the main factor.\nWe finally had access to information and could make projections\nthat we weren't chle to make in previous years because we -- we\nweren't computerized to the extent we are now.\nQ\nWill you use that power now that you have it?\nA\nWill we what?\n8\nWill you use that power now that you know youhave it?\nA\nOh, yes, it is a very definite part of our welfare reform.\nAs you know, there is a great deal of it that 1s administrative.\nMuch of that administrative hinges on certain comparable statutes\nthat we need and we recognize that some of the things that we might\ntry to do administratively we would immediately be challenged in\ncourt and here again we'dalehinnfan stronger ground because take\nthe adverse decision to us with regard to conformity. They have\nall been on the basis that we can't do administratively what we are\ntrying to do. Not necessarily that what we are trying to do is\nwrong.\nThe decisions have been that it requires a statute change.\nQ\nWhat can you do administratively then?\nA\nWell, as I say, if you look at the 70 points of the welfare\nprogram a:ld in the briefings given to the legislatures, they found\nthat -- there was a great deal of the program that is administrative.\nThese are changes that we are going forward with as we ask them for\nstatutes. Now, perhaps the Speaker in bringing up this point was\njust legitimately honestly mis -- or uninformed because it was just\nonly a few days ago that we finally persuaded him to have the briefing\nthat our welfare people have been giving to the press and other\nmembers of the legislature. He hadn't had time to have that briefing.\nQ\nSir -- sir, have you initiated any of these administrative\nreforms since the program was announced?\nA\nWhere thei progress is --\nPAUL BECK: Started in December on some of them.\nA\nStarted in December.\n2\nGovernor, have you heard from Speaker Moretti on what part\nof the program he's willing to accept and what he wouldn't?\nA\nNo, I suppose that that might be a subject for discussion\nin our next meeting, which was scheduled for Thursday, but now\npossibly will have to be delayed because the President of the Senate,\nSenator Mills, is in Washington and there is a possibility that some\nof the other legislators might be absent on Thursday.\nQ\nGovernor, what other states are using California's informa-\ntion on welfare reform?\nA\nWell, we had inquiries at the Governor's Conference from\nvirtually every Governor and we made an announcement to all the\nGovernors then that even those who hadn't specifically anked for it,\nthat we would send our full reform report to every Governor.\nIn\naddition to this we have had legislative groups call on us from\nother states and very frankly they asked that there be no particular\npublisity about that. They came out here, they had the full\nbriefing, spent a day with our people on the reform and we have\nrespected their desire to do that. In some of the instances maybe\nthe reason they didn't want the publicity is because they were\nalmost totally Democrats.\nQ\nWhat governors -- haveyyou heard from any governors\nspecifically?\nA\nWell, yes. One governor in New York has gotten his welfare\nreform program passed already by the legislature, and much of it, very\nfrankly, he was frank tosay, was based on ours.\nQ\nHe told you that? Governor Rockefeller told you that it\nwas based on --\nA\nYes.\nQ\nWhen did he tell you that?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhen did he tell you that?\nA\nWell, I have seen -- seen Governor Rockefeller on several\noccasions during the last time at Williamsburg and this was after\nthey had succeeded in passing it. He's made little secret of the\nfact that he was indebted to California for much of the information\nthat has led him to his own reforms.\n-5-\n0\nGovernor,\nther subject?\nA\nAll right.\n8\nNext week they start hearings in the legislature on\ncommittee on the Coastline Conservation. There are a program of\nthem before the Senate. Do you favor or would you favor some form\nof legislation where the state would have control that could\ncontrol development of the California coastline?\nA\nWell, this is a -- this is truly a complex problem and it\nis one that the state believes it has -- we believe the state has a\npart in it to play, but at the same time I think we should be very\ncareful about the state simply moving in and imposing itself on\ncounty and local planning agencies. We believe there is an area\nwhereby we can get coastline counties to go in groups for greatment\nof problems that overlap and affect all of them at the same time.\nWe have $1,050 miles of coastline. About 400 miles of that is\nnow under public ownership. So it isn't that the coastline has\nbeen totally neglected, that's a pretty good percentage that is --\nhas the protection now of public ownership. But we do think that\nthere is much that could be done in a zoning up and down the coast\nto insure that there will be always preservation of those unique\nbeauty spots along the coast, that there will he preservation of park\nspace and certainly beaches to the extent possible for our population.\nAnd I think that the state has a place, but I think it's got to be\na place that is in cooperation with county and local government.\nI don't think that the state should simply take over because if\nwe once set that precedent, what's to keep us from taking over the\nmountains, or the desert or the dalley?\nQ\nDo you relieve the coastline zoning should start on the\nlocal and regional level?\nA\nYes. Yes, we think that there is an area for cooperation\nand where the state can be of very great help to them in a kind of\nplanning of the coast and coastal development, but respecting the\nrights of local planning commissions.\n8\nGovernor, I'd like to go back and ask another welfare ques-\ntion.\n8\nStay on this for a moment.\nConservationists contend that\nlocal government has had the authority all along to control the\ndevelopment, but they haven't exercised that authority and that's\nthe cause of the problem.\n-6-\nA\nWell, this 3 why, as I have said befor I think there is\nan area for the state to come in and be of help to them in this.\nSometimes some local governments frankly confess that they lack the\nmuscle, sometimes, to do what they believe should be done.\nQ\nDo you have any concrete ideas as to what the state's\nposition should be? I mean to what extent they have this part to\nplay?\nA\nWell, it is a very definite involvement and I would -- I\nthink back on the reams of minutes of cabinet meetings that we have\nhad on this in the last year or so, I don't think there is any way\nI could brief them down to a sentence answer for you. All I can\nsay, again, is to repeat, we definitely believe there is an area\nfor state involvement here and that can fall short of simply over-\nruling local government.\nD\nCould this state help ever involve vetoing local decisions?\nA\nWell, I think again this is an area that we have always\nsaught to work with the governmental agencies in the 7 coastal\ncounties on this, and I think that -- I think it is possible that\nthere could be something of that kind, but I think it is something\nwe would rather work out with them. Kind of compact for the\nprotection of the coast.\n8\nGovernor, is it safe to say you do not think the state\nshould have the same power as example -- for example, the BCDC does\nover the San Francisco Bay, should not have the power of total\nveto?\nA\nNo, I would -- I don't think that the state should have\nthe power of total veto.\nQ\nWhat about the regional approach that is contained in pro-\nposals that are now before the Assembly, the Sieroty bill and the\nWilson bill?\nA\nI can't tell you that I have honestly looked at those or\noven where they are. So I can't give you an answer on that question.\nQ\nGovernor, your. Berkeley editorial of the Daily Cal has\nsaid that there is going to be a meeting, at least informally, of\nsome regents to discuss the Daily Cal's editorial concerning People's\nPark.\nI wondered if you knew anything about that, about any\nmeeting, and what are your concerns of the Daily Cal's editorial?\nA\nWell, in that regard, if there is such a mceting, remember\nthat the Regents themselves did involve themselves in the matter of\n-7-\nthe whole matter of campus publications and I believe there is a\ncommittee that still is in charge of that and possibly they're having\na meeting. There is a Regents meeting on Friday, committee meetings\nare on Thursday. And I have no doubt that this latest matter will\nbe taken up by the Regents because of this involvement. There are\nother matters I understand, I have heard, that are going to be\nbrought up by some Regents not involving the People's Park episode\nbut involving other violations of guidelines that were set down\nwith the administration of the university regarding campus publi-\ncations.\n0\nWhat are they?\nA\nWhat?\n8\nWhat are those matters?\nA\nI don't know. I only know that there are some Regents\nthat want to bring some to the attention of the Board of Regents.\n0\nDo they involve the Berkeley Daily?\nA\nI wouldn't even know which campuses.\nD\nDo you think the Regents should take some action as a result\nof that editorial in the Daily Cal?\nA\nI felt that the Regents should take some action when they\nfirst involved themselves with the campus publications. I think\nthey were out of hand, I think the administration of the university\nadmitted that, andeevidently as long as we are involved in that,\nsince this probably will come before us, whether for some kind of\naction or not, because it has been taken up on the campus at\nBerkeley, and evidently there were those on the campus itself and\nincluding the publications board there who felt that there had been\nwrongdoing.\nQ\nWhat action?\nQ\nThere may be no need for action by the Regents, is that\nwhat you are saying?\nA\nThat's very possible.\nQ\nThere is another proposal coming up from three city\nCouncilmen in Berkeley that the People's Park fence be taken down as\na public nuisance. As a Regent what are your feelings on that?