Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564132",
    "label": "Transcripts - 03/22/1973, 03/27/1973, 04/10/1973, 04/24/1973, 05/02/1973",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564132"
}

{
    "id": "118564132",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564132",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 03/22/1973, 03/27/1973, 04/10/1973, 04/24/1973, 05/02/1973",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564132",
    "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-P04-003-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-003-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-003-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564132",
    "naId": 118564132,
    "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-P04-003-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "5f49348073b58bc0",
    "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 -\n03/22/1973, 03/27/1973, 04/10/1973, 04/24/1973,\n05/02/1973\nBox: P04\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\n3/22\nPRESS cr ERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD\nCAGAN\nHELD MARCH 22, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to thepress as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nSenator Lagomarsino and these people\nwill be at your disposal in a few moments.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read press release No. 164.)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: That's the statement. Bob and I and\nthese people are now at your disposal. Bob, doyou have something?\nSENATOR LAGOMARSINO: Just this, Governor. I can't say\nhow proud I am that you have asked me to carry this constitutional\n(tax limitation)\namendment for you and for the People of California in the. legisla-\nture. I know it is going to be a very, very difficult task and one\nthat we have -- we have seen oems -- we may not be successful in the\nlegislature, but we are going to give it a real try. And I would\nhope that we would receive the kind of response, particularly from\nthe Senate, that we expect we should have. I think this is a\nvery imaginative program. It may be perhaps a most significant\npiece of legislation that your administration has intiated, and you've\nhad plenty of them. And I think it is something that all of the\nstates in this nation will be watching very closely, and I imagine\nour friends in the federal congress and the President himself will\nbe watching this very closely, too, so as I say, I'm very proud to\nhave a part in this important effort.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nBob, I'm grateful you are doing it.\n(The following questions were asked and responses given by Governor\nReagan.)\nO.\nGovernor, how are you going to finance this whole business\nabout getting signatures and so forth?\nA.\nThis will be financed the same way as -- as the citizens\ncommittees that were built up with regard to the welfare reform.\nAnd we have already had such evidences of support from various\ngroups throughout the state and they will, simply by contribution,\nfinance it.\nO.\nHow do you propose to overcome the likelihood or Mr. Moretti's\n-1-\nstatement yesterda that he won't support the oney for this\nspecial election?\nA.\nWell, it is hard for me to believe that if some several\nhundred thousand people sign petitions asking for the -- their\nconstitutional right to vote on that -- on the ballot, it is hard\nfor me to believe that a great many legislators would be so petty and\nvindictive as to force this cost onto the local government.\nQ.\nIsn't that one way that they -- the opposition could stop\nyour drive?\nA.\nNo, because I have the constitutional right to call a special\nelection. Now, there is a legal question as to whether this\nconstitutes a new mandated cost on local government. That hasn't\nbeen decided yet, the legal question. The election will be held,\nthen if local government believes that this is a violationof that\nnew law regarding mandated costs, they would then have to take their\ncase to the courts, to the state, and the court would make a\ndecision. But I can tell you that I will associate myself with local\ngovernments because there is a way to pay for this special election\nwithout invading the taxpayer's resources at all. We have accumu-\nlated interest on this surplus that we have been holding. And out\nof this interest this cost could be -- could be paid. And I\njust happen to believe that -- frankly that the state should pay\nfor it. Whether it is actually -- whether we are obligated under\nthe new law or not, I would like to see the state make the gesture\nofpaying for the election.\nQ.\nGovernor, why don't you just wait a year and put it on the\nJune ballot of 1974?\nA.\nWell, because the consfitutional amendment has passed.\nThere are certain parts of it, just as in passing the constitutional\namendment about the death penalty, there are certain parts of it that\nwill cause -- call for implementation by statute. And the delay\nwould = take as well -- over two years, it would take us into the\nnext legislative session following that general election. And\nthere is no need for this delay, no need to wait onthis.\nO.\nBut it would save a condiderable amount of money, wouldn't\nit?\nA.\nI don't think enough to make it worthwhile. You'd be\nsitting here all this time holding the surplus -- again, as I say,\nthe delay would be so long and because of the implementation that\nwould have to follow, and I think that it -- that we should get at\n-2-\nFirst of 11, we want to -- we would ant to start imple-\nmenting the income tax cuts before that time, and we can do it. It\nwould delay the savings to the people.\nO.\nHow much would the delay difference mean , Governor, if you\nwere to delay the election and the taxpayers would not get the\nbenefit of this tax cut? Do you have a comparison with that -- how\nit would compare with the ten million cost of the special election?\nA.\nWell, yes, it would be far in excess of that, because if --\nyou are talking of -- just the on-going income tax cut along is in\nthe neighborhood of two hundred million dollars a year savings to the\npeople.\nO.\nGovernor, will you permit circulation of these petitions\nin state facilities by state employees on state time?\nA.\nYou are asking a legal question. I don't think that\nthat's allowed, is it?\nED\nMEESE:\nNo.\nNo, we would not.\nA.\nNo.\nQ.\nGovernor, how much did it cost to finance your task\nforce study of this plan?\nA.\nI can't tell you the total cost because much of the cost\nwas underwritten by -- again, by contribution, by an outside founda-\ntion.\nO.\nHow much of the state's funds?\nA.\nIn state funds, the only actual expenditure that I know\nthat we have put down is $19,260, over in welfare. But this is\nnot unusual. And contrary -- in fact we have issued a statement\non this.\nIn these various task forces that have to do with\nstate government and making state government more efficient we\ncross all the lines of all the departments. We get personnel, we\nget material, we get support from these various departments.\nO.\nDo you normally get funding that is not specifically\nauthorized by the legislature?\nA.\nWhen a task force requires outside people and has to --\nto bring in experts and so forth, when there is material that we\ndo not believe can be provided by one of our departments, this has\nbeen done by outside contributions. But in this inter-office play\nsome departments furnish personnel, some departments furnish services\nof this kind. Welfare, which is one of the biggest of our spending\n-3-\nunits provided this ash money. But this is ly a part of the\nreturn on that task force.\nBecause the task force was also entrusted\nwith the whole idea again of reviewing the work of our citizens\ntask forces of several years ago and finding out where again we can\nfind improvements leading to legislation that will make further\nefficiencies and economies in government.\nQ.\nBut governor, the. legislative analyst has questioned your\ntaking the liberty to use that money without going to the legislature\nHow do you react to that?\nA.\nWell, because we interpret this as a legitimate function\nin the executive branch and what we are trying to do, we are entrusted\nwith executing the programs of government and of trying to make them\nmore efficient and we think that this is a normal and a logical\nfunction.\nQ.\nEven though that the spending of that money had no direct\nrelation to any welfare function of the state?\nA.\nOh, yes, because as I say, it is not all embodied in this\ntax program;to make such things as this task program work will\ndepend on many of the efficiencies and the saving S that came out\nof the whole findings of the task force.\nO.\nGovernor, the statement issued yesterday said that one\nof the departments which assisted in funding some of the administra-\ntive costs of the task force is the Department of Social Welfare.\nIt seems to indicate there were other departments involved.\nA.\noh, there is a whole list and I think you'll find them in\nthat statement and many of those, though, provided services, time,\nequipment.\nQ.\nIn direct funding.\nA.\nWell, no, there is no way to pin it down. In their\nnormal funtion.\nIf \"x\" number of people in a department devote\n\"x\" amount of time to this task force, that is a contribution of\nthat department.\nQ.\nGovernor, you mentioned a foundation assisted in the\nfunding, can you tell us what the foundation was and how much\nmoney was involved in that?\nA.\nThat I don't actually know, I haven't inquired as to what it\nwas.\nED MEESE: It is the Foundation for Research on Education\nand Economies located at the University of California at Los Angeles.\nThey conducted a good deal of research. They also received contri-\nbutions from citizens to support that research. The activity went\non outside of govt ment and is primarily resuonsible for the economic\nconclusions that support this particular proposal. The in-state\nactivity which was funded from various departments was primarily\nto survey programs within state government as to cost cutting\npossibilities. I might also add, if I may, Governor, that the\nocial Welfare funds was a properly appropriate use of of appropriated\nfunds because it came out of the administration funds of welfare,\nnot the program funds and is a part of the proper welfare management.\nO.\nGovernor, the initiative is described as a citizen's tool\nto combat a do-nothing legislature. This tax limitation really\nhasn't had its goal before the legislature. What is your response\nto that?\nA.\nWell, it isn't really that, I'd like toijust call back to\nyou a little history, when all of us in the -- the bi-partisans here\nin the legislature or most of us, the majority of the legislature\non both sides of the aisle and myself found ourselves faced with\nthe possibility of passage of the Watson amendment, last year, which he\nbelieve would have brought chaos to state finance. It was our\ndecision here in the executive branch that we were going to engage\nin all-out program against this -- the Waston initiative, as we had\ndone against Proposition 9, which we thbught was equally ill-suited\nto solve our problems. Now, you will recall last October we were\naware there was going to be a one-time surplus. We also were\naware that we could offer the people an on-going tax cut. We had\ntried for four years to get tax reform. At the time of the election\nwe still didn't have it. I said to the people -- in fact I made\nthe first announcement at a meeting of the annual meeting of the\nCalifornia State Real Estate Association and I made the statement\nthat we were going to continue to try, but that I could assure the\npeople after I outlined what I felt was wrong with the Watson amend-\nment, and I did this with full knowledge of the legislative leader-\nship on both sides of the aisle. They were aware of this and there\nwas no disapproval -- that I would say to the people that if we could\nnot succeed in getting these measures through -- through the legis-\nlature that we would guarantee the people then a right to make the\ndecision. Now, a great many people and a great many legislators\nhave said that it was this program that won us the victory over the\nWatson amendment. And we are now keeping the promise. The\nlegislature did do its part. They came back and they passed SB90\nwhich was a part of the whole proposal. That was the property tax\n-5-\nreform. And you will recall that a great majority of the legislators\nhad been for that for the last three years. We were always\nobstructed by not quite being able to get the two-thirds majority.\nin one house. They passed it and we have that. This left the\nother issues. The surplus, the on-going tax cut and in the mean-\ntime we did not know the finding that was going to come in from this\ntask force which is a constitutional amendment. So it must go to\nthe people, whether the legislature sends it to the people or whether\nwe -- whether the people themselves put it on the ballot, it has to\nbe voted on by the people, because it is a constitutional amendment.\nSo I feel that I have a pledge to keep. On these other matters,\nI hope - Senator Lagomarsino has said we both hope that the\nlegislature will deal with this. But we cannot ignore the flat\nstatements that have been made to us, not only through you, the\nmedia, through the press, but made to us personalby that they are\nnot going to allow this to go to the people. We can't ignore that.\nAnd we are not going to wait for severalmonths to find out what\napparently we have already been told is true. So we are going\nforward in a parallel course trying our utmost with the legislature\nbut trying at the same time with the people and at any time that\nthe leglsiature will take the action and allow the people to vote\non this we will stop the petition drive and then carry forward for\nthe campaign in November.\nQ.\nGovernor, why have you wrapped into this constitutional\namendment at least two items that do not require amendment?\nThat is the one-time reduction of income tax and the on-going\nreduction of income tax.\nA.\nFor the same reason, we have been told also that those\nwill not go. Now we have been encouraged by what happened\nyesterday in the Senate committee on the Senator's bill with regard\nto the one-time surplus. And we have a severability clause in the\nsonstitutional amendment thatanything that in the interim is\nadopted by the legislature is just separated out from that consti-\ntutional amendment.\nQ.\nGovernor, is there any provision in this new idea of yours\nfor reducing or cutting out any of the tax liabilities in California\nfor individual taxpayers?\nA.\nNow\nQ.\nExcluding some groups from paying taxes?\n-6-\nA.\nOh, are you talking about are we trying to put into this\nconstitutional amendment some loopholes?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nHuh? No, and contrary to what some people have sounded\noff about without apparently knowing what is in the measure, any\nchange in the tax structure, anything that is involved in the\nactual raising of a tax, lowering of a tax, eliminating or creating\nany exemptions or exclusions of that kind, that is still the\nlegislature's prerogative.\nThey still have full control.\nAll we are asking for is a limit on the total percentage of the people'\nearnings that the state can take. That's what will be the\nconstitutional item. And no, they have all the authority to\nchange the tax structure that they -- that they presently have.