\nA\nWell, are you are getting pretty far down the line here\ninto administrative procedures +and groundkeeping procedures of the\ncampus or the univessity itself. That is a piece of university\n-8-\nproperty.\nThe\nprol\nty, it's been made in to\nsoccer field and\nparking lot. And -- which it was always intended to be until such\ntime as the ground would be used for dormitories. Andiffathe\nuniversity feels it should have a fence around it, the university\nproperty, I don't know whose decision that was, that's up to them.\nIf they decide it doesn't require a fence, that's also up to them,\nbut I'd like to call to your attention that most of the people that\nwanted to sborm the park this last week-end were similar to those\nwho caused the problem in the first place, they were not students;\nin the most part, they were so-called street people. And their\nlarge -- their contention is one that I don't think any of us\ncan subscribe to. They raisedthe issue two years ago in the first\nplace on the grounds that no one has a right to own property and\nnot even the university. Now, this is university property bought\nwith $1 million 300 thousand of taxpayers funds. And I don't think\nthat we are ready to throw out the right of private ownership.\nBut I will call to your attentinn that the original attempt to\ntake over that property two years ago was put on the basis of proving\nonce and for all that even the university was not allowed to own\nproperty.\n3\nCan I go back to mine? Governor, on this -- the welfare\nadministratðve controls that you have had at your disposal. Your\nadministration has been in almost four years and you had task forces\nat the start looking at all levels of government. can you explain\na little further why it was so difficult to find out what to do?\nA\nWell, because I think it is the most complex problem that\nconfronts us today, With the hundreds of regulations that are\nimposed by the federal government, with congressional acts, with\nstate statutes and the state regulations, among some of the things\nthat we accomplished in those first four years for the benefit of\nthe counties, we reduced 2500 pages of state regulations down to\n250 pages. We made many administrative improvements. We eased\nin many places the burden on the counties. Again we had to depend\nfor much of our information on people, professionals, in the field\nwho were not sympathetic to the changes we wanted to make, and\nthis was why finally WO came to the idea of a total outside task\nforce. But also we just didn't have access to a great deal of the\ninformation that was noeded for the kind of reforms we propose now.\nNow that isn't information about rules or regulations. That's\ninformation about case load, case load increase, the ability to make\nprojections, and all of this came about with our improved electronic\ndata processing. Now, there are some states -- smaller states that\nI doubt they will ever have that kind of access to the information\nthat\nwe have. Some states are working toward that, don't have it\nas yet. We are out in front. I think we were even able to bring\nsome information to the federal government that they hadn't -- that\nthey didn't have.\nQ\nGovernor, today there is a federal commission investigating\nthe CRLA that ruled that three of the charges in your report were\nnot valid. What's your reaction and what do you think it will\ndo to your case?\nA\nWell, I don't very much think about it as my case. And\nvery frankly on the basis of some of the complaints that have come\nfrom witnesses who have wanted to testify as to some of the actions\nof CRLA, very frankly I don't have tpo much confidence in what is\ngoing to be the outcome of this commission's findings.\na\nWhy not?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nWhy not?\nA\nI said on the basis of compaaints of witnesses who have\nfound themselves restricted. The information they could give,\nrestrictions placed on attorneys to cross-examine CRLA witreasses, and\npossibly this dates back again to the mixup on the instructions\nthat were given to the commission in the first place.\na\nWhat kind of verdict do you expect the commission to come\nup -- you feel they are not going to do it your way, what do you\nexpect them to do?\nA\nI doubt that we will close off Folsom Boulevard and have a\nstreet dance when it comes out.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nWhat do youthink then the President is going to do if he's\ngoing to be faced with a commission report but you are not happy\nwith? You ***iously are going to communicate this to the President.\nWhat position does this put him in?\nA\nI think the President has made himself perfectly clear.\nHe's made a proposal for a whole new approach to rural legal assistance.\nAnd I think that explains better than anything else his own idea about\nthe program that we vetoed.\n-10-\n8\nHave you heard from Mr. Carlucci yet on your letter sent\ntwo weeks ago?\nA\nNo.\n8\nNo response, no communication of any kind?\nA\nNo. We still are hoping that we can have a meeting and\nsort of straighten out some things.\n2\nGovernor, what restraints have been complained about by\nwitnesses?\nA\nWell, there is one in the news wire today, as I understand\nit, a wire that was sent to the commission by a former employee of\nCRLA refusing to testify any further on the basis of the manner in\nwhich such witnesses have been treated up till now.\n8\nHave there been other complaints that you are aware of?\nA\nYes, yes.\n0\nCan you detail than for us?\nA\nNo, there have just been complaints on the same thing.\n8\nCan you detail any complaints?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nThis is the commission mistreating witnesses or who\nmistreating?\nA\nWell, now, you get me frightened here with my legal light\nstanding over the side as to what use of words I can make without\nappearing to interfere with the judicial process. I think the com-\nplaints have been an unwillingness to allow or hear full testimony\nthat seems to be detrimental to CRLA's activities. Did that --\nam I safe on that?\nED MEESE: Plus limitation on cross-examination and the\nlimitation on the production of documents by CRLA.\nQ\nGovernor, I'm not sure that I understand. Is it that these\njudges are not permitting proper testimony to be emitted and if so\nwhat motive would the judges have in keeping this kind of information\nout?\nA\nI suggest you talk to the commission.\na\nIt is a judicial branch and they are not talking to the\npress.\nED MEESE: Let's make clear, they are not a judicial\nbranch.\nThis is a commission of the executive branch of the federal\ngovernment. Their stature, the use of judges, has nothing to do\nwith their role as commissioners in this case.\n-11-\n8\nI still am ondering what their motive ould be to have\na one-wided hearing.\nA\nYou know, I just lie awake nights wondering what they are\nmyself.\n2\nGovernor, in line with the CRLA, when are you going to\nreveal your Ajudicare program?\nA\nI think we have been moving ahead on that in some areas\nalready, haven't we? Trying to institute it.\n8\nAre you going to put it in the budget to fund it this year?\nA\nWell, no, it was never to be funded by public funds.\nD\nGovernor, Mr. Uhler -- Uhler put out a special bulletin and\nin it he said, \"We are sending it to you because of the Confusion\nfomented by a non-ofjective press, and media,\" and he goes on to\noutline his position and apparently the state OEO's position for\nnot fully cooperating with the commission. Do you feel you haven't\ngotten your case out before the press so far?\nA\nOh, I think a great many people are still confused as to\nwhy we did not join in the fun and games that were proposed as the\nmethod for the -- for conducting the hearing. A great many people,\nwhether it is just that they didn't read it or perhaps the location\nit appeared in the publications or whatever, that they -- they\ndidn't understand that there had been some confusion about what\nkind of a hearing this was to be and what its purpose was, and we are\nstill sticking with the original purpose.\nSQUIRE:\nAny more questions?\nA\nThe original purpose was not a trial.\nSQUIRE: Any more que stions? Thankyyou, Governor.\nQ\nGovernor, thank you for the lounge, it is beautiful.\nThank you for the news lounge.\nA\nYou are welcome. I just hope that you would understand\nthat true friendship would be revealed eventually.\n000\n-12-\n19\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD MAY 25, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their conven-\nience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as rapidly\nas possible after the conference, no corrections are made and there is\nno guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\noOo\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, good morning. We have some\nvisitors here with us this morning. Jim Bowe, formerly of Associated\nPress is here in the Capitol. He's an instructor now in journalism\nat Consumnes River College, and has his students here from the jour-\nnalism class. Welcome, glad to have you here. I have an opening\nstatement here.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 321)\nQ\nGovernor, the major points sound similar to the program\nkast year. Where is the compromise in your plan?\nA\nWell, you'll be hearing the details of that later this week.\nBut they have to do with the formula for applying the property tax\nrelief to the homeowner. And they also have to do with regard to\nthe tax structure that will be used to supple -- or supplant that property\ntax amount. Some changes in that.\n0\nGovernor, Mr. Monagan just finished accusing Democrats of\nnot negotiating and not meeting with him at all. Have they been meeting\nwith the Executive Branch?\nA\nNo, we have tried -- well, we have meetings and have had\na number of meetings on this and other subjects. And I -- I think that\nhe spoke correctly. I dontt think there has been any evidence of --\nexcept on the part of a group in the Senate who have legitimately tried\nto get together on some form of -- of a tax reform that they could\nagree upon and evidently that has been fruitless.\n8\nGovernor, who is the compromise with? What you call a\ncompromise plan.\nA\nWell, the compromise would be reflecting someof the complaints\nthat we have heard and that we heard last year regarding -- with regard\nto the tax formula. So we have tried to modify as we said we would.\n-1-\nQ\nDid you say the differences will be in the revenue --\nin other words these are nice highlights about how we are going to get\nrelief, but who is going to get hit, where is the money coming from?\nA\nI say some of the changes over -- the point has been made\nthat it is similar to last year's. Well, that's not strange, last\nyear's plan was a well-thought out plan and it was the result of a --\nalmost two years of task force studies. We have, however, because\nof the failure of that plan to pass, made some modification in the\nformula as it will apply to the homeonwer and in the tax structure that\nwill be used to raise the revenues to make that reduction possible.\nQ\nThat will still be, though, sales tax and income tax primarily?\nA\nAnd taxes -- and business taxes and a variety that we had last\nyear.\nQ\nGovernor, yesterday Assemblyman Bagley said that the wind\nhas gone out of the tax reform sails. How do you expect to realize\nthe tax reform with thoir pasition already having been expounded?\nA\nWell, all I can say is the wind may have gone out of the\nsales because of the inability to get anything going upstairs. It\nhasn't gone out of the sails as far as the public is concerned and I\nthink they have made that very plain. How they feel about taxes,\nhow they feel about cost of government and I don't think there is any\nquestion but that if this is not solved by the legislature within the\nCapitol at Sacramento that there will be a measure on a ballot and the\npeople will be voting once again on property tax reform.\n2\nGovernor, will your program include withholding?\nA\nYes, yes.\nQ\nGovernor, I gather that you say it is clear that continued\nnegotiation will be fruitless, that you have decided now to just\nstop meeting with the Democrats on this matter all together, is that\nright?\nA\nWell, we haven't decided to stop meeting with them on any\nmatter.\nBut to continue to believe that somehow behind the -- or\noutside of the legislative process we can get together. as I had\nsuggested in January and work out a mutually acceptable plan,\nevidently -- and then take that plan to the legislature, that evidently\nisn't going to work.\nQ\nGovernor, if that isn't going to work then realistically\nwhat are the chances of any program that you would propose would of\ncourse be the nature of a partisal proposal?\n-2-\nA\nWell, I'vee always believed that the legislative process\nis influenced by public opimion and so far the public hasn't seen\nanything out in the open to express themselves on other than the one\nplan introduced, the Gonsalves-Moretti Bill, which is in reality a\nhalf a billion dollar tax increase.\nQ\nDo you have some plans for mobilizing public opinion on\nbehalf of your program?\nA\nNo, just do my best to -- to make public and call the people's\nattention to this.\n8\nGovernor, in view of the difficulty of getting movement\nin the past, in private negotiations, do you see any merit then in a\nbi-partisan task force to look at tax reform made up of Assemblymen --\nmembers of both parties as proposed?\nA\nI'll listen to anything in that regard. I believe\nthat\nthere are a great many Democrats upstairs who would like to get --\ndeal with these very real problems and get them solved and who them-\nselves are disturbed about the lack of leadership in approaching\nthese problems.\nQ\nGovernor, in light of the fact that youssay withholding\nwill be part of this new tax reform proposal, what is your opinion\nof the Bagley Bill now being stalled in Assembly Committee?\nA\nWell, I'm in full support of that bill. Remember this,\nthat the wihhholding was only apart of tax reform last year simply\nbecause it was a convenient way to find additional revenues for the\nproperty tax relief that we tried to offer. But remember that my\nreason for giving in in withholding and including it in that program\nwas the need the state has for it now to meet its cash flow problems.\nAnd therefore, for sometime I warned on that subject that by the coming\nfall the state would not be able to borrow what it needed in those low\nspots to meet cash flow. Therefore, the passage of withholding\nseparately since both parties in any proposals for tax reform have\nadvocated withholding, there is no reason why that cannot be passed.\nseparately without any decision being made as to the use of the funds.\nBut the fund would be available then to solve the cash flow problem.\nNow, they failed to do this in January, which they could have done\nin three days, and by failing to do this we now have even had to\nadvance because of the economic slump from the fall -- we will have\nto go to tax warrants or tax anticipation notes in August at the\nlatest, and possibly as early as July. Now they are coming down to\n-3-\nthe deadline in which if they don't implement it very soon we won't\neven be able to implement withholding by January 1, which would head\noff another year of having to -- use this device to meet our cash\nflow problem. And I'm -- I'm in favor of the Bagley Bill because\nthis bill will give us tax -- will give us withholding, meet our\ncash flow problem not for this year, that's too late, due to the\nirresponsibility of the leadership that failed to get at this problem,\nbut it will make it only necessary for the one year, if they pass it,\nand that still leaves totally unresolved the use of the increased\nrevenues.\nD\nWell, Governor, you have agreed that half of the windfall\nfrom withholding will be used for construction. Now that -- to that\nextent your program would include a net increase in taxes, would it\nnot?\nA\nWell, the windfall is a one-time fund which I had always\nadvocated should totally be given back to the taxpayers, it was an\nopportunity to give them back some money even though it is legitimately\ntax owed, I have said, however, that in this time of stringency\nwhere we are faced with some problems of capital construction and\nwe can't meet them in this time of economic slump, that I was willing\nto sit down and negotiate out a use of this money and hopefully a\nsplit between a return to the taxpayer and the providing of the funds\nfor some capital construction, particularly in the area of education.\nAnd I am, I decided myself, perfectly willing to have this particular\nfactor put in the bill to show good faith and show the willingness\nto compromise on that measure by proposing a split.\nQ\nSo there would not be an offset to that amount then and\nto that extent, as I asked before, then there would be a net increase\nin taxes for the one year?\nA\nWell, no, you are talking about the windfall as the tax\nthat is owed for the previous year.\nQ\nYes, you always called that double taxation and you were\nopposed to --\nA\nNo, no, I never called it double taxation, I said it is an\nopportunity -- I said, number one, that those people down over the\nyears on the other side who wanted to use that to pay -- as a gimmick\nto pay for on-going governmental expenses, knowing that once it was\nused up in the first year they then had to increase taxes the next year\n-4-\nto aarry on with those on-going programs, that this was a gimmick.\nNow this -- we are proposing a one-time use for this capital construc-\ntion, but there is no question it is a tax, that is legitimately owed\nin the previous year. But the switch to withholding does make it pos-\nsible for you to return all or part of that money to the taxpayers\nbecause government is -- it is an-going business. There comes no\nend of the line. So it is just a chance to give the people some\nrelief and bonus themselves in that switchover.\n8\nGovernor, what evidence do you have of great public opinion\nclamoring for tax relief this year as compared with last year and\ncompared with welfare reform?\nA\nWell, I can only point to the survey recently that said 64\nper cent of the people demanded tax relief, said government costs too\nmuch and even answered a subsequent question in the poll to the\neffect that they would support a taxpayer's revolt. They felt so\nstrongly on this subject.\nQ\nWhat poll is that, Governor?\nA\nIt was in the -- I can't recall which poll it was, but\nall your papers printed it and whether the electronic media carried it\nor not, I don't know, I don't get to watch all of it.\n8\nGovernor, isn't this pretty late to start a new bill through?\n30 days to go.\nA\nWell, Squire, we did our best and with the Senate group\nthat was working on an attempt to come up with something we held off\njust as long as we could to give them a chance. I understand they had\na meeting last night and there are just some unresolved differences\nand they have concluded they cannot resolve their differences.\n8\nGovernor, what you mention as the support is a poll saying\nwe want taxes cut. But do you have any evidence there is a similar\ntype of wide support to increase the income and sales taxes?\nA\nWell, I can point to polls that we ourselves took in connec-\ntion with last year's program, and almost 80 per cent of the people\nwere demanding a cut in the property tax and I would have a hunch\nthat's gone up since then because the property taxes have gone up\nsince then in almost all of the state. The same people, walmost 80\nper cent, said that as a substitute tax they preferred the sales tax.\nThe next highest percentage, considerably lower, but the next higher\npercentage said an increase in the income tax to bring this about.\nI don't think there is any question, anyone who's talked to the\n-5-\npublic -- I dontt th:\nthere is any question th.