\nIncidentally, let me correct a misapprehension on something else.\nSome people have interpreted the putting into the constitutional\namendment of the on-going income tax cut -- have interpreted that as\nmeaning that we are permanently freezing the present or the changed\nincome tax as a constitutional measure. That is not true.\nFollowing this original cut the legislature, if the ceiling is passed,\nif the limit is passed within the limit, is free to do anything\nthey want to do to the income tax. This is not a permanent consti-\ntutional provision. It specifically authorizes a beginning,\na start that -- on-going cut in the income tax. If the legislature\nwants to change that, wants tomake it a bigger cut, wants to make\nit a lesser cut, in the days to come in the future that is their\nprerogative.\nQ.\nGovernor, can you explain why your proposed amendment\nalso sets maximum local property tax rates? Wasn't that done by\nthe bill of last session?\nA.\nThat's done by SB 90 but that again is a statute.\nQ.\nYou want to freeze that?\nA.\nThe reason for putting in in here is because you have\nto be aware of what in future days some -- some government, some\nadministration, some legislature could do and we wanted to protect\nagainst the possibility that having a state limitation on taxes,\nsome future government might be tempted to foist off present state\nservices onlocal government and pretend that they were still observ-\ning the tax limit. So we simply are just making that one\nparticular part of SB 90 constitutional so that you can't have that\n-7-\nQ.\nIt will be the same provisions?\nA.\nThat's right.\nQ.\nGovernor, what is your estimation of the chances for your\nconstitutional amendment passing?\nA.\nBy the people?\nQ.\nYes.\nA.\nI think very good. I don't see -- I don't see any change\nin the people's attitude. They have made it plain that one of their\nbiggest concerns is cost of government. And as I have said, the\none figure that just -- to me is the unanswerable argument, government\ntoday -- governments, federal, state and local, are taking more\nmoney out of the people's pockets than the total cost of feeding,\nclothing and sheltering the family. It is three times the cost\nthe percentage that is taken for food. And these economists, these\nexperts that we have had have told us that we -- we cannot continue\nour system taking the present percentage from thepeople. Not just\nthe state, but governments in general. And the unanswerable argument\nto me is, if we don't have such a limitation, if we don't start now,\nwhen do we start? or do we wait until the system breaks down.\nQ.\nGovernor, af all the potential Republican candidates for the\nGubernatorial nomination, do you know how many favor this pran?\nWho they are?\nA.\nWell, I know one for sure that favors it. He's been\na part of all the planning, the Lieutenant Governor.\nQ.\nBesides Mr. Reinecke.\nA.\nNo, I don't. I'll be very interested. I think that\nany candidate for public ofvice in California ought to be giving\nsome pretty serious political thinking to where he's going to stand\non this issue because -- I think it would be awfully easy to get\non the wrong side of the angels.\nQ.\nController Flournoy the other day said he thought more\nemphasis should be put on economy rather than any artificial limits.\nA.\nDo you know any government or any administration that has put\nmore emphasis on economy than ours? You have all been calling\nme Scrooge for the last six years, and we still haven't been able\nto hold the budgetdown by this process. I think an editorial in one\nof your papers today put it very soundly. I don't mean to sound\ncritical of the Controller and he's entitled to his opinion, but the\n-8-\nsimple truth is the is only one way to cure e extravagance of\ngovernment, and'that's to cut off their allowance.\nQ.\nGovernor, are these petitiors ready to be signed now,\ncirculated right away?\nA.\nThey are being printed in the next several days.\nQ.\nGovernor, can we expect to see you down at the corner of\n10th and K petitions --\n(Laughter)\nA.\nWell, I tell you, I don't know whether they will give me\ntime to do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nancy was on one of\nthose street corners. She got familiar with a lot of those corners\non the death sentence initiative.\nO.\nDo you have any quota or estimate at all what the total\ncost of raising this would be, the citizens group?\nA.\nNot only the petition drive, but going all the way\nthrough -- and the promotion of it, I don't know -- I know that\nissues of this kind in the past, the spending on the Watson initia-\ntive, the spending against it, and so forth, comes to several\nhundred thousand dollars. I think part of this would be determined\nas time goes on to find out how hard you have to -- to work. If\nthere is just a widesparead public acceptance and surveys indicate\nthis, obviously you don't have to spend as much money in convincing\nthe people to vote for it.\nO.\nGovernor, I think you ought to get it clear, you haven't\neven asked for a title yet, have you? So you can't do anything\nabout petitions until you ask for a title.\nA.\nThat's right. That's right, that's why we are -- the\nholdup on the printing of the petitions.\nMR. GRAY: Any further questions?\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\n000\n-9-\n3/27\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD MARCH 27, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's prese conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitl press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\nO\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nWell, I opened first the last time,\nyou can open first this time. No statement.\nQ.\nGovernor, a number of months ago, in fact I think itwas\nin October, when the presidential campaign was going on, you indi-\ncated then that you ghought Senator McGovern. and democrats were\nblowing Watergate way out of proportion. And that furthermore\nyou said a certain amount of political spying was fairly routine.\nor accepted in politics. What is your evaluation of Watergate now?\nA.\nWell, the courts made a decision, the courts found them\nguilty. You will remember at the same time I also said I did not\nlook with favor on that sort of thing and thought that where the\nlaw was broekn the law should take its course. Evidently it is --\nit has done that.\nO.\nWell, do you think , though, it is as minor an issue as\nyou did at that time or that it has gotten considerably larger or\nwhat?\nA.\nI said that I thought it was far more customary than\nanyone had been led to believe, and I imagine that if you could\nhave the same kind of apprehensicn of individuals in trials going\nback through the years, you would find that that has been more\ncharacteristic of more campaigns on both sides than this just being\na single incident.\nQ.\nTo the degree that it is in this case, do you think?\nA.\nWhat?\nO.\nDo you think it is to the degree that it is in this\ncase, the amount of spying?\nA.\nThe degree in this case is they caught them.\nO.\nIt seems that it is getting closer to the White House.\n-1-\nDoes that make you think any more seriously or have any more\nconcern about it?\nA.\nWell, the President had a statement made with regard to\nthis and whether it was close to the White House, I said before\nand I'll say again, I doubt very much that any candidate would ever\nhave been involved in this or anyone really high up in the campaign\nstructure would have known about it. Because it was obviously a\nvery foolish thing.\nQ.\nDo you know that for sure, Governor?\nA.\nWhat?\nO.\nDo you know that for sure, have you talked to the President\nor have you talked to anybody?\nA.\nNo, I never brought the subject up with him. He was a\ntruthful man, I read his statement that he just made the other day.\nAs I said, I expressed that as a belief because I just don't think\nthat candidates for that high an office behave that foolishly.\nQ.\nDo you see any new evidence of this affecting the\nRepublican party in any way, for example, in 1976 and what your\ninvolvement may be?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nThat's a long way getting around to that.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nNo, and I think the fact that it is the government that\nsprosecuting should also be takensinto consideration on this.\nO.\nGovernor, do you think President Nixon is trying to\ncover anything up in this whole Watergate affair? Is he trying\nto cover anything --\nA.\nI see no evidence of it.\nQ.\nWhat do you think --\nA.\nI assume that whatever is -- hasn't come out in the\ntrial will come out in the continuing investigation.\nQ.\nDo you think at this time the public is satisfied with\nwhat is known about Watergate? Don't you bel ieve there are a lot\nof unresolved questions still in the public mind?\nA.\nI am quite sure there are a lot of unresolved questions\nin the public mind and I think because, in addition to the normal\nstraight reporting of this particular incident it's also been the\nobject of probably more political smoke than has been raised over\nanything in a long time, and I'm sure the people are quite confused.\nO.\nWhat about the statement of McCord, One of the --\nA.\nI don't know. We will know more when the judge finds out\nwhat it is he has to say.\nQ.\nGovernor, in your mind has theeffectiveness of the FBI been\ncompromised at all by its role in this affair, particularly providing\nraw files to White House staff members?\nA.\nI can't say that. I've always had a great respect for\nthat particular ogganization. I think it probably has a finer'\nrecord of integrity and efficiency than most government agencies and\nbureaus. And again you have to say there about any such organiza-\ntion that it never bats a thousand per cent with regard to all its\npersonnel.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you condone any sort of political espionage?\nI mean your statement that the thing that went bad here was they\ngot caught -\nA.\nI made statements before and I made them earlier in this\nroom, the fact that I wished we could have elections without that.\nI. have only been a candidate two elections myself. I was very --\nmade aware very early in the first campaign that people who had more\nexperience, professional campaigners, were almost instinctly on guard\nand just took it for granted that there would be attempts at\nespionage in -- and spying and disruption and that sort of thing.\nO.\nChange of subject?\nO.\nGovernor -\nA.\nNo, one more. I've got one more question. Have you\never known any actual instance of espionage in campaigns?\nA.\nAny what?\nO.\nHave you ever known an instance of bugging in campaigns,\nwiretapping or anything?\nA.\nYou've always heard about it.\nQ.\nHave you ever known of any?\nA.\nI have not to my personal knowledge known of it.\nO.\nHow much responsibility do you think the candidate should\nbear for the actions of the people working in his campaign?\nA.\nWell, this is like the commanding officer's responsibility.\nYou are ultimately responsible, and the -- I think that anyone,\nhowever, must recognize that the candidate, where he will have to\ntake the responsibility and say yes, these were people working in\nmy behalf -- I think any reasonable person who wants to be honest and\n-3-\nand fair must recognize there is no way in theworld for a candidate\nto know what everyone who is working in his behalf does. You are\nworking in many instances with volunteers. You are working with\npeople you don't -- or working with people working for you you\ndon't even know about, you might never even meet in the course\nof a campaign, but who take it upon themselves to form an organiza-\ntion to campaign in your behalf. There is no way in theworld that\nyou can know all the activities, all the actions. I don't know of\na campaign even in such limited districts as councilman, supervisorial\nor assembly districts that you come out with frequent charges of\npieces of campaign literature or mailings that were sent out and\nthe candidate did not know until they had gone out and he disavowed\nthem when they came out. This type of thing happens because it's\njust thenature of a campaign.\nQ.\nAre you satisfied, particularly in your last campaign\nrather than the first one, where you had the experience of the\nprevious campaign, did you have a --- do anything to sort of set a\ntone of the campaign with your high campaign people?\nA.\nYes, I think the campaign --- I think the campaigner always\ndoes this, but as I say, you cannot know at firsthand what thousands\nof people scattered over a state as big as California, for\nexample, and certainly in a presidential campaign what literally\nmillions of people scattered over a nation -- what they might be\ndoing at some level in your behalf or what they might be saying.\nBut, yes, you set the tone, as to what you want and what you believe\nand the manner in which you are going to campaign.\nQ.\nGovernor, are you:responsible that President Nixon has\nshown ultimate responsibility for the Watergate instance?\nA.\nI said in the hypothetical thing that the commanding\nofficer at the top eventually can be held responsible for what\nanyone in the command does. But that if anyone is reasonable and fair\nit has to recognize that there is no way in theworld for the commanding\nofficer to know what the lowest individual in the ranks did some\nplace out in the country.\nQ.\nAre you satisfied that the President has personally taken\nultimate responsibility for this?\nA.\nI think that the President has made it very plainand the\ntestimony has indicated that the President has said he wants a full\n-4-\ndisclosure of this.\nThat the -- that he himse\nwanted the\nprosecution to go forward on this.\nO.\nGovernor, why, then, do you suppose the President will not\nmake his White House aides available for questioning from the Senate\nCommittee?\nwho\nA.\nBecause there is no president in history has. And there\nis a matter involved there of executive privilege and the separation\nof powers. I think the President himself, why ask me, the\nPresident explained this and I was in complete agreement with his\nexplanation that he made on the air publicly to all of the people\nof America as to why, and that he said any lists of questions they\nwanted to submit could be sent and he would approve the answering of\nthose questions. But that he was not going to change what has\nbeen a 200 year tradition in this country and in the separation of\npowers, of abandoning the executive privilege.\nO.\nGovernor, didn't Sherman Adams go down and appear before\nthe congressional investigative committee?\nA.\nI don't recall whether he did or not, and I don't recall\nwhether hd did it on his own or whether the -- what E isenhower did\nabout it. You may recall better, you were covering the news at\nthe time.\nQ.\nI think the facts showed that President Eisenhower did\nsend him to the Congressional committee.\nA.\nWell --\nO.\nWe can check that later.\n(Laughter)\nA.\nYou can, I don't know.\nYou see, I was a democrat in those\ndays.\n;\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nGovernor, doesn't the President -- the President's invoking\nof the executive privilege in this particular instance, though,\nmerely -- doesn't it serve to feed public suspicion and distrust,\ndoesn't it lobk like he's trying to --\nA.\nWhen it is helped along by a lot of people who dispute\nthe explanation that he gave or who cloud it or who kept continuing\nto come up with charges that have already been answered by the\nPresident.