\nthe people of\nCalifornia know that the property tax -- well, frankly it is approaching\nthe bankruptcy point. Local governments are talking now of a further\nincrease and beonomists -- and if you want to check with some of the\ncampus economists, will tell you that there gets a certain percentage\nof market value of property in which you have approached the point of\nno return and it is no longer possible or practical to own property.\nQ\nGovernor, under your compromise bill that's going to be\nintroduced, will people owning very expensive homes receive less of a\ntax break than they would have under your original plan?\nA\nIf I recall the formula, I should wait until they give you the\nparticulars -- if I recall the formula that we are talking about, is one\nthat ranges from a hundred per cent relieve at the bottom up to about\na minimum of 20 per cent. I -- this is -- the 20 per cent or -- is\napt to be a little increased by however the county relief should turn\nout, but I remember last year, as I think everyone came out with at\nleast a minimum of -- between 20 and 25 per cent and traveled to about --\nat the bottom as much as 40 per cent, so this is one of the major\nthanges. in the formula, that it now goes -- ranges from a hundred per\ndent to about the same figure at the top.\nQ\nGovernor, will yourprogram have a minimum income tax?\nA\nI think it does, yes, we have always included that. We did\nlast year.\nQ\nHow about the statewide property tax for schools? Is\nthat in as it was last year?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nIt is not?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nYou said it would have a hundred per cent at the bottom.\nHow do you define the bottom? Where is the cutoff point?\nA\nWell, I don't know know at what price home it\nbegins to decline from a hundred per cent. But down roughly at\nwhat -- oh, according to what the tax rolls are, the lowest bracket\nthere\nof homes. There/would be total forgiveness of any property tax.\nQ\nIncidentally, these figures, $15,000, that's cash value,\nnot assessed value, right?\nA\nThat's right, yes.\nQ\nGovernor, another topic?\nA\nYes.\n-6-\nQ\nFigures in 10 Los Angeles County show at registration for\n18 to 20 year olds is running over 60 per cent for Democrats and just\nover 18 per cent for Republicans. Statewide figures are very similar.\nWhat are the Republicans doing to try to counter this trend?\nA\nWell, I haven't had too many meetings with the State\nRepublican Committee on this. I know they have some plans for\ncontacting young people. I would suggest that that would indicate\nthat there has been some politicalization of education and not as has\nbeen charged, my responsibility or that I have been responsible for\nthat.\n2\nYou say the Democrats are intentionally directing their\nefforts toward the college campuses?\nA\nOh, no, I just think that there's been a sort of a liberal\napproach in -- at the educational level. I don't know what per-\ncentage. I'm not going to blanket indict all teachers or professors\nby any manner or means, but I think this has been evident for a number\nof years. Frankly, I don't understand young people other than\nmisinformation doing this, because most young people, if I understand\ntheir complaints against a great big government that is unresponsive\nto their needs, that is impossible for them to contact, regimentation,\ninterference with personal freedom, all of these things can be laid\nto the some 37 years out of the last 29 that the Democrats as a party\nhave actually been in control of government in America and the\nRepublican team is the loyal opposition of power even though we have\nmanaged to elect two presidents in that period, one of them only had\none two-year period in which he had a friendly legislature. It\nwould seem to me that if the students would really engage in a\nsearch for truth, they'd find that the Republicans have been campaign-\ning for and asking for the same things that the students are now asking\nfor and here they seem to be throwing their lot in with the very people\nthat caused what theydon't like.\n3\nGovernor, knowing your own politicalpbhilosophy and back-\nground, however, when you were a young man and had you the opportunity\nto register between 18 and 21, wouldn't you probably have registered\nDemocrat?\nA\nOh, and I did when I became 21, but then I had a very rough,\ntouch Irishman father who had been a Democrat all of his life, and\nI'm quite sure that he had an influence on me, but also I think there\nwas a difference then, and to difference now. I have -- my first vote\n-7-\nwas cast the first t. for Franklin Delano Roos elt who ran on a\nplatform that, I believe, has been the platform of theRepublican\nparty for quite sometime. If you'll check back you will find that\nin 1932 the Democratic platform called for a 25 per cent reduction in\nfederal spending. It called for a reduction in the power of govern-\nment. It called for a decentralization and a return to local and\nstate governments and to the individual of the powers they claim had\nbeen unjustly seized by the federal government. Now I've suggested\nto our party that we ought to use that platform smmetime because it\nis brand new, it's never been used.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nGovernor, another topic. Do you believe that the bombing\nof the office of a Salinas attorney as a direct result of his having\nattempted to testify against the CRLA?\nA\nWell, if it wasn't there certainly has been a big stretch\nof coincidence there. This lawyer, incidentally, is one who has --\nwho founded the first Legal Aid Society in that area. This is a lawyer\nwho has devoted a great deal of his time and his practice to helping\nthe poor. As a matter of fact, in just -- just recently he took\nCE referance from CRLA six individual cases of poor people and repre-\nsented them in their cases because CRLA was too busy to handle their\ncases. Now he testified against CRLA and this @- this act followed.\nI'm not one, you know -- this is a matter for law to determine.\nBut I think that the coincidence in addition to which there are other\nwitnesses who took the same tone, who have been receiving telephone\nthreats and har rassment of that kind since.\n8\nGovernor, yesterday the police in Salinas arrested a young\nman in connection with that bombing and they also said that there\napparently was no connection between the bombing and the CRLA situation.\nThey said that the young man had a -- had a beef with a lawyer, Mr.\nMarino, on a default proceedings.\nA\nWell, could be then, then the coincidence would be quite\nremarkable, but I think it is something to be decided in court.\n8\nIn view of that do you still think there is a need for an\nFBI investigation?\nA\nYes. I might add, you might want to look at -- into the\nWhler report on CRLA originally because I believe there was some\nindividual, as I understand, who was at one time represented by CRLA.\nQ\nAre you in favor of the federal government guaranteeing a\nloan to Lockheed for $250 million dollars?\n-8-\nA\nYes.\n2\nWhy?\nA\nWell, there are a great many ramifications in that and I\nthink that the effect at this time in the economy would be rather\ndisastrous if a corporation of that size, and the many contracts it\nhas, should suffer economic collapse or as has even been suggested,\nbankruptcy. And right now I just have to tell you that I am in\nfavor of the SST and I'm in favor of the government doing something\nto rescue the aerospace industry, particularly in California, because\nwe are in great danger of that great pool of technical skill and tallent\ndissipating and scattering because of the strain and the hundreds of\nthousands who are unemployed.\nQ\nGovernor, is there kind of a Republican socialism that you\nsupport -- you know, because really private enterprise is the most\nefficient survives. I know you don't believe in underwriting an\nincome for an individual.\nA\nNo.\n0\nBut then is this a special kind of socialism for large\ncorporations?\nA\nNo, I think this is an emergency measure much as the Penn\nCentral was an emergency measure, I think in this particular instance\nyou have a firm that is engaged in a great many defense contracts\nright now and as I say, I think the ramifications go far beyond\nanything that perhaps we even have all the details, and perha ps a\nbetter way could have been found --\n8\nEven --\nA\n-- had someone acted earlier.\nQ\nEven if they get inefficient?\nAnd they have been proven to\nbe so?\nA\nWell, I think that if you are going to underwrite the loan\nI think you also take some action with regard to the inefficiency\nand I think this is inherent in the -- in the Government Act or what\nthey are requesting.\n8\nAnother subject.\nQ\nNo. Would you favor then Senator Cranston's proposal that\nthe management of Lockheed be removed if the government is going to\nsubsidize them, and put -- and government supervise who the managemont\nshould be?\nA\nWell, I think that this is slightly different than exerting\n-Q-\nsome controls to make sure that the company itself tightens up where\nthere are obvious indications of mismanagement or looseness. But\nSenator Cranston has a way of swinging with a broad brush aimed at\nthe biggest headline possible. And Senator Cranston's bleeding for\nthe aerospace industry leaves me a little cold because he hasn't done\nvery much for the aerospace industry since he's been in Washington.\nQ\nNow? O. K. Going back to the subject ofyouth, Governor,\non this subject of the Youth Opportunity Centers which HRD is in the\nprocess of closing or consolidating into the major centers, you men-\ntioned that the problem of youth and big government and your feelings\ntowards it -- I wonder what your reaction would be to the fact that\nin light of the staff cuts in the consolidation practices -- process,\nfor examp San Francisco which has been cut by a third, and is being\ncut by another third, how you feel the youth is going to feel when\nthey find that the programs that were there to find them jobs are\nbeing curtailed and consolidated. How do you think they are going\nto react to --\nA\nWell, if they learn the truth they will find the difference.\nNow a few years ago a bi-partisan piece of legislation co-authored,\nif I recall correctly, by former Assembly Speaker Unruh, created HRD.\nAnd it was created to fill a gap and to be an agency in the state\ngovernment that was directed really at job finding and job training\nand coordinating all of these activities. And this is exactly what\nis going on. And youth employment is being taken in -- everyone\nemphasizes -- not everyone, but those who have chosen to editorialize\nat the moment about this, have only focused on the closing of the\njob corps centers and have made no effort to find out that at HRD\nthe emphasis and the number one priority is going to be on this\nyouth feature. And this was what the agency was set up to do.\nAnd what we are trying to do here, I thin. is an indication of the\ndifference between our administration add what's gome on traditionally\nin government. Government traditionally starts something new and a\nnew program designed to fill a need. But never closes down anything\nthat has failedor has not been particularly successful in the past in\nthis regard. And we have created a new over-all program here in\nstate government to handle all the features of job seeking with\nemployees that are known as job agents and all this is is a transfer\nof the activities from this other program into HRD on a statewide\nbasis.\n-10-\nQ\nBut with t. staff cuts, the fact they won't be able to\ndo as good a job as they are doing now finding the jobs with fewer\namount of staff, I don't see how that could --\nA\nI don't think that that's true, when you talk about staff\ncuts.\nWe are not talking about staff cuts in HRD.\nQ\nNo, in the youth opportunity centers themselves.\nA\nWell, because they are geing replaced by this being taken\nover by HRD. That was what HRD was created to do.\n0\nGovernor --\nA\nIt has 11,000 employees, I think, at last count.\nD\nIn the past few weeks you sent off a great many letters\nand telegrams to the Nixon Administration complaining about the OEO\nCommission investigation CRLA and asking for investigations. of the\nfederal government of one thing and another. There hasn't seemed\nto be very much response. How do you measure your influence in\nWashington on this basis?\nA\nWell, I tell you, I'm satisfied with my relationship with\nWashington and I'm a little amused at some editorial comment to the\neffect it would still try to pretend that there is some fued or some\ndifference going on. There isn't. Butjust to make sure that the\nletters got there all right and the telegrams, I've now sent Ed Meese\ninstead of a letter. And he's in Washington now.\n0\nBuy the question is what -- no letters seem to be c coming\nback, at least you are not releasing them. Are they not getting\nresponded to or even read maybe?\nA\nNo, and some of the letters have been responded to with\nphone calls and some will not be responded to with this personal\nvisit because the outcome of some of those letters was this personal\nvisit, by Ed. Meese.\nQ\nHas there been any action, though?\nA\nEd isn't back yet, let me find out. But actually in the\nlatest problem that seems to be of concern with regard to use in\nthe conformity issue and all, there is no estrangement between us,\nand HEW or anyone else.\nQ\nHave you heard from Mr. Mitchell yet about your request\nfor an FBI investigation?\nA\nNo, that just went off so we -- we haven't had that.\nQ\nHow about from Mr. Carlucci, Governor, on your onitial\nrequest for a joint investigation into this?\nA\nWell, Mr. Meese is meeting with him on that subject.\nSo\n-11-\nI'll know more when\n}\ngets back.\nQ\nGovernor, last night at the Town Hall you didn't seem to have\nwhat could be called a good house by almost any description. Could\nyou -- do you have any idea what happened to you on the way to the\nactorm\nforum there?\nA\nNo, I thought -- I thought it was pretty good. That was --\nthat's a great big barn over there. I thought the audience was pretty\ngood for that type of activity, but I also call to your attention we\nare guests. You'd have to ask the Chamber of Commerce. This is a\nnew feature they have started, and this was only the second meeting\nthey have had. There were a few minutes there when the box office\nwas a little bit too good.\n8\nGovernor, are you aware that a contingent, businessman went\nto Washington to oppose the funds to Lockheed and this morning Gordon\nRule on the front of the Chronicle opposed it and said they should\ngo bankrupt?\nA\nOh, I know that there are a number of businessmen and, as\nI say, perhaps there might have been a better way to handle this\nearlier and if -- some action had been taken earlier, but I know that\ncertainly there are companies that believe they cald build those\nairplanes, there are other companies who would like to see the motors\nbuilt in America instead of England. Whatever the mistake was, that\nled to this, there is, of course, a body of evidence on the other\nside not only regarding the defense contracts, but as you saw the\nother day one of our astronauts now representing an airline who was\nspeaking so highly of the plane itself and of the great need for that\nplane, and particularly by his own airline, so I think you can --\nyou can take your choice.\nQ\nGovernor, there is a rumor going around, I wonder if you could\nmaybe clarify it for us, there is a report that you are planning an\nreplacing Gil Sheffield with Louis Uhler, is there any truth to that?\nA\nWe haven't any meetings whatsoever on -- on the replacement\nfor Gil Sheffield, what we are going to do.\nQ\nWould you consider Mr. Uhler?\nA\nI'll consider everybody when the names come in. You'd be\nsyrprised how many names we throw in a bucket and not only from within\ngovernment, but from new blood outside, and earnestly try to find\nthe guy that we think could do the best job.\nSQURRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-12-\n6/18\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD JUNE 10, 1971\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcriptof 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 thepress as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no0o\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: There's more action out in the halld\nwhere the school kids are. You should have been outthere. People\nwere being trampled.\nQ\nMr. Beilenson joining you today?\nA\nNo, no.\nQ\nYou got an opening statement?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nLet's fire then. Senator Bellenson said flatly yesterday\nyou don't know what you are talking about in saying that his measure\nwould cost a billion dollars more.\nA\nWell, any time Senator Beilenson or any of the rest of you\nwould like to sit down with Mr. Carlson, he'll be able to show you\nwhat has already been worked out. They burned a lot of midnight\noil doing this and show you the figures based on this. Mr. Beilenson's\nlwe\nprogram, which as I pointed out totalled up to a 993 million dollar\ndifference was not all increases, as I pointed out, that is the\ndifference between his increase and what our program would have\ndecreased. His would have gone to per capita average of 85 dollars\nand the per capita average upon which we based those figures is --\nis about a 31 dollar difference in that. So this is how -- how the\nfigures were worked out, but I suggest and I would advise any of you\nto see Mr. Carlson who will give you a complete figure basis upon\nwhich we conclude this.\nQ\nIsn't the state in kind of serious trouble when two reasonably\nintelligent men who at this -- the figures which should be the same\nand add differently, is there something wrong with their basic\neducation or what?\nA\nWell, yes, there is one thing very wrong. I'm sure that the\n-1-\nSenator is very sin\nand believes what he's\nig, but philosophically\nhe is opposed to our concept of welfare reform. This again comes\ndown to that philosophy of those who believe that government should\nconstantly be on the shelling out end. They have refused from the\nvery first to even consider our proposals or to look into them. And\nthe plain truth is ours are the result of ayyear or more of study and\nwork with the counties and with county welfare people on this program\nto arrive at all of this, and somebody comes along and thinks he can\nsit in a couple of committee meetings with some hearings and have\nhis staff working around without the knowledge or the background of a\nyear's research and study and them come up with some figures upon\nwhich they could base such a serious move.\nCarleson's\nQ\nI was speaking of Mr. Carson's arithmetic people and Mr.\nPost's arithmetic people, they are only, you know --\nA\nI'll go by the same thing. Mr. Post's people have not --\nhadethe same experience of working for a year in a task force on this\nentire program. And the wide differenteTthere, I am totally confident\nand I would suggest, as I say, that you find out the basis for those\nfigures. Tomorrow there is going to be such a hearing.\nQ\nGovernor, you mentioned the counties and yet they stood\nup and opposed your legislation yesterday?\nA\nThey opposed mainly on one basis. Now some of you did\na pretty good job of trying to imply that the counties were terribly\ndown and everything that we wanted to do. They are opposed to the\nclosed end appropriation, they fear it. Even in spite of the amend-\nments that we have. But also that is not general. We have found\nthat a great many counties, and there are a great many counties,\nsupervisors and welfare directors that are totally in sympathy with\nours. The San Mateo County Supervisors have just endorsed our program.\nThey claim they have studied our figures as against their first fear\nthat they would lose over a million dollars and have found that they\nwill actually gain money. Some of those counties supervisors, I'm\nsure, were sincere in here the other day, there were some, like\nthe representative from Sacramento County, that I don't think he'd\nlike it if we were putting everybody on salary.\nQ\nGovernor, is this welfare bill better than no welfare reform\nbill?