\nQ.\nDo you think we can get all the facts we need to know in\nthis case even if the President's staff does not testify before the\n-5-\nSenate?\nA.\nI would th ink so. The judge seems to be satisfied with\nwhat he's done. The sentences certainly weren't a slap on the\nwrist.\nQ.\nNew subject, Governor. On a recent news conference,\nEv. Younger said that he didn't want to be characterized either as\na Nixon Republican or as a Reggan Republican. Do you think that this\nkind of split in the party is going to be important in the Republican\ngubernatorial primary?\nA.\nI don't know the context he made such a statement, but\nif anyone believes there is some way a collision course between the\nWhite House and the State House in California -- I think you only\nhave to look at the facts. Over the recent years, I don't know of\nany administration or anyone who has supported the White House\nand the WhiteHouse policy more than my administration. I think\nmy campaigning record in behalf of the President, the fact that\nI chaired his campaign for the whole state of California indicates\nthis and the fact that the President had the confidence to send\nme on three trips abroad in his behalf I don't think there is\nany -- any split. And I -- I hope that the - the Attorney General\nwasn't suggesting there was such a thing.\nQ.\nGovernor, will you endorse and encourage the California\nhousewife to endorse the meat boycott?\nA.\nWell, here again, I have to say I am a little torn and I\nthink again that the -- that there is a great deal of heat and a\ngreat deal of smoke about this entire issue. Of course anyone\nis upset when prices and particular food prices, necessities, go\nup as much as they do. But again, as I have said about food\nprices, I think that there has to be -- unless some blame can be\nestablished that someone is unnecessarily profiting and one has to\nrecognize that food prices can be affected by acts of God, and in\nthis particular period they have been so affected --- we had winter\nstorms that destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of\ncattle. We have also had a wet fall, late summer and wet fall and\nearly winter that prevented many crops from being harvested\nback in the midwest and many of those crops were feed crops that\nare used in the feeding of cattle. But as was pointed out on one\nof the channels here the other night, and which I thought were some\nvery excellent journalism, the beginning of a series of articles on\nbeef prices particularly, and pointing out that present beef prices\nstarted two years a,d, and they started two years ago because of\na drought at the time you were bringing calves up to -- the butchering\nstage -- there was no pasture. Suddenly the price of bringing them to\nmarket was increased because they had to be fed, and this is all\nreflected as we come down -- the other thing that I think ought to\nbe -- at least the people should be reminded of this, that in this\ncountry as in no other country in the world, food is the lowest\npart, literally, of the family expense. There is no country in\nthe world that can match the percentage of the consumer's dollar\nor his earnings that must be used for food. We put food on the\ntables of America for about 15 per cent of the people's earnings.\nNow temporarily it is high, no question about it.\nQ.\nDid you answer the question, Gowernor, would you support\nthat boycott or not?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nWell, I thought that anyone with any reasonable intelligence\nhere should figure out the answer, that it is not that easy for\nsomebody to parage around a market with a picket sign boycotting\nmeat. I think that laws of supply and demand will take over.\nIf the prices are too high for people to buy and they can find\nother things they will eat instead, by the law of supply and demand\nthey will bring those prices down, even if it means someone loses\nmoney in the process. But I would think that all I was trying to\npoint out was that it isn't as simple as just walking around with\na picket sign when no one knows exactly who to blame. Now, if I\nam right, and I think I am right, that acts of God had something\nto do with the present food prices, I'm not in favor of boycotting\nhim.\nQ.\nWeill you eat meat next week?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nWill you eat meat next week?\nA.\nI had chicken last night.\nQ.\nNext week. You will eat it again next week?\nA.\nYes, I haven't changed my diet very much. You have to\nremember. I'm a farmer and we have raised our own.\nQ.\nCattle owner, too.\nQ.\nGovernor, a few years ago there was a revelation of your\ninvestment in beef cattle. Do you still have investment in that\narea?\n-7-\nA.\nNo, what I didn't have investment -- well, there were\nbeef cattle, they were bulls, breeding bulls, a small head of\nbreeding bulls, and I have been disposing of those.\nQ.\nGovernor, have you decided on a course of action in the\nEast Bay's eucalyptus crisis?\nA.\nOh, we decided that -- I can't say -- if you are\nspecifically meaning what we are going to do about the trees, but we\nstarted taking action several weeks ago in that we have had a\nnumber of our agencies and our people over there working with the\nlocal people onthis particular problem and I am expecting momentraily\na report from them.\nQ.\nYou haven't got the report yet?\nA.\nNo.\nQ.\nGovernor, how soon do you expect to set the special\nelection in the 80th Assembly District?\nA.\nI have a hunch that we are calling that very shortly in\nall of the districts, where there are elections yet to be held.\nQ.\nGovernor, Assemblyman Burton has criticized your proposal\nfor a special statewide election for your proposed initiative on\nthe grounds that there -- he says there will be sufficiently a low\nturnout in the special election and so in effect you'd kind of be\nrigging it by putting this question on a special election ballot\nwhere you'd get maybe 40 per cent or less of the voters out.\nA.\nI'd like to have the biggest turnout we could possibly\nhave.\nI'd like to have a hundred per cent on this particular issue.\n**\nSometimes I think that Assemblyman Burton is the one man in\nSacramento who has the most to fear from the squirrels on the Capitol\ngrounds.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nCould you direct yourself to the specific question, do\nyou think it would be a low turnout or not?\nA.\nI hope it won't be.\nO.\nI mean do you think that's a reasonable -- I mean do you\nthink it would be -- you don't think there would be a low turnout then?\nA.\nI said I'm hoping there won't. I'm going to do everything\nI personally can, not only to campaign for this issue, but to get\nthe biggest turnout that I possibly can, because I think that every-\nbody should recognize the issue and the problem of curbing the excess\n-8-\ntaxation that is going on at the present.\nQ.\nO. K., one other question on that subject. Last week you\nsaid it would be improper to circulate those petittions on state time\nwith state workers. If that is so, why is it proper to prepare\nthat petition on state time with state workers as you are doing with\nyour task force? In a sense you are preparing the whole thing\nthat's going on the ballot.\nA.\nWell, the only thing that we have to prepare is we have\nto write the constitutional amendment.\nQ.\nThat takes time.\nA.\nYes, but we have to submit that to the legislature which\nwe have done and I will still hope that we never have to turn in the\npetitions. I hope that the legislature will recover its balance\nand recognize the right of the people to vote on this. And this\nmust appear on any petition also, but even without petitions we\nmust prepare the constitutional amendment.\nQ.\nSenator Mills has said he'd like to have some extensive\nhearings on it and to invite expert witnesses to come to try\nto analyze that plan. Do you plan on going ahead and circulati ng\nan initiative even while --\nA.\nWe said we will go on B parallel course, we cannot ignore\nthe statements that have been made by the legislative leaders that\nthey are not going to let it go to the ballot. Now, I'd be foolish\nto just pretend they hadn't said those things, they hadn't made those\ndeclarations and then months from now to say, ho-hum, I guess we got\nto turn to the people. We went through an experience similar to\nthat with the welfare reforms. For months they loved it to death\nand finally it was only public pressure that brought them into a\nmeeting where we were able to get the legislative passage of about\nthree-fourths of it. And this time I think -- I think the timing\nof this is cush the fact that when we would like to implement the\ntax decreases and so forth.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you think --\nA.\nWait a minute.\nO.\nYou've tentatively agreed on the Harmer-Zenovich reapportion-\nment plan for the Senate. Subsequent to it they changed the line\nto create a Chicano district from San Bernardino to East Los Angeles.\nDoes that meet your definition of \"community of interest\"?\nA.\nWell, in a sense I would say that it did. We are studying\n-9-\nthat. We haven't had time to really get into that plan, but I\nwould have to say that a community of interest dees not necessarily\nmean geographical lines and for six years I have been critical of\nthe reapportionment ten years ago that cut up the community,\nparticularly in southern California and East Los Angeles, of the Ameri-\ncans of Mexican descent and doled them out hopefully to elect several\ndemocrats instead of a representative for their own interest.\nQ.\nAre you still supporting that plan if it reaches your desk?\nA.\nWell, as I say, I am -- wehaven't had a chance to study\nexactly what they have done, but I would think that a plan that --\nthat did try to take in that community and give it a -- and make it\na district as far as possible on its own would -- yes, constitute\na community of interest.\nQ.\nDoes that mean you are leaning towards supporting that\nbill, the Zenovich-Harmer bill?\nA.\nWait till we have had a chance to look at all the other\ndistricts, too.\nQ.\nGovernor, Senator Collier said he diecussed the mansion\nconcept with you and he said that he expressed the idea that he would\nlike to see the executive offices and the residence together.\nDo\nyou see this as a problem in getting your appropriation for the\nconstruction this year?\nA.\nWell, we'd have a difference of opinion there because we\nsee this concept -- we see itin the White House at the national\nlewel. There are a few states that have done it. But after the\nseveral years experience I've had, the idea of living in the same\nbuilding where 90 oddpeople come to work every day is not my idea\nof having a relaxing home to go to. I think it is kind of nice\nto snap shut the briefcase and go home to a residence.\nQ.\nDo you think -- is he trying to get you to support the\nCollier Towers in exchange?\nA.\nWell, he has said that he would like to present his case\nfor them to me personally when he is ready, and I have said when he's\nready I'll be delighted to hear it.\nQ.\nGovernor, last week you spoke to some school board\nofficials and related to the Serrano decision. Is your opposition\nsimply one of the proposed solutions to Serrano statewide property\ntax or do you disagree with the principle of Serrano itself that\nwealth is a factor in deciding a quality of education available to a\nchild?\n-10-\nA.\nNo, my b.ygest disagreement has been with an interpretation\nby many people of Serrano, that it would automatically level down,\nthat it would put a top on what any district could spend. This to\nme is in violation of our concept of local control, school district\ncontrol. I am all for a floor and I think we accomplished --\nwent a long way toward accomplishing that if we didn't fully accomplish\nit in SB 90, put a floor below which there would be no district whose\neducation would be inferior because it was not up to that floor.\nBut certainly I deny the right statewide to say to some community\nhere, some district, that if it wants to burden itself further with\ntaxes and add some frills which in that particular community they think\nare desirable, raise the cost of education, I -- I do not think\nthat they should be prevented from doing that. I'm for leveling up\nalways and not leveling down.\nQ.\nGovernor, like the price of meat the price of lumber has\nbeen going up and up and up and up and a lot of people have said part\nof the reason is the exportation of logs to Japan. Since California\nexports quite a few logs I'm wondering would you favor clamping the\nlid on exporting logs?\nA.\nWell, I wish you'd take -- I haven't taken that up with\nIke Livermore yet, maybe you should ask him that question. I\ndon't really know in California. I haven't gotten into nor have\nwehad a discussion of why there is a shortage of lumber. What\ncould account for it. Whether the export has anything to do with it.\nI really haven't, and --\nQ.\nGovernor --\nA.\nAll I can plead is that we have been tied up with a couple\nof other things recently.\nO.\nYou are making several stops acfoss country this week.\nIs\nthat the mashed potato circuit that we hear so much about?\nA.\nNo, that's the usual thing. I accepted an invitation which\nI have turned down a couple of times before, and finally felt I\nshould accept to speak to the National Convention of the Young\nRepublicans in Washington. In connection with that, and as you\nknow as has been my custom, when you have to make a trip that far\nyou've always got invitations and you got invitations most of which\nyou have to turn down, but when you can tie a couple of them to a\ntrip such as that kidd that doesn't really extend the time of the\ntrip very much and you can tie them all together and one ---\nQ.\nHow much of the staff are you taking with you?\n-11-\nA.\nI don't k... I don't know. There, one.\nQ.\nYou said two weeks ago that you planned to stay neutral\nin the gubernatorial primary next year. Well, this week on two\noccasions Lieutenant Governor Reinecke said in one case that\nyour support would be crucial to his campaign. Another case he\nsaid that it would be very important and he's hoping for it. How\nfirm do you plan to be in staying neutral on that primary?\nA.\nWell, maybe I should simply say that I have announced as\nI have in the past that I've been neutral in primary campaigns. I\nthink my first obligation is the unity of the party, and the success\nof the party in the coming election. Now, if anything between now\nand -- and June of 1974 should make it appear to me that I could\nserve those purposes better by not being neutral, then I reserve\nthe right to change my mind. But at the moment as I see it I think\nthat neutrality is -- is important with regard to -- to the unity\nand the success of the party.\nQ.\nDo you agree with Lieutenant Governor Reinecke that the Los\nAngeles Times is a yellow rag?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nEveryone -- everyone has his own way of expressing annoy-\nance with things. And I can understand the Lieutenant Governor's\nirritation. Let me just say that I would I think it is safe to\nsay that while I am friends and respect a number of the reporters\nfor that paper as well as a number of others, in its official\neditorial policy I would have to suggest that the Los Angeles\nTimes is something less than objective about this admiñistration.\nQ.\nBut they supported you both times, didn't they?\nA.\nWell, --\nQ.\nEditorially.\nA.\nWhether they did or not in between times, I 'vebeen reading\nmore and enjoying it less.