\nA\nNo. The difference mainly between the Beilenson welfare\nprogram and ours is that his is not welfare reform. And for that\n-2-\nreason what we are discussing here is acarlemic because his bill isn't\ngoing any place. It requires a letter from me to move and since it\nis not welfare reform it is not going to get such a letter, so we are\nright back where we started.\nQ\nGovernor, you will not accept this bill?\nA\nI can't.\n8\nAt all?\nA\nNo., after what I --\nQ\nEven if it means no welfare reform this year.\nA\nWell, it doesn't mean that. We are -- they still want to\ncome down and discuss with us what we can do, they have -- they have\nsaid that they are for welfare reform, but I would be quite hypocritical\nif I gave this a letter to move this out and seemingly put my stamp\non it as accepting this was welfare reform which instead it is a\ngigantic increase in the cost of welfare with really no work provisions\nand with no cost control provisions of the kind that we have in ours.\nQ\nSenator Marks and Senator Behr both said that the:Beilenson\nbill has -- that 11 out of its 15 provisions are reform proposals\nthaken from the Republican bills including Senator Burgener's bill.\nThey say it is a good start at welfare reform. Now, do you disagree\nwith them or their --\nA\nYou bet I disagree with them. First place, sure, he took\nsomething out of everything. He took a few of the things out ofours.\nBut he ignored all the things that would make the costcoontrol\nprovisions of the program work. Now, his program, for example, in\nstate gosts, his program would come out at adding 258 million dollars\nto the cost to the state. Then thero are 25 million dollars of\nsavings in there mostly which come from those provisions of our bill\nthat he chose. But 25 from 58 still leaves it a bigger increase in cost\nthan the state should undergo. I was sorry to see that the two\nSenators felt they had to vote for his, and they did it with a complete\nlack of knowledge of this particular subject. They know only what\nthey have heard sitting up there in a few committee hearings. They\nabsolutely have no knowledge whatsoever of our program.\n8\nGovernor, with all due frankness, should H. Mr.. Carlson didn't\nmake a very good showing. Got everybody all muddled up there.\nA\nWell, I've spoken, Squire, to him about this, and I think --\nand I cautioned him that I think what we really are suffering from is\nsomeone who has been dealing with this for all of this time. It is\ntoo easy for him to\nP\nk from his knowledge at\nrealize that\nthose who are hearing it for the first time need a better explanation.\nIn other words, he -- he assumes more understanding on the part of the\nlistener and doesn't realize it comes from his own knowledge of this\nsubject and I have cautioned him and told him to try and find an approach\nwhereby he can realize that he's starting -- or you are starting and\nhearing him from the point that he started from a year ago, before\nwe knew anything about this.\nQ\nGovernor, Senator Beilenson says that many of the Republican\nproposals are in there and that the only real difference is the open\nended versus the closed end budget. Do you disagree with this?\nA\nOh, I disagree completely and I think it just shows his lack\nof understanding of welfare reform or even the welfare problem.\nO'\nGovernor, it would appear from talking to the leaders of the\nDemocratic majority in the legislature that there is no reasonable\nexpectation that they will approve a closed end budget or the\nequitable apportionment proposals in your welfare program. Is there\nanything short of that that would put in controls that would satisfy\nyou?\nA\nYes, the thing that they haven't done yet. They have\nrevealed that from the very first, including when they didn't want me\nto go up there and talk to them about it -- they have a resistance no\nmatter what they say, they have a resistance to welfare reform.\nAnd the -- I thought the proof of that was, and that maybe more of you\nshould have observed it, was the fact that they didn't even wait\nfor our welfare reform proposals to come out on television and before you\nthe members of the press, and reject it. And there has been no\nlegitimate effort to come to us and say, here, this is unacceptable and\nthat is unacceptable, we can work out -- let's work out what we can\nin a welfare reform program, minus this or that. As I have said so\noften, come down and let's see. Are they prepared to givo us 60\nper cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent, half, none, and Senator Beilenson\ntried to pretend that this is what he had done. Maybe he thinks\nhonestly that he did this. But to pick out a few things out of a wel-\nfare program and incorporate them with his and leave out the very\nfeatures of the program that could provide the controls we need and\nleave -- it being an increase in the cost of welfare instead of\nwhat we are seeking, a decrease, we were agreed on one thing although\nnot to the same degree that he proposed. We both agree that there\n-4-\nshould be an increase in the grants to thetruly needy. He wants to\nmake a bigger single increase frankly than the State of California\ncan afford or the counties can affford because he's going to dump\naround 83 million dollars additional cost on the counties, and we are\nlooking for, th the next few days, if the connties want to listen\nand if they are curious about this, to expaaining to them -- they have\nbeen so cost conscious where we are concerned, to ask them to be\nas suspicious of this as they have been of us. But really that would\nbe academic, too, because as I say his bill isn't going anyplace.\nQ\nMr. Moretti says he is opposed to an AFDC grant increase.\nIf that feature were taken out of the Beilenson bill would it be more\npalatable to you?\nA\nHe's opposed to any increase?\n8\nAny increase.\nA\nWell, then we are out of conformity again.\nD\nNo, he sgys 21.4 per cent.\nA\nOh, this is what we are talking about. We are talking\nabout a similar thing that continues --\nQ\nBut nothingon top of that.\nA\nThat's right. Now, we hope that -- as we have said many\ntimes in our briefings before, we hope that a savings developed and\nwe believe that they can develop more than the figures we have given\nthat we will then be able to do more and bring these people, the\ntruly needy, up as we develop the administrative savings and so forth.\nQ\nIf the grant were deleted from the Beilenson bill, would\nit then be more palatable with the open end feature?\nA\nNo, I just don't think that the controls are there to hold\nthis program down.\nQ\nGovernor, the Speaker also said that you will have to sign\nany welfare reform bill that the legislature sends you because you\nmade so many speeches you really want welfare reform, and will lose\ncreidibility if you didn't. sign it.\nA\nI'm not going to lose any credibility, the difference is\nif a legitimate welfare reform comes and does -- all or even a good\npart, if that's all we can get of what it is we propose, no, I'd\nsign it. I'm not going to sign something that is phoney, that\npretends to be welfare reform and let the people of California wake\nup and find they're faced with a gigantic tax increase, that they\ndidn't have welfare reform and the Speaker is talking again --\nsometimes he says things so quickly he hasn't had time to think.\nQ\nDIBS the\n1\nnson bill such a bill?\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nIs the Beilenson bill such a bill?\nA\nThat's why I won't give it a letter, it is not welfare reform.\n8\nWon't the costs go up, Governor, without anyllegislation\nanyway, with none of the controls?\nA\nWithout any legislation well, we have a certain -- remember\nthat there is a certain difference -- we have some administrative\nthings. We'd be better off if we had legislative support for them\nbecause undoubtedly some of our administrative moves will be tested\nin court. And the OEO funded lawyers have proven that they can shop\naround until they find their kind of judge, on some of these issues.\nD\nGovernor, how do you define the word \"reform? And why\ndoesn't Mr. Beilenson's bill come up to that definition?\nA\nWell, reform has got to have the provisions in it that enable\nus to stop faaud, enable us to control and reduce the support that\nwe are giving to people with earnings, set a limit on the height of\nearnings. Itthas got to be ablento give us some controls over eligi-\nbility. This is reform. The things that the people object to today\nand it is very strange, the people are better informed on this than\nmost people realize. The people by and large, according to all the\npolls we have taken, show that they know that those with true need are\nnot getting enough. They are aware of that. But they are also\naware that thereaare the great percentage of people getting welfare\nwho are not entitled to it who shouldn't be getting it and that there\nis a percentage of fraud and cheating. That it is too easy to get\non and the San Francisco Examiner, who has a reporter now who is\nproving every day how easy it is to get on. I don't know whether\nyou read each other's papers, but he's down getting on welfare as a\nmatter of an eight-hour day and widting his experiences up and they\nare quite entertaining reading. He told of one acquaintance he made\nthere that has five birth certifieates and is drawing welfare in\nthree counties inthe Bay area on three of those birth certificates.\nHe'll probably get the other two into production as soon as he can\nmove around a little more.\nQ\nWill you be selling those papers outside the door, Governor?\n(Laughter)\nA\nWell, I thought that now and then you gaght to hear either\nMr. Agnew or myself when there is an opportunity say something nice\nabout the press.