\ni\nGovernor, do you agree with Lieutenant Governor Reinecke\nthat one of the functions of his office is -- is it afunction of\nyour office to try and cut through red tape, bureaucratic red tape on\nbehalf of whoever --\nA.\nOh, I love to cut through bureaucratic red tape.\nQ.\nDo you have people who do that in your office?\nA.\nI think one of the things that I'm going to be proud of\nwhen the eight years are over is the extent to which we have been\nable to speed up the bureaucratic process and -- when possible to\n-12-\ncut out red tape th was doing nothing but obs ructing progress and\nkeeping --\nQ.\nOn behalf of some individuals? On behalf of some\nindividuals?\nA.\nWell, now, what kind of individuals do you mean?\nQ.\nWell, someone whois seeking an insurance license for instance\nAs in this case.\nA.\nNo, now cutting through red tape does not mean short-\ncutting any of the regulatory practicies that are necessary in govern-\nment. And Idon't think anyone in this administration has done\nsuch a thing. But I have received letters from individuals with\nwelfare problems and through some kind of bureaucratic red tape they\nare going hungry while somebody makes up their mind and I have on\na numberof occasions picked up our phone to our own state welfare\ndepartment and said, \"Whatever you have to do, get on the phone and\nfind out why this poor individual is being denied what they were\nreceiving. And I am pleased to say that -- that when you do that\nyou'd be surprised how quickly they can solve the problem, and some-\nbody starts eating again.\nQ.\nGovernor, you've proposed an administrative reorganization\nof Cal-Expo. Are you also going to support some additional funding\nor some additional changes in the program for Cal-Expo?\nA.\nWell, I'm going to wait to see what the recommendations\nnow\nof William Mott are about this. He's been entrusted/with the\nresponsibility. I'm going to see what -- what he proposes.\nQ.\nDo you have a favorite movie for the best picture of the\nyear tonight?\nA.\nI haven't seen enough of them, and I don't know that I've\nseen any -- well, I have seen the Godfather, that's the only one\nthat I can think of that I've seen.\nED MEESE: Excuse me, Governor, just one correction,\nyou'll be taking two staff on this trip, just so we don't have any\nquestions about it.\nA.\nWe just went up a hundred per cent in the staffing for\nthe trip.\nQ.\nWhat did you think of the Godfather?\nO.\nOn your trip you '11 be taking to the Georgia Republican\nfund raisers, will you tell them that you are still available for\n-13-\nthe presidency altl igh you don't want to run\nr the Senate?\nA.\nI won't even mention the President.\nQ.\nWhat if they ask?\nA.\nI don't think they will ask because I'm not going to\ngive them a chance at questions and answers.\nQ.\nThank you, Governor.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: To all of you here, I should have had\nan announcement at the beginning, they had to give it to me now, our\nguests there in the back are from the University of Redland,\npolitical science students, and from San Diego State University\nand they are journalism students. Glad to have you here.\no00\n-14-\n4/10\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD APRIL 10, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made\nand there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\noOo\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We have some visitors, some journalism\nstudents from Contra Costa College in San Pablo, and their instructor\nMrs. Alma Oburst. Happy to have them here, and witnessing all\nyou professionals at work, and as usual you will now all be on your\nbest manners and will conduct a proper press.\nQ.\nGovernor, a new study of the Capitol indicates that it -- it\nwould still cost about 41 million dollars to rebuild it so it can\nbe used. Do you still favor that approach?\nA.\nYes, this was --- this is in the ballbark. This is very\nclose to the figures that we were talking about before. And\nroughly half of that amount or perhaps a little less than half to\nsimply make it suitable to remain as a showcase for people to look\nat, and it just doesn't seem to me that sincevou have to go to that\ncost that that doesn't come out as a better bargain than I understand\nthat the estimate for -- for a new building would be from -- anywhere\nfrom 65 to a hundred million dollars.\nQ.\nGovernor, can you explain why it is not in the public\ninterest to disclose the details of the use of the executive jet\nand specifically what state business you are on when you use the\nplane?\nA.\nWell, there's never been any secret about where I'm going\nand my schedule is generally known. And frankly I thought there\nwas -- if Senator Way or any of the other senators want to know\nany further details about the trips, all they have to do is pick up\nthe phone and call me, I'll be happy to tell them about them. Now\nthere have been no change, really, in the travel patterns that I have\nfollowed in these six years except that sometime ago as you know it\nwas deemed -- security people deemed it better that we do -- most of\n-1-\nour traveling and all that we could do outside of commercial air\ntravel. Now when that new rule went into effect we chartered on'\na one-time basis, trip by trip planesand that's where this charter\nor long-time lease idea came out, because it is far more economical\nto have a long-time lease and have this available at the same time\nfor -- well, so far seven other departments have used it, than it\nwas to do what we had been doing. And I'm a little amused at some of\nthe stories of luxury travel because I want to tell you something,\nI was dragged kicking and screaming into this whole proposal.\nBecause I can tell you that while that's a nice little airplane it\ndoes not compare with -- commercial aircraft for luxury and comfort\nof travel or speed.\nQ.\nGovernor, you had a busy week making television appearances\nlast week, and you talked about your initiative. Was the use of\nthe state airplane connected with that?\nA.\nYes. The use of the state airplane was with that and I\ndon't see anything wrong with that. I think I -- part of my job\nand my responsibility has been the taxes of the people of California\nand the effort for the last six years to try and reduce them and\nmake them easier to bear. And I don't see anything partisan in this\nproposal to dispose of a surplus, to cut an income tax, and to give\nthe people an opportunity to phace a limit on taxation. But also I\nthink you will notice on almost any trip that there are other things\nthat take place, numerous things that take place in almost any\nstop that we make. And it is deliberately scheduled so. Whenever\npossible we try to combine as many things if we have to go to a town,\ninstead of just one thing or one reason for being there. I would\nalso point out toyou that when that plane is used, as it sometimes\nto\nis, on a purely political person/deliver -- cr reason to deliver me\nsome place for a party affair, that is charged to party funds and\nnot to the state of California.\nO.\nGovernor, if you have combined these flights to take maximum\nadvantage of it, why does your office give no comment when asked\nfor the purpose of specific trips?\nA.\nWell, as I say, I consider it, very frankly, the proposal\nnitpicking harrassment and very frankly my own feeling is I'm\nnot going to just give into it, simply because this thing is going on.\nNow, as I said before, if the Senator wants to call me and ask me\nI'll tell him, including what time I expect to get home and change\nmy clothes.\nO.\nGovernor, 1 picked this pamphlet up here the other day\nin the State office building and it is -- it is a picture of yourself\n(ton)\non the cover and you are answering questions about the initiative.\nAnd although it says on the back, \"not printed at government expense,\"\nit was in a state office building and it does have your picture on\nit and I'm wondering if it is not a legal question, it certainly\nisn't --- isn't it an ethical one as to whether or not you should be\non something like this?\nA.\nWhy?\nO.\nState office property.\nA.\nWell, why?\nO.\nTalking about the initiative.\nA.\nIt was not printed at public expense as a part of the\ninitiative campaign, it was printed - paid for out of contributions.\nAnd again, why couldn't it be here in the office, I've got some in\nmy office, I give them to people that drop in, that I want them to\nhave and I don't think anything unethical is to be found there.\nAre we going to suggest that those legislators upstairs who are so\nopposed to the program should go outside the building every time they\nwant to sound off against it?\nQ.\nWell, Governor, doesn't this touch on the restrictions\nof state employees not being able to circulate petitions or use state\ntime?\nA.\nThey are -- who's using state time and who's circulating\npetitions?\nO.\nYou did last Friday, was that on state time?\nA.\nWhat? Well, me doing what I did there with the petitions.\nI think that you will find that that fits the customs of the office\nand has been going on for a long time.\nO.\nWill you permit your opponents to the tax measure to put\ntheir literature in state offices also?\nA.\nWell, I'm guite sure if they have some it will be avail-\nable to the state offices,\nO.\nGovernor, is there anything in the law or the constitution\nanywhere that would prohibit you from picking whatever kind of\naction you want to promote legislation as long as you are Governor?\nA.\nI know of no such restriction and I know of no governor\nwho hasn't done this with regard to the programs that he favored and\n-3-\nsupported.\nI think the water program was probably as controversial\nas anything, but several governors preceding me went all out and\ndevoted a great deal of time and effort promoting the need of the\nwater program to the people of California. And I'm sure those gover-\nnors wer e ald sincere and I happen to agree with them, they were\ncorrect that it was for the good of the state.\nO.\nAnother subject.\nA.\nAll right.\nQ.\nGovernor Reagan, do you think that any man deserves more\nthan two terms as President of the United States?\nA.\nNo, I've said I'm in favor of the constitutional limit,\neven though I was a New Deal Democrat and voted for Mr. Roosevelt\nall four times I was bothered by that violation of wha t then was\na tradition. It had never been -- the tradition had never been\nbroken before and I was happy to see the constitutional amendment\nthat limited the President to two terms.\nQ.\nAll right, now there are a group of people in the country\nthat are trying to repeal the 22nd amendment so that President\nNixon can run for a third term. Would you openly oppose it?\nA.\nYes, I'd oppose that.\nI --- all I know is what I've read\nand -- and this mysterious group that keeps being talked about\nis supporting this idea. They are certainly free to promote their\nidea, but I would be opposed to it.\nO.\nYou would be cpposed to it even if Presidet Nixon wanted\nto run for --\nA.\nYou know me, I'm the one that wanted a constitutional\namendment that a governor ceuld only be a governor twice in\nCalifornia.\nQ.\nbeen introduced recently?\nA.\nWhat?\nQ.\nHas a proposal to do that been introduced recently?\nA.\nNo, not since we started and we failed in that on the\nconstitutional change.\nQ.\nWould you oppose that even if President Nixon supported\nit?\nA.\nWell, I'm afraid we come to the parting of the ways, but\nI waild be very suprised if he supported it.\nQ.\nGovernor, last week a memo came to light that suggested\nsome of your agencies consider how history will view your administra-\ntion.\nAt this point how doyou consider history will view your\nadministration or how would you hope it would view it?\nA.\nWell, actually I think a wrong interpretation has been\nmade of something that's been pretty routine for the last several\nyears.\nWhich was amplified now because of the -- where we are\nin this second term. But every year we have had a program of\nhaving department heads tell us their accomplishment S and their\ngoals for the future. And then I have met with those department\nheads when -- when their reports come in, and on this basis we\nhave --- we have tried to keep abreast of where are we in the\nthings we set out to accomplish six years ago. We have asked for\nagain this same thing, but now as you come to thelast two years\nof an administration and before files begin to be closed out or\ndisappear we started with wanting a review of the - recommendations\nthat were made by the task forces the first year to see if there\nare some of those that we still should be pursuing and then to\nfit where do the unfinished goals --- unachieved goals -- where\ndo they lie on a priority order in view of the time left to us.\nAnd this was actually for our own interest in working and what\nwe intend to do in these two years. It was not to carve in tablets\nof stone something that we thought might be then mounted on the\ncapitol grounds or anything.\nQ.\nGovernor, since we are back on the capitol grounds, if the\nlegislature did put in money in the budget to -- or appropriation\nbill to start work on a new capital, would you veto that?\nA.\nWell, now you know I never talk about what I will or will\nnot veto, and I hav epromised one of the Senators who is interested\nin this that he and I can have a meeting when he's ready. He is\ninterested in this idea and I've said that I'll try to keep an open\nmind and hear his presentation.\nQ.\nIs that Senator Collier you promised that?\nA.\nYes.\nQ.\nGovernor, the state constitution says that the initiative\nis reserved for the people, to the electors. You do not feel that\nyou are sort of impinging or expanding executive responsibility a\nlittle bit in leading an initiative? You are the first Governor\nto do it.\nA.\nNo, I thought that -- in a sense you don't officially lead\nyou take a -- a position and I suppose your job -- this office gives\n-5-\nit kind of a leadership position. You will remember that last\nOctober I came out in opposition to the Wasson amendment, for example.\nAnd worked very hard against it. And in connection with that I\npromised the people of California, I told them then there would be\na surplus, I told them then there would be a possibility for an on-\ngoing tax cut, and I promised them that -- at that time, prior to the\nelection, there had been no action -- successful action on property\nt ax reform. For three years we have been rebuffed in our attempts\nto get property tax reform, and I lumped that in also and I told\nthe people that -- none of this could we do if the Watson amendment\npassed, but I said if the Watson amendment is defeated we will try\nagain with the legislature, but so that it wouldn't be the empty\npromise that it turned out to be before when we had defedted a\nsimilar proposition, I said if the legislature won't act I will call\na special election for the purpose of letting the people make\nthis decision.\nWell, the legislature did act on property tax reform. We\ngot that much of it. The other things remain to be done. So I'm\nkeeping a promise I made to the people, the citizen's committee has\nbeen formed and I might say they did not have to be forced into it\nThis citizen's committee is moving like wild fire and the response\nhas been fantastic. And there is a chairman, Norman Topping,\nwho incidentally chaired the Citizen's committee against the Watson\namendment, and is now in favor of this. And I don't see anything\nwrong with this.\nQ.