\n-6-\nD\nYour dialogue seems to have been condemnation of the\nSenate so far. It happens to be reform welfare. How are your\nrelations with the Assembly on that same --\nA\nI've just been condemning the action on Senator Beilenson's\nbill, has not being welfare reform. So far I havan't seen anything --\nit's been on the Senate side. The Assembly hasn't been dealing with\nthat problem. But --\nQ\nAre you having any dialogue --\nA\nI think that the Democratic leadership has let this session\nofthe legislature come down to this point a few weeks before what\nshould be the termination of the session with less progress Than in any\nsession that I found anyone can remember.\n3\nGovernor, don't you think it is important, though, that in\nSenator Beilenson's proposal he does have an earned income limit?\nA cause for relative responsibility?\nA\nYes, this is one of the things that he has taken, yes.\nQ\n150 per cent limitation?\nA\nThese are some of the things. But again, I suggest to\nyou that Mr. Carlson add his people have literally worked around the\nclock from the few days notice that we had to analyze this, and see\nwhat it would do and we don't do this from any standpoint of wanting\nto oppose it. Very frankly, my first reaction was anything that gets\na bill out that we can start working on would have been acceptable,\nwould have been fine. And if they could have found benefits in this\nthat -- that keredleading toward the goal that we had hoped was a\ncommon gcal, they'd have been the first to say SO. They can't dispute\ntheir own figures, they didn't set out to disprove this, they set out\nto find what does it do.\n8\nGovernor, are you really prepared to compromise? I mean\nreally sit down and accept some features that you don't like just to\nget a welfare reform bill?\nA\nYes, I think the proof of that is the amendments that we put\nin already with regard to meeting county protests. We felt and I still\nbelieve our figures. I believe the counties were safe. I believe\nthe countieswere not going to have any cost imposed on them. We\ncould not win their acceptance of that. The counties have had a long\nhistory of mistrust of Sacramento, and I'm afraid based on too many\nfacts in the past. Maybe they are not prepared to accept that there\n-7-\nis someone here now who doesn't want to dump something on their backs.\nAnd I think the amendments that we put in indicate that we were not\nwedded to this. As I said from the first, we were willing to let\nthis go into legislative process and we would accept this kind of\ncompromise. What I cannot accept às a compromise is a pretense.\nThat is not -- just as last year when they heldthe budget for ransom\nand everyone -- not everyone, let me say there were certain editorial\ncomments to the effect that I was stubborn and wouldn't compromise.\nWell, what they proposed was not a compromise, the budget was being\nheld for ransom on the basis of our tax reform program. And their\nidea of a compromise was that instead of it being a wash increase\ntaxes to pay for a decrease taxlin property. They wanted the to increase\nthe taxes not totally decrease the property tax, and have 300mmillion\ndollars of increased taxes for increased spending.\nNow, I don't think that's a compromise. Compromise would\nhave been if they'd have said, we'd rather raise this tax and that\none, or raise another one more and this one less, make adjustments\nof that kind. I'm wide open to that kind of compromise. And the same\nis true with welfare reform.\n0\nAre youwilling to compromise, Governor, why wouldn't you\nbe willing to compromise on the Beilenson bill?\nA\nWell because as I say it is not welfare reform. It does\nnot even approach it. How do you start compromising from a program\nthat now is going to save 335 million dollars modest estimate, if it is\nimplemented, and one that is going to increase the -- increase the\npresent cost of wèlfare by some 600 million dollars? Which means\nthat you are automatically saying to the people of California that they\nhave got to undergo another property tax increase at the county level,\nthey have got to undergo a state tax increase and in reality they have\ngot to shell out more money for the federalgovernment's share.\nNow, that's that's pretty far apart to start compremising.\nQ\nGovernor, had the county supervisors who were here yesterday\nbeen hoodwinked by the Beilenson bill, they seem to have some support\nfor it.\nA\nI can't give the only thing I heard them, myself, and then\nI had to go by what you fellows ran, but the only thing I heard was\nthat it did not contain the closed end appropriation. And the other\nthing is I have to say they cannot possibly have done what our staff\ndid. We only got this a few days ago. And they have been working\nas I say, around the clock since to put it together. They started --\nfirst we were given a four-paragraph memorandum, and on that four\nparagraph memorand\" the first clue was alrea there that just\nlooking at that our people came up with an increase in costs both to\nthe counties and to the state.\nThen this was followed by the more\ndetailed plan. And then -- and they have only had acouple of days\nnow.\nThese peopleefrom the county could not possibly have had this\nand been able to do more than give it a surface look.\nQ\nGovernor, you said that San Mateo County supervisors supported\nyour program. and yesterday Mr. Carlson said that at least the\nChairman of the Board of Supervisors in Riverside County also supported\nyour program.\nA\nTheresare a number of others.\n8\nCould you name some of the counties that support the\nprogram?\nA\nOh, Bob -- Alameda County I think is one that's supporting\nus.\nWe have had some -- we have had some partial support -- we have\ne\nhad a great many counties like San Diego County, Los Angeles County,\nmany of the bigger counties that favor our program but withhold an\nactual endorsement because they still don't like the -- the closed end\nappropriation.\nQ\nGovernor, from the beginning you proposed to balance the\nbudget for the coming fiscal year partially through he savings you\nhad hoped to realize through your welfare reform program. Itwnow\nappears that there will not be any welfare reform, at least by the\ntime the budget must be adopted, and your stand today not give a\nletter seems to seal that fate. How then does that place the\ncondition of your budget, doesn't it aggravate the deficit problem\nand what will you do about it?\nA\nWell, gentlemen, we are coming down to this place, I don't\nthink that the fate is sealed on welfare reform. It is still there,\nit is where it was yesterday before that meeting. We are still willing\nto meet on welfare reform. We have said since we had to report the\ndecline in revenues upon which the budget was based that there has been\na continued decline in revenues, that it can still be balanced by welfare\nreform. No increase to the budget, and then finding the replacement\nincome for the lost tax revenues through withholding. Now the choice\nis theirs. If they elect to send down a budget without welfare\nreform then they have made the decision that there must be additional\nrevenues found.\n8\nGovernor, have you exhausted all your administrative remedies\nfor welfare reformor are you now going to explore what you can do by\nregulations you have now been prevented to do temporarily?\nA\nOh, no, we have been continuing all this time. We are\nproceeding in the process of implementing the administrative reforms.\nWe will go forward with those, but -- in otherwords, if they don't --\nif they don't pass thelegislation this doesn't mean that we have lost\nthe total amount of savings from welfare reform.\nQ\nAre you going to try to find --\nA\nWell, it will -- the estimate of the cost of the Burgener\nbills or the savings is 89 million dollars. If we do not get the\nlegislation we are out 89 million dollars out of balance.\n0\nGovernor, if, as you say, that the only objection such\ncounties as San Diego and Los Angeles have to your program is the\nclosed end appropriation, would you be willing to accept a welfare\nreform program if it did not include closed end?\nA\nWell, there is one thing I learned when I was negotiating\nfor the union against those tycoons in the motion picture business.\nIf you are going to sit down to negotiate out a welfare program, you\nare sure not going to tell somebody in advance what you might or might\nnot be willing to compromise on. And gentlemen, you just have to\nrealize you have me in the -- in the position right now of willing to\nsit down and mett on the basis of welfare reform legislation. But\nI ain't tipping my mitt.\nwill\nQ\nGovernor, how much $1 that closed end appropriation save\nthe state each year?\nA\nI couldn't put a figure on it. Actually, that's one of the\ncontrol devices.\n0\nYou don't have the figure for it?\nA\nNo, that is -- that is aimed at helping insure the Besponsi-\nbility of the county welfare workers to help control the case load.\nRight now as -- as the reporter -- and he's one of many, a number of\nyour papers have done the same thing, some of your T. V. outlets have\nhad people go down and at least make a one-time attempt to prove they\ncan get on welfare. This is part of the attempting to tighten that\ngreat leak where it is just easy to walk in and -- and get welfare.\nQ\nYou must have a figure, how much it is going to save?\nPAUL BECK: Equitable apportionment. That's the device\nby which you then apportion the people out, that's the equitable\napportionment and a closed end appropriation gottegitNer. They are\nboth tied together, it is not only eligibility in this.\nA\nIt is not only eligibility, but it is the -- it is the\n-10-\nmatter ofthe size\nthe grants that are will.\n,ly given to someone\nwho has outside earnings. If the county welfareyworker who is doing\nthis knows that every time he does it he is running the risk of taking\ndollars away from people already on welfare.\nQ\nGovernor, Mr. Carlson yesterday tried to explain this equit-\nable apportionment to the Senate Committee and how much the state would\nsave by it. And he failed to do that, can you explain it?\nED MEESE: I think the important thing is equitable appor-\ntionment and closed end budget does not per say save money. It merely\nguarantees that in a given fiscal year the state and the counties\nwill not paymore than the amount budgeted. It is an expenditure\ncongrol device. It is not per se: a money saving device.