\nThere is still the constitutional question as to whether\na government can lead an initiative doive, is there not?\nA.\nWell, why wasn't that brought up then with regard to the\nother governors who were out in front and leading the drive for\nthe bond issue for the water program?\nED MEESE: Governor?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: What?\nRD MEESE: Technically, you are not the elector\nproposing the constitutional amendment, it is Dr. Topping.\nA.\nNo -- yes.\nQ.\nBut the genesis of the idea came from the governor.\nA.\nWell, I take a little author's pride in that. No, this --\nand I'm quite sure that the -- the genesis of the bond issue came\n-6-\nfrom the governors, 00, with regard to the wat : program,\nother things of that kind. No, officially I'm acting as governor\nin this. I hold no title in that citizen's organization. That\nis a totally separate organization raising funds, getting volunteers\nto circulate the petitions. But I have made thepromise to the\npeople, as I say, that I would give them an opportunity by agreeing\nto call a special election which is my constitutional right.\nQ.\nGovernor, there seems to be so many trailer bills involving\nSB 90 that it seems to have created more problems than it solved.\nAnd I don't -- don't you conceive of this same thing happening with\nthis comprehensive tax limitation that you are going to -- if\nit succeeds.\nA.\nNo, there will be certain things that have to be passed\nto implement certain parts of this constitutional reform. It is\ntrue that in SB 90 when you were dealing with more than 4,000\nseparate districts in the state several hundred communities and\n58 counties and attempting to -- to set a property tax limit there\nwere a variety of problems raised by individual districts that could\nnot have been foreseen and that required checking -- for example,\none district whose need for money was so small that they only\nperiodically for one year at a time would put on the -- on the\nproperty tax bill the tax for running them till the next time\nthey needed it. Well, our limitation on raising property taxes\nfor that district fell in between, and fell in the year when they\ndidn't have the property tax on the bill, and in effect unless we\ntook care of that individual problem they would be forever banned\nfrom getting back on the ballot with their tax. It was things of\nthis kind that there was no way to foresee in the limitation.\nBut I think the accomplishment of giving the people nearly a billion\ndollars worth of homeowner and renter relief outweighs any of the\npesky problems that have faced us now and the bill has been introduced\nthat -- the roundup bill to clean up SB 90.\nQ.\nGovernor, you said the response has been fantastic toyour\ninitiative proposal. Could you give us some example, and would\nyou give us your assessment now of the chances and could you tell\nus when you plan to call the special election?\nA.\nWell, we have said -- we have already announced that the\ndate we hope for is November 6. This will tie into a great many\nlocal elections throughout the state, and this will depend, of course,\non our -- our getting the petitions signed. But that's the date\nO.\nYes, Governor, the Lieutenant Governor has written a\nletter to President Nixon telling him\nand time being he should\ngive any money for ecnomic assistance to North Vietnam. What is\nyour feeling on that in light of what we are hearing from P.O.W.'s\nand so forth?\nA.\nWell, I certainly understand what the Lieutenant Governor\ndid.\nAnd I think also that he is aware and the President has\nindicated that he is not going to simply be open-handed with any\naid to North Vietnam until and unless we get satisfaction in all the\nareas of agreement in the gease fire, including identification of our\ndead and our missing in action. We have already had the return\nof the prisones and I think he's shown already to them that -- that\nthere is a quid pro quo and that in order to get that aid they are\ngoing to have to to have that help, and I think what the Lieutenant\nGovernor did fits in with -- with something that perhaps all of us\nshould do more of, and that is to strengthen a President's hand\nby letting him know that there is support for the firm action.\nI remember in the past when there was disagreeement and there were\ndemonstrations against some policies in connection with the war -- I\nhave heard two presidents say that they believed that the pressure\non them was coming from minority groups, and I use minority now in\nnumbers, I'm not talking about the use of it as to any special\nethnic group. But a minority of the people were opposed to their\nposition, but that they never heard from the so-called. silent\nmajority that remained silent and it would have been very helpful\nto them at times to have been able to point to -- visible support\nin the form of letters and wires and so forth. So I think it is a\ngood idea.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you still share President Nixon's interpreta-\ntion bhat we do have a peace with honor in Southeast Asia?\nA.\nYes, and I think the men in the prison camps have made it\nplain that they feel that way. I think that specifically of the\none man on television who said that had McGovern gone there as he\nsaid he would and begged on his knees for their release, that he\nfeels that bad as it was he would have refused to come home under\nthose circumstances.\nQ.\nWhat is peaceful about Southeast Asia, though, at this\npoint?\nA.\nWell, I think this is an indication that those noble sons of\nnature that so many I ple were concerned with n th of the demili-\ntarized zone were what -- just what a lot of us always thought they wer\nhard-core, hard-nosed, vicious Communists who had a goal and who\nstill have that goal and who are going to fudge, cheat and seeal\nevery chance they get. And I think the President is aware of this\nand they are pushing as far as they can -- as they can push.\nI don't think this fools anyone who has ever dealt with that kind\nof people before. President Thieu told me quite sometime ago\nwhen I met with him in Saigon and I asked him specifically how did\nhe envision the end of this war, and he said, \"I think it wi 11 fade\naway.' \"I think for the next ten years we will have forces in\nthe hills, fighting guerilla bands,\" because that's the way the\ncommunists fight and that's the way they do business. It will\nreally just for them enter a new phase.\nQ.\nGovernor, there have been some suggestions that some of\nthe P.O.W. stories of torture have been exaggerated. You spent\nconsiderable time with P. O. W.'s since they have been back. How\ndo you feel about the stories they have been telling?\nA.\noh, I think those stories are absolutely true, and I don't\nthink anyone has made any effort to say anything to them. As a\nmatter of fact, befor e they talked about their mistreatment several\nprisoners told me that they themselves, the first ones released,\nhad banded together and made a decision that until everyone was out\nthey would maintain silente about any mistreatment. And it so\nhappened that we were having the second of our P.O.W. dinners, the one\nin Los Angeles, and that night we learned from them that the last\nprieoners were in American hands, and that the next morning the pris-\noners of war would be freed to tell their stories and they were telling\nthem in a group -- in a numberof simultaneous press sessions, it was -\nconferences.\nNo, I believe them and I don't think they were -- anyone\never did -- you can't get acquainted with those men and believe\nthat anyone could brainwash or indoctrinate them or tell them to\nsay anything they didn't intend to say. This is quite a group of men\nand what has happened to them and the -- and the -- in surviving this\nyou are aware of iteas you talk to them. Because something in the\nexperience of meeting with them and talking to them in a group\nthat -- first of all, they have the greatest bond with each other that\nI have ever seen among human beings anywhere, and they have a strength\nthat -- you just know that what they are saying is what happened.\n-9-\nQ.\nGovernor, on that same subject, one of the returning P.O.W. 's\nwho is now a General, suggested that ther e be no charges filed\nagainst any P.O.W's who may have signed anti-war statements. Would\nyou have that same sympathy?\nA.\nI'll défer to them. They know what happened. And I've\nheard -- also I've heard several remarks -- now I don't know whether\nit might develop that here and there there was an informer. We are\ntglking about a large group of people and whether there was someone\nwho literally went over. But in the yielding and confessing, I know\none -- oneman told me in our home that he said, you know, we\nweren't always this way. He said, \"Every one of us at one time or\nanother broke,\" and he said it was only the strength of the others\nthen who would buyy us up and hold us up. And get us back on our --\non our feet. So they are aware that -- as I think a number of them\nhave said, that eventua 11y you talked.\nQ.\nGovernor, did you talk to any of the P.O.W.'s about Mai\nLai, what they thought about that, and the conviction of Lieutenant\nCalley?\nA.\nNo, I never had any conversation about that.\nQ.\nThey have never said anything about it?\nA.\nI've never heard any information volunteered about it.\nQ.\nGovernor, a few weeks ago you were asked about the request\nto excavate under the Governor's Mansion a site for an Indian\nvillage, and you didn't seem too enthused about it then. Has\nyour office now told Senator Rodda that you will sign an\nemergency measure on that issue?\nA.\nYes, we never had any objection to it at all. I said --\nI was being a little cynical at the last press conference, I\nsaid I had to wonder why all of a sudden at this point that\nbecame the site of -- it may be, and I asked the question if they --\nhad they found anything on either side where construction is going\non, of that particular spot to indicate this. But I'm not one for\njust wanting to ignore that. And there is no problem at all. As\na matter of fact, we are very willing to make the money available\nfor excavation of that site before guilding takes place.\nQ.\nGovernor, again on your initiative, what would you say the\nchances are that you will qualify and make the November 6th election?\nA.\nOh, I think -\n-10-\nQ.\nDo you have any doubt?\nA.\nNo, I think they are very good. I think the people feel\nvery strongly about this. The indication is to be found in the\nvolunteers already that have signed up and that little foray I made\ninto one precinct last week which was, believe me, un --\nunscheduled as far as the people were concerned. They were caught\ncompletely by surprise, six of the homes were Democrats, three were\nRepublican, and -- but none of the nine could wait for me to finish\n(initiative)\nmy pitch before they reached for the pen to sign the petition.\nQ.\nGovernor, will all these petitions be circulated by\nvolunteers?\nA.\nWhat's that?\nQ.\nWill all the petitions be circulated by volunteers?\nA.\nYes, I believe that's the plan.\nThat's the committee's\nplan.\nQ.\nYou don't know of any plans to hire professional petition\ncirculators?\nA.\nNone is now. Although I'm sure that the committee\nwouldn't rule that out if it become necessary, but right now their\nplan is an all volunteer effort.\nQ.\nWill you wait until you qualify them before you call\nthe -- actually issue the proclamation?\nA.\nI'vegot -- wait till I talk to my lawyer here. What's\nthe legal situation with regard to that calling of the election,\nyou have to wait until youqualify, don't you?\nED MEESE: That's right.\nA.\nYes.\nc\nGovernor, the joint legislative audit committee is saying\nthat you have spent about a hundred two thousand dollars of state\nagency money in preparing the initiative.\nDoyou now concur with\nthat? Your office had said a while back --\nA.\nWe are trying to -- we are trying to round up the entire\nstory of this. And as I said last week, this is nothing different\nfrom what we have done before. We believe it is the limit. 6f\nresources that you have administratively in the executive branch\nfor things of this kind in the interest of people. The have had\na number of task forces before. We call on people from various\ndepartments that we bèlieve have aptitudes that would make them\nuseful to the task force Sometimes they stay on salary. The salary\nof their particular department. Sometimes there is a contracting\narrangement to another department but it is always out of\nadministrative funds and we think serves a useful purpose for the\npeople of California. But we are --we are gathering all of that tow\ngether in one place so we can have a single answer for you.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you have any fears at all that in calling\na special election on an initiative, viewing the bad history of\nspecial elections and getting out people to vote, that whatever\nhappens to the initiative might not be representative of the state?\nA.\nWell, I 'm going to do my best to help and I know the\ncommittee wants to get the biggest turnout we possibly can get for\nthe vote. I just deplore elections like the recent one in Los\nAngeles, elections that only turn out a small percentage of voters.\nAnd I recognize this goes on. Butwe are going to do our utmost\nto get the biggest turnout possible.\na.\nGovernor, many of the cities and counties are now\ndeciding what they are going to do with revenue sharing money.\nMost of them seem to be deciding touse them in capital outlay\nprojects and so forth instead of reducing taxes. Is that working\nout the way you thought it would or had you assumed that there\nwould be a reduction in taxes at the local level?\nA.\nOh, based on the last six years experience, no, I hadn't\nanticipated a great rush to reduce the people's taxes at the local\nlevel, by way of revenue sharing.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions? Thank you, Governor.\no0c\n-12-\nPRESS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD APRIL 24, 1973\nReported by\nBeverly Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference\nis furnished to the members of the Capitol press corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the press as\nrapidly as possible after the conference, no corrections are made and\nthere is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n300\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nWell, once again, all of you on your\ngood behavior because we have journalism students from Stanford\nUniversity with their instructor, Dr. Bill Rivers. Glad to have you\nhere.\nQ.\nGovernor, Time Magainst says Watergate is probably the\nmost pervasive instance of top-level misconduct in the nation's\nhistory. What's your reaction to that description of it?\nA.\nOh, I can think of a few worse crimes that have happened\nin the nation's history. There is no question about it, the wrong-\ndoing was done, I think the law has taken it S course and I hope,\nas I am sure everyone hopes, that it will be cleared up completely\nand quickly.\nQ.\nGovernor, yesterday you were quoted as saying you thought\nthe whole affair had been blown out of proportion. I wonder if\nyou could expand -- explain that statement.\nA.\nWell, I think in relation to this -- this quote here from\nTime Magazine, that is to the nature of it, it has been blown out\nof proportion. In view of past practices in election history\nin this country, I made a remark this morning to some of our own\npeople that perhaps out of this might come something of great value\nto the people of this country if we could have a bi-partisan commission\ndo a study and a research going back into history of what have\nbecome rather common election practices, including the stealing of\nvotes and the stuffing of ballot boxes and all of the things that\nhave cynically been taken for granted by the people, and maybe we\ncould return balloting and voting to what it always was intended to\nbe.\nQ.\nGovernor -- Governor, what in your estimation is going to\n-1-\nbe the long-term imr t of Watergate on the Rept lican party looking\nspecifically toward 1974 and 1976?\nA.\nWell, I doubt that the people are going to blanket indict\nentire millions of Republicans for something that perhaps a few\npeople have done and over which they had no control and certainly\nof which they had no knowledge, and disapprove as much as anyone\ndisapproves. And I think the American people are fairer than that.\nI think the answer is to come out, as the President has said himself,\nand establish once and for all who was involved, what was the extent\nof their involvement and let the law take its course.\nQ.\nIsn't there a question of credibility involved, though,\nGovernor, that reflects on the party as a whole?\nA.\nOh --\nO.\nParty leadership at least.\nA.\nOh, I think there are a number of people on the other\nside who would love to pretend that is SO. But what credibility?\nWhat-- how could someone three thousand miles away herein the State\nof California, for example, know that a small group of men had\nembarked on what was a -- I think referred to in one story of it, -\nusing the President's expression at a cabinet meeting, as jack-assery.\nQ.\nGovernor, last month in discussing this you said that,\n\"you doubted whether anyone really high up in the campaign structure\nwould have known about it.\" Do you still believe that?\nA.\nYes, I still do.\nQ.\nWell --\nA.\nBut I -- look, gentlemen, I know no more than you know\nor that has been printed about Watergate. I have no personaly inside\ninformation of any kind. I am as curious as I am sure all of you\nare. It is now being investigated and is before a Grand Jury,\nd I think that that would mean that there is no comment that would\nbe appropriate from me or whatmy opinion is of it. I've said before,\nI\nthink it was a wrong thing to do. Some men have already been\nintenced. If there are others involved they will be and the law\n1 take its course.\nAnother subject, Governor.\nYou bet.\nQ.\nOne more. One more on a similar subject. Governor, there\nwas a recent gallup poll that said 40 per cent of the people thought\n-2-\nPresident Nixon was had some knowledge of Wat gate. Now, they\nthought. Now the question is, why would the people think this?\nThat's a pretty large --\nA.\nWell, I would say if forty per cent of the people, according\nto\nthe\ngallup\npoll,\n--\nand also think that the President had some\nprior knowledge of it, that is a tribute and a testimonial to the\nability of those who have been doing their best to blow this and carry\nit as far along as to the next election as they can.\nQ.\nWho arethey, Governor?\nQ.\nWho are they?\nA.\nThis will involve elements of the communication media,\nthis will involve representatives on a Senate Investigating Committee.\nThey have got a hold of a good thing from their standpoint.\nO.\nBut, Governor, why should Republicans on the Senate\nInvestigating Committee -- what would they have to gain other than\nfearing that there really is something that is wrong high up in\nthe nation?\nA.\nWell, I didn't refer to any Republicans onthe Senate\nInvestigating Committee.\nQ.\nThere are Republicans who have been almost as critical as\nDemocrats.\nA.\nThere is one that has said he wants onceand for all to\nfind out. I want once and for all to find out. I wish you fellows\nwere interested in the tax program as you are in this. I know more\nabout that.\n(Laughter)\nQ.\nGovernor, I take it you don't think the Washington Post\nshould get a Pulitzer Prize as has been suggested?\nA.\nLet me just say that I'm glad I do not live in the city\nwhere my only source of news is the Washington Post.\nO.\nIs that a plug for the Bee?\n(Laughter)\nA.\nWhy, that 's a plug for all the local papers.\nQ.\nGovernor, the Environmental Protection Agency has set\nsignificantly higher standards for California than the rest of the\nnation. Do you think this is a good thing for California or do you\nthink that California is being picked on, should somebody else be the\nguinea pig?\n-3-\nA.\nWell, I -- no, I can't say that because California -- it\nwas only a short time ago, was in Washington pleading for permission\nto have higher standards because our standards were higher than those\nset by the Federal Government. And I don't think that they have\nupped those standards for us any more than we already had them set at\nthat level. I know also that Mr. Ruckelhaus has said that California\nleads the nation and has done more with regard to finding an answer\nto air pollution than any other part of the country.\nO.\nAre you pleased with their with this higher standard\nfor California?\nA.\nOh, sure. I -- I think it is -- we just become accustomed\nto being first in everything.\nQ.\nGovernor, there's a --- some talk that people -- there are\nfinancial backers that people would like to see you become the\nPresident have decided among themselves they'd like to hold back on\nany kind of contributions to a Gubernatorial candidate, keep the\nmony in seed money for your own Presidential ambition.\nA.\nI never heard anything of that kind, and I know that any\nrpominent Republicans involved in fund raising right now are doing\ntheir utmost to -- to raise funds for the State Central Committee which\nafter the big computer expense involved with reapportionment is in\nkind of bad financial shape. And I've heard nothing about holding\nback any conbributions of any kind for that. As a matter of fact,\nthose same people have bren most generous in their support in the\nspecial elections that have taken place so far following the last\nelection.\nQ.\nSo then those contributors who are associated with yourself,\nwould you urge them to fund the other Gubernatorial candidates, the\nGubernatorial candidates?\nA.\nI have done so already, that infamous luncheon that was\nsupposed to have been held I urged them to get together and to provide\nthe support for the party organization that it needs.\nQ.\nGovernor, a couple of weeks ago Evelle Younger was critical\nof President Nixon's campaign force in California. He said they\nwere ruthless in getting every nickel out of Republican contributors\nand that now he and other potential candidates are broke and having\ndifficulty. Do you think that the there was some overkill in\nfund raising by the Nixon campaign in California?\n-4-\nA.\nWell, you'll have to ask the Attorney General about that.\nOr what he meant by it. I do know this, that there was no question\nthat the State of California -- this is rather typical in the years\nthat I've been a Republican, it's been true that this state is more\ngenerous and does more with that -- in that regard than most other\nareas of the country and did so in the last Presidential campaign.\nNow, I can't blame the people if they are tired of being tapped\nagain. But I would also point out thatin the last Presidential\nelection the same people here in California raised more money for\nlegislative races, state races than had ever been raised before in\nthe history of the party.\nQ.\nThere is a problem now in the party, though, raising money\nafter this fund drive.\nA.\nNo more than just the fact that people are -- have been\ntapped.\nWhen you take Los Angeles, which is the biggest concentra-\ntion of people in the state, you follow the national election the\nvery next year, as we have, with -- with a local election and it\nmust seem sometimes to the people that the -- it just goes on year\nafter year with no break in between.\nQ.\nDoes this include this tapping of everybody for these\nlegislative dinners that they are having over the state?\nA.\nAgain, as I say, there is -- there is fund raising going\non and much of it has been for the special elections. What is it,\nfour or five special elections that we are faced with here\nimmediately following the Presidential election, because of deaths\nand - and men who won other offices, such as going to Congress\nand have their positions open.\nQ.\nGovernor, how exactly would you describe your role with\nthe Blair House group?\nA.\nI don't know anything about -- I've never been in the Blair\nHouse, I was invited to a meeting that was -- not a meeting, a\ndinner, social gathering, that wassupposed to honor those Californians\nwho were taken from our administration and served in the national\nadministration, This was right after the election. I didn't go,\ncouldn't go, and I just don't know who is supposed to be the Blair\nHouse group. This luncheon that was held recently, I was told,\nwas a luncheon to discuss mobilizing party support behind the State\nCentral Committee, behind the party as a whole, and was assured that\n-5-\nit was not directed ward any individual, primary campaigns but\ntoward making sure that there would be support for whoever was the\nparty nominee and I went and spoke for about fifteen minutes endorsing\nthat viewpoint.\nQ.\nYou are talking about this Los Angeles meeting now?\nA.\nYeah.\nQ.\nWhere is the Blair House down there?\nQ.\nGovernor, on -- on your tax initiative, have you taken any\nsteps to completely separate the functions of your official --- the\nfunctions of your official of fice and that of the Citizen's Committee\nso there won't be any doubtiful areas such as where your office mailed\nout booklets throughtout the nation and then later billed the\ncommittee for them?\nA.\nThere is a complete separation except that people in my own\nadministration are volunteering and on their own time are helping\nout such as walking precints on Saturdays, that have been planned\nand so forth. No one is going to lose his job if he doesn't do that.\nBut I think that the administration is pretty much united behind\nthis plan. And no, there is -- there is no violation of anything --\nno separation that is being bridged with regard to support of this.\nQ.\nEven in the mailings that --\nA.\nNo, the mailing -- we printed the blue books in two printings.\nThe first printing was for the legislature. Then because this is\nso widespread and it is our intention that the people should vote\non it, we had a second printing and we made them available to all of\nyou, we made them available up and down the state to editors and\npublishers and so forth in the communications media, and we then sent\nsome of those to the communications media outside the state, but for\nthose we have been -- the committee has reimbursed the state for\nthe printing and the mailing of those.\nQ.\nGovernor, were those -- were those booklets solicited by\nthe media outside of California?\nA.\nSome were, and so we just sent on a mailing list because\nwe were interested in getting as much editorial comment and support\nas we could get.\nQ.\nWhy outside of California?\nA.\nWell, because I think it is very impressive when you\ncan show the Wall Street Journal supporting the basic philosophy of\nthis. And when you can show that the word has spread and that\n-6-\nelsewhere -- and many of them certainly did this unsolicited, these\neditorial comments. It is very helpful in getting volunteers, it\nis very helpful in refuting some of the arguments that are being\nused against the program.\nQ.\nGovernor, are you deeply concerned now that you are not\n(tax initiation\ngoing to be able to get enough signatures to qualify it for the\nNovember ballot?\nA.\nOh, listen, you always run scared and you should in any\nkind of an election or anything of this kind. Our problem is time.\nThe mechanics of getting these in and in the limited time. We find\nthat too many people just seem to think that they have got all summer,\nthat if you are talking about an election next fall they don't realize\nthat there is a deadline by which these petitions have to be turned\nin. That's a mechanical problem. As far as the interest of the\npeople in signing them is concerned, those who are circulating\npetitions say they have yet to meet anyone who refuses to sign,\nthat everyone across party lines wants to sign this petition.\nQ.\nGovernor, last night you came out with a new estimate for\nthe cost of this special statewide election, that's two and a half\nmillion. Could you state the source of that estimate.\nA.\nYes, Finance Department has been -- I asked, when all\nthese figures started being thrown around several weeks ago, about\nthe cost of a special election, no one knew so I asked for us to find\nout, what really was the cost of a special election, particularly\nthat would be held on a day when there were also a number oflocal\nelections. Now, the cost would go up if we couldn't hold it\non that day.\nQ.\nIf it is a single issue election it would be higher?\nA.\nThat's right. Possibly -- rough estimate would probably\nbe five million dollars. But certainly not the tenand the fifteen\nthat's been talked about.\nQ.\nThe Secretary of State's office has estimated it at 3.5,\nnot 2.5.\nA.\nVerne, was I wrong last night when -- and yesterday\nwhen I made the remark two and a half, did I misunderstand?\nVERNE ORR: Not quite, Governor, it is a range from 2,9\nto 3.5\nA.\nWell, then I was wrong then, it is a little bigger than\n2.5.\n-7-\nVERNE ORR:\nMay I say, Governor, we L led the ten\nlarger counties, we called ten medium counties, we called ten small\ncounties, so we took 30 out of 58 counties for our estimate.\nA.\nNow you want to make me a liar for a half a million dollars\nfellows.\nQ.\nGovernor, Bob Finch in Los Angeles said he was very concerned\nabout the initiative and he didn't favor it as theroute to go. That\nputs him and Flournoy together as to what -- at distance to the\ninit iative, and Lieutenant Reinecke and Evelle Y ounger seem to be a\nlittle more favorably disposed. Are you not afraid that -- that this\nissue could be divisive within the Republican party as you head towards\n'74?\nA.\nI never made a claim that this is totally on party lines.\nThe issue of this tax reform. I would like to feel that -- that all\nRepublicans support it. I don't know what Mr. Finch has said, I know\nthat Mr. Flournoy has asked for more information on the program\nand I do not believe that he has come out in any statement against\nit. He made a positive statement in a speech so me weeks ago to the\neffect that he felt the way to go was to reduce government spending.\nWell, here's an administration that's done a better job of that than\nany administration I know and we still were not able to hold down\nthe growth of government. The reason for appointing a task force was\nto findout why and find out if there was a better way we could go.\nAnd as I have said before, I think if you are faced with extravagance\nyou can lecture on extravagance all you want to or you can cut\nsomebody's allowance and cure the extravagance.\nWe think that's the\nway to go.\nQ.\nBut you don't interpret this as an issue of good Republican-\nism or -- can you be a good Republican and be against the Governor's\nproposal?\nA.\nWell, in Democratic eyes you could. In my eyes, no.\nNo. Look, people are going to have -- have differences of opinion\non this. I happen to think that we have made a study of this and\nif anyone wants to come add question us on what we are trying to\ndo, he can and I'm quite sure that he would find out that this --\nthat there is quite a body of evidence supporting what it is that\nwe are attempting.