\n0\nWhat is the guarantee that the counties wouldn't have to\npaymore?\nPAUL BECK: That's written into the legislation as one\nof the amendments that we submitted.\nWhere I suggest, if there\nare enough people interested in it, why, I'll be very happy to set\nup a briefing with Mr. Carlson and his technicians so you can really get\nyou know, if you don't have your -- if you don't understand what we\nare trying to do, we would be more than happy to do that and if you\nare interested, we will do it.\nQ\nGovernor, Senator Beilenson's bill isthe only major bill\nthat is still alive. Your bills are dead, in his committee, which\nwould have to pass on any welfare plan. You seem to give him no --\nno credit for sincerity, wanting welfare reform. How do you expect\nto be able to compromise on any sort of welfare reform program this\nyear?\nA\nWell, I didn't say that I didn't give him any sincerity,\nI said I didn't think he shared our view of welfare reform and\nphilosophically, perhaps, there is a difference there. If he truly\nwants welfare reform or any of the others, and I'm quitte sure there\nare some upstairs, I'm not blanket indicting the entire legislature,\nwe can have it. And that the terrible thing is the people want it\nso desperately and we know that. We have taken our own surveys.\nWe know that without regard to party differences, the number of people\nin California according to the polls that want this welfare reform\nare approximately 85 per cent.\nQ\nCould you not use that bill as the vehicle for that\ncompromise?\n-11-\nA\nWell --\n0\nWith amendments?\nA\nYesterday I sort of indicated that if that action took place --\nyou remember I made my statement before his was even passed out, that\nas long as there was a vehicle you could, but remember, he has control\nalso as the author of the amendments. And he seems pretty adament.\nSo it is -- there is just no sense in letting that proceedre because\nit just doesn't have merit.\nQ\nGovernor, just one more try on this regulations question.\nCan you now turn to the regulations, did you leave yourself some --\nsome loopholes whereby you could say, well, we don't get the legislation\nwe want, let's do it administratively. Is there any part of the\nprogram that's now been shelved -- any part that cannot be done\nadministratively?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nHave you exhausted --\nA\nWE have already dAvided our welfare reform, what is administra-\ntive and that we are proceeding with. The other part was put into\nBurgener's bills that required legislation. Now, that's the part\nthat is stymied. We are proceeding with this.\nD\nBut 1s there any part of the Burgener bill that could have\nbeendone by regulation?\nA\nI don't think so or it wouldn't have been in those bills.\n8\nWell, some of them were either legislation or regulations,\nsome of those proposed. I was just wondering whether some of them --\nA\nRemember, some of the court decisions that have already boon\nhanded down have not been objections to what it was we were trying\nto do, but have been -- the court has ruled that it would require\nlegislation to do it, that it cannot be done administratively.'\nQ\nNew subject?\nQ\nOne more question.\nA\nThere is one more from --\nQ\nIf you are not going to give that bill a letter, are you\ngoing -- is the administration going to attempt to amend it at all\nin the Senate Finance Committee? Why bother --\nPAUL BECK: You can't go to the Finance Committee.\nA\nIt can't go, can it, without the letter.\nED MEESE:\nThe letter applies to its present form, I\n-12-\nbelieve, Governor.\nA\nWhatever legislative process can go to work to continue,\nhopefully, bringing a welfare reform about, I'm in favor of it.\nI don't understand many times all the machinations that go on up there,\nbut no, I'm in favor of anything that will bring about some welfare\nreform.\n8\nThat answered my question.\nA\nO. K.\n2\nGovernor, I have just one more question on this. If\nBeilenson won't let your bills go and you won't let his bill go, then\nwhere is the compromise? You know, you talk compromise but where --\ncan you give us a hint on where you are willing to compromise?\nA\nI think you have to start with a bill that actually is\nwelfare reform, and is isn't.\n8\nWell, Senator Burgener said yesterday he felt there was a\nsubstantial welfare reform in that bill if cost controls could be\namended into it.\nA\nWell --\n8\nThis was after the heading.\nA\nBut Senator Beilenson is the author of the bill. If you let\nthat bill move we are at his mercy.\nQ\nSenator Burgener said he would talk to Senator Beilenson and\nsee if he would work out amendments.\nA\nIn the meantime I'll just sit there pen poised and not\nsigning a letter till somebody talks.\n8\nGovernor, doesn't that letter control only last until the\nbudget is adopted? I mean once the budget is adopted then the\nlegislature is free to move on any legislation they want, are they not?\nYou still have the option of vetoing, I agree, but I mean as far as\nthis initial letter.\nMR. MEESE: Yes.\nA\nAs I say, I'm -- I'm so busy with my own rules and regulations\nI don't know all of theirs. I'll have to soon find out what that\ndoes. If so I've got a new crisis.\nQ\nGovernor, you just signed a bill to limit smoking on public\ntransportation. as As a non-smoker yourself do you have a personal\ninterest in that legislation?\nA\nNo. And as a matter of fact, I ve -- I've hay-fevered my\nway through a few smokers in my vicinity. But it seemed to be a bill\nthat was quite widely approved upstairs. I've -- I was a little\n-13-\nworried about how tar does government go in its infringement un pessonal\nrights, but at least the bill did say that it was simply to provide\na smoking-free place, some section of the craft that would be for\nthose people that found a smoke offensive. I couldn't see any reason\nto veto it. At the same time Ididn't exactly think that it was the\nsort of thing that you'd run up on the flag pole as the greatest triumph\nof a legislative session.\n(Laughter)\n0\nYou don't ride the bus often yourself?\nA\nWhat? Oh, listen, I ride that bus that flies from here\nto Los Angeles more than anybody. I'm -- I'm thinking of taking\nlessons in flying it one of these days and it applied to all manner\nof -- not only buses, airplanes, everything.\n0\nGovernor, I have one more. You appointed Assemblyman\nBritschg,\nBrischi -- former Assemblyman Brischi to the Unemployment Appeals\nBoard today. Can you tell us what qualifications he has for that\nappointment?\nA\nCertainly his wide experience in government here, but I\nwould tell you that he also had a -- had very strong support and\nbacking from organized labor. And this is of great interest to them\nand he was way out and ahead their choice and there were others,\nof course, too. He wasn't just a one faction choice, whohad been\nseeking that particular post for many --\n0\nGovernor, you are aware that Senator Taft said he's going\nto run as a Favorite Son. Are you giving any consideration to running\nas a Favorite Son and if not, would you completely rule out the\nfact that you would never?\nA\nNo, I've -- that's already bean decided. I've already\ninformed the President that the delegation that I want to lead to the\nconvention is one pledged to him. His election. Now, I don't know\nwhat the Ohio situation is, and why Senator Taft feels that being a\nFavorite Son is the way to do that, maybe their election rules are\ndifferent than ours. To run as a Favorite Son means that you go to\nthe conventinn technically as a candidate and then of course have the\noption af an open convention of throwing your block or trying to\npersuade people to be -- to go one way or another, keeping control of\nit yourself. No, I've made my pledge to the President, I will take\na delegation pledged to Richard Nixon.\nQ\nWill you rule out that you wouldn't if conditions change\n-14-\nsomewhat?\nA\nConditions aren't going to change, I'm taking a delegation\npledged to Richard Nixon.\nQ\nYou'd expect to arrive at the convention then with nobody\nto make a nominating speech in your behalf?\nA\nThat's right. Can't. Because, remember, ender our laws\nsuch a delegation once picked isoon the ballot. And itis on the ballot\non that basis. And it must be voted by the people. We don't do\nthings in a smoke-filled room here.\nQ\nGovernor, a year or so ago you supported measures to change\nthe method of selection of judges. Have you given up?\nA\nNo, no, we still intend to continue with that. I know that\nthe legal profession is thinking in terms of a ballot measure because\nit requires a constituional change. No, and I have voluntarily been\npracticing the very plan that is not legal and that -- in other words,\nthat we did not get passed. I have been voluntarily following such\na plan.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nQ\nGovernor, as I asked you last month, how's your Judicare\nprogram coming?\nA\nWe will have an announcement on that within the next several\ndays, I think we will have some information for you.\n8\nGovefnor, yesterday youmet with Mr. Monagan up in his office\nand I assumed the discussion must -- might have been tax reform.\nDo you want to talk about it?\nA\nNo, as a matter of fact it wasn't. It was a meeting with\nBob Monagan as the leader of our Assembly group, simply to talk about\nthis whole thing of where we stand with regard to the budget coming\ndown to the end of the session, What we can possibly do together to\nbreak the log Jam and have a budget on -- on time. Meet these\nvarious problems. It was a kind of general discussion and one\nleading to my trying to find out is there anything I can do with\nregard to further fnforming our legislative group.\nQ\nYou were great as Dutch Reagan,'\nA\nWhat?\nQ\nYou were great asDutch Reagan on Laught-In.\nA\nYeu will notice I didn't have the nerve to go to the preview.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\no0o\n-15-"
}