\nQ.\nGovernor, what's your reaction now that the Nixon administra-\ntion hints that there be a tax increase, that they are thinking about\n-8-\nthat to curb inflation.\nA.\nWell, I just read the statement in the paper this morning.\nI also read that Mr. Stein had made this, and that he said he doubted\nif such a thing would happen.\nQ.\nThey are considering it.\nA.\nMy own -- my own view as a student of economics is that\nto suggest a tax increase to cure inflation is like telling a\ndrunk that another drink will cure him.\nQ.\nGovernor, earlier in your administration the task forces\nwere civilian and volunteer. The pattern seems to have changed now,\nyour recent task forces are -- consist of hundred dollar a day\nconsultants and -- and that kind of thing. What's -- what shaped\nthe change in approach?\nA.\nWell, no, if you remember, the first civilian task force,\nit is true, there were 250 odd volunteers in those task forces, but\nthey also -- the business community raised money to employ a manage-\nment consulting firm on a contract basis to bring all of the loose\nends together and to supervise exactly what it was, so that you\njust didn't have these people stattering out and gust coming in with\nloose recommendations and the result was a codified set of about\n1800 -- to 1900 specific recommendations and proposals.\nNow, the number of the people that first got their taste\nof public service in serving and helping these task forces are now\nin our shop and they are people who have been most successful in re-\nducing the cost of a number of departments.\nWe have turned to\nthem as we did -- the first time was in the welfare reforms, and we\nturned to them for an in-house task force with the knowledge that\nthey could go out and get, as they did, volunteers from the outside\nto help. And some of those task force members, a few of them,\nhave been so successful in that that we used them again in the tax\ntask force, and we are going to use them again in the local government --\nthe government structure task force, and in that instance you make\na contract arrangement with them.\nQ.\nMy impression is there is less citizen participation now.\nIs that impression right?\nA.\nWell, we have never hesitated to call on the citizens.\nWe had several task forces of civilians, volunteers on the over-all\nsubject of taxation and tax reform leading to property tax reform.\n-9-\nAs I say, these in-house task forces, now we have something we\ndidn't have at the beginning. We have men within government who are\nvery familiar with theproblems and have been dealing with them\nand it is -- it just seems a very practical way to go.\nED MEESE: Governor, all of our task forces, including\nthose in being now, have as many people from outside government as\nthey do have on inside government, as a variety of arrangements.\nQ.\nGovernor, when you talk about tax reform, what aboutall\nthe property in the State of California that is not taxable, is tax\nexempt, it seems like the cost of government goes up and the amounts\nof property that we can tax in California goes down. Therefore fewer\npeople are sharing more of the burden. Is that really fair?\nA.\nIn the case of property tax that's true, but the greatest\nvillain in that is public ownership itsel f. Every time that we take\nmiles and acres of land off the offthe tax rolls to build a\nhighway the federal gobernment owns about 52 per cent of the State of\nCalifornia and when we buy park and beach lands as we have, we take\nit off the tax rolls.\nNow, to a lesser extent you do have some charitable opera-\ntions, schools and so forth, whose property is tax exempt. I think\nit is foolish to talk about putting them on the tax rolls because\nthey are already earrying a burden that is of benefit to the tax --\nto the other taxpayers in that there are some it is around 40 -\nno, it is more than 40,000, several hundred thousand children in\nCalifornia that are getting education at private expense who would\nbe thrown out of the public school system if those private schools\ndidn't exist. And I'm quite sure that they are on enough -- a\nclose enough margin that if you made them pay property tax for the\nproperty they occupy you'd put them out of business.\nQ.\nWould there be anything in the works now to get some of the\nproperty back on the tax rolls?\nA.\nWell, we try as fast as we can. We have been inventory-\ning since I first became Governor, government owned land, to -- to\nget it -- dispose of it and get it back into private ownership as\nmuch as we can. There's been controversy at times as to whether\nwe are still hanging on to some of this and shouldn't. I think\nthe people who said that have not realized the difficulties of\ninventorying, making sure that the -- that we are moving as fast as\nwe can, but we are, and it is very complicated. You take -- in\nhighway and freeway building we wind up with little parcels of land\nthat are virtually Baleable because they are a little odd piece\nof land on the fringe of a turn around or something in a freeway,\nan interchange, and to suddenly say that you can just go out and put\nthis on the market and dispose of it -- well, it's been for sale for\na long time and you just don't have that many takers for that kind\nof property. But we have -- we are very conscious of this, trying\nto do it. But I don't think you are suggesting that we sell the\nparks. I was accused of that in 1966 because in my campaign I said\nthat I proposed an inventory of park lands to see if they were still\nneeded, and if we were holding all land or any kind of land that we\nshouldn't be holding, and dispose of it, and we have followed through\non that. But at that time I remember I was charged with wanting to\nsell the state parks. We haven't sold any yet.\nQ.\nGovernor, on the subject of highly taxed private land,\nhave you completed any negotiations yet to sell your Riverside County\nranch and buy one elsewhere?\nA.\nNo, when I do I'm going to buy a new suit.\n(Laughter)\n&\nGovernor, on the Watergate, you said it had been character-\nized as a case of jack-assery.\nA.\nI said that I read -- I read a story in one of your papers\nthis morning that at a cabinet meeting the President was quoted as\nreferring to it as that.\nQ.\nYeah, but I mean do you agree with that assessment?\nAnd when you say that -- and when you say that you are confident the\npeople high in the administration were not aware of it, even Mr.\nMitchell has -- has testified that he was aware of the discussions\nalthough he said he did not approve the bugging himself. I mean\nhow high is high?\nA.\nLook, you keep -- in your efforts to keep this thing you\nwill go at anyone hoping that someone will say something that can\nthen be used as a lead line.\nI told you I only know what I read\nin your papers and I hope you are all scrupulously accurate.\nQ.\nGovernor, what irritates you most about this? You seem\nvery irritated to be asked questions about Watergate even though\nyou are a high ranking Republican official.\nA,\nWell, I'm irritated at a fly that keeps buzzing around my\nhead and won't go away. You've been doing this for weeks. And\nI have nothing new to offer. I know nothing except what I've read\nin the papers or heard in the air, as I have said before. And I\nthink that all of you if you will analyze it you selves know that\nI have no access to information that you don't have. Probably not\nas much, because I don't get to talk to other people as much as you\ndo.\nQ.\nGovernor --\nQ.\nGovernor, your initiative doesn't dispose of your -- of\nthe one-time budget surplus, and your legislation to do that seems\nto be symied in the Assembly. What are you going to do about that?\nA.\nThe initiative does make provision for a part of the one-\ntime surplus.\nQ.\nIt leaves five hundred million depending on the size of\nthe surplus,\nA.\nNo, we estimate about 368 million for the seven months\ndelay of the sales tax if that will go through. There was no way\nthat that could be put on the initiative because that must take --\nthat's scheduled to take plade June 1. I hope that the legislature\nwill take action on that. I think that's a proper way to dispose\nof -- of a part of the surplus, is to delay the imposition of the sales\ntax increase. The arguments upstairs, no one seems to argue\nagainst that. They just want todispose of the bulk of the surplus\nin that way and I think that's unfair to those people who contributed\nto that surplus by way ofthe income tax. What we have proposed is\nroughly a 50-50 split between the sales tax and the income tax.\nAs a matter of fact, the latest figures now indicate that it will\nbe more than half --- would be sales tax or a greater proportion would\nbe sales tax on a seven month rebate than it would be by way of\nincome tax.\nQ.\nOne more question back there, Governor.\nQ.\nGovernor, you said last time that your staff was waking up\na report on how much of state agency money was spent on preparing\nthe initiative. Have you worked out that report and arrived at\nthat figure?\nED MEESE: Actually this was the amount of money that went\ninto the tax reduction task forze which is -- has quite a few\nproducts beyond the initiative itself. This report will be forth-\ncoming, it is not completed yet.\nQ.\nGovernor, do you think that on the budget, on your --\nthe budget surplus, the bills, that it is going to get a point of\n-12-\nnegotiation like on fare and tax reform, betw n you and the\nSpeaker or perhaps you and the speaker and the Senate leadership?\nA.\nWell, it is very difficult for me to see now how that can\nbe. Certainly we presented those to the legislature. We\npresented briefings. We invited proposals, fromthem, if anyone had\nany alternative proposals. All we received was a barrage of criticism\nand a denial of the entire plan which has caused us to go to the\npublic. I think now -- I don't see any way for compromise. I\nthink it is a pretty good compromise that they want to give the --\nthe bulk of thesurplus back by thirteen months delay of the sales tax\nincrease. We proposed seven months and the other, as I say, roughly\nhalf be given back by way of anincome tax rebate. Now, how much\nmore room is there for compromise, we are only six months apart with\nregard to the sales tax. I think it is very unfair to suggest that\nthe entire surplus should be given back by way of the sales tax when\nwe aan absolutely establish that more than four -- 475 million dollars\nof that surplus was contributed by income tax payers.\nQ.\nSo your ruling on negotiation is it is a non-negotiable\nthing?\nA.\nNo one has proposed any.\nSQUIRE: Any more questions?\nQ.\nGovernor, last week Congressman Joe Waldie made his tax\nreturns available to the press. Will you do the same with your\nincome tax returns this year?\nA.\nNo, and I paid income taxes.\nQ.\nWill you reveal the amounts of income taxes you paid this\nyear?\nA.\nNo, and I don't think that that's -- that that's smart or\nrequired any more than I think that we should ask any d you to make\nyours available.\nSQUIRE: Thank you, Governor.\n-13-\n5/2\n2\nFOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR REAGAN MADE TO\nNEWSMEN AT A PRESS CONFERENCE IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE MAY 2, 1973 IN\nRESPONSE TO CHARGES BY ASSEMBLY SPEAKER ROBERT MORETTI AGAINST THE\nGOVERNOR'S REVENUE CONTROL AND TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM:\n\"Dear Bob:\n\"Thank you for your letter regarding a televised debate on our tax\nreduction program.\n\"As I see it, the only issue presently before the legislature\nand the people is whether or not the people themselves should be allowed\nto vote on a program to control and reduce their tax burden. You do not\nbelieve they should be allowed to do this and I believe they should. A\ndebate on what is apparently a simple difference of opinion between us\nwould be the shortest debate on record.\n\"Public debates are an effective means of clarifying complicated\nissues for the public, or for comparing candidates for office. Deciding\nwhether the people should be allowed to vote or not is hardly a\ncomplicated issue, and I'm not a candidate for office so there really\nis no need to air our difference.\n\"I'd still like to give you a briefing on the program--I think\nif you understood it, you'd like it as much as you did the welfare\nreform.\n\"You are disturbed, for example, that the refund of the surplus\nmight benefit unfairly those of higher income. You'll be pleased to\nknow that almost half the people, those at the lower end of the earning\nscale, will have no income tax liability at all, and there will be no\nrebate at all for corporate income tax or capital gains.\"\nGovernor: Let me say a few things to you about some of the points\nthat he has made to you this morning in his press conference and elsewhere\nprevious to this. His request that I withdraw my comments regarding\nAlan Post I am sorry to say I don't feel that I can withdraw those. I\nthink the record has been rather conclusive that repeated opposition to\nthe things we proposed and, in most instances if not all, in recent years\nhis facts and figures have turned out to be wrong. The point with regard\nto the 44.7 percent of the people's earnings that is taken by government\nand the contrasting figures say that this is much lower, say 32,6 percent,\nwhich, incidentally, is a pretty high figure itself. But this is just a\ncase of which way you look at it. The 32.6 percent is based on net\n(national) product. This is similar to taking the gross national product\nwhich is sometimes used and then weighing the tax burden against that.\nThis is not a valid figure in my view. The government can raise the net\n(national) product by spending more government money. The figure that we\nhave used is what is the total cost of government and into that we have\nthen taken what is the total income of the people, the spendable income\nof the people and what percentage of that is going to government.\n- 1 -\nNow this comes out at the 44 percent figure that we have been using.\nOn the other hand, if you want to take the actual cost of government and\nboil this down, limit this down to simply that cost of government that\nis funded by taxes then in all justice and fairness you have to take not\nthe total revenue or income of the people and the imputed income, but\nyou've got to take earned income and if you do that it also comes out at\naround 44 percent. So to quibble over a percentage point here or there\nor a few percentage points in this issue is to try and cloud the fact\nthat taxes are too high and government is too big and costly in the\nnation and the reputable economists who came to our aid in the task\nforce made that perfectly clear and made it clear that they believe we\nare at a crossroads and that we cannot continue with the present tax\nburden.\nQuestion:\nDo you include such things as postal stamps and things\nlike that?\nGovernor:\nIn the first figure, we do when they are used as state\ninstitutions, whatever supports the institution of government.\nQuestion: Is that really a tax? Your ads say this is a tax.\nGovernor: Well, perhaps there the technicality of using the word\nrevenues as versus tax to deny the paying of a postage stamp on a letter\nto say this is a fee for a service, well all taxes are fees for service\nand an ideal tax is when you can actually assess the service against\nthe user. But as I have said before there are two ways to take this, you\ncan take out all those figures and just limit this to tax revenue and then\nlimit the other figure to earned income and you will still come out with\nabout the 44 percent figure.\nEd Gray: I would like to ask you to let the governor make his points\nand then ask your questions.\nGovernor: Now the denial that $17,000 that this would require an\nincome of $200,000 a year in order to make $17,000 savings over 15 years\nis so ridiculous that I am a little embarrassed to even have to talk\nabout it. He must have been concluding that this was all to come from\ntate income tax and that's not true. We are talking about what will be\nthe per capita reduction of the tax burden on the people and you will\nfind that our $17,000 figure will hold up for a family of four. Now I\nhave figured in using the income level that I used for an average family\nof four that I was taking at about the median income with the idea that the\nmedian income then is going to be what is the average.\n- 2 -\nObviously, some above its going to be more, some less who pay a lesser\ntax burden because we are averaging. Now I might have been wrong on what\nI consider the median income there are some I have heard and been told\ntoday that instead of $10,000 this is nearer $11,000 of income. Well,\nthat's a small difference. It (the per capita result) still comes out\nat this figure that we have used. That we are going to force taxes on\nto the county taxpayers. This is absolutely untrue and reveals an\nignorance of what is in our program. First of all we have put SB 90\ninto this Constitutional initiative freezing that limit. But the other\nthing is that to say that by limiting the state revenues that we are\ngoing to take over the years is going to force a reduction of state\nsupport now for local county programs, ignores the fact that we have a\nsafety limit underneath the eventual 7 percent limitation and that safety\nlimit is that at no point will the limit ever be allowed to go below\nwhat are the current services of government, state government, augmented\nby what is needed to meet inflation and population growth. Now about two\nthirds of our budget, as you know, goes back to local and county\ngovernment. That will continue to be so. So if in 15 years under our\nprojection the state should be taking in taxes $27 billion, then two\nthirds of that is going to be going to state and local government, and\nthis provision, this limitation under our projections allows not only for\nthe total percentage required over the 15 years to meet inflation and\npopulation growth but it also includes quite a considerable percentage\nto meet any new projects or new programs that government might think of.\nAs I said the other day if this is a strait jacket it's about the loosest\nstrait jacket that's ever been created. The minimum income tax---we\nactually can see no way in which we are eliminating the minimum income\ntax. To use an example of a 1/2 million dollar or a million dollar a year\nperson who can get their adjusted gross income through exclusions and\nexemptions down to an $8,000 or less income so that they would be free of\nany income tax is so farfetched that it would be virtually impossible,\nbut again let me point out that if by some manner of means there is some\naffluent individual with a high income who actually can find such a way\nto do this, then the provision for closing such loopholes is provided in\nthis bill because the legislature has full authority to, by statute,\ntake care of any such problems. I can't actually foresee one and I think\nit is the most farfetched case I ever heard of to suggest that such a\nthing could be done, The last is the deferral of the sales tax and the\nalleged deficit that results.\n- 3 -\nThis is suggesting the if we delay the sales tax Increase for the seven\nmonths we have proposed, use the surplus to supplant or subsidize that\nproposed sales tax increase, this will lower the income tax base\ntechnically on which we base the future reductions in the tax limitation\nprogram and thus we would be suddenly getting less revenues than we need\nto carry on the normal functions of government. Well, first of all there\nis that safety provision that you cannot do that, that we cannot go below\npresent services and their cost adjusted for growth and inflation. That\nis number one. The second thing is it is true I simply assume that by\nsubstituting this surplus money for the tax increase, which by coincidence\ncame along at the same time, that this would count as a base of revenue\nwe need for the state. If that is, as some people suggest now,\ntechnically incorrect, there is still a way to do it. It takes a minor\nadjustment of the bill that is upstairs now. It would require\nimplementing the sales tax increase but at the same time cancelling out\nfor the period of several periods the 1 cent of sales tax that goes to\nlocal government, that we simply collect for local government, and\nsupplanting that with the same portion of the surplus and thus the\neffects on the taxpayer would be the same, he would be paying 5 not 6\ncents of sales tax for these several months yet it would leave the\nrevenue base the same for future computations. Failing that, if they\ndon't want to do that in the legislature and they certainly have the\nability to do it right now, the only thing I would ask them to do is, if\nthey are unwilling to do that, is I would like to have them postpone the\nincrease for one month. We have been told by the tax people that to not\nstart this at the beginning of the quarter complicates the administrative\nproblem not only for the merchants but for government itself and that\njust to delay it till July 1 would be something to do and that would\nstart the fiscal year out. Now if they don't want to do this other and\nmake it possible to defer the imposition of the sales tax then that\nmoney remains in the treasury as a surplus and under this very measure\nit would be, we hope, adopted by the people, the legislature would have\nfull authority then to return it to the people and I would hope they\nwould return it to the people by way of a decrease in the sales tax that\ncould be implemented for a period of time whatever the money, whatever\nthe amount of the surplus would pay for, that could be implemented at any\ntime and just temporarily reduce for a period the collection of sales tax,\nand it would not affect the base upon which we were computing our future\ntax limitation. Those I believe are the main points that he made with\nregard to this and now any questions that you may have:\nQuestion:\nina\nlible\nmake a minor adjus ment to the\nConstitutional amendment your initiative now is out in print and as I\nunderstand it cannot be amended at all.\nGovernor: The initiative doesn't have anything to do with the\ndeferral of the sales tax, that does depend on the legislature. All\nthey have to do is amend the bill (SB 238, Lagomarsino) upstairs on that\nor as I said I wish they would take care of the one month, June. They\nall know, as well as we know, that SB 90 calling for that to begin on\nJune 1, did create, we have learned, an administrative problem when it\nwas passed last year just for that one month. They could take enough\nout of that surplus for that one month and that's in this fiscal year,\nso it does not apply to the tax base of the coming year and all they\nwould have to do is to say All right, we are implementing under SB 90\nthe tax increase, the sales tax increase, but at the same time amend the\nbill to say that for a seven-month period, or then it would be a six-\nmonth period if they did the other, six or a seven-month period, we are\ntemporarily relieving the people of the one cent that goes to local\ngovernment and we will subsidize local government with an appropriation\nfrom the surplus.\nQuestion: Governor, in your letter to Mr. Moretti aren't you saying\nin essence that the people of California should sign the petition without\nknowing the merits of the proposal being presented to them?\nGovernor: No, that brings up the other point that he did make and I\ndidn't turn to here. This idea that only through the debate that he is\nsuggestion can the people of California be informed of this bill, that's\npretty ridiculous. You fellows know that I have gone up and down the\nstate and made myself available to every kind of organization, on the\nair, on radio programs, on talk programs, on panel shows and to you of\nthe media, more so than on any issue since the reelection campaign. I\nhave gone to publishers of the media up and down the state to explain\nfully this program which he says we are keeping under some cloak of\nsecrecy. And tonight I will be speaking at the convention of the PTA\nand giving them a briefing with charts on this entire program, and then\nas I have done in every meeting, opening myself to questions from the\naudience. Now this is hardly keeping the program in the dark. I have\nno reason to keep it in the dark, I am very proud of it and I think it is\navery forward, progressive thing for this state to undertake and I don't\nthink any purpose would be served by appearing in tandem. He certainly\nhas had no difficulty in getting his erroneous ideas about the program\nbefore the public.\n- 5 -\nQuestion:\nYou have INC yet given Mr. Moretti a\niefing on your\nprogram?\nGovernor: Yes, Mr. Moretti has had a briefing. I must say he walked\nout of the briefing because of a previous engagement after about ten\nminutes of the chart briefing and then we have sent up the 67-page\nbooklet, and as I have said before I believe in Bob Moretti's honesty,\nI think he believes these things he is saying about the program. I\nwould like to be able to explain to him, if he would take such a briefing\nthat the fears that he has expressed about what will happen with this\nprogram, are groundless, that we didn't sit here in a room and say let's\nsweep under a rug everything we don't like that might happen under it,\nwe found an answer to it. We tried to make it as flexible as we could\nto meet every problem the state might be faced with.\nQuestion:\nBob suggested that you figured income tax appropriations\nbut not\ncorporations' income on the other side.\nGovernor:\nNo, that's not true.\nQuestion:\nYou figured taxes on corporations but not the income on\nthe other side.\nGovernor: They are talking about the undistributed income that goes\nback into investment of plant and machinery and so forth. We are\ntalking about the money the people themselves have en toto for their\nuse and their spending and then what percentage do they not have the\nuse of because it goes to support the institutions of government.\nQuestion:\nMr. Moretti charges this will raise local property taxes.\nHe said this was based on ignorance on your part. He was saying exactly\nthe same thing Alan Post said. Was this Mr. Post's ignorance too, or\nhow do you\n?\nGovernor:\nI don't understand this position at all because certainly\nevery protection is in this bill that we cannot mandate services on local\ngovernment, we cannot let something go over to local government that the\nstate is now doing in an effort to keep within our limitation, and there\nis, as I said before, projected revenues within the limitation. There is\nmore than enough money to meet any of the needs that might arise in the\nfuture unless some local government dreams up something on their own\nthat they want to do that no one has ever thought of and then I think\nthat's up to the people in that local community, but again, as I say our\nprojections of revenue two thirds of which will go to local and state\ngovernment as it does now, must come above the line which we've drawn\nas a safety line. That we will never go below present services adjusted\nfor inflation and growth.\n- 6 -\nQuestion: Earlier Mis month, let's get back tc the $17,000 tax\nsaving for the average family of four. Go over that again.\nGovernor: When you talk per capita tax burden in government you don't\nsay per capita tax burden for those who are just paying the income tax,\nit is traditionally divided on the basis of how this will pro-rate out\nfor every individual because presumably every individual is receiving the\nbenefits of government. So it is based on every man, woman, child and\nbaby. Now if there is a family of four and only one of the four is\nearning money and paying the tax, the tax burden and the cost of\ngovernment pro-rated is pro-rated on the basis of four people and he is\nresponsible for four of those people.\nQuestion: The impact on the individual wage earner with a wife and\ntwo children, would that be $17,000 then?\nGovernor: Yes it would. There might be some difference with choosing'\nthe method to try and illustrate this so the people could understand it\nI tried to use the line in the middle, and you could just as well say\naverage, because the average is right now at the moment $300 and some per\nhuman being. For a family of four multiply that by four, that's our\nstate tax burden. It has been pointed out to me that possibly I should\nhave figured out what it would be at $11,000 of income. Family income\nsituations change dramatically over 15 years. Not only will average\nfamily income rise with growth in the economy and inflation, but\nindividual family members will change income status with age and\nexperience.\nQuestion: Assuming the initiative does qualify would you then debate\nSpeaker Moretti on its merits?\nGovernor: Well, I am going to wait and see what is necessary to the\nprogram once I know that if and when the people sign the petitions to\nput on the ballot I think there is going to be a lull and then I think\nyou have to determine how much campaign is necessary to get the people\nout and further convince them of what this is all about and solicit their\nvote for it. I intend to do whatever I think is best to keep the people\ninformed on this.\nQuestion: Are you ruling out the debate before the qualification\ndeadline but not necessarily ruling out a debate after that until\nNovember 6.\nGovernor: As I say we will do whatever we wll decide in our counsels\nhere is the best way to sell this program, and to inform the people\nwhich I think is the only way to sell it, they ought to know what they\nare buying.\n- 7 -\nQuestion: The speaker was speculating the othe_ day, he said he had\nheard that some counties will refuse to put the initiative on the ballot\nunless the state picks up the cost in advance under SB 90, which would\nbe their right. Have you also gotten such indications?\nGovernor: No I haven't gotten such indications. I would be very much\nsurprised if they did. I think they would have a lot of explaining to\ndo to their own people. But the thing is there is still an argument\nwith regard to whether a special election is covered by SB 90. The\nConstitution makes it plain that the governor has the right to call a\nspecial election. If that is true they would have the same right then\nin demanding that the state pick up the tab on the special election\nthat's being held, I guess the primary was yesterday in one or two\ndistricts down there, and the other two that we've already held. I\ncontend that this is not a newly mandated service. I also contend\nthough that if the legislature upstairs really wanted to serve the\npeople of California in this instance they ought to volunteer right\nnow to pay for the cost of such an election because with this kind of\nsurplus we are talking about there is no reason why we shouldn't. As\nI have said before it could be paid for out of the interest.\n######